December 1, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 40


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the visitors gallery, a former Member for Labrador West, Mr. Perry Canning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

 

MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements this afternoon as follows: the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the consecration of the Basilica of St. John the Baptist. It was September of 1855 when Bishop Mullock and the congregation of the Basilica Parish assembled and celebrated high mass in their cathedral.

The idea of the building of a church in St. John's for those of the Catholic faith was initiated by Bishop Fleming in 1834. At that time St. John's had a population of 19,000 people, of which 14,000 were Catholic.

It took Bishop Fleming five years of negotiating with the Queen of England, Queen Victoria, before he was able to secure a grant of nine acres of land on what was then known as Fort Townsend. In May of 1839 excavation of the site began and all classes of people joined in to work. The task was estimated to take two months, but because of the number of people who showed up it was completed in just two days.

Men from the City of St. John's went into the woods some twelve miles from the site to obtain the timber needed for scaffolding. In just over three hours they returned with over 4,000 pieces of timber, each of them thirty feet in length.

The stone for the church was secured locally, and large quantities were transported from Kelly's Island in Conception Bay, Signal Hill in St. John's, and several other sites near the city. Stone was also brought in from Galway and Dublin, shipped directly from Ireland. All of the work was done voluntarily by men and women of the local community. The Basilica stands as a landmark in St. John's, high on the hill overlooking St. John's Harbour. It is a beacon for all those who enter our port city, and it is a testament to the Catholic church and the Catholic faith in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has elapsed

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SKINNER: I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize a resident from my district who was recently honoured for her contributions to improving the quality of life for Aboriginal women in Canada.

On Tuesday, November 15, Erica Samms-Hurley of Mount Moriah received the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case. She received the award for her work promoting health among the Aboriginal population, especially among women.

Ms Samms-Hurley, a registered nurse, is one of the four youth members of the Board of Directors of the Native Women's Association of Canada. She has attended the federal government's Canada Aboriginal roundtable discussion-health sectoral, sat the National Aboriginal Health Organization's Board for a period of time, has been involved with the National Aboriginal Youth Awards and the National Aboriginal Organization's Youth Committee.

At present, Ms Samms-Hurley is involved with the health and communications portfolio for the NWAC's Youth Council and ensures issues affecting youth are brought to the forefront by the NWAC. Her priorities include challenging The Indian Act and Bill C-13 and working with the Coalition for the Stolen Sisters which NWAC has spearheaded to deal with issues of missing Aboriginal women across Canada.

Ms Hurley's other achievements include receiving The Native Friendship Award and the NWAC's Corbiere-Lavell/Mary Two Axe Early Student Scholarship.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Ms Samms-Hurley on her achievement and her continued dedication and commitment to Aboriginal people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding bravery of a young man from my District of Burin-Placentia West. Sapper Perry Rideout is, as I speak, in Pakistan working to help those in need after the devastating earthquake that hit the region this fall. Mr. Rideout is a member of the combat engineering squadron assigned to the Canadian Forces Disaster Response Team, otherwise known as DART.

The first role of DART is to provide water purification so that people of Pakistan will have clean drinking water. But they also provide a bridge to other government and non-government organizations to set up the groundwork for continued aid in the region.

Mr. Speaker, Sapper Rideout has been enjoying his military career for three-and-a-half years now. Having served in Afghanistan and Haiti before embarking on his present task, he says he loves his work.

The son of Hilary and Shirley Rideout of Marystown, Perry has and is certainly making us all proud and is looking forward to being home for Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to please join me in extending appreciation to Sapper Perry Rideout and all our Canadian Military Forces for their continued bravery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 26, I had the privilege of attending the Annual Lions Club Charter Night in Harbour Breton. This year the club reached a milestone as they celebrated their fortieth year of Lionism in the community.

The international theme for the Lions Club is: We Serve. In a community that is seeing difficult economic and social conditions, the Lions are fulfilling their commitment as they support, care and serve the residents of Harbour Breton. Although many of the local Lions are facing their own financial and social hardships, they never turn away from their volunteer effort to support all those around them. I congratulate each and every one of them on their individual commitments to their Club.

Mr. Speaker, the Lions Club of Harbour Breton, through volunteer efforts, has been making a difference in Harbour Breton for the last forty years. They continue to support those with emergency financial needs, celebrate with the seniors on special occasions, financially support local schools and coordinate the annual Santa Claus Parade, just to name a few of their interests. Larger projects for the Club includes the operation of the local ambulance service, operate an accommodations complex for seniors and maintain the children's playground in the community. It is important to note, that the presence of a strong Lioness Club assist the Lions Club in making these projects a success.

Mr. Speaker, I must recognize Lion Leo Martin, a charter member of the Harbour Breton Lions Club. Leo shared in the anniversary celebrations and has been an active member of the Club since its inception forty years ago.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating current President Gerome Stoodley and all members of the Harbour Breton Lions Club on their many accomplishments over the past forty years and best wishes for much success into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Mr. Reg Hancock, a public servant in my district, who recently received the 2004 Public Service Award of Excellence at a formal awards ceremony held here in St. John's on September 20.

This award recognizes individuals and teams in the provincial public service who have demonstrated exceptional performance and have positively impacted the quality of the work environment, or the quality of service delivery to clients in the areas of leadership, valuing people and innovation. Mr. Hancock, who is employed with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development in Forteau, was one of seven provincial winners.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues today to join with me in congratulating Mr. Hancock for this well-deserved recognition for his dedication and his commitment to the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mr. William Stuckless on receiving a Provincial Long-Service Award for forty years with the Badger Volunteer Fire Department. Now, that says a lot about commitment, doesn't it, forty years of volunteer service.

It was an honour for me to present this award to Mr. Stuckless during the first firefighters' ball since the 2003 flood. As well, I was delighted to congratulate members of the Badger Volunteer Fire Department for their dedicated service, including retiring fire chief Harry Noel, who spent twenty-four years with the volunteer fire department and ten of those as fire chief.

Mr. Speaker, this event was a time for all involved to get back into the swing of things. The anticipation for the Badger Volunteer Fire Department to get into their new hall, get organized and get back into a regular routine was obvious. This banquet gave the firefighters an opportunity to thank many groups, individuals and businesses who helped the department out during the flood.

Mr. Bill Stuckless was also represented with a Special Federal Service Award for his outstanding volunteer service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in recognizing Mr William Stuckless on these outstanding service awards to his community, region and Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today in recognition of World AIDS Day. On this day each year, Mr. Speaker, we are united in our support for the individuals, families and communities affected by HIV or AIDS.

The theme for World AIDS Day 2005 is: Wise up and wear it. It encourages us all to wear a red ribbon as a sign of support for people living with HIV and a symbol of hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, HIV is one of the biggest social, economic and health challenges in the world, with over 40 million people in the world living with HIV or AIDS. Everyday in Canada, eleven people are newly infected with HIV, reinforcing the need for ongoing HIV prevention.

Mr. Speaker, government is proud to support the efforts of the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador in its efforts to support those individuals infected with HIV/AIDS, prevent the spread of new infection through education, network with other groups working in AIDS related areas, and to advocate for social and political change.

As part of our commitment to engaging in preventative programming, our government recently provided the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador with $50,000 to support a Needle Exchange Program. The program, titled Safe Works Access Program, provides services and information needed to help prevent HIV and Hepatitis B and C being transmitted from one infected person to another through shared needles and other injection equipment.

Mr. Speaker, stigma and discrimination are major obstacles to effective HIV/AIDS prevention and care. Fear of discrimination prevents people from seeking testing or treatment, or from acknowledging or dealing with their HIV status. Throughout his battle with this disease, Tommy Sexton continued to strive to eliminate the stigma and discrimination surrounding this disease. By confronting this stigma, as Tommy did, we can encourage individuals to join the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, each year we celebrate Tommy Sexton's legacy in AIDS awareness in our Province at the annual Tommy Sexton Benefit Concert. This annual fundraiser, organized by the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Tommy Sexton Foundation, raises money to support people living with HIV/AIDS across the Province. This year's event will be held Saturday, December 10, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Masonic Temple in St. John's, and I encourage my colleagues and members of the public to support this worthwhile cause.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me in wearing a red ribbon today in support of those living with AIDS, and in the hope that one day there will be a cure for this disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We are pleased to recognize and honour World AIDS Day, and we would be pleased to wear the red ribbon as part of the campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I think that AIDS is an issue and a disease in our Province that quite often we do not always recognize and promote and educate people as much as we should.

There was an era where we went through a great deal of promotion in education, but it seems as a society we have been lax in latter years. It is always good when you see more and more support for things like the Tommy Sexton Centre. I know that Our Divas Do Broadway charity this year donated a substantial amount of money to that particular cause. I also know that the programs that support the prevention of AIDS are also very important.

I want to acknowledge today and congratulate the minister for the $50,000 for the Needle Exchange Program, because that outreach service that is being provided in our city is a valuable service. I think in the last two years the people at that centre will tell you that the numbers have grown. The number of people who come there to look for needle exchange is growing, because of education and awareness, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important that we support those outreach initiatives that go and lend themselves to preventing diseases such as this within our Province and in our country.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be associated with this today, and we certainly congratulate the government for the money they are putting forward as part of the Needle Exchange Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Christmas Lights Across Canada is a national celebration as the national and provincial capitals turn on their Christmas lights on the same day. Newfoundland and Labrador, being the most easterly Province, is usually the first to turn on its Christmas lights each year.

Mr. Speaker, this event originated in 1986 and has been held in this Province since 1987. This year's display includes approximately 51,000 lights on Confederation Hill and along Prince Philip Parkway, as well as six billboards depicting Christmas scenes. The tree that will be illuminated this evening in front of Confederation Building came from Salmonier Line.

Our display includes thirteen trees with white lights as a symbol of our country's thirteen provinces and territories. The large main tree containing multi-color lights is a symbol of the diversity of the nation.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the event is to instill a sense of pride and co-operation among Canadians through the display of colourful Christmas lights to kick off the holiday season. Tonight, hundreds of thousands of lights will be illuminated across the country, a symbolic tradition that joins all Canadians.

The event kicks off with Christmas carols by the St. Bonaventure College Primary Choir, with further musical entertainment provided by the Salvation Army Citadel Band. It is my pleasure to join with my son Nicolas in throwing the switch to light the tree in front of Confederation Building at about 6:45 p.m.

Local entertainer Kelly-Ann Evans will be the Master of Ceremonies. Refreshments will be available afterwards in the main lobby. I encourage everyone to attend this evening's celebrations as we kick off the holiday season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of the release. We, too, on this side, would love to partake in such a national celebration. It is a celebration for all across Canada, and for all of us to help bring Christmas back into our lives and into our spirit. As we notice here, the multi-coloured lights recognizes the symbol of the diversity of the nation, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, we ourselves are becoming much more multi-cultured than before.

I say to the minister, I just hope - Nicholas is going to join you, your eight-year-old son is going to turn on the lights and to make sure you are going to do it right, is that Santa gives him an extra gift for doing it, to make sure that the lights are turned on properly and in time. So, Nicholas, you will be getting an extra gift from Santa.

This is also a time for us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to be thankful for everything that we have. It is also a time for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to remember the less fortunate, for which we are very famous for.

So, congratulations to all the provinces who are going to be celebrating all across Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the people of Fortune and surrounding communities are in shock today following a meeting that took place yesterday between the Concerned Citizens Committee and Fishery Products International. The Mayor of Fortune is adamant that the committee was told that with or without an Income Trust, FPI would not be proceeding with a secondary processing plant in Fortune.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries or, I guess, in this case, his alternate: Was the government aware of this decision by FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, in our debate back in June there was a substantial piece of the debate on whether FPI should be allowed to go forward with their Income Trust, were commitments made to communities throughout the Province. Of course, Mr. Speaker, with the suspension of activity, as it related to the Income Trust, there became some concern about whether or not those commitments would be honoured. At this point, all I can say, based on information from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and from the company and from the minister, is that the internal review of FPI is continuing and a final decision on the status of Fortune and other facilities will be made once that internal review is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the company even gave the reason at the meeting why they were not proceeding with the processing plant in Fortune. They said that because of the delay in establishing an Income Trust, FPI lost the opportunity to buy three marketing companies it wanted in the U.S. Mayor Noseworthy did not make that up. I mean, that was said at the meeting. According to the mayor, the FPI officials at the meeting said without these companies, FPI would not proceed with a secondary processing plant in Fortune because it did not have the markets for additional products and that FPI's secondary plants in Burin and Danvers, Massachusetts are not working at full capacity.

I ask the minister: Where you aware of FPI's plans to purchase these companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, we were aware that FPI did want to pursue consolidation of seafood marketing opportunities in the U.S. market. I think that was well known and well articulated by FPI at the time. We talked about it here in debate in the House of Assembly last spring.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to whether or not FPI have given up on those acquisitions that they had been planning on pursuing back last spring. I think it is fair to point out that the decision that was made by the federal government to review Income Trust and the taxation implications associated with that, caused a substantial delay. As well, Mr. Speaker, just trying to finalize the contract between FPI and the government to allow the Income Trust to proceed, to allow the FPI Act amendments to be proclaimed, caused delays. Right now, obviously the federal government have changed their mind on the Income Trust and, Mr. Speaker, we will see after the internal review is done how FPI plans on proceeding. Hopefully, they will find a way of moving forward and constructing the facilities that they have indicated that they would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the company knew the situation in Burin and Danvers when they made the commitment to establish a secondary processing plant in Fortune. It now appears that that was just an empty promise made to get an agreement with respect to an Income Trust. We know the company delayed its plans for an Income Trust, apart from what the federal government did. We know the company had time to put in place that Income Trust but they decided to delay it. The question is, whether that was part of the overall plan.

Minister, this is one company in the U.K. that FPI has purchased; three in the U.S. that they were planning to purchase. Are you away of any other companies that FPI plan to purchase outside of the Province with an Income Trust?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all for the record, to get the facts straight, I was not aware, and we were not aware, of what companies FPI might be considering -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we were aware that they were looking at companies in the U.S. and that they were looking at companies in Europe, in the U.K.. In order to enable them to do that - I say, we spent eighteen months asking questions on this issue, and part of the reason why the Income Trust transaction did not go ahead, prior to the federal government making their decisions, is because we wanted to nail down the commitments that FPI made to us last spring in advance of the vote in this Legislature on amendments to the FPI Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, until the contract is finalized, no matter what the federal government does on Income Trust, no matter what happens with FPI, until the contract is finalized between FPI and the government on the undertakings that they provided to us in advance of the vote in June, there will not be permission given to FPI. The act will not be proclaimed and FPI will be able to go forward with an Income Trust.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is a part of the problem. You probably should not have stopped asking questions, in light of what happened yesterday and the commitment to Fortune now being off the table.

I ask the minister about their plans to invest in the Province. Did you ask about that? Did you ensure with all this money they were looking to spend outside of the Province to buy companies, did they have money put aside, in fact? Did they plan on investing in Fortune and Harbour Breton and Bonavista?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where the member is coming from on her questions. The fact of the matter is, in the House of Assembly last spring in June - I guess it was summer, in late June - we had a debate about the FPI Act, about the Income Trust transaction, and it was clearly identified, the commitments that were made and the monies associated with those commitments for the development in Fortune, for Bonavista, for payment to the people in Harbour Breton and so on and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, all she has to do is go back to Hansard from June. She will find the answer to all of those questions. It was well laid out that if the Income Trust transaction proceeded and they raised the type of money that they were talking about, or whether they raised the type of money they were talking about or not, if the Income Trust transaction took place and 40 per cent of their marketing arm was sold, Mr. Speaker, in an Income Trust, then the funds from that would fund the developments in Fortune, Bonavista, et cetera, et cetera. Now, if the Income Trust does not go ahead, obviously, we all know the answers to the questions that she has posed, then things cannot happen in the absence of the money. The undertakings were based on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the plans were not laid out well enough to get the Premier's support of the day, even though we have members in government who did support the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what FPI is doing to the people of this Province is criminal. Criminal! They are playing games with people's lives. In fact, I am told that at the meeting with the Concerned Citizens Committee not only did the company say there wouldn't be a secondary processing plant going in Fortune, they said there would be no FPI plant operating in Fortune. The statement was made, that if someone was interested in making a good offer to buy the plant FPI would examine it. That wasn't comforting news for the people of Fortune and I am sure it isn't comforting for the people of Bonavista.

I ask the minister: Is the government aware that FPI is willing to sell its fish plants in the Province if the price is right?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that here we are now, on the 1st of December, and the vote took place on the income trust and the amendments to the FPI Act in late June, I believe it was the 25th of June, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Speaker, the member who is asking the questions of the government and me, today, about what is happening with the income trust and Fortune and all other places, fair enough, but she needs to be reminded that she was part of the debate, they were part of the debate, it was an open and free vote, and she voted to allow the income trust transaction to go forward, to allow the FPI Act to be amended, just the same as I did. That is the fact. I stand by my decision on that day, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of issues that took place since then, a number of developments, including an action by the federal government, including deterioration in income trust in the country, in North America generally, Mr. Speaker, affecting more than just fish companies, by the way, affecting one fish company in New Brunswick that is long established in an income trust, Connors Brothers. Mr. Speaker, those are the fact.

As for what is happening in Fortune and the other communities, we will hold FPI to their undertaking -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I voted for an income trust because it was a promise to build a secondary processing facility in Fortune, and the member knows that.

When the former Minister of Fisheries was in Opposition he said, and I quote: It looks like the new management of FPI has a thing or two to learn about building that sense of trust and good will in the communities in which is operates. That was a quote you made, Sir, in the Western Star in December of 2001. Obviously, they didn't learn the lesson, and today the company is not only riding roughshod over its employees but over this government, and the government is allowing it to happen.

I ask you minister: Given your own words and this latest incident with FPI, when will this government do the right thing and agree to the request from the Opposition for a public enquiry into the management and operations of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my comments from December of 2001 were shared, and that view was shared, by our government. That is why we spent the time, why we took the time, and why we negotiated so long with FPI and the management of FPI and the board of FPI, before we agreed to even bring legislation to the House to amend the FPI Act. Had that Opposition, when they were government, taken half the time to ask half the questions that we asked over the last year-and-a-half of the company, maybe things would have been different in 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if that government had talked to FPI to make sure that it lived up to its commitments, the people in Fortune would not be in shock today.

The internal review being carried out by FPI can only spell trouble in this Province. It should be obvious to anyone that the outcome will mean fewer fish plants and fewer jobs.

Minister, why is this government turning a blind eye to the hardship that FPI is causing their employees and the communities, especially in rural Newfoundland?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier - I will say it again - before the FPI Act is proclaimed, before any latitude is given to FPI to be able to move forward with an income trust, whether they want to or not, they will have to sign a contract with the government reflecting the undertakings and the commitments that they provided to government, to communities, to members on this side of the House, to members on that side of the House, last spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is it, full stop. There will not be a proclamation of the amendments to the FPI Act. There will not be an income trust. There will not be a sale of 40 per cent of the U.S. marketing arm. There will not be any changes in that order until the contract is signed and the undertakings that were provided are lived up to. That is the government's position. It was the government's position in June, it is the government's position today, and it will be the government's position going forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to everyone - except for this government, it appears - that FPI has lost the right to operate in this Province. It was established with the support of taxpayers in this Province to create employment opportunities for our people.

With the amendments to the FPI Act, the government will lose all authority it has. I am asking the minister to speak to the Premier and your government to make sure that the amendments do not happen and that you come back to this House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - that you come back to this House of Assembly so we all have an opportunity to make sure that FPI lives up to its commitments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what can you say?

The question that was asked has already been answered on about five occasions in this Question Period, Mr. Speaker, besides all the other times that they have been answered inside and outside this House over the past couple of weeks and the past number of months, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there is an internal review going on at FPI. Government is going to be engaged; the union is going to be engaged

I assume, given that the member was a minister in government, given that she sat in government for quite a period of time, she would know that until the act is proclaimed, no matter what we debated and agreed to in June, it is irrelevant until it becomes proclaimed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I would like to know: Why wasn't Route 516, the section of the Labrador Highway from Happy Valley-Goose Bay intersection to the Town of Cartwright, not included in the Trans-Canada Highway designation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, that highway is not built. Right now the Trans-Labrador Highway, as it exists, the Northern Peninsula Highway from Deer Lake to St. Barbe, has been included in the National Highway System, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when it is done -

AN HON. MEMBER: That has been built for ages!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the Trans-Canada has been built for ages. I believe the saying was, "Finish The Drive In Sixty-Five", with Lester B. Pearson, if I am not mistaken, so it has been built that long, and that is part of the National Highway System, Mr. Speaker. Is he suggesting that once we build a highway we pull it out of the National Highway System?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the Trans-Labrador Highway is a part of the National Highway System. The Northern Peninsula Highway is part of the National Highway System. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, now that there is a federal election on the go, that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair would join us in trying to get the federal government to commit funding (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: I say to the hon. minister, he is on the wrong road. He is on the wrong road all together. Route 516, Minister, is the road from the Goose Bay intersection going into Cartwright, ninety kilometres of road, built and opened in 2001, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I would like to ask him now: Why wasn't that section of road designated as part of the Trans-Canada Highway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question about the road from Goose Bay to Cartwright.

MS JONES: Goose Bay intersection to Cartwright.

MR. TAYLOR: Goose Bay intersection to -

MS JONES: (Inaudible) intersection is ninety kilometres (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, she is going to have to explain herself better and maybe I can give her answer, because I am not sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: In all fairness, I will try and give the member an answer. I am just not clear as to the piece of highway that she is talking about, Mr. Speaker, when she says from Goose Bay intersection into Cartwright.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, I know the one you are talking about. I am sorry. I got it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: See? I try to give answers so I have to understand the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is basically the same, as I understand it, as the piece of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: It is basically the same, Mr. Speaker, as the piece of highway on the Northern Peninsula -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if they want an answer, I would appreciate if they would quiet down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The minister is giving an answer. I ask members for their co-operation.

I ask the minister, if he has any concluding comments, if he could make them rather quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the best way to put it, Mr. Speaker, is that there is criteria established that highways must be able to meet in order to be included in the National Highway System, very much similar to the piece of Route 430 from St. Barbe intersection to St. Anthony that is not included in the National Highway System. It is not included because it is not a piece, as I understand it - this is one of the criteria that had to be met - of an interprovincial road. It is not an interprovincial link, as I understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, I know, don't worry.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's been down that road before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Is it true the former minister, the Member for Lewisporte, traded off this section of road, 516, to ensure that the section of highway from Notre Dame Junction to the port of Lewisporte was designated as part of the Trans-Canada Highway system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain - I am certain - that there is no trading off of anything as it relates to roads. The bottom line is, the minister of the day went into the negotiation with the sole objective of getting as much of the main trunk roads, the interprovincial roads in this Province, as possible included in the National Highway System so that we could qualify for 50-50 funding.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it really, in some respects, is irrelevant because it comes down to how much money we get in cost-shared funding from the federal government to enable us to spend on the Trans-Canada Highway, the Northern Peninsula Highway and the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is essentially where it is, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, there is no additional funding associated with the increased kilometres that are now included in the national highway system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the section of highway from Norte Dame junction to the port in Lewisporte, I will say to the minister, was designated because it was used as a bargaining chip for marine service into Labrador.

Now, I would like to know: Why was Route 516 from the highway to the Port of Cartwright not designated, was it because the minister traded it off for the road in his own district or was it because they never even put it on the table for negotiation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the member might want to ask her federal colleagues, her federal counterparts, Mr. Speaker, why they would not accept more of these roads. If the issue is 516 from the Goose Bay intersection into Cartwright, Mr. Speaker, maybe she should ask her federal counterparts why they would not accept it. I am sure that we would dearly love to have it included. The more road that we can get under the national highway system, the better.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, right now, as we speak, there is no additional funding associated with this increase in kilometres. Right now, if we want to do anything in Southern Labrador, in her district to upgrade the road through L'Anse-au-Loup, for example, or the Northern Peninsula Highway from Portland Creek to Parsons Pond, we have to fund it solely out of our provincial roads budget, Mr. Speaker. That is why I asked her to call on her federal colleagues to join us in 50-50 cost sharing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he got the right road but he still don't have the right information.

Let me tell him this. Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Lewisporte, sat at a chamber dinner in Lewisporte, just a few weeks ago, he said that the Premier knew he would take some abuse for ignoring the recommendations in a report of Labrador marine services but he said he did not care because he wanted to ensure that the business community in Central Newfoundland benefited. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a road designated in his own district as part of the Trans-Canada Highway to service Labrador.

So, when will this government act on the transportation issues to benefit the business community in Labrador for a change, I say to the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what she is chasing. The bottom line is, no matter what happened on the Lewisporte road, the fact of the matter is, if we want to do anything with the Lewisporte road today, it has to come 100 per cent out of the provincial roads budget. It cannot, will not, come out of 50-50 funding because there is no 50-50 funding available for it.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, no matter what roads - I do not care what roads we get in the Province as long as we have enough of them designated as part of the national highway system. That will, at the end of the day, free up more of our provincial roads budget to do, for example, the road from Cartwright out to the Goose Bay intersection. At the end of the day, that is what is important. The volume of highway that is under the national highway system and the amount of money associated with that and the amount of money that is in the provincial roads budget is what is important at the end of the day, and how it is spent and make sure it is spent wisely, unlike it was in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I will not sit down. This is a serious issue here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we hear about the cruel and inhumane practice of moving seniors with very little notice, if any, to other parts of the region. Recommendation 172 of the Hay Report. Recommendations 170 and 171: discontinuance of elective deliveries at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital and discontinuance of elective surgery requiring general or regional anaesthesia were cancelled and announced by the minister for Stephenville here in this House. The cost savings that was attached to these recommendations was $215,000. The Member for Stephenville East made the announcement.

I ask the regional minister for Corner Brook, the Member for Humber East, will you now stand up and be accounted and announce an end to this inhumane treatment of our seniors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about health care in the Western Region of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the problem that the hon. member complains about is the fact that there are not enough long-term care beds in Corner Brook. That is because, many years ago, that government did not listen to the advice given by the long-term care committee and Mr. Israel Hann, that there was going to be a need for long-term care beds in Corner Brook. If they had shown some vision and had shown some leadership and had taken action, there would be long-term care beds in Corner Brook today and there would be no problem today. So, we are building a long-term care facility in Corner Brook. It is being built as we speak, along with a new high school and along with the MRI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister once again, you have no idea. There are two wings in that hospital not open. The Minister of Justice has told people to give him until Friday to try to get this resolved. From his own mouth, that is what he told people.

The moving of patients to another area was a direct result of surgeries and elective deliveries being moved to Corner Brook from the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital. These recommendations were cancelled last year by the Member for Stephenville East. Will the Minister of Justice admit that this move is nothing more than a cost-saving directive, and will he now ensure that funds are made available to keep these seniors near their spouses and families?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises issues that have been raised Monday and Tuesday of this week, and again Thursday. This is an issue to protect the interests of patients. It is an issue of patients' safety and patients' interests.

Again - and I repeat, because it is important that the hon. member understand this - it is an important principle and concept in health care, and that is: those individuals who require acute care, who require surgery, who require emergent care, it is critical and essential that they get it, and that is why Western Health has made the decision. As a government, as I indicated two days ago, we support the decision of Western Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I thought I would never say it, but I have the say, the Member for Stephenville East stood up for her people a lot less than the Member for Humber East. I say congratulations, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the minister directly: Would the Minister of Justice and the Member for Humber East now take a stand? You told people to wait until Friday to see if you could get this matter resolved. It is time to be counted; the seniors are depending on you.

Will the minister stand up for the people who elected you and announce a stop to this cruel, unjust and inhumane policy that is continuing every day as we speak?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the hon. member would get up in this House and tell people what I said to somebody else, that I would do, and once again he has it wrong.

MR. JOYCE: Did you say it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Once again, he has it wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is passing.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said in this House, the day before yesterday, that ten beds or eighteen beds had been closed by this government when, in fact, they had been closed ten years ago by that government over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Not only did he get that wrong; he said it was going to take two or three years for a bed to become available for a woman who got moved to Port aux Basques to take advantage of appropriate long-term care.

Mr. Speaker, a bed for a male resident became available yesterday, and this lady and her family have been promised that as soon as a new bed for a female resident becomes available in Corner Brook that woman will get first priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. I ask the minister: Who sits on the joint Board of Directors at the College of the North Atlantic, Qatar Campus, and could the names be provided to this House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are three board members from the Board of Directors who sit on the joint board, and they would be: Allan McKinnon, Andrea Marshall and Al Gosse.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, time for one quick question.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Minister, on December 7, the Public Utilities Board will deal with an issue involving Newfoundland Power, who have $24 million in surplus as a result of a tax settlement. I am wondering if the minister is going to intervene in this application, in addition to the consumer advocate, to ensure that this money is returned to the rate payers of this Province rather than stay in the company coffers? That can help the electricity users in this Province offset their increasing energy costs, as well as what the government is trying to do for the oil burners.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, time for a quick response.

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

A couple of quick points, Mr. Speaker.

This is an issue that the department is very much aware of. We are assessing that right now. As the member knows, and all members should know, the PUB is a sort of quasi-judicial process. Once that assessment is complete, whatever action is appropriate as we decide from government's point of view, we will take it. Once we make a decision on what that action is, we will be informing not only the House but the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 65)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act. (Bill 67)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 68.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow 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 69.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, Bill 66.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 70.

I further give notice, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 72.

Mr. Speaker, I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3 of the Citizen's Representative Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a Resolution of this House of Assembly, by Order in Council dated December 14, 2001, appointed Mr. Fraser March to the office of Citizen's Representative, and

WHEREAS the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, has, in accordance with subsection 7(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act been suspended as the Citizens' Representative, and

WHEREAS section 6 of the Citizens' Representative Act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on a Resolution of this House of Assembly, for cause remove the Citizens' Representative; and

WHEREAS there is cause to remove Mr. March from the office of Citizens' Representative;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by this House of Assembly that Fraser March be removed from the office of Citizens' Representative.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district as it relates to the community of Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, this is a road that is not yet built, and that is why I am standing here on a petition today.

The community of Williams Harbour, Mr. Speaker, is only twenty-two to twenty-three kilometers from the main highway in Labrador. These people have been lobbying for a road connection for the last number of years. In fact, in 2003 there was a commitment from the government to build this section of road, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that all the engineering work was completed, all the routing was completed, and it was registered and looked at under an environmental assessment. Mr. Speaker, the only thing left to do was to tender and build the road into this community. Unfortunately, when the new government took office in the fall of 2003 they put this section of road on hold and evidently, six months later, cancelled it altogether.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is still a priority for the people of this community. In fact, they live in an isolated region. They have to travel outside of their community for postal services, for medical services, for all transportation access and, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair and unreasonable that they would be left without any road connection at this stage.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous Minister of Transportation once said to me that you cannot build roads where it is not economically feasible to do so. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the lamest, most pitiful excuse I had ever heard in my life, because if you were to go around this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, from one end to the other, there are very few sections of road that was ever feasible to build, or economically feasible. Most of the roads that were built in Newfoundland and Labrador, were built to improve the quality of life for the people who lived in certain areas, and in particular, communities. That is all we are asking for in this case.

Mr. Speaker, Williams Harbour is now designated - Gilbert Bay, right adjacent to it - as a marine protected area; one of only four marine protected areas in all of our country. It is a haven for the scientific and biological community that looks at fish habitat, especially as it relates to codfish. It will be world renown right throughout the North Atlantic rim as an area for research and study. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we be able to open up this area, not just for the people who live in the region but also to those people, the academics and the science community who want to access this renown site and be able to research and do work there.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I know the people who live in this community. I have known them for a very long time and it always makes me heartfelt, Mr. Speaker, when I know in the spring of the year, when this community is going through an ice breakup and how dangerous it is to travel over the ice to access these services. In fact, two of my good friends, last year went through the ice coming out of the community of Williams Harbour. They were so lucky that they even survived that accident. This will give you an idea of how distressful -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time for her petition has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, (inaudible) just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted to make some concluding comments.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it was actually a miracle that they survived this accident of going through the ice. We have had a number of people, some who were not as successful, I say to hon. members, who actually lost their lives in that area. I think it is time for government to seriously have a look at this, and not look at it based on the economic viability of it but look at it on the basis of providing a quality of life and access to another community in our Province that can be done, I say, at a very fair and reasonable cost. I would like to submit this petition to the government on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

We will begin with Order 7, the continuing debate on second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No2. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Order 7, Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2. I do believe that at the end of the last day the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was standing in the House at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: In fairness, if the minister speaks he closes the debate. I do remember that the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was standing when the House adjourned for the afternoon.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the bill on Income Trust. Unfortunately, I was going to rise on the last day of the House, but I think we were concluding our debate for that day.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of issues that I wanted to talk about. Actually, it was in response to some issues that were raised by my colleague, the Member for Lake Melville, on that particular day.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in Labrador there is no secret. There has been a great deal of frustration as it relates to government and as it relates to government services. The people in that area, the only thing that they were asking for was to have fair investment and fair consideration given to their issues.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at the Lower Churchill development project because I think that is probably one of the largest developments to have occurred in Labrador in some time and it is probably, hopefully, not the last large development but in terms of the energy sector, it is very substantial. Mr. Speaker, whenever you are looking at over 3,000 megawatts of power for development to be exported into the North American market, it cannot be done and should not be done without ensuring that there is a power availability to all the communities in that particular region.

Mr. Speaker, my district is one of the regions in Labrador right now that is going without the full availability of power; and, in addition to that, they do not have affordable power. They pay the highest price for electricity than almost anywhere in this country, I say to hon. members, and that is unfortunate. So, whenever we talk about developing hydro development power in this Province, and we talk about being a Province of the country that could be the largest broker of power into the North America market, Mr. Speaker, we have to do it in the context of ensuring that the communities and the people in the Labrador region are going to be looked after and they are going to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, we had a public session in Goose Bay with the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources and others just a few weeks ago, and I was really proud of the people of Labrador who went to the microphone that evening, because - do you know something? - they did not go there to play politics. They went there because they were desperately seeking inclusion in a major development project in their territory. They went there because they want to see improvements in infrastructure in their communities and they were willing to give their input, to be logical and sensible in putting forward their ideas. Mr. Speaker, I was really proud of them. I thought they had gotten their message out, and they had gotten it out loud and clear.

We will have to see what transpires on this particular issue, and I think we will have to watch very closely to see how the Aboriginal people of Labrador are going to be included in all of this, especially the Metis people who, as you know, comprise a large portion of my district. Mr. Speaker, they feel they have a very legitimate right and a legitimate claim in this area where the hydro development project is being proposed. Therefore, they feel they have a right to be included in meaningful dialogue with the government. I can only say to the government and to the minister, I hope they will be included in meaningful dialogue and I hope their issues and their ideas and their proposals will be given full consideration as this particular development transpires and discussions move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the good news announcement last week. My federal colleague, the Member of Parliament for Labrador, was in Goose Bay last week with some good news announcements, and I know that a lot of people, including the media, sometimes, will say that all of this is just because there is an election on the horizon. Well, I beg to differ, because what I saw last week was a substantial investment into the long-term viability of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

I listened to the Member for Lake Melville speak a few days ago, and he did not speak with much optimism over the investments that were going into his district, which actually surprised me. What I will say is this: he got up and talked about how the government had been active on the 5 Wing file. Well, I think differently. The only thing I saw coming out of the government opposite when it came to 5 Wing Goose Bay was the fact that they travelled over to Germany, across Europe, met with a bunch of commanders of the military forces, and talked to some of the people who were involved with international affairs. Now, did that transpire into hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for the base at Goose Bay? Absolutely not.

Only a few days ago, right before the announcement, I heard the member when he stood up and said he was going to keep the federal MPs feet to the fire on 5 Wing Goose Bay. There is nothing wrong with that, but when there is an issue like this, with a substantial announcement, with substantial investment, well, don't be looking at the doom and gloom around it, I say to the hon. member, just because it did not come from your government or your side of the House. In fact, what happened was that there was a five-year renewal agreement on the base in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was an opportunity to bring the allied countries back into full operation at 5 Wing Goose Bay - the Germans, the Italians, the British - and to be able to go out and market it. There was a $5 million marketing program.

I say to the members opposite, in fact, if you really want to do something for 5 Wing Goose Bay, you would have put a marketing program in place two years ago. Two years ago there would have been a provincial marketing arm at $5 million up there, to be able to go out and promote and sell the services of the base, but that did not happen. It was the jolly rancher trip to Europe, and that was the end of it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a marketing division that is going to be created, and these people will go out and solicit not just foreign military operations for the base but also other uses for that particular base.

In addition to that, there was $30 million of new investments for (inaudible) and other equipment at the base. There was a $20 million economic development fund.

I would like to say this because the Minister of Natural Resources, twice in the last week, stood up and quoted some comments that I made on VOCM with regard to the Abitibi mill in Stephenville. Well, Mr. Speaker, do you know what made me so upset about the proposed agreement with Abitibi? Not because the people in Stephenville were going to get a $15 million investment a year to keep an economic activity going in their community. What upset me, Mr. Speaker, was that I live in a region where there is a base like there is in Goose Bay, where I watch 1,000 people, almost, exit the community because of job loss, without any investment from the government opposite, without any millions of dollars a year to keep that economic base going. That was what I was upset about. I was upset because I had a district with over 400 fishery-related workers this year put out of work the end of June, with what? Not even a frivolous comment from the Minister of Fisheries, I say to members opposite. It went completely unnoticed, unacknowledged -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: The only reason it was unacknowledged, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - was simply because to acknowledge it meant you had to deal with it, I say to the hon. members. That was the only reason.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I was upset - upset because I had over 400 people out of work in my district, hunting around for jobs, trying to grab on to whatever they could get to keep their families and to keep their homes going - but nobody came into my district and said: Here are millions of dollars. Go and prop up the workforce. Go and save the industry.

That was the reason I was upset. If the hon. minister, when he stands up, wants to misinterpret my comments as being non-supportive of an offer to Abitibi in Stephenville, well, he can interpret it that way. All I am saying is, if the shoe fits one it should fit all the people in the Province. If one can wear it, everybody should wear it, I am saying to you. If there are 1,000 jobs going in one community, or 500 or 400, they are as important as the jobs that are going to be lost in another community.

Mr. Speaker, it was the federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Martin that gave the new lease on life to 5 Wing Goose Bay, not the members opposite, not the Premier who was all over the file two years ago and did absolutely nothing. It was the federal Liberal government that came in at the end of the day and put the money in to prop up the base in Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, there were other announcements, and one of those I want to talk about. Well, actually, I am going to talk about two of them. One of them I want to talk about was the $96 million investment into the Canadian Coast Guard, the Coast Guard presence in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I met this morning, along with a delegation from my district, with the Canadian Coast Guard. That is a good investment in Labrador. It will involve transferring surveillance services to a Labrador based operation through air surveillance. It will also include refitting a coastguard ship to be based in Labrador come this spring. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this initiative will create seventy new jobs in the Labrador region. To me, that is more jobs that I have seen created by this government opposite in the whole Province in the last two years. Let me point that out, Mr. Speaker: Seventy jobs being created as part of this one initiative, and Labradorians, they assured us this morning, would be given priority for those particular jobs in that particular region. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there will be eight new conservation and protection officers through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that is going to be based there.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is thank God the federal Liberal government is investing in these rural areas of our Province, because the government opposite is certainly not doing so. In fact, all I have seen in my district has been services disappearing, HRE offices closing, transportation workers laid off - that is what I have been seeing, Mr. Speaker - and fish plants workers displaced with no compensation programs. That is the kind of stuff I have seen, seeing marine services taken out of my own district and put into Lewisporte to service Labrador. Those were the kinds of initiatives I saw by the government opposite.

When my colleague from Labrador stands in the House and pats himself on the back for all the great things they are doing, he needs to back it up with some information, because I guarantee you, I have not seen it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the tourism industry decline by over 40 per cent, I have seen retail sales in my district down, I have seen profitable businesses become non-profitable, I say to the members opposite, and I have seen a real slowing of the economy, simply because of changes in tourism, in the fishery and in the forestry development sectors.

How do we change that, Mr. Speaker? We want to change that, we want to change it around, we want to see it grow, we want to see industry created, we want to see people working. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? The only way that can happen is if there is a will of the provincial government to make it happen.

We talked about roads today. Now, the minister didn't get the road right, but I think he figured it out after. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, if the highways to these communities are not designated as part of the Trans-Canada Highway system, then you cannot even apply for the money, you cannot even make an application to get the money to upgrade and pave these particular roads. The real initiative, I say, has to come from the government of the Province, and if they are not prepared and they do not have the will to ensure the survival of these communities, to ensure that they are economically viable, that they can grow, that they can build industry, then, Mr. Speaker, it cannot happen. It cannot happen.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, there is a willingness on the part of some members within the government to do the best that they can, and I will acknowledge that. I will stand and acknowledge that, that there are some ministers on that side of the House who will go above and beyond to do what they can to help a community, to help a region. But, Mr. Speaker, they are not all like that. I have been evidence of it. I have been on the receiving end of it, Mr. Speaker, when the previous Minister of Transportation hauled the ferries right out of my district and docked them in his own, and taking with them millions of dollars in retail sales and millions of dollars in business opportunity. I was on the receiving end of it, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason that I can't stand here today and say that I have the confidence and the faith in all of them to do the right thing. I know that there are some of them who are prepared. I know that there are some of them who are prepared to work. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the tactics that they sometimes choose and the way in which they choose to do it.

I want to talk a little bit about this letter that the Premier sent off to the federal government; sent a copy to all the ministers up in Ottawa the first day of the election. Now, Mr. Speaker, the issues that are contained in this letter are the issues that are of the utmost importance to people in our Province. They are ones that have been on their priority list for months and months and months. When does the Premier send the letter off to Ottawa looking for all the deals? The first day of the election. The first day a federal election is called he walks in and says: Here is my list, now what are you going to give me? Well, Mr. Premier, you should know by now that on the first day of an election the government is dissolved. The government is dissolved. They cannot give you anything. They cannot give you anything, Mr. Premier. Why weren't you at the table seventeen months ago? Why weren't you at the table seventeen months ago on these issues?

Look at this one: "Does your party support the efforts to develop the hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River System...". Mr. Speaker, it was over a year ago that the government opposite went out for a proposal call for interested parties to develop the Lower Churchill project but it took them a year later to put it on a wish list to the federal government. A year later they get it on a wish list to the federal government, a year after they went out and looked for proposals to develop it.

Months after, Mr. Speaker, the government went into Prince Edward Island and invested $40 million into a wind generation project in P.E.I., only a few weeks ago. I would say that is a little bit late in the game for that one. Maybe when Martin forms the government again, then I am sure he will sit down and talk about the Lower Churchill, but it should have been done a long time ago. It should have been on the table a long time ago.

He has the foreign military presence on the base in Goose Bay. What he did not realize, I guess, was they announced the money for it last week. He must have forgotten they had announced the money for it last week to do the base in Goose Bay because they put it in his letter.

Let's talk about the fisheries issues that he put in his letter, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about the fisheries issues; the early retirement program. Mr. Speaker, we have been raising the early retirement program for fishery workers in this Province in the House of Assembly for the past two years. Mr. Speaker, for the past two years - more than that now - we have been asking the government opposite: Go to the feds. Put a proposal on the table for an early retirement program for our fishery workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, do you know when the first piece of written correspondence arrived in Minister Geoff Regan's office looking for a retirement program? Friday. No, or was it Monday morning? He got it on Monday, but it might have arrived on Friday evening. But, Mr. Speaker, he was into a federal election. When the first piece of correspondence for a fisheries retirement package for fishery workers in Newfoundland and Labrador landed on the federal minister's office was this letter from the Premier a couple of days ago, with no detail, four lines - no, actually, two-and-a-half lines requesting an early retirement program.

Well, Mr. Speaker, where were they the last seventeen months? Why didn't they have a proposal, and a comprehensive proposal on the table of the federal government and the federal Fisheries Minister eighteen months ago saying we want to have an early retirement program for fishery workers in our Province? I say, Mr. Speaker, it is too little, it is too late. How do they expect to negotiate a retirement program in the middle of a federal election when the government, in essence, is collapsed and there is no governing party in power at the present time? How do they expect to get a deal negotiated?

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is almost up, and I want to talk about custodial management of the fishery right before I sit down. The custodial management of the fishery has been a priority in this Province for years and years and years. In fact, when I was the minister, it was our number one priority. Members opposite sat on the committee that went to Ottawa to lobby for custodial management of the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. We went collectively, united. My colleagues in the NDP were part of it. What happens? They get an office, they take power, and what happens? They sell out on custodial management.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

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

I will make this very brief.

In my mind, back over a year ago, the provincial government sold out on custodial management. When they were prepared to accept the measures that the federal government was putting in place to curb the offshore fishing issue, Mr. Speaker, that was the day they caved in. They should have stuck to their guns. They should have played hardball, because I really do believe that custodial management is the answer for fishery development in our Province, not only today but for the future.

On that note, I am going to conclude my comments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to this bill, but I guess I really want to speak to what transpired here in the House in Question Period, and this whole idea of the government seeming to be quite accepting of what is happening with FPI and those communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that rely on FPI in terms of employment opportunities, just as a company in a small town makes a difference to the economic base of that community.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, having listened to the answers given by the Acting Minister of Fisheries, or the Minister of Transportation, of course, who is now the alternate for the Minister of Fisheries, that they seem to be quite content with what FPI is doing, and that is what is so sad about this entire situation. While he stands and says, you know, we are going to hold the feet of FPI to the fire to make sure that they live up to their commitments that they were given in exchange for the establishment of an income trust, the reality of the situation is that there is no income trust. We wonder if FPI will ever proceed with an income trust, given where they are today, and the fact of the matter that they are meeting with communities like Fortune, in particular, and telling them that no, they are not going to proceed with the plans that they committed to in exchange for an income trust. Now, how the minister can stand and say he is not aware of that, or he does not know that, is mind-boggling, because you would think, given the importance of this issue to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that the government would be watching very closely what is transpiring within FPI - the whole idea behind this internal review, and what we can expect to come out of that internal review.

I know, without a doubt, having spoken to the Mayor of Fortune, Alec Noseworthy, the comments that were made in that meeting yesterday to the Concerned Citizens Committee left them without a doubt with the understanding that FPI - not only will they not be putting a secondary processing plant in Fortune - they would not be continuing with any plant in Fortune.

The unfortunate thing about that, of course, is that there are several communities that depend on that fish plant. So, it is not just the community of Fortune. You are talking at least half a dozen other communities. The people who work at that fish plant, and the communities where these people live, are really in shock today. They are reeling from the news that there is no future for them based on the information that came from FPI officials yesterday.

Now, I know there was some discrepancy because, after, it was said that the union actually went and met with FPI, and FPI said: No, no, we did not say that. We did not indicate that at all. We said everything was still under review; that no decision had been made.

I heard the Minister of Fisheries say that he had met with FPI and they had told him the same thing. Now, I do not know what happened. I do not know if FPI misspoke. I did not know if they realized after they had said that to the Concerned Citizens Committee that: Oh, wait a minute, we probably should not have said that. It is a little too early to unveil our true plans for Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's try and reel that back in now. We will tell the union what they want to hear, because that way we will not have them out saying there is something wrong with this picture. We will tell the Minister of Fisheries, who is talking to us on behalf of the government, what they want to hear, because we are not ready yet to unveil to the people of the Province what is, in fact, going to come out of our internal review.

It would lead one to believe, watching all of this unfold yesterday, that FPI's master plan is clearly to get out of the groundfish fishery which, of course, the former CEO, Derrick Rowe, said a year ago, but it also means they are not going to live up to the commitments that they gave.

Maybe they do not want an income trust any more. Maybe they are not even going to move forward with an income trust. Maybe the criteria that the federal government has attached to an FPI trust does make it attractive to them any more. Maybe they never intended to run with an income trust. Who knows? All I know is that the message that is coming out of FPI, whether they intended to deliver that message or not, is that there is no future in Fortune for the people there. That, in fact, FPI does not intend to have a presence in Fortune, and that means hundreds of people are going to be out of work, hundreds of families affected, and they are wondering today where they are going to turn and who is telling the truth.

Now, I know Mayor Alex Noseworthy, and I know he did not make up the answer that he gave last night when he spoke on the Open Line show. I talked to him after that. He also tells me that three of the four who were at that meeting had the same understanding when they left the meeting. The fact that FPI even said that they are quite willing to entertain a proposal if anyone is interested in buying the plant, would lead one to believe that it is all part and parcel of the larger plan. Why would FPI say that if, in fact, they were going to proceed with a secondary processing plant in Fortune? It does not make sense. So, for them to turn around and say to the union: No, that is not what we meant. I do not know if they think people are not listening or if they can just ride roughshod over people, like they are obviously doing with this government who is not holding them accountable.

Today I asked the alternate minister to get this government to commit, that before proclaiming the amendments to the FPI Act, that we all voted on here in June - and I was one who voted for the Income Trust, but I did so because it meant a future for the people in my district. Now, what I have asked the minister is - with the government - to bring that back to the House of Assembly. Before the government does anything further with respect to the Income Trust, with respect to proclaiming the amendments, what I have asked is that you bring it back to the House of Assembly.

Now, certainly heavens, the members opposite understand that. When they were in Opposition, no matter what the issue was, if it was Voisey's Bay, bring it to the House of Assembly. Let us debate it. Let us discuss it. That is what I am saying now, and I am saying it because I do not trust the government on this file. It is another file that the Premier has said he is all over it, and we know what happens to the files if the Premier is all over it. They usually do not succeed, and that this one is one that I am fearful we are going to find that FPI is going to again be able to walk away and leave communities in distress, that there are not going to be employment opportunities for people in those communities where FPI traditionally have had fish plants. I have asked the government, bring it back to the House of Assembly. You say that you are looking at it, you are trying to make sure that FPI understands exactly what it is that is expected of them and you are making sure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed before you finalize the whole issue around Income Trust.

Well, I am asking again, contrary to what the minister - when he stood up and obviously was not listening to the question when he said: We are going to make sure that FPI lives up to its commitments with respect to an Income Trust or we will not approve the Income Trust. Well, minister, I am asking you, bring it back to the House of Assembly so we can all look at this and make sure, at the end of the day, we are all comfortable that FPI will do what is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because I can tell you, as the result of what happened yesterday, I have no level of confidence at all, no level of comfort that FPI is interested in doing what is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am saying it again, bring it back to the House of Assembly. You brought it here in June. Now, we had to request a free vote on the matter and we all had that free vote. I am not sure how free it was or exactly what transpired on that day. Some will suggest it was all a scam, given the way some people voted in this House of Assembly and given the fact that, of course, when I introduced a private member's motion calling on the government to conduct a public inquiry into the management and operations of FPI, that those members who voted at the time along with members of the Opposition, with the exception of myself, that those members on the government side who voted against the Income Trust did not stand with us in the Opposition and support a pubic inquiry into the operations and management of FPI. That raises a whole new set of questions. Why, if they did not believe the Income Trust was the right thing to do and that what FPI was proposing around the Income Trust, they had questions with all of that, why then didn't they stand with the Opposition and request, and support the request, for an inquiry into the operations and management of FPI?

There is something not right about what is going on here; whether it is something that the government is doing working with FPI, or whether FPI is just taking advantage and riding roughshod over the government and the government is allowing it to happen. I am not sure what is going down here but I can tell you, there is something going down here that is not right. The unfortunate thing about all of this is that it is the people of Newfoundland who are being adversely affected, the very people who made it possible for FPI to exist, for FPI to exist as a viable company; and, by the way, it is a viable company. FPI is making money, maybe not as much money as they would like to make, or their shareholders would like for them to make. I often ask: How much wealth is enough for shareholders?

There is nothing wrong with profit - profit is not a dirty word - but, how much profit and to whose detriment? I think that is the question we have here today. We need that public inquiry. We need to know exactly what it is that FPI, under this management, is doing; because, whatever they are doing under this management and this board of directors is adversely affecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

FPI was created by taxpayers' dollars, and it was a good investment. It brought together struggling fish companies and we ended up with FPI. It meant that there were employment opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was their money, and so it should be that way. The problem is that this company, this board of directors, seems to have lost sight of the very reason that FPI was created. Maybe they do not care. Maybe they see that as history, and that history is not important, and they are not going to bother to adhere to the type of policies that FPI practiced and enforced when it was first created.

Maybe they decided that the promises and the commitments they gave when they wanted to take over FPI - and I recall very vividly having the discussion at a Cabinet committee meeting, a discussion with some of the members who wanted to be members of the Board of Directors of FPI - their plan was to grow the company, create more employment opportunities, and we were never going to have to look back. We were going to be very proud of what transpired.

Look where we are today. We have a former CEO who said they were getting out of the groundfish industry; there would be no groundfish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. What does that say about Marystown? Apart from Fortune - we know Fortune is closed; they said no groundfish in Fortune, and now they have said no secondary processing - what about Marystown? If we are to believe what Derrick Rowe said, there will not be a groundfish plant in Marystown. What about Bonavista? What about this commitment, this promise, to build a new plant in Bonavista? Now, I know a group from Bonavista met with the officials at FPI. Did they forget to tell them that they were not going to make the investment, that there would not be a new plant built in Bonavista?

I am curious as to how all of this unfolded yesterday, how the officials who were there with the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune managed to let it slip somehow. Maybe the people from Fortune who were there asked the right questions. Maybe it was the questions they asked that got the right answers, answers later that the company tried to retract from when they met with the union.

Again, maybe they told the union what they wanted to hear. Maybe FPI is not ready to deal with more flak because, you know, there will be more flak coming out of an internal review. You know and I know that internal review will result in fewer fish plants and fewer jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe that was the plan all along. Maybe we were all led down the garden path. Maybe, because we wanted to believe so badly in a future for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we wanted to believe the new members of the Board of Directors of FPI were, in fact, going to ensure that the communities in which they exist will continue to flourish. Of course we wanted to believe that. That is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. The fishing industry has been the industry of choice, the mainstay, particularly of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, why is it that, while other companies are doing well, some even expanding - some of the fishing companies doing well and some even expanding - why is it that FPI finds itself in the situation that it is, or says it is? Why is it that, when you come into a company and there is about a $75 million debt there, all of a sudden that grows to close to $300 million? Poor investments? Poor decisions? Isn't that enough to warrant a public inquiry into a company that the government still has some influence over, if it wishes to exercise it?

It is not a private sector company like most other fishing companies. It was created to have a social conscience; and, because we have a piece of legislation that governs FPI, that says it all in terms of what is expected of FPI by the people of this Province and by the government of this Province. What this government has to do is hold FPI accountable, and they have yet to do that. They have yet to do that!

For the company to let slip yesterday, in a conversation with the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune, that they will not be proceeding with a secondary processing plant in Fortune, isn't that enough for this government to say: Well, hold on a second now, there is something not right about this? That wasn't the plan, that wasn't what FPI said when it wanted the income trust created, that wasn't what FPI said when they wanted to loosen the strings, as it were, so that government wouldn't have as much authority over the company. I am sure they would like to be let loose totally to do their thing, but their thing, unfortunately, is going to cause hardship for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and you are going to see communities fall by the wayside as a result of decisions being taken by FPI.

I know, in my own district - you know, if you have a small community and you have half a dozen, ten, a dozen people, working earning a good living at FPI, they contribute to the survival of that community, they spend their money in that community. When that employment opportunity is taken away these people are left with no choice but to leave the Province, and when they do that they leave the communities, they take their families with them, because they have to build a future for themselves and their families elsewhere.

I ask the question again: What is going on here? What is FPI up to? Why isn't the government more concerned about this? I listened to the minister today and he didn't seem at all concerned with what has been said: The only thing we know is what we have been told and that is no decisions have been made. We need to await the outcome of the internal review and then we will make our decisions about what we are going to do. Isn't that a little like closing the gate after the horse has left the barn. Too little, too late, I say to the government. Now is the time.

When FPI does the type of thing it did yesterday, that should somehow make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. That should make you second-guess the kind of action you have been taking with respect to FPI. That should make you question what it is FPI is doing. Because I believe that what happened yesterday in that meeting with FPI officials and the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune was not meant to happen. It was too early, too soon, because FPI is not ready yet to unveil what is going to be in their internal review.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I am calling on the government to acknowledge what is going down here. Bring FPI back in, tell them you are not going to agree with what is happening here, be satisfied with the profit you are making, and recognize that your main shareholders are the employees, the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who made it possible for you to be where you are today, made it possible for this company to exist. Call them in, tell them that in terms of the income trust and the amendments to the FPI Act, you are not going to approve them, you will bring it back to the House of Assembly first, if you think that is reasonable and something that we should all discuss, and if it is not, that you are not going to approve them, and FPI must continue to operate in Newfoundland and Labrador to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to take just a few moments to speak to Bill 48, and, I guess, touch on a couple of issues that are of major concern to me. Before I get into the main reason for my standing on this bill, it seems like even yesterday, when I was listening to hon. members opposite speaking with regard to this bill, they seem to take a bit of time to refer to the Premier's letter that was written on November 28.

There are a couple of issues I just want to touch on, Mr. Speaker, one of them being the custodial management. I know that is an issue that has been ongoing for quite some time in this hon. House and it goes back for many numbers of years. I remember first being elected here and my first private member's motion was on custodial management. I remember the hon. Member for Bonavista South looking over at me across the way at that time, when he was in Opposition, saying: Yes, it is a good motion, but that has been brought up here so often now nobody seems to be listening to it. It was carried unanimously, I have to say, at that time.

What amazes me with the motion, Mr. Speaker, is this - and I may be corrected in saying what I am going to say here now, but when it comes to custodial management I think just about everybody who has been involved on the provincial scene are in agreement with this, even the people on the federal level, whether it be the Prime Minister. I have heard the ministers of fisheries from time to time. Everybody is in agreement with it, but nobody seems to be able to move it forward. Personally, I cannot believe that it is in this letter here today, because after going into the third year of the mandate now - and I know the Premier put quite a bit of time into this and went to European countries and so on to deal with it. Now all of a sudden, we see a letter where you are asking the Prime Minister what is his stand on it. It seems as if that should have been dealt with prior to the call of the election. As some hon. member said earlier, now there is no government in office at this day.

He goes on to say, under the same heading: How does your party feel about the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Cod Recovery Strategy and not through the listing of the cod as a species at risk. This letter was written on November 28, and I think the hon. Minister of Fisheries, federally, had announced that cod had been taken off of the list as an endangered species.

We go to another issue with Marine Atlantic and the concerns are expressed, and rightly so, in the letter, that: I cannot believe that we are into the third year of a mandate and we are asking the federal government to improve their services to this Province as a link with regard to if it is similar to being a highway across the Gulf.

I have to say, usually once a year I get the opportunity to travel to other provinces and use the ferry service, and I have to say, the numbers of people who are traveling that route have decreased. We were on the boat this past summer and I would venture to say you would be able to take them in a very small boat, who was on that one, when she could take a lot more passengers. To know that the Premier now is only asking the leaders of the various parties for their commitment to see that this is resolved in the best interests of the people of this Province, I think is a little too late.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to touch on - and I want to make it very clear when I make those comments that I am going to make. We have heard the questions back and forth in this hon. House over the last couple of weeks pertaining to the conditions of our highways in the Province. The comments I am going to make - I am not laying blame on anybody. I am not accusing the minister or anyone else of anything. Mr. Speaker, what I want to say now are the facts that have been presented to me by the people who drive those highway trucks, the people who repair the highway trucks, and I can assure you they have major concerns.

We have heard the debate back and forth about the depots, the thirteen that closed, and I guess the debate can go on, on whether that had any affect on the trucks not being ready this year. Maybe it did not, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you one thing, the people who were laid off, many of them had to leave this Province and go outside for work this past summer. If they were outside this Province they were not doing any maintenance work or anything else with our roads.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the questions asked with regard to the conditions of the highways back two or three weeks ago when unfortunate incidents happened. Mr. Speaker, we heard the replies back from the minister and the former Minister of Transportation, saying that the trucks went out on the road and they were okay and so on. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, yes, there were trucks that went out on the road - as a matter of fact, one highway truck left Whitbourne that traveled half way out the Argentia highway and did the road and came back. The other truck did not leave Placentia to come the other distance for the very simple reason that truck was in the garage and in needs of major repairs. The other incident, Mr. Speaker, an accident that happened over in Central Newfoundland, the same thing, after the accident the truck was not in condition and the mechanics had to travel to Bay Robert's on a Sunday morning to go to the shop to get the parts for that truck, Mr. Speaker.

We are having wonderful weather and I hope it keeps up until all the trucks are repaired and in condition to go on the highway, because, Mr. Speaker, if we had a major storm today, I do not want to see it happen but I can assure you, Sir, we are in hard shape when it comes to clearing our roads. I will give you an example: In Bay Robert's last year, to do the highways they have to cover, they had eight trucks that would be on the highway. Right now, if there was a storm tonight, they have three trucks to put out on the highway. Avondale had anywhere from six to eight trucks. They have three trucks to go on the highway, two for the TCH and one for all the Conception Bay highway and the side roads. Placentia, as we speak - and that was one of the depots that was in question - Placentia, as of yesterday, had one truck and that was on loan from the depot in Bay Robert's. Their trucks were down totally. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that the bays at the depot in Bay Robert's are full to capacity with the trucks and there are six or seven out in the yard lined up waiting for repairs.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister, or the acting minister, yesterday, or the day before, mentioned it when it came to the mechanics. The question was asked - with overtime. I think it was the acting minister who mentioned that overtime is never refused. Well, I can assure you, the mechanics are not working overtime. The parts are there. They are available and we have those numbers of trucks that still have to be repaired and not available to go on the highways, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I want to just touch on is the maintenance throughout the summer. I think it had a lot to do with the people who were laid off over the summer. Some of them have not been called back yet for maintenance with regards to the highways, the painting of the lines, the repairs of the guardrails and so on, Mr. Speaker. I call upon the government to really take a serious look at this. Why not give the mechanics the opportunity to go in and work overtime so that those trucks can be repaired and sent back to their depots? Because I am going to assure you, Mr. Speaker, if we had a storm this evening our highways would be in very poor shape in that immediate area that I referenced.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I would only take a few minutes. I want to thank you for the opportunity to bring those few points forward and I look forward to speaking again, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise just for a few minutes because I cannot let some of what has been said just recently go unchecked. For the record, the fact of the matter is, as we speak today the department of highways, from a vehicle perspective, from a personnel perspective, is more ready to respond to weather conditions, icing conditions and snow conditions on the highways in this Province than they have at any time in the past, Mr. Speaker. Now, that is based on discussions that our senior executive have had with the regional directors throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - and people on the opposite side should listen to this - we have garages and we have mechanics because vehicles break down. That is it. That is the reason why there are probably 100 garages within twenty miles of this place, because everything breaks down, Mr. Speaker. Things wear out. Things break down.

The Member for Bay of Islands was talking yesterday, some foolishness about a pile of vehicles being at the Bay Roberts depot. Well, there are a couple of issues there. First of all, right now some of the salt trucks do not have the blades on them. Why do you need to be lugging around blades when there is no snow on the ground, Mr. Speaker? So, they put the trucks in on fine days. They add strobe lights to the wings. They add strobe lights to the side of the truck. There is a safety issue now - I do not know about a safety issue, but a requirement of Government Services that the backs of our salt trucks have to have a big D sign on it - for danger, I suppose. So, the trucks have to have pieces welded onto them so that these signs can drop down into. Mr. Speaker, that is why we keep -

MR. BUTLER: There are no trucks ready yet to go on the road, though.

MR. TAYLOR: The trucks are all ready to go on the road, Mr. Speaker. Now, the Member for Port de Grave, you know, need not be making misleading comments like that.

MR. BUTLER: Why does Placentia not have a truck today?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the depot in Placentia has a truck today or not. I assume that they do. As I understand it, our fleet of trucks are ready. All of our people are on, with the exception of about twenty people; seven of which, as I understand it, are loader operators who we require when snowbanks start to build up on the sides of our roads so we can push the snow off so that the fliers can continue clearing roads.

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately twenty people who have retired or otherwise left the department over the past year, out of a staff of over 400 people. In any department in government, I am sure, that from time to time you can find approximately twenty positions that are not filled because people have retired or left the department or off for various reasons, sick leave and what have you. That is the situation. Now, the vehicles are ready. I can guarantee you, the fleet of vehicles in the Department of Transportation and Works are more ready right now than they were when the hon. crowd opposite were the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, maybe I will say this. Maybe if when they formed the government, when they were the government, when Mr. Wells left the premiership, after Mr. Wells left the premiership, as I understand it, the budget for vehicle replacement in the Department of Transportation was somewhere around $8 million. The next year it was slashed to $2.5 million. As a result of that, the age of the equipment in our fleet increased. It increased because they did not replace the equipment on a timely basis as they should have while they were the government. That is why we increased the budget back to $6.5 million. That is why there are now thirty new vehicles, thirty new salt trucks, thirty new fliers going into our inventory right now to replace aging equipment that they did not see fit, did not have the foresight to look after and invest in while they were government.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to fix, once again, a mess that they allowed to accumulate on their watch. That is what we are trying to do. We have been here two years, and you cannot fix in two years a mess that was created in fifteen.

MR. BUTLER: You should have a truck ready, though.

MR. TAYLOR: And we do have our trucks ready, Mr. Speaker. Today there will be a truck go out over the highway somewhere and something will break down and it will have to go into a shop to get repaired, and that happens time-and-time again. That is the nature of the business that we are into. It is the nature of the environment that we operate in. It is the nature of the equipment, at twelve and fifteen and twenty years old, that they did not see fit to replace while they were in the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, had they replaced their equipment on a ten or twelve year cycle, like most jurisdictions do, instead of allowing the equipment to age, maybe there would not be as much equipment breaking down today as it is. That is why we have invested more money into replacing our fleet and that is why we have invested more money into repairing our roads, so that at the end of the day we can provide a better surface for the people to drive on and better equipment for the people who go out day-after-day to try and keep our roads clear, so that they have the equipment that they need to be able to carry out the job that we ask them to do.

If those people opposite, who are so quick today, to all of a sudden be so concerned - they are like Sol on the Road to Damascus. All of a sudden they have seen the light and all of a sudden they understand. I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that they finally realize that the years of neglect they imposed on this Province while they were the government, has come home to roost and now they are begging, begging, pleading for forgiveness from all of us for the neglect they imposed on us in fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few minutes on the bill. I want to touch on some of the things that the Member for Grand Bank spoke about today with regard to FPI because I think it is very, very important.

What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is more than Fortune, it is more than Harbour Breton, it is more than Bonavista. It goes even deeper than that. The whole philosophy of people's trust in business and government is being questioned. If you go to the rural parts of the Province - and this is where the problem is - you will find that people are becoming more and more cynical of what they see.

Last night I was at a function when I heard the Mayor, Alec Noseworthy, on from Fortune and I just could not believe what I was hearing. The thing is, those people came in here and said to the government members, and said to us, that a part of the thing they were going to do, as a restructuring of government, was they were going to do secondary processing in Fortune, because they couldn't compete in primary production as in Harbour Breton and other communities and so on, because of the high value of the Canadian dollar plus the competition from China and other things. Then, when I heard it, I said to myself: I guess, basically, what I heard is what ordinary individuals across the Province heard, whether in Labrador or wherever, a company again that had given its word to people in the House of Assembly, all of us on both sides of the House, that they were making decisions that were in the best interests of the company and in the best interests of the individuals within the Province.

Just think about it, just think about what they had done. It is unbelievable that they would do that again after inviting the people - I am not sure if they were invited or not, I haven't talked to Mr. Noseworthy about it. These people came in, met with the company yesterday, and dropped a bombshell, the same way as they did to the people of Harbour Breton on October 25 of last year, a little over a year now, saying to the people in that particular community: We are not going to do secondary processing here now. We don't have the markets for the increased capacity.

When I heard it last night I thought: How secure is Burin as a secondary processing plant? How secure are they? The thing about it is, for all of us here noone, regardless of which side of the House you sit on or who the individual is, can ever take, anymore, what these people tell you to be the truth, because they change from day to day, they fluctuate back and forth. There is a problem here.

The people, of course, going on for three years now, a little over two years, said to us, as people who ran, that they wanted a change and they put a new government in place. The people are never wrong, and they made that decision. However, Mr. Speaker, the thing is, for all of us, regardless of where we are in the Province or who represents who or whatever government it is, the people here want the government, whoever that particular company might be, to look after their welfare and to make sure that these people, regardless of what happens in any circumstance, can have an assurance that things are being done well.

In this particular case, the FPI thing, if you go - and I do - to my district, the people ask the question: Well, does the government know when FPI is going to make these announcements? Are they aware of it? Did the government know, for example, were they told beforehand, what they were doing in Fortune? I guess it all goes back to the thought again that the people are doubting that this is happening. When they see FPI making those decisions, they are questioning it even more.

I think the Member for Grand Bank said today that the company is going to be doing, is in the process of doing, an internal review. I would say to the government - and I am sure that at the end of the day they will think about it - that, before they ratify any legislation from income trust or anything else, that they will see what FPI is. What have they brought forward? How are they going to protect Bonavista or Fortune or any other community before the legislation is proclaimed? That is very, very important.

It is a very serious situation when we consider what is happening because, as I said, it is not just Harbour Breton. It is not just Bonavista. It is not just the communities that have those fish plants there, but it is people as a whole. I said the other day when I spoke, as far as I am concerned, and I believe it in my own heart, it is the truth, that the people in the rural parts of the Province are beginning to be scared; because, what is happening in many, many instances, you have older people in many of the smaller communities who have spent their lifetime in the fishing industry. They are fifty, fifty-five years of age, and see no light at the end of the tunnel for them, and they are saying: What about if I do have to leave? How do I start over anew at fifty-five or fifty-seven or sixty years of age?

I know of people who have left Newfoundland over the last number of months who are more than sixty and have gone to Alberta to work, and leave their family at home, so that they can probably earn an income for the next couple of years before they get their pension. It is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of care, and a lot of fear too, Mr. Speaker. When they see things like this happening, they ask the question even more: Who is there protecting me?

I find it, as I said, very, very discouraging, and I am very, very concerned for the people who live in the area. I was in Harbour Breton on Saturday night at the Lions Club, charter night, and I do not know how many people came up to me and said: We are concerned. What do you know about FPI? What do you know about what is happening to our community? What do you know about all of the different things?

I had to say, well, you will have to wait and find out. They said: Oliver, we have been waiting for six months and there is no certainty to it. Come January, we will have to leave the community and we will have to go elsewhere to look for work.

They are really concerned, because they are concerned about splitting up their families. They will have to go and their families stay at home. It is a concern, to say the least.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that I had it on the record because it does concern me, and the people of the district that I represent, but much more widespread than that, the Province as a whole. There is a lot of concern in this Province, I am telling you that right now. People, as I said, have apprehensions about what is happening and about the future. The sooner we can find a particular solution or finances for these people, the better it will be.

Like I said the other day, for me there is no politics in it. I think there should be an inquiry held into FPI because it is not like many of the other companies; it is a creature of this Legislature. There are so many things happening. Regardless, if you are on this side of the House or the other side of the House, there are questions that need to be answered, and they do not need to be answered after the door has been shut.

One of the things they said for Fortune, they said, if an operator came along they would sell the plant. Would they give a portion of their quota to Fortune? Would they give a portion of their quota to a community like Harbour Breton? I do not think so. Who would want to buy a plant if they had no quota and nothing to process?

The direction that has been taken by the Chief Operating Officer who tendered his resignation a little while ago is a cause for concern. I think that on the next number of months, if something does not happen soon to bring closure to this particular thing, it is going to unravel even more, and a lot of us will have many more problems as MHAs in this House dealing with the ramifications of that, the outfall of what is happening to FPI and, of course, Abitibi as well.

I represent one of the communities in my area, Seal Cove. There have always been loggers from the time that I can remember, and they are known throughout the Province as big wood cutters. They spent all of their lives there. There is uncertainty with them. Many of them who are young men in their thirties and early forties, who are silviculture workers, saw an advantage or an opportunity for them to move into becoming Abitibi employees, to become operators of graders, porters, harvesters, and all of these things, but if Stephenville remains closed and number seven machine goes out of production in Grand Falls it will mean that many of those younger people will not have an opportunity to earn a living in their community, and that is uncertain for them. Whenever you talk about them, they are concerned.

I would think the same thing happened in New-West-Valley last night. I was not there to attend the meeting, but I heard over the airwaves this morning that there were about 150 people who were very concerned about that area of the Province. It is my understanding that many of the people, families in that area, have moved to Alberta, and every time that happens it is a problem for the provincial government for income tax and for people spending their money, disposable income. It all comes back to be more of a problem for all of us.

There are so many things out there, so many uncertainties. I honestly believe that, unless we find a way of doing it, it is going to be more and more difficult and the people in the rural parts of the Province are going to find their services diminished because the population is diminishing and getting smaller.

These are my concerns and, with that, I want to thank you for the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate on Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments on the bill here. I think it is appropriate to respond to some of the comments that I have heard mentioned over the past two days in debate on this bill, or since Tuesday since it was first debated.

I do want to just briefly mention, I know some of the speakers today have spoken about FPI and what they are doing in income trust. I will say that the FPI Act was established in which there was a limitation on ownership in the company of 15 per cent. I know, and most people would agree, that a limitation of 15 per cent has prevented them from the ability to be able to seek investment and put it into the company. As a recourse from that 15 per cent, the income trust provided an avenue by which they could go out and receive a significant amount of money that they could invest in the business or pay down debt, or whatever variety of aspects it would be used for.

This government got very involved in this issue, I might say - more than asked questions - enough for the last year to deal with the company back and forth, to extract from the company commitments: commitments in Fortune, commitments in the Harbour Breton issue, Marystown, or commitments for Bonavista, I should say, with a new structure. There is a whole variety of things that the Premier of this Province was instrumental in trying to get on the table so we can preserve the integrity and the employment levels in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that so many people work and depend on for a living, on Fishery Products International.

We debated that freely here in this House, and we voted on that issue. The Member for Grand Bank stood and happened to vote the same way on the issue that I felt we should go on the issue. Some members in the House felt differently, and we were under no obligation whatsoever to vote in any particular way. We stood up and we voted freely on that issue, and the majority carried that. I have no qualms about saying that because I sat in our caucus and I am aware of the situation that is there. Members on the opposite side voted different ways on it. I think the Member for Bellevue opposed it and the Member for Grand Bank supported it. Members on each side of this House voted different ways on this issue.

If you want to stand and try to make political issues - the Premier of this Province extracted a significant number of commitments from Fishery Products International on this issue.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, some of the other issues mentioned in this bill here, while obviously not directly related to the bill at all, the bill itself - and I know they can speak on any monetary issue. The purpose of this bill is for a non-refundable tax credit for adoptive parents up to $10,000.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans made some comments in this House that I think should not be let go. She indicated, that because the Auditor General referred to errors there are people who are not competent working for this government, they are not competent people. I take offence to that, strong offence, to saying that the public servants of this Province are not competent. I think we have a very competent public service here. We have some excellent people from the executive level down here in government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and that is an insult to the people working here on behalf of government.

These numbers in the Auditor General's report, on pages 54 and 55, a lot of these, across various departments, are estimates. When you estimate, you will have an accrued amount on what you are going to get in social assistance receivables, and you might miss that by $1 million or $200,000. To me it is not an error, it is an estimate. When an estimate is out by an amount, that is what a budget - when we brought down the Budget we brought our estimates. We give estimated amounts.

I know in my department, Atlantic Lottery Corporation revenue understated, that was an estimate. There are ones that were overstated; public service pension plan asset overstated $6 million. You make your best judgement and best estimate. To me, in many instances they are not errors. They are differences, yes, that you have to make, with the best available information, in some of these cases.

That is what I was talking about. The is why the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans stood and said they are not competent when they do that. We do not know, we do not exactly know all the time, how much HRLE that we might gather. It might be more, it might be less or it might vary. Receivables could vary and so on. Could we be more accurate? Well, we all strive to have accurate estimates of these as much as possible.

I must say, that the Auditor General was very complimentary to this government. He said some of the best financial statements in the country, absolutely, when asked by an open line host on the finances. Absolutely, he said, they are very good. He said, not only for the last year but this year would be including Memorial University with all entities in there. Even on the provincial central collector in government indicated that we have made strides, we are moving forward, and we have made efforts. While not fully implemented, we are very active within government now trying to determine the nature of those accounts in all different departments, and trying to do a good job of collecting money that is owed to government from taxpayers. We have the federal setoff program that tried to do that.

When we do that and do too good a job, they complain because we are picking on the people who owe money to the Province, and when we do not do it, they complain we are not collecting our money. They talk out of both sides of their mouth, they stand on both sides of the fence, and they cannot come to the conclusion and tell us that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The problem is, a lot of the problems were created by a government that took money, that robbed infrastructure in this Province by not putting sufficient money into it, did not put sufficient money into various types, whether it is road infrastructure, buildings and so on. They siphoned it all off, they did a lousy job of collecting monies that were owed to government and ran us deep into debt up to a tune of $1 billion a year, which is crazy, to be spending $1 billion more than you take in causing a severe amount of problems for the future of your children and grandchildren.

The Auditor General said you would need $300 million a year for forty years to deal with the debt that we have amassed in this Province. That is huge. That debt was amassed over a period of time, but we had huge debts in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I wanted efficient spending of money first, I said. When I asked the question across the House, when I called for it in health care, I said: Stop wasting and put it to good use.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, through the work of the Premier of this Province, he hammered out a better equalization, hammered out a better Health Accord, hammered out an Atlantic Accord for this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - that puts hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of this Province.

Now we have a member who comes in, who had her say and I did not interrupt her, and tries to interrupt me when I am speaking.

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is standing on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is only fair, at this time, that I would clarify what the Minister of Finance has been saying over the past few minutes. I want to say that the Minister of Finance made reference that I said the public service was incompetent. What I said was that the Auditor General, and in fact the Comptroller General, has pointed out two years in a row that there have been errors submitted from all departments of government. In fact, the first year it was $40 million in errors, and the second year we just went through it was $75 million of errors. Now, what has happened is the fact that the Minister of Finance and his government have axed so many jobs throughout government and put them out the door, we do not have enough people to do the jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members what it says in Marleau and Montpetit, on page 538, on Points of Order, and I quote, "Although Members frequently rise claiming a point of order, genuine points of order rarely occur. Indeed, points of order are often used by Members in an attempt to gain the floor to participate in debate; in such cases, the Speaker will not allow the Member intervening to continue."

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member stands up and makes statements here in this House, and I have an obligation to defend the public servants of this Province. I am responsible for the public service. When you say they are not competent, I think I have a responsibility to stand up here as the minister responsible to answer that, and I will continue to do it. Regardless, if that member wants to interfere with me speaking - she had an opportunity there. She could have gone on for an hour to speak. She had her chance. So, I am going to make it very brief on this particular bill because it is completely unrelated to the bill that is here.

We are looking now to bring in - for adoptive parents to be able to claim up to $10,000 expenses on a non-refundable credit on their taxes here. That is very important. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked a question. I will just say it for the record - he is out, I think, participating with the Premier in an historic (inaudible) in Labrador - that it is in line with what we are allowing under the provincial Adoptions Act and so on, and it is in line there. We have even gone a little bit farther because there is an age limit to qualify in this under federal and provincial of a one year differential, and we have gone to one year to allow it to follow that to apply. So, we have been very understanding of cost incurred by adoptive parents and we want to allow that credit to flow through.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans indicated that - she talked something about federal legislation and some mix up. There is no mix up on federal legislation. This federal government was brought down, not on this bill, or not on this tax bill. My understanding is they are proceeding with this on the federal level. The forms are printed and they are moving ahead. The federal government was brought down on an incompetency of spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to their friends and passing it out, instead of putting it in for the benefit of taxpayers of this Province and using their huge surpluses there - very similar to this government, that spent hundreds of millions and drove us a billion dollars in debt and left nothing here for us to deal with and we have to try to build it back up again. That is what this is all about. It is not about this legislation. She should do her homework on that, get her research straight on this issue before she gets up and comments on it.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No.2, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No2. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 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 Income Tax Act 2000 No.2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 48)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to a number of bills on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on a number of bills which are listed on the Order Paper.

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Move to debate on Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No.2, at Committee stage.

CHAIR: Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No. 2." (Bill 48)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would like to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chair.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chair, I would like to - aren't you designated as the Deputy Speaker? I think you are, and he is in his capacity as Chairman of Committee at this point. If you want to be politically correct: Mr. Chair.

I want to make a comment on Bill 48. I think the Minister of Finance has made a wrong statement regarding what I said and what I intended when I said it. I had just looked at the freshly printed Auditor General's Report.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think we all know that when we are in committee stage that the comments are confined to the clauses of the bill. It is my understanding that this clause of the bill reads, clause 1, "The Income Tax Act, 2000 is amended by adding immediately after section 17 the following..." - and it deals with the adoption credit. While in second stage of a bill, debate is allowed to be long and varied and to the principle, but when we are into committee stage on a particular clause-by-clause, the comments by all members, irrespective of what side or where we sit, must be directly related to the clause that we are speaking to.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader to that point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly have no objection to the comments that were made by the Government House Leader. I do believe that there should be some relevancy between the specifics being discussed in committee and the comments of the speaker. Maybe the Government House Leader would do the speaker the courtesy of allowing her to say what she intended to say before we make that determination. I think -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Finance, perhaps you should listen sometimes to what someone has to say and then the Chair will be in a position to determine relevancy. Unfortunately, for you, I guess, this House does not work on your rules. This House works by the House rules. I think that is the call of the Chair, not yourself.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The point is well taken. We are into the committee stage of a bill here and when speakers stand up and are recognized by the Chair, then it is important that their comments are relevant to the clause that is being called by the Clerk and by the speaker here. So, I remind people speaking, that if they could confine their thoughts to each individual clause and they can stand up and be recognized on each individual clause if they have something to offer in relationship to that debate.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would suggest that any debate that is taking place in this House of Assembly which includes or discusses matters pertaining to the public purse, it is certainly relevant when you would be discussing an income tax bill. By passage of this Bill 48, it will have an impact of the treasury of this Province. I think it is only fair to point out that there are several negative aspects to the workings of the finances of this Province. That has been pointed out, both last year and this year. In fact, this Province is in a very vulnerable state when it comes to preparing a budget for 2006. There is a great reliance in this Province on an artificial economy, a very artificial economy.

The Minister of Finance is basing his revenues, and the revenues of this Province, on oil royalties, which can fluctuate, as we know, because the minister budgeted for the amount of $38 a barrel and it ended up to be $58 a barrel. We do not know what it is going to be next year.

We also know that the minister is also basing a lot of his predictions on what is going to happen next year with regard to the overall situation of oil prices in our economy. I would say, as has been pointed out by various people, and particularly the Auditor General, you cannot rely on federal government sources forever. You have to be willing and be able to predict your own economy, and that means creating jobs. This is something that we have not seen from this government. We have seen a massive layer of administration -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I just want to refer to relevancy in debate.

It is a generally accepted practice that on second reading of any Finance bill that the debate is wide-ranging, but the rules are very clear, and they are clear for all of us. When we are into Committee state of debate, that we deal with, and be relevant to, the point of the clauses that we are talking about.

The clause that is before us now has to deal with an adoption credit, and putting ourselves in line with the federal government so that when we talk about adoption credit that it is not offside from a federal-provincial perspective.

That is what this bill is about, that is what this clause is about, and I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that the member is out of order by not concluding or confining her remarks to the clause before us, which is dealing with adoption credit, and not oil and gas and our artificial economy.

This is a specific piece of legislation that deals with adoption credits for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be lots of opportunity next week when we talk about Supplementary Supply and other matters to deal with the matter she wants to raise; but, specifically today, we are dealing with an adoption credit, and bringing federal-provincial decision-making in line.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member again if she would keep her comments relevant to the bill being discussed here, and the clause of the particular Bill 48.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, we are talking about adoption credits, and I would like to say that maybe this present government has to look beyond their forecast. They are forecasting that we are going to lose 20,000 of our citizens over the next ten years, so this adoption clause will be very relevant if we are trying to attract new people to our Province.

I want to say also -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes.

This is going to be important because what is happening here now in our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What is happening now in our Province, if our own Premier and our own government is telling the world that this Province is going to lose 20,000 people, what does that say as a government? It says they have no plan. It says they have no plan. They have no plan to generate a new economy. All it says is that they are relying heavily on the federal government, and relying so heavily on the federal government that the Premier left the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, in an attempt to save the member from herself, I am going to read the explanatory note of clause 1.

"Clause 1 of the Bill would amend the Income Tax Act, 2000 to provide for a non-refundable tax credit for eligible adoption expenses up to a maximum of $10,000, based upon the federal adoption tax credit."

Now, if the member cannot confine herself to the clause of the bill like the rest of us have to do, Mr. Chair, then I submit to you that you must ensure that she does confine herself to debate and relevancy to that clause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

Again I will remind her, for the third time, to be relevant to the clause of Bill 48 which she is presently debating.

MS THISTLE: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I understand it is difficult sometimes to be able to say that you are relevant, but I can tell you that all kinds of debate concerning money is relevant when we talk about it, whether it be the Adoption Act - it is an Income Tax Act, it is a money bill, so it is time to talk about everything that is related to it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member that the hon. member, by the fact of being the critic, would have had one hour right from the very beginning to talk about anything that she wanted to talk about - the individual wanted to talk about on a money bill - but when we enter into Committee stage then people's comments should be confined to the clause which is being debated.

That is what the intent of the Chair is, to remind the hon. member to confine her thoughts to clause 1, and the Chair would appreciate if she would be kind enough to talk on the relevancy of clause 1 of Bill 48.

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

I believe this particular bill that has come before us is a good bill, and that is the reason why I am supporting it, but I also want to say that, in the past, income tax bills have come to this floor that have not been supported by this side, and for very good reason. My mind goes back to the very first bill that this government brought forward. That was two years ago, and that was an income tax bill. That was one -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: That was one to cancel an income tax benefit for people who are living and working in Newfoundland. I remember that was an income tax bill. I also remember another income tax bill that this government brought forward two years ago.

CHAIR: Order, please!

For the final time, I will remind the member to express her thoughts on clause 1 of the bill. If the member keeps going outside of clause 1, the Chair will have no other choice but recognize another member who wishes to stand and debate clause 1 of Bill 48.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Also, my thoughts go back two years ago when this particular government brought in an income tax bill and guess what? It wasn't for the next year. It was for 2006, so low-income earners, two years ago, had a hope and a promise that in 2006 they would get a reduction or almost a lifting of income tax for a certain income level. What happened? They increased the fee so much and would not give people an opportunity to have their heat, those who burn electricity -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to take her seat.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2." (Bill 48)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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: 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 cause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Tact, 2000 No. 2.

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 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000, No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 48 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Committee stage of debate on Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

CHAIR: Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 45)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2. 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: 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 Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation 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 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 45 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Chair.

Committee stage debate on Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence.

CHAIR: Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence." (Bill 50)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 21.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, I was not here when the debate on second reading of Bill 50 was introduced and I did not want to make a couple of comments. I also had a couple of questions for the minister, if I could be allowed a little bit of leeway.

Mr. Chair, first of all, from the offset let me say that the Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence is indeed a good piece of legislation, and I think it came about as a result of the efforts of a number of groups in our Province and certainly the actions of the minister when he set up the committee on Violence Against Women. I certainly want to recognize the transition houses in the Province that played a role in this, along with the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the John Howard Society, the Violence Prevention Initiative groups, and their regional committees, I think, from a various number of areas in the Province.

Mr. Chair, I think what they have, in essence, done here through Bill 50 is, they have offered an immediate response for victims of family violence. We all know, if you look at the statistics of people who are affected by family violence in our Province, you will know that the greatest number of them are indeed women and children. Mr. Chair, I think this is indeed going to give that immediate response to victims that they need. Also, many of those times when they need this kind of intervention, it is definitely in emergency situations, in a situation where either violence has erupted within the home, or there are other actions of violence that cannot be curbed or cannot be fought through or talked through in any other perspective, and therefore they need to have those interventions.

Quite often, in a lot of areas of our Province, right now that intervention is not there. Usually the only alternative for many women, I will say, and children who have found themselves in these situations, is that they have had to abandon their homes, they have had to abandon a schedule and a routine within their lives in order to seek the security and the peace that they needed. That is unfair and it is unreasonable, and I am pleased, Mr. Chair, that there is a recognition of the fact that those situations do exist in our society and that there is a recognition that there needs to indeed be appropriate interventions that allow for you to maintain stability in the home and stability in your children's lives.

Mr. Chair, unfortunately I know of many circumstances where women have not been afforded an opportunity like this, simply because our criminal legislation that was in place did not allow for it. By introducing a bill that will provide for the civil litigation of such matters, I think is only appropriate at this time, and I think it is even more appropriate for the children who are often affected by situations of violence.

I understand, from the bill, Mr. Chair, that if there is a situation in a home that is caused through the actions of family violence, whether that means thrashing the house or breaking out the windows or violent or abusive situations that may be going on with individuals, that indeed the victim will have the opportunity to call in for a judge to intervene in that particular situation, to allow them to have an immediate response to the situation which would allow them to stay in their home, to be able to care for their children in their home, so that their school schedules are not disturbed and so that their extra curricular schedules in the community are not disturbed. I understand, from the legislation, that would indeed be the case.

Mr. Chair, if that is the case, then it is quite obvious that in order for this legislation to work there needs to be a complete buy in from the justice system. I guess my question would have to be: Have the judges been consulted within the Province and are they prepared to lend their support to this legislation and to intervene in these family situations? I will leave that question to the minister to respond to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I appreciate the comments raised by the hon. Member from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The judges have been an integral part of the committee that worked on this, certainly the provincial court was represented. We put together an advisory committee to advise - we call it the Minister of Justice Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. The court, I think, Pam Ryder-Lahey, the Director of Court Services, was involved with this and, of course, experts from many areas, the transition houses, Violence Prevention Initiative, and the judges have been an integral part of making sure that this legislation will actually be practical legislation and can work. As a result, the interesting thing about this legislation is that provincial court judges will be on call seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, to take calls from applicants or from the RCMP to issue these emergency orders.

The chief judge has indicated that they can see an order being issued in possibly as little as twenty minutes and certainly no later than twenty-four hours. I can assure the hon. member that all elements of the justice committee have worked together closely with the external members of the committee. I can assure you that we have also obtained funds from the federal government to put in place a coordinator to make sure that the necessary justice elements are properly resourced to make sure this very important legislation works, and works well.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I am glad to see that the judges were consulted and that they are agreeing to buy into this new legislation, Mr. Chairman, because as you know, the way the bill is structured and the legislation is structured, without that obviously this cannot work. I am pleased that has happened.

I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to say, that there needs to be an appropriate education program developed around this so that the victims of violence know what is available to them, how the civil legislation will work in their favour and in protecting them and their families. I think there needs to be an education program around that, Mr. Chairman, an education program that is designed to be delivered through the committees of the Family Violence Prevention Initiative, through the Status of Women Centres in the Province, and through the transition houses so that they are all aware of what this legislation will enable them to do, and that they can have access to it and they can provide that to the clients who are in their particular areas. I think that is an important component, and maybe the minister could tell me a little bit about how they plan to do some of that stuff in terms of ensuring that the messages and so on get out there.

Mr. Chair, the other concern that I still have around this is that - while it is a really good piece of legislation, and I don't want you to get me wrong because I really do think it is - I guess my concern is that there is still a gap that exists, and I am sure the minister will agree with that. That gap is obviously going to be in the more rural areas of our Province. I look particularly, Mr. Chair, to the North Coast of Labrador where I have had lots of experience with women who have been in violent situations, who have had to be relocated from their homes and from their communities into Happy Valley-Goose Bay to live in transition houses for periods of up to three months, with great disruption to their children and to their families.

Actually, Mr. Chair, in recent weeks I have unfortunately had the experience of visiting some of them in the transition house in Goose Bay; but, Mr. Chair, my concern still exists with regard to the gap here for regions like that of Northern Labrador where you do not have a judge who is present, how they can access that judiciary consent in a situation that may exist in Hopedale or in Nain or in Makkovik or in Cartwright or any other region, and if that can be accessible through other means like either through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for example, which would have a presence in most of these communities, if consent can be garnered or granted in that way. I would like to see how that is going to work for areas like that, if you give me an explanation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

The hon. member talked about gaps in the system. I think this is the beauty of this particular piece of legislation. You do not need a lawyer to make this application. You do not need a courthouse and a judge in your community to make this application. This application will be made by telephone or by fax. There will be a judge on duty and on call somewhere in the Province twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to take the call, even four in the morning, five in the morning, and to react immediately to the request that is made.

The request, of course, can be made by the applicant. It can be made by the police officer. Our concern, of course, was: Is there a gap? What about communities that do not have police officers? So, there is a section in the act which permits Justice to appoint Justice officials who may be in the community to be able to assist the applicant in making the application for the emergency order.

I think that is the beauty of this legislation. Some of my legal friends may not be happy, but you will not need a lawyer to make this application. You do not need a courthouse. This is about access to justice. It is about access to justice in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is about access to justice, of course, in Northern Labrador, and I am delighted that the committee was wise enough to address this particular gap in the system so it will not be a gap for this legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I have answered the access to justice and the gaps in rural areas. In terms of education, as I said earlier, the legislation will be incorporated within the existing system of structure and the department does have a dedicated co-ordinator who will be developing training and education programs and will work within the department and with other departments and with the appropriate community agencies on policy and protocol developments. In terms of overall resources in the system, the government has already begun implementing strategies to enhance police resources throughout the Province.

As the Minister of Education mentioned to me not long ago, all professionals in the system will, indeed, be trained. I think it has already been introduced in the RNC police officer's training program, so I believe the concerns you have raised have well been addressed.

I congratulate the committee, and all the members who were on the committee, in coming up with this piece of legislation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is what will, indeed, make the legislation work: the fact that, I guess, you can access the services of the RCMP, of legal services, and not just those of judges in our Province. I think, by doing that, indeed, Minister, you are allowing this legislation to work for victims of family violence, I would think, in almost all the regions of our Province.

Indeed, I think it will be effective in the remote areas, especially in areas in Northern Labrador where there is an RCMP presence, and it should help, Mr. Chair, to allow a lot of these people to stay in their homes but also in their own communities, whereas in recent months and years they have had to be moved out to Happy Valley-Goose Bay or to other sites.

I am glad to see that the access will be an open, easily accessible process, and that it can be done through the RCMP and through the legal system and not just through a judge.

Mr. Chair, I do not think I have any other questions with regard to the legislation other than to say that I think it is a good bill that has been brought forward. I think it is very timely and needs to be instituted within our system. I think it goes a long way to lending its support towards the work that has been done by the committees on violence prevention in our Province.

Maybe I should say to the Minister of Justice who has been spearheading this particular initiative on family violence, and the great job that he has done with that, that maybe he could get the money rolled out for the six-year plan for the Violence Prevention Initiative as well and get that rolling. I think they are anxious and they are waiting and they are soon going to run out of money. I think, if you can bring in legislation like this that can help move the process so much more further along than where it has been, then I think this other piece of funding the initiative for the next six years would certainly complement that, Minister, and make it work.

Thank you for the information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her comments and I thank the hon. the Opposition House Leader for his comments indicating that he felt the legislation was solid.

I think we are all in agreement that this is important legislation. I think we have to be careful, it is not going to be a panacea that is going to prevent and end violence against women, but certainly, as the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated, this is civil legislation which is intended to complement the existing criminal justice response.

It is beneficial to the victim because it can offer an immediate civil justice response to the emergency that is happening. The legislation will not decriminalize family violence. Many people have worked long and hard to ensure that there is a clear message about the unacceptability of family violence and violence against women and this will be another tool in that battle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 21 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 21 are carried.

CLERK: Be in enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in legislative 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 Protection Against Family Violence.

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 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 50 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

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

Committee stage debate on Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists.

CHAIR: Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Denturists." (Bill 60)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 45.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 45 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 45 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 45 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 Denturists.

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 60, An Act Respecting Denturists, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 60 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills 48, 45, 50 and 60 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 50, 45,60 and 48 adopted without amendment.

When shall this 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.

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

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

I move that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50 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 Respecting Protection Against Family Violence. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 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 Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 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 Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45)

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60, An Act Respecting Denturists, be now read third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 60 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 Respecting Denturists. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Denturists," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 60)

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

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

Finally, I move third reading of, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 48 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 Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 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 Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)

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

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

Before I put the adjournment motion, I think, by leave, we introduced some Notices of Motion today and I believe I have leave from my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader, to do first reading so that those bills, which are now ready, can be printed and distributed either right now or distributed for members in the House for tomorrow and over the weekend.

I want to do this, first of all, if I can, first reading of Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 65)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal 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 Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," carried. (Bill 65)

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 St. John's Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 65 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.

I move first reading of Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 66)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act," carried. (Bill 66)

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 Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66 has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 66 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.

I move first reading of Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act. (Bill 67)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act," carried. (Bill 67)

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 Public Service Commission Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67 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 67 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.

I move first reading of Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 70)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader 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 Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland and Labrador Act," carried. (Bill 70)

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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 70, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time? On tomorrow?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

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

I move first reading of Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 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 Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend the Fish Inspection Act," carried. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded 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 Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 72, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 72 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

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 Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 61)

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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 61 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.

Finally, I move first reading of Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education 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 Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded 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 Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 63 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.

Before I put the motion to adjourn, I want to say thank you to all colleagues on both sides of the House for a productive week in terms of moving forward legislation that we believe will benefit the public. With that, I do now put the adjournment motion for the House to adjourn and return on Monday at 1:30 p.m and wish all colleagues in the House a safe and happy weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until Monday, December 4, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

Pardon me, it is December 5 on Monday.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, December 5 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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