MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome to our House twenty-eight Grade 7 and Grade 8 students from the beautiful community of Centreville, from Centreville Academy, in the District of Bonavista North, together with their teachers: Chris Jackson, Charmaine Collins, Brenda Butler and Michelle Estekantchi, and their principal Ms Trinia Rogers.

Welcome to our Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon the Speaker wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on Monday, April 18, with regard to comments made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was asking a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in which Hansard records the following two quotations, "Will he acknowledge that if it wasn't for his action and the decision of the thirty-three dictators opposite...", and then further in another question: "Now we have thirty-three dictators opposite..."

The Government House Leader, in raising the point of order, asked if the use of the expression "thirty-three dictators opposite" meets the test of acceptable parliamentary language and if the use of the number thirty-three refers to individual members as well as a collectivity of members.

Since the member used the number "thirty-three" with the word "opposite", the Speaker believes that the expression, as used by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, could only be taken to mean that each member on the government side of the House to be described as he said.

In this context, the Speaker refers to Marleau and Montpetit, page 522, which reads as follows: "Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks,...".

Again, on page 525 of Marleau and Montpetit, we find the following comment, "...the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order."

The questions for the Speaker, are: Did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi intend to call all members on the government side dictators? And did the member, by the use of this expression, cause disorder in the House?

The answer to the first question is found in the words of the member. The Speaker notes that the general content of the member's question did cause disorder in the galleries and a subsequent intervention by the Speaker.

Based on the content, context and the disorder that ensued in the galleries, the Speaker asks the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to withdraw his comment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, I had the number wrong; there are only thirty-two since the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: However, Mr. Speaker, out of the great respect I have for the Parliament and the Office of the Speaker and your ruling I will certainly withdraw the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has members' statements from the following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, and the hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

The hon. the Member for District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a World War II veteran, Captain Wilfred Haynes of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, formerly of Catalina.

One of two known surviving World War II veterans residing in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Captain Haynes, now eighty-four years old, was just nineteen when he left St. John's for England as part of the Royal Navy. Captain Haines would spend five-and-a-half years serving overseas, two of which were spent on the D-class Destroyer the HMS Duncan, in 1942.

Mr. Speaker, it was while serving on the Destroyer that Captain Haynes paid a price - while crossing the Bay of Biscay, the Duncan, part of a convoy bound for Liverpool, was attacked by German aircraft and Captain Haynes suffered shrapnel wounds to both his legs. Eventually, he would see his left leg amputated and has been told to expect the lost of his right leg in years to come.

Captain Haynes has no doubt seen many horrors and atrocities that the majority of us, thankfully, will never see. This, of course, will attribute to such brave men like Captain Haynes, who freely give themselves to serve their country with pride and dignity.

I would like to recognize not only Captain Haynes, Mr. Speaker, but all men and women who served our country - and continue to serve our country today - in this, the Year of the Veteran.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand to recognize the work and contributions of Mr. Clarence Junior Andrews. Mr. Andrews has been a long time resident of Gander who is deeply involved in various humanitarian efforts in Asia and Africa.

For over ten years now, he has been committed to helping children in Third World countries and has travelled around the world bringing his Newfoundland hospitality and compassion to families in need. I would venture to say that he is an unofficial Newfoundland Ambassador; testimony to that fact is found in the name of a school that he helped fund and construct in Zambia. The Newfoundland Agapee School is now in full operation and teaching children who would not otherwise have been educated.

Mr. Andrews is currently completing the construction of an orphanage in Malawi. In 2000, the Governor General of Canada awarded Mr. Andrews the Governor General's Meritorious Service Cross Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to recognize the efforts of this fine gentleman as he works around the world to bring help to those in need and as he shows them all that the true hospitality of Newfoundland and Labrador can reach far beyond our shores.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, a recruitment process is underway to fill the position of Child and Youth Advocate. That process began when the former advocate submitted his resignation.

In your capacity as Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker, you have informed government recently that the appointment of an interim advocate was necessary to carry out the functions under the Child and Youth Advocate Act that could not wait for the recruitment process to be completed.

I have given members opposite, obviously, a heads-up about the statement. I am pleased to inform members that, acting under the authority of subsection 4(3) of the act, the government has appointed Mr. James Igloliorte as the Interim Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Igloliorte's appointment is effective immediately and will continue while the recruitment process for a new advocate is being completed.

In his capacity as a judge, he is a strong choice for this appointment. He has had a distinguished career as a judge, and has been a strong, dedicated contributor to the legal and social fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. We thank him sincerely for accepting this interim assignment.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that since recruitment for the position of advocate began, we have received strong interest from a number of highly qualified candidates, and we are moving as expeditiously as possible to fill that position.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an advanced copy and notice of the statement that is being made here today, and would like to commend the government for making an extremely good choice in terms of an interim appointment to this very important position. Judge Jim Igloliorte has done significant work in the Province in a whole range of areas, and many people in this Legislature who have known him before, know of his concern for children and youth in Labrador - and with the Aboriginal communities - but in the Province, generally. He will make an excellent choice in the interim.

I will also take just a second to congratulate Judge Wicks - who left the office after illness - with doing a good job of setting up, getting the office up and functioning as a brand new position on behalf of the Members of the House of Assembly. Again, I am encouraged to see that the government is going to move as expeditiously as they can to fill the appointment on a full-time basis and bring the recommendation here for ratification.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since it was a short statement, perhaps I should ask for leave at the beginning of my statement before I get cut off at half way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, I say to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I did have a heads-up from the Government House Leader, as he indicated, and I have no hesitation in supporting the appointment of James Igloliorte as the interim Child and Youth Advocate.

As the minister has said, he has had a distinguished career on the bench in Newfoundland and Labrador and is well respected for his ability and his consideration for matters of public and social policy. So, I am very happy to see that. We do understand that there is a need for an interim appointment because of certain matters that are outstanding and important that must be dealt with.

I will take this opportunity to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the process for selection of a new Child and Youth Advocate, I would want to reiterate what I have said publicly in the past that this is an important position as an Officer of this House, and all three parties are called upon when the appointment is made to join in recognizing the individual who is there. What is missing from this process at this point is some role for senior leadership of the House, or the House generally, to have an influence on the appointment and be part of the process prior to an appointment being made.

So, I will call upon government, who has the power to control the process at the moment, to find a way, at an appropriate time in the process, to consult before a final decision is made with Members of the House of Assembly, representatives of the parties represented in the House of Assembly, to ensure that when an appointment is made, it is made with a consensus of the House rather than, as has happened in the past, someone being notified half-an-hour or an hour before an appointment after the decision has been made. I would suggest that approach be adopted in respect to the appointment of the Child and Youth Advocate and other officers of the House as they become available for appointment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Education about $637,000 that the College of the North Atlantic spent on computer equipment at the end of the last fiscal year. After reviewing last year's Budget, it is clear that the College of the North Atlantic created a deficit of over $482,000 by making these purchases in the last few days of a fiscal year.

I ask the minister: Did he approve this expenditure by the college that created a deficit of over $482,000 and allow them to create such a deficit, something that the Auditor General had been critical of in each of his last two reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition certainly talking about deficits and the state of the Province that he left when he exited the office.

To get back to the College of the North Atlantic; the hon. member knows that there is provision to make sure that the College of the North Atlantic does not carry a deficit from one year to the next. I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, I certainly would not sign off on anything other than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They find some of these things funny, I guess, but they got elected on the promise of a new approach to these very serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday that the expenditure of $637,000 on computer equipment in the last few days of the fiscal year was budget burn off.

I ask the minister: Why was the college permitted to spend this money at the end of the fiscal year, not burning off their budget but exactly creating a deficit of almost half a million dollars, when again I remind him that the Auditor General had directed the college and the government to become more accountable in eliminating their debt and deficit for the college headquarters and the campuses throughout the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, as was obvious in the questions that were put across yesterday, this Opposition needs to do some good research right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: To try to put words in my mouth about burn off or whatever was said, those words were not said by me. They were said by a reporter in their interview with regard to me.

What I did say is that the College of the North Atlantic certainly looks at their finances, they look at their needs, and they make the decisions that are in the best interest of the post-secondary students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the College of the North Atlantic and the university and the health boards can run deficits because it is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister won't use the deficit excuse when making decisions on potential campus closures. Government has been in possession of its White Paper on post-secondary education for well over a month, again breaking their promise to release these reports within thirty days. It is in the Blue Book.

The minister admitted in this House over a month ago, on April 14, that the Cabinet was discussing changes to the structure of the college system.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will he release the report, the White Paper report and document, so that the public and the students can have input into decisions that could impact their post-secondary education opportunities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the member's question, and a question certainly that I appreciate because we are in the process now of getting the White Paper ready for release - it is an important paper, it is an important review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Even though the members on the other side may not take it seriously, I do take it seriously and this government takes it seriously. This White Paper will be released in due time and certainly not at the disadvantage of our post-secondary students, which this White Paper is intended to more forward in a good, positive way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government allocated $14.7 million in their Budget for White Paper initiatives. The minister has already admitted that Cabinet was discussing the issue well over a month ago. Students, parents and college employees are waiting on pins and needles to find out if their campuses will close during this next round of cuts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. While the minister is not willing to make commitments - because I just asked him and he would not talk about it - the MHA for Port au Port told the media on April 14 that no campuses will close.

I ask the minister: Will you confirm what your caucus colleague said on April 14, that no campuses will close as a result of the White Paper initiatives?

MR. J. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Port au Port, I ask him if could hold his points of order until after Question Period is over.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, go back to what is coming across the House here: innuendo, guesses, and not even good guesses.

Again, to go to the post-secondary critic, who is on about tuition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: - oh, we are going to do this and we are going to do that - you are wrong on that one. Let me tell you, when we release the White Paper you will see how much we do care about what is happening in post-secondary in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition. I ask all members for their co-operation.

MR. GRIMES: Of course, it is not strange that private members in the caucus are allowed to make statements for their own purposes but the ministers will not confirm them. We saw that with respect to health care in Stephenville as well.

Mr. Speaker, this final question. The only reason government has not yet released this document is because it is controversial, and the fact that the minister will not confirm what the member said is why it remains controversial. They are afraid of being questioned in the House and in the media during a current polling period.

Can the minister tell the House: Why is government waiting until the House of Assembly closes for the summer before releasing this controversial report?

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

MR. HEDDERSON: The question, I guess, I would have to put -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition, who asked the question. I ask all members to permit the Minister of Education to answer the question in relative silence.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the questions from the member opposite, I just go back a little bit in history because perhaps they are in the same mindset as they were back in the mid-1990s when that government closed colleges left, right, and centre, and left the college system in the mess that it is in today, and we have to come forward with a review of post-secondary to get back on track and make sure that we are moving forward in the next five or ten years in a manner that is going to better serve the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the members opposite to get some more words in their vocabulary. If it is not the process, they are moving forward, or nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources stated in his press conference on April 27 that he would meet with Abitibi officials to get more clarity regarding the company's restructuring plan for the Grand Falls mill. That meeting has since taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to provide this hon. House, and the people of Central Newfoundland, with an update on the upgrading of number three paper machine. What are the timelines for the announced upgrade? Can you tell us whether there will be any adjustment to the workforce currently assigned to the number three paper machine? What is the cost involved, and whether Abitibi will be able to raise the required capital in view of their reported negative financial position, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, let me say that the approach that this government will adopt with respect to Abitibi will be radically different than what the former government adopted. For example, we will not be signing any agreement unless it is tied to their milling and logging operations, like the former government signed agreements without tying it to their milling and logging operations when she was a minister of the Crown.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Abitibi have announced what their approach, or what they believe - and I think it is important to review what they have said. One: The eventual closure of number seven, they have not given us a timeline and we have been very firm with them with respect to what that will mean for Abitibi. If they close number seven before 2010 we will revoke their licences, period.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the upgrade of number three machine, they have indicated to government, when I met with them, that they are in the process of looking at how much they need to raise. The engineering work is being done, and as soon as they have that assessment done they will be providing that to government. At that point, once they do, we will be asking any and all of the appropriate questions in order to protect the people not only in Grand Falls-Windsor but the operations of Abitibi as they currently exist in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has broken his word and given Abitibi the green light to start negotiations with Newfoundland Hydro on a power purchase arrangement on the Exploits River without the commitment of a two-machine operation at the Grand Falls mill.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Negotiations between government and Abitibi have been ongoing for a year-and-a-half. Can the minister tell this House today has a full, in-depth financial analysis been carried out on Abitibi Consolidated by the Department of Finance, in light of Abitibi's report of a near bankruptcy position, or is the government planning on guaranteeing loans for Abitibi on the power purchase arrangement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. I understand the member represents the district there, but it is also important to be correct with the facts. First of all, we have not been in negotiations with Abitibi for eighteen months.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not correct, I say to the member opposite. I listened to your question and I would appreciate if you would listen to the answer because it is important to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Stephenville, I say to the member.

We have been in discussions with Abitibi about the future of their operations. Secondly, with respect to a power purchase agreement, Mr. Speaker, we did not give Abitibi the green light to enter into discussions. Nothing is further from the truth. It is an important distinction, but one nonetheless.

What we have asked Hydro to do is to enter into negotiations with respect to a power purchase agreement that, ultimately, will protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and ultimately, will protect the operations of Abitibi for the communities that depend upon them. That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker, nothing more, nothing less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, he used his favourite phrase: nothing could be further from the truth - and he has reversed his position.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated in the Abitibi survival plan of 2004, which was presented to government last year, that in the initial years after the shutdown of number seven paper machine, while new power developments are being constructed on the Exploits River, that power will be wield to the Stephenville mill at the market rate with no benefits to the Grand Falls mill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier. The minister has gone back on his word to hold Abitibi to a two-machine operation for the Grand Falls mill connected to a new power purchase arrangement. Premier, I ask you, are you in agreement with Abitibi's plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to take the time to look at Abitibi's operations over the last fifteen years will find out a couple of interesting points. In 1990 or 1991 when they closed number six, the now Leader of the Opposition, who was the Member for Exploits then, said: I found out about these layoffs in the House of Assembly. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the then government, that he was a part of, said: They were encouraged - and he said himself and I can quote him here, that they had no reason to disbelieve Abitibi would be closing anything down that they did not need to close down. As a sign of good faith, they went on to say: Abitibi would be investing significant money in number seven and number three. The question for them today is: How come you didn't do it while you were there for fifteen years and you have the audacity to look at us right now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that the time allocated for Question Period is moving along.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

After thirty-three years of representing municipalities in Labrador, the Combined Councils of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, has informed the government, in recent weeks, that without government grants they will have to close up their offices in May. This is happening currently today.

I want to ask the minister: Why have you not committed the annual funds to the Combined Councils of Labrador? Why is it that you continue to state that you are committed to Labrador communities but the Pan Labrador Council is having to close its doors without government funding?

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, I just so happen to have the Auditor's report, the financial statements for the Combined Councils of Labrador with me today. Through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in 1999-2000, there was a grant given of $35,000 to defray travel costs in Labrador for the Combined Councils. That went to $55,000, eventually up to $75,000, and then up to $100,000.

This past year, this past February, the full Cabinet met in Labrador in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we brought in all the community representatives from all over Labrador. We received a letter from the Combined Councils, the Premier received a letter from the Combined Councils stating that was a good thing, that it should be an annual event, and, from that perspective, we are looking at a potential for an annual Cabinet meeting in Labrador where we will be bringing in representatives from all over Labrador, all over the communities. Also, we are reconsidering and looking at if the full amount of $100,000 is required to defray costs for the Combined Councils for travel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Combined Councils of Labrador have been in existence for over thirty years. It is more than a meeting between government Cabinet ministers and municipalities.

I ask the minister: Will you commit the $100,000 to keep this longevity, this organization that represents all municipalities in Labrador going for the purposes that it was intended?

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, as I stated earlier, it started out at $35,000, the grant, and it grew to $100,000. The Combined Councils in Labrador now are using this money for operations. There are no other Combined Councils in Newfoundland and Labrador - the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, and the Avalon - that gets an operational grant of any amount of money for normal operations. What we have done -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to my right for their co-operation. The Chair was hearing the answer of the hon. minister who had used about half a minute. I ask him to complete his answer now.

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

Mr. Speaker, if they ask a question over there, they should at least give the opportunity to hear the answer.

What we are saying here is that we are committed to the people of Labrador. We have proven it many times in the Budget, but at the request of the Combined Councils, they have asked us to consider an annual Cabinet meeting in Labrador where we would bring in all the representatives from all the communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador. With that, this full amount of money of $100,000 will not be needed for travel. We are paying for it.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my questions are still for the minister for Labrador. Government negotiated a contract in the past year to sell 190 megawatts of recall power on the Upper Churchill for a total revenue or a profit of approximately $45 million this year to government. We also know that the government secured a good deal on oil and gas revenue from the federal government this year, being able to have stability in their budgets in the Province for over the next five years.

So, I am now asking: Will the government commit to take the new earned revenue on the Upper Churchill power and the recall power and invest it into hydro power in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I believe it was about six months, or seven months ago - anyway, it was the last time the Combined Councils were into St. John's meeting with different departments, which they do on an annual basis. They met with me and had a wish list, I guess, or a suggestion list of -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, every community group or organizations, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, come before and meet with government, like they did with you, and presented the same sort of list. As a matter of fact, I think seven or eight of the items that they presented to me were ones that they presented to the former government, Mr. Speaker. So, let's be clear that what we are talking about are still ongoing issues related with respect to Labrador and hydro power that they were dealing with or failed to deal with.

I said exactly to the Combined Councils, with respect to the issue that the member raised, that, no, we would not be setting up a separate strategic fund. With respect to investments and power, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro right now are looking at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that they should keep their answers within the one minute time frame.

The Chair now recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a final supplementary.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that there is insufficient hydro power to operate 5 Wing Goose Bay. There is insufficient power supply in Labrador West, and coastal communities in Labrador pay the highest rate of electricity of anywhere in the Province. The government has signed a five-year deal on recall power, $230 million in profit going to the government. Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the money be invested to deal with the hydro problems in Labrador that exist today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

With respect to power to Labrador West and power to the Lake Melville area, in order to increase the power to those two areas it requires an upgrade in transmission lines. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are assessing that right now, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if you believe that the question you have asked is serious enough, then you would provide me the opportunity, without interruption, to answer it in a serious manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are assessing those options right now. With respect to Southern Labrador, I can only say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair what she said to me in one of my first meetings with the Combined Councils: that the cost of providing power to Southern Labrador is in the vicinity of some $250 million to $275 million.

The question I have for her is: What was her answer when she was in government? Mr. Speaker, it is the same one that this government has provided to them to date.

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 Environment and Conservation, and it concerns the Windmill Bight Provincial Park.

Now that the local committee has decided that it does not want to run the park, presumably over the disappointment of not having a golf course, would the minister seize this opportunity and reintegrate the salmon river and campground into the full Windmill Bight Park and use the opportunity to create an eco-tourism park as part of the provincial park system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

At this time, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Windmill Bight Park and the association out there, as far as I understand, are still looking at operating that park this summer. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that they will do that. Their lease does not expire until November of 2005. Should they decide that they are not going to operate the park - it is my understanding that they are, it is my hope that they are, but should they decide that they are not going to operate the park - I will look at all options that are available to government, including the option of looking at other proponents to operate that as a going concern as a park in the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this has been a protected area since 1966, contains a rare sand dune system, the only Atlantic plateau bog ecosystem in the Province. It is a habitat for forty-four species of birds and wildlife. It could, in fact, be a significant eco-tourism destination. What I heard this morning, Mr. Speaker, was that Jim Combden, the mayor of the association, wants the Province to take it back, the lease, and I am asking the minister: Will he undertake a significant, serious review of this as an option for government to build a significant eco-tourism destination to protect this habitat into the future, as it has been since 1966, and use it as a great opportunity for this Province to attract people to visit this area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the member again for his question. That is an absolutely beautiful area of the Province. It is one of the best sand dune areas in the entire Province. It is one of the reasons the Sierra Club of Canada and the Protected Areas Association, and we on this side of the House, had concerns with the proposal to create a golf course at that particular park.

Having said that, I have had no correspondence to date from the association saying that they wish to cancel their lease on that particular park. Should I receive that, I will give a commitment to the member that we will look at all available options for that park, including the ones that he suggested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

On April 29, the minister issued a press release relating to production quotas for crab. In that release the minister stated, and I quote, "As an act of good faith and compromise, government is prepared to move from a two-year pilot project to what is effectively a three-month pilot..." project.

Will the minister confirm today that this pilot project for crab will not be extended beyond this year under any circumstances?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 29 we indicated that we would pull back from a two-year pilot project on raw material sharing in crab to a one-year pilot project, that we would be willing to put in place a committee to oversee the pilot project during this season, and that we were prepared to listen to the advice of that committee once the season was concluded. That committee would oversee it in the season and make a recommendation to government afterwards. In the interim, since April 29, I believe it was on May 10, we indicated, and the Premier indicated, our willingness to appoint Richard Cashin, former head of the FFAW, as the chair of that independent committee. We said on that day, and on subsequent occasions, Mr. Speaker, that whatever that committee said, as going forward with the crab industry as it relates to raw material sharing - if they recommended that it should not continue, we would accept that. If they recommended that it should continue, we would accept that. If they recommended that something different should be done, we would accept that. That, Mr. Speaker, was the government's position on April 29, it was the government's position on May 10, it was the government's position this morning, it is this government's position this afternoon, and it will be again tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The FFAW is out asking its membership to vote on a one-year pilot project for crab. In fact, they are out there asking their members to vote on a three-month pilot project for crab. The Premier was on an Open Line show in this Province stating this morning that this pilot project could be extended beyond the one-year period.

Minister, why have you changed your position, like you have so many times, on this issue? When is a commitment not a commitment and when is a promise not a promise?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the only question that is required here is: Is the Member for Twillingate & Fogo interested in having a fishery or is he interested in a continuing controversy? It sure seems to me he is interested in a continuing controversy. He is interested in continuing confrontation. That is all his interest is, playing petty, small politics and fearmongering with the people in the fish industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, he knows what was said on April 29, what was said on May 10, what was said here just a few minutes ago, and what was said on Open Line this morning. What we have said, and what we have been steadfast in, is Richard Cashin and the committee who are going to oversee this raw material sharing system will provide a report to the government, and whatever the report says we will implement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned with is getting at the truth, something that is in short supply across the floor. I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair requests co-operation so that the member can be heard in relative silence.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

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

I say to the minister, we would have a crab fishery today except for the actions of the individual who occupies the Premier's chair. That is what I say to the minister

Mr. Speaker, if we get a crab fishery going this year under a production quota scheme, will the minister be allowing quotas to be transferred? For example, will the production quota for Englee be transferred out of that town as a result of the plant not being operational?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there will be no permanent transfers during the pilot project stage. What happens on a temporary basis remains to be seen. We are fairly confident that all of the quota is not going to come ashore this year, from a combination of reasons. Some is going to go to Nova Scotia, some will remain in the water due to early closure, soft shell problems and what have you, Mr. Speaker, so we are reasonably confident that 110 million pounds of crab will not come out of the water, come ashore and get processed in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then there will be a non-issue.

As for the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, I say again, the raw material sharing system is in place for this year. What happens in 2006 will be entirely dependent upon what Richard Cashin and the committee that he chairs recommends to government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow as leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. (Bill 40)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further notices of motions.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 38)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I believe it is appropriate to be able to give notice on Tuesday for Thursday, in view of the fact that Private Members' Day is tomorrow, in accordance with Standing Order 11, that on Thursday, May 19, that the House not close at 5:30 p.m., and give further notice according to Standing Order 11 that the House not close at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given..

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

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

Yesterday in this House I gave an undertaking, in response to questioning from the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, to check into a media report concerning a gentleman who was a guard with the Marine Corps stationed at Argentia, who was alleging that an illness he was suffering was caused by radiation, because of nuclear weapons that were stored at Argentia.

I want to inform the hon. member and inform the House that I had the opportunity last night to raise this with Mr. Leonard Hill, the U.S. Consul General in Halifax, and officials of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs met with Consul General Hill this morning and raised it again. Mr. Hill has undertaken to look into the matter and get back to us.

In addition, we have forwarded correspondence to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as I undertook to do, requesting copies of any documentation in the possession of the federal government, or which could be obtained from the U.S. government, which can verify or refute allegations that nuclear material was stored at Argentia.

In addition, government has looked into the matter and can report that the Department of Foreign Affairs has looked into the matter and can report the following: The department has no documentation which indicates that there was any nuclear material at Argentia during the time in question, and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada have surveyed the site. We are advised that they have surveyed the site, including where nuclear materials were allegedly stored, and have found no evidence of abnormal or elevated radiation levels. Background radiation can be found anywhere. Levels of background radiation will vary, of course, depending on a number of factors, including the geology of the area, and as soon as we hear back from the federal government, in answer to their inquiries of the American government, I will report to the House and to the hon. member.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to offer a petition from the people of Grand Falls-Buchans and, of course, all of Central Newfoundland.

Yesterday I stood in this House and gave a petition to this House. There were nine pages of signatures. Since that, there have been seventeen more pages today come in on my fax machine from all over Central Newfoundland.

To put it into condensed words, what the people of Central Newfoundland want this government to do is halt discussions immediately with Abitibi on power development on the Exploits River until government gets a commitment from Abitibi for a two-machine operation at the Grand Falls mill.

I heard our Premier this morning on an Open Line show talking about the two federal members, Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle, and how they had reversed their position on the Atlantic Accord and how important it was for them to vote for the Atlantic Accord. Now, I believe that it is the right thing to do, to vote for the Atlantic Accord, but he talked about people reversing their positions. His own Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, stood in this House on May 4 and gave a commitment to this House, and to everybody who watched it - it is on the record of Hansard - that he and his government would not enter into any power arrangements with Abitibi until they had a commitment from Abitibi for a two-machine operation. Two days later he reversed that decision without blinking. He reversed that. Now, what kind of trust can you have in a government that will tell you one thing one day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my right and members on my left for their co-operation. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy to know that they do not want to hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker, you want to put a human face on this decision that is being made by Abitibi in consultation with this government. There have been people in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding communities who have had to make hard decisions since last Monday. Some people have been laid off. Fifty-six people have been laid off. Do you know what that means? Maybe they cannot make the payment on their house. Maybe they cannot make the payment on their car. Those who were working had to let a babysitter go, or maybe they had taken out a recreation piece of equipment, like a quad or a boat or something like that. That is all going back to retail outlets this week. What effect is that going to have on the business of Grand Falls-Windsor? There has already been two car dealerships after closing up in the past three weeks. There is an industrial marine centre already closed up, and a lot of them are teetering because of this news and more bad news to come.

Government has an opportunity to stand up for the decision that the Minister of Natural Resources made on May 4. How can they expect us to believe them if they are going to go reverse their position, like they did on May 4? I ask the government to go back to May 4 and look at what you told people and live up to that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is expired.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by a number of residents of this Province concerning problem gambling and the desire by people of the Province to have a say into whether or not VLTs and other forms of continuous electronic gambling should be something that we rely upon to provide government with money in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have been concerned about the fact that a lot of our residents have had problems with VLTs; problems that have resulted, unfortunately, in some of our residents taking their own lives because of the situations they found themselves in and were so desperate that that was the action they resorted to, sadly enough.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the people of the Province, as a piece of public policy, should have a right to insist on having a say into whether or not VLTs and other forms of gambling should exist in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it was alarming last week to learn that another form of gambling has come -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am having a job hearing myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is relatively impossible for the Speaker to hear the Member for Labrador West. I am asking members on all sides of the House for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Again, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province want a say into whether or not these forms of gambling should be allowed to take place in our Province.

As I was saying, last week we learned of a new game that may be coming to our Province, that is scheduled to come into our Province, called electronic KENO; a game that, according to some experts, is more addictive than the VLTs that are presently in place now. I understand that government may not have been aware that this electronic KENO was coming in. Not all government, I say, because government is a big business. Obviously, not everything gets reported up the line as to what is happening with the Atlantic Lottery. Now that they are aware, I am asking government to take the action that is required to stop Atlantic Lottery from bringing in new gambling machines in the form of continuous electronic KENO until a study, that this government has commissioned, is completed and made public to the people of the Province.

Until then, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for government to allocate money for treatment, money for education, make a statement that they are freezing the number of VLTs in the Province, and go one step further and say they are going to reduce them by 15 per cent. It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker, by taking all of those actions, that they would allow another form of gambling to come into the Province, one that is equally or more dangerous that VLTs, prior to the commencement and the completion of the study into the prevalence of gambling in the Province at the present time.

I would ask government, Mr. Speaker, now that they are aware of this, will they put the brakes on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to ensure that this new form of gambling doesn't come into the Province until the study is compete?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people in Labrador. Actually, I have many of these petitions with hundreds of names signed to them, and I will present these many today, no doubt. It is with regard to the deal that government did on recalled power on the Upper Churchill. It indicates, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Labrador would request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take this money that is being generated on recalled power and invest it directly into a fund for Labrador infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is being brought forward simply because in the past year government did renegotiate a deal to sell recalled power on the Upper Churchill. It was not a new deal, it was a deal that was renegotiated, because recalled power sales have been negotiated in place in the Province for a number of years. This past year, the fiscal position of the government changed. It changed with the signing of the oil and gas accord which would allow for new revenues and new monies to come into the general coffers of the Province, and allow the government to be able to build up its budget, stabilize its budget, and make new investments.

As a result of that, the people in Labrador looked at the money being generated on recalled power on a resource that was in their area and asked the government, in light of the new fiscal situation, that this money now be invested in Labrador, realizing that in past years this could not be done because the money was needed in order to stabilize the general revenues of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that situation has now changed. I think it is only appropriate, I think it is only fair, that the money being generated on recalled power on the Upper Churchill be directly invested into Labrador communities. Whether that means investing the money to build a transmission line or upgrade a transmission line from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay - I think the cost right now of the study that was being looked at is somewhere in the vicinity of $60 million in capital infrastructure to do that project - whether it means upgrading the transmission lines going into Labrador City and Wabush at a cost, Mr. Speaker - I think Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is forecasting now at about $70 million - those are very worthwhile projects. Over the next five years, under this agreement, government will take in $230 million; $230 million in new money on a resource that is in Labrador

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House knows that on the North and South Coast of Labrador right now we pay the highest price of electricity in Atlantic Canada. We want to be able to bring our electricity costs down. We want to look at alternative energy developments for those regions, and we are asking -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: Leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: Just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to finish up has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you.

All they are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that this money be invested to deal with the exorbitant cost of hydro power or diesel power in the remote communities, and to deal with the insufficient power requirements that are needed right now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Labrador West. That is what these petitioners are asking, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today with a petition from the residents of Conception Bay North, asking for some intercession by the government in the plight of Mildred and Clovia Baker. Mildred and Clovia Baker, as I have said many times here before, are in wheelchairs. They are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance breathing, and cannot perform most tasks that we take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and the Minister Responsible for Health, or the Acting Minister for Health and Community Services, to look at this very serious case and find out why these two individuals have had their home care cut five hours a day.

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter a short while ago from a neighbour. It says: On Friday, I dropped in on Mrs. Mildred Baker and her daughter Clovia, who were at home alone - and I will leave out the times here for the ladies own personal security. The home care worker having finished her shift, I found Clovia having problems breathing and also coughing severely. Before the home care worker left, she had given her a second mask - a medication to assist her breathing. Approximately an hour and a half after, she felt she needed another and was unable to administer it herself. Her mother, due to her own medical condition, was unable to assist her.

The lady herself was not familiar with the procedure, so, with Clovia gasping for air, she was able to explain to me how to use it, after which she felt a little bit better. My concern is what would have happened if they had been there alone. Later that afternoon it was necessary to send Clovia to the Carbonear Hospital where she was given oxygen before being sent back home. "In my opinion..." - and this is from a neighbour - "...if a Home Care Worker had been there to administer the medication it may not have required a hospital visit, as she would have had her medication when it was needed."

Mr. Speaker, that letter from a neighbour explains the plight of these two ladies, and it fails me how this government cannot find the compassion to reinstate - they are not looking for extra home care. They are looking for the home care that was taken away from them.

The pastor of their church wrote me another letter. "I understand that you are aware of their situation and is at present trying to help. I appreciate what you are doing. However, I find it very hard to understand why such a decision, to cut five hours per day, have been made. I made a pastoral visit a few days ago at their home as I so often do, and found these two ladies alone in their home. At the time there was a delivery that was made - which I had to sign for them, they were cold and needed the heat turned up - These are the little things that we take for granted, but Mildred and Clovia cannot do these things for themselves."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to make some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will continue this because I understand there is another petition coming tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask, I humbly ask, the government, without any political aspirations here at all, I ask the government - I ask the Minister of Health to stop laughing, I say to the minister, the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services. This is a very serious issue. The whole community out there is very, very concerned. I take it very, very seriously and I am concerned for these people's well-being.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to advise this House of a serious situation on the Buchans Highway. The Buchans Highway is in serious need of repair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Since this new government took over two years ago, the highway has deteriorated considerably. There has been no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the members on my right if they would give the member here some quietness so she can present her petition, likewise all members of the House.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Works last year, again this year, and most recently, and I am sure he has travelled over the Buchans Highway. If he has, he would understand it is 105 kilometres with no services on the road. You cannot pop into a service station if you get a flat tire. Cellphones do not work all that distance.

What he fails to realize is that there is a school bus that picks up children in Millertown and Buchans Junction and brings them to Buchans to go to school. We all know about the Duck Pond Mine that just started up this year. There is heavy equipment over the highway. Woods trucks are hauling wood. People are driving back and forth from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor to go to work. An ambulance has to go over that highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed here actual examples of deteriorating conditions on the shoulders of the road on the Buchans Highway. I want the Minister of Transportation and Works to have them in his possession. I know I am not allowed to actually pick them up and show them, because you are not allowed to show exhibits, so I will make sure that he gets a copy of these. I have been over the highway twice in the past two weeks, and I know that there are no shoulders on that Buchans Highway right now. It is an accident waiting to happen.

Mr. Speaker, we need money to upgrade that highway. It is rural Newfoundland, and this government is turning their back on rural Newfoundland. We see it every day of the week. All they do is cut off services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to my left if they would be less expressive.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

I guess what is lacking here is compassion. It is compassion for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This government that was elected two years ago almost now, is trying to freeze out the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They cut off their services. They cut out the teachers in the school, and now they are going to try to downgrade the highway so much that it is unsafe for people to travel over it; but, Mr. Speaker, I am going to give these photos to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and if he has any heart at all he will see that this work is carried out this summer. There are over 200 people on this list since yesterday. That should make you wake up and pay attention.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in all regions of Labrador who are asking for a kidney dialysis machine. Mr. Speaker, this is an on-line petition that has been signed by, I think, over 700 people throughout Labrador who have signed this petition. Actually, there are a lot of comments that are attached to the on-line petition as well, that people have noted when they signed on and signed the petition.

Mr. Speaker, people in the Labrador region feel that kidney dialysis equipment in their hospital is long overdue. They have had numbers and numbers of situations in the past couple of years where they have had family members, loved ones, people that they know who have taken ill and have become dependent upon such a treatment for their illness and, because of the fact that there is no kidney dialysis in the Lake Melville hospital, many of them have had to go out to other regions of our Province to seek this kind of treatment.

Mr. Speaker, in my own district I know of several cases. One family that I am very, very close to, whose mother is now living here in St. John's in a temporary apartment accommodation having dialysis treatments. I know of another situation, an elderly couple from my district in Cartwright who now lives in a seniors' home, a personal care home in Manuels, because they have to be close to a hospital and close to the services of kidney dialysis. I know these families personally, and have listened to their stories. I know how difficult it is for their family members to have to see them move out of Labrador and move to the Island to be able to obtain kidney dialysis services.

I have a friend who lives in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, whose mother is currently on home dialysis. I know how stressful that is for them as a family and the issues that they will have to face when home dialysis is no longer a preferable treatment for the illness and for her kidney disease, when her mother may have to look at other kinds of dialysis treatment at a larger centre. I know how difficult that will be for her and her family to have to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I know of many cases right in my hometown. One of my friend's mother is on home dialysis right now and has been on home dialysis for a number of years, and again, know that eventually the time will come when she will have to go where she can seek other dialysis services. This is not something that families look forward to doing.

I think the people who have signed this petition - I have read their comments - these are people who are not launching just a lobby campaign to government, they are very serious about what they are doing. They are very serious because it is a disease that is affecting their loved ones, it is affecting their family members, it is affecting their entire family and they want to make sure that if there is a way that they can have this equipment in Goose Bay at the hospital there, and available to them, then it should be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I assume we are at Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

Motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 35)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act," carried. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first 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 Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 3, in the name again of the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act," carried. (Bill 36)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 1, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25, an act for granting Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

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?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a letter from His Honour the Administrator, on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: All stand.

The letter is as follows, dated May 13:

As Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2005, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provision of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Signed: _________________________

Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

I do believe it would be appropriate if we were to again make the motion for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supply or, as commonly known in the Legislature, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a Supply motion.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee of Supply is now ready to debate the Supply resolution.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill here is to give legal effect to a warrant that was tabled here in March. It was the only warrant, actually, the special warrant that was tabled here in the House in this session. Payment had to paid out to the doctors of the Province by March 10, before the House could sit at that time. It had to be done in compliance with the Financial Administration Act, which we followed to the letter.

It is an unusual occurrence to have only one special warrant tabled here in March. We have been used to having ten and fifteen of these every year and then come into the House. In fact, when we came into office in the spring of 2004 we had to pass Supplementary Supply for the previous three years. Actually, there were none done for a number of years. Our policy is, if the House sits, do Supplementary Supply; if not, when you table a warrant, try to get it done as quickly as possible.

One of the main reasons for that, I have indicated in the House before, I think, in answer to questions back earlier, was because of such an increase in the number of doctors in our Province. Over the last three years, actually, there are sixty-some additional doctors in our Province. In the past year, I think, there were seventeen or eighteen new doctors. These extra costs had to be paid. It had to paid out with the extra cost to meet the supply of physicians in our Province. There were a significant number, too, that transferred, I think, from salary to fee-for-service.

There were significant expenditures in this area. We tabled that. That should be tabled with the House here. It was done in early March. One of the reasons we had to do that, we always like to do Supplementary Supply, which we did with another bill in the House, and not do special warrants, was because we had hoped that we would be able to hold off until the House opened to be able to get a Supplementary Supply Bill, but we were informed that if we did not issue the special warrant that doctors would not get paid. We didn't want to be in the situation where we had medical specialists here in our Province, general practitioners, whatever they may be, not getting paid because of that. So we took the appropriate action in compliance with the Financial Administration Act. It is basic standard procedure that is done every year, except the rare occasion this year, there is only one of these.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to rise and say a few words with regard to Bill 25. As we all know, Bill 25 is a bill under which government will be permitted to pay out certain sums of money for services in the Province, Mr. Speaker. In this case, the Minister of Finance talks about paying out sums of money for physician services.

Mr. Chair, I will tell you what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't pay out any sums of money for municipalities for Combined Councils of Labrador, I can say to you. I was absolutely astonished today, in the House of Assembly, when I asked the questions of the government opposite as to whether they would continue funding to the Combined Councils of Labrador, an organization, an umbrella organization, representing thirty-one municipalities across Labrador for thirty-three years. Since 1972 they have had their foothold, an organization that Labradorians in general are proud of, that has been held up as an icon to municipal leadership right throughout Labrador over the years.

Mr. Chair, the Combined Councils of Labrador, which had their start as a very small group on the North Coast of Labrador, took what was a concept of working together and networking as municipalities for the common good of a region and they spread that mandate out all over Labrador, to the point where all thirty-one communities felt they wanted to belong to this group, they wanted to be represented by them. They wanted an opportunity to network with one another and to look at a long-term plan for moving development, socially and economically, forward in Labrador communities.

Mr. Chair, what we have seen over the course of that thirty-three years is a Pan-Labrador organization that sets policies and frameworks for Labradorians that are in the best interests of all its people. Quite often, not unlike any other organization, there will be controversies, there will be issues of dissension within that organization, but never have they been too big that they have not been able to overcome them over the years, and to continue on with the principles and the frame of mind in which it was created and under which is flourished.

Mr. Chair, what I heard today is the government say that, we want to change the way the Combined Councils now operate. Our funding to them now will be contingent upon what we want and not what Labrador municipalities want. Mr. Chairman, that, I say to the members opposite, is wrong. It is a wrong approach. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. Everybody may pass their own judgements. I am sure there are lots of members opposite who passed their judgement on the Federation of Municipalities on occasion, and whether they picked the best issues to stand on and the best issues to move forward on, and so on.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador obtained funding from government for many, many years. Yes, the minister in his history lesson today in Question Period is right, it started out as a $35,000 grant that then went to a $50,000 grant, that then went to $100,000 grant. Do you know why it went to $100,000 grant, I say to you, Mr. Chairman? It was because the governments of the day believed that the Combined Councils of Labrador was in the best interest of municipalities in that region. They were acting in the best interest of their members. In addition to that, they provided invaluable information to governments in helping them set new policy and new framework for Labrador communities. I know, because I was a member of the government that went forward and asked that the funding to this organization be increased. I was part of a group, along with a couple of my colleagues from Labrador, who said that the Combined Councils of Labrador should be getting at least $100,000 a year so that they can have an office, so that they can have a staff person and that they can collectively bring forward to government recommendations in which we may set policies that are in the best interest of Labrador communities.

What I heard today from the minister is that we will not be doing any of that now. We are going to charter a couple of planes every year. We are going to fly all the mayors from the communities into Goose Bay, or some other community. We are going to fly all the Cabinet ministers in from St. John's and we are all going to sit down for - I think it was two hours last year, their meeting was - a couple of hours once a year. They can tell us what their issues are, they can tell us what their concerns are and then we will come back to St. John's and we will let them know after that what we are going to do about it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. It is not good enough! You cannot take an organization that has played such a valuable role in Labrador communities and Labrador society and decide arbitrarily, as a government and as a group of people, that we are going to change your mandate and we are going to tell you how to operate, and we are going to tell you when we are going to meet and how much money we are going to give you to do it with and all the rest of it.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is just another example of the heavy-handedness for which this government likes to deal with every, single, last issue that rises on the floor of this Assembly. That is just another example of it. The heavy-handedness, the my way or the highway approach. That is what we are seeing now, Mr. Chairman, with the Combined Councils. That is exactly what we are seeing.

What the government is saying, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I ask members if they would tone down their conversations, please.

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

MS JONES: I know, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to talk as loud as I can, but I cannot raise my voice any higher as I try and make these important points on behalf of the municipalities in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I will say this, government, I know, has it in their hands. Government has it in their hands right now to determine if the Combined Councils of Labrador, after thirty-three years, will live or die as an organization. They are exactly right. The minister and his Cabinet colleagues can sit up and make the decision today as to whether this organization of thirty-three years, representing important issues in Labrador, lives or dies by a mandate.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the government to take a good, long, hard look at this organization; look at the valuable work that they have done in shaping government policy and implementing new directions in Labrador. I want you to take a good, hard look at the resolution that they have brought forward over the past thirty-three years, and how many of those resolutions have been implemented by governments of the past, implemented because they knew they were being given the right advice from the right organization that was representing the municipal leadership and the views of people in Labrador. But, Mr. Chairman, what has happened? What has happened in the past year that government, all of a sudden, has decided that this organization no longer has a role to play in Labrador society? Don't let the municipalities in Labrador decide that. Don't let the people decide that. We, as a government, have now decided that this organization no longer has a role to play.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say, the Member for Lake Melville is a member for Labrador. He is a member who represents municipalities in Labrador. I am absolutely astonished that member would not be standing up to secure the funding for the Combined Councils of Labrador. I have to beg the question, why the Member for Lake Melville is not out there saying to his government: Fund the Combined Councils of Labrador. They are a Pan Labrador organization.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I was at the Combined Councils meeting in Wabush in 2005, along with the Member for Lake Melville, and I watched that member stand up in the Combined Councils AGM and give standing ovations of applause to issues that were being raised on the floor of the annual meeting of the Combined Councils of Labrador. I watched that member applaud the work and efforts of that organization, and I have to beg the question today, why we do not have the Member for Lake Melville out there saying: Where is the Combined Councils of Labrador funding? Where is the funding for that organization, that annual meeting that I attended in Wabash in January and knocked on the desk and stood in standing ovations applauding the comments of people like Ben Michel, leaders in Labrador, people who got up and talked about the direction that the Combined Councils should take, directions that leaders in Labrador should take, where we should be going as a collective society of people?

Now his government, that he is a part of, is saying: We are going to scrap all of that. We want to do something a little bit different. We are going to just put everybody on a charted aircraft and bring them in for a couple of hours. We will have a few coffee, we will have a chat once a year. We will find out what is going on. We will all get our picture taken and we will send out a good press release, and that will be the end of it. My, we could do all of that for about $30,000. What are we going to give the Combined Councils $100,000 for? So they can go out and hire staff? So they can go out and have an office? So they can go out and do valuable work in Labrador communities?

No, Mr. Chairman, there is something more to it than all of that. It brings me back to a comment that the President of the Combined Councils made on the open airwaves about the Premier. That is what it brings me back to. It brings me back to a comment that the President of the Combined Councils made on the open airwaves about the Premier. Dare he speak ill of the Premier, Mr. Chairman? Because, if he does, we will cut the money for the Combined Councils of Labrador. We will cut the funding right out from under them.

Is that what this is all about, I say to the members opposite? Is that what this is all about? Is it because, on one occasion in the past year, the President of the Combined Councils had a difference of opinion - a difference of opinion with the Premier and the government - and he expressed it? As he should, I say, Mr. Chairman, as he should. He expressed it on behalf of the members and the municipalities in Labrador that he represented, and he provided good argument, a good rationale for his opinion and his viewpoint of the day; but, Mr. Chairman, it was opposite to the government's thinking. It was opposite to the Premier's opinion, and what has happened? Months later, when their agreement is up for renewal, the axe is down. The axe is down. You want to go out and take me on, on the open airwaves, and have a difference of opinion with my government? Don't come here looking for money.

That is what I am reading into this, Mr. Chairman. That is what I am reading into it. Don't come here looking for the money because you are not getting it. You think we are going to pay your organization to go out there and have staff and have an office so that when we do something that you don't like you are going to go to the Open Line show and talk about it? You think we are going to fund that? Of course we are not going to fund that. That is what this is all about, Mr. Chairman. That is what this is all about.

The fact that the Member for Lake Melville went to the annual general meeting of the Combined Councils of Labrador in Wabush and stood up and gave standing ovations to the visionary leadership in the room, who was putting forward a framework and a policy for Labrador, is irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. The fact that he stood in a standing ovation that day is irrelevant, because the President of the Combined Councils spoke out against the Premier. That is what this is all about. The fact that the Member for Lake Melville might want the $100,000 to go to the municipal leaders in Labrador, and their councils - because I know some of these mayors are good friends of the Member for Lake Melville. I know that for a fact, Mr. Chairman. I know for a fact that some of these mayors in Labrador are good personal friends of the Member for Lake Melville. Do I think that he wants to squash their organization after thirty-three years? I don't think he wants to squash their organization after thirty-three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I think he wants them to have their funding so that they can carry on with a great legacy that they have started in municipal government in Labrador. That is what I think, Mr. Chairman, but he is getting nowhere with it. He is getting nowhere with it inside his caucus, he is getting nowhere with it inside the Cabinet, because, Mr. Chair, the buck stops with the head man at the table, and the head man is not happy. He is not happy with the president of the Combined Councils, because the president dared to speak out. He dared to have a difference of opinion with the Premier and the government. Today, because of it, the Combined Councils could end up folding as an organization. Now, what a sad, sad legacy that is for Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for speaking has lapsed.

MS JONES: I just want a few minutes, Mr. Chair, to clue up.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the member have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, just a few minutes to clue up, because I think this is a very important issue. Before I sit down, I want to encourage the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Member for Baie Verte, and the government, to consider funding the Combined Councils of Labrador. Mr. Chair, this organization is invaluable to municipal governments in Labrador, it is invaluable when it comes to providing the policy and the framework and the direction for Labrador communities. They have proven themselves over thirty-three years, they should not have to come begging to government. Most importantly, Mr. Chair, I say to the government opposite: Why do you have to take the heavy hand and try and change the structure of this organization after over thirty years, and tell them to do it my way or there will be no organization? That is very sad. It is a sad commentary I heard here today from the minister. I certainly hope that government will have a change of heart and will continue to fund this valuable organization, the Combined Councils of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to respond to Bill 25, supplementary supply.

I was just sitting here in my seat listening to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and you know she made some very good points. I guess what is happening now is a lesson that is going out to every municipality in this Province. Those who dare speak up about this Premier and this government can find themselves without any funding for their special projects. This is the example that he has made about the Combined Councils of Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here today is responding to Bill 25, which is supplementary supply up until the end of March, 2005. I am a bit surprised to see this one coming before the House because the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, has always been on record as being totally against Special Warrants. He, in the past, has filled up Hansard books many times being against Special Warrants. Do you know what is blatantly obvious about this particular Supplementary Supply Bill? The government is coming to this House and are looking for $7.3 million and it is for Health and Community Services. Do you know something? It is just like a blank cheque. They are coming and asking this House of Assembly to vote in agreement with approving $7.3 million. He is saying that it is for Health and Community Services and it is to pay doctors.

Well, what I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board - or is he still the President of Treasury Board? Let me see. There was a communication that came out yesterday from Executive Council, who is the Premier, and the Premier has dissolved Treasury Board Secretariat.

MR. SULLIVAN: A lot of that is public service secretariats (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, he has dissolved Treasury Board Secretariat. Many of us will realize and know that that particular position was held by Ms Florence Delaney. I wonder what Ms Delaney thinks today after reading that communication that came out from the Executive Council?

Now, the Premier has realigned the financial component of government. He has done away with Treasury Board so that the Minister of Finance now is in charge of expenditures and he is in charge of revenues. He is in charge of the entire budget of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That means that the Premier has the pulse on his right-hand man. The Minister of Finance, no matter what his project is in the future, will not have to deal with the Treasury Board Secretariat. There is no more explaining and creating a case, looking through the Financial Administration Act and wondering if we can do this, if we can do that. He has eliminated all of that. The Premier, yesterday with the stroke of a pen, eliminated the Treasury Board Secretariat. So now his right-hand man, the Minister of Finance, can carry out any pet peeve, or any project, or any development that comes his way, whether it be the Atlantic Accord - and I do hope we get it. I do hope that bill is approved, the Budget bill in Ottawa on Thursday.

Now, it was interesting to look at this year's Budget. There was no mention of the Atlantic Accord, only the interest that we would be getting on the Atlantic Accord - which would be some $42 million that had been put in the Budget for, roughly, July of this year. There was no mention made as to how this government intends to spend the $2.6 million. This is the first indication we have gotten about how that money is going to be spent, or any money for that matter, because yesterday with just the flick of a pen, the Premier decided to eliminate Treasury Board. He has appointed a new Deputy Minister of the - what do they call him at all - Public Service Secretariat. It is hard to get your head around these new departments.

I had to highlight it because it was interesting. In his last paragraph the Premier said: This change is about creating departments which are better aligned with the priorities of government. This change is about creating departments which are better aligned with the priorities of government. Well, now, he might have said that in the first paragraph because this is really what this change is about. That says it all, because what is going to happen now, anyone who is familiar with the Treasury Board system, is that every cent of money that was going to be spent by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter what government was in power, Treasury Board had to agree to everything. I can tell you, before you got through Treasury Board you would have had to have your homework done and you would have had to have a sensible and a rational, and a reasonable and a credible presentation because Treasury Board, before they put their stamp of approval on it - and then it went to Cabinet before it was approved.

Now this Premier wants to have the Minister of Finance approve all future projects that he has decided to do and that will eliminate the second guess from Treasury Board. That is all this is about, having his right-hand man, no matter what he wants done - if he wants to pay the VON, for instance, and it is not in the Budget, he will just call: Minister of Finance, I have a little project for you now. Would you see that the cheque for the VON is slotted in the right section? Okay, Sir. Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. That is what the new Minister of Finance is going to do. Forget about Treasury Board. That is what all of this is about, having one person carry out the wishes and the will of this Premier and the rest will just fall in line.

What I would like to say to the Minister of Finance - I cannot call him Treasury Board because there is no Treasury Board now. I want a detailed list of what you are going to pay out for $7.3 million. I cannot believe that you would stand in your place and say you were not aware of the salaries of doctors and what they would be over and above the Budget that was budgeted last year. For someone who is so cautious and so conscientious, and not a penny would be spent without his knowing. I do not believe for one minute that he did not budget that money last year.

I want to see a detailed list because there are plenty of things that you could have used $7.3 million for. You could have used it for Alzheimer's patients; you could have bought drugs for Alzheimer's patients. You could have put the ten beds back in Fogo that you took out under the cover of darkness. Maybe I don't need to say this - the long-term health care facility in Corner Brook. Now he has a minister who is in charge of expenditures and revenues, so I would not be so quick to put that one in because I know that one should be carried out.

What is government going to do with the health board deficits? I think that is a very important question. Last week in this House I stood in my place and asked the Minister of Finance what plan he had for reducing health care deficits. He said he had no plan. Here we are now, this government has given $20 million to government health care boards around this Province to stabilize them for this year, but he has no plan for those health care boards to pay off their deficits. There is only one thing going to happen. Health care boards do not create very much revenue; very little in fact. Most of their funding, like 98 per cent of it or more, comes from the provincial government. So it is obvious to think that when it comes time to pay those deficits off, and it is time now, that we can expect service cuts. We can expect cuts in positions at all of these health care facilities and we can probably expect some of them to actually close, particularly clinics out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then again, we saw that happen. We saw that happen about three weeks ago when the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women stood in her place and averted being lynched by a crowd of 1,000 out in Stephenville when she stood in her place and said she would not implement the recommendations of the Hay report for Stephenville. You know, something unusual happened since. The Minister of Health did not back her up. He did not stand in his place and confirm that what she said was correct. The government never sent out any release to back her up. There was no release send out by the Premier. She stood up with her own words and she put out her own news release on a blank piece of paper just to avert being lynched that particular night, so there was no commitment by this government that anything she said will actually happen. I was surprised, because she sits right behind the Premier. For her to stand up and make that announcement and avert people from being angry at that protest -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Thirty seconds?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: How gracious the Government House Leader is. Thank you very much.

What I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Finance to be forthcoming with the list of that $7.3 million. You cannot make a blanket statement. We need details. It is not small change.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to speak on Bill 25. After listening to the Minister of Municipal Affairs today, it is very plain to see why the people in Labrador are so upset with this government. To defer $7.3 million, to take an auditorium away from the youth in Labrador certainly is a crime in itself, and to know that this government is now going to dictate - exactly the words that the Minister of Municipal Affairs said - they are going to dictate to the people in Labrador as to how they operate in Labrador. The words of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this very House this afternoon, Mr Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador was founded on the North Coast of Labrador by a gentleman by the name of Mr. William Andersen, who passed away some years ago, and he founded the Combined Councils on the North Coast of Labrador so the smaller communities on the North Coast would not be left out. That grew to the Combined Councils, which took in all of Labrador, a voice that speaks for every person in Labrador. Mr. Chairman, to see this government today not give them the monies that they deserve to operate certainly goes to show why this government does not hold much esteem in the views of the voters and the people in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of injustices done by this government toward the people in Labrador, and every day we are starting to see it more and more. Today, Mr. Chairman, for me, in all my years of government, whether good things or bad, to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying that we are going to tell the people in Labrador when to speak, how to speak, and where to speak, I think that in itself shows the lack of respect that this government has for the people in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, in one of the first interviews I did shortly after this new government came in power, I referred to it as a Water Street government. Certainly, if we look at the way things have unfolded in the last number of years, these words are very true.

Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador gathered through many difficult circumstances, gathered around to discuss the views of all people in Labrador, to try and find a common voice to bring it before government, but today that voice could very well be gone because this government may not provide funding to them to carry out their day-to-day routines that they do, and to organize for their annual meetings they have every year where every community in Labrador comes before the assembly in the Upper Lake Melville area and voice their opinion.

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a very disappointing and dull day for all the people in Labrador, and for the people who have fought so hard to keep the Combined Councils alive. This year is certainly a big slap in the face to them.

Mr. Chairman, there were times when I had been critical of the Combined Councils of Labrador and I voiced my opinions to them, but, when all is said and done, the Combined Councils of Labrador is an opportunity where all communities come together and people voice their opinions, and resolutions are made and brought before different governments. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, today to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs speak, a minister who is responsible for the community councils across this Province, especially in Labrador, it is a very disappointing day.

Mr. Chairman, the defraying of $7.3 million certainly is a blow to the youth in Labrador, those who wanted an auditorium. Each year - in the last few months, I should say - we are seeing more and more people who are becoming more disillusioned as they begin to organize.

In just a few short weeks, the schools are going to close. Students are going to walk out of the schools in Labrador heartbroken, disappointed and dejected, that this government never gave them an auditorium, but there is better news for this Water Street government. Shortly after the schools close in Labrador, this government is going to go down and they are going to open The Rooms, cut the ribbon on a $45 million bill that they paid off to The Rooms in one lump sum, and turned around and certainly denied the children in Labrador the right to their auditorium.

Mr. Chairman, I think that today there is a lot of concern for the people in Labrador. I am sure that as the news spreads across Labrador today of the monies that are being deferred, especially to the young people, then the disappointment will be felt and the hurt will be even greater to take.

Mr. Chairman, again, to know that this money is being deferred - no auditorium, and, with the Combined Councils, no guarantee of getting the money from this government - it does not bode well with the members from Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the communities in Labrador, we need to keep up the good fight, to make sure that the people in Labrador have the opportunity to voice their concerns and their opinions, as they have always done, regardless of what political party is in power.

Mr. Chairman, I only hope that this government will change their attitude and grant the Combined Councils of Labrador what they are rightfully owed, and, even far more important, that this government will come forward before this hon. House closes, or before school closes, to announce the funding to build an auditorium for Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to make a couple of brief comments, actually, and ask a couple of questions for further clarification, somewhat along the lines of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; because, when the special warrants were tabled when the House opened a month or so ago, a couple of months ago, my recollection - and I don't have the document right in front of me today - is that the Minister of Finance had indicated that the $7.3 million was in two categories: $4.3 million, somewhere in that range, for salaries for physicians which - again, the bill has to pass, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that because this is money that was expended in the last fiscal year and this is just doing the appropriate things by law that need to be done to make it right and proper, and I agree and concur. But it is the clarification of it, because I believe some of the points we made at that time are being a bit lost here. I think it was $4.3 million. He will know the exact number, I think, but it is in that range for physicians' salaries because there was a greater uptake, which is good news for Newfoundland and Labrador. They actually managed to recruit a few more than was expected and they paid them in line with the new salaries that were in place under the new agreement. That is a good thing.

I think the rest was under grants and subsidies, I thought, to -

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it was four point five and two point eight, if I remember correctly.

MR. GRIMES: Okay, and, Mr. Chairman -

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, (inaudible) was four point five. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I acknowledge that the minister would have the numbers, and he is acknowledging it is four point five, two point eight, something in that range.

The second category I thought was grants and subsidies, which are monies that are sent out to hospital boards and health boards and so on to perform the functions that they are doing on behalf of the people. It is not to pay salaries for doctors. It was in that line that we were saying, remember one thing of significance that happened last fiscal year was the Premier, himself, interfering in the Department of Health and Community Services without the knowledge of a minister, overriding the advice of the senior officials, including the deputy minister, and settling a strike with the Victorian Order of Nurses in Corner Brook on the eve of a Progressive Conservative fundraiser where they were going to protest. I understand that it was $150,000 that was given to the VON to do a study on palliative care, which they had never applied for, never asked for, but they found some way to give them some money which would come from the grants and subsidies.

The answer given at that point in history, Mr. Chairman, was that: Oh, we just moved around some money inside the department. Then we find out with this Supplementary Supply Bill under Special Warrant, that they did not even have the money in the department. They have to come now, after the fact, and put some money into the department because they overspent. Everybody can understand and will support the over expenditure for doctors. It should be done, but part of this over expenditure in grants and subsidies was because the Premier interfered, went over the head of a minister who had enough fortitude and backbone to resign, and said: I am not going to be the minister and act over here as just a little puppet and be told what to do. The minister having gone in public for six weeks saying: We do not have any money in this department to settle that strike. The Premier, on the eve of a golfing fundraiser, the very same morning that they were supposed to be there, was after striking a deal and all of a sudden mysteriously found the money. The minister was out of town. The minister resigned over it because the minister had been embarrassed by the Premier. Now we are back here, months later after the fact, finding the money to put in that the Premier gave to the VON when they did not have any because the minister was right at the time, they did not have the money.

What this bill is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that now after the fiscal year is over - it ended in March, here we are in the middle of May - we are finally authorizing additional money to be put into the Department of Health so they could give it to the VON because it was not there at the time. The whole thing exposed the kind of leadership that the Premier deals with in that particular caucus and that Cabinet. Now, we have seen lots of other examples since then. I will not belabour it, but I would like for the Finance Minister in answering the questions - even though he might say it was not for the VON, we know it was - to at least acknowledge that part of it was for physicians' salaries and part of it was for grants and subsidies to health boards - like the Western board, like the Central board, like the Northern board - because boards, like the Western one, did not have the money to pay the VON, and after the fact it mysteriously disappears even after the minister resigns. Then the deputy got fired, because every single person, as we understand it, in the Department of Health and Community Services said: Don't do this, we don't have the money. Now we are back here several months later, almost a year later, authorizing the expenditure of the money which was not there when that interference occurred by the Premier.

So, I look forward with interest to the answers that will be given by the Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services with respect to the split of the money, because I listened intently and I thought when he introduced the Supplementary Supply Bill earlier, that he referenced only an overrun in doctors' salaries. I would like for him to be more forthcoming with the House and acknowledge, as he has done from his seat, that it was some for doctors' salaries and some for another category. My memory - again, I will be glad to be corrected if I am wrong - is that it was for grants and subsidies to health boards and organizations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That was tabled in the House and I will give my recollection. What was tabled for Special Warrants was, I think, $4.5 million for doctors' salaries, physicians' salaries and $2.8 million for grants and subsidies. Now, while only four and a half was for doctors' salaries, I think the fee for service overran by $7 million or $8 million, but there was a transfer from other areas to bring that down to $4.5 million. Technically, the full amount of money would have been spent on doctors' salaries, but as the salaries are being incurred and money runs short, you do a transfer in. There was money transferred in. Doctors' salaries would have been much higher than the $4.5 million, it would have been up over $7 million. If you move from one subhead to another when you run out, you could move from one into another. Obviously, you are not going to move it back again when you have already moved it. Doctors' salaries did overrun by that amount, and that is the reason why.

Also, I want to mention the VON to make sure that is clear. The Member for Bay of Islands said it here before in the House, and the Leader of the Opposition said it, and that is inaccurate. There was not $150,000 provided to the VON in Corner Brook in that case. That number is absolutely wrong. The Western health and community services provided to VON, for that pilot project, $80,000 not $150,000. I hope that clarifies the point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 25, being a Supplementary Supply bill to grant to the government an additional $7.3 million principally for doctors' salaries. In doing so, I just want to talk a little about doctors' salaries and recruitment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and raise something that has come to my attention a number of times over the last couple of years. That has to do with the availability of physicians, particularly in rural Newfoundland.

We hear complaints all the time about the inability of hospital boards and health care corporations to attract medical professionals. It almost comes as a surprise to me that thirty years ago we built a medical school in this Province, so that we would solve that problem of doctor shortages. Back in the sixties, before the Minister of Health, one of the primary duties of the Minister of Health was to go off on, what they used to call, junkets to Ireland or to England to try to recruit people to come to Newfoundland and work as doctors, because we did not have enough Newfoundland and Labrador students going to do medicine and coming back to practice in the Province.

We decided, back in the sixties, that we would have our own medical school, and I was very proud to see the medical school to be developed at Memorial University, and the focus was supposed to be, at the time, community medicine. Community medicine was the focus of the medical school that Newfoundland and Labrador was going to create. Lord Taylor, a former British Cabinet minister, a psychiatrist, was brought over to be the head of the university and to be the driving force behind the creation of the medical school. We had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that this new medical school would end, once and for all, the doctor shortage in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we find two things happening in this Province with respect to medical practitioners. We see huge debts being undertaken by medical students in this Province to the point of some cases $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000. They come out of medical school owing a tremendous amount of money and therefore being susceptible to offers from other places, to pay down students loans, to get signing bonuses, et cetera, to practice in other provinces and, indeed, in other countries, principally in certain parts of the United States that make very generous offers to look after people's student loans, give a signing bonus, plus a very generous salary. Many of these people would like to work in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but faced with these high debts, they have not much choice. When it comes to someone with a medical degree, usually in their late twenties, or sometimes older, they have spent a long time getting their schooling, they want to have the option that other people have who are educated, to have a family, to buy a home and do those sorts of things, so getting rid of that debt is obviously a very important part of their immediate future.

We do not look after medical students very well, because the assumption seems to be: Well, you are a doctor; you are going to make lots of money, so you can carry this burden of debt. A very misguided point of view, Mr. Chair. If the doctor, indeed, is going to make a decent income, surely our taxation system should look after that. If our taxation system was fair and reasonable, then we would tax it at the other end when they earn the money here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think anybody who makes a good income minds paying taxes, particularly if they are not going to be burdened with a huge, overwhelming student loan debt.

The second concern I want to raise, and this concerns the first one, by the way, is one that was brought to my attention by the Medical Students' Society at Memorial University in a meeting we had last year. They are very concerned about what the consequences are to them and to the future of medicine in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of that circumstance. The second thing I want to raise, which was also raised to me then, but I have heard it a couple of time in other locations. I heard on the radio the other day and I got a firsthand story of it when I was in Labrador last week. One of the things, surprising enough, that does not happen in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our health care boards do not do a very good job of even trying to recruit graduates from the medical school of Memorial University. That is hard to believe. You would think, Mr. Chairman, that the first place that the Health Care Corporation of Western Newfoundland, or Central Newfoundland, or the Labrador Health Care Board, would look would be to Memorial University medical school for graduates to come and work in their facilities.

I heard stories, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that these medical students in their second, third and fourth year, have been recruited by people in the United States, and they have been recruited by people in Northern Ontario, but nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador had made the effort to try and make contact with them to encourage them to come and work in their facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, these same hospital boards are complaining that they cannot recruit doctors or are spending large amounts of money in recruitment campaigns.

In fact, I heard from one doctor who works in the Labrador hospital, and she has been there for a number of years. She wanted to go to Labrador to work and it was not until after she got there that someone actually told her they were interested in having her come. She had already made up her own mind, without their help, but after the fact she was told they were interested in having her come. She got the letter but she was already there because she had made up her own mind. This is an individual who is from the Province, from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who wanted to work in the Province, but she had to take her own initiative to ensure that she was going to have a place to work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I really wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the effort is being made. I heard a story on the radio last week - and I am not going to say everything is true there, but it gives you an indication of what is going on - concerned about the need for a particular medical specialist in Gander. There is a graduate of Memorial University of Newfoundland medical school, from Gander, interested in working there, not being recruited. I do not know how much money the hospital board has been spending recruiting elsewhere, but if they took that money, Mr. Chairman, if they are spending $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 carrying out a recruitment program for some other place, to get people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, travelling somewhere, bringing people in for interviews, why don't they take that money and perhaps a little bit more support from the government, and give that money to a medical student from Newfoundland and Labrador to help defray their student loans and use that as a part of the incentive to recruit doctors from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We spend an enormous amount of money on our health care system, Mr. Chair, as the Minister of Health, who is also the Minister of Finance, in either capacity will tell us repeatedly. We do that for a good reason. Obviously, we need first rate medical care. We have to also make sure, Mr. Chair, that that medical care that be delivered in an efficient manner and that we actually have people in our system who are from here, if we can get them. After all, that should be our first choice, that people who are familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador, familiar with rural Newfoundland - you know, we have had an example recently of somebody coming from another country and not being properly orientated to the Province or to the medical practice here, leaving after three or four days. What is the good of that, Mr. Chair? There was probably an enormous amount of money spent to recruit that person, to bring that person here, to provide them with relocation expenses, presumably, and now after three days they are gone because there were problems with integration or orientation to the Province. That is the sign of a weakness in our recruiting system or an unwillingness to look to Memorial University graduates to seek a job here.

I know of another medical student from the Western United States here in Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to work, wants to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. People who are coming here to go to medical school, some of them would be very happy to stay here, Mr. Chair, if only we could ensure that they are not going to be grabbed away by somebody else who is going to pay down the student loan. This is something, Mr. Chairman, that I think is a very important problem.

A few years ago it was suggested we should close down the medical school. That would be a disaster, not only for the recruitment of the people working in Newfoundland and Labrador but also for keeping many of the medical professionals and specialists that we have here. The medical school is a good thing to have. It provides a centre of excellence for research, for research money, for money that is coming from the Research Council of Canada. I know Dr. Pat Parfrey has won awards for medical research, in bringing research money - I don't want to mention him specifically, although he was acknowledged recently by a national organization for his work on research into particular kidney functions and kidney disease. We have national and world-class researchers in our medical schools who are creating a very positive circumstance here for academics, for young people wanting to study medicine, to attract people from other provinces, and make sure that the people who are here getting training get a first-rate, first-class education in the medical profession.

We have to do more, Mr. Chair, to ensure that those young people who take up a career in medicine are available to our population to provide medical services. We are certainly not doing enough. There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman. I just want to urge the Minister of Finance, who is also the Minister of Health, to ask someone to undertake a special inquiry as to what exactly Memorial University and the School of Medicine is doing to facilitate this, but, more importantly, what are the health care boards in Newfoundland and Labrador doing to ensure that the recruiting effort is made to the School of Medicine at Memorial University to ensure that any possibility of getting graduates from that school to work in Newfoundland and Labrador is explored as fully as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Not to belabour this because, as I said before, this is a bill that needs to be passed. Just, again, a question for clarification from the minister. He talked about the physicians' salaries. Again, could he acknowledge, without his normal bit of gobbledegook that he puts sometimes, when he tabled the special warrant, would he again confirm what the two separate categories were? Never mind the fact that all of it could have been used for doctors' salaries. When the special warrant was tabled, there was $4.5 million for physicians' salaries. Could he just confirm what the other $2.8 million was for?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I said when I got up before, when it was tabled there was $7.3 million in total. I said $4.5 million for doctors' salaries. I said $2.8 million for grants and subsidies. I did say doctors overall was $14.5 million. It was several million but they were covered under other transfers under subheads to cover that. I think, overall, over on doctors' salaries, there was probably $7 million or $8 million, up in that range. I thought I made that clear the first time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One other point, because we talked about the Victorian Order of Nurses which was paid for from some grants and subsidies. I am holding a press release from the Department of Health and Community Services, because he mentioned a figure of $80,000. The press release from the Department of Health and Community Services - I know he wasn't the acting minister at the time, and maybe he did not know much about it, because obviously not many people in the Cabinet knew much about any of this, with the VON. One minister quit over it because she did not know about it, and she was supposed to be the minister of the department.

The press release says that they are pleased to be partners - the minister of the day said they were pleased to be partners. This was after one minister resigned. The Western Health Care Corporation will partner with the government to lead the $120,000 pilot to establish needs and costs associated with the implementation of a palliative home care program. It goes on further to say that there is an additional $40,000 that will be found to provide for the additional fifty cents an hour for the nurses to settle the strike. My number was wrong. I said $150,000. Somebody found $160,000. Could he answer for me one more time, how the Minister of Finance managed to turn $160,000 into $80,000?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Quite simply, Mr. Chair, I will explain. I have indicated that the VON received $80,000. That is factual. There was $120,000 for the program. Western Health Community Services used $40,000 for the co-ordination of that program that stayed with Western Community Health. The total was $120,000, of which $40,000 remained to co-ordinate the program with Western Community Health and $80,000 went to VON. That is where the $120,000 came from. The question I was asked: How much did VON get? I said, $80,000. That is absolutely correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $7,300,000.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $7,300,000."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2." (Bill 25)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, and for other purposes relating to the public service:

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 25, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 25 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

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

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

It is moved and seconded that this resolution now be read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CLERK: First reading of resolution.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

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

I move that Supplementary Supply Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bill 25, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For the Financial Year Ending March 31,2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. ( Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 25)

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 25, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 25, 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'.

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2." (Bill 25)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 25, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 25, be now read third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Third reading of Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw the attention of Your Honour and members of the House of a practice resulting from whatever security measures that have been put in place.

A former Speaker of this House was refused admission to the Confederation Building this afternoon - a person with twenty-eight years of service - unless he had someone come from an MHA's office to escort him into the building.

Mr. Speaker, I speak as a former Member of the House of Commons in Ottawa where, as a former member, I have a right of access to the House of Commons precinct by showing my House of Commons badge, which I was issued when I was a Member of the House of Commons in 1987 and 1988. To this day, and for life, I have the right to enter the buildings of Parliament without being subjected to the same kind of scrutiny or rules that apply to members of the general public.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I find that this is a humiliation for a former Speaker of this House to be denied entry, even to the Confederation Building, to get access to the precincts of this House, to a member's office - wait for however long it takes for someone to come down and escort that person to an office. I think this is something that - whatever notions of security are prevalent these days and for whatever reason - I am not getting into the politics, Mr. Speaker. I think it is an indignity to members of this House and to former members of this House to be subjected to that kind of rule.

I would urge Your Honour to take this matter up with whatever committee, or rule, or appropriate body to ensure that we do something to ensure that members of this House are treated with the appropriate level of respect and dignity when visiting the offices of the precincts of the House, which (inaudible) are offices of Members of the House of Assembly, and that there should be some measures taken to ensure that access is permitted without that kind of rule being applied to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

The Chair will certainly take the matter under active consideration. I have no knowledge of the matter to which the member refers. I will certainly take the matter, and perhaps discuss it with the member, so I can get more details from the hon. member. We certainly will try to make it always possible that all former members of this House, and all Speakers who occupied this Chair before, are always welcome in our House. In fact, the Speaker's gallery is specifically there for former members and former Speakers to come. They have a place of honour in our House everyday, not just today.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 10, second read of a bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34, Order 10, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act." (Bill 34)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have the honour and pleasure to rise in my place today to introduce Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. This amendment will help introduce a victim witness services program for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable; namely, children and youth under the age of sixteen.

Mr. Speaker, the victim services plan came in as part of the Department of Justice. I believe it was in 1991, by the government of the day. They are certainly to be commended for bringing in such progressive legislation.

The Victim Services Program is one of the four sections under the Corrections & Community Services Division in the Department of Justice. It is responsible for, amongst other things, providing services to victims of crime. The mission of the division is to strive to ensure the victims are able to participate meaningfully in the criminal justice system, and to strive to provide access to programs and services necessary for the healing and recovery of victims. The program, as I said, was established in 1991. There are ten regional offices with sixteen regional coordinators providing front-line services to victims.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly helpful to look at the Statement of Principles that is contained in the original act. Among those principles are, "Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and with respect for their dignity and their privacy. Victims should suffer the minimum of necessary inconvenience from their involvement with the criminal justice system. Victims should receive prompt and fair redress for the harm which they have suffered...and victims should be helped in addressing their particular needs and concerns."

In section 5, "It is recognized that victims, their dependants, guardians and spouses should have access to social, legal, medical and mental health services that respond to their needs."

In section 6, "...measures should be taken to ensure the safety of victims, their dependants, guardians and spouses and to protect them from intimidation and retaliation."

Mr. Speaker, the services that are offered under Victim Services to people over sixteen includes: general information about the criminal justice system, specific information about a particular case in which they are involved, pre-court preparation, assisting with completing the victim impact statements, and providing emotional support, accompaniment and educational activities on victim services. As I said, under the current program, the Victim Services Program is available only to victims sixteen years of age and over. As I said earlier, a program as notable and as laudable as the program is, fails to provide services to the most vulnerable of the vulnerable in our society, namely children.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction in the whole country that does not provide victim services to children. There are thirteen jurisdictions: ten provinces and three territories. We are the only one that does not provide this service to children. There is no agency in the Province with a mandate to provide court services to victims or witnesses who are under the age of sixteen. The implementation of a program for children will certainly be a valuable resource to help initiative positive change and will fill gaps which currently exist in the system. This will be accomplished by providing services to victims and witnesses of crime who are under the age of sixteen years and who testify in criminal proceedings.

In order to support this initiative, Mr. Speaker, a 15 per cent provincial fine surcharge will be introduced. Under the current legislation there is a victim services surcharge set out in section 12 which states - this is section 12 of the existing act - which says that, "Proceeds resulting from a victim fine surcharge imposed under section 727.9 of the Criminal Code (of Canada) shall be used for the purposes of this Act." There is a victim fine surcharge on convictions under federal legislation under the Criminal Code of Canada.

What we are proposing, similar to what previously existed, is a 15 per cent provincial fine surcharge which will apply to offences under provincial acts and provincial regulations, but excluding parking offences and excluding offences pertaining to municipal acts or bylaws. When a person is convicted of an offence under the Act, or an act of this Province, and the fine is imposed there is a penalty for that conviction. In addition to the fine, a 15 per cent surcharge will be added which will pay to the court this surcharge and thus provide the funds to provide for these valuable services to children under sixteen.

The annualized operational cost of this program will be approximately $400,000 a year and this will be offset by annual revenue from the provincial fine surcharge. We anticipate that this surcharge will generate revenue that will fund the program in its entirety. In the Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, there is $255,000 to enable this plan to be initiated. We anticipate $400,000 a year revenue needs. We have reviewed the revenues that have been collected in the past number of years and we fill that the program will be sustainable through the collection of the surcharge. We have been conservative in our review and we based our numbers on revenue collected, not fines issued.

Mr. Speaker, implementation of this surcharge is not a tax. The surcharge will only be imposed on those who have been convicted and fined. The surcharge, therefore, is not applicable to non-offenders. As I said earlier, all jurisdictions in the country do impose such a fine surcharge and they have implemented similar surcharges to provide services to children through their provincial or territorial victim services program.

A victim services program for children is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, and will be widely supported by the community, by advocacy groups, and the legal community throughout the Province. The introduction of this program, Mr. Speaker, for children, is a positive, proactive approach to assist victims and witnesses of crime under the age of sixteen.

I am pleased to introduce this bill in the House and I ask for the support of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the aisle in the passing of this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words about Bill 34. I will be very brief.

I certainly would be supportive of the piece of legislation. I think it is a great idea. The only concern I would have, and I will put it to the minister at this point in second reading so that it will give him an opportunity, maybe when we get in committee stage, to have a response prepared, that being: All the funds collected under this act, there will be a surcharge on criminal code offences which already exist. What we are doing here is, we are creating a 15 per cent surcharge on provincial offences, which will be used for child victims as announced earlier by the minister.

I did some checking, actually, with the provincial court people, since they are the work horses, shall we say, of the justice system in the Province - they do about 90 per cent of all cases that actually get heard and disposed of - to determine what the level of fines would be from provincial offences, so we would have some idea of how much money this 15 per cent would translate into. There is no doubt that a 15 per cent surcharge should make adequate funds available to conduct the victim services program that the minster intends to implement.

My concern, however, Minister, is section 12, which you are amending here by repealing the old section 12 and putting in the new section 12. It talks about all the money going into a pot to be used for the purposes of the act. In fact, the specific wording says, "Proceeds resulting from a victim fine surcharge shall be used for the purposes of this Act." Which means we are going to have fine money now going into a pot, so much from criminal code fines, surcharges, and so much from provincial surcharges. How do we distinguish and ensure that the money collected, the 15 per cent collected, on provincial fines, is actually kept separately and apart? It can go into one pot, that is not a problem, but how do we ensure that, even if it goes into the same pot, it stays separate for administration purposes to ensure that it is used for the purposes that you intend, i.e., child victim services?

I think there needs to be some certainty here that is what will happen. Otherwise, I suggest, the money, all the surcharges, whether it is criminal code or whether it is provincial, find its way into one pot and we find ourselves, two, three or four years out, with children victims again saying: We do not have the resources that we needed as you intended. I think probably that is an oversight there and maybe it should be specified, that the money - it does not change your act, it just ensures that the money collected from this surcharge is used for child victim services as opposed to the other victim services that you currently collect for from the Criminal Code.

I think it would be worthy and noble to ensure the child victims of our Province, that not only did you create the program but you are ensuring, by this piece of legislation and by having it worded that way, that the money will be there to fund that program for their interest, and not have it used by some other adult victim services, for example.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am certainly pleased to support the victim services being offered by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I will say by way of recent history, Mr. Chairman, what we had before we had victim services was Criminal Injuries Compensation, and Criminal Injuries Compensation provided a different level of services to people who were victims of crime. It was based on a national model, in fact an international model of Criminal Injuries Compensation, where society as a whole takes some responsibility for the individuals who are victims of crime and tries to provide them with some small measure of recompense for what they have gone through.

We had a fairly modest program in this Province, Mr. Chairman. I think the maximum that one could receive in compensation for pain and suffering, and what everyone endured as a victim of crime, was $6,000. In other places, like Ontario I think it was as much as $25,000. In addition to the $6,000 that was available for pain and suffering award there was also an award available for lost income or other services or out-of-pocket expenses for therapy or any losses that would occur, for example, if someone were attacked in the street and had their clothes damaged or any other things that they lost, or if they ended up in hospital and had costs for ambulance or other services, that they would be reimbursed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation fund.

There was a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that was established and operated for a large number of years, Mr. Chairman, that decided on awards for people and what the maximum amounts were. One of the most valuable parts of that service became very evident, Mr. Chairman, in the late 1980s and early 1990s as victims of sexual assault came forward. Many of them came forward, and some were victims in foster homes, some were residents of Mount Cashel, and victims of religious abuse. Some were victims of clergy from other denominations. Some were Catholic priests, some were other denominations. One of the biggest needs that they had was not simply assistance through the court process, because I think that was very important - I know the minister has talked about that - but also a need for counselling. The criminal injuries compensation fund was the primary source of funds that paid for counselling for the individuals who were victims of sexual assault.

One of the things that I discovered, Mr. Speaker, spending seven or eight years of my professional life assisting victims of Mount Cashel and others who were victims of sexual abuse, was how important it was, as close as possible to the events of a crime, to have counselling services available, the less amount of suffering, the less amount of harm that was done, the easier it was to provide some support and to, in fact, mitigate the psychological damages that could be caused by sexual abuse. Counselling for these individuals, many of whom had been abused some years before the matters came to public attention, they really needed that support. The maximum under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for that type of support was $20,000. You could get $6,000 for pain and suffering, you could get up to $20,000 for expenses and costs related to the crime that you were a victim of. That was available to anybody who applied and who were deemed to have met the criteria under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, in the late 1990s, was the government of the day decided to terminate the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and replace it instead with Victim Services. Now we are dealing with a lesser level of support and service for victims of crime than we had before, where they are provided with services revolving around the court issue. As the minister said, they provide them with support along the way, assistance in preparing for court, psychological support to help them through the difficult time, and it is very valuable. I have no difficulty seeing that support continue and be enhanced as much as it possibly can, but there is a very important part that has been left out. We should look at, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister to consider looking at, that criminal injuries compensation system and compare it to other provinces in the country.

We are not the only ones who got rid of it, Mr. Speaker. Nova Scotia did something similar, and they did it for reasons of financial support, or financial considerations, but we do have a changing circumstance in this Province where we are hoping that the passage of the Atlantic Accord amendments in the House of Commons, which is more likely to happen this week now than it was at 9:00 o'clock this morning, we may, in fact, see this money come a lot quicker than we had hoped, and we may be able to see the advantages of us in this Province have a more positive outlook for financing in the future, and programs such as Criminal Injuries Compensation can, in fact, be considered in a way that the excuse that was given a few years ago no longer applies.

Other provinces of this country still keep up their Criminal Injuries Compensation Programs. I know the excuse that was given was this was a program, like Legal Aid, that was started by the federal government with a lot of money in support up front from the federal government, and gradually the federal support for this program diminished and the Province is left with the burden.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a burden, as far as I am concerned, to see that people who are victims of crime get the kind of support, that was fairly modest, that was available to victims of crime. It was extremely valuable, I will say, to the people I represented in the 1990s, because they had to wait six, seven, eight years, some of them, to get compensation through the court process that we engaged. In the meantime, they had ready access to criminal injuries compensation and, through that, access to a very valuable form of counselling. We have seen with the case that was possibly settled, or tentatively settled, a couple of weeks ago, the case involving Father Bennett, the victims of Father Bennett. They waited for many, many years - fifteen, sixteen years, I think we are talking about - to try to access the court type awards, or tort awards. In the meantime, criminal injuries compensation was available to them in the initial years, that could have given them access to counselling, that is not available under our existing legislation, and I think that is a shame.

I hope we are beyond the point now where the kind of demands that were made on the system by the victims of sexual assault were perhaps putting a significant financial burden on the government. I hope we are beyond that. I hope that the bravery and the courage of the Mount Cashel victims appearing on national television, a nationally televised inquiry that took place in 1989-1990, that bravery has opened up enough courage in other people to come forward, that we will be not be hit with a significant flood of new cases, but I think it is time that government revisited this whole notion of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Program that still exists in some other provinces.

It is not unique to Canada. Other European countries have this as part of society's obligations to its citizens, to try and help make them whole when they are victims of crime, to the extent that a criminal injuries compensation system can do. I would ask that this government, on a go-forward basis, start looking at the possibility of reintroducing that, reviewing what is happening in other provinces and other civilized nations of the world, and see if we can go back to looking at the development of a criminal injuries compensation system.

I do have one question, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the minister can answer this. We hear the government saying, we do not have any new revenue measures. This seems, to me, to be a revenue measure. We are saying, if someone is fined under any provincial legislation there is now going to be a victim fine surcharge. Many of these crimes do not have victims. Many of the provincial regulations are aimed at ensuring that people are not driving without a licence. Is there a victim of that crime? The person who is driving a vehicle that is not registered because their vehicle licence is expired is going to be fined $120 or $130 for driving while their registration is expired. This legislation is now saying there is going be a victim fine surcharge. Well, I do not know if there is any victim of that crime. The victim is that a regulation has not been followed. The fact that a person's vehicle is not registered does not mean that the vehicle is not fit to be on the road. We do not even have an inspection system, so you do not even know whether the vehicle was fit to be on the road or not, under our inspection system for the most part.

The idea of a victim fine surcharge was that a criminal code violation was not always - I suppose there are some that have been called victimless crimes. Some people say the possession of marijuana is a victimless crime and has been called that by many people, yet the victim fine surcharge applies to that. When you are looking at the criminal code, most of the criminal code offences that we see the people being charged with, whether they be armed robbery, whether they be assault, whether they be causing a disturbance, whether they be breaking into someone's house, there is a victim of those crimes. You can see a rational for saying, yes, a victim fine surcharge is appropriate. Even something like impaired driving, while in the particular instance there may not be a particular victim of an impaired driving charge, there are many victims of impaired driving. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving is one organization, of course, that can testify to that.

Mr. Speaker, when we are saying provincial offences, I wonder can the minister say that this applies to all provincial offences, even regulations, like the ones I have mentioned, where somebody who is driving and their vehicle is not licensed under the act? There are myriad numbers of regulatory matters that come under the Provincial Offences Act. Is the minister saying that each and every one of them, supposing it is a traffic ticket, someone who is driving with a defective light, or someone who is parked on the wrong side of the road, are all of these offences? Are all of these regulations that this government administers now going to attract the victim fine surcharges. If that is the case, it sounds more like a revenue measure than an actual victim fine surcharge. I would have thought, if it was a revenue measure, the Minister of Finance would be here talking about how much he is going to raise to provide funding for the crime services that are being offered by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It does say the Highway Traffic Act. It does say the Provincial Offences Act. Maybe the minister can clarify that. I know he spoke about the victim services being offered and I think these are valuable services, but there are two things that I raised here at second reading, and that is the whole issue of criminal injuries compensation generally and the possibility that might be reconsidered as government finances improve. Not only the government finances improve, but perhaps the amount of demand on the services might be reduced because of the lesser number of sexual assaults being reported after the last fifteen years. Can we say whether or not this victim fine surcharge will apply to all provincial offences regardless of how regulatory or innocuous, from the point of view of victims, they might be? Those are the two issues I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister is able to address them when he closes debate

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now, he will close the debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

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

I want to thank my hon. colleagues opposite for their remarks and their insight in this debate. I will take into consideration the comments made by the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. With respect to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Act will, in fact, apply to all provincial offences, with the exception of parking offences. You mentioned parking on the wrong side of the street. It will not apply to that. Also it will not apply to offences under municipal acts and bylaws.

With respect to revenue grab, it is certainly not the intention for it to be a revenue grab. The idea is that we would generate enough revenue to extend this valuable program to children. We would anticipate, based on revenue collected last year, that we would raise $410,000; based on 2003, $452,000; 2002, $412,000; and 2001, $375,000. So we are just anticipating that we will get cost recovery. We need $400,000 a year, that is all we are looking for, and we think it is important to provide this very important program to, as I said, the vulnerable of the vulnerable, the children of this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about criminal injuries compensation?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Criminal injuries compensation: I am delighted the member raised that. I remember studying that issue many years ago when I was a student in law school. I was surprised when I became minister to find out it did not exist anymore. I am certainly prepared to ask the officials of the department to take a look at it and see whether it is planned to bring it back and whether we have the revenue to do so.

With those remarks, I would urge the passage of this legislation, and thank all hon. members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 34, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, bill 34.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the sitting.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 34)

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 Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities, Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities." (Bill 23)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill - I guess, under the current legislation now there are loan guarantees given out by government to municipalities in capital projects. When you go out on a capital project, during the construction phase a loan guarantee is given and that must be repaid within two years. At the end of that, it is financed. It is financed either through a bank, the municipality's share, without guarantees, or the government's share which goes through NMFC. Sometimes NMFC has gone with the community's share too.

That expires at the end of two years, so at the end of two years then it is permanently financed, as I just mentioned. This is interim financing that will cease at the end of two years. What normally happens, they give interim and it comes back to the House. I remember, in 2004, when we came back we had guarantees for 2001, 2002 and 2003. The periods are expired, they are paid off, the construction is done, it is all gone, and here we are going out giving authority to it about a year or two later. It didn't make much sense.

Right now we are looking at getting up to $1 million. That would be the maximum. This is for interim financing for municipalities. Then the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have to okay that guarantee before it goes out.

MR. J. BYRNE: One hundred million, not one million.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague is saying to me $100 million, yes. I said $1 million. Sorry! There is a big difference. A few zeros can be a lot in instances.

What it does, it now gives authority to the minister and he must come back and table those guarantees here in the House. That is a process that makes it way more convenient, administratively and so on. There is still an obligation to table it here and deal with it. A lot of times it would have expired anyway and it is kind of cumbersome to have to come back through Cabinet. It has to get approval through Cabinet to do this anyway, and before the loans are done they have to be approved anyway. This facilitates the administrative process. It makes it a little farcical to come back and give authority to something that is already paid off a year or two earlier.

That is the intent of this bill here, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Minister of Finance corrected the amount that this bill would cover, $100 million instead of $1 million. It is true, it is sort of a housekeeping issue that needs to be addressed. Every community that would be eligible for this type of interim financing has been listed.

In particular, I would like to mention the ones that would be local improvement districts. We have seen over the past year that a lot of local improvement districts have not even bothered to come to government looking for capital works projects because the ratio has changed. Many times in the past, local improvement districts were not in a position to borrow from government for municipal works. In previous years they were really looked after, almost 100 per cent on many occasions, for emergency work that needed to be done.

Although the minister has indicated the local service districts under the Municipalities Act, he knows full well that there would be no community out there - a local service district - even applying for $100 million, or $1 million in fact. The only thing that a local improvement district will apply to this government for is emergency funding, probably, to look after contaminated water, or a situation where equipment might break down and they have no other means to fix it on their own.

What I would like to ask this government is, when are they going to put forward a source of funding for municipalities out there that would like to get into a situation where they could pay off all their debts? For several years, as a former Administration, we had a program in place where many communities that found themselves in a position where they were unable to deal with their existing repayment schedules to the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipalities Corporation, there was a provision there, I think, of $10 million every year to look at these situations and have those debts written off.

I know a couple of communities in my district, the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, have availed of that money, and there are communities out there today that are really in a bankrupt position. When a community is in a bankrupt position, they cannot get any financing to do any work. If they go to their bank, the bank turns them down. If they come back to government, government has gotten out of this business, where they will not guarantee a loan, either, to a municipality. So, either government pays the full shot or rearranges the ratio to the effect that government will look after 80 per cent or 90 per cent and the community will look after the 10 per cent or 20 per cent. Really, it does not give a small community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador a very good outlook on maintaining existing infrastructure.

A lot of communities- and I stood in this House today and asked the Minister of Transportation and Works - in fact, I even provided him with pictures of the deterioration of the Buchans Highway - I asked him if he could look into that situation and provide funding.

It was interesting to look at the government Web site a few days ago. You know, the first district in the whole of this Province of forty-eight districts to receive any funding for government roadwork was the District of Baie Verte. The District of Baie Verte was the first district to receive any funding for roadwork. I am sure the Member for Baie Verte, who is now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he would also agree that even the former Administration was very kind to the District of Baie Verte. We realized the hardship that people had with regard to their road situation and the roads they had to travel over, and I am sure that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Member for Baie Verte, would say and agree that the former Administration had been very generous to his district.

It is unusual when you look on the government Web site and you see a news release by the Minister of Transportation and Works and it is for one district only, the District of Baie Verte. I do not know what you are holding over his head, but, whatever it is, it is working because you are the only district that got any money.

You know, if this government does not address the needs of rural Newfoundland, whether it be roads or water or firefighting services, stadiums, whatever there is in infrastructure, even lighting that keeps the town lit for safety reasons, if this government does not respond to rural Newfoundland and Labrador there will be a mass exodus from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is already, and they are not doing anything right now to prevent that.

You know, people have huge investments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is wonderful to go out around and see the new homes that are being built. People have a renewed spirit and energy. They believe in their communities and they want to see them survive, but if government does not get on the same page and realize that people are not going to be moved from rural Newfoundland and Labrador at government's insistence - if they decide to make a move, it will be their own.

What is happening now, government is cutting off services. You can see that. We had a great highway, the Buchans Highway. It was maintained every year and it was a pleasure to drive over, but we all know that if you do not maintain rural highways - they are very narrow, just the minimum width - you are going to be faced with a situation where it is going to take a lot of money if you do not do any work for two or three years to bring them up to standard. It is not an issue of wanting to have a better highway; it is an issue of needing to have a safe highway to drive over.

This government is going to receive a lot of tax dollars from the development that is taking place near Millertown, which is Duck Pond mining. They are going to have at least 250 people employed during the construction of this mine site, and it is going to take between two and three years to do. Now, government is going to receive taxes on all the employees who pay income tax, who are going to be working on that site, and all the goods and services that are sold to that mine and to companies that are bidding on jobs and supplying equipment to the Duck Pond Mine.

With the government knowing all of these things, and knowing that it is going to be generating a lot of revenue for this Province to put into the Treasury so that they can spend the money for hospitals, roads and schools, do you know that this government has not, last year or so far this year, committed even $500,000, not even $1 million or $1.5 million, to repair the Buchans Highway where this heavy equipment is going to need to go over day after day, that is going to bring money to the coffers of this provincial government. So, there is something wrong in the logic of thinking with this government. If you cannot see that you are getting money, new revenue from that source, but you are expecting people and heavy equipment to drive over that road, you are not fulfilling your obligation as a government. It is as simple as that.

There are woods trucks travelling everyday over that road. There are ambulances. There are people travelling from Buchans who work in Grand Falls-Windsor, from Millertown and from Buchans Junction. There is mail delivery there everyday. There is a hospital in Buchans.

What does it take to get through to the Minister of Transportation and Works? I always thought that he was a pretty decent fellow to deal with, but I tell you, I am having second thoughts. Two years in a row and no money. Yet, he can put out over $3 million for the District of Baie Verte and he cannot find -

MR. SHELLEY: Is there anything wrong with that?

MS THISTLE: I did not say there was anything wrong with it. In fact, for the Member for Baie Verte, the minister, I said that even at a former government you got the lion's share of funding for your district for roads. I think you would agree to that.

There is no way that any member in this House should stand up and beg for money for their district. We all got elected the very same way -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - and you do not own the money that is in the provincial treasury anymore than any member here. We all have needs and concerns that need to be addressed. There is no reason why we have to turn ourselves blue in the face to get some recognition on road work.

The minister has the facts. The Minister of Transportation has the facts. He has the photos to back him up. It is only a matter of this minister calling the director in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Wayne Ricks, who has submitted year after year the requirements for road work on the Buchans highway. He knows full well.

Plowing snow in the winter, you are taking up the pavement along with it because the edges are broken up. There are big ruts. There is no shoulder on that road. If you had to pull off to repair a flat tire or anything, or if there was a moose on the highways, which there are plenty of them - two weeks ago I was going up to a graduation and all of a sudden there was a herd of caribou that went across the road. In that herd of caribou was a white caribou, which is a rare scene. I got out my camera immediately and I took a picture of that white caribou. This is what you see all the time on the Buchans highway, caribou, moose, rabbits. I have not seen any coyotes yet, but I know they are there in the woods looking out through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Transportation and Works, he is turning a blind eye to the needs of rural Newfoundland, particularly in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans. But that is okay, you can only go on like that so long and people will wise up to you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this act again and say that this is an act that I will support, this Bill 23, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. What I would say, in conclusion, is that I wish that the members of Cabinet - but, then again, there are no rural members of Cabinet. I think there might be one, two or three. There is one from Baie Verte, there is one from Lewisporte and there is one from St. Anthony. That is as rural as you get in making decisions around the Cabinet Table. So, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Not really.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) St. George's is not rural?

MS THISTLE: Stephenville is not really that rural. Stephenville is not that rural.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I would not say that Stephenville is that rural.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, they are trying to justify the Premier's decision in appointing fourteen members to Cabinet, and four are from rural Newfoundland and - oh, I was going to say Labrador. Excuse me, there are none from Labrador. There are none from Labrador. There are no members from Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on my left to curb their enthusiasm a little bit so I can hear the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They can try as they will but they cannot justify, when you have a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador and you have fourteen members of Cabinet, only four are from rural Newfoundland, none from Labrador. The Premier has not seen fit to appoint the Member for Lake Melville. He has no intention of doing that. How can members of Cabinet make decisions for rural Newfoundland? They cannot make them for Labrador because they do not have anybody from Labrador

We heard today, from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that this government intends to cut out the funding for the Combined Councils of Labrador. Now, the Member for Lake Melville agrees with the concept of Combined Councils. I know he does. I also noticed that as soon as Question Period was over today the Premier made a beeline directly to the member's desk, the Member for Lake Melville. I guess he gave him his warning to not say anything about the cutting of the funds for the Combined Councils of Labrador or he might end up on the other side of the House, as his former colleague did, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. So, I guess the word was spoken pretty strongly after Question Period today.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will say that I agree with this bill but I do not agree with what this government is trying to do to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers in debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move second reading of Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities, 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 Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. (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?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 23)

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

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

I move second reading of Bill 33.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General is unavoidably absent, because he had to catch a flight to go out of town. In his place, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who, I believe, has discussed with the critic and others opposite, the contents of the bill. I will introduce that bill on behalf of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act." (Bill 33)

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

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a continuation of some legislation that was approved by the previous Administration under the Municipalities Act. For a number of years the Federation of Municipalities have been lobbying the government to bring in a municipal ticketing system for property related offences. They really did not get anywhere because they always linked it to the collection of fines and penalties to the Motor Registration Division.

In the summer of 2001, the Northeast Avalon Joint Councils came in and met with the then previous minister, my critic today, Mr. Speaker, and lobbied further. There was a committee put in place at that time with the Northeast Avalon Joint Councils, the Department of Justice, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Federation of Municipalities. They were successful in coming up with a system, an approach, that would not involve the Motor Registration Division. Whereby, if there was a penalty or a ticket passed out by a municipality for a property related offence, it would not be linked to the Motor Registration Division, but if they were found guilty of an offence, a lien could be put on the individual property. That was the way it would have been dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

The three cities, the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and the City of Corner Brook, have been looking for this for some time now. We have been basically just waiting to get this piece of legislation through the House of Assembly whereby the cities could put a system in place. I had some brief discussions with my critic on this and there has been some criteria put in place for the municipalities to come up with a system. We have been working with the municipalities, the Department of Municipal Affairs, the Federation of Municipalities, and, Mr. Speaker, this is what this piece of legislation is all about.

It is not a very thick bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is very important to the three cities and it is something that they have been looking for, for some time. By the way, Mr. Speaker, if the three cities cannot really get this in place themselves it is something that I would say the smaller towns in the Province are going to have some real problems with. This is something I think they have been hoping to get and looking forward to.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will let people on the other side say a few words.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to say that we have had an opportunity to peruse Bill 33 and we are certainly in agreement with the principle of this particular bill and we will be voting for it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also support Bill 33. We have seen a situation in this Province where far too many things hinge on whether or not someone can get their driver's licence renewed. We have seen, I think, rather oppressive legislation, where someone goes to pay to get their driver's licence renewed or driver's motor vehicle renewed and they find out that they cannot get their vehicle renewed because some other arm of government or some other authority has something outstanding. I heard someone say they couldn't get a boat registered in the Province, they could not register the change and ownership of a boat, because they owed a school tax. There are far too many interconnections, Mr. Speaker, between what regulations one body has and another.

I certainly see it being very positive, that if somebody gets a ticket from a municipality for failing to put their garbage out at the right time of day, well let the city deal with that, Mr. Speaker, let them collect it whatever way they can. The fact that they have not paid a ticket for violating a noise bylaw or not having their garbage covered properly in the City of Mount Pearl or whatever other regulations that they might have violated and get a ticket for, that should not result in them failing to be able to get their motor vehicle renewed or their licence renewed. That is not a proper use of governmental authority with respect to the regulation and registration of motor vehicles.

I opposed it, Mr. Speaker, when they were using motor registration to try and collect outstanding matters for the payment of child support or spousal support. Even that can prevent you from getting your motor vehicle. I do not think it is proper to use one arm of government to go after people who owe money under another arm. Therefore, this anomaly should be removed.

I agree with the legislation that is being brought before the House. We should provide for this exemption. Obviously, if it relates to a motor vehicle, if someone gets ticketed for parking a motor vehicle improperly, I do not have a problem with that being collected through the motor registration system. It is proper that be done so, whether it is violating a municipal by-law relating to motor vehicles or a provincial regulation relating to motor vehicles. I think we should stick to that, Mr. Speaker, and not try to penalize people who are trying to operate motor vehicles because some other arm of government they have run amiss of, failing to pay a tax, or failing to pay some other obligation. I think a lot of people need motor vehicles in order to conduct their business, to make a living and to meet those obligations. It is unfair to stop them at that point.

We support the legislation. I do not have any objections to this exemption being made. Perhaps it is something that should have been done with the original legislation was brought in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

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

I would just like to thank the Opposition and the NDP for their support in this legislation. It is pretty straightforward. I move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 33)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in today's session.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

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

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

Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province". (Bill 16)

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise and introduce this piece of legislation. Essentially, what we are introducing is the Management of Government Information Act, Mr. Speaker, in order to provide the legislative mandate to establish an appropriate, an efficient, and an effective information management program for all government records.

The purpose of the Act, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure, not only good management of government records, but also the appropriate handling, recording, storage and disposal of government records so that information is more easily accessible. Documents with archival value, for example, Mr. Speaker, must be safely stored once this legislation is passed and preserved, obviously, and documents that need not be stored are destroyed, obviously, in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, this Act, essentially, will help ensure accountability on the part of all those who generate and handle government records, access to information as appropriate by members of the general public in a timely fashion, maintaining only those records deemed to have an enduring or archival value, Mr. Speaker, and destroying the rest in a timely manner so they do not use valuable or costly space for storage.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Act will ensure that maintaining the corporate or collective memory of the Province is ensured by retaining records with the necessary or appropriate archival value and by working in consultation with provincial archives.

Specifically to the Act, Mr. Speaker, the new Act defines what constitutes a record such as correspondence, other documentary material, for example, whether hand written, typed or in electronic form, a public record - and that is to say records created by a public body or government department - and records management, which, of course, is program information management, essentially.

The legislation, Mr. Speaker, specifies that all public records are the property of the Crown and that no public records can be destroyed whatsoever, except in accordance with strictly defined provisions exercised by the provincial archives themselves.

The new Act, Mr. Speaker, requires that all government departments are to develop and implement a records management system. Under the Act, Mr. Speaker, the minister is responsible for developing standards for schedules for public records and to assist public bodies, developing and implementing a management program for public records, and providing support and advice to assist public bodies with such development. Implementation and maintenance of record management is also a key feature.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible also has the authority to employ or appoint any or all persons necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. The Management of Government Information Act will work in concert with The Rooms Act, which establishes the archives and the requirements governing the lawful disposal, or destruction, of public records deemed to not fit the criteria as outlined in the Bill.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, ultimately recognizes that information is an important resource, one that must be protected at all costs, and puts in place a proper structure and management system to ensure, one, that we have it, that the corporate memory of government and all departments are maintained, that the archival memory of Newfoundland and Labrador, whatever we have right now, is maintained, and whatever may come is maintained; and equally importantly, it will also provide the opportunity to have those records available in a timely fashion to the public whenever the public wishes to exercise and get that information.

That, Mr. Speaker, is essentially the pith and substance of what this bill is about. I am happy to answer any questions that members opposite may have.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few general comments. I would say, first, we are in favour and will be supportive of Bill 16 regarding the establishment of a system to manage government information for the Province. It is only right and proper that we have a system to do it. In fact, it will tie in, no doubt, to our Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and so on. You cannot very well expect to have that nice piece of legislation be functional if we do not have the information that you want to get at being properly stored so that it is retrievable. I guess, they go hand in glove and so on when it comes to making another piece of legislation worthwhile.

I do note, however, though, government could not resist the opportunity, again, to have the carrot and the stick approach. I notice under section 8 about the penalty section. Again, it is all subject to interpretation by a court somewhere down the road, but technically, a record, for example, is defined in this act: a record includes a correspondence, a memorandum, a form, a paper, a parchment, a manuscript, a map, a plan, a drawing, a painting, a print, a photograph, et cetera, a magnetic tape. Technically, when you look under section 8, it says, "A person who unlawfully damages, mutilates or destroys a public record or removes or withholds a public record..." could face a fine up to $50,000 or eighteen months in jail or both. Here we are, again we see a government with great goals, lofty ambitions, create a system, manage all this property, but, lo and behold - lo and behold! - we have a big stick here, and the possibility is, if you withhold a map, for example, that is deemed to be a public record, we are coming down on you with the full force of law and we could have you fined up to $50,000 and put in jail for eighteen months. simply because you withhold, not even destroy, withhold a piece of public record.

I say to the Government House Leader, I am sure he was around a few years ago when we had the fiasco, I call it, of the Mushrow Astrolabe which became, I would think, to the government of the day, of which I was a part, an embarrassment, and had the good fortune to fix it.

We had a diver on the Southwest Coast who found an astrolabe. In fact, he found two. The second one was in mint condition going back to like 1628. What happened when he announced to the world that he found this thing? He was so happy, and he wanted, by the way, to turn this over to the government so that they could put it on display, but he had a tough condition he wanted attached to it. He did not want money. He was wondering: If I turn this over to you would you call it the Mushrow Astrolabe because I found it? He also asked: I wonder, during the summer months or a portion of the summer months, could you send it back to the Southwest Coast for a period of time, with the proper security, so that we could use it as a tourism attraction?

Government, do you know what they did? They sent out undercover RCMP officers who went to the gentleman's house, undercover, got into his house under another pretext, sat down having a cup of coffee in his house, asked him about the astrolabe, and promptly arrested him.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. PARSONS: And threatened with putting him in jail if he did not immediately bring this astrolabe forward. Of course, in that particular case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, no, I was not the Attorney General. In fact, I was the Attorney General when he brought forward the second astrolabe that he had hidden for years and told nobody about for fear of the embarrassment that he got on the first one. He brought forward the second one when I was the Attorney General. We did give the gentleman an apology, we did call them Mushrow Astrolabes, and we do send them back to the Southwest Coast every year now as is right and proper to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: It should have been done in the first place.

I just point that out as an illustration to show how some of these little sections in pieces of law and acts could get used improperly in the wrong hands, and I am sure this government does not intend that to happen to anybody. We see, by having these little penal sections in these acts that we flippantly pass through sometimes, somebody who is quite innocent withholds a piece of public record in the future could be facing these draconian types of penalties.

I just say, we are in favour of the bill, we are in favour of the intentions here, but I have grave concerns, I guess as a Libertarian and a human rights activist, that we put such draconian punishments in place for somebody. I think we do ourselves a disservice, because instead of encouraging people to preserve public artifacts and records, then come forward with it, having penal statutes like this only discourages that, I say.

That is just my little comment on how I think we have a good piece of legislation here that could be faulted because of the penal sections within it.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no difficulty in supporting the need for retention and a system to look after public records of the Province. We have had an existing system under the Archives Act and, as a result of the creation of The Rooms Corporation, we now have a provincial archives director, as opposed to a provincial archivist, and various other changes have been made.

I do have one concern. Obviously, I share the concerns of the Opposition House Leader with respect to how difficult we may be in terms of how we are dealing with people who may unlawfully damage, mutilate or destroy public record. What I am concerned about is: What provision is there made - and I do not see anything specifically here. We do have notions of certain public records being kept secret for a period of time. You always heard about a thirty-year rule in the case of the Cabinet documents from the British - they are now searching these documents to find out what happened thirty-five years ago. There is some sort of rule of public disclosure because, obviously, Cabinet documents are public documents as well, and normally there are rules that certain documents of government, whether they be involving an individual or involving Cabinet decision, that there is a period of time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister says: Is it twenty years here? I am not sure exactly what it is, but I do not see any provision in here allowing for the keeping of certain documents, private, for a specific period of time or for a specified period of time. In fact, there seems to me to be a provision allowing the minister, at least under The Rooms Act, to authorize the destruction of documents.

I do not know whether or not all of this is really been provided for. We do have certain documents that are involving private records of individuals. Sometimes they are kept until after individuals died or after their children have died, or something of that nature. There does not seem to be addressed, specifically in this legislation, how government provides for (a) the protection of documents that should be protected for a period of time and what that period of time is, because that was provided for in the Archives Act, but it was a committee of Cabinet that made those rules. I do not see any specific provision here.

I think we have, for example, under section 6, the right of a permanent head of a public body, which is either a deputy minister or some executive officer of the corporation, to provide for the development and implementation of a record management for the creation, classification, retention, storage, maintenance, retrieval, preservation, disposal and transfer of public records, and a system providing for retention periods and disposition, but there does not seem to be a specific provision here to provide for a period whereby these records can be maintained in private and then, at some point, made public for researchers or members of the public to have access to.

It seems to me that is a very important part of government record management. Obviously, we do not expect to be able to go next year and get last year's Cabinet Minutes, if that is normally and traditionally government's right to keep - under the Freedom of Information Act it is kept private - then, at some point, these are public documents, whether it is twenty years, whether it is thirty years, or whatever it might be. There does not seem to be any provision there for opening up these records to the public after a period of time. I wonder whether this is something that the minister can get some advice on, and we can deal with that in second reading, or deal with it in Committee stage, or, if the minister can do it now that would be acceptable, but I certainly want to see some reference to how that is to be done, whether there are some special, specific rules that might apply to that, because some of these things - we are taking the Archives Act, repealing that, and parts of that legislation are covered in The Rooms Act, parts of it are covered here, and I do not see where that is covered off.

In general terms, I do support the legislation but we might have to do something to ensure that these provisions are made.

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

If he speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

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

I thank members opposite and, in particular, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raises what I see as a legitimate point.

Right now, I think we need to understand that the Department of Justice, the Departments of Government Services, Treasury Board, and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, all have sort of some management responsibilities for the governing of information, so it is spread out in a variety of different departments. What this legislation essentially does, I say to the member, it sets up the framework by which the process, handling, storage, and appropriate disposal of information will occur and take place in a more co-ordinated and centralized fashion. How that will be done, I say to the member, through Executive Council, through the Chief Information Officer, all of that sort of framework that will encompass what this legislation will be will be managed through that system.

To the point the member has raised, because it is important contextually, I think, to understand how this is going to evolve, this is an important first step. The Chief Information Officer resources will be provided in terms of insuring that we get up to speed. It is going to take some time. It is not going to be accomplished overnight, but it is part of a package of programs such as the Privacy Protection Act, Transparency and Accountability Act, access to information on a timely basis, proper recording of information. All we need to look at, for example, is the federal sponsorship scandal that is now occurring. If we ever need an illustrated point of how important and how critical it is for any government to manage its information correctly, what this particular piece of legislation will have effect upon is exactly that, so that there is a central location managed by a Chief Information Officer, co-ordinated in a singular location with the appropriate legislative requirements, the appropriate regulatory regime associated with it, to allow for any information to be readily available to the public, and information within departments or public bodies that is not deemed, I guess, is the best way to put it, in the corporate interest or in the public interest, or really not something - that is according to the framework that is in place already -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, sure, I will sit down and allow a question, if I could finish my thought just for a second.

What is at stake here, and what is really the pith and substance and the thrust of this legislation, is to put under one system the management of the appropriate and prudent management of all our Province's archive material, of all government information, to ensure that if there is access required to any piece of information, that people or the public itself can get access to it, where it is deemed appropriate according to the proper legislative and regulatory framework.

Lastly, to your point - I believe this is your point, and you can certainly correct me if I misunderstood it - with respect to what information is timely, this will be replacing the archives, what we are doing essentially here is, this is a first step, working with all of the departments to move this along so that the questions that you pose, or the question that you posed, we believe will be answered in the process and we believe is really answered right now.

I hope I have answered the question. If not, I will certainly entertain some more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I notice the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is standing, by leave, to make a comment before I call the question.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps Your Honour did not hear. I asked whether or not the minister would entertain a question, by leave, during his speech.

I just want to, on that point of the opening of records to the public and the keeping of records secret, and the notion at some point they might be public documents, under the existing Archives Act, section 14 says as follows, "Except where otherwise prohibited by law or by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council public records in the archives are available for public inspection."

Now, I am not saying I agree that the Cabinet should have the right to declare any document secret any time they want. I am not saying I agree with that existing provision. That act is now being repealed, but I do not see any like measure in the new act that says there is some way that documents that are of vital security, or some, by tradition, Cabinet secrets, et cetera, that they are held secret for a period of time and then made available to the public. There does not seem to be any regime available to do that in the act, and in the public Archives Act, obviously, there was one.

I do not necessarily say I agree with that. Perhaps there should be some specific rules that should be in place, but I do not know where, in our new regime, would you consider The Rooms Act and the new Management of Information Act, whether we see either the authority to keep it secret forever or for a period of time, or the right of the public to have access to public documents unless otherwise prohibited.

I guess I am asking for the minister to at least undertake to see that officials, when looking at this act, and the implementation of it, consider that important point, that we do not have - at least I haven't been able to discover one - some power either to prohibit documents from being made public or some right of the public to have documents otherwise available to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, offering some responses to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I guess, either by omission or commission, we are not committing something that we neither want to omit or we neither want to commit, is really what the member is saying. The fact of it is this, that my - he shakes his head, but that is what he said, essentially.

My sense is, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I learned in Grade 3, I say to the Member for Bellevue, what the sins of omission and commission were about, and I have never forgotten them. I have had to plead for apologies, Mr. Speaker, and indulgence sometimes, and forgiveness at times, but not since I have come to the Legislature, I say to the Member for Exploits.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi makes a valid point. My sense is that what applies will still apply - this is my sense, I say to the member - in terms of what would be available or not now available currently.

To his point, would I give an undertaking to ensure that this is the case, I will certainly give an undertaking to revisit this immediately to see if there is any concern; because I believe, and I believe that the member believes, that the intent of this legislation is to provide a new system, a more manageable system, a more effective system, and a more appropriate system for the handling of all government information. I will certainly endeavour to take upon myself the request that you have made and report back as soon as I can.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I know you are not. It is a valid point you raise.

For those who may be listening, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said to me he is not looking for a conspiracy here. I said I know he is not, because the point he has raised is a valid one. I will give the undertaking to investigate it, and if we need some revisions at some point in time to reflect that if necessary - I am not convinced they are - but, if necessary, we will certainly not hesitate to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do now move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province, 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 Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province. (Bill 16)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later in today's session.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 16)

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

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

I move right now first reading of Bill 37, and I am doing this by leave. Basically, I will give notice now that on today, as opposed to on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

I understand it has already been distributed. If members do not have it, please let me know.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City of St. John's Act," carried. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first 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 City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move, by leave of course, second reading of Bill 37, to be capably introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 37)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to just say a few words at second reading of Bill 37, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act.

Mr. Speaker, currently the Municipalities Act gives authority to towns to restrict or prohibit the use of water for conservation purposes. The three cities act, Mr. Speaker, do not, only in emergency situations. They have been doing it, but legitimately and legally, I suppose, they cannot bring in water conservation measures unless they are in an emergency situation.

This new bill would give the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook and the City of Mount Pearl the legislative authority to bring in, or restrict, the use of water for conservation purposes. I think that is something that the three cities want. As a matter of fact, I know they want it, Mr. Speaker. Also, in this situation we have - for example, in fire protection, if the only in emergency situations and the water goes down and they do not have the proper pressure in their lines to fight fires, then they could actually be - I suppose it is possible, and the Minister of Justice could verify this for me - liable if they do not have the proper fire protection available to their citizens.

Also, Mr. Speaker, water conservation and protection of water supply is an appropriate function for municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, when you look at it from an environmental aspect, it is also important where we would have the authority and the right to put in water conservation measures for the protection of water supplies in given municipalities - the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl and the City of Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a very small bill, not very thick as some other bills are, but it is a very important piece of legislation. I did have some preliminary discussions with my critic on this, and the Leader of the NDP. I look forward to any comments that they may have on this bill, Bill 37.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I have already talked to the minister about this. Obviously, it makes a lot of sense to give the cities the ability to be able to conserve water, not only in emergency situations, but anytime so that when they do they will not be liable, as the minister said. It makes good sense, so that the municipalities can make laws and do things that will best benefit their municipalities. So, this is another one.

I agree, like the minister said, it is not a heavy bill but what it does it gives the municipalities the right to set the rules and regulations within their municipalities, and I agree with it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason that this legislation is being put through the House so quickly, with leave, is that it is pretty straightforward, in that it gives the power to the City of St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, powers that already are possessed by towns and other community councils throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, there is no reason why the city cannot have the same power. So, we have no difficulty whatsoever with the principle of allowing that.

In my discussion with the minister I did raise the concern, and I will raise it generally here, that I would hope that this power will be used by the cities in a better way than so far what we have seen in emergencies where, because you are dealing with an emergency, you have to take fairly drastic action, and I understand that. If you are facing a crisis because you have a water shortage, you might have to do serious restrictions on water use through sprinklers, or days of the week, or sides of the street, and these complicated rules that we had here, for example, in the City of St. John's.

I would hope with this kind of power, Mr. Speaker, we can have perhaps more forward looking rules about the promoting of water conservation, generally. Perhaps cities such as St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook can introduce, on a go-forward basis, rules that might support or provide incentives or prohibition even, in new subdivisions or in renovations when new bathrooms are being installed, perhaps to use more water efficient toilets or other utensils, promoting the use of low use shower heads, for example. There are a whole series of measures, including education, that can be used to conserve the use of water.

I think that if the Province - maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not want to get too involved but I am sure the Minister of Environment and Conservation could be easily persuaded, given his previous actions. At least when he was on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, he was very enthusiastic about all sorts of issues related to conservation and environment and we hope that his department might assist the cities and municipalities, generally, to develop conservation measures related to the use of water. Even the Cities of St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl could, for example, in their building regulations provide for new subdivisions bringing in water systems management. I know the City of Edmonton has undertaken a very, very extensive program that involves the conservation of water through their building's department and through their other activities in the municipal infrastructure. Theirs are models that can be looked at.

Although this legislation talks about prohibiting or restricting the use of water, I would certainly encourage, particularly those Cities of Mount Pearl, St. John's and Corner Brook, which have a more substantial type of responsibility and greater staffing abilities, to get involved in these proactive sort of approaches, as opposed to just restricting the use of water for watering flowers or lawns, and the kind of things that citizenry tends to resent as opposed to fully participate in, and rather get involved in water management programs that encourage population and citizen involvement in developing a better attitude towards the use of water. Not only is it good for the environment, it is obviously cheaper for municipalities to use less water, and it can postpone the need for new infrastructure. That is often something that is overlooked not only in the use of water, but also in the use of electricity. They call it Demand Side Management in electricity circles. The same kinds of principles can be applied to water use in municipalities.

In particular, I would hope that government, not only the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but the Department of Energy and Conservation, encourages cities to develop these kinds of proactive measures that would better protect the environment, use less water, and of course, save money for municipal governments and for the citizens who are paying taxes.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the legislation in giving those cities the powers that towns now have.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Opposition and the NDP for their support of this legislation. They made some good points. The points made by the Leader of the NDP with respect to the cities having to take drastic action in emergency situations, hopefully this legislation could help prevent these situations arising. If they do some long-term planning, they can prevent these emergency situations from arising.

Also, you talked about taking proactive action. Then again, Mr. Speaker, I think the cities could take certain actions to prevent the overuse of water. I suppose that is what he was getting at. With this legislation we can certainly do that, by putting in place certain regulations in their development regulations or building regulations with respect to the size of flush boxes and these types of things. I am sure the cities and the planners, within the cities themselves, will certainly be looking at this, even the city councillors themselves and the applicable mayors.

With that, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Bill 37, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act," read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 37)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to the following bills: Bill 23, Bill 34, Bill 33, Bill 16, Bill 25 and Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the Whole on a number of bills.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not want to move motion 5 on the Order Paper which means we sit beyond 5:30 p.m. I certainly can do that, but I think it would be better, just by agreement, because we are just about to conclude our parliamentary day, when the clock hits 5:30 p.m. if we just all agree, by unanimous consent, to stop the clock, finish what we have to do, and then move on.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 23, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities." (Bill 23)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 12 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 12 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: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 23, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Bill 23 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act." (Bill 34)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 5 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Bill 34 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act." (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 2 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, carried without amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the Chair report Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 16, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province." (Bill 16)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 9 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 9 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Chair report Bill 16, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 16 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And the City of St. John's Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And the City of St. John's Act." (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clauses 1, 2 and 3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act and The City of St. John's Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Chair report Bill 37, An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act And The City of St. John's Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 37 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 23, Bill 34, Bill 33, Bill 16 and Bill 37 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 23, Bill 34, Bill 33, Bill 16 and Bill 37 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 34 be now read a third 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 Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33 be now read third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 33 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 33)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16 be now read third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has not been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 37 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

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

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for the great deal of co-operation today on legislative matters before the House. With that, I do wish to advise the members of the House that tomorrow we requested that we use Private Members' Day potentially for a government business day in terms of debating legislation. I just want to advise members that is what we will be doing tomorrow from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., which is what would normally be the routine for private members.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do move that the House now adjourn and return tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, May 18, at 2:00 of the clock in the afternoon.

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