December 6, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 42


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to the Newfoundland Ranger Force. The Newfoundland Ranger Force was a police force established by Commission of Government in 1935 to police rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Between 1935 and 1950, 204 men served as Rangers, and five men served as Chief Rangers.

The Newfoundland Ranger Force was an integral part of the Commission of Government's plans to rehabilitate Newfoundland. The Commission reformed existing institutions within Newfoundland, such as the customs service and the fishing industry, but it also created the Newfoundland Ranger Force. The Rangers worked for every government department and could be asked to enforce any government regulation.

As the Ranger Force grew and expanded, the Rangers began to build a reputation for themselves and in most areas they were the only representatives of government and many requests were made of their services.

At midnight on July 31, 1950, the Ranger Force ceased to exist when its members were absorbed into the RCMP. The Force existed for a mere fifteen years; yet, it left a monumental mark on Newfoundland's history. In 1980, a memorial plaque containing the names of all who served in the Newfoundland Ranger Force was unveiled by Newfoundland's Finance Minister at the time, Dr. John Collins, on the grounds of the Colonial Building.

Mr. Speaker, over my lifetime, I have had the honour and privilege of meeting many of these former Rangers. While many of the former Rangers are now deceased, the plaque commemorates over fifteen years of service by a group of men to whom Newfoundlanders owe a considerable debt for the peace, order and good government that is part of our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this hon. House to join me today as we pay tribute to the Newfoundland Ranger Force which served the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from 1935 to 1950.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Nish Paul, a champion of native culture, a father, grandfather, husband and a great friend, who passed away on November 19 after a short illness at the age of sixty-seven. The Exploits Valley is still mourning this great loss.

Mr. Paul was an honorary chief of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, former vice-chief of the Sple'tk First Nations, and a member of the board of directors. Nish Paul was a logger on the Badger Drive, and he and his family spent a lot of time on the Exploits River where his father owned traditional hunting grounds.

Mr. Speaker, Nish Paul contributed a great deal to the area through his volunteerism and contribution to various organizations. In fact, the last time I saw Nish in public was in October when he volunteered at the fundraiser in Badger for the Stephenville flood victims. At that time, he entertained us with his accordion music and song, and he had the audience in stitches with the jokes that only Nish could tell.

One of his dreams was to have a lodge with eagles on the Exploits River. He built the lodge with the help of his wife, Rita Curtis. He entertained people from all over the world, and they praised his hospitality and how much he made people welcome in our Province.

Nish Paul loved children, and he could amuse them for hours with his storytelling, and the same held true for adults. Nish Paul was also a noted craftsman and used to make native beads and necklaces, talking sticks and wood carvings.

Nish Paul was loved by all who knew him and he will be sadly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in expressing condolences to his wife, Rita and family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, last week I was proud to attend the unveiling of a monument built on the property where St. Patrick's Hall once stood. This monument will serve as a reminder of the outstanding history of St. Pat's from the old school on Queen's Road to the new schools on Bonaventure Avenue and Merrymeeting Road.

The unveiling was the culmination of two years' work by a committee chaired by Vince Withers, with members Joe Mulrooney, Kevin Fisher, Walter Dalton and John Byrne, who unfortunately succumbed to cancer some months ago. Special mention must be made of the other member, Sandy Roache, who was project director and played a major role throughout.

The monument, designed by personnel at the Grand Concourse, features a sixteen-foot bronze plaque on which artist, Jim Maunder, has depicted scenes to illustrate the many aspects of life at St. Pat's.

It is estimated that some 35,000 students went to St. Pat's and many memories were created, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be remiss, as an ex-pupil of St. Pat's, if I did not take advantage of this occasion to mention one outstanding highlight, the 1960 Boyle trophy win over St. Bon's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to recognize this monument committee who have succeeded in marking in a lasting way the rich history of St. Patrick's Hall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ms Sonya Williams, who has become the Province's first and only female fire chief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: After 175 years of providing fire protection in the historic Conception Bay town, the brigades only female member was elected fire chief earlier this month during the brigade's annual meeting and election of officers.

Sonya has served with the Harbour Grace brigade for twelve years, the last two as crew chief, which makes her the longest serving female volunteer firefighter in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, outside her involvement with the fire brigade, she is active in her community in the field of sports and recreation. She coaches minor hockey at the Atom level, was the first female coach with both the Harbour Grace and Conception Bay North minor hockey leagues.

Also, as a member of the legendary Williams family of rowers, she is active as a coxswain at the annual Harbour Grace Regatta. During the annual Regatta last summer, she coxed a crew, which set a record in the Junior Ladies race.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Sonya Williams, the Province's and the Harbour Grace Volunteer Fire Brigade's first female fire chief.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind hon. members of this House about an exciting upcoming event for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. On January 7, 2006, Stephenville will host the CBC's Hockey Day in Canada.

Since 2000, this yearly tradition has seen the CBC travel to communities throughout the country to highlight the diversity and uniqueness of Canada, and to tell the story of how hockey has become one of our most beloved national pastimes.

This year, this event will include thirteen-and-a-half hours of hockey coverage, including an all-Canadian NHL tripleheader, community profiles and individual features.

High profile Canadian media personalities, Ron MacLean and Don Cherry, will be rink side at the Stephenville Dome, where they will showcase Stephenville to the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the West Coast of our Province is a hotbed for hockey. From the rivalry between the Corner Brook Royals and Deer Lake Red Wings, to the competition that thrives in junior and minor hockey from Stephenville to Port aux Basques and all points in between. The West Coast and, indeed, our entire Province, has a tremendous history in the game of hockey.

In fact, we have produced some outstanding talent throughout the years, including the talented Faulkner brothers, the legendary Bob Cole, and the young up-and-comers that we watch every week on Hockey Night in Canada.

And I have no doubt that this event will inspire a whole new generation of young girls and boys to follow their dreams on the ice. In fact, I understand that minor hockey in the region has grown in anticipation of the January 7 event.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that 2005 has been a very, very difficult year for Stephenville and the Bay St. George region. Yet, despite the challenges, we have all seen the strength and resilience of the people of the region, and I have seen their resolve to move forward to build a strong and a vibrant region. I can think of no more fitting way to start the new year for the people of Stephenville than to celebrate their pride in their hometown, and for this pride to be broadcast right across this great country.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to welcoming the CBC and our fellow Canadians to Stephenville for Hockey Day in Canada. To paraphrase the great Foster Hewitt, we welcome hockey fans from Canada and the United States to our Province for Hockey Day in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I thank the Premier for an advance copy of the statement made here today.

I can assure the House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is no one more proud of having Hockey Day in Canada in Stephenville than I am.

I have a bit of a history with Ron MacLean, through the Canadian Paraplegic Association, over the last five or six years. In the last little while, when Newfoundland and Labrador was considering it, Ron asked Joel Darling, the CBC producer for Hockey Night in Canada, to contact me and provide him with some information. Over the three or four months prior, we were back and forth with information on different communities in and around the Western Region to see where they would go to Western Newfoundland for Hockey Day in Canada. When the floods in Stephenville arose, I think they made their decision very easily.

I thank Hockey Day in Canada, and Joel Darling, the CBC producer, for making this decision for Stephenville because it will be great for Stephenville.

The other thing on Ron MacLean that I am not sure a lot of people know - of course, we know his stature with CBC - Ron MacLean is also the national spokesperson for the Canadian Paraplegic Association for Canada. He makes it one of his pet things, that he travels around Canada and, just about every place he goes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: - he gets himself involved with the Canadian Paraplegic Association through a dinner, visiting the rehab centres, visiting people. On January 4, he is having a dinner in Corner Brook, on behalf of the Canadian Paraplegic Association also in Cormack, so he is coming to Corner Brook to have that dinner.

Congratulations to Stephenville and the Bay St. George region. It is a deserving and well-fitting tribute to the area. As the Premier has stated, hockey rivalry in Western Newfoundland is second to none. This will highlight the hockey rivalry in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in that region.

Myself, personally, I just want to welcome Ron MacLean. I want to welcome all CBC, the people who are coming in. There are going to be a host of people coming in to do special tributes all during the week, so this is just not a hockey day; it is going to be a long-time tribute to the Stephenville area.

Congratulations. I am sure Newfoundland and Labrador, and all the people in this House of Assembly, will welcome them all. We cannot wait to see the profile that is going to done on the Bay St. George region.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the Premier for a copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big day for Stephenville and area, and the entire Province, where they will be showcased to the rest of the country. As was said by previous speakers, hockey is a very important sport in this Province and in the country. It is a national pastime. The people who will be in Stephenville during this period of time are certainly household names throughout this country; better known, I might say, than any of the politicians in the country.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of minor hockey, I think we need also to congratulate the many volunteers who give unselfishly of their time to make sure that hockey flourishes not only in our Province but in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

I should have gotten that minor detail out of the way at the beginning, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

As the Premier mentioned in his statement, Mr. Speaker, with hockey from our Province, you know, we did have legends like the Faulkner brothers and Bob Cole. There is one other person who has lived in my district now for the past twenty or thirty years who I want to mention as well, who caused quite a stir in provincial hockey in this Province, and that is a guy by the name of Jimmy Dawe, whose name to, certainly, us -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: - has done much for hockey in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this will be a big day for Stephenville and the area, as I said.

There is only one thing I would like to say: It is too bad that the House is not open in January. Maybe we could have Don Cherry here during Question Period to lay some order to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This day was established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, to remember the Montreal Massacre.

On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine walked into L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and opened fire, shooting twenty-seven female engineering students. Fourteen of these women died, making this the worst mass murder in the history of our country.

As a university student at the time, I remember the day vividly. I was attending the University of Toronto at the time, doing my Masters in Social Work. I remember going home from class to hear the news of what had happened. In the days that followed, there were many emotional discussions with my classmates, social workers, one of whom was Lisa Zigler who is now the Executive Director of the St. John's Status of Women's Council. We were all shocked by the brutality against these women, and questioned how such a tragedy could possibly have happened.

Sixteen years later, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is more important than ever that we remember the events of December 6, 1989. In addition to reflecting on the victims, we can also use this time as an opportunity to think about the women in our own lives and the difference they make in our homes, communities and workplaces. It becomes quite clear then, Mr. Speaker, that all women deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked that a purple ribbon be distributed to each member of the House today. The flags at the Confederation Building have also been placed at half-mast. As you pin on your purple ribbon, and as you look up at the flags, I ask you to stop for a moment and remember those women who were killed sixteen years ago.

As we approach the holiday season, it becomes increasingly important for us to reflect on the many good fortunes and loved ones that surround us. Many of us, this past weekend, spent time with our families, shopping, putting up decorations, and getting ourselves into the holiday spirit; but, for the families of those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, and for families who have been impacted by violence, this coming season will still carry with it tremendous sadness and loss.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my hon. colleagues join me in a minute of silence out of respect for the victims, and to remind each of us of the importance and impact all women have in our communities and on our individual lives.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If we could hear the respondents first, before we have the minute of silence, I think it would be appropriate.

Are there respondents from the Opposition, to the statement?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, it is on this anniversary date that we are still reminded of the tremendous violence that is fostered against women in our society for just being women.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all have a role, not just in this Assembly but outside and in our lives, to ensure that violence is curbed in society, in our homes, in our families, our community, and throughout our Province. Mr. Speaker, that starts by supporting programs that support the victims of violence. That means continuing the support for family violence initiatives, for the violence prevention initiative which I know right now is waiting to see that it will be funded, and I hope that it will be funded over the next few years.

Unfortunately, it is on this anniversary date that we are all reminded; reminded of the terrible, terrible situation that took place in Montreal those years ago. I think it is also a time for all of us to reflect and to remember who those victims were.

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of yourself and of the Legislature, I would like to read the names of those women into our Legislature. There were fourteen women who were victims: GeneviPve Bergeron, who was twenty one; HélPne Colgan, who was twenty-three; Nathalie Croteau, who was twenty-three; Barbara Daigneault, who was twenty-two; Anne-Marie Edward, who was twenty-one; Maud Haviernick who was twenty-nine; Barbara Marie Klucznik who was thirty-one; Maryse LaganiPre who was twenty-five; Maryse Leclair who was twenty-three; Anne-Marie Lemay who was twenty-two; Sonia Pelletier who was twenty-eight, and Sonia was to graduate on December 7, 1989, the day after the massacre; MichPle Richard who was twenty-one; Annie St.-Arneault who was twenty-three; and Annie Turcotte who was twenty-one.

Mr. Speaker, may we keep in mind the names of those fourteen victims as we have our moment of remembrance today, but we also remember the many other victims who are out there in our Province and who still need our support and our assistance to curb family violence and violence in general in our Province.

Today, Minister, I say to you, that we are pleased to stand on this anniversary date and share in the statement that you have prepared for our Legislature.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The names of the individuals just read out, we must remember, were murdered because they were women. The killer went into a classroom, separated the men from the women, and killed the women. That is why, aside from the number of people who were killed, this day is of such significance in this country, because not only are we being asked to remember but we are asked to take action. As Joe Hill said, a famous union organizer of the last century: Mourn the dead but fight for the living. The action that is taken in remembrance of what happened is, I think, what is important to also to focus on today.

I want to pay tribute today, in addition to remembering these women, to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador who spend their time fighting for greater equality for women, fighting to improve programs and prevention of violence against women and working to achieve equality between men and women in our Province, because it is the attitudes of inequality that allow this sort of thing to happen, that it is all right to use power against women, that it is all right to treat women differently than men. That attitude is the foundation of the grossest kind of discrimination that was witnessed obviously in 1989.

I join in remembering these women and the terrible tragedy that took place, but also in commending all those women and men who support the cause of eliminating violence against women and creating a more equal society.

MR. SPEAKER: I would invite all members of the House, all visitors in the gallery, and all those who are listening on radio or watching on television, to stand with the members of the House in the moment of silence.

[Members observe a moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time in furtherance of notice which I gave yesterday, that I would on today be rising on a point of privilege.

The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerns yourself and your appearance in a political advertisement this past weekend in The Telegram, in particular, this photo here, which I will table along with my subsequent motion. You appeared in an ad in The Telegram with other provincial MHAs endorsing the Conservative candidate in the federal election.

First of all, I would like -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker wishes to say that in reference to directions in Marleau and Monpetit, we should be very careful in how we approach this particular matter. I would certainly ask the member for his co-operation.

On one previous occasion, the Chair did permit this particular - to say that the member is rising on a point of privilege, I take points of privilege very, very seriously. However, in this particular matter we should be careful that we do not offend the procedures of the House and that these matters probably should be taken in discussion privately with the Speaker, but in this particular matter, I am satisfied that the member can proceed. I ask him if he would make his presentation rather quickly and to the point.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, I think a point of privilege - I am not aware of any rules of any parliamentary authority whereby you put a time restriction on how long it takes for the member, who raises the point of issue, to state his case.

I certainly do not intend, nor would I ever offend this House or any person who is an Officer of this House or a member of this House and I certainly do not intend, by my comments today, to be contemptuous of the Chair or any person who might occupy the Chair or any seat in this House, but I do feel it is of such seriousness and importance and that is why I proceed to raise it as a point of privilege - which is not your typical point of order that someone might raise and you get to decide the duration of the point of order or how long they might speak to it.

Again, I say it is a point of privilege. It is very serious, and it concerns yourself as the Speaker and your appearance in a political advertisement this past weekend in The Telegram, which I will table when I table my subsequent motion.

First of all, I would like to lay the groundwork for the point of privilege. Again, the people in this House may understand what a point of privilege is all about and the criteria that one needs to satisfy to have it heard and made, but, again, I think this is in the public interest to have this properly explained and laid out.

So, the groundwork; of course, I must state, as the person raising the point of privilege, what the point of privilege is and the circumstances that I feel are necessary in order to make it because you do not make such a motion frivolously.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one can consult any of the authorities that you would like on parliamentary procedure, Beauchesne or Marleau and Montpetit that you referenced, but the basic principles are the same when it comes to making a point of privilege. Freedom of Speech, or an infringement of one's Freedom of Speech in the House of Assembly is considered the most obvious and clearest violation of a member's privilege. Some authorities, in fact, feel that is the only thing you can raise as a point of privilege, but I would submit that even more basic and implicit a privilege and an expectation of Members of the House of Assembly and the public is that the Speaker is to be impartial and non-bias. In fact, the Speaker in the current sitting of the House was elected for the first time in the history of our House, when this new government took office back in November, 2003.

Any actions by the Speaker which bring his or her personal opinion or political affiliation or biases into play would constitute, I submit, a breach of privilege. There is a saying in the legal system: A justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I would submit, the same applies to the role of Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Our parliamentary system is based on democratic principles and our democratic principles are exercised in this House and it is required, absolutely, that the Speaker must be impartial and unbiased and must not be seen as being partial or biased. The actions of the Speaker are also judged, not only what he or she does while sitting in the Chair or within the precincts of Parliament, but also takes into considerations the actions of the Speaker, generally, including what he might do in public.

I refer in particular to item 168(2), on page 49 of Beauchesne. It says, "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

This brings me to the details of the photo of this Saturday's edition of The Telegram which, number one, it is clear that this is a public document because it was circulated by way of a newspaper. Number two, it is obvious that the Speaker appears in the photo. Number three, it is quite clear that the photo was taken in the government common room, which is in the precincts of the House of Assembly. Also, the Chair of Committees, who is, I believe, the Member for St. John's West, is also in the photo. In fact, in full dress and garb that she wears when she is fulfilling her role as the Chairperson of Committees in this House. It is also clear from this advertisement that it is an endorsement of a particular political candidate, Mr. Hearn, who is involved in the current federal election. It is also clear that this is an endorsement of a particular political party. It says in the bottom lefthand corner, it is the Conservative Party. These are the facts.

Under our system, when one raises a point of privilege, there is a two-stage process that needs to be gone through. First, normally the Speaker, once the point of privilege is made, would decide whether or not there is a prima facie case, that there has in fact been a breach of privilege. In other words, is there any evidence whatsoever that one can look to, to at least establish that a case might exist on a prima facie basis so that it could be sent to, then, the House of Assembly to be dealt with?

Now, we have a problem here. That is step one; the Speaker decides if there is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case, it is not dealt with by the Speaker; it is dealt with by the House. That is in step two; and, in step two, normally the matter would be referred to the Privileges and Elections Committee of the House, which Committee would consider the merits of the motion, and the facts, and decide if indeed there was a breach of privilege and, if there was, what an appropriate remedy might be.

We have a Catch-22 in this situation, and that is: The very person against whom the point of privilege is being raised, the Speaker, is the person who, under step one, would normally decide if there is a prima facie case. How can we ask, or even expect, the very person who is the subject of the point of privilege to be both the judge and the jury to this step one process when he is the subject of the complaint? Which brings us to the quandary of: How do we ensure that there is a impartial and unbiased hearing in step one, the prima facie step?

This situation would normally be resolved, I would think, if it involves that situation, that Catch-22, by asking the Deputy Speaker or the Chairperson of Committees to handle that step; however, we have a problem there. Our Deputy Speaker is not elected by all of us here. The Deputy Speaker - and I do not think there should be any pretense about it - is an appointee of the government, so I think that is quite obvious. I think it is also quite clear that we cannot ask the Chairperson of Committees to substitute for the Speaker in step one, since the Chairperson of Committees is, herself, in the same photo. So, we have a dilemma: What is the solution to get us even past step one?

Now, we might normally resolve that by asking for some assistance from an outside parliamentary source. For example, we might go to some other democratic body in Canada, some other Legislature, and ask for their Speaker to assist us in unravelling it, but we have a further problem because our Speaker is the Chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Association, which I think, in and of itself, compromises asking anyone from that association to intervene.

So, where does one go? Mr. Speaker, I suggest the only option we have, and I do not think this is far-fetched at all, is that we need and have to ask someone - to ensure complete impartiality and unbiasedness on step one - we would need to ask someone from where we took our roots. Let's ask the British House of Commons to intervene to do the step one process.

The next issue, once we have gotten past the step one Catch-22 problem, and assuming, when that step one is done, that a prima facie case is established and that it gets referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections, our Standing Orders, Order 65.(1)(e) permits for the appointment of a Privileges and Elections Committee, but it is my understanding that our Privileges and Elections Committee has not been struck. I notice from the board outside the Speaker's Office there is a Striking Committee, and the Striking Committee has, indeed, struck a number of other committees of this House, but the Privileges and Elections Committee, to which this motion, this point of privilege, would normally be referred, has not been struck.

Even assuming we get past step one and we go to step two to have this matter dealt with by the House Committee, we do not have that Committee in existence, which raises the issue of that Striking Committee needing to strike that Committee, because the Speaker is the Chair of the Striking Committee.

Again, we have the dilemma here of making sure that due process is followed. We are very serious about this point of privilege, I am very serious about this point of privilege, and I would like to insist upon, I want to insist upon, the matter unravelling and unfolding as it should. I think the fairest and only way that we can do that is, in step one, get somebody who is absolutely not biased and has no role whatsoever to play in our House of Assembly to make that determination of the prima facie case. Then, I would submit, the fairest way to do it vis-B-vis the Striking Committee is that the Speaker would remove himself from the Striking Committee and have government appoint someone in his stead for the purpose of having the Striking Committee establish the privileges at Committee.

I would like to conclude by filing the actual motion. I move, seconded by the Member for Twillingate-Fogo, that, having established a prima facie case of privilege, this matter be referred to the House Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

I would also table, in support of the motion, along with the comments I have made, the photograph that came from last week's edition of The Telegram.

I have discussed this matter briefly, privately, with the Government House Leader before coming here today. I gave the House notice yesterday that I would be raising it today. I would certainly appreciate the input and comments of the Government House Leader and the Leader of the NDP as to how they feel we might best proceed in terms of process, not regarding the merits or non-merits of the privilege itself, but given the fact that we have this process issues that I have referred to in terms of step one and step two. Any comments and assistance they might be able to offer in that regard would be greatly appreciated as well.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Other than hearing the notice of motion yesterday, I have not participated in any discussions about what procedure might be appropriate in these circumstances, but I do understand that the question is a serious one that has been raised by the Opposition House Leader. There are a number of ways that the question can be dealt with. I guess the question that has to be answered by someone is: Why is the incident giving rise to the matter, a question of privileges of members of the House? Or a question that needs to be dealt with, and someone has to decide whether it was perfectly all right, or whether it was an error in judgement, or whether it was something more serious than that.

I guess the question is: Who is to decide that matter? It has been suggested that Your Honour, since you are part of the subject matter of it, is not an appropriate person to do so. That may or may not be. We know in the legal context, if we have an objection to a judge hearing a case you raise the matter with the judge and the judge decides whether he is in a conflict or is not. If you do not like what he does or she does, you go to the Court of Appeal, but in the first instance the matter is decided that way. In this case, it would be you making a decision and if people did not like it, asking the House to overrule you. That may be too serious a process to undertake in something like this.

The second way that we could deal with it, albeit we do not have a standing committee on elections and privileges struck, would be to strike such a committee and simply refer the matter to the committee without having to make the first decision or assume that the matter that is raised is certainly an issue of privilege or an issue that needs to be resolved and ask that committee to consider the matter and make a report back to the House. That way, at least the House would have the benefit of a judgement on the matter before being asked to consider whether any action needs to be taken.

So, it seems to me we could bypass the first step, or at least agree that it is a question which deserves consideration and that perhaps the best body to consider it would be the standing committee on elections and privileges and that we will proceed to ensure that such a committee was put in place to refer the matter directly to. As I have not had an opportunity to give a lot of thought to this, but it seems to me that rather than put Your Honour in the position of having to make a judgement, subject only to the House taking a most drastic step of overruling your judgement on the first question, then we could agree to bypass the initial ruling and just assume or accept that it is a question, or it is an issue that raises a question of privileges and one that is appropriate to be discussed and determined by the committee on elections and privileges. That is the possible way surrounding it.

As I say, I do not have a definitive answer right now, but I do want to offer my comments to Your Honour and to the House as to what might be a way around this solution without asking the Mother of Parliaments to get involved.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a matter that is of concern to all members, and also of concern to yourself. I think we have to ask ourselves: What are we trying to accomplish here? I do not think we want to embarrass the Speaker of the House. I do not think we want to embarrass this Assembly, under any circumstances. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has kind of alluded to that. If there is to be a process and if the Opposition wants a process and they want an impartial process and a fair process, then, obviously, there will be that process in this House.

However, I am not so sure as an Assembly that we want to put our Speaker in that kind of a situation where it gets run through some process and it then becomes a big issue and it makes it look like something terribly improper was done. Perhaps this was an error in judgment. I do not know. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with the Speaker, nor would I. If it is an error in judgment - when those of us in this Assembly make errors in judgment from time to time we deal with it. Within this House we retract or we withdraw, or whatever we do.

I do not like to see a situation and a process start here where the conclusion is that we have embarrassed our own Speaker in this Assembly. So, I am asking hon. members opposite whether there is some other process we could look at, whether it is worthwhile for the House Leaders to sit down and get together with the Speaker before we finalize this, at this particular point in time, and see if we can agree upon a solution that, for want of a better term, is a better way out than where this could ultimately end up and just become embarrassing to all of us.

If Opposition members are agreeable to having a discussion about this, either together or in the presence of the Speaker and any of the officials, then that is something I would certainly urge you to consider, under the circumstances.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would not have any objection to the suggestion put forward by the Leader of the NDP, if that is to accept that the prima facie case has been made and refer the matter - strike the committee and refer it to the committee for further consideration. We would not have a problem with that. I realize it is not in conformity with the rules, but, again, it is not the intent here to embarrass anybody, but it has happened. It is a fact. We need it dealt with and we need some guidance for future reference as well, as to what is acceptable. So, I think the House has to deal with the matter. Now, if we bypass step one and go directly to the committee which would be struck, we would have no problem with that. The committee would deal with it and do whatever they felt was necessary and appropriate.

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

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

A couple of things, first of all. I do not think that we should automatically accept that a prima facie case - and for those watching, that means that if we are making a judgement on a prima facie case, it means that the facts and the case, as presented by the Opposition House Leader, are strong enough on the face of it. Thus, prima facie case; on the face of it, that it warrants some sort of action. So, I do not necessarily accept without doing my own sort of piece of due diligence, and this is just from the Government House Leader's point of view on behalf of government, that a prima facie case exists; step number one.

Secondly, in terms of the dilemma that the member described, I understand the points that he has made and the sort of quandary that he believes the Assembly may be in. There is nothing to stop any member from putting a substantive motion forward to deal with the Chair or any belief with respect to the Chair, for all members, because when it comes down to it, if a point of privilege - and I was the subject of a point of privilege some years ago. There was no question about - in terms of when the motion was put forward on a point of privilege, it was also followed by a substantive motion.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege was made by a certain member supported by other members. They put forward a substantive motion, which really means, they put forward a remedy that if the member in question, or the individual in question, if there was a case, that all the Speaker had to do was decide: was there a point of privilege, and then it is up to members. So, there is nothing to stop the member opposite, or any other member in this Assembly, at any point in time, if he or she believes strongly that there is a case exists whereby their rights and privileges were somehow breached, either directly or indirectly, or perceived to be breached, as the member alluded to, to putting forward a substantive motion calling for a remedy.

The point of privilege has been raised. I think we need to look at it. Whenever a point of privilege is raised it needs to be taken seriously, because they are raised so infrequently. With respect to how we see this, I certainly support the recommendation that the Premier has made that maybe the Leader of the NDP, the Opposition House Leader and myself, as Government House Leader, have a further conversation about it because in terms of today, the Opposition House Leader advised that he advised me, and he did, it was around 12:15 that he would be - he gave notice yesterday of a point of privilege, that it would be coming.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to leave it, at this point, and see if there is a way forward.

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

MR. PARSONS: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a case of just leaving it. This is a point of privilege, and it has been made. I asked for suggestions, and I appreciate the suggestions. In fact, the Premier alluded to the fact that, if it is an error in judgement, that is fine, too. If the Speaker says it was an error in judgement on his part, that is it for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is not a problem here. If the Speaker says: Look, I did this and it was an error in judgement on my part... - on we move, and there will be no need to go anywhere with this. That option is there as well. However, we can go to the option of the Privileges Committee, whichever way, but we just cannot leave this dangling. It is serious and, because it is serious, we cannot leave it dangling by its very nature.

If it was an error in judgement, and that is acknowledged by the Speaker, we all have to accept that and move on. That is fine with us, too, but there should be some resolution.

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

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

I want to be very clear, I was not suggesting that it be left in eternity; but, as the member knows, or ought to know, I think we all understand and know that points of privilege raised at 2:10 p.m on one day are not ruled on at 2:20 p.m. There needs to be some time to deliberate.

I think all I am speaking to is the process. I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form - in any way, shape or form - that the matters raised by the Opposition House Leader are not serious or should not be taken seriously; but, in order to take them seriously, time and due consideration must be given to them, as there are and have been with every point of privilege that has been raised.

That is the point that I make, and I want to be clear with the Opposition House Leader and members of the House from whence I come on that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final point. I think the issue has been raised, and quite rightly so, based on a public publication made widespread throughout the Province. It has been properly put before the House at the first opportunity for consideration. I would agree with both speakers that the matter, having been put before the House, cannot be dropped, does not necessarily have to be dealt with immediately but should be dealt with, I would think, rather quickly since it involves the issue of the Chair.

If we cannot deal with it quickly, I think that calls into question us carrying on. Leaving the matter dangling is, I do not think, appropriate. It may be appropriate in the case of a member or a question of privilege raised. It is not so appropriate in the case of the Chair.

I would hope that we could resolve it very quickly, maybe by a quick consultation or by some other action that might take place, but I would like to see perhaps even a recess for a few minutes to see whether the matter can be resolved immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their submissions, and the Chair will recess the House. I think this matter should be dealt with immediately. I anticipate that might take about fifteen to twenty minutes but, when we are ready, we will ring the bells and the House can reconvene. We will then, hopefully, be able to resolve the matter at that time.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the presentations by all hon. members on the point of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader.

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively.... and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions...." - to quote Marleau and Montpetit, page 50. In turn, Marleau and Montpetit is quoting Erskine May.

"Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House."

Since the incident under review deals with matters that occurred outside parliamentary privileges or proceedings, they cannot be used as a basis of a question of privilege. I refer members to Maingot, second edition, page 80, and also to Beauchesne, page 13, §31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."

By analogy, a picture is also a statement. Thus, the Speaker rules there is no prima facie case of a breach of parliamentary privilege; however, the Speaker wishes to further address the matter raised.

The Speaker, in his comments made on November 12, 2003, immediately after being elected to the Office of the Speaker for the Forty-Fifth House of Assembly, give guidance in this case to the Speaker on this day.

The Speaker is well aware of a wide variety of acceptable actions by Speakers with relation to participation in partisan activity within the Commonwealth Parliaments, and more particularly within the Canadian region. In some Houses where Speakers are elected by secret ballot, the Speaker attends caucus meetings and most other political events. However, on November 12, 2003, I stated in this House that I would not be participating in caucus meetings and would only attend some social events that are organized by the Progressive Conservative Party. I have attended the AGM of the Party since 2003, but have not attended any of the business sessions, for example. In this case I have followed the practice of my predecessors in this office in this House. I have avoided lunches, dinners, et cetera, that the Progressive Conservative Party has organized.

Thus, in this context, with reference to my commitments and standards that I expect from myself, the decision to appear in a partisan political advertisement was, on reflection, inconsistent with my own standards. The decision to participate was made rather quickly and, as has happened to all of us on occasion, we can and do make errors of judgement.

I offer this House my apology and give my assurance that, in spite of what may occur in other Houses on this type of matter, I am resolved to live up to the high standards of impartiality I set for myself on November 12, 2003.

I leave the matter of the appointment of a Privileges and Elections Committee to the House leadership to decide.

Thank you very much.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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 Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I talked privately with the minister about the foster child being removed from the Tulk family home in Pasadena at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday with not even an opportunity for the Tulk family to say goodbye to their foster son of two years.

The minister indicated to me, at that time, that the proper process was followed in this case. I think he indicated the same in his interviews with the media.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am raising this issue in our Legislature because, if this is the process we have for the transferring of children from loving, nurturing foster homes to other care, then our process needs to change.

Now that this issue has been brought to the attention of all MHAs in the House of Assembly, I ask the minister if he is ready to take the lead on this and have an investigation done into this matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that has been raised by my colleague opposite is certainly an important one and a sensitive one. As the hon. member knows - who, in the past, has been the Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Health - there are issues with respect to that particular piece of legislation which are private, sensitive, and are within the knowledge base only of those individuals concerned, and social workers and so on.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the removal process in this instance was a very emotional one - there is no question about that - and I will give an indication, perhaps, as to why. We are dealing with individuals - and I would submit without exception - who are very close to this little boy. The foster parents, or care givers in this case, clearly are credible individuals who have a very loving relationship with this little boy.

We had professional social workers who were doing their job and felt, in a very real way, they were acting in the best interests of this little boy. We also have the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services representing the Labrador-Grenfell region, who is acting in accordance with the law and with the statute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know the sensitive nature of the question that is being asked, but I would ask the minister if he could conclude his comments now very quickly.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the breath to just continue to some extent.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, and I say in response to the question, is that we are dealing with a sensitive situation; however, being responded to by individuals who have a close relationship and want to do this particular procedure appropriately and in accordance with the act.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I have requested a review. I am expecting a detailed review of the circumstances, but I can assure the hon. member opposite, that we are dealing - without exception in this particular case - with individuals who want to ensure that the best interest of this particular child are protected and in accordance with the legislation, which guides, Mr. Speaker, the principles which ought to be carried forward in this very sensitive issue.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This four-year-old child had originally been in three foster homes before the age of two years old. Three foster homes in Sheshatshiu, none of which apparently had worked out. This child had been placed with the Tulk family twenty-five months ago for care while they were living in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned of the psychological impact that this could have upon the child, and I think that needs to be given more priority. So, I ask the minister: Has this child been assessed by a child psychologist prior to being removed from the Tulk family home?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member opposite, in particular the hon. member, appreciates the sensitivity of this particular issue as it relates to guidelines and privacy issues with respect to this particular act. The principles of the statute clearly indicate that the act recognize that kinship or family ties are important to a child's self development and growth. Secondly, that the cultural heritage of a child shall be respected and connection with a child's cultural heritage preserved.

Mr. Speaker, these are the guiding principles upon which the decision was made in this particular case. These are the principles upon which the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services in Labrador Grenfell Region acted. Again, it is upon that basis that a decision was made. I have indicated, and I have spoken with my officials, that this particular little boy and his circumstances and his affairs must be monitored closely by the appropriate director in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and by the accompanying social workers.

So, in a sense, to response to your question without revealing any privileged information, which may or may not exist in this particular instance, we have requested a special monitoring. The issue is quite public. This little boy requires that sort of attention and monitoring in response, I would say, and I have asked my officials to ensure that there be close scrutiny, close supervision of the circumstances, and that any report be brought to my attention forthwith.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and asks members if they would keep their comments within the sixty-second time limit.

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

MS JONES: I think my questions have been brief, Mr. Speaker.

They are very important questions, I want to point out to my colleagues today.

Mr. Speaker, it has also been brought to my attention that the social worker who entered the Tulk residence and removed this four-year-old child, apparently without even waiting for the child's belongings to be gathered, had, indeed, been terminated from her employment by the Health Labrador Corporation after working in Sheshatshiu for the past seven months. I have also been told, Mr. Speaker, that she was not on the payroll of government at the time.

I have to ask the minister if he can explain the situation and what the employment situation was of this social worker on the day that she entered the Tulk home and removed the child?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular worker was under contract and was requested to carry out a specific role and function on behalf of the Labrador Grenfell director. Again, we have an individual here, Mr. Speaker, who was quite familiar with the circumstances, quite experienced in this area, and was carrying out work as a result of a designated responsibly by the director in question.

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

MS JONES: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister could give me the terms of the contract, the duration of the contract under which this social worker was employed by government, and maybe I could even ask that it be tabled in the Legislature, under these circumstances.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, any designation, or any appointment, or any direction, any information that may assist in this regard, I will certainly undertake to provide upon finding same and upon obtaining same from the director in question.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important here to realize that the director, in working closely with his or her social workers, was carrying out a function in accordance with the legislation, albeit a sensitive issue. Removal of any child is never pleasant, particularly - and I want to reinforce this point - when we are dealing with individuals who have a close affection and a close relationship with this particular little boy. Again, that includes the caregivers in this case, it includes the social workers in this case, and it includes the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services who was doing that particular job in accordance with the laws and the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister feels that because, in his mind, a process was followed, it is acceptable. I say to the minister, that under child welfare legislation in this country I think the principal law always is, it is what is in the best interests of the child that should be looked at first.

That brings me to my final question, Mr. Speaker. In this case we have a child who was in a loving, caring, nurturing family, not to say that this new family might not offer that same nurturing environment, but I also understand that once a child has been placed in permanent care that child is available for adoption. If that is the case, why were the Tulks refused when they offered to adopt this child?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: An issue, Mr. Speaker, that it would be most inappropriate for me to discuss in a public forum. Any particular foster parent, or caregiver, realizes that a child or, in the case of more than one, children in the home of that particular caregiver is there on an interim basis. It is not a permanent relationship, it is a temporary, interim basis. That is the case here, Mr. Speaker. The appropriate authorities made decisions in accordance with the act and in accordance with the law. In accordance with the legislation a decision was made.

I have asked for a review, as has been suggested, and I anticipate receipt of that information in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night the Eastern School Board is scheduled to release a consultant's report outlining a multi-year plan for school reorganization in the Eastern School District. Our office has received several calls from concerned parents who believe their neighbour schools could be closed if the recommendations in this report are enacted.

I ask the minister: Have you been provided with a copy of this report and have you been briefed on its recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there will be a consultant's report that will be tabled at the school board meeting tomorrow night. I have not received a copy of the report but I will be briefed on the report and receive a copy tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, previous reports have targeted schools such as St. Mary's Elementary in the West End of the City and Virginia Park Elementary in the East End.

I ask the minister: Has government given any indication whether or not these neighbour schools, along with others, will be targeted for closure as a result of these recommendations?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the consultant's report has been completed, as I just said. It will be shared with the school board tomorrow. I will be briefed on the report tomorrow, I will receive it tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, this report was done independent of government, and I want to make that point. It was not a government document, it is one that was done by a consultant. We will all receive the report tomorrow. The information contained in that report will be reviewed by government and by the school board and by all the parents who may be affected, or the children who may be affected, by this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate at this time and indicate what those recommendations may be in the report but, in due course, we will all have a look at that report and be able to evaluate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this report will affect the lives of between 40,000 and 50,000 students in 125 schools in the Eastern School District, including the Burin, Bonavista and Avalon Peninsulas. Parents are concerned that consultation on this report will not be inclusive; it will be on an invitation only basis for those who want to give a presentation to the board.

I ask the minister: Will government ensure that meaningful and inclusive consultations are undertaken before the implementation of this plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I want to state here is the fact that this is a report coming from an independent consultant. This report may not necessarily be adopted by the board. It may not necessarily be sanctioned by government. There will be an open consultation process that concerned people, whether it is parents or others, who want to have input into the consultation process will be provided with that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, what I do want to state here is that this is an independent report, and this government, along with the school board, would look at that report, and this government is committed to doing what we feel is appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that we have had independent reports before, that she and her government have overruled. Government overruled the decision of the Central School Board regarding the closure of a school in Exploits District during a by-election this summer. Government certainly has the authority and the will to overrule boards if political pressure is strong enough.

I ask the minister: Why won't you stand up for community schools throughout the Province and ensure that these schools do not close or are negatively impacted, instead of hiding behind another board decision or another report when it is politically correct and politically expedient?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this government is committed to doing the right thing and taking appropriate action with regard to schools. We did look at the decision in Bishop's Falls, and the decision that this government took was the right decision.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want it to be known that I will not be hiding behind any reports and that I am committed to working with this government and doing what is right in the field of education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador was created in 2001 to honour Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made significant contributions to our Province. Anyone can make nominations for this award, and the selection was made by an Advisory Committee made up of seven persons: four chosen by the Premier, the Clerk of the Cabinet, the President of Memorial University, and Chaired by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The process has worked very well for the past number of years, and many dozens of persons have been chosen to be awarded the Order for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Notwithstanding the non-biased and non-political nature of the selection process to date, this government has gerrymandered the selection process by kicking the Chief Justice of this Province and the President of MUN off the selection committee. I ask the Premier: Can you explain why your government has done this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the Order of Newfoundland first came in place there were no recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, then, nobody was qualified in order to be part of the process. As a result, over the course of the last couple of years - and a good job done by the selection committee, and full marks to the Chief Justice and to the President of Memorial University for having participated in that process - we now have more than a dozen recipients of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, it is only appropriate that some of the people who have been honoured by the people of this Province with this huge distinction are now part of that committee.

As a result, we have taken the two people who performed a valuable role for us over the interim period to now move in and be part of that selection process. Those people will be from the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As suggested by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, perhaps there will come a day when all of the people who are on that selection committee will all be members of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of having recipients play a role in the selection process is good, but this does not require the kicking off of the two obvious non-political, non-partisan persons: the Chief Justice of this Province and the President of Memorial University.

I ask the Premier again: Why do you insist, and this government insist, that all seven members, 100 per cent of the Advisory Committee, have to be political appointees: the four you always had, the Clerk of the Cabinet, and now two more recipients to be chosen by the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Far be it for me, Mr. Speaker, to kick off the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador from a particular appointment.

What has happened, as I explained, is that these people have now obviously served a very useful purpose for the people of the Province and they now have been replaced by people who have had the distinction of being honoured with the highest honour that this Province can bestow, and that is the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. gentleman opposite just referred to those people as political appointees. They are not political appointees, Sir. They are people who earned that distinction, and they earned it well. Now they will be rewarded by being able to participate in a process of selecting some of their own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, our selection process was patterned after the selection process used by the Order of Canada, which includes, right to this day, as Chair, the Chief Justice of Canada and the Chair of the Federation of Universities.

Why are we removing these impartial and prestigious positions from our selection process and politicizing this respected and meritorious award? This is blatant political interference and political influence. The abilities, the talents, the accomplishments and the contributions of these recipients should never be tarnished or tainted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: If having these independent and impartial positions on the selection committee is good enough for the country on the Order of Canada, why are they not good enough for our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the hon. gentleman opposite and his colleagues are minimizing what we have done here. We have bestowed an indeed greater honour again on the people who are members of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to participate in that selection committee.

Now, if I take his advice and we follow what Canada does, then we would not have our $2 billion Accord money, or we would not be out trying to get custodial management, or we would not have the Upper Churchill boondoggle that we have now.

I am sorry, Sir, I am just not going to follow what the Government of Canada does. We are going to stand on our own and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

The Aboriginal Justice project of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission has disclosed widespread problems with fundamental justice in our Aboriginal communities in Labrador: an inadequate and underfunded court worker program; a circuit court that does not meet the needs of people to obtain the right to counsel in appropriate times; and, most disturbing of all, the concerns about the translation services so that the individuals charged do not know what is going on and have, in some cases, been pleading guilty to charges when they did not even know what they were being spoken to.

What does the minister have to say about this report, and how does he respond to the charge that Aboriginal people have plead guilty or been found guilty without either knowing the charges they would have to meet or having the right to make full answer in defense because of inadequate language services?

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 legal services for the people of Northern Labrador and, indeed, all Newfoundland and Labrador. It is for that reason that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Legal Aid Commission, in fact, requested that a study be done because of concerns it had with respect to justice services in Labrador.

So, this report, known as the Jenny Reid report, was commissioned by the Legal Aid Commission of the Province for the purposes of identifying what the problems were in Labrador, to identify the gaps and services and to make recommendations to the Legal Aid Commission and to the government as to what steps we should take to make the necessary corrections. We now have the report, and the report is now being analyzed.

I have been in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on six occasions meeting with members of the Inuit and Innu communities. I have met with Jenny Reid. I have met with members of the Legal Aid Commission. The government has already instituted steps for Northern Labrador; eleven RCMP officers in Labrador, a new RCMP detachment in Sheshatshiu, new courthouse in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the Aboriginal (inaudible) itself. We have lobbied the federal government to provide 50 per cent of legal aid funding. But, most important of all, Mr. Speaker, is that we are seeking an agreement with the Aboriginal communities under the First Nation's Policing Program which will provide us with at least $1.3 million for additional justice services in Aboriginal communities in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind ministers to keep their comments within the sixty second limit.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not question the sincerity and the concern of the minister, but what causes me concern, Mr. Speaker, is the statement of a provincial court judge on the radio yesterday, saying: you have a situation where the witnesses ask a question. There will be a long conversation back and forth between the interrupter and the witness and you will get an answer, yes or no - clearly disclosing that what is going on during the translation is not the translation of what is happening. It is a whole different story that does not necessarily meet the needs of justice. As a lawyer, I know the minister will know that this is not totally adequate.

Can he say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - in particular, Aboriginal people - that they will not be unfairly tried by an inadequate translation system in the future and that this will not happen and they will be entitled to the same standard of justice as anyone else in the Province is entitled to?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

And I certainly share the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, in April of this year I attended a gathering on Aboriginal justice in Sheshatshiu, along with other members of the department and the Chief Justice of the Trial Division of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, at that gathering, and subsequently during the opening of the healing room in the new Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the issue of the needs for Aboriginal justice in Labrador and one of the highest priorities, of course, was the need for translation services. When we returned here, the Chief Justice and I had communication and correspondence that we now had to assure that this matter was addressed.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have appointed to the Legal Aid Commission, Ms Mary Adams, who is a translator. We are certainly aware of the problem and we will be taking the appropriate action. Again, hopefully, through a (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocation for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has expired.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are concerning government's inability to have equipment and personnel in place for the winter driving season that is upon us.

The former minister stated that personnel would be place in mid-November, while the current minister said it would take until December 1. The ministers have told us that equipment and workers were in place but was heard otherwise from workers in depots all over this Province.

Can the minster tell us today: With a large storm looming on this Island, that 100 per cent of their equipment and 100 per cent of personnel are in place now that it is the first week of December?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, as I said in the House last week, we are, at this point, fully operational throughout the Province, from the equipment and personnel perspective, with the exception of the twenty people, I think it is - maybe twenty, maybe less than that right now - whose positions have not been filled as a result of retirements and/or vacating positions throughout the year. Those positions are attempting to be filled. It is being handled by the Public Service Commission. We would hope that interviews have been done. In some cases, job offers have been made. What the status of those twenty positions are exactly, I cannot say for sure, but there is a process that has to be gone through with the Public Service Commission. That process is being handled in the appropriate manner.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you can only start when people retire. You start from the day they retire to replace them. It is advertised. When a person resigns, then you look for a replacement, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just say to the minister: Why don't you tell the former minister who publicly said that everybody will be in place by the middle of November? The two of you cannot be right. So, one of you guys - just go ahead and correct your views.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions about this issue for three weeks, and the answers we get from the minister conflict with each worker out there on the highways, and there are conflicting views here today with what the minister had said.

As recently as this morning, we heard of reports of trucks being shuffled around depots due to equipment either being broken down or necessary maintenance not completed.

Will the minister commit to an overall review of the closing of thirteen depots to ensure that we do not find ourselves and the highways not prepared for early winter, like we did before, and have 100 per cent of personnel working?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of the depots are open. The thirteen depots that were closed for the summer are all open. They are winter maintenance depots. They are open. The equipment is as operational as it ever can be at any time in the year. The fact of the matter is that equipment breaks down from time to time. Maybe if the previous Administration had not slashed the budget for equipment replacement from $8 million to $2.5 million when they were in government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - maybe if they had put the $3.5 million back in the budget like we did in Budget 2005-2006 and bought thirty plows like we did this year, we would not have equipment in the state of disrepair that we currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Last night, CBC television ran a story about the opening of the new College of the North Atlantic Campus in Qatar. Prominently featured in the story were Pamela Walsh, former President, and Moya Cahill, former Chair of the Board, who were in Qatar as official guests of the Qatar Royal Family.

Premier, would you please provide the House of Assembly with an update on the investigation surrounding the dismissal of both of these individuals from the College of the North Atlantic, which has been ongoing for two months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what happened with the President of the College of the North Atlantic was, the contract had expired and it was the decision that we would not renew the contract.

Mr. Speaker, if there are any legal issues pertaining to this matter, while the matters are before the court, we will not be releasing information, but once the matters have been resolved, of course, they will be a matter of public record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a twenty-five second question and a like number of seconds to reply.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, despite the recommendations of the College in their White Paper submission where they called for more input on who should be named to the board of the College, the Premier decided to sack the entire board of the College of the North Atlantic and appoint a new board blocked with Tories.

Premier, in your haste, you threw the operation of the College into turmoil because of the lack of continuity. What impact has this short-sighted, crass political move had on the College's relationship with the Qatari government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, time for a short reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one correction. There was one person from the former board who remains on the present board.

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is to note that the board of the College of the North Atlantic is made up of some very credible individuals who represent every region of this Province. What is also very important about this new board right now is that we have gender equity on the board. We actually have more females on the board than males, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: - Mr. Speaker, it is something I am quite proud of!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is where I am supposed to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Before we move to the legislative part, I want to move Motion 5: to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, today; and, Motion 6, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock tonight, Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader has moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 6.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker believes that the ‘ayes' have it.

The hon. the Government House Leader also moves, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am asking the members on the government side and the members on the Opposition side for their cooperation. I do not wish to name hon. members, but I shall if I have to. Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 43.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill 43)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 43 be now read a second time. Are there speakers to the bill?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here today to speak to second reading of an Act called the Electoral Boundaries Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we are to continue, we must have cooperation from all hon. members in the House. The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is making a presentation relative to a very important bill, Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, and I would appreciate the cooperation of all members of the House if we could hear the hon. minister.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 2003, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador sent to this House of Assembly forty-eight members to represent their interests, to look after their interests, and protect the aspirations and hopes of the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the number of members who were sent in that election and the names of the districts or constituencies or ridings that they represent and the boundaries of those districts are set out in an act, in a law, of this Legislature, called the House of Assembly Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced legislation in this Province that I think is quite original for a province in this country. We know today when the next election is going to be, in October of 2007. There will not be, Mr. Speaker, a change in the number of members who come to the House in that particular election. There will not be a change in the names of the districts that the members represent, and there will not be a change in the boundaries of those ridings or constituencies or districts unless this House amends The House of Assembly Act.

Today, we are not amending The House of Assembly Act. Today we are introducing an amendment to what is known as the Electoral Boundaries Act. In the Electoral Boundaries Act the Electoral Boundaries Commission that is set up under that legislation, when it completes the work that it is mandated to do under the legislation, the Commission will present a report to the Justice Minister who must lay the report in front of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the Cabinet, and also lay the report in this House of Assembly.

The report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, when its work is completed, will be a recommendation to the House of Assembly or to the government or to both, and it will then be up to the members of this House to determine if they wish to accept the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. If they do not accept those recommendations and amend The House of Assembly Act, then the next election in October, 2007, will in fact have forty-eight seats, and the seats and the districts will be exactly the same as they are now.

The Electoral Boundaries Act, Mr. Speaker - it might be helpful to just give an overview of the legislation. The act required that the Electoral Boundaries Commission come into effect in 2003 and there was, in fact, a commission appointed under section 13 of the act. The commission was appointed in 2003, but it was not appointed until August of 2003. Now, the act contains an interesting provision, namely that the commission is mandated to complete the work it is called upon to do in the legislation before the end of the year in which they are appointed.

What happened with the 2003 commission, Mr. Speaker, as most members here know, and as we have discussed from time to time in this Assembly, that the commission being appointed in August did not have a chance to complete its work before the end of the year because of the lateness of the appointment and because of the election that came up. So, the commission, at the end of December of 2003, had no power to do anything further. The government decided in light of that, and in view of the fact that the government knew and the members know when the next election will be, that instead of having the commission do its work in 2004, that the government gave a commitment that it would bring in amending legislation so that the commission will be appointed in 2006 and do its work in 2006.

The government, or this House, in the spring session of 2007 can amend the House of Assembly Act if it chooses to do so. I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that there will be sufficient time between that session and the October election for him and his officials to do whatever they have to do to prepare for the election.

Mr. Speaker, the commission consists of five members. The commission consists of a chair appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador. The chair of the last commission was Mr. Justice John O'Neill, and then it is the Speaker of this House of Assembly who chooses the other four members who make up the commission.

MS JONES: Are they chosen?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked if they have been chosen, but of course they have not been chosen as yet. But they will be, once we pass this legislation to create the new commission. As soon as that happens, the Chief Justice will be written by me and asked to appoint a chair, and then the Speaker will be directed to appoint the four other members of the commission. I assume that the Speaker will have consultations with the party leaders in determining who make up the commission.

Now, the first amendment that will be required is to create a new commission. What this bill will do will be to create a commission to come into effect in 2006, and there is a consequential amendment required under the 2003 legislation: a new commission comes into existence ten years after 2003 - which means the next commission would have been in 2013. Now the commission will come into existence next year, 2006, and every ten years after that. So the following commission, of course, will be in 2016.

Mr. Speaker, the commission is required, then its mandate is to - well, first of all, I should say the commission does not have any jurisdiction or authority to recommend how many seats there should be in the Legislature. Right now, the House of Assembly clearly states that forty-eight seats are required. So, the commission now has to carry out its mandate to divide the Province up into forty-eight electoral districts under the legislation. The commission does this by - first of all, there is a statutory district set out. The area generally north of Lake Melville, which I believe is the current district of Torngat Mountain, is an Aboriginal district. It is made up mainly of Aboriginals, and this is mandated in the legislation to be the first district.

The commission in the 2003 act is then required to subtract the population of the Torngat Mountain District from the population of the Province and then, using the remainder, to divide the remainder by the number forty-seven to determine a quotient. Then the commission is required to divide the Province, the Island and the Labrador portion of the Province, into forty-seven further districts for a total of forty-eight.

In doing that work, the commission is allowed to move from the quotient. They are allowed to move up 10 per cent or down 10 per cent. I will just find the appropriate provision here, Mr. Speaker. The commission is entitled to move up 10 per cent or down 10 per cent, but in special circumstances the legislation permits the commission to deviate from the quotient by much more than that, by 25 per cent in special circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the special circumstance deals with community interest and, as a result of that, the districts that are on Coastal Labrador and in the Southwest part of the Island, I think, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the district of the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, there is a bit of leeway to the commission, recognizing that there were no roads in the area to have the districts determined on the basis of a quotient that is either 25 per cent greater or 25 per cent less than is the norm under the legislation.

The commission, in doing its work, the 2003 commission, advised me, in my capacity as Minister of Justice, that, following the rules set out in the legislation, Labrador would lose a seat and, instead of having four seats, it would be reduced to three seats.

The government immediately determined, because of this report, and the uniqueness of Labrador, and the passion the people of Labrador feel for their Province and their country, that it was important that we maintain the four seats in Labrador. Therefore, another amendment in this legislation is to mandate that the commission will come up with four seats in Labrador following the existing boundaries as they presently exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as a result of that amendment, legislation will also be amended to reflect that, since Labrador will now maintain four seats, that leaves forty-four seats; so, the legislation is amended to determine a quotation by dividing the number forty-four by a remainder that consists of the population of the Province, subtracting the population of all of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that covers all of the amendments. Again, I should emphasize the fact that the recommendation of the commission, when the commission prepares its report, the commission also is required to hold hearings, mandatory hearings, public consultations. The act requires a minimum of one on the Island and one in Labrador, but I am sure that this commission, which will have plenty of time to complete its work, will no doubt have public consultations in different parts of the Province, at which time the Members of the House of Assembly and people in the Province can appear before the commission and give the commission the benefit of their opinions and their views as to how the commission should appropriately divide up the Province.

After this is done, as I said earlier, the commission will present its report to the Minister of Justice. The report will be tabled in this House. It will be brought to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and then the hon. members of this House can determine whether they wish to amend the House of Assembly Act and carry out the recommendation of the commission, or otherwise.

That is the intent of the amendments. Apart from assuring that there are four seats in Labrador, apart from setting up a commission in 2006, and making the consequential amendment for the further commissions every ten years thereafter, the legislation stays essentially as it was prior to this amendment being brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments concerning Bill 43, and respond to the minister's comments and perhaps propose a few questions that the minister might be able to educate us on, anything that we do not know. There are certainly a few questions that surround this piece of legislation.

I must say, first of all, I am very surprised that the amendments that we have here do not include a change of the composition of the committee, given what we saw happen here yesterday in this House where the Chief Justice of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was kicked off the Advisory Committee for the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I notice the government hasn't chosen to keep the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador off the committee for the electoral boundaries. In terms of proper people to be on a commission, I think it was very good that the Chief Justice of this Province stays where he is as a member of the committee for the electoral boundaries. I mean we are talking here about the essence of our democratic system, an essential piece of it, i.e. what are the boundaries going to be of a district and who will be the persons. Of course, when a person runs for election in this Province, after you will know what the geographic boundaries are which you represent? It is nice to see that the Chief Justice of the Province is important enough to play a role in the selection of the chair of that Electoral Boundaries Commission as opposed to what we saw here, what the government thinks of the Chief Justice's position vis-B-vis being on the Advisory Committee for the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I find that rather inconsistent, actually, in their position.

A couple of questions -

MR. E. BYRNE: We can take him off that if you want.

MR. PARSONS: The Government House Leader's comments across the House here, that is the exact kind of arrogance and telling comments that we heard.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I offended the member when I was shouting something across the floor, it was said in jest. It wasn't meant to be anything other than that. Everyone else was in having a bit of a respite from whatever was happening, Mr. Speaker, so I certainly did not want to offend the hon. member. I am looking forward to his commentary and, more equally, more importantly, I am looking forward to having some response time to it.

MR. SPEAKER: There isn't a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, Mr Speaker, in jest or not, the comment was made, and if a comment is made across this House which I think educates or informs us as to what this government is thinking, I will certainly feel free to comment on it. I do not know if it was said in jest or not, but the comment was made by the Government House Leader that we can take him off that too, if you want. Given that I was the person who stood here in this Chamber in the last twenty-four hours and argued about why the Chief Justice of this Province should not be taken off the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador's Selection Committee, I find that comment very telling, and I find it very inconsistent that the government has made the move that they have.

Now, regarding the committee and the selection committee, again second reading is a good opportunity to speak to the generics, the general piece of this piece of legislation, and ask the minister any questions in a general nature, and allow him an opportunity to compile any information that he needs to inform us. Obviously we can read the legislation and we can do our own research, but quite often we cannot find, necessarily, all of the answers that one wishes to find. That is why we take this opportunity to do that.

I notice the minister commented to my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that the committee has not, in fact, been struck yet. One of the obvious questions here is: Once the legislation is done, does the minister have any particular timelines as to how that selection would be done? We are getting towards the end of this year. I realize the committee will have all of 2006, from the minister's comments. I am just wondering as to whether we are early in the new year to get that selection process done, because I do believe that the earlier an opportunity the committee is struck the more opportunity they have to consider this issue, to ensure that we are back here by 2007 so that we can do whatever government deems necessary to do here.

Of course, it is fair in the sense that everybody here gets a say in this committee. The Act itself provides that there be a chairperson and that each political party represented in the process plays a role in this committee. That is, in fact, a very good system, it is very ideal. Usually, I do believe, the committee encompasses people who not only have different political affiliations but they generally reflect the demographics of this Province. For example, in our Province, whether you live in a rural area or you live in an urban area is often quite important and quite different. The member, for example, who represents an urban area such as St. John's West or Waterford District, such as the Speaker here, your obligations or duties - your obligations are the same, i.e., to look after your constituents, any needs that they have, but the timelines involved in terms of how you carry out those obligations and perform your duties can often be quite different.

For example, in my own particular district, the biggest area in the district is the Port aux Basques area. Other than that, I have communities as small as twenty-three people that I can only access by boat. In order for me to get around my district is quite a bit different than the Speaker, for example, in his district. He can probably walk it in an hour with a Tim's in his hand, whereas I have to travel thirty minutes by road in one direction and travel on a boat for three hours to get down to Grand Bruit. What goes into the composition of our districts, I would suggest, is quite different when you are talking urban and you are talking rural.

That leads me to the question to the minister again: My understanding is we have basically what you call representation by population, i.e., each district is supposed to, unless there are special circumstances, have roughly the same type of population within it. We do make some exceptions for certain areas. For example, Torngat for very obvious reasons is given a special distinction. If you were to do Torngat on the basis of representation by population you probably would not have a Torngat. You would probably have one seat in Labrador if you just used the representation piece, and that obviously would not be proper nor would it be fair to the people of Labrador. I applaud government's keeping the four seats in Labrador. I think it is a very wise thing to do, I think it is a very necessary thing to do.

By the same token, it is very necessary, when we look at the Island portion of the Province, to ensure that representation by population is not the be all and end all on the Island either. For example, in my own case of Burgeo & LaPoile, if one were to look at it from a population point of view only, you could do a couple of things. You could say that Ramea, which is currently in the District of Mr. Langdon who is the MHA for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, should be included with Burgeo & LaPoile which is my district. You could, for example, say that we will expand Burgeo& LaPoile to go up into the Codroy Valley area which is currently held by the Member for Stephenville East, the Minister of Education. There is a number of options that one could use to break up that district. You could, in fact, say that Burgeo&LaPoile will not exist and you are going to take a piece of it and stick it into Stephenville East and you are going to take the balance of it and stick it into Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. But by doing that you have disregarded totally the geography of the area.

On the west coast itself, you have everybody linked together by a roadway. You have pretty similar type of involvements from Rose Blanche to South Branch, but when you get down to the South Coast it is different again. The access to those communities is absolutely different. You can drive to Burgeo, it takes four hours to get there from where I live, three to four hours to get there, but the other communities you access by boat.

It is good to see that government has left in here these particular issues that the committee can consider. I guess that is where we look at the differences in rural Newfoundland and urban Newfoundland. They are going to be made up here by allowing the committee to use the quotient formula and you have this variation principle of 10 per cent either way. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that I do not know, given the way our population is changing in this Province, but we should have that percentage increased, so it is not a case of just allowing the committee a 10 per cent variance, that the 25 per cent that the minister alluded to should be the discretionary piece given to the committee. The way I understand it right now is that the committee can draw the boundary lines for up to a 10 per cent divergence one way or the other, but if it is greater than 10 per cent it must come back to the House and the House can consider whether or not the difference should be taken into consideration. Then, depending upon a vote in the House, we could or could not have up to a 25 per cent divergence.

My suggestion is that, in the interest of absolute fairness to everybody and because we all know that representation by population does not fit in our Province, whether it is in Labrador or whether it is on the Island, that the 25 per cent discretion should be given to the committee rather than the 10 per cent. That takes it out of the political realm again. We do not have a case where the committee says: Well, Stephenville East could have been from here to here geographically, but they were only 12 per cent divergence so we could not touch it, we were limited by that 10 per cent. The 25 per cent gives the committee that much more latitude.

I would also suggest to the minister, and I strongly urge this, the sooner the committee gets struck when this piece of legislation passes the better. Secondly, when the report comes back from the committee I would suggest and think that it is appropriate and fair to everybody that it should immediately be made known to everybody what it says. Normally, we have questions of transparency and accountability and openness and so on. If this committee reports in November of 2006 and the House opens for its spring session in March of 2007, and the Opposition and the NDP get a copy of this legislation that is going to be proposed by government on the very last day, I do not think that is being very open and very accountable.

We all know now that the election is going to be held on the second Tuesday of October 2007. If we are not going to play politics with this issue of the electoral boundaries, I would submit that the fairest thing to do is as soon as the committee reports, the day that they give their - what Cabinet is going to do with it is another issue. That is up to Cabinet. That is the prerogative of government. If government takes that committee and decides whatever, that is the absolutely the prerogative of the government to do that. All I am saying is that in order to have utmost total fairness to ensure that everybody gets an equal opportunity to consider what is in the report they should all get it at the same time. We still have to deal with whatever government says they want to do with that report.

That leads me to the second comment, that once government makes up its mind what it is going to do I think there ought to be ample opportunity. The Government House Leader, in fairness to him, we have never discussed a piece of legislation in this House yet that he hasn't said to me: Do you feel prepared to do it? If you are not prepared, let me know and we will make accommodations so that it gets dealt with. I have no problem with, historically, what we have done on the watch of the current Government House Leader, vis-B-vis processing of legislation. I would like to get it sometimes earlier. Maybe he had no control over that. I find quite often that we get it one morning and we are debating it in the House the next day, and that is probably because we are so cooperative as well. There have been lots of times when he has given us something and we could use more time, but in the interest of getting things processed we do go along with it and get it done in a timely fashion.

I am just saying, this particular piece I think is one of the most crucial pieces of legislation we are going to have; every ten years, the electoral boundaries. It is the foundation of it. It is one of those things that could be ripe for political interference if one wished to do that. Now, I have had conversations with the Government House Leader outside the House dealing with this, and the comments I am getting - and I understand the Minister of Justice is on record as saying the same thing outside the House, that in their view the understanding is we are going to end up with forty-eight seats and we are going to end up with pretty well some minor changes to the boundary lines we have at the present time. You might end up with a boundary line going here or there. That is what the hope is and that is what the thought is right now and that is where everybody thinks we are going.

Obviously, if that turns out to be the case, I don't any of these forty-eight people are going to have much to complain about. Somebody in the public might say they want to be in a certain district as opposed to being in another one. No doubt the committee will allow the public to have the opportunity to have that input. If someone lives in a certain community and feels they should be in another district, that is the opportunity for the public to get involved. We are only in here as the representatives. We just happened to get elected in any particular district that the boundary lines are drawn for, but the ultimate sayers of where we should be here are the people, and the people should take every advantage to go before this committee that the minister is going to strike and voice their opinions. If the people of Burgeo, for example, think they are better off being in the district of the current Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, that is their prerogative to suggest that. Absolutely! They should take full advantage to do it.

That is why I would also say to the minister - and I don't think there are any parameters on it right now - that this committee should be told by government, or asked by government, to be as broad and far ranging as they can be in their public appearances, to allow people an opportunity to have input. Don't, for God's sake, just do this thing in the Fairmont Hotel in St. John's and in the Glynmill Inn in Corner Brook. Every district in this Province ought to have an opportunity to make their case. You have to get out into rural Newfoundland. Go to some of the nicks and tucks that we have in this Province, so that these people, many of whom live in urban centres and probably do not have a full appreciation of rural Newfoundland, the concerns of rural Newfoundland, and the relationship that a person in rural Newfoundland might have with their MHA versus what someone who lives in St. John's might have with their MHA. It is absolutely different. I have experienced it myself.

The minister should encourage the committee to make sure they get the views of these people. This is not simply about drawing lines on a map. This is not only a surveying exercise where they sit down and they have the latest statistical chart from Census Canada, and they sit down with a pencil and decide: Well, this one is going there and that one is going there, and so on. It is not what this is supposed to be about. The purpose of the commission is so that the commission consults with the people, too. That has to be done.

In summary, at this point I would appreciate it if the minister could tell us when he intends to get the committee struck. Will it be definite as to when they come back? I think it is hairy scary to say we hope to have them back before the end of 2006. I think there ought to be a deadline as to when they must report by. I think putting it out to December 31, 2006 is too long. I think when the report comes back government should undertake to get the report released to the other political parties that sit in this House, immediately, at the same time that government gets it. I also think there should be some kind of undertaking and public statement by the government that they are prepared to have the legislation prepared on this thing well in advance of the opening of the session in the spring of 2007, because it is so important.

The members here, I am sure, would like an opportunity to get the report, read it and go consult with our people as well, everybody we represent. If the suggestions by the committee, for example, are going to take some community out of the current district of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am sure he is going to want to go and talk to these people. The earlier we get it, as members of the House, the more important.

I also think government should give some consideration - we will get into greater detail on this when we get in committee stage. I do believe that instead of the 10 per cent rule, where the committee is given discretion, because it is my understanding - and I would like to be corrected on this if I am wrong here. It is my understanding that the committee right now has the authority, the discretion to say we can go 10 per cent one way up or down, right now, with exceptions, and they have to justify it, for example - or your geography would justify it, or a certain, I suppose, even economic setup or whatever region might be a justification for it. But if you go beyond ten, you have to go back - only the House can do it. From ten to twenty-five, only the House can make a decision that we are going to vary it one way or the other. Now, I may be wrong on that - and if the House does vary it, the House itself can only go up to a 25 per cent variation. So, I would like to be educated, if you would, by the minister as to how that formula actually works, so that we all know we are singing from the same hymn book.

That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to receiving some answers from the minister and proceeding for further debate and detail on this later.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about the Electoral Boundaries Act now before the House, the amendment to provide for a new Electoral Boundaries Commission to be established in 2006 for the next election.

I think it is required by this existing legislation that every ten years there is supposed to be a review to ensure that the boundaries of our electoral districts reflect the needs of the population, and one wonders why this is done every ten years. There is a principle of our democracy in this country of one person one vote. In fact, it is a constitutional principle that has been used, in some respects, to challenge electoral boundary changes, where the 10 per cent rule that my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, talked about, of the 10 per cent rule of up or down. People have challenged through the courts, boundaries or setups where the difference between one particular population in a district versus another was so large that it distorted the principle of one person one vote.

In other words, if you had a district with 2,500 voters electing one member to the House of Assembly and another district with 25,000, then the value of a vote in the district with 25,000 voters is obviously one-tenth of a vote in the district with 2,500 voters because they each elect a Member of the House of Assembly and then when the laws are made and decisions are made, decisions as to whether a government is in power or not, is made by a much smaller percentage of people. Then when you take our system, our antiquated and anachronistic system of first past the post, where it is only a plurality required - in other words, whoever gets the most votes gets elected. You could have a situation where in this theoretical 2,500 vote system, where there are three or four candidates and the person with the most votes gets about 700 or less. You may have a larger riding with 15,000 or 20,000 votes and only two candidates, and to win that district you need to get - or you could get as many as 7,000 or 8,000 or 10,000 votes in order to get elected to a place like the House of Assembly. That is why this is important, because it does have a lot to do with democracy and representation. There does have to be rules, and yes, there have to be exceptions, but the general rule that each person is entitled to one vote, should also indicate that each vote should be of equal value.

I think everybody in this House, whether they are urban members or rural members, understand that the obligations and the role, to some extent, of members from rural districts is different. The expectations are different. The level of dependence on the support and help and assistance of the Member of the House of Assembly is different. That is often, in this Province, the result of tradition and history, where a Member of the House of Assembly was not just a political representative of a particular party who came to the House of Assembly to vote based on a party platform or a party ideology but, in fact, acted as a broker, if you will, for his or her constituents. This was the person who gave you access to government services. This was the person who - and I know lots of cases. If you needed a birth certificate you did not go to the department involved to get your birth certificate, you phoned your member. You phoned the member: I need a birth certificate. Can you send me out a birth certificate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They probably still do, said the member for - they do not do it to me, I am thankful. People don't phone me up and say: I need a birth certificate. Can you send me one out? The Member for Grand Bank, apparently, provides that service. I am sure she does not want me to tell all of her constituents that, but these are some of the things that happens in this Province and have happened in this Province for many years.

Let me say to the Member for Grand Bank, if that is what her constituents expect and she wants to deliver that, then that is certainly up to her. If the demands on a politician are such that a greater level of service is required, I have to say that some of the issues, some of the problems, some of the expectations, can be met by providing greater assistance to rural members, more office staff, more ability to provide for those sorts of needs, and not necessarily by saying in the constituency which you represent it is quite all right to have - and I am only using this in theory, now - to say that you can have the average being 10,000 and for a rural district only 5,000; because that, in fact, distorts the democracy that we are in.

That is one of the first considerations when we are talking about electoral boundaries. This is how the democracy is determined, because there have been cases brought to the various courts challenging electoral boundaries on the very basis that a person in an urban riding says, according to the findings of this Electoral Boundaries Act, my vote is considered worth less, and has less effect, than the vote of someone else.

One way to solve the problem is to provide greater support for people who are in rural ridings, so that they can provide greater service and greater access to government services, as is the tradition and the expectation of constituents. Another way to solve the democratic deficit, as I talked about, where if you have, in some cases, one vote being worth more or less than another, another way to ensure that the House of Assembly, in this case, is representative of the voters, is to have a different system entirely.

Instead of what I am calling the antiquated first past the post system, which says that if your vote does not go for the winner you have somehow lost your vote - if there are three candidates in an election and one person wins with 40 per cent of the vote, 60 per cent of the people think, or are told to think, in some cases, that they lost their vote. They are also encouraged to vote for a government member, or someone who can claim that they are going to be a government member, in the next Administration.

It is again part of our system which I call part of our brokerage politics, that you want your member to be in the government because, if your member is in the government, he can deliver things or she can deliver things from that government because they are a government member. That is part of our political mythology, part of our political culture in this Province, but that also runs contrary to notions of democracy, that your vote is not somehow or other worth that of another person if you happen to vote for the candidate who does not win.

There is a way around that, and I am going to talk a little bit about alternative methods of having a democratic system that is more representative of people and yet provides the type of constituency support and assistance and work that people expect, and that is called proportional representation. A lot of talk about that lately, a lot of talk about that in the country, a system of proportional representation which ensures that in an assembly such as the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, there would be a number of members of the House proportional to the number of votes that party received in a general election.

It does not mean that there are no constituencies represented. It does not mean that at all. Most systems of proportional representation that exist in the democratic world have a mixed system. The Germans, for example, have a system where there are constituency representatives and each party runs candidates in those constituencies. Then, in addition to that, there are seats that come from a list from that party. Many of them are candidates in the election in any event, but there is a party list.

If, for example - and I will use the NDP as an example - if the NDP received 10 per cent of the vote in the last election, the NDP would be assured of having 10 per cent of the seats in the provincial Legislature. It would mean five seats instead of two. In fact, there are situations where you could get as many - and we have done this in federal elections in this Province in the past, where the NDP received as much as 30 per cent of the popular vote but elected nobody. Elected nobody. Thirty per cent of the popular vote of the Province in the federal election and elected nobody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for CBS is going to get up and make a speech when he is ready.

It does not take anything away from anybody. What I am suggesting - you can make your speech. If you do not like my arguments, you can make your own.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that, if you had a system that ensured that the Legislature reflected what the voters wanted, then you would be more likely to get what the voters wanted in terms of policy and in terms of direction. I will use a good example, Mr. Speaker.

In 1988, there was a big debate in this country about free trade. Some of you will remember it. I was in the Parliament in 1987 and got defeated in 1988, so I know a lot about it. That election in 1988 was known as the free trade election. The Member of CBS might have been too young then, but he was a follower of politics from a young age so I am sure he can remember this.

Here is the example that I want to lay before him: In1988 there was a big issue in this country, should Canada enter into the Free Trade Agreement? Was the Free Trade Agreement something that was good for Canada or not? That was the focus of the election. At the end of the day, that was really what the election was about. Sixty percent of the voters voted for parties that were adamantly opposed to free trade - adamantly opposed. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party were opposed to the Free Trade Agreement that was entered into. About 40 per cent of the people voted for the PC Party of Brian Mulroney.

The vote was so focused, and the issue was so focused; yet, the majority of people very clearly did not want to have this deal with the Americans signed. With regard to the merits of the deal, I am not going to get into that. That is a different question. Regardless of the merits of the deal, a matter that was considered to be of significant direction for this country, the majority of people opposed it and voted for parties that opposed it; yet, the party that got 40 per cent of the vote ended up with a majority government in Ottawa and implemented a free trade deal, against the wishes of the majority. That is part of what I am talking about, the democratic deficit. That is a good example of it.

A proportional representation system which says, yes, we will have constituencies and you will be the member, and some people will be the member for a particular constituency, and that is your constituency and those are the people who look to you as their member, but there are also in the Assembly, whether it be the House of Commons or a Parliament like this, there are people who are there to ensure that there is a balance in the Assembly based on the number of votes that the party gets.

It is called a mixed system. There is nothing magic about it. There is nothing weird about it. There is nothing strange about. It exists in most countries of the democratic world. There are very few counties, comparatively speaking, that do not have some form of proportional representation. You have it in the Parliaments of Wales, of Northern Ireland - even in the English system - of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, not the House of Commons, not the House of Representatives or the Senate of the U.S., not the House of Commons of Canada, but lots of places in the world outside of these countries.

A lot of people have used bad examples of what proportional representation could lead to, because you could have fifty parties, presumably, depending on where you set the threshold, but if you say you do not get any seats unless your party gets 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the vote, then that is the threshold. So, if you had the Newfoundland and Labrador Party with 2 per cent of the votes, they would not get any seats; but, if they were good enough to get 10 per cent of the vote they should have some seats.

That is the kind of way it would work. In this Province, you would still only see three parties. You are not going to have ten parties, you are not going to have five parties, because there is not enough diversity of opinion, frankly, in Newfoundland and Labrador to build those different parties.

What I see, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity. Now, this is not the opportunity. Obviously, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is one that is statutorily required to come about every ten years. There are some changes being made because our last commission expired; their mandate expired. It does not seem to me - and I may be jumping the gun here - that anybody is up to anything here. I cannot say that about some previous electoral boundary exercises since I have been here. I remember one.

There was a report came to the House and the government did not like it, so they had another one. They did not like the results of that, so they changed all the names of the districts, including mine, and the result of the exercise - it was very interesting. We had an election in 1993. I won the election over a certain individual and then, lo and behold, we had an Electoral Boundaries Commission, and that individual was a secretary to the commission, and they changed the district around. They changed my district around, as part of the exercise. All of a sudden, great big chunks of NDP votes were not in the district any more, and great big chunks of another party's votes were in the district, and they changed the name of the district. Shocking! Shocking!

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I had run in the great District of St. John's East. Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was entirely in St. John's East, and had been for probably decades and decades, but all of a sudden St. John's West was now St. John's East and my district was Signal Hill-Quid Vidi. It confused some people, even me. I used to live in my district, Mr. Speaker, but, after the Electoral Boundaries Commission came out, all of a sudden I didn't even live in my district any more.

A lot of funny things can happen, Mr. Speaker. I see Your Honour, the same thing has happened to him. Sometimes funny things happen, Mr. Speaker, when Electoral Boundaries Commissions get to set about their work and governments decide to fool around with them afterwards. Fortunately, I won the next election, too, Mr. Speaker, against the same individual. That individual may have had the last laugh, mind you, and now sits in a very secure place in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: An Electoral Boundaries Commission is an important piece of democratic work that has to be done. It has to be done as impartially as possible with respect to the democratic principles, and there ought to be no fooling around. I think they call it gerrymandering, I am not sure who Gerry was, who did all of this great work and gave his name to the activity. I am not sure who this Gerry character was. Maybe someone else here who knows more about parliamentary democracy can tell me who Gerry was, but gerrymandering was the name of it; you change around the districts to suit your political purposes, and whoever has the power to that can be successful in doing it, potentially.

I understand the Electoral Boundaries Commission is formed by, if the appointment comes - the Chair is appointed by the former Chair of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Committee, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador appoints the Chair of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and the Speaker of the House, in consultation with representatives of parties in the House, appoints other persons to be part of that commission.

So there is, on the inside, shall we say, a committee that has certain partisan interests in ensuring, I would hope, not ensuring that their party has the thing manoeuvered to their benefit as a party, but ensuring that the process is not affected to someone else's benefit.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but in the last - and maybe the minister can correct me on this - I understood that the last time we had an Electoral Boundaries Commission there were two representatives of the governing party and one representative of the other two parties. I believe that is the case, and I wonder why that is. Is it somehow the governing party has more knowledge about being fair and democratic, or is there some attempt to give an advantage here to the government?

We will have another opportunity to discuss that in the Committee stage, but perhaps it is time that we got rid of that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is time that we made sure that the Electoral Boundaries Commission consists of one representative appointed by the Chief Justice, and a committee of three appointed by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to take that suggestion seriously so we can talk about that.

I see the Speaker winding his hand around there. I am not sure what it means. I think it means it is time for me to quit, but if I can have the indulgence of the House for another moment, by leave, Mr. Speaker. By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank hon. members for that bit of leave.

I think it is something that, it is time we made this process of electoral boundaries a little less partisan in keeping with the greater sense of fairness and democracy that we try to engender. That is something that maybe the minister will be willing to accept such an amendment in Committee when we get to it; because, if we are going to set up an Electoral Boundaries Commission, it should not only be fair but also should be seen to be fair. I do not think it would be seen to be fair if the odds are that the two people in the governing party seem to have more influence or more power or more ability to change the boundaries than anybody else. Because my expectation is that the reason for having people representative of parties there is not to bring it in their favour but to ensure that it is not used by somebody else to their favour, to make sure that we have a level playing field, to make sure that it is an apolitical situation. By having one person from each party representative in the House, I think we can accomplish that.

There may be opportunities at other times, Mr. Speaker, to have major changes in our political system. I know there is talk of that on the national level. Efforts in British Columbia and P.E.I. seem to have failed by setting a referenda that, questions that were not acceptable to the public, or by the conduct of particular referenda. That is another issue, but we have seen major changes in places like New Zealand in the last ten years, which moved from a first past the post system entirely to a proportional representation system within the last ten or fifteen years in the entire country, and I think it has proven to be a successful effort in terms of making sure they have an adequate democracy in New Zealand. If it can be done there, it can be done in Canada and it can be done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some of you were here in 1992 or 1993 - in 1993 it was - when we had a private member's resolution that I presented, that suggested that we change our system from a single member constituency to a dual member constituency with half the number of constituencies, same number of members but each constituency would be represented by two people. Each voter would have two votes, like we did before, I say that to people who do not know much about our history, but like we did before and like we did until 1974 in the District of Harbour Main-Bell Island. The Member for CBS would be aware of this. Up until 1974 there was a district called Harbour Main-Bell Island that had two members and everybody had two votes. Years ago, 100 years ago, most districts were dual member or triple member constituencies in some cases. What I suggested as a model for a gender equal House was that we have dual member constituencies in which each person had the right to vote for people on two lists, one vote for a woman and one vote for a man. It would guarantee absolute -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harbour Main was a dual riding.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Harbour Main was a dual riding, absolutely. I say to the current Member for St. John's East, speaking as a former member for St. John's East, there was a time when St. John's East was a triple member constituency, that there were three members for St. John's East and there were three members for St. John's West. The reason for that has to do with another important question, aside from gender, which was religion. Religion had something to do with it, Mr. Speaker. Each party, for some reason, ran a Catholic, a Protestant or an Anglican - I think they called them dissenters in those days - a Catholic, a Protestant and a dissenter, so that the Methodists or Wesleyans, or whatever the choice was in those days, would have a candidate from each party, the Catholics would have a candidate, and the Protestants or Anglicans would have a candidate. That was the way it was done.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was one of the remarkable achievements of Newfoundland's society, that the sectarianism of the 1860s was dissipated by measures such as that. Another measure - I am sure the Minister of Justice would be interested in this - was that there was a very careful check kept in the public service as to who had public service jobs in which department, what their religion was, and how much of the public purse was paid to each religion. It was even totted up at the end of each year.

The Speaker will remember this, because we had a visit to the Legislative Library some time ago and one of the items on display was a book from the 1920s, a report from the public works department which showed a list, by religion, of each person employed in the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador and what the expected number would be of each religion, all totaled up, all of their names, all of their salaries, what their religion was, totals at the bottom, and whether or not there was any variance from the allocated portion that should have gone to that particular denomination.

I am not suggesting that we go anywhere near anything like that, but it certainly brings us to understand that political systems -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - need to reflect the desire of the people to have a system that is democratic, to have a system that does not favour one group over another, whether it be urban versus rural, whether it be one religion versus another, whether it be one gender versus another. It was in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I proposed the dual member ridings with all women and all men. It is a proposal that has been around, it is still around, and people talk about it. I got an e-mail recently from someone in Toronto wanting to propose an equal gendered solution to a political life, wanted to ask about it

When they were establishing Nunavut, the Nunavut Implementation Training Committee actually proposed that, that particular system would reflect the decision making in the Aboriginal communities of Nunavut, that the elders were equally female and male. They offered their wisdom and advice. That was an option that was presented. It went through a referendum as well - very badly handled, in my view - and was opposed by someone who is a Member of Parliament, a male Member of Parliament, and it did not succeed. Although, I have been recently told by members of the Nunavut Assembly, female members, that the idea is not dead, that they would still like to propose this to ensure that their Assembly reflects the people whose laws they are making.

I think we have to understand that the system, as it exists right now, was not always the way it is. That also means it does not always have to stay the way it is, so that we can build a system that reflects the needs of the people. There is a lot of concern across this country about the democratic deficit, about reform. How do you get people involved in voting if they say, if I do not vote for the winner I lose my vote? How do you get young people involved in the system when they are told if they do not vote for the winning candidate somehow their voice, their views, are not reflected in Parliament unless you win the seat?

These are all questions that obviously arise when we are talking about electoral boundaries. We cannot solve them all with this one piece of legislation and this is not the time for it. I will say, Mr. Speaker - I have had the indulgence of the House for some time, by leave - that maybe we can do at least one little thing in this legislation. Maybe we can say that our Electoral Boundaries Commission for the first time is not going to be overloaded by one party or another, that we are going to have someone appointed - normally a judge, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The judge is the chair. The Chief Justice normally appoints a judge as the chair, so the judge is considered non-partisan. He or she is the chair and then the other three members, it should be - there are four. There should be only three members, one for each of the three parties represented in the House, and the government should not have additional advantage, if you call it that, by having two. Maybe we can make that little bit of progress this week in this House in terms of advancing the cause of democracy in setting electoral boundaries.

I know I have taken up the Member for Grand Bank's time. I am sure she wants to speak on this, so I will sit down.

I certainly support the idea of getting ourselves a new Electoral Boundaries Commission in place for the 2007 election, a democratic reform that I give credit to the members opposite for, their government implementing the certainty of the four-year term. It is a positive step forward, in my view, and I think if we can take this additional step with the consent of members on the other side of the House, that would be a positive thing as well.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and listen with interest to other speakers at second reading on this issue.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I listened with great interest to everything he had to say. Even though he went on and on and on, it was all of great interest and I appreciate his comments.

I welcome this opportunity, as well, to speak to Bill 43, Mr. Speaker. I guess I am a little curious about what the expectations are, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to this particular piece of legislation. Any changes to the Electoral Boundaries Act will obviously impact on rural Newfoundland. I guess that is why I wanted to speak to it, because I wanted to ensure, or get the message out, and especially to the minister responsible, of the need to have a thorough consultation process here, and not just a consultation process that would follow along the same lines we see when the Budget consultations takes place, which normally would go to regions of the Province. I think it is really important, because of this particular piece of legislation, that the outcome of it will impact on people of the Province, particularly whether or not they have sufficient representation. I think it is important to actually take the consultation process into every district, all forty-eight districts, and I am pleased, of course, with the decision made by the government with respect to Labrador because I think that it is really important that we maintain the four seats in Labrador. Having said that, it is going to be really important as well that we give the same type of respect and recognition to the need of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at our Province we are talking about 10,000 miles of coastline. We have communities that were established on the very tips of land in some respects because of course they all built there to take advantage of the fishery and we should never lose sight of how important that fishery still is to the Province.

But these communities want to survive. They have been working hard to survive, despite all of the hardships they have been facing as a result of what has been happening in the fishery. These communities want to continue to exist. They do not want to be amalgamated or people having to move to larger centres and the communities themselves die as a result of that. So, it is going to be really important for this consultation process to get out to every nook and cranny of our Province. To get out into every district and give all of the people who are going to be impacted by this piece of legislation and the changes to the boundaries an opportunity to be heard. I know, as one member who represents the rural areas of our Province, I know how much our constituents depend on their members who represent rural districts. It is different. It is a different ball game altogether when you talk about representing an urban area versus representing a rural area.

I remember my colleagues saying to me when we were in the government, and you would have Ministers of the Crown who would say, you know, representing a St. John's district they may get one or two telephone calls. For me, it was not unusual for my office to receive fifty calls a day, and we are still getting a lot of calls but it is funny what happens when you go in Opposition, the expectations change somewhat versus to when you are in government. But having said that, the need is still there. We still get a substantial number of calls. We still get people in the rural communities who look to the MHA as that first point of contact. When they have a problem, when there is an issue they need to have resolved, when they need a service provided, they will call the MHA, and sometimes it will just be for information. Who do I talk to about this? Where do I go to get that? A lot of cases, because of course a lot of them live so far from the Avalon area, from the St. John's region in particular where a lot of the government services are, a lot of them live so far from that area that they will call the MHA or the staff who work with the MHA and ask if we could do it for them. If we could go pick up this or deliver that. Of course, we do it. We do it because we are there to serve the people who elected us.

That is why it is going to be so important for this committee to hear exactly what constituents rely on their MHAs for, why it is important for them to have that access to their MHA and why it is important for it not to be weakened so much that - for instance, take the Burin Peninsula, if you were to decide that the entire Burin Peninsula should be served by one MHA. Now, I know what it is in terms of my own district, where I have fifteen communities. I have people who, in a lot of cases, are looking for employment, looking for access to government services and do not make the distinction between what an MP does and what an MHA does. Of course, when they call, what you do is you try and help them out no matter what or you give them the number to the MP's office and you advise them while you are doing it.

So, these constituents really need access to their MHA, and they do not want to have to wait days. In a lot of cases, they cannot even wait hours for the MHA to get back to them. That is what is so important about this piece of legislation. It is ensuring that we do not weaken the process, that we do not end up making it more difficult for people to access their member who they elected to be their representative in the House of Assembly. My concern would be that what may transpire or could transpire if we do not have a thorough consultation process and hear from the people, that we may play into what government seems to be doing, and that is looking at regions and hubs.

I remember the Member for Gander referring on an Open Line show to hubs, you know, how important it is to support the hubs, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West talking about how important it is to support regions. There is nothing wrong with regions but never lose sight of what makes up that region, and the individuals, the people, the towns, the communities who comprise that region. They do not want to be forced to see everything being centralized. That is one of the issues, I guess, I have in terms of this particular piece of legislation and that is to make sure that we never lose sight of how important it is to provide the appropriate access for MHAs, and we do not want to weaken the process.

When we talk about regions of a province or hubs, then I am afraid that is exactly what will happen. We will find communities being swallowed up in this process. In fact, whole sections of the Province, whether it is the Northern Peninsula, the Burin Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula, we do not want to see those being looked at as regions. I think it is important, again, that we look at the individuals who are going to be impacted by any changes to this legislation. At the end of the day, I think we have to guard against that happening and the only way I think we can do that, is if this is a government that is going to listen to the people of the Province through the consultation process, then it has to be a transparent process; that you really have to go around the Province and you really have to listen to what is being said and take it seriously. Be accountable to the people who elected all of us to be here so that, at the end of the day, we do not end up with having representation in such a way that the numbers are overwhelming for any one individual to try and do justice to the people who are involved or the people who are impacted by any decisions that will be made as a result of this.

The expectations; again, I know what the expectations are of MHAs and I am sure all of you do. The forty-eight of us here were elected to make sure that we represent the people who elected us. That is something that we have to make sure, through this particular piece of legislation and the changes to the Electoral Boundaries Act, that we do just that. We make sure that we can live up to those expectations because, again, if you live in - if you represent St. John's, I think there are seven MHAs representing St. John's.

MR. REID: I think there are eight-and-a-half, actually.

MS FOOTE: I think there are seven actually in St. John's proper, if you do the count. Of course, then you have - if you look at the whole Avalon region, and you are looking at CBS and you are looking at other areas of the Province and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cape St. Francis.

MS FOOTE: Cape St. Francis and Mount Pearl, of course your numbers are even greater. I know the population - if you are looking at it in terms of population it would make sense, but you can never lose sight of the fact that access to service is so important.

I know former colleagues of mine who represented St. John's areas, rarely were asked to do anything in terms of accessing services on behalf of their constituents, because by and large, people who live in this area know where to turn, know where to go, and they know exactly where to get to the Confederation Building and the types of services that are being provided, but for those people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you are that point of contact. The MHA is, in fact, that point of contact. That is something that, of course, we pride ourselves on being accessible and responding to those questions when asked to do so. We do it on a daily basis, but that is the job and that is what we want to continue to do. It is so important for us to make sure that we continue to do that even after the changes are put in place to the Electoral Boundaries Act.

Again, when you look at the rural areas of the Province, you know when they are having difficult times. As we know today, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural parts of this Province people are hurting. They are having to go away to look for employment. They are looking to their MHA to provide the type of support and information to help them do that. Again, if you go and weaken it all by bringing greater numbers in and making an MHA responsible for a greater number of communities, than my fear is that the very types of services that people have come to expect from their government and from - and I include the Opposition in that when I talk about government, because people sometimes do not make the distinction about whether or not you are representing government or representing the Opposition. They just look at you as an MHA and they know what your job is. They elected you to work on their behalf and that is exactly what they expect you to do. You are that front line and that is why it is so important - and I repeat again, it is so important that this consultation process take place in a transparent manner, that you get out around Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and hear firsthand exactly what people of this Province think about this, what they think about the changes to the Electoral Boundaries Act, how it will impact on them, in fact, if they do not have access to their MHA as readily as they have today. That is why the process has to be one that I think is brought back to the House of Assembly. I think decisions are made much sooner than the end of 2006. I think it is really important. This is something I don't think that will happen or should happen in a matter of coming back, having done the consultation process, decisions being taken and being enacted. I think it is really important that it come back and everybody has an opportunity to have a say in what has been heard and then we move forward from there.

I think, again, with respect to Labrador, it was the right decision. I am asking now that the same type of respect be given to the rest of the Province, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador, given the unique circumstances that we find ourselves in, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know in my own district most people, I guess, rarely come to St. John's. They go to Marystown. Unless they have reason to go off the Burin Peninsula, most people live, work and enjoy being on the Burin Peninsula. Unless you have to come to St. John's or go to Clarenville for medical reasons, or you have to come in for a meeting of some sort, depending on where you work and what you do, most people live, work and enjoy being on the Burin Peninsula. That is again a situation, that it is one that they have come to accept and they are fine with that.

Again, when you look at people in the St. John's area and access to services, they are much more readily accessible to them. Now, do they rely on their MHAs? I guess it depends on what district you are in. It depends on the income of people in a particular district. It depends on their circumstances in a particular district. That is not to say that the MHAs representing St. John's districts do not get calls, but I know that in some cases they get far fewer calls than an MHA who is representing a rural district.

I am asking the minister to make sure that when the process is put in place, when you put the committee in place, that, in fact, the consultation process is one that, at the end of the day, we know will take into account the views of people, especially people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is really important, because, again, the whole idea of representation by population is one that for rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be a difficult one to swallow. If you just look at the landscape in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the geography of rural Newfoundland Labrador, trying to get around rural Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly districts where you have islands and you can only get to it by boat. So, just the time to get from one place to another versus in St. John's or in Corner Brook.

I really think it is important that all of this be taken into consideration when the committee goes out and does it consultation. I know it would be easy to do this process and say: Well, you know, we have to be fair in terms of making sure that the number of people, give or take 10 per cent, have fair access to their MHA, just as people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do, but you have to take into account other aspects. Those other aspects would be geography, lifestyle, employment opportunities, income. All of these things have to be taken into consideration when you go out there and do this consultation, to determine how, at the end of the day, this would break down.

So, we have to guard against ignoring those other elements. It would be very easy to do, to just say: No, we will do this based on population. I am imploring the minister to make sure that this committee, the consultation committee, looks at all of those aspects to make sure that it is all taken into account, because, at the end of the day, we can do a lot of harm here, particularly to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we should all want Newfoundland and Labrador to survive, and not only survive but to thrive, and one of the ways of ensuring that happens is to ensure that they have access to the people who represent them, that they continue to have access to services, that they continue to have schools, health care services in their communities. You know, it gets so easy once you start to dilute the process and once you determine that: Well, you know, take the Burin Peninsula. You need one hospital. You need one school. You need one whatever, in terms of services; one college.

It is very easy to lose sight of the fact that geography in Newfoundland and Labrador plays a crucial role in our lives. That is why, again, it is going to be important to hear from the people who are going to be impacted, and taking into account all of these issues when you are making your decisions because, at the end of the day, we could end up with a system where you would have ten MHAs in St. John's. People who have ready access to services here, ready access to health care facilities, ready access to post-secondary institutions, ready access to government services, federal and provincial, really do not need their MHA to the same extent that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do. That is why again I am asking the minister to make sure the consultation process is transparent and it is open, that at the end of the day we have some idea before decisions are taken with respect to how the boundary is going to break down among the forty-eight districts, that we have some idea of what the committee heard and how they are going to take advantage of what they heard, and put it in context in terms of importance to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

I think we have to guard against anything happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that would take away from those communities in particular.

My fear would be if we were to dilute this whole process and find out that you have fewer members representing rural parts of our Province, where the need is greatest. I think all of us who represent rural communities would agree the need is greatest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador for access to an individual, whether it is male or female, but access to that MHA who is, in fact, the person who works for you, who you elected to respond to your needs and deal with your issues, whether it is health care, whether it is education or whether it is government services. We know, those of us who are MHAs, the types of issues we deal with on a daily basis, the number of issues we deal with, and that it is an ongoing thing day in and day out. We enjoy doing it, that is why we run for office, and that is why we have an obligation as MHAs to make sure that whatever comes out of this process is in the best interests of the people of the Province, especially those who we represent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now, because I want to share my time with my colleague. We only have about fifteen minutes left, so I am going to turn the mic over to her.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words with regard to Bill 43. I guess this is a bill that has been circulated, talked about - I do not know about the bill being circulated but the actual issue has been circulated and one of discussion in the Province, obviously, for the past year. It has to do with the amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Act.

Mr. Speaker, I remember back only a little over ten years ago, after the 1993 election, when there was a similar bill of this nature brought forward in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, that looked at a boundary review, that went out and looked at all the districts in the Province, how those districts could be changed, how boundaries could be, I guess, jived a little bit differently in terms of representation. Let me just tell you what happened in that boundary review and the recommendations that went forward. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, they were not accepted. A lot of them were not accepted at the time because they were deemed to be unnecessary, they were deemed to be unfair, they were deemed to be unjust, and therefore they were not accepted to a large degree.

Anyway, in that boundary review, one of the recommendations there - at the time I was not a parliamentarian in this Legislature but I was a municipal politician. I remember at that time that the recommendation for my district, that I now represent, was that the district would be divided completely and that half of the district would be partnered with the St. Anthony District and the other half would be partnered with the Happy Valley-Goose Bay riding. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the name of democracy, I do not know how you would have been able to adequately justify representation for districts that were configured in such a manner, because the issues were so very different. They were from one extremity to the other, and there was absolutely no way this could possibly work. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people who lobbied very aggressively against that recommendation and went before the boundary commission, at the time, to have it overthrown and to try and have it changed. I was very successful, along with a lot of other people at the time, in convincing the government of the day and the Cabinet of the day that they should not accept all the recommendations that were in that report, and therefore they did not.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that has been introduced in the Legislature today by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General is to deal with, again, the electoral boundaries. What this does, right from the offset it says that the four districts in Labrador will be protected. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is wise of the minister to implement that particular regulation as part of the consultation right from the beginning. As you know, Labrador in itself is very distinct in terms of the culture and the issues that arise there on a regular basis, and not only that but geographically it is a very distinct part of our Province that deals with a number of factors, one including isolation of communities. I think it was only appropriate that the number of seats in Labrador be upheld as a part of this boundary commission. I want to certainly acknowledge the minister for doing that and ensuring that it remains a part of the forty-eight districts with the same boundaries and the same titles as do exist now. I want to acknowledge that, Minister, and to applaud you for taking that move upfront as opposed to having it an issue of debate later on, as I am sure it would have been.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak to how the other electoral boundaries will be viewed. I know that the minister, in his introductory remarks, said there would still be forty-eight districts in the Province, that the districts would still be maintained around the same names as they presently hold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Not at all? Okay. It is up to the commission, so I do apologize. There would be forty-eight districts still remaining in the Province, forty-four of which would be on the Island portion of our Province.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to a couple of concerns that I have that have already been expressed very eloquently by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Speaker, as people who represent rural districts in this Province we realize and we understand that the only access a lot of these communities have to the centre of the government and to the centre of decision making and power in our Province is through that of their member of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I know first-hand that rural areas of this Province depend very largely upon the representation of their Members of the House of Assembly, and I know that the issues that members in rural areas represent on a day-to-day basis are very diverse and they are from one extremity to the other.

Mr. Speaker, because the people in these communities do not have access to the centre of power, to the government departments, federal and provincial, on a daily basis, they do not have that contact, they depend upon their MHAs to carry out a lot of that work for them. I think that needs to be considered when making decisions on boundaries. It is very easy for any boundary commission to say this is the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, so based on population this is the number of people who will be in every district, and start drawing the lines. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense in practically. It may sound good in theory but no sense in practically simply because it cannot work and function properly in terms of ensuring full and adequate representation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the real terms of reference that are going to be instituted and used as a guide for the electoral boundaries commission have to reflect the geographics of Newfoundland as a part of the Province; because, as I said, the Labrador seats are protected, but it has to look at the geographics. It has to look at the diverse needs that exist in many of these communities, and the extremity of the issues that are being brought forward. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it needs to seriously look at having adequate representation from rural areas of the Province.

I do not think it is going to be good enough for an electoral boundary to go out and say that half the population of Newfoundland and Labrador live on the Eastern Avalon so therefore half the seats of the Legislative Assembly of the Province are going to be based in those areas. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. That should not happen, and that is what we have to be careful of, because it is very easy to be able to do that and to be able to justify it as an argument. I think the people who would really lose out in those types of suggestions and recommendations are definitely the people of rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, our democracy is all about representing people. It is why we are here. It is the job we do, and whether that representation means formulating policy that becomes legislation in terms of helping guide individuals in our Province in everyday life, Mr. Speaker, it also involves providing them the best possible representation that we can. I know that, as a rural member in a rural district, I get thirty-five to forty phone calls a day, sometimes, from my constituency. I have a small district, only 6,000 people live there, but my phone is constantly ringing because I am their contact to the taxation office, to the workers' compensation office, to the Department of Health, to the unemployment office, to the Canada Pensions Office. That is the role that I play as a rural member, just like I am sure every other rural member here.

We are the centre of contact that deals with all of these issues on a regular basis, and that is why it is so important that these districts not be looked at and based on population but rather based on where you can provide the best possible representation for the people who live there - not just on the big policy issues of government but on all the small issues that people deal with every single day in their lives. Mr. Speaker, there is a wide and varied range of them.

I think that the Electoral Boundaries Commission which will be appointed, I am sure, after the passage of the bill by the minister and by the Cabinet, I think there are several things that they really need to be cognizant of. One of those is that the consultations that they hold must be in rural communities and rural areas of the Province, not just in one or two main hubs around the Province, because that will not fly, I say to the members opposite. It will not fly. It has to be representation whereby the people in Springdale, and the people in Triton, and the people in Jackson's Arm, and the people in Rocky Harbour, all of those people, can go out and express their views and their opinions. It does not matter if you live in St. Mary's Bay, or in Trinity Bay, or in White Bay, or Bonavista Bay. They need to make sure that the electoral boundaries is going to go into all of these regions, is going to give a fair hearing to the people in all the areas of our Province so that they can have some real substantial input into how the boundary commission should be structured.

The other thing I think that needs to happen is that the Terms of Reference provided to the boundaries committee by the minister, by the Department of Justice, sanctioned by the Cabinet, that those Terms of Reference should not just reflect the population base of the Province, but rather should respect and reflect the unique situation and the unique Province in which we live. They should reflect the diverse needs that exist in all of the regions around our Province, and the importance of having fair and adequate representation for all of those regions.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is getting late in the day. I know that we will be recessing soon and, I think, coming back after supper, so I am going to conclude my comments. I guess I will just say that, while I think the minister has been very progressive in his move to exclude the Labrador region as a part of this boundary review at this time, and protecting the four seats that are in Labrador, I think, Minister, you should go a whole lot further in your Terms of Reference and that you should offer up the same assurances and protection for rural areas in our Province so we do not end up with a situation where we have half of the population on the Eastern Avalon and half of the seats in our Legislature on the Eastern Avalon. We would not want to have a situation like that. I am sure, as the minister in a government, you do not want recommendations coming back like that to have to deal with.

I would suggest that the Terms of Reference would be fair and reflect the need that exists right throughout our Province, and the diverse culture in which we live.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, if everybody agrees, we will take our supper break now and come back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that we now recess the House and return at 7:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands recessed until 7:00 of the clock.


December 6, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 42A


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

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

Continuing debate on Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I do believe that we have a member standing. The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands is standing.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the member.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a few minutes on the electoral boundaries and to express some concern or thought about the redistribution of the boundaries itself. I go back to 1989, Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected. Prior to that, the District of Bay of Islands was in what they called Humber West. What happened then with - the majority of the Bay of Islands into a rural part, in with the City of Corner Brook. In my opinion, and a lot of people at the time, the District of Bay of Islands was neglected because the greater populous, which was Corner Brook, and the greater centre of Corner Brook got the majority of the attention.

I just want to pass on a few statistics. In 1989, when I was first elected in the District of the Bay of Islands, from the lower part of Mount Moriah out to Lark Harbour itself, the whole south shore, from the lower part, there was not one house with water and sewer; not one house. On the North Shore of the Bay of Islands in 1989 there was 5 per cent with water and sewer; just 5 per cent. The reason why is because most of the attention and most of focus was on the City of Corner Brook and the surrounding area, not the Bay of Islands. The reason Mount Moriah Proper had water and sewer is because there was a deal struck in 1972 to connect it down from the City of Corner Brook. The water supply itself was from the City of Corner Brook, with the deal that Mount Moriah would get the water from the City of Corner Brook.

I pass this on to the minister, that when the instructions go out to the commission, is that the rural divide versus urban divide must be considered in the whole debate. If you go back again to 1989 with the roads in the Bay of Islands, just the byroads, the fire protection, it was all neglected. I know it was fifteen years ago, but when I used to go back and tell people in Corner Brook in 1989 that the lower part of Mount Moriah, Lark Harbour, there was not one house with a proper water and sewer system, not one house on a community-based system, people used to actually laugh at me because they could not comprehend it. They could not believe it.

When you go on the North Shore again, with only 5 per cent on a community-based water and sewer system, 5 per cent of the whole North Shore which goes, probably, about thirty-five or forty kilometres, only 5 per cent, it was astonishing to a lot of people. So, when this electoral boundary commission is set up, they must take into consideration the rural divide. I, personally, know what happens when rural areas are being put in with urban areas and how much they would be neglected. I know the Premier at the time, the Minister now of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was very aware of the situation on the Bay of Islands and how much, at the time, it was neglected, because prior to that it was still classified as a part of Corner Brook.

So, I have to pass on my comments to the commission to ensure that the rights of the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - the Bay of Islands is mainly a rural district. There are three fish plants in the area. It is probably one of the major, if not the major employer for the area. I know down on the South Shore of the Bay of Islands the fishery is the main employer. In Cox's Cove and the North Shore further out - it is the main employer for Cox's Cove and people of McIver's and other areas. This type of rural setting has to be taken into account when there are changes to the electoral boundary because if it is not, and if Humber East takes in the North Shore of the Bay of Islands, I can guarantee it here today, and I can make you a guarantee that the North Shore of the Bay of Islands will be neglected because Corner Brook Proper will take over as the major centre and the concern and focus will go with Corner Brook and Corner Brook Proper.

On the South Shore, again with Mount Moriah going out as far as Lark Harbour, I can assure you that the concerns of the people in Lark Harbour or York Harbour, the byroads down on Beach Road where some piece of equipment, the fire truck or the fire department out in York Harbour will not take priority over the City of Corner Brook. This is the concern that we have. This is the concern that I have because I have seen firsthand - and I go back, again, to first when I was elected - what happens when it comes down to a decision of rural and urban. I can assure you that urban usually takes over rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The population itself may not be as strong but to the economy - again, I go back to the Bay of Islands. The fishery to the economy may not be as important as to the mill, but for the people who live in rural Newfoundland, in the South Shore and the North Shore, that the fish plant is major to the area and it must be given attention. Once again, if it comes down to who is going to get more attention between the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill or the fish plant in Cox's Cove, I think the fish plant in Cox's Cove will lose. So, I think this type of information must be passed on.

The other thing I heard the minister say when he was giving his free statement was that we are going to have possibly one hearing. I am not sure, Minister, one hearing?

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: A minimum of one hearing. Well, I think that is wrong. I think in the act, we should ensure that there are a lot more hearings into it. I think the minister can make a friendly amendment that we can assure, at least, that every part of Newfoundland and Labrador has a chance. I am definitely not going to prejudge what the committee is going to do. If they are going to have more than one, ten or fifteen, I am not going to do that, but I think as legislators we should ensure that it is in the act so that when people feel they want to voice their concern, or they want to have a chance to be heard, they do not have to do it by e-mail, they do not have to do it by a certain date, that there is an opportunity for them to go face-to-face, sit down and pass their concerns on. In this House we always give attention and we always give so much accolades to the volunteers.

There are a lot of town councillors that I know of who would love to speak to this commission. Good, bad or indifferent, they want to express their views. I feel that as legislators we should ensure that in this legislation these people do have a chance and an opportunity to be heard and they do not have to come into St. John's, they do not have to go to Gander, they do not have to come to Corner Brook. For example, if someone in Cox's Cove wants to do this, why should they have to go to Gander or St. John's, or send it by e-mail by a certain date? They should be able to go to an area, for example, Corner Brook; be able to drive to Corner Brook. What happens then in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, if there are twenty or thirty people to speak and they sat out two hours? They will not get a chance to be heard.

That is why we need to ensure that every resident in this Province or every organization, every town council, every fire department that wants to be heard, should have the opportunity to be heard. We see it many times where this government is going to say: We are open and we are accountable. This is one opportunity once again where you can prove that. Instead of saying we are going to have one hearing for the West Coast, two to four in Corner Brook, two to four in Stephenville, I think we should have an opportunity for two or three or four days or whatever it takes. Maybe it will take an hour, maybe it will take two hours, you do not know. We all know that it is so much easier to present in person, and it has sustaining power when a person is presenting face to face and giving their life situation of a fire department, of a community council, or of some other organization they are involved with, and how their identity will be lost if they are swooped up by some rural or urban area. I think it is incumbent upon the minister now to ensure in this legislation that there is not just minimum; we should have a certain number of meeting places in this Province where there have to be a certain number of meetings. There has to be. You cannot say not less than one. That may mean two.

I am not prejudging the committee. I am definitely not prejudging the committee, because the committee may have it, but I think, as legislators, we should, and we would not be doing our due diligence if we did not bring that up. I do not think we are doing right to ourselves. When we go back and these meetings are taking place, when these meetings are starting to take place in Corner Brook, if I cannot stand up to the constituents from Lark Harbour or from York Harbour and say I tried to get more than one meeting, I brought it to everybody's attention, I cannot stand up and say, at that meeting, that I did that unless I did it here in the House.

I ask the minister now, somehow, if there is an amendment to it, if we have to come back and make an amendment, to ensure that there are a certain number of hearings; because I can assure you, Minister, and I can assure you right now, if there are changes to the electoral boundary in Corner Brook, in Deer Lake or in Stephenville, there is going to be a certain number of people who cannot be heard and are going to be asked to send it by e-mail, fax it to us, do us up a brief, if they cannot attend in person, because there will not be enough time put aside.

I think we have to take that under advisement, Mr. Minister. I think we owe it to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because in the long run rural Newfoundland and Labrador are the ones who are going to be suffering over this here if we go on the population shift and more seats move into St. John's.

I will just advise the minister, if he can take that under advisement, try to ensure that there is proper and adequate time, enough meetings for people to be heard, and remember the ones who want to be heard. The ones who are going to want to be heard are the volunteers that we stand up here in this House of Assembly and give member statements on, the ones who do the work back in their communities free of charge, who want to make representation on behalf of their towns, on behalf of their communities, on behalf of their organizations, on behalf of the residents in their towns. They are the ones we are going to deprive if we do not ensure that they have adequate time.

At the end of it they may not be heard, they may not be listened to - that is fine, that is a part of it - but as long as we give them the opportunity to be heard they may make a difference. I can assure you, if they do not be heard, if they do not have an opportunity, they will feel left out of this process. Once you feel left out of this process, you don't feel part of it, you are going to have less opportunity to get more volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with those comments. I ask the minister if he can take that under consideration to ensure that we will have more meetings, we will have more time for people to speak, and more opportunity for people to attend hearings to make sure that everybody gets an opportunity to have their say, good or bad, for or against, as long as they have the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to say a few words on Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act. I will not take a lot of time, Mr. Speaker. I think many things have been said that express some of the concerns that I have as well.

One of the concerns I have, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the division of seats in Labrador. It is one of the fears that I had. I say to the minister, I am glad to see that the seats in Labrador will still be maintained at four, but I read that, even though we will have four seats, as we are currently, there is also some wording there that says the four districts in Labrador, with the districts conforming as closely as practicable to the present districts.

I do not know what that could mean, unless it means that Churchill Falls, maybe, would come back under Labrador West like it used to be at one time when the district was called Menihek. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't mind representing the interests of the people in Churchill Falls at all. It is a great community, great people live there, and they certainly - I do not know what my friend from Lake Melville would have to say about that, tampering with his district, but if that is the way it works out then I certainly would be honoured to represent them if I were to be elected under a new change that encompassed that.

Mr. Speaker, the rural versus urban parts of the Province has been occupying a lot of the discussion by many members here tonight and I can see the concerns that they have, because it is hard. It is almost like Canada living in the shadow of the United States. When you are dominated by a much larger community, then the communities that are mid-size or smaller certainly have a difficult time in getting their issues addressed in a more meaningful way than they can under the present situation that we have today.

With regard to the hearings, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would ask the minister to make sure, when they come to Labrador to have hearings, that they go to the different areas of Labrador, not like happens many times, Mr. Speaker, where the hearings come to Labrador and end up just being held in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay region. That is important, that they are held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, but it is practically impossible, because of distance and cost, for people in other parts of Labrador to attend the hearings that take place there. I ask the minister to be conscious of that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my brief remarks.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise tonight to speak to An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, because I personally think that it is a very important act, a very important piece of legislation. I get the impression from some of those opposite that they are trying to downplay the significance of it. I have not heard any speakers opposite stand to talk to this bill yet, which surprises me, because I remember back in - even though I was in the House of Assembly at the time - 1995, when some of the members opposite, especially those representing rural districts, were sitting on this side of the floor and they waxed eloquently for hours on end about the change to the electoral boundaries. At that time we were reducing the number of seats from fifty-two to forty-eight. The cries were coming out from members representing rural districts, those who were in Opposition at the time. I am pleased, I say to the minister who is introducing this piece of legislation, that we are not reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly because I think we have probably gone too far with that, or far enough.

Mr. Speaker, I have some problems with it, and maybe the minister responsible for this piece of legislation will get up and allay some of these fears that I have later on tonight, because I believe that the members in government have already had quite an extensive briefing on this because not one of them have risen today to express any concern. I did have the opportunity to discuss this bill with a few of them opposite this afternoon and they tell me: Oh no, you have it all wrong. This is not going to happen, and that is not going to happen. This is what is going to happen, and that is what is going to happen.

Obviously they have had discussions in their caucus about this, and in their Cabinet, and they already know the plan, and I would not be surprised but they already know the boundaries, or close enough to it, before they even go out.

MR. RIDEOUT: What a joke!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is the matter with the member who represents the adjoining district to mine, the Member for Lewisporte. Every time I get up to speak, whatever I say, without even mentioning his name, he sort of goes ballistic. He has to attack.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) laughing at you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I got elected three times in my district and I will tell you one thing: the people in my district do not laugh at me.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, they do!

MR. REID: That is more than I can say for him, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair has recognized the Leader of the Opposition. We are debating An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 43.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for your protection. Mr. Speaker, I am glad you are here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words and express the concerns that I have because, obviously, after ten years - I think the last time we did this was in 1993. It was supposed to be done in 2003 but we have changed that. We are going to do it this year. After ten years, by law, you are supposed to have a review of the electoral boundaries here in the Province. While we are a little late, it is necessary to do it. While we have a review it does not necessarily mean that we have to change it. I do not think that we do, and if you will give me a few minutes I will explain to you why.

I represent one of the more rural areas of the Province in that I have four islands on the Northeast Coast of the Province composed of thirty-nine communities. Anyone who has been to the district realizes that two of the islands are - the only contact to get there is by boat, by ferry, the other two you can drive onto. The fact remains is that there are still thirty-nine communities in that district. It is a large district geographically. Albeit, the population has shrunk over the years through no fault of their own. The people in that area, many of whom have been forced to move elsewhere to seek employment because of some of the policies that were brought on by this government. We will talk about that.

I see the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi laugh at that, but if you will permit me, I will explain to you about the policies. It goes back to shortly after being elected - this government - with the promises and the commitments that they made to the people, not only in my district but in many communities in rural areas of this Province, what they were going to do. I can remember one of my campaign workers came up to me and said: boy, I tell you - shortly after the election - you do not make commitments and promises during the election but that is going to have to change the next time, because with the commitments that the Premier and some of his members made out here in this district this time, commitments that they have not kept, you had better get into the game and start misleading the people like the Premier did when he was here because he promised them everything that they wanted.

For example, when he went to Fogo Island one of the biggest issues out there - and Change Islands, I might add - was ferry rates, but that was quickly dismissed in their minds because the Premier gave them a commitment. He was going to eliminate ferry rates, I say to the Leader of the NDP. He was going to eliminate ferry rates and bring it inline with the cost of road transportation going to and from the two islands. Well, he was not in power for six months when all of a sudden that changed. In the first budget that was brought down by this PC government, in April of 2004, not only did they not reduce the rates but the Minister of Finance, in his great wisdom, announced that he was going to increase the rates by 25 per cent over three years. We have already seen a 20 per cent raise in rates and we expect to see the additional 5 per cent this fall.

With regard to the hospital on Fogo Island, the Liberal government decided back in 1997 or 1998 that it was necessary to build a new facility on that island because the one that existed there was some fifty years old. If anybody other than the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador owned it, it would have been closed down by Occupational Health and Safety because it was not really a fit place to, not only be a patient but to work there.

When asked a question, after we had the hospital built, we would have had it opened except for a few delays. The hospital was slated to open a couple of months after the election. So during the election of course it became an issue. When the Premier visited the area he told the councils on the island not to worry, their hospital would open. Then shortly after that we found out from the Premier, when he was addressing the Chamber of Commerce in Gander, that: No, we are only going to open ten of the twenty beds in that facility. Although there were twenty beds paid for and there were twenty rooms, the order was given to the Central Health Care Board to sneak out under the cloak of darkness and take ten beds out of that facility and move them to other regions in the central region.

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the things that he did to a rural part of the Province. That was one of the services, or two of the services. He increased the ferry rates and he cut back on the number of beds that were in the hospital there. He also closed an HRE office on Fogo Island and he closed the court house. Not only did he close the court house but I say, Mr. Speaker, in the spring of last year the minister announced that he was closing the highway's depot on New World Island for the summer months. That highway's depot just opened up, just recently in the last month, after being closed for six months. The condition of the roads have become deteriorated and they not prepared for the winter season as the Minister of Transportation gets up and says that they are everyday. I beg to differ. Not only did he close down facilities in my district and increase fees for the residents of those areas, but he did it all around the Province in rural areas. I think that the main goal there, the master plan is to move, force people who live in the outlining regions or outlining areas of certain regions around the Province, I think the game plan is to force them from those more remote areas, or further from the center and drive them into, what they call, hubs.

The Member for Gander mentioned the hub because he lives in one of those hubs. He represents one of those hubs, and that is Gander. I think the plan for this government is to drive people from my district and from the Member for Bonavista North, from his district, and move them towards Gander. The plan to do that is by eliminating services and increasing fees. We have seen it happen. Not only do we see it happen in the cuts to hospital beds, the increase in ferry rates, the closure of court houses and HRE offices but we have also seen it with regard to hospital boards. My fear is what is going to happen here with the electoral boundaries is the same thing that he did with the school boards and the hospital boards around the Province.

We had eleven school boards when I was the Minister of Education. Shortly after getting elected, this government decided that eleven school boards were too many and that they were going to reduce those to five. As a result, people in my district, when we had representation on the school board that was originally in Gander and the board was a lot smaller than it is today, then we had two members. We had two members on the school board. I just found out, just recently, that we were lucky enough to get one elected this time. We went for two years under this government, after they abolished six school boards, where we had no representation from our district.

The same thing with the hospital board. I remember a time when we had two members on the hospital board in the central region from the Twillingate-New World Island area and we also had one from Fogo Island. I do not think we have one today because what this government has done is expanded the central board, and by doing so, they have eliminated any representation that those people have in the outlining areas of that central hub that they call Gander - the Member for Gander calls the hub. As a result, they have a diminished say in what happens in their schools and a diminished say and presence on the hospital board as well, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is fair. These people pay taxes, as they do elsewhere, and I just do not think it is fair that their voice is no longer heard on health care boards and school boards in the central region because the area has been expanded.

I was thinking tonight, when I had a call from a parent here in St. John's, having watched the House of Assembly this afternoon, concerned that they are going to close one of the schools in this area and because the board is so large now, that school councils do not have the effective voice that they used to have under the government that we led, where there were more school boards and the geographic area that was encompassed by the school board was smaller. I said if you think you have no say here now, and the Eastern School Board is located here in St. John's, just imagine how disenfranchised a person in Bonavista tonight feels when they are worried about a school in the Town of Bonavista, when the school board office is located in St. John's, Newfoundland, and the distance that they have to travel. How low their voices must feel and how little they must feel that they get through to a school board office that exists in St. John's, or go to the tip of the Burin Peninsula and ask the people in that region if they feel they are fairly represented on the school board for the Eastern region when that board is located in St. John's. They will tell you that they do not feel they have the same voice as they did when we had more school boards and they were closer to where they live. We argued against this consolidation when it took place but everything we say falls on deaf ears.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, my biggest concern - not that I am worried about having to do more work, but as I said earlier, I have thirty-nine towns in my district on four islands, and I would say that on average my assistant and I field at least sixty calls a day. My phone number is in the telephone book. People in my district know me as Gerry, and most of them, if not all of them, know that they can call me at home in the nighttime. At home I receive a number of calls every night because I just do not have the time, especially with the House of Assembly open, especially with the duties that I have been carrying out in the past six months, to return all the phone calls that I used to. I have to congratulate my able assistant because she even recognizes most of the people by their voices now. On trips to the district with me, after a couple of minutes of listening to somebody, they will come up and say to my assistant: You don't know who I am, do you? She will say: Talk to me for a minute. Sure enough, after they speak for a couple of minutes, she will say: You are George or you are Susie - because she recognizes them by voice. They depend on us as their conduit to government and the services that are provided by government.

I want to draw an analogy or a similarity or a difference between my district - and I will pick one for example. I will pick the one in which I live in St. John's. The minister of industry, trade and technology is the member for the district in which I reside. I think her district is called Virginia Waters. That is a small portion of the northeast section of St. John's, and I would hazard to guess that if I left here right now I could travel right around that district by foot tonight before I went to bed. I could literally do it, go right around the geographic perimeter of that district before I went to bed tonight. Well, Mr. Speaker, anyone who has travelled to my district realizes that that is impossible. You could not do it in a month if you had to walk around that district, if you had to walk around New World Island, Twillingate Island, Fogo Island and Change Islands; not to mention the fact that you would have to go to two of them by ferries overnight, but my colleague, the Member for Virginia Waters, could leave here tonight and practically walk around her district on her way home.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, on Newfoundland Drive, which is just one street in the member's district in the northeast end of St. John's, there are in excess of 500 houses. I say to members opposite, that number of houses would constitute the largest town in my district, with the exception of one, and that is the Town of Twillingate. Five hundred houses would be bigger than any other town. It would be a larger number of houses than exists in any other town in my district, and I have thirty-nine of these communities. If you think about -

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. My colleague from Torngat Mountains said I would wear out two pairs of sealskin boots walking around my district, and I would probably wear out more than those. Luckily, I do not have to walk, I say to my colleague.

But if you think about the size of that district and you think about mine, it is not just the geographics. It is the number of communities. My colleague across the floor there deals with a council. Her district is only a part of - I think there are eight in St. John's. So, all community problems that exist in my district, in my thirty-nine communities where I have town councils, incorporated town councils - I have local service districts. I have community councils and I have some unincorporated towns all together. So any problems that they have in dealing with Municipal Affairs, they come to me to set up meetings. They come to me to address their concerns with a particular minister, whereas my colleague, who represents Virginia Waters, does not have to deal with that because any problem that they encounter in that district, they can go directly to City Hall.

Another example would be Transportation and Works; road clearing, road paving. Tonight, for example, if we have a major snowstorm in my district, I can rest assured that tomorrow morning I will receive calls. I will receive calls from my district from constituents who are saying the road hasn't been plowed this morning. The children cannot get out to school or the road is slippery this morning. It is dangerous to have our kids on the road on buses. My colleague from Virginia Waters does not have that problem because she does not have to deal with Transportation and Works because they do not plow any roads in her district. All the roads in her district are handled by the city. So, she would never receive a call from a constituent complaining about the road because that constituent would pick up the phone and call their councillor for that ward down in the East End of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, represents a portion of Mount Pearl and I think a portion of Waterford Valley. You must realize, Mr. Speaker, having sat with your colleague from Bonavista South, the difference in the number of issues that he faces on a daily basis compared to the number of issues that you have to face, not to diminish the importance of an MHA, like yourself, from an urban area. All I am saying is that the duties and the functions of an MHA in a rural area are far greater than those who represent larger urban districts, especially the ones on the Northeast Avalon. For example, I have ten fire departments for thirty-nine communities, and we need them because of the geographic location, so every year when, for example, the government sets aside a small pot of money for breathing apparatus and bunker suits for fire departments, and fire ladders and fire trucks, obviously I, as the MHA for the area, have to go to battle with the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to try and secure a piece of the pot for my constituents, whereas the Member for Virginia Waters would not have to do that because all of her firefighting is taken care of by the city or the area fire department. They have a paid fire department.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy. My philosophy has always been in this House of Assembly, and while I represent the District of Twillingate & Fogo, is to try and secure our portion of the pot when it is divided up, because I honestly believe that is my job: to ensure that I deliver for my constituents that portion of the budget that I feel they are entitled to, just like everybody else in the Province.

The problem I have is when - for example, I got an invitation from the Minister of Transportation and Works, or one of his staff; it probably came from his staff, because I do not think he likes me enough to invite me over to discuss my priorities in transportation this year. I am supposed to go in the next few days to the Department of Transportation and Works and put my priorities on the table for roadwork for next spring, in the $48 million that was recently announced.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I would assume the minister already has in mind what he is going to give per district. There are forty-eight districts and, if you want to do the math on it, that is about $2 million per district.

MR. HARRIS: There will be none for mine.

MR. REID: The NDP Leader says there is none for his, and you do not need it because city hall looks after your roads, I say to the member. You do not need it.

Anyway, even if it was done on a fair and equitable basis, which I know it will not be because I know the system and I know the minister has his colleagues over there, and when they look at a Liberal district getting a few dollars, and they are not getting as much, they are going to bawl and complaint until he takes the money from the Liberal district and puts it in the Tory district.

What I am saying is that it is difficult for me to get what we deserve in our district when you think there are eight, or eight-and-a-half - you might be the half, Mr. Speaker, that represents the City of Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's, I think, your district spans - I think there are probably eight-and-a-half MHAs representing St. John's alone, and I am out there with thirty-nine towns and I am trying to come up with enough money to divide up amongst all these town. I find it very difficult and I find it frustrating, but not as frustrating as my constituents find when they call me up and say we still have no pavement, or we still need four kilometres of pavement on Change Islands because we have a dirt road. I find it very difficult for the people from Joe Batt's Arm and Barr'd Islands and Shoal Bay, who call me and say we have the worst piece of road on the Island portion of the Province. That has been agreed to, by the way, by the director of works, services and transportation in Central Newfoundland. We have the worst piece of road in the Province, and we need $5 million or $6 million to pave it this year, and that has to fit into some scheme with thirty-nine other towns that are also demanding a portion of that pot as well, Mr. Speaker.

What I am trying to say is, if you are going to enlarge that district then I still believe that we will get the same pot of money. It is just going to have to be spread over a larger region. God forbid - I have the greatest respect for the people in Gander Bay, which is in Bonavista North, but the road over through Bonavista North is just as bad as some of the roads in my district. If you have to encompass that into my district the next time around, all that means is that the people in that whole region are going to have to wait a lot longer for the services that my colleagues who represent St. John's districts are accustomed to seeing, because, believe me - and it is not just water and sewer and paving. It is every other service provided by government.

For example, my district, I guess, probably depends on the fishery as much or more than any other district in the Province. With the problems that we have encountered in the fishery this year, and trying to get enough money from a make-work program from government, I find it very difficult; because, again, Mr. Speaker, the pot is divided out amongst districts, and there are districts in this Province with far fewer people involved in the fishing industry who have gotten more money than I did this year for make-work programs, community enhancement programs. I know that for a fact. By enlarging the districts, I find that you are going -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: By enlarging the rural districts and shrinking the urban districts, I do not think it is fair. I think that the minister certainly has to take that into account when he has a serious look at the electoral boundaries and the redistribution of seats in this Province.

I can tell you a tale, Mr. Speaker, about one of your colleagues talking about another one of your colleagues who represents an urban seat, and one of your colleagues represents a rural seat. The member who represents the rural seat told me one day: When the phone rings in my colleague's office, who represents an urban seat, he jumps up and takes off out through the door because he thinks it is a fire alarm.

That is how few calls he gets, Mr. Speaker, in the run of a day. He was saying that because he knew, representing a rural district, exactly what it takes to be a rural member in this Province, the travel that it entails, the demands that are on your time.

That is not what I am arguing about, Mr. Speaker, the demands on my time. What I am arguing for is that the people of my district, if it is enlarged, are not going to be able to share in the budgets of this Province, and they are going to be asked to stretch the budget, or stretch the piece of cloth, further than it is already stretched, because I do not think we are going to be given the supports and the finances, or any more support and finance than we already have for that district, and that scares me.

I know that we can speak again in the next reading of this bill later on tonight. I know that we have few in number and it does not appear that the government members, who obviously had a briefing, are getting up to talk about this, so we have a lot of talking to do between now and 2:00 o'clock or 3:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. I would just as soon save my voice right now and let one of my colleagues get up and have a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I just heard what could be characterized as a rant, what could be characterized, I suppose, to some degree -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If that is what he is looking for, maybe we will give him what he wants this evening.

First of all, I am going to speak to the bill. Then I will speak to some of the allegations made by the member. I will deal with the bill first of all.

This piece of legislation was enacted by the former Liberal government. We are following what is a statutory requirement. In other words, this is not a government-sponsored initiative. It is a requirement that every ten years, no matter who is the government, what party is the government, it must follow.

I recall the last time. I happened to be in the Legislature as a new member the last time that the Electoral Boundaries Commission met and was established. If you want to talk about a comedy and a circus act that occurred in 1994, I am going to describe to you what happened.

A commission was established. They recommended forty-four seats. The Liberal caucus of the day went wild. Do you remember? I say to my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he was here. The Member for Bellevue was here. He could speak to what happened in his own caucus at the time. Up it went! Do you know why? Because, at that time, there were fifty-two seats. It recommended to go down to forty-four.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Good for you, I say to the member. Ah, he just admitted it!

Let me finish the story. Here is what happened.

MR. BARRETT: I will tell you what happened.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and I hope you will. I hope the Member for Bellevue gets to his feet and tells us what happened, but I have the floor right now and I am going to tell you what happened too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is what happened: The Lieutenant-Governor of today, Mr. Edward Roberts, actually stood where I am standing. He was the Government House Leader. He was also the Minister of Justice responsible for the file. Sitting to my immediate right at that time was now Chief Justice, who was then Premier Clyde Wells, who was the director and producer of, I guess, the big show that occurred in 1994.

Let me get to the details of what happened. The commission came in and recommended forty-four seats. Up it went! We argued at the time for a greater variance of 25 per cent for a legitimate reason: because seats were being reduced, districts were becoming bigger. That is not the case here right now. That is not the case, and that is the important distinction that must be made; but we did, at the time, for legitimate and bona fide reasons.

I represented a district, for example, that had about 15,000 people in it in 1993. The Speaker himself had a district of about 22,000 people. Adjacent to myself was my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. I represent the District of Kilbride. He represents the District of Ferryland. They run right into each other. His district was a little smaller in terms of numbers. I lost, or I should not say I lost, but with the reconfiguration of the district he picked up a part that I used to represent, particularly half of the Town of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove - Maddox Cove being one - and a big chunk of the Goulds. There was a balance that was achieved, I suppose. We argued at the time for 25 per cent, but let's get back to the process.

A recommendation comes down. Judge Mahoney was the judge who was in charge of the file. Every party was represented on the boundary commission. Ms Dorothy Inglis was the NDP representative. Mr. Ray Baird was the Progressive Conservative representative. I forget who the Liberal representative was, offhand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Graham Watton.

MR. E. BYRNE: Graham Watton was the Liberal representative.

After a series of hearings around the Province, after a number of public hearings around the Province, the commission comes back and recommends a reduction to forty-four seats, and up it goes! What really gets interesting is this: The then Government House Leader, now Lieutenant-Governor, decides, after a big row in the caucus, we have a little problem on our hands. As a matter of fact, it was a pretty big problem. What did government do?

I am making light of it, but it was a pretty serious situation that was occurring at the time, let me tell you. Away they went, and went on a judge-shopping expedition to try to get another judge to look at and make other recommendations. Through all of that there was a big public meeting here in the city, and it was while the House was open. It is an important point to make, it was while the House was open. The next night there was a meeting in Clarenville, while the House was open, but the Government House Leader of the day did not go to the public meeting here, where all of the media attention would be, to make his recommendations. He got in his car, drove to Clarenville, out of the sight of the public and media mind, to make his recommendations.

The short and long of it was this: The process was not absolutely accountable or transparent. It may be -

MR. HARRIS: It was pretty transparent to some of us.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi makes a great point. He said it was pretty transparent to some of us. Yes, it was.

Here was the problem: Once you set a particular policy motion in a direction and you take a decision to send it down that road without having adequate discussion up front about what you want from a policy perspective, that is what is going to happen, and that is what happened. The process, I believe, was flawed as a result of it. What we have done as a government caucus, amongst ourselves, as a discussion, as a government, is said: What is it that we are looking for?

This time last year the former Leader of the Opposition and members of his caucus who are over there now were slinging stuff across the House, saying: What are you doing to do, reduce the seats to thirty-eight seats are you? We can't wait for that to happen. There is going to be some racket then. What are you going to do, reduce it to forty-two seats are you?

I heard all of that last spring. I think all of our colleagues heard all of that last spring, but we have made a conscious and fundamental public policy decision as a government that we believe, and we strongly believe, that we cannot go below forty-eight seats because we believe that is what it will take to represent the people of the Province. To diminish that by any standard would be diminishing the way that we represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We have made a conscious decision, even though it goes against some of the direction in the legislation that already exists, that in Labrador there will be four seats in Labrador, because to do any less we felt would be an injustice to the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the reason that we have gone forward with what we have. We made a conscious decision to put the variance at 10 per cent because we believe, and ultimately believe, that by putting it into that margin there will be little change on the districts as they currently exist in their configurations, only small ones, because we believe by doing that we are putting in play a public policy decision that government has made to ensure that the impact, in particular on rural seats, will be minimized. That is why we have done it. There is no more to it than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition says that we have had a briefing, we had a discussion on the bill. Have any members in this caucus looked at any configurations on the wall or on maps? No, they have not, because the commission is not yet established.

We have made a decision to appoint a commission that is clearly - very clearly for everyone to see what it is. They will be appointed. They will hold their public hearings across the Province. They will report back to the House and to the government and in doing so, people will be able to see exactly what was recommended. But, let's be frank and open and honest here. The fact of the matter is this - and I am going to just summarize very quickly because I do not want to get into a huge debate. I want to keep my comments to the spirit and intent of the bill and the reasons why it is put forward. Number one, there will be no reduction of seats in Newfoundland and Labrador because we believe forty-eight is the bare minimum that is required to represent the interests of everybody, in particular, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Number two, we have agreed and decided that the plus or minus 10 per cent will ensure that the impact upon districts, as they currently exist and the geography that they currently exist within, will be minimized and the impact will be minimal, thus ensuring that the level of service that people have come to enjoy from their members, irrespective of party, irrespective of political position, but the service that they have come to enjoy, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is maintained.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has so eloquently put, it is a recommendation that they will table for us and it will be up to us to accept it or not.

Thank you very much, 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.

I would like to have a few words on the bill itself. First of all, I have to say that being involved in political life, being involved in politics, I think it is a noble profession. There are a lot of people out in our Province who do not think so and think that it is probably the lowest of any profession you could be involved in. I do not see it that way.

I came here in 1989, and from 1989 to now, regardless of what side of the House you sit on or what district you come from, I think the people in the Province expect the best from us. When we do come here - and I think all of us strive to do that - sometimes some of us probably might be a little better than the other expressing the words that we want to get out. Sometimes when I am here at my seat I feel I make a lot better speech than I do when I stand up. When I stand up I lose a lot of it. It is like when I am in a car driving home sometimes I can make great speeches, probably great sermons, but when I get to the house I seem to lose them all. I guess we are all into that particular predicament.

I remember when I came here in 1989 I represented a district called Fortune-Hermitage. I represented that district until 1996. Then the district was changed. It is now called Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. They changed the structure of the particular district.

I say to the Government House Leader, for me, at that time, I thought the district that was on the Southwest Coast should have been given special preference. I could not convince my colleagues because they said they did not want to gerrymander with doing it after it came back. I still think that there is a great need to look at that part of the district. There are a number of communities in the district that I represent. The only way that you can get to them is by chopper or boat. In the wintertime these particular communities are cutoff from the rest of the people in the Province. I think we just saw a documentary on CBC the other day about a young fellow from François who had an accident with a knife. The ordeal that he had from his community until he got here was quite something else. It was fortunate, I guess, that he did not lose his hand.

It is no disrespect, because that is not where I am coming from - from the committee that was done the last time, they came back to the House with forty-four seats. I guess in the sense that we, as a caucus at the time, would be no different from the government caucus that sits across the floor. Where were these particular people from? I am not picking any character reference or belittling any of these people, but where did they come from? Where is Dorothy Inglis's home or place of residence? St. John's. What about Ray Baird? Corner Brook. What about Graham Watton? Corner Brook. There was nobody on that particular committee from rural Newfoundland, from the areas that we represent. So, when they brought back forty-four seats there were enough of us, like Percy said, from the rural part of the Province saying: Well, okay, if you are going to do that particular thing than a lot of the seats that are going to be eliminated are going to be in rural parts of the Province. That is why they went back and did it again. I think it was legitimate. I am sure that if the Member for Burin-Placentia West or the Member for Baie Verte and so on, that particular committee that came and presented that particular proposal to government, they would have reacted in the same way that Oliver Langdon did, or Percy Barrett or whatever because you know the particular concerns of the district.

I am glad, like the minister said, that there will be no changes in the basic structure. There will be some minor changes, I think, in the districts. I think one of the things that will happen for the district that I represent probably should change one part of the name of the district of Cape la Hune, because it is on the east side of Ramea and it does not include Ramea. It could very well be Ramea-Fortune Bay or whatever the particular case might be, but that is a minor part. For the people who live in Ramea, they say: Why was the district called Cape la Hune? Because it is down east of their particular community. They told that to me and I intend to appear before the commission when it is done.

I was listening to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talk earlier today, when he said he probably had 25,000 people in his district. I have probably 9,000 or 10,000 in mine. Somehow the 9,000 that were in the district that I represented probably had more leverage when it comes to a one-to-one vote, counting as far as the dividing of the seats in the Province is concerned.

I am not telling any particular member who sits across here, who is a rural member in a rural part of the Province, some of the responsibilities that come our way. It is not in the sense that the person who represents an urban area is any different. They have decided to run there and they represent the people who are there, but I am telling you that some of the things that rural members have to do are many, many more and varied. For example, we have people who complain to us about the cost of ambulance services in the Province. We get these people, the seniors, who have the bare necessities of life, get them on the phone and you just cannot push them off. You have to listen to them. Sometimes as a member you become a social worker. You do Workers' Compensation appeals. Even though the EI appeals are federal, a lot of people do not differentiate between the federal and provincial member so they want you to do the EI appeal. Then they have problems with Income Tax. You get a letter or two from these people saying: Yes, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune - in this case - can have access to my files and do the work for me. So, there are a lot of these things.

Also, I think all of us recognize that we have a greater seniors presence in our rural communities than we ever had before. In fact, I had a call at home yesterday morning and I had another call from the same person today, who has to go to Grand Falls-Windsor for cancer treatments. One of the things that he was saying, and I did not know that it had been terminated in the community, and that is the public hostel. We used to have a hostel in Grand Falls-Windsor where people from the outlying districts could come in and a person, like the senior and his wife, could come and stay for $25 a night. They expected that service. That service is now gone. It is into a private place that they have to stay, and instead of $25 a night, it is $39.75. Now, we look at it and say: Well, that is $14.75. No big deal. But, it is a big deal for a person who is a senior and the only thing that they have is the basic Old Age Pension and the supplementary. So those are some of the things that we go through.

Some of the other things as a rural member we look at, is the loss of basic services. There are a lot of basic services that have been lost in our communities, and who do the people turn to when they want help? They turn to us as their MHA. You know, we have to be there for them.

Another big concern for me in the area that I represent are ferry services. I was part of a party - I was not part of government, I was not part of a Cabinet - when the government decided about the ferry services on the South Coast and took the dollars rather than having the ferry service remain with the federal government. That is a real problem for these people today.

One of the other things that I want to mention about here - I am glad, as I said, that the minister has recognized that there would be no major changes in the district. I want to say to him and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who think that there are too many of us, if you go out on the street and ask the general populous in Newfoundland and Labrador: Are there too many MHAs? I bet nine out of ten people would say: Yes, there are. They would say there should not be any more than twenty; there should not be any more than twenty-four. They would not agree with forty-eight because really, in a sense, when you go back to your district, in many instances, the people will say to you: Is the Legislature open now? That might have been in October. They do not follow the Legislature a lot but they do follow the work that you do for them, and it is very, very important.

When you talk about people in the outlining areas and in the isolated communities - people say: Why do people live there anyhow? Well, that is their prerogative. That is their choice. They have lived there for generations and they do expect some basic services for the fact that they have been there for generations.

I think of one of the communities in my district, Rencontre East. When you go to Rencontre East and you are on the public wharf and you look in, when you are walking in through to go to the community, there is a four-by-eight sign in the community and the words say: Isolated and loving it. The fact is they enjoy being in that particular community. It was only this fall that they had Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro put a line to their community and they will be on the main grid. Up to that time, it was all diesel. When the plant burned down Newfoundland Hydro decided to put a permanent line in and that will be a great benefit for these people as well.

There is no doubt that there is a great divide between the urban and the rural areas of the Province. Obviously, as I said, it is very, very important that we, as rural MHAs, continue to work for these people and continue to do what is right for them.

The Government House Leader said earlier that the process has to be transparent, and so it should. That is what it is all about, being accountable to the people who put us here. As I said, it has been a real privilege for me to be able to represent the people in the area that I do. Obviously, there are a lot of problems that these people face and it is our responsibility to try to help them as much as we can.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will say to the minister, when the public hearings are in place I plan to come before the committee and lay down some of the things that I think should be very important, not only for me but for other rural members of the Legislature as well. I think that is very, very important.

I would also say to the minister, contrary to what was done in 1996, when you had the judge and the three members from the larger urban areas that make up the committee - as I said, there is nothing wrong with the individuals. They are well-known people. They played a prominent part in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I think they would have a different perspective than a person who would come from, say, Harbour Breton, St. Alban's, Milltown, La Scie or any other rural part of the community that we can think of. I think that would be very important and would be able to bring that perspective much more to the front and, at the end of the day, a better decision to be made for all of us because really, as individual members when we are in the House, the forty-eight members who are here, the whole premise on which we work is to serve the people who put us here and to do the best that we can with the abilities that we have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure this evening to rise in the House and have a few words about the bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

I guess at the outset, in terms of being in this House of Assembly - going on my seventeenth year of sitting in this House of Assembly as the Member for the District of Bellevue. Now, we have changed somewhat over the years in terms of the boundaries, but I have to say that I want to compliment the minister in terms of bringing this bill forward. I want to compliment him on the fact that he is going to go with the forty-eight seats in the House of Assembly. I think it is very, very important that these numbers are in the House of Assembly.

As a matter of fact, back in 1993 I was against reducing the seats from fifty-two down to forty-eight. As a matter of fact, there was some discussion earlier in terms of where we stood on that particular issue. I can tell you, I am on record back then saying that we should not reduce the number of seats from fifty-two to forty-eight because of the role of an MHA.

I also want to compliment the minister in that he saw fit to maintain the four seats in Labrador. I also support the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune in that I think that particular district should have some consideration similar to what is in Labrador. Myself, personally, I grew up on an island in Placentia Bay and I know of the hardships and difficulties in terms of being able to get around in that particular district.

For my particular district, I have thirty-one communities in my district and thirteen of them have town councils and eighteen have either a local service district or no local government whatsoever. As a matter of fact, because the House is open tonight, I was supposed to be in Bellevue tonight for the election of officers of the local service district, but I was unable to attend because the House is open.

The role of an MHA in rural Newfoundland and the role of an MHA in an urban area, there is quite a difference. When you have thirteen town councils to work with in the community, if you only have one meeting a year, there are thirteen meetings - and you have thirteen fire departments, and you have all the other communities that have various problems and you need to meet with them from time to time.

As a matter of fact, last Saturday night I was at a firemen's ball at 5:00 o'clock at Harbour Mille in Fortune Bay, and at 8:00 o'clock I was at a seniors' Christmas party in North Harbour, Placentia Bay, and most of the rural members realize that.

This week I have a dinner in Norman's Cove on Thursday night, another function in Garden Cove at 5:00 o'clock on Friday, and another function in Long Harbour at 8:00 o'clock on Friday night. On Saturday, I have another function in Southern Harbour, and on Sunday afternoon I am in Fortune Bay for a meeting in Fortune Bay.

It is continuous in terms of - I do not know if people realize it or not, but I have more road mileage in my district than there is in the Province of P.E.I. There are more roads in the District of Bellevue than in the whole Province of P.E.I. My district covers one half of the Avalon Peninsula and one half of the Burin Peninsula. Only two communities in my district are on a main road. Every other district is a tributary or a byroad off another main road, either the Trans-Canada Highway or the Burin Peninsula Highway. As a matter of fact, my district extends from Old Shop in Trinity Bay to Sunnyside in Trinity Bay, from Long Harbour in Mount Arlington Heights in Placentia Bay to Monkstown in Placentia Bay, and from English Harbour East to Harbour Mille in Fortune Bay. Some of the roads are plowed and some are not. That is a story for another time.

When you are dealing with this many communities - when I was elected in 1989, the district included part of the Southwest Arm of Trinity Bay, and the Burin Peninsula part of the district was not included in that district. Of course, the boundary of the district was changed in 1993. I guess when it was changed what was really odd about it was that Whitbourne-Markland was taken out of the District of Bellevue and put in with Harbour Main and Whitbourne. There was great representation at that particular time, and they did not think they should be taken out of the District of Bellevue.

When you look at representing a rural district - in the early 1990s when we had the close down of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, there was a major crisis in this Province and there was a program called NCARP. There were a lot of people within the Province who were falling through the cracks, and there was an appeal process set up so that people could have a hearing before an independent review committee. In that period of time when that was on the go, I did 574 appeals before that committee, and over the last seventeen years I would say that I have done hundreds of workers' compensation appeals, Canada Pension appeals and EI appeals. As a matter of fact, this morning I had a social services appeal hearing, and tomorrow morning I have an EI appeal hearing. As a matter of fact, I once attended hearings before the umpire in St. John's, and it was like the old Magistrate's Court. It was at the Fairmont Hotel, and the room was crowded with mostly lawyers and clients.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liars.

MR. BARRETT: Lawyers, not liars.

I was the first one to have the appeal before the judge. As a matter of fact, some of the people who were there from St. John's and Mount Pearl were sort of amazed that there was an MHA, because all the ones in St. John's and Mount Pearl were being represented by lawyers, but an MHA was representing somebody from rural Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, I had two appeals and the judge really took pity on me, because I was not a lawyer, and I won both appeals. I won both appeals.

[Laughter]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I remember once, early in political career, we had a caucus meeting over in the West Block and we all had left the government offices, the members' office, and we had only one person on the switchboard answering all the telephone calls. Anyway, I went over with one of my friends from St. John's, who represented a St. John's district. When we came back after the meeting, after an hour-and-a-half or two-hour meeting, in my message box there were twenty-five calls, and the member for St. John's did not have a call at all.

For most people in rural Newfoundland, their first contact with government is the MHA. When they have a problem - I know the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, and all these members up there, and the Member for Trinity North, and my good friend from Baie Verte - it is the MHA they make contact with. Sometimes they even contact you about things that have nothing to do with government whatsoever. They are looking for advice on certain issues. It could be car insurance or any other topic they could be looking for information on, so the role of an MHA in rural Newfoundland is a bit different than the role in an urban area.

I am very, very pleased tonight to note that we are not reducing the number of MHAs in the House of Assembly. We might get criticized sometimes in that there are too many of us here, but I can assure you that everybody who sits in this House of Assembly, whether you are from an urban or a rural area, you have a tremendous job to do, and it is a very important job to do. I think it is very, very important. We do not have the same kind of infrastructure we have in some other provinces in terms of governments, and we probably control more of what is required in our communities than any other jurisdiction within the country. I mean, we are different than any other province in Canada. MHAs in Newfoundland and Labrador play a more active role in the people's lives than any other jurisdiction within Canada.

I am very pleased to support this legislation, and also very pleased to stand here tonight and say that the MHAs within this great Assembly do a great job and I am in favour of this bill. I am in favour that we are not reducing the number of MHAs, and I am pleased to be voting for this bill tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight for just a very few brief remarks on the bill, and to say to the minister, thank you for realizing the need for four seats in Labrador. Minister, most important of all, thank you for realizing the need for a special seat on the North Coast of Labrador.

Members here, depending on the size of their district, and the people, have a big job to do. Mr. Speaker, I have said this before, that geographically I can fit the entire Island into the riding of Torngat Mountains, even though we only have 3,000 people. Geographically, I can fit the whole Island of Newfoundland into the riding of Torngat Mountains.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, with the new boundaries and with the new self-government, the role of the MHA on the North Coast of Labrador is certainly going to be enhanced by the self-government, to know that there are going to be thirteen lucky members who will make up that self-government doing the duties that probably one MHA had to do for the last fifty years.

Again, to the minister, thank you for recognizing the need for four seats in Labrador and, most important of all, Minister, for recognizing the need for that seat on the North Coast of Labrador.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I stand here now, and I understand I will now close debate on second reading, I want to thank the hon. members who have taken part in this debate. Since I have been here for the last two years, I have not seen a piece of legislation that has attracted as much fervent interest - I have to say fervent interest - as this particular piece of legislation does. That is why I think it was important that, when I made the opening remarks today, it was important to point out to hon. members, because there are different views and different opinions as to what this legislation actually does compared to what some members may thing it does. That is why I spent time distinguishing today between the House of Assembly Act and the Electoral Boundaries Act, and I took the time to go through the entire act to try to clear up any misconceptions that some members, in fact, may have.

I did find it very interesting to hear from some of the members who have been in this House a lot longer than I have, such as the Government House Leader, to tell us a bit about the history and what happened when this act, the Electoral Boundaries Act, first came into effect. I must say, I found that very interesting, because I think this is one piece of legislation that we have to try to avoid the usual political rhetoric and the political battle and to make sure that we arrange to have the selection of the seats, and the boundaries of the seats, to be done in a relatively non-partisan manner so that the method we use is respected by all the people in this Province.

Now, I would like to continue to try to clarify some misconceptions. I heard some comments from some hon. members along the lines that: when instructions go out from the minister, or when the terms of reference are sent out by the minister. It is very important to recognize that the minister does not set out any terms of reference. The minister does not send instructions to the commission. The minister does not appoint the members of the commission. The government does not appoint the members of the commission. It is very important for all members and all people in this Province to know that.

The commission is made up of a Chair, and the Chair is selected by the person who occupies the position of Chief Justice of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The other four members of the commission, again, they are not appointed by the government. They are not appointed by the Minister of Justice. They are appointed by the Speaker, Mr. Speaker, and I have no doubt when you - I am certainly not going to tell the Speaker how you should carry on, but I have no doubt that you will, no doubt, discuss the appointments with the various House Leaders and the leaders of the different parties, and that is how the commission is made up.

A few other things that were mentioned were, of course, the comments I noted from the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, with respect to the commission, the boundary commission, having public consultations.

The legislation says that the commission must conduct public consultations, and they must have at least one on the Island portion of the Province and one in Labrador. Now, I agree with the comments of the hon. members, whose names I just mentioned, that there should be much public consultation. I think that is very important. I know when I spoke to the Chair of the previous commission he was aware of that; but, of course, the problem they had last time was that they did not have time to hold public hearings. They did not have time to complete the work because of the lateness of their appointment, because of the fact that the election was called, but I think the comments that were made by these hon. members should be sent to the Chair and the members of the new commission so that they will certainly be aware of the importance of having as many public consultations as possible in recognizing that in the rural parts of the Province the MHA plays such an important role, because the MHA has to carry out that particular role, and that public consultations should be heard in as many places in rural Newfoundland as possible.

Mr. Speaker, a few comments were raised by different speakers, and I will only highlight some of them. I understand we will be going into Committee. One of the questions was: When will the minister appoint the commission?

Again, I do not appoint the commission but it is helpful to refer to the legislation. The legislation says the new commission, after March 31, will then do its work. So, for some reason, the original legislation required that the commission do its work after March 31.

It is my intention, as Minister of Justice, as soon as the legislation passes, to write the Chief Justice and to write you, Mr. Speaker, and ask that the commission members be appointed so that they can immediately, after March 31, start the commencement of the work so that they can meet their statutory obligation to complete the work before the end of next year, and to carry out their hearings before the end of next year.

Mr. Speaker, there was also discussion concerning the rural and urban divide. It is important to note that, in the legislation, the act has made provision for that. Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful just to take a look at the legislation. In section 15 of the act it says that, in preparing the report, primacy must be given to the principle that the vote of the every elector in the Province shall have a weight equal to that of every other elector.

Notwithstanding this, there is, as I mentioned earlier today, a variance of 10 per cent up or down with respect to the quotient that is determined, and it is important to note, for the protection and for those in rural Newfoundland who have an interest, the act, in section 15.(3), says, "... the commission may recommend the creation of a district with a population that departs from the quotient established under section 13 by 25% more or 25% less of the quotient, where they conclude that the departure is warranted by special geographic considerations, including, (a) the community of interests of the residents of those communities in the province that are not connected by road, particularly those communities along the coast of Labrador and the southwest coast of the island portion of the province; or (b) the accessibility of a region or its size or shape."

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Act, is legislation that was brought into effect in, I believe, 1993 by a previous government. What we are doing here today is, we are making a number of amendments to that legislation. The amendments are not made for the purpose of changing the act. We are going along with the original act. We are making some minor amendments which are required by circumstances. We are establishing a commission to take effect in 2006, because the 2003 commission ran out of power to complete the work they were required to do. That was number one.

We are leaving the number of seats at forty-eight to make sure that rural Newfoundland is protected. We are dealing with a situation where Labrador would lose a seat and only have three seats, so we are changing that so that Labrador will continue to have four seats, and basically that is all we are doing. We are going with the same legislation. I think, under the circumstances, that this is the right thing to do to make sure that rural Newfoundland is protected.

Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition made comments that members on this side knew what the districts were, and had probably seen the maps. I do not know if he said those exact words, but he felt that we had seen them.

Mr. Speaker, the map for the division of the Province into districts will be done by the commission, and the commission will be headed by a judge appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland. They will divide the Province into districts and they will be prepare the map, and only then will we, on this side of the House, see those maps. We will see them at the same time as every other Member of the House of Assembly sees those maps.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will urge all members to support second reading of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? On tomorrow?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 43)

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to deal with certain matters on the Order Paper.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to begin Committee debate on Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act.

I know that last night, when we were in Committee on debate on this particular bill, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had some questions, I think, with respect to contract employees, whether being included or excluded from the potential plan. I believe some of the answers to those questions have been discovered and relayed to the member, but certainly I will let him speak for himself on that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act." (Bill 63)

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The questions that I raised yesterday on Bill 63 had to do with the statement by the minister when she introduced the legislation, saying that this legislation was designed to provide for pensions under the Memorial University Pensions Act for part-time and full-time contract personnel. These could be anything from somebody teaching one course in a semester, or two or three courses in a semester, on an ongoing basis once every semester for four or five years in a row, which will be almost a relatively permanent employee although their contract is only a one-term event, or it could be as much as a student who is hired for a semester to mark papers for a professor. These would be fixed-term contracts on a part-time basis. Some would inevitably be full time.

My concern, the question that I asked the minister, was: If the intention was to create or to make these people members of the pension plan, why did the legislation not say so? Instead, the legislation says that those included in the plan - it lists out the various ones included in the plan and then provides a category for those who are included by a policy directive of the board, meaning the Board of Regents, with the approval of the minister, presumably the Minister of Education.

I have asked the minister to find out for me, or to tell us, to tell the House, why that is. If the intention is to include them, why not include them? I understand the minister has given some thought to this, and asked questions of the appropriate people, and she has given me an answer privately. I suppose, for the record, I should allow the minister to put it to the House as to what the explanation is, and I understand there is an explanation that makes sense, but I would like to let the minister tell the Committee what the explanation is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I would like to address some of the questions put forth by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The changes that we have been debating with regard to MUN give MUN the authority to set, by policy, the benefits for both the full-time and part-time employees. Section 29 allows the board to set the policy for full and part-time employees, and the board has been consistently setting the policy for both these groups, for both the full-time and part-time; however, the act only references full-time employees. So, what we are doing is, we are enabling the board to be able to develop the policies that apply to both sets of employees, as they have been doing. They want to ensure that the practice that they engage in is reflected in the act.

In addition, I just want to add some further information on that, and that is that the board will not rule on individuals per se, but what the board will do is develop their HR policies. Eligibility for the pension program will be based on the policy criteria and now they will have, according to the act, the criteria to make decisions or make policies that affect both the part-time and full-time employees.

The referral to the minister and the minister's involvement in this legislation certainly is there to ensure due diligence, as MUN reports to the minister. As well, MUN is responsible to comply with other provincial legislation with regard to pensions, and diligence with regard to their finances as well. That brings in the role of the minister, as MUN has to report there.

I hope this answers the questions that have been put forth.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to thank the minister for an answer to those questions, because it does clarify that this is not something entirely new. I was concerned about the two-stage process, that if the intention was to create pension rights for part-time and contractual full-time people, why weren't we doing so? As I understand the explanation given now, and by the minister earlier, in fact, part-time people have been permitted to opt into the plan under certain conditions, and this regularizes it through legislation, and authorizes the practices taking place.

I do understand that because the Province, I guess, guarantees the obligations of the plan as well, there is a need for provincial government oversight of the process, so it is not a question of delaying the granting of these benefits. Apparently these benefits are already in place in many cases and it regularizes that process.

Having had that explanation, Mr. Chair, I want to thank the minister for her efforts in getting that explanation for the House. I have no difficulty with the provisions that ensure that part-time and full-time contractual employees have access to the pension plan. I think that is a very progressive notion that we should see as features of all of our plans and something that I would like to see more widespread in the public sector or in the private sector as well, ensuring that pension benefits are not something that is reserved only for those who are in public service or in full-time employment.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I conclude my remarks and urge the passage of this legislation.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 10.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 10 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 10 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 10 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 Memorial University Pensions 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 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 63 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.

We will begin Committee debate on Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

CHAIR: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 3. Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries 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 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 43 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.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 63 and Bill 43 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, and Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, passed 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, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

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

I want to deal with Order 3, which is third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 66)

When we concluded yesterday, there was, I think, some clarification being sought by the Opposition House Leader on a matter related to the bill. I believe the Minister of Justice and Attorney General had given an undertaking to find that out. I believe they have had some of their own discussions, so I will leave that third reading debate to them to conclude their remarks on that.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we concluded yesterday, I had some concerns - and I raised those concerns with the minister in second reading and in committee stage - in trying to secure an answer as to whether or not the definition would indeed be adequate to protect the Province and be in the best interest of the Province in terms of maximization of the possible claim for damages that might eventually result in a Statement of Claim issue pursuant to this piece of legislation.

I thank the minister. I have since had the opportunity to speak with the director of litigation for the department who has clarified matters. I would just like to say for the record as well, I feel that the definition, and after having read the Court of Appeal decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, I think it is indeed the proper decision that has been made. In particular, the inclusion and the revelation, shall we say, of the existence of section 11, which deals with the concerns that I raised, certainly leaves me with no concern now at this point and I think we are adequately protected.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 66 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 Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 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 Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 66)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 63 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 Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, has now been read a third 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 Memorial University Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 63)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 43 be 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 Electoral Boundaries Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, 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 Electoral Boundaries Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 43)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received two messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Please stand.

The messages are as follows, dated December 1, 2005, and read as follows:

As Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2006, by way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with provisions of section 54 and section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_________________________

Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

Message number two, dated December 1, 2005. The message reads as follows:

As Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2006, by way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with provisions of sections 54 and section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_________________________

Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I am just raising a question so that, at least, everybody on this side can be informed. I am not sure what the situation is.

The Government House Leader gave notice today that we would sit beyond 5:00 and we would sit beyond 10:00. I am just wondering if the Speaker can inform us whether or not the satellite time has been booked? Should we go beyond 10:00?

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments ago I gave instructions that the satellite time should be extended to, at least, 12:00 midnight.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the messages, together with the amounts, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the messages be referred to the Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

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 House is ready to debate the resolution according to Bill 68.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $18,000,000."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular Supplementary Supply Bill here is to deal with the Crab Workers Support Program. There was a warrant issued earlier this year pertaining to money that could be required to run the Crab Workers Support Program, and that amount, as indicated here, was for $18 million. I just want to add that, when I prepared the mid-year financial statement we estimated the program is now only going to cost $6 million, but obviously the Supply Bill is in line with the warrant of $18 million. We factored a cost of $6 million into the mid-year statement. That is what we project it would cost to complete that program.

While the amount was for $18 million, it is obviously reflective of the warrant, even though subsequent to the warrant, several months later, we are now estimating, as the program is getting closer to completion - and my colleague here, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is administering that program, and he certainly, I am sure, would have any specific details anyone would want to ask about on that, or I can certainly answer any particular questions you might want to ask of me on it.

That is, basically, a very simple straightforward amount, to provide funding that was not appropriated for and approved in the Budget, towards the Crab Workers Support Program.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Just a simple question for the minister: You are asking for approval, or you have asked for approval, to spend $18 million, you have already said that you are only going to use $6 million, why are we approving $18 million?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It is customary procedure, Mr. Chair. When you issue a special warrant, you estimate a cost as the year closes. With any warrants, it may be $100,000 out, $1 million out, depending on the size, and at the end of the year it will be reflected in the public accounts what actually got spent. You can never estimate an exact amount. That will always be done when the year-end financial statements reveal the accurate amount.

Before the bill was prepared here, it went through Cabinet. The amount was approved by Cabinet for $18 million and the Supplementary Supply Bill was issued for it. The appropriate procedure is to have the supply bill reflect the Minute of Cabinet, and the bill would reflect those amounts. When we did our statement, obviously we wanted to project what it might be at the end of the year. We did not factor $18 million into the projection for the simple reason that we wanted the financial statement to be as accurate as possible. We could not have told back in June that the program would be $6 million, $8 million, $10 million, $15 million or $18 million.

Many of the people who were employed managed to get their extra weeks of work at other species at those particular plants. Some managed to get their full hours of work and qualify and did not need to have any uptake on the program to that amount. That was the amount that would be required to meet, based on the projections at the beginning when the special warrant was issued. Hopefully, that answers it.

I will just add, any special warrants in the past that have been tabled - and there have been dozens, probably, since I came into the House, I would say it was probably closer to a hundred than a dozen - they all reflect a certain amount that may vary from the original amount. That is not uncommon at all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just stand and have a few brief words on this bill and the warrant that is put forth here for $18 million. It is a surprise to me that we hear of $18 million but we are only going to use $6 million. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he first (inaudible) out, he was around the Province praising the $18 million he has put into the program - and I have not seen any correction yet in the media - praising how much money we are putting out for the crab workers. I mean, we have seen it a dozen times. You have publicized it; everything I heard in the media!

Here we are tonight, and the first question I have to ask is: Why are we debating this here in the middle of the night? Last week and this week we were closing the House of Assembly before 5:30 in the afternoon, and here we are now, all of a sudden, pushing through a warrant for $18 million.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, if you cannot listen why don't you leave the Chamber. This is my right to speak, I say to the minister. You had your opportunity when you were Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Chairman, here we are in the middle of the night, going to stay here until twelve, one, two or three o'clock, trying to ram a bill down our throats. The question I have to ask is: Why? Why did we close the House last week at four o'clock or four-thirty? Why this week? Why now? I am starting to realize why. What is coming up later this week? I am hoping it has nothing to do with Abitibi, Abitibi possibly closing on Friday. Is it? Next week you do not want to go through the hassle of answering the questions about why the Premier's commitment was made. I am wondering: Why are we pushing this through? Why are we trying to close the House now by Thursday?

Here is an $18 million warrant. The minister himself stands up and says, we are only going to use $6 million of it, while the Minister of Municipal Affairs is out in the public saying, we need $18 million. Why don't you take the other $12 million and put it in the Community Enhancement Program, if you are so concerned?

Going back to the Raw Material Sharing. Here it is costing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador $6 million because of something the Premier and the former Minister of Fisheries want to ram through the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was costing people a projected $18 million, and now it is down to $6 million.

We have to go back a bit. Anybody here who is on the fishing boats, who is a crab worker on the boats - forget if you are a skipper, but a crab worker - if you did not get your unemployment because they were shut down for four weeks, you are not allowed to be involved with the assistance. Yet you have $12 million extra. Those poor fisher people who are on that boat cannot qualify, because it is punishment, you did it to yourself. How inhumane can you be! Here we are with an $18 million warrant, turning back $12 million, and saying to those people, you cannot get your four weeks. Plant workers can, but you were on the boat, even though you were not the skipper of the boat, even though the skipper calls you when you go to work, you cannot get involved with this crab program. You have to go off to Alberta or BC somewhere to work, or stay home on welfare. You do not qualify because you were a fisher person on the boat. Here we are now debating a bill where $12 million of the $18 million that they were so proudly out bragging about is turned back, saying, we do not need it. How inhumane can you get! How inhumane!

The funniest thing about it here is the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, who potentially stood up for the fishermen, stood up against the Raw Material Sharing. He did not stand up for the Raw Material Sharing. He said: We should have consultations. The reason why the Premier got that person kicked out of his caucus - we do not know who served the silver bullet yet. We know who now is trying to make amends. The Member for Topsail opened his arms around him, which is good to see. I am glad to see you are taking the knife out of his back. It is good to see that you finally came through and you could do it. The Premier was turning around saying to him that, you are running federally because Peter MacKay, I think, told me in PEI. It had nothing to do with Raw Material Sharing why he was expelled from caucus. It had nothing to do with it whatsoever. The reason why he was expelled from caucus is because the Premier himself got on Open Line, made a statement, and the member got on, rightly so, and defended himself. Peter MacKay went along with him and exposed the Premier for saying things that were just not true on the Open Line. When he was in Houston the members opposite turned around and said: He has to go.

Not only did it cost us $6 million, it cost you one of your members, all because of Raw Material Sharing. How many fishing people who were on those boats this year, the crab workers on the boats, right now as we speak are on the Mainland because they were not included in this $18 million, just not included in the $18 million? Yet we don't need $18 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Well, look at NAPE and CUPE. I say to any of the fisherpeople who worked on the boats, don't take it personally, they did it to NAPE and CUPE. Not only did they strike a deal with them, but when they put in the back-to-work legislation he gave them less than what they agreed to, back to day one. To the fishing people who were on the boats who needed the four weeks work, who could not apply for this funding, for this program, do not take it personal. If you stand up to this Premier, to this government, don't take it personal, you are going to be punished. How dare you stand up to this government!

Here we are debating a bill here tonight, $18 million - everybody in this Province thinks that there was $18 million going towards this crab enhancement program and really it is only $6 million. I remember when the Minister of Finance was sitting on this side - and I have it here - and he was talking about the funding for electricity users, and how he put a private member's motion in: how callous of this government, when we were on that side, not going ahead with the program for electricity users, how callous it was, passed a private member's motion. I have it right here. What did he have an opportunity to do this year? He had an opportunity to help people who use electricity. What did he do?

MR. BARRETT: The electricity rates went up too.

MR. JOYCE: The electricity rates went up, my colleague from Bellevue informed me, on a fair number. What did he do. Oh, no, we cannot do it for electricity rate users now. We cannot do that. That was only when I was over on that side I could say, I am doing that. We are not allowed to do it while I am over here, I am in government now. That was only just to get in government. I do not need to do that.

MR. BARRETT: He has the $12 million to do it.

MR. JOYCE: He has the $12 million to do it. There is $24 million in Newfoundland Power. I think they are having hearings on it. Here is $12 million that is put aside for some reason. I guess we have to ask where the $12 million is going, if it is going back into the general coffers. That is what the minister can explain, I guess.

Here we are talking about $12 million that is going back into the coffers and here are the electricity users who could not get any subsidy whatsoever from this government. When they were on this side they were the ones - even the Minister of Finance himself put a private members motion in to help get this funding approved. They said that we should have done it; how callus we were. How callus could we be to do that! How dare we do that and not include the people who use electricity in this Province! How dare we! Here we are now, with the crab fisher people on the boats who could not get their unemployment, who needed four or five weeks, and were not included; just were not included.

I just think it is callus, that if you are a crab boat worker who needs a certain number of weeks and because of the Raw Material Sharing brought in by this government, because you did not defy the skipper of the boat, and you did not find some way to get that boat back on the water, then you are not eligible for this program. That is just wrong. That is just absolutely wrong! They do not, and did not, have control to put this boat out to water. They do not, and did not, have control to say that we want to fish. They do not, and did not, have control of where and when that boat goes out and where that boat lands. They are at the pleasure of the skipper of the boat, and if they did not do what the skipper told them to do, they would be charged with trespassing, charged with whatever offence, to get that boat out. Because they defied a government order, because the government want to punish the people, the fisher people on the crab boats here in Newfoundland and Labrador, because they want to punish them, they are saying, you are not included in this $18 million program, which tonight we find out is only $6 million; only $6 million with the big hullabaloo that we were going to put $18 million into the program.

Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude with those few words now. I will just say to the minister, both ministers I guess, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we should try to include the people from the boats. The fisher people who worked on the boats should be included somehow, to help with their unemployment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a couple of brief points. There was no intention by this government to debate the bill here in the nighttime. In fact, I had intended to have it called today and I informed my colleague, the Government House Leader, that I was on government business all day, all afternoon. It was scheduled to be called and he called it tonight. We would have done that earlier today. That is why it is debated tonight, not in the day. It is still a part of our parliamentary sitting. Your own House Leader asked if it was going to be televised so people can hear it. Whether it is day or nighttime, it does not matter to me. You can have it in the morning at 6:00 o'clock and I will be here, if it is necessary, to debate this issue. It has nothing to do with that. It is completely transparent. We are not running away from anything, I will tell the Member for Bay of Islands.

I do want to make a couple of statements. I am not going to go into my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, area at all. He will deal with that, but I want to make something clear. I presented a resolution in this House, absolutely right, saying that you should include electricity along with home heating fuel. The reason why is because, at the time, the electricity rates and home heating fuel rates were close to being comparative. In this instance this year, this year when we moved on this issue -

MR. BARRETT: Electricity has gone right up.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like the Member for Bellevue to try to listen and at least deal with facts, and I will give him facts. If he does not like them, he does not have to use them.

Over the past two years we checked with rates from Hydro. We looked at a comparison of electricity and fuel. The average household consumption in this Province over the last two years has cost $388 more per year to heat your home by electricity over the past two years than it did, we will say, two years ago. It has gone up by $388. It is gone up by close to $1,050 more to heat your home by home heating fuel.

Those are the figures. We checked with Hydro. We looked at consumption. We looked at the households in this Province, and the rate has gone up. What did we do? Here is what we did, Mr. Chairman. The difference between electricity and home heating fuel is more than $600, between $600 and $700, almost $700 more to heat your home by home heating fuel, over and above what it cost to heat it by electricity, that much extra. We compensated for $400 of that $700 difference, only a part of it. Still, it is $300 more on top of that to heat it by fuel, even with the $400, than it is by electricity, and there is going to no increase in electricity. They cannot increase it before next July, so we did it based on facts. We researched it.

The reason why, had the increase been higher back then in two years or three years or four years ago, that was way up in home heating fuel, electricity was only marginally, I would not have put that forth. What did that government do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ratings.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot get much lower than the ratings that he got over there, I can tell you. It is almost gone through the floor, his ratings over there, going down fast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If we do not soon have that leadership, he will be in the minus category at the rate he is going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I will explain the issue of what happens. In case the Member for Bay of Islands does not know, you budget for amounts, and we projected in the mid-year statement when we said, counting our Atlantic Accord money two years in one, we could be a surplus of one point five. If you counted $18 million instead of $6 million, that would be a minus $10.5 million. We factored that in. There would be - if you want us to count the $18 million and not $6 million, we would have a deficit this year of $10.5 million. That is factored into our financial statement. That is included in our financial statement. Anybody who follows the finances, and how these bills work in this House, will know the answer to that. They should not be asking that question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

In the words of the Government House Leader, that is a rant. I guarantee you, that is a rant.

Mr. Chairman, this being a money bill, for those who are watching out there tonight on television, on a money bill you can speak to any issue. Tonight I am going to raise a few on this particular bill because it is one that came about as a result of a drastic action that this government took a year ago.

I will start by saying, or asking the question, Mr. Chairman, whenever you ask this government why they are closing hospital beds, why they are laying off civil servants, cutting services, increasing fees, what is the answer that this government gives? We do not have the money.

Whenever you ask for a higher fuel rebate for seniors and lower income earners, or a larger rebate, what do you hear from this government and this Finance Minister? We do not have the money. Whenever you ask for a break for the middle-class citizens of this Province, the ones who slog to work every day and see what they can buy for their income decrease on a daily basis, what do you hear when you ask for a break for these people on their heating for their homes in the winter, whether it be electricity or fuel? What do you hear from this government? We do not have the money.

Whenever you ask for a reduction in the HST on gasoline, as we saw prices hit $1.50 a litre this summer, what did we hear from this minister? We do not have the money.

When the women in the public service asked for what is rightfully theirs under the pay equity, we hear from the Minister of Finance and the Premier: I am sorry, we do not have the money. The list goes on and on and on. We do not have the money.

Yet, tonight, I say to the Member for Clarenville, we are being asked to approve an $18 million sum of money, of which there is going to be $6 million spent on a crab assistance program in this Province. For those of you out there who do not remember what happened, and the need for that crab assistance program, I will let you know.

It started about a year ago, and before that I will back up. I will back up to when the crowd opposite - and I say to the Justice Minister, he does not have to go mocking his colleague about the words back up or ‘backupable'. It is not me, it is you, so you should be apologizing to him.

Anyway, we have to start back a couple of years ago when the crowd opposite were in Opposition. I remember the member who represented the St. Anthony area - what do you call it? The Straits & White Bay - when he was in Opposition, and he talked about the fishery. He had a plan for the fishery, and if he ever had the opportunity to become the Fisheries Minister he was going to institute that plan, and the people in the fishery were going to be far better off than they ever were, because he had all of the ideas and he was going to make the lives of fishermen, fish harvesters, men and women, and plant workers in this Province better. Their livelihoods and their incomes were going to be improved under this man's plan that he had. He talked every single day: Where is your plan? Where is your plan? Because I have one.

In November, 2003, he was appointed the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province, and one month later he brought in the first prong of his plan, an auction system, against the wishes of everyone in the fishing industry. Neither the harvesters in the Province nor the processors knew what he was talking about, because he did not know much about it himself. He went off to Europe some time ago, when he was working for the FFAW, and saw it work in one of the Scandinavian countries, and this was going to be the panacea, the answer to the woes in the fishing industry in this Province.

We sat here two years ago, in the fall of the year, and debated an auction system, one that we knew could not work because we spoke to fishermen and fisherwomen in the Province, and we spoke to planter owners, processors, and they said this cannot work; but, no, the minister was going to push it forward anyway.

I can remember standing here almost on the day two years ago, late in the evening, on a December night. I think that night we probably went to 2:00 o'clock or 3:00 o'clock in the morning because the minister was so convinced that his auction system was going to work that he had to have it before Christmas, and he pushed it through the House like they push every bill through the House, because they have the numbers opposite to do that, regardless of whether it makes sense, the criticisms that we put forward. These people say it is no good anyway.

I heard the Government House Leader say the other day, we have the votes in the House and we will push it through regardless of what you say about it. That is what you did two years with the great auction system. Well, guess what happened? Shortly after Christmas you came out and said: We are not going to do it now - because he realized. Someone, over the Christmas holidays, told him this could not work and he finally sat down and listened to somebody. We thank the Lord that he did, because it was a disastrous concept that he had to begin with, and he did it without any consultation from anybody in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speak. I ask members if they would take their conversations outside and allow the member to speak in silence, please.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, they do not like the truth. For some reason they are over there as quiet as mice for the longest time; but, all of a sudden, when you tell them the truth and it starts to hurt they come to life. I am going to speak anyway, whether they come to life or they go back to sleep, because the truth needs to be told.

Shortly after that fatal program that he was going to bring in, the auction system that did not work - that was fine - he let the season continue. Then, what did he do last year, or shortly after the failed auction system? He went out and said: Next year we have to do something, but we will not do it unless we consult with fish harvesters and processors in the Province. I can promise you that we will consult before we act.

I notice that the minister, or the previous minister, always sits with his back to me because he does not like to hear the truth, but I guess he can hear back on just as well as he can front on. He just does not want to show his facial expressions, because he does not like to be hurt.

He promised that he was going to hold consultations with fish harvesters in the Province, and processors, before he moved ahead with another plan, because the first one that he tried to implement did not work. He gave that commitment, and the Premier gave that commitment, during the election and shortly after, that he would always consult with those who would become affected by some policy that he was about to bring in. Then, lo and behold, in March of last year, a month before the fishing season was going to open, in walks the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier who say: We are going to implement a raw material sharing system against the wishes of the fish harvesters in the Province, and without consultation.

We know what happened. We saw the most ruckus strike in the history of the fishery. The minister of the day should have been ashamed of himself, a man who says he came out of the boat himself, a man who says he rang more salt water out of his mitts than I would ever sail on, a man who was a champion of the fisherpeople of this Province. With the snap of a finger he and the Premier, without consultation, tried to impose something on them that was against their wishes, and something that they said they would never accept. We had an eight-week strike last year, last spring. Today, we are being asked to approve a bill for $18 million, $6 million of which will be spent to aid the plant workers in the Province who lost work, lost a month's work, directly as a result of the policy that this minister over here, and the Premier, tried to force down the throats of the fish harvesters of this Province.

That is what we are here to deal with tonight, the $6 million. We will talk about the $12 million, what should be done with the extra $12 million you are going to save, I say to the Minister of Finance. We will talk about that later on, but you are here tonight saying that we want to spend $6 million for a crab assistance program for plant workers simply because your Premier and your previous Minister of Fisheries were too obstinate, I say to those opposite, in April of last year, to admit that you were wrong, to admit that you misled the fish harvesters of this Province when you told them that you would consult with them and then changed your mind like you did on so many other commitments that you made during the election campaign in the two years since then.

That is what you did, and you should be ashamed, the biggest strike in the history of the fishery in the Province, or at least in the last twenty or thirty years, where we saw the anger of the people, and on the faces of the people who make a living from the sea, from this gallery. We saw armed security guards in the House of Assembly, for the first time since I have been sitting here in ten years. We saw the House closed, and the House disrupted. We saw a lot of that stuff last spring, simply because this genius of a minister thought that he knew everything and that the raw material sharing system was the best for the people of this Province, but we found out that it wasn't. The people who work in the fishery, the harvesters in the fishery of this Province, said they were not going to take it and, at the end of the day, the Premier, to get himself out of a jam, asked Richard Cashin to come in and have an examination of it and we would put the raw material sharing program in for this past season.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I will be back again shortly.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to make a few comments on the comments that were made by the Member for Bay of Islands and also the Opposition Leader on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman. I will try to keep it simple for the Member for Bay of Islands because, obviously, he has been in the House of Assembly now since 1999, I believe, or 1996, I am not sure which, but some time around then, and he really does not understand the procedures with respect to the Budget and special warrants and these types of things, Mr. Chairman.

Basically, back this past spring, in this House of Assembly, this government, through the Premier, made a commitment to the crab plant workers, because there was a delay in the fishery of two-and-a-half weeks, that we would try and compensate for that two-and-a-half weeks. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, what we did, the two-and-a-half weeks was brought up to four weeks and the program that we did put in place, we said to the workers out there, the crab plant workers, which is who we committed to at that time because of the delay in the fishery through no fault of the crab plant workers that they could not work, we said to them that we would compensate them, not only for the two-and-a-half weeks, but to make sure that they were on an equal playing field we would go up to four weeks and also look at the hours. We said to them when we put the program in place, Mr. Chair, that whatever was most beneficial to the crab plant worker, the weeks or the hours, would be applied to the individual. Where the $18 million came from, of course, we had to put in place the amount of money that would be required, if you look at the number of crab plant workers in the plants across this Province, take that and use the number of hours, 8,000 times the four weeks, we will come up with $18 million, the worst-case scenario - and the graders and the truckers, whatever the case may be, those individuals.

What we did then, Mr. Chair, was put the program in place and because - it was never in the budget, by the way, Mr. Chair, it had not been budgeted for. This is money that came much later. Now, we are here tonight looking for a Special Warrant. We are not abusing Special Warrants, supply or whatever, Mr. Chair. We went through the proper procedures here to put the money in place. The $18 million that we were looking for was for the worst-case scenario. Because of the mackerel, the capelin, and the fishery, and a number of people who did not have to take advantage of the crab plant workers support program, that is a good thing, Mr. Chair. I think that is a good thing.

They are on the other side now, the member on the opposite side of the House of Assembly, the Member for Bay of Islands, is out there trying to make this to be a negative, a bad thing. But, I will say to the Member for Bay of Islands, when we are looking at this - actually, what is happening here, by the way, when we brought down the Budget this year there was a deficit that looked to be - I do not know the large amount, but there was a deficit there -

MR. SULLIVAN: Four hundred and ninety-two million.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. SULLIVAN: Four hundred and ninety-two million.

MR. J. BYRNE: Four hundred and ninety-two million dollars. This $18 million would have added to that deficit.

MR. SULLIVAN: Five, ten.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, it would have been up to five, ten. That is okay, I can add up. No problem there, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Five hundred and ten million. Because we are only spending the $6 million, we are saving $12 million that would have not been budgeted for in the first place. The member opposite should understand that. Now he feels that we should take this $12 million and move it over into the Community Enhancement Program, Mr. Chair. But, you cannot just do that. It is not as simple as that, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands. It is not as black and white as that. We are following proper procedure, doing exactly what we had committed to, Mr. Chair.

Not only that, Mr. Chair, when you look at the Community Enhancement Program, what we did this year, for the first time, this Administration, any government, put in $4.25 million into the Community Enhancement Program, budgeted for in the Budget this year; the first time ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Further to that, when the workers out there who got their four weeks, we said - some of them who worked last year in the plants and got ten weeks last year and this year they got six - we would put the projects in place where they could qualify for four weeks. Then, Mr. Chair, as in other years, if the people who were working in the plants did not qualify for their E.I., that they could go on the Community Enhancement Program, which was what we did. He knows full well - because I talked to him enough and members on that side of the House - we were very fair in how we shared this money across the Province, district by district, and taking phone call after phone call from members on that side of the House and on this side of the House, Mr. Chair, we were very, very fair in how we tried to distribute that money and put the money where it was needed.

Now, Mr. Chair, there was a greater need out there this year for the Community Enhancement Program, and what did we do on this side of the House? When we were aware of that and made aware of it - I had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bellevue and brought it forward - and what did we do? We knew the deal was out there. We went to Cabinet and asked for another $1.75 million to top up the Community Enhancement Program from $4.25 million to $6 million, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and another good point. If we did what the members opposite wanted us to do, and wanted me to do as a minister, we would violate the Financial Administration Act, which is what they were so used to doing, Mr. Chair, when they were on this side of the House. We do not do things the way you did them. That is why we are improving on this side of the House and why the people of the Province are better off now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: They are getting up there now and trying to play games with this. It would just make you sick.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the projects out there. What we have been trying to do on this side of the House of Assembly, as this government over the past two years, is try to improve on the image out there, or the projects that we have put in place across this Province, and we are getting some great projects.

The Leader of the Opposition should know this one. In Fogo, we had a meeting with respect to the Fogo Island Co-op. They came in here and wanted to put a program in place on the Fogo Island plant out there and met with myself and others in government and within forty-eight hours we had a program, a project, approved for Fogo where they could go look for a new species, look for a new market in China, and we were concerned that it would be opposing to the Free Trade Agreement. We had the Minister from Justice - it did not counteract the Free Trade Agreement and within forty-eight hours that project was approved for thousands of hours of work in the plant in Fogo and he is up there now trying to criticize our program, the Crab Workers Support Program. That is what we are up against on this side of the House when we are looking across at that, pure raw politics, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Further to this, Mr. Chair, I have a letter here - and I will even table it - from the Cabot Rock Heritage Corporation in Grates Cove, and just a few comments. I will read from it so you will understand the type of projects that we have been approving on this side of the House, opposite to what was done when they were there.

Words to describe the accomplishment of the funds that were given to Grates Cove can only be positive and bright. There is a window of opportunity open for the community to look through. The enhancements that are making Grates Cove a place as wanted to be visited is giving economic benefits to communities through the Baccalieu Trail. We encourage visitors to stay in bed and breakfasts in the area. They spend dollars for supplies they need in order to make the day trip. In Grates Cove, local crafts, grocery stores and community organizations are making money off the spinoffs that are provided through the heritage ventures. It goes on to say: We are committing our time and efforts to provide services that will generate money for us and the community which, in turn, will keep rural Newfoundland alive and well for generations to come.

Mr. Chair, we, as a government, have been committed to rural Newfoundland. We have been committed to economic development in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the Community Enhancement Program that we put in place this year - and topped it up even further than had been budgeted for by the way. The Crab Workers Support Program is a good program that was put in place, that was committed by the Premier of this Province, and committed by Cabinet and government. We put it in place and it worked well for the individuals who applied. We cannot be all things. We cannot cure the woes of the world in one program in one year, but we made a great step this year, Mr. Chair, with respect to the Crab Workers Support Program. It worked. It did what it was supposed to do and we make no apologies for that, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I will just spend two minutes on the minister. Minister, it sounds good what you are saying but the only problem is: Who caused the $200 million this year of GDP from the fishery? Who was it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Have you been listening?

MR. JOYCE: Who was it? It was the Minister of Fisheries and your Premier and your government; $200 million. Two hundred million dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: So, here you are now turning around and saying: Look at how good we are. It is almost like: Listen, look at how good we are now. You guys stay good now and we will give you a few dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: If you had to leave the crab fishery alone you would not have the problems that you have, I say to the minister and the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance was whispering to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: the Financial Administration Act, we would not break that. Tell me about the VON contract. Ask the Member for Topsail who got fired over it. Table about the proposals.

MR. SULLIVAN: That has nothing to do with the Financial Administration Act.

MR. JOYCE: No, no. Give away money so the Premier can go up to his golf tournament. Go ahead, so the Premier can go up to his golf tournament.

Ask the Member for Topsail about taking money without going out to any proposals for any contracts. How about the $200,000 the Premier gave to make the feel-good contract for the ads to one of his Tory buddies? That is all right though. That is all right, the Premier did that. You do not see the Minister of Finance stand up and say: Premier, you can't do that. That is not fair for you. Oh, no, no, that is the Premier. So, don't go sitting over there and all of a sudden be pompous to anybody. It cost the minister her job, and give her credit, she stood up. The deputy minister got fired because the Premier was doing something which the minister at the time knew that she was not consulted and it should not have been done. She knew it and I knew it. The reason why it was done was so the Premier could go to his golf tournament and there would not be a NAPE strike.

I just heard the Minister of Finance - you want to talk about someone who is hypocritical. Here is his own press release that he put out when he was on this side. The reason why we should have given people who were burning electricity, using electricity - the reason why we should have given them some money to help with the subsidy - the minister himself - is because Bunker C oil was increasing. If Bunker C oil was increasing then, with the cost of it now, the cost for electricity, it had to go up. It just had to go up! That is how hypocritical you are. He is standing over there talking about how good we are because we are giving out $6 million when you cost the fishing industry this year $200 million to this Province. So, all of a sudden you are saying how good you are. I am sure there are people who are appreciative of some of the funding that you did. I am sure some people are very appreciative of some of the funds you did.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Why didn't you include some of the people who were working on the boats, the fishery people? It was not their fault that they could not go out on the boats that they did not own. They should have been included. They definitely should have been included in this crab enhancement program. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these people would have fished only because of the actions of this government. Absolutely no doubt in my mind!

I know a lot of members opposite who are in rural districts know that there were fishery people on those crab boats who had to leave this Province because they were not included in this crab enhancement program. I look at the members opposite, and there are enough of them over there, who know people personally, who had to leave and move on. I can assure you, enough people left and went on to the mainland. That is not something the minister should be over there bragging about. I mean, it is a bill we are bringing through the House, which has to be brought through the House, it is being brought through the House, but it is not something we should be bragging about, that we are giving out $6 million because we cost the industry $200 million this year. There are a lot of people put through turmoil, wondering if they are going to pay their heat bill, oil bill, and wondering if they are going to meet their mortgage. Then we have the government over there bragging because we are giving out $6 million to help them; everybody should be happy. That is just not fair. That is not the way to treat people. People should be treated with more respect and more dignity; everybody.

I am sure the people who worked on this crab enhancement program are appreciative, because a lot of them could stay in their homes, a lot of them could stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but the initiative that we should look at next year is try not to get ourselves in that situation where people are dependent on the program. We need to sit down - and I say to each and every government member, and I do not care who you are on that side of the House, last year was a trying time for everybody. For every person on the opposite side who are in government and every person on this side of the House, last year when that crab strike was on the go it was a trying time in this Province. None of us wants to walk out there and see Constabulary Officers with their guns. None of us. We are all human beings. We know these people. We do not want to see that. There is no one in this House who would want to see that. There is no one in this House who would want to see a situation whereby certain members have to have the Constabulary go with them. We just do not want it. We are not used to that society. We should not have that type of society.

My suggestion to the government is, and before anything is done, you have to consult the industry. This raw material sharing just cannot work in this Province. It cannot work with the crab. If anything is going to work in this Province, you have to have all the parties at the table, have all the parties sit down, have all the parties have their input. Everybody may not agree, but if you have all the parties at the same table you will have some kind of compromise. We cannot afford, as a Province, the type of chaos that was involved last spring with the crab.

I am going to make a prediction here now, that if this government don't go ahead and soon start some type of negotiation, some type of consultation with the industry, all players in the fishing industry for this year, we are going to have chaos again on our hands. We will have chaos on our hands because we cannot wait until April or May and say: Oh, here is what we are going to do. We have to try to consult before the season opens. If not, most of the major players in the industry - it could be the crab workers, it could be the boat owners, it could be the plant owners, it could be whomever is in the industry - their main goal at that time of the year is to try to get their plants up and running, get people back to work, get their orders filled into their markets. That is what we need to do. I will make a prediction that if we do not start consultation as we speak, if we wait until April or May, we will have chaos in the fishing industry again this year. We will have chaos. We need consultation.

For the minister to come back again next year and say: Oh, that is all right, look at how good we are. We will put out $6 million for a crab enhancement program. Look how good we are. Look at all of the good things we are doing.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, there are some good projects done on this crab enhancement program and in the Community Enhancement Program. I know there are good projects, but the less money that we need for the enhancement program, if it is a crab enhancement or a community enhancement, it means the economy is doing better, I say to the minister.

There is no one, at times, arguing the need of the stop-gap measures in Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely not, but I am arguing about causing chaos in a fishing industry, $200 million chaos in the fishing industry, and turning around five, six or seven months later and saying: We are going to put $6 million into it. What are you complaining about?

That is not the right approach. That approach has gone out in the Archean days. We need consultation. We need to sit all of the players down at the same table. We need some kind of compromise. We need some kind of order whereby, when the fishing season starts in April or May - it is all according to what part of the Province you are in, April or May - we have some kind of order so the plant workers will not be stressed out wondering if they are going to get their work this year; not only just unemployment, because a lot of plant workers and crab workers not only look just to get unemployment. They look for a lot more than that, because there are a lot more species than crab. As the minister said, there are a lot more species that a lot of them could work at. It could be herring, mackerel, it could be shrimp. Who knows what it could be? The idea is not just to get enough for their unemployment. The idea is, that is a part of the year-long project. When they work at the crab, they may be working at herring, caplin or mackerel, but we need some kind of uniform system that all species will start on time, not the chaos that we had last year.

I call upon the government, and I ask the government, and I plead with the government, do not wait until April or May to start negotiations and start consultation with the players in the industry. If not, we will have chaos, I can assure you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bay of Islands that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be back again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, we are here on a money bill tonight and it is important, when we are dealing with the Treasury of the Province and the financing of the Province, that we have confidence in what we are hearing from the Minister of Finance.

You know, I have often questioned his approach in how he states the debt and how he is concerned about the debt. I know members opposite invited us to read Hansard when it came to the minister's position on the issue of debt and the pay equity issue. I was going to go and look for it, to find it, but I ended up in a different conversation, but I also came across this, this evening, in the Auditor General's comment. I think the minister is going to have to address some of these questions because it causes me to question the kind of numbers that the minister throws around, because he has a reputation for being very good at numbers - at least he claims to be - but I tell you this, Mr. Chairman: When I look at the Auditor General's most recent comments made the other day, he made comments - this was issued on November 14 - in the latter parts of this report talking about something that he called errors. This is interesting. I am sure I would be interested in the detail of this - errors in the submissions received from the departments of government for the year ended March 31.

What is interesting is that these are submissions made to the Auditor General from various departments as to their financial position. What we see is that, first of all, on page 53, there is a figure showing the total amount of errors in the submissions received from the departments, and the Auditor General comments, "In recent years, I have noticed that there has been an increase in the quantity and types of errors in the departmental submissions." He says, "Each year in preparing the Public Accounts, the Office of the Comptroller General relies on submissions and information received from the various departments."

What do we see, Mr. Chairman? The total errors in submissions received from departments has gone up from $40 million total errors in 2004 to $75 million in 2005. I suppose you could claim well, 2004, that was not our problem; blame in on the previous government. We only came in, in late 2003. The books were such a mess that we could not get them all together even by March 31, 2004, so there were $40 million worth of errors.

They would try that. They would say that. That is the kind of thing that you hear new governments say. Then, what happens on March 31, 2005? Well, the number of errors, or the amount of errors, have gone up from $40 million to $75 million. It may have been after the former Auditor General left Cabinet. That might be part of the excuse. Nevertheless, the Minister of Finance, under their watch, the reports that went to the Auditor General were off by $75 million.

What is even more interesting, Mr. Chairman, if you went department by department to discover where the maximum errors were, this is what is interesting, Mr. Chairman. What is very interesting is that, when you look, of the $75 million errors, where did they come from? I can tell you that the Department of Justice was off by $104,000. Fisheries and Aquaculture were off by zero; they were right on. Fisheries and Aquaculture, off by zero. Health and Community Services, a very big department, huge expenditures, billions of dollars, they were off by $361,000. Not bad for a big department. Executive Council, off by $1.5 million. Now we are getting warm. Human Resources, Labour and Employment, off by $4 million. Transportation and Works, off by $6 million. You know, the kingpin, there are two departments that are off by close to one-third of the full amount of $75,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Department of Finance, $24 million.

MR. HARRIS: Hold on now.

The first one is the Department of Education, off by $25 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Loyola.

MR. HARRIS: That wasn't the Minister of Finance, no, no, no. He wasn't off by $25 million; he was off by $24 million.

MR. REID: He was off (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Hold on now. We are not talking about predictions here. I know the Leader of the Opposition wasn't listening. Here is what the Auditor General says, "Each year in preparing the Public Accounts, the Office of the Comptroller General relies on submissions and information received from the various departments." - and there is an increase in the types of errors in these departmental submissions.

So, the Department of Finance sent one set of figures to the Auditor General in terms of what the monies were, and they were off by $24 million, an increase of $23.3 million over the year before.

What I want to know, and these are listed out here on the next page, on page 54 - there are a whole series of errors listed out, as overstatements and understatements of the revenue they have: an understatement of various amounts for accounts payable to the Newfoundland Industrial Development Corporation by $1.75 million; an overstatement in the assets of the Public Service Pension Plan by $6.5 million; amounts due to municipalities understated by $6.6 million - all tolled, a total of $24 million.

I say, Mr. Chairman, and the minister, I am sure, is listening to what is being said and will come back to the Committee, or speak to the Committee, and defend himself, but here we have the department responsible for the public accounts, and looking after the money of the Province and keeping track of things, and that department, in making its reports - not on projecting what they think the revenue might be in the future - off by $24 million in just one department alone, when other departments seem to be able to report their circumstances fairly accurately.

There may be an explanation, but I would like to hear it from the minister himself because he is the one who gets up in this House with all kinds of statements about how - detailed minutia of detail on the finances of various issues that come before the House. Yet, when the report is made on the annual financial statement, he is off by $25 million, one of the two departments who are up in that category; the Department of Education being one at $25 million, and Finance at $24 million.

When we see that kind of level of inaccuracy in reporting the actual numbers of the finances of the Province, it is no wonder that the projections themselves are off, and it causes us to question how seriously we should take the Minister of Finance when he says we cannot afford to deal with issues such as the issue of pay equity, when he says we cannot afford to deal with that. He told us that two weeks ago, the day the House opened, and now we have a committee of Cabinet going to sit down and try to negotiate it.

We recognize, Mr. Chairman, and everybody in this Province recognizes, that the Province's finances are not in sterling condition. We know the biggest problem is the unfunded pension liability, but that is a problem that has grown because successive governments have not taken adequate steps to resolve it. These are steps that have long-term solutions, long-term solutions that are required because they are long-term problems.

Even the worst case scenario presented by the Auditor General a couple of weeks ago was that the teachers' pension plan was going to run out of money ten years from now. In other words, there will not be any money in the fund and the payments for pensions will have to come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the tune of $200 million a year.

Now, $200 million a year is a lot of money. We also know, in the context of this year alone, the minister's revenue is $495 million higher than he said it was going to be back last March. Let's not talk about the sky falling down, the sky falling in, in 2014, over $200 million, when the minister's own projections for revenue for this year alone, ten years before that, were off by $200 million.

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. gentleman that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to continue to talk about this $18 million boondoggle that this government created. I listened attentively while the Minister of Municipal Affairs got up just then and went into a rant about what a great program this was, and how pleased he is to have done the program and put the $6 million into it.

I say to the minister, he would not have had to spend the money if it were not for the previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the now Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, because it was the biggest blunder that I have ever seen in the history of the fishing industry, that I am aware of. I would go so far as to say that the previous Minister of Fisheries imposed more hardship on the fish harvesters of this Province than any other minister before him. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he imposed more hardship on the fish harvesters of this Province than every minister combined before him.

What he did was totally and absolutely ludicrous to go out and make a commitment to the fish harvesters of this Province, that he would consult with them before he imposed the dreaded Raw Material Sharing system, and then, on a whim, without any consultation, come out and announce that they are doing it, and you are going to do it because I say you are going to do it. Then the Premier comes out and supports them and says: You will do it or you will starve. That is basically what he said, because he said he was willing to sacrifice the entire fishery last year. We had boats tied up in the Province for eight weeks and we had the most disruptive strike in the history of the fishery that I am aware of.

I do not think that the current Minister of Fisheries, when he was Minister of Fisheries between 1985 and 1989, witnessed the likes of it. I do not think that he felt the wrath of fish harvesters in the Province the way this minister did. I can see why the Premier had to remove him from his portfolio, because he could not go out and talk to any of his constituents in the fishing industry because no one wanted to talk to him unless it was a small number of processors. I cannot imagine how he managed to stay in that portfolio for six months beyond that strike last spring, because I am sure there was no fisherman or fisherwoman in the Province, harvester, who wanted him to show up for a meeting. I will guarantee you, they did not want to see him in my district. They did not want to see him on a wharf in my district this summer after what he did to them in the spring.

Then to come in and say here tonight how pleased they are about the $6 million they put into the crab assistance program, when they caused the problem. They caused the problem and then they were pleased to put the $6 million into it. The Premier said he did not care. He did not care if they went on strike for the rest of the year and we lost the complete season. He was going to help out the crab plant workers because they were the innocent victims. Maybe that is where they came up with the $18 million. They thought that it was going to be for the full season instead of the four weeks, I say, that the minister talked about tonight.

You know, Mr. Chairman, to get that strike ended that close to June last year, the Premier commissioned Richard Cashin to do a report and make recommendations on the Raw Material Sharing system, and if he did not want to agree with that system then recommend another one. It is my understanding that report is finished and it might even be in the hands of the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Fisheries.

Here we are about to close the House of Assembly for the fall sitting and we all know that the usual time for opening in the spring is the end of March or the last week in March, so if there is any legislation that needs to be changed to implement the system that Mr. Cashin is about to recommend, then I suggest to the members opposite, especially the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Human Resources and Labour, that they should extend this sitting of the House, do not close it when you intend to close it in the next few days because we have only been open a little over two weeks. I say, we are only into our third week, there is no reason to close the House of Assembly yet. I am not aware that we closed ever before December 20th, not on the 5th or the 6th. In fact, every other year we are here talking about the possibility of going right through Christmas Day and serving turkey dinners here in the House of Assembly. That has always been the joke in past years, that we will have our dinners here on Christmas Day and we will not close the House.

I remember well when you crowd where in Opposition, thumping your chests and sleeping out there on the tables in the common room, everyone grabbing a nap when you could before you got up to speak again, the all night sessions we used to have when you were all over here talking about using the hobnail boots to drive legislation through. That is exactly what you are doing. I suggest to the ministers across the floor, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in all sincerity, that if what is in the Cashin report requires legislative change that you do it now before Christmas. If you wait until the end of March for the House opening again, in the spring of the year, and there is legislation that needs to be passed in order to have a timely and orderly fishery that usually begins in this Province around April 1, especially with the shrimp fishery on the Northwest Coast and the crab fishery shortly after that on the Northeast Coast, then I suggest, as the old saying goes, why wait for spring, do it now. Keep the House open for an extra couple of weeks so that we can have the debate on what Mr. Cashin is recommending and change the legislation, if that is what is required, in order to get the fishery opened in a timely fashion. My fear is that you are going to leave it again until it is too late, in the spring of the year, and that this government is going to come in, and this minister, and do something similar to what his predecessor did last year, in the middle of March come out and say: Here is what we are doing, it is going to be my way or the highway. Last year it was the highway. As a result of his actions he contributed greatly to a $200 million drop in landed value in the fishery.

If you talk to fish harvesters in the Province who happen to know more about the fishery then he does, they will tell you that it was a drop of far more than $200 million when you calculate the spinoff jobs and the spinoff incomes that were lost. I will just give you an example of what is not calculated in that $200 million loss to the fishery. In a normal year in the fishery fish harvesters usually qualify for two EI claims which keep them through the fall and the winter. This year, because of the late start that was brought about by the previous fisheries minister many fish harvesters in the Province only qualified for one set of EI stamps, and as a result will only draw one claim this year. That income will be lost, not to mention the income that was lost due to the late start in the fishery.

As my colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, talked about, the hardship that was inflicted on the fishermen and fisherwomen and the crew members in this Province this summer, it is hard to believe that nobody on the opposite side of the floor can stand and talk about it. Take my district and take the South Coast and the Northeast Coast of the Province - I talked to a well-known fish harvester in the Province back in September, in a meeting with union representatives and fish harvesters and plant workers from the Placentia and the St. Mary's Bay and Fortune Bay areas. A very well known fish harvester, a gentleman by the name of Joe Edwards, who has been involved in the fishery, I guess, for close to fifty years told me this is the worst season that he can remember, even worse than the years we were on the moratorium that started in 1992, because, at least, at that time the federal government stepped in with an assistance program that tied people over for a little while until they diversified and turned to other species such as crab and other species on the South Coast of the Province. I have heard that all along the Northeast Coast of the Province, that this is the worst year they have ever witnessed.

I have had fishermen in my own district who are fifty, sixty and sixty-five years of age, who have never had - in fact, I have had one gentleman who called me a couple of weeks ago, sixty-two years old, who worked in the fishery all his life. He called me and asked if this government was going to do anything to help him because, for the first time in his life, he has to move outside the fishery and move outside the Province to obtain employment in Alberta. Now, just think about that. The man fished on the Northeast Coast of this Province all his life and never before did he ever come looking for a program from government, never before has he had to turn outside the fishery to look for a living.

I had one gentleman from the same area who sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to the Premier and in it he said: Premier, the oil industry in Alberta does more for the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador than the oil industry in this Province does for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What he meant by that, there are so many people leaving the rural communities of our Province to seek employment in the oil fields of Alberta and returning from time to time to rural parts of this Province that Alberta and the oil industry there is doing more for him in this Province than the oil industry in this Province, and that is a sad scenario.

I think the previous Minister of Fisheries, when he looks at himself in the mirror in the morning, has to think about the hardships he inflicted upon the fisherpeople of this Province, because he was so -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: I just want to make a couple of comments on the make-work projects, Madam Chair.

I had the opportunity, in 2001 and 2002, to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs and during that time there were programs that filled the needs for many people in the rural part of the Province who needed EI contributions in order to qualify for EI. All of us sitting here, regardless of political stripe or who we represent or what area of the Province we come from, realize that these make-work projects are not enough for the people involved who get this number of hours to make an adequate provision for their families. When you realize that you are making $6.75 an hour and you are working for thirty-five hours a week, by the time the deductions are taken out of it you are not bringing home a whole lot of money to your family. After these forty hours are up, you then draw EI and that is about 55 per cent of what you make when you are on make-work.

I am not criticizing anybody, I am not going to go there, but the point I am trying to make is that there are many, many people, primarily in the rural parts of the Province who are finding it more and more difficult to survive, to exist, not to live on these particular programs. What is happening more and more, and is happening in all of the rural districts, is that people are beginning to look elsewhere for jobs. Many of them are going to Ontario to work during construction season and some of them are going to Alberta for certain periods of the year. In fact, one of the latest programs that they have in the Province of Alberta is that a person can go and work for six weeks, then they are home for two. The company pays for their plane transportation to and from the Province to bring them back. When they are up there they are making $20 an hour plus. They see that as a way out.

There are circumstances beyond peoples' control where a number of our people, for whatever reason, do not get the opportunity, or cannot get the opportunity, to leave the Province and go elsewhere to work. As a result of that, they find themselves with all the other amenities of life that are involved in providing for a family, with all the increases that come through the cost of living, whether it be oil heat, electricity, or whatever the case might be, and the increase in fees, for example, to insure a car, to register a car. All of these things add up and put strains on many of the families that are there.

Granted, I think without the money that any government - regardless of political stripe - would put in, then these particular people would have no alternative to be able to provide for their families. It is very, very difficult. The thing is, my sympathy is with a lot of these people because really, in a sense, the lifestyle that these people have curtailed, many of the things that many of us take for granted - just think about having children, to clothe the children for the winter season, to prepare them for that, and then to send them to school with books and everything that is needed in supplies, and have to pay fees and so on for these particular kids. I am telling you, it is not easy. It is something, in a sense, that we have not had to revert back to. It is, no doubt in my mind, very, very frustrating for many of these people who work.

For the crab workers this year, the government did increase, they did not pay them the minimum wage. I think it was $8.50, if I understand correctly, the amount that the crab workers got. There are also other people who have been spoken about tonight. I know I have talked to many of the people who own the long liners in my district. This year, because of the delay in the fishery, when they did go to fish there were millions of crab, there was lots of crab for them to get. The guy was saying the pots were pretty much full, but every one of them were soft. He had to just let them go back to the ocean again. In fact, I was talking to a guy this past weekend, and he said in addition to not being able to get the quota that was allocated to him the cost per crab was about $1 less per pound this year than it was a year before. It all compounded hardship for them. These people who are involved on the long liner crew, I have talked to some of them. I talked to some of them the weekend before last when I was in Harbour Breton to their Lions Club Charter night. These people, because of the season being closed early and not being open again later in the fall, were having difficulty in being able to find enough EI contributions to be able to draw unemployment insurance for the winter. These people were not included in this particular program. I think that many of these people have had to revert to other things, other than the fishery, to try to provide for their families over the winter season. Probably, Madam Chair, it might be possible - I do not know - for some of these people who are experiencing these difficulties still, that are crew people of those long-liner crews who have not had enough EI to qualify, that government might be able to relax the program so that they can compensate, or so that they would be able to apply for the program and be able to be eligible to get enough EI to draw unemployment insurance to provide for their family over the winter. If not, Madam Chair, I think that many of them are going to be in very, very desperate straits because they have no other recourse to any other employment.

Obviously, for people in areas that are on the fringes, for example, of the urban areas or the hubs, or whatever you want to call it, the Grand Falls, the Ganders or the Clarenvilles, if you can commute to those particular centres everyday you might be able to find some employment that will pay you the minimum wage, but for people who live in very remote areas, where you are two-and-a-half and three hours away from many of these larger centres - I know in my case, in Harbour Breton, where the community is really hurting and the business leaders are having to layoff people that they employ, which compounds it even worse, they cannot compensate or be able to compensate people who have been laid off in the fishery, or through the crews in the fishery, to be able to employ them. It is very, very difficult and I am sure that the people who receive the money appreciate it but there are many, many others who are outside of the circle, outside of the sphere, who should be able to avail of the opportunity to be able to find enough work to qualify for EI but have been excluded. Probably the government should reconsider that and make these people eligible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a few comments to make about this bill, the $12 million, or the $18 million bill.

I represent a district, Madam Chair, for awhile, for about fifteen or sixteen years. I bragged that I had one region of my district where the unemployment rate was less than 2 per cent. In Arnold's Cove, Come by Chance, Sunnyside, Southern Harbour and that particular area of my district, there was practically full employment. This year, Madam Chair, there is a serious problem within that area.

In the community of Arnold's Cove, it was the first time ever that I had to put in a community Enhancement Project; the first time ever in this community. As a matter of fact, four or five years ago one of the problems we had in this community - these projects are very, very meaningful, very, very valuable to the communities in terms of providing community infrastructure within the communities. I had given one organization within the community of Arnold's Cove some money to do renovations to a building and they had to turn it back to me, or turn it back to the government, because there was nobody within the community who qualified for the program and was looking for insurable weeks to be able to get their unemployment.

This year, Madam Chair, in addition to people in the area needing weeks of work, there are people moving out of the community of Arnold's Cove. It is very, very sad indeed. There was a time when the fish plant in Arnold's Cove worked forty-eight weeks of the year, shut down only at Christmastime for the Christmas break. This year the fish plant is down to working twenty weeks or so, and because of the modernization of the plant, there are probably 120-130 people who never got back to work at all.

In the Community Enhancement Program, first the Minister of Municipal Affairs allocated to me $105,000. I met with him, and thank you to the minister, he did increase it by $30,000, but I have a great number of people in my district who are still in great need for more money from organizations to be able - and there are a lot of people out there who are not going to qualify for their EI. I would say to the Minister of Finance, if you are only going to spend $6 million out of the $18 million, my suggestion to you tonight is give the Department of Municipal Affairs another $1 million or so out of that $12 million so that the minister can go about doing the worthwhile projects that are required in these communities and put people to work.

These projects within my district, over the last number of years, have provided outdoor rinks for young people. I was out last winter watching the kids in the nighttime skating and playing hockey. They were able to clear the ice surfaces and provide recreational opportunities for our young people. We know today that our young people are open to all kinds of things out there and it is nice to have them involved in recreational programs.

As I indicated before, I have thirty-one communities in my district. Lots of times the Lions Club is the only community hall within the community to have any kind of a social. Over the years, because of these programs, we were able to renovate and construct buildings to provide for community activities.

I was in the community of North Harbour on Saturday night and, right now, they had a major flood within the basement. The seniors' place within the basement of the Lions Club got flooded and the whole hardwood floor in the basement of the building is gone. As a matter of fact, I requested of the minister last week that we would look for another $20,000 or so from the Community Enhancement and I was hoping that he would be able to come across with some more money so that we could go out into that community and then refurbish the place for our senior citizens. The senior citizens' centre within this building is not useable anymore. It needs to be redone and the weeping tile and all these sorts of things, which is a very labour intensive job that needs to be done. So, my suggestion to the Minister of Finance is to give your colleague some more money so he can go out there and do the good things that he has been doing with this Community Enhancement Program.

Over the years in these communities, there have been community wharves built. One of the big things that has been done around - particularly in a lot of the byroads around Newfoundland and Labrador. You know, the Department of Transportation and Works does not have the money to do the brush cutting and clear away the sides of the roads. A lot of the communities were able to get money from this program to be able to cut the brush. Let's face it, one of the biggest hazards is moose on our highways and it was able to provide a very beneficial service in a lot of the areas of the Province, and I am sure that it has saved a lot of lives.

So, I am pleading to the Minister of Finance, you have $12 million that you were going to spend but now put it into other areas for other people; the people who worked in construction, the people who worked in other areas of the labour movement within the Province, who did not qualify for EI, so that they can get some of the people in some of the communities in my district - as a matter of fact, I had a call from a woman today in desperate straits. Her lights are about to be disconnected. It is really heart-wrenching when you hear the sad stories of some of the people involved. We know here tonight that we are voting on a bill that is going to give the government $18 million, they are only going to spend $6 million and they have $12 million that they can put into this particular program and make a Merry Christmas for some of these people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities.

I represent a district, as I said to the minister, where there was a 2 per cent unemployment rate. They contributed all those years to all the other parts of the Province. Probably my district produces more for the per capita of the Province than any other district in Newfoundland and Labrador and right now we are in a desperate situation within my district. I am saying to the Minister of Finance: Loosen the purse strings a little bit. Give your colleagues some more money so that we can make a good Christmas for some of the people in my district who are suffering right now, who even worked - believe it or not, when the cod fishery was closed down in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people in the Arnold's Cove area were still working during the cod moratorium. They did not even collect any money from the cod moratorium during the federal government days. They did not get NCARP because the plant was still operating. Today out in Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Come By Chance, and Southern Harbour they are in a desperate situation. Now they are saying to me and saying to the government: We contributed in the past and I think right now we are in dire straits and we should get some more money from this government so that we can go on with our lives.

My plea to the Minister of Finance tonight is to do that very thing, to give back to the people of Bellevue district some of the money that they contributed to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador over the years. They did not have to draw unemployment insurance. They did not have to look for a make-work program and were contributors, but now we are in a desperate situation and we need help. So my plea to you, Mr. Minister, is do the right thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am rising on a point of order, and I do so in light of the debate and discussion earlier in the House today regarding the publication of a photograph which included the Speaker and you, Madam Chair, in a political photograph. In the photograph you were wearing the robes that you are wearing now. As I say, I am not questioning the partiality of the Chair but I would like to give an opportunity for you to comment on that because it is something that has been made a matter of issue today. No doubt, the public and those watching on TV would wonder why you were not included in this point of privilege today. I am not raising a point of privilege, but I would like to just raise it as a point of order and ask Your Honour if you have anything to say about that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, just to the point of order and comments made by the Leader of the NDP.

Again, I do not think it is necessary to regurgitate what we dealt with here today, but I would concur, given the facts of the case, the fact that you were in the photo, shall we say, I think offering you, as the Chair of Committees, an opportunity to say that it was an error of judgement or whatever and so on. I think that would be most appropriate as well.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Seeing that the point has been raised, let me be very clear. I recall raising a similar point of order on a former Deputy Speaker in the House, the former Member for Humber East, and the judgement at the time I believe was the correct one. That the role of the Deputy Speaker and the role of the Clerk does not bring with it the same expectation that it does of the Speaker. That is very true. I think that any ruling - if any member is saying that because you, yourself, appeared in a photo, I do not believe that it questions your impartiality. You are an elected official and appointed in the role that you are in, not elected by this House.

If there was an error - and I think we need to conclude this fast - I say to you, Madam Chair, it may have been that you were in the robes of the House in the photo. With respect to a point of privilege, or your ability as an elected member of this House to choose to be in a political photo or not, I do not think that should be questioned because your right to do so has been maintained by past practice and decisions of this House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To that a point of order. I think I made it clear that the issue with respect to you appearing in the photo was not you appearing in the photo. In fact, if you appeared in the photo supporting a candidate, I would not have any objection at all. I think the concern here was that the photograph shows you in your robes as Chair of this Committee and that it was taken in the precinct of the House, apparently, with the robes of the House on. That is the objection that I have, not to you as being able to take part in a partisan political activity. So, I accept what the Government House Leader is saying.

MADAM CHAIR: I planned on making a statement at the beginning of the House tomorrow, but, as the opportunity has presented itself now, it was an error in judgement and I do apologize to the House.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: Schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, long title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 2 dealing with Bill 68, Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

MADAM CHAIR: This is sixty -

MR. E. BYRNE: Sixty-two, I thought. Oh, I am sorry, Bill 69. I apologize.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 69.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the grating to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $14,700,000."

CLERK: The resolution reads: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $14,700,000.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

This particular bill, in fact, I made some reference to it back in the House earlier, in Question Period, when I was asked a question regarding health boards, and what are we doing regarding the health board deficits, particularly for this year.

Just to preface that, I will say that this year we provided $31 million extra to health boards dealing with transition funding and new funding, and boards indicated to us that the new money we put into health care this year - actually, we put in $113 million new money, and $31 million of that went to health boards - they were still going to overrun their budgets this year on top of that.

What we are doing here now, we are moving for a Supplementary Supply bill to allow us to give another $14.7 million to help boards this year to operate. That is in addition to the $31 million that was appropriated in the Budget. That is another $14.7 million.

Some of the costs they would need assistance in, like home care, for example, home care costs are increased because of this. Another big cost to them this year is in fuel prices. With the price of fuel up, there are extra costs in heating the hospitals and their long-term care facilities, so that is another particular cost.

In addition to this bill, there is also the child, youth and family services. There are significant costs that are going to be needed to be met this year over and above funding appropriated in the Budget, and there are also some transitional costs associated with going from fourteen health care boards down to four.

They are the three areas here, and $14.7 million, this is new money we are asking to be voted on here to flow to hospital boards to supplement their $1.2 billion budget that hospital boards received in the Budget in March, that was approved in this Legislature in May.

Really, what it does, from last year to this year, if you look at where we are, overall in health we announced in our Budget $113 million new dollars into health care this year over and above last year. This will give us almost $15 million more, which means our expenditure in health care this year will be $128 million more than last year, which was the highest in our history, and this is significantly more again.

The hospital boards, specifically, with this particular Supply bill, the hospitals received roughly $1.2 billion of that $1.75 billion. I did say just a couple of minutes ago, and I will just repeat again to make sure it is clear, we did advance this year $31 million more into specific services with the hospital boards. This will be another $14.7 million, with the approval of this, that we would then move out to boards in addition, so that boards can reach a balanced budget in their operation for this year.

With that, I will just conclude any initial comments, Madam Chairperson, on this particular Supplementary Supply bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make a few comments on this Supply bill. The minister is asking for a considerable amount of money for Supply here, and I have not heard any explanation from him as to how it is - the errors that were presented by the Auditor General in his most recent statement on November 14. I outlined some of the concerns that the Auditor General raised on page 52. He calls them adjustments in Public Accounts submissions, but they are actually errors, and a figure provides a summary of the absolute dollar value of the errors detected during the audit for the years ending March 31, 2005 and March 31, 2004, and he indicates that the dollar value increased from $40 million to $75 million in 2005.

These are errors in the submissions from various departments, and the interesting point that I was making was that one of the most deficient departments in terms of errors in presenting the accurate reports and submission to the Comptroller General, responsible for one-third of the errors, $24 million, was the Minister of Finance's department itself. Other departments were very good. The Department of Justice was only off by $104,000. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture seemed to have been dead on. Yet, the Minister of Finance's department, in reporting to the Comptroller General, was off by $24 million; up, I might add, from $747,000 in the year before.

He might be able to say: Well, I might have been off by $474,000 in year one because we only took over halfway through and the previous crowd were so irresponsible and inaccurate, and all the usual things that Ministers of Finance say about previous governments, but he can hardly say that about 2005 when the numbers went up from $747,000 to $24 million.

Now the minister is here in this House asking for considerable authority for Supplementary Supply and, in doing so, is rattling around a bunch of numbers here in terms of what the health boards require, and that sort of thing, but I would like for him to advise the House as to what is the source of these errors. Well, the source of these errors - I suppose it is not the source of them; they are annotated on page 54 of the report from the Department of Finance, various items from $26,000 being an understatement of revenue from Atlantic Lotto Corporation to $6,651,000 being an understatement of the amount due to the municipalities.

I wonder if the minister can advise what has been happening in his department. How is it that these errors totalling some $24 million can occur - not in projections, now. We are not talking about what you estimate the revenue to be for the period of time.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He is saying the rest of us. That is not what the Auditor General says. He says, "Each year in preparing the Public Accounts, the Office of the Comptroller General relies on submissions and information received from the various departments. In recent years I have noticed there has been an increase in the quantity and types of errors in the departmental submissions."

He talks about that these errors present a major risk in completing financial statements and ensuring their accuracy. So, I wonder if the minister can tell us why these errors have increased so greatly during the first full year in which he was Minister of Finance?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I can speak from the Finance Department on specific issues, and I am sure if other ministers want to comment on their departments that is certainly their prerogative. These are not errors, we regard. They are differences in estimates of what you would anticipate things would be. If we anticipated getting $38 million in a corporate tax, and we got $36 million, is that a $2 million error or is it a $2 million difference in your estimate? So, they are adjustments or estimates based on - you can never accurately predict what these things are going to be.

That is the general gist of most of these, all they are, and they will always exist. If you can tell me the exact dollar that we are going to get in any expenditure area at the beginning of the year, and have that exact one at the end of the year, well, there is a far greater person than ever existed, I say, on the face of this earth, if he can predict to that level. That is nearly impossible to do.

I went through specifics of my department. There are some understated, overstated. It happens every year. How many line items are exactly right on? There are not very many in government that you estimate to the very exact cent. We are talking about $4.5 billion, $5 billion with costs in interest payments and other areas, and to have adjustments of this nature is not uncommon. I do not regard them as errors. We do not regard them as errors, because they are not mistakes. They are differences in estimates and adjustments and so on, and we differ in the determination of what they are called.

That is basically what it is in each of these areas here. Some are up and some are down. You will see next year, again, you will see changes and you will not see zero at the bottom line of these; because, if that ever happens there, whoever can do that, I say we should hire them right away in government and pay them a million dollar salary.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There appears to be a serious disagreement between the Auditor General and the Minister of Finance, then, because he does not talk about them as estimates at all; he talks about them as errors in reporting.

The fellow you should hire, I guess, is probably the Minister of Fisheries - not the current one, but the previous one - because, according to the Auditor General, there were no errors in the submissions from his department. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as of March 31, 2005, presumably provided accurate submissions to the Comptroller General.

We are not talking about actual versus budgeted amounts here. We are talking about figures presented to the Comptroller General as to what the expenditures were in a particular department.

What the Auditor General says, and I am going to read it, is, "As Figure 24 shows, each year there are errors in the Public Accounts submissions that departments make to the Office of the Comptroller General. I have noticed a general increase in the number and value of the these errors as evidenced by information in the preceding figures."

Then he goes on to say, "These errors suggest that there are financial control issues in some of the departments. I am very concerned about the extent, type and reoccurrence of these errors. The departments have to exercise due diligence in the preparation of their submissions."

Now, Madam Chair, that sounds to me like, not that their estimates are off but that the submissions that are made are inaccurate, and that there is insufficient due diligence being exercised in the preparation of submissions of accounts to the Comptroller General.

I do not always agree with the Auditor General either, and I particularly do not agree with him when he has expressed an opinion as to what he thinks government should do about this or that. He is only one person who is offering his opinion as to how things might be done or should be done in the future, in a general way, but when he is talking about figures he says the figures submitted by the Department of Finance were off by $24 million, and he says they suggest financial control issues.

When I look at the examples that he gives here, interestingly enough, he says, when the errors are detected, the Public Accounts are adjusted as necessary, and he says they are able to figure them out. These are audit errors, now. He says, on page 52, "Although my audit work can identify errors in items that are included in the submissions, it is not always possible to identify items that have been omitted." So it is not a question of whether you projected this much and it turned out to be slightly off, he is saying by his own audit he is able to fix the errors. He is not talking about estimates and projections, he is talking about a submission made which an audit discovers to be in error, a submission made of what the actual revenues were or what the actual asset values were or what the actual revenues were or the actual debts to municipalities. Here we have debts due to municipalities understated by $6.6 million. These are the kinds of things he is talking about.

I will submit, Madam Chair, that this is not about estimates or projections, this is about a failure to properly account to the Comptroller General for the expenditures that were made, or the obligations that are due, under various heads in the Department of Finance. I think I would expect, and we would all expect, the Department of Finance to be taking the lead in terms of accuracy of their accounts, not the one being the second worse department. In fact, if the minister says there can be errors, there are going to be errors every year, I can accept that there are going to be some errors every year, but what we see here is errors in one year of $767,000 and the past year, $24 million. The extent of the errors has obviously increased and particularly in the minister's department. In some cases, it has gone down. The Minister of Justice went down from $5.7 million to $104,000, and that happened in several departments, Madam Chair. In fact, in several departments it went down a significant amount, but in the minister's own department, the number of errors and the volume of errors have, in fact, gone up.

That is my comment, Madam Chair. I do not know if the minister has a response to that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is trying to stretch something into something that is absolutely not correct. For example, the Canada Heath and Social Transfer payment accounts come from the federal government. We get best estimates of what we are going to get and build them into the framework, and that changes. I have seen changes here in equalization by as much as $130 million, the amount estimated. Canada Health is based on numerous facts. The population affects it, the changes affect it, and that is significant. The pension plan asset overstatement was $6.5 million. The Public Service Pension Plan is in an area where there could be increased volatility. For instance, from July to September, it went 23.6 per cent performance. If you know what the estimates, what you factor into your framework, are going to be, sure, but there is such a volatility in certain areas there.

In fact, I will tell you what the Auditor General said about our statements, and he said this on Open Line. The date was November 30. He said: The financial statements of our Province - I am quoting - are as good as any financial statements in any other province of Canada, probably better than most. He went on to say: All of the entities of government are included with the exception of MUN. MUN is going to be included next year and that will be the last piece of the puzzle. So our financial statements are very good. An announcer asked him: Okay, so you are giving them a passing grade overall? Absolutely, was his response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He went on to say, talking about revenues - I will not go into all of that. He said: We are on the right track. That is what he said. The announcer said: Okay, so overall government gets a passing grade? I made a comment to the Finance Minister about it. You do not think they are doing a good job on collecting their debt? That is what the announcer said to the Auditor General. He said: Well, they have. They have taken some initiatives and, in all fairness - but my point is that back in 2002, Treasury Board recommended they take a number of initiatives.

He has gone on to say there was supposed to be a central provincial collector function established to provide assistance and training to departments and collection efforts. He mentioned in his report that is not fully implemented by them. We have hired people who are out in departments now looking at accounts and the ability to collect, if they are legitimate, what is active, what is not, and to deal with these accounts. The mess has been left for ten or twelve years and nothing done. He said, in all fairness, that it is not fully implemented. That is in his report.

This financial statements: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants went public yesterday with a statement on our public accounts, and commended us on the statements. There is not another province in Canada that produces a financial statement that is better than this Province. The Auditor General has made reference to one of the best in the country. We stand on our record. We have done a very thorough job of cleaning up the mess, getting our financial house in order there, and picking out an interpretation of words. There are numerous departments that have big amounts of revenue and expenditure. Pension funds and pension plan assets and other statements can change drastically over a period of time; and try to pinpoint these. We predicted this year oil revenues in our budget. We are up about $300 million because oil prices went up. We would not be up that amount except we have fixed equalization that was hammered out and we have the Atlantic Accord that allows us to keep that. Three hundred million dollars it has gone up and we would have lost another probably $250 million or $260 million of that. We have that there. We did not know that. That is similar types of adjustments in the year that you do on your accounts.

The year ends the end of March, you go into April and you do your accruals and other costs that you anticipate. As these actually become determined, subsequent to that, and you total them, there may be variations in what are presented at the Budget in March, before the year clues up and you do all your totals. That is basically what happens, ongoing with government here, and it is absolutely a statement that the Auditor General stands and indicates. He stated it publicly here and he has told the truth about it, because we know what we have done over the past two years to put the fiscal House of this Province in order, and to put a statement out that is one of the top in this country, acknowledged by experts across the country under the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts. They will tell you that.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I will only be a few minutes anyway.

I just want to have a few words on Bill 69. I just want to ask the minister - to my understanding this is from overruns with Health and Community Services for the boards across the Province.

I would be remiss if I did not bring up the Hay Report, Madam Chair. As we know, the Minister of Education stood up last year and the member for Stephenville East - and I think it is recommendation 170 or 171 of the services that were supposed to be taken out of Stephenville and moved at a cost of $270,000. The minister, I guess, because she had some pull within government or she wanted to stand up for the people in the area, stood up in this House and announced that they would not go ahead with those recommendations. I am only going on recollection. In the Hay Report that recommended for these services, there was a savings of about $270,000. We now have recommendation 172, moving seniors from Corner Brook out around Western Newfoundland to be (inaudible) back into Corner Brook. We are looking at a bill asking for $14,700,000 to overrun and here we are moving our seniors out of Corner Brook and around Western Newfoundland instead of opening up five or six beds to relieve the pressure until other beds become available.

We see the Minister of Finance standing up and, rightly so, bragging about the $300 million extra that he got in the Budget because of increased oil revenues this year. I ask the Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East - here we are debating a bill in this House that is going to give overruns to the health boards. Part of the overrun to the health care board in Western Newfoundland and Labrador is because recommendations 170 and 171, to take the services from Stephenville and move them to Corner Brook, were taken off the table through the interference or the cooperation of the minister and the Member for Stephenville East who were causing an overrun. I ask the Member for Humber East who is here: Is there any way possible that we can help with those seniors who are being moved out?

If you are going to help with an overrun and part of it is going to be caused because a minister of this government cut the services that were supposed to be taken out and moved back into Corner Brook, why can't the Minister of Justice and the Member for Humber East intercede on behalf of the residents of Corner Brook for five or six beds? There are beds available. There are two wings in that hospital, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there are not. We closed them all.

MR. JOYCE: You can say we closed them all, but there are two wings in that hospital that are not open, to open up five beds.

I say to the minister, I bet you do not even know that there are six beds at the Interfaith Home that are closed because they are putting in a sprinkler system. You do not even know that, do you? They are installing a sprinkler system and, rightly so, they had to close down some of these beds. So you have to try and find something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I hope he does get up because this is a serious issue. There are two wings of that hospital that can be opened.

This situation that is happening with the Hay Report, recommendation 172, is only on a short term basis. These beds may not be needed in one month, two months, three months time, they may not even be needed, but if the Member for Stephenville East, the Minister of Education, could do it for the residents of Bay St. George then give her credit. She interceded and she got it done. Give her credit. The government was compassionate and said: The people from Stephenville should not have to go to Corner Brook for these services. Give her credit. I say to the Minister of Justice and the Member for Humber East, it is time for you to stand up and be counted. You cannot keep blaming everything on us. There are two wings in that hospital that are not open, and it is only on a short-term basis.

Here we are now asked to vote on an $14,700,000 overrun for the hospital. I am asking the minister: Can you please intercede on behalf of these seniors to try and keep these beds open? Here is your opportunity to do it. Here is your opportunity now to say, we are going to vote on a bill that is going to cost a certain amount of money, and you can stand up, Minister, and you can intercede. Here is your opportunity. The Member for Stephenville East said it. Give her credit, she did it. The Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East, has an opportunity right now while we are going to vote on this bill. Minister, you know there are beds in that hospital. I know there are at least two wings in that hospital where you can open five or six beds on a short-term basis. This only came up because there may have been some selective surgery that needed to done or some emergency surgery.

Even now, if you speak to officials at the hospital right now as we speak, the pressure that was on two weeks ago is not the same pressure that is there today. I felt sorry for the people who had to make the decision in the hospital because of the lack of funds from the government. I felt sorry for them. These officials in Corner Brook who had to make this decision, I know they did not feel good about it. Here is an opportunity for us now to help out with this situation, to help out with the beds in Corner Brook, help out the seniors, stand up and be counted. This is the prime opportunity. We are voting on a bill, $14,700,000. Part of the overrun is because the Member for Stephenville East, the Minister of Education, interceded and took these two recommendations off the table, and now we are asked to vote to help keep the services in Stephenville which was the right decision. I ask the Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East, to stand up now and help with the beds in Corner Brook.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to have a chance to respond to some of the comments of the Minister of Finance, apparently quoting from some transcript of a radio program which the Auditor General appeared on. I want to say, that I was quoting from the Auditor General's report to the House of Assembly. He uses language - and I am not making it up, I am not interpreting it either, I am not even taking it out of context. It is item 5.6 of the Auditor General's report to the House of Assembly, dated November 14, 2005. When submitting the accounts he says he had to fix them up.

Now, I am not disputing that the accounts are now accurate. That is not the point. If the Auditor General says on the (inaudible) that the accounts are accurate, then I agree with him. I do not disagree with that, but the Auditor General says that he fixes them. "Although my audit work can identify errors in items that are included in the submissions..." - so he fixes them, and when he fixes them they are accurate. But he still identified the errors, Madam Chair, and the errors in the Department of Finance, that are called errors by the Auditor General, total $24 million. He says in his submission, "These errors suggest that there are financial control issues in some of the departments. I am very concerned about the extent, type and the reoccurrence of these errors. The departments have to exercise due diligence in the preparation of their submissions." He makes a recommendation, and the recommendation is - and this is the last recommendation in this document on page 56: "Government should direct all of its departments to ensure that the Public Accounts submissions to the Office of the Comptroller General are complete and accurate." In other words, they are not complete and they are not accurate and the Auditor General was concerned about it because the extent, type and reoccurrence of these errors causes him great concern.

While it may be, Madam Chair, that the ultimate books are accurate because the Auditor General was able to fix up the errors, it is certainly not true to say that the Auditor General thinks everything is rosy in the way that the Department of Finance prepares its submissions to the Comptroller General and it is certainly not fair to say that everything is on a great even keel. The kind of errors we are talking about here are things that the Auditor General saw fit to bring to the attention of the House of Assembly and in doing so, I am merely going back to the Minister of Finance and saying to him that he should be answering to this House for these inaccuracies and instead he has chosen not to do so.

That is all I have to say on this issue, Madam Chair. It is something that causes me some concern when the Minister of Finance keeps going on in this House as if he has all the inside and accurate numbers that he comes forth with in this House, when the reality is that he is a human being like the rest of us, Madam Chair, prone to make errors, inaccuracies and incomplete statements. I think we should all recognize that. So, we have to accept the kind of criticism that the Auditor General might lay on these matters. I do not think you have to accept all of his opinions, and that is another matter. We might get into that later on. He may have opinions about other things that are within his purview, but they are opinions. In this case, he is referring to these things as errors in calculation, as incomplete matters, as inaccuracies that the audit that he conducted uncovered and presumably fixed.

Having said that, Madam Chair, as far as the bill itself goes and providing additional monies for the Western Health Care Corporation, I do not have a problem with that. I think we need to cover those losses. We have had significant problems in Western Health Care and hopefully this matter will - there has been a lot of problems and I am not going to go into all the details. Members of the House, generally, are aware that we have had serious management issues with respect to Western Health Care and some of them have been resolved.

I was at a very interesting meeting in Stephenville last year when the Hay report was being discussed and concerns were expressed about services, particularly in the Stephenville area. One of the most interesting comments that was made by one of the gentlemen present was, he said: It seems very strange - in terms of providing services to Western Health Care - that we have a brand new hospital in Stephenville and yet, it was not being fully utilized but it seemed quite all right to send people by taxi or expect people to drive to Corner Brook to Western Memorial to get services. The comment that the gentlemen made was: It seems very strange that the Western Health Care Corporation does not understand that the distance between Corner Brook and Stephenville is exactly the same as the distance between Stephenville and Corner Brook. So, if you have a facility in Stephenville that has services and beds and opportunity to provide staff to provide services, well then it is just as meaningful and efficient to have Stephenville provide services to the Western region when the facilities, the staff and the situation is there, as it is, to send people from Stephenville to Corner Brook.

I thought that was one of the most insightful comments because bureaucracies, particularly centralizing bureaucracies, whether they are centralized in St. John's or centralized in Corner Brook, they do not see the map and the roads and the distances the same way as the people who have to drive them see it. I think that is an important lesson for all of us here in the Province, particularly those of us who carry out our work and business here in St. John's.

Having said that, Madam Chair, I support the bill and the legislation. I hope the amounts that are required are complete and accurate. If they are not, I am sure we will hear from the Auditor General or from the minister looking for more money.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 2 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the resolutions carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolutions carried without amendment.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM 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: The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that bills be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted certain resolutions and recommend Bill 68 and Bill 69 be introduced to give effect to the same.

Will we deal with Bill 68 first, I ask the Government House Leader?

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that resolutions pertinent to Bill 68 be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

 

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $18,000,000."

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, are we dealing with Bill 69?

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68.

MR. E. BYRNE: I move that Bill 68 be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 68)

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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 68)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 68, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 68)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 68, be now read for a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 68, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Services," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted certain resolutions relative to Bill 69 and recommend the bill be introduced to give effect to the same. It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, the sum of $14,700,000.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the financial resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 69, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2," carried. (Bill 69)

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 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2, be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 69)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2." (Bill 69)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 69, be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69 be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service NO. 2," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 69)

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 65)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

Presently under the City of St. John's Act, if a vacancy occurs in the office of the mayor and the deputy mayor or councillor wishes to run, they do not have to resign their office to run. If the deputy mayor gets elected to the mayor's position, then they have to have a by-election for the deputy mayor's position, and if an existing councillor should get elected to the deputy mayor's position, you would have another by-election. This, in effect, would cost the City of St. John's, quite possibly, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What this bill does, simply, is to correct that and require that if a councillor or a deputy mayor wishes to run for a position of mayor or deputy mayor, well, then they would have to resign their position as a councillor and/or deputy mayor. There is no more to it than that. It is a bit more than housekeeping but that is the crux of the matter on this. Actually, the city requested this, from my understanding.

I would imagine members on the other side of the House might want to speak to this, and I will certainly listen to their comments and, if required, address any concerns they may have.

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.

I have no problems with this. I think it makes sense in the fact that if the mayor should leave his post and a number of people in council want to run for that particular position, if this did not happen it could see two or three elections that could run one after the other and cause the City of St. John's extra money.

My only question to the minister would be the fact that you are doing it for the City of St. John's. Why wouldn't you do it for the City of Mount Pearl and the City of Corner Brook, to keep that particular legislation in place for the three cities? It could happen for Corner Brook and it could happen in Mount Pearl, and I do not see any reason why you could not amend the legislation to do the three of them in case it should happen.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At first glance, when this issue was raised by the city council I had concerns about it similar to the kind of concerns that I had that were raised when the legislation was brought to this House to fix the situation that occurred when the former mayor Dorothy Wyatt was elected posthumously to the city council, that caused a bi-election and somehow people were all in a big knot that they had to have a bi-election and it costed money to have a bi-election.

My general reaction to this initially was the same as that: Well, you know, democracy costs money and if you are going to have elections you have to take the consequences of the elections. If it costs money to conduct an election to fill a vacancy, well then so be it. That was my first reaction to this. If events transpired as some have predicted and there was a vacancy for the mayor's chair in St. John's and some council members wanted to run for it and got elected and that caused a bi-election, so be it.

What was being proposed was some chain of continuous elections, that the deputy mayor was going to run mayor and presumably was going to get elected and someone was going to run for the deputy mayor's job and presumably get elected and then someone was going to run for that. All of these assumptions are based on something that does not even appear is going to happen at all, not even in the case of the mayor, let alone the deputy mayor, the councillor or somebody else. It is the same as the Dorothy Wyatt amendment, 100 years from now when somebody dies on the way to the election they will be going back to 2003 and the amendment that was made with great foresight by the House of Assembly back in 2003, predicting that sometime in the next 100 years somebody might die between the time the election is started and the election ends, and look at how much money we saved, we do not have to have another election. What a great crowd they were back in 2001 to foresee this eventuality.

We have the same kind of situation here, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing now is planning for some event. There are actually people who, when I announced my intended resignation as Leader of the New Democratic Party, said to me: Oh, this is all part of some sort of plot. Well, Danny is going to get Andy Wells to go the C-NOPB, you are going to resign as leader and you are going to run for mayor, and all of the deck chairs were going to be rearranged by some magical people who manipulate events up in the sky somewhere. That is not the way it is, folks. I mean, the reality is that we have a democratic system and people are entitled to do what they like. If somebody wants to run for mayor, let them run for mayor. If they get elected, good for them. If they do not, that is the end of the matter. Why should we, up here in the House of Assembly, try and plan for all of the eventualities that might happen down at City Hall. God knows, you cannot predict what is going to happen from one day to next down there, let alone from one election to the next.

My general attitude, Mr. Speaker, is I do not know why we are bothering with all this. I really do not know why we are bothering with all this. Then having talked to some of the members of the City Council, some of the ones who might have been actually involved in some of this process, they seem to accept the practical reality of it. I do not really have a serious problem with it if that is the way they want to do things down at City Hall, but I do not really think that it is necessary. I am not going to raise serious objections to it other than the kind of comments that I just made, that this seems to be an awful waste of legislative energy for something that may or may not happen sometime in the next hundred years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to comment on the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi when he was saying that it seems it is taking a lot of energy for something so trivial, I would imagine, is what he was saying, but he is the one who seems to be putting the most energy into this piece of legislation.

Simply put, he also made a comment, Mr. Speaker, that the reason this piece of legislation is going through the House of Assembly may not happen at all, but again it is because the existing Mayor of the City of St. John's may not get a certain position, he could resign for any number of reasons. He could get an offer from anywhere across the country for any number of positions. He could also could become ill. This could happen to the next mayor or the mayor after that. This is to cover the bases. The comment that the member for - and I understand he was interested in this position once before and wasn't successful.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to the comment from the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune when he referred to the three other cities, maybe we should be looking at the three cities, the two other cities and the City of St. John's. It is a very good point, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that we will consider probably in the spring session.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. HARRIS: I do not know why the minister is complaining about the fact that I have energy at 11:15 at night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, not even a point of disorder.

Second reading. The minister is finished his comments.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 65)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 65)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 65.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on Bill 65.

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.

Committee stage today on Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 65 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.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 65 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act, carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now with leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill 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 third reading of Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 65 be 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 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 third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 65)

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

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

I want to thank colleagues in the House for another productive parliamentary day. I do now move the adjournment of the House until tomorrow, I believe, being Private Members' Day, at 2:00 o'clock where we will be discussing and debating the resolution put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock, Wednesday, December 7.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 7 at 2:00 p.m.