MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon the Speaker has notice of members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for Port au Port; the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Gina Colbourne of Carbonear who was crowned Miss Teen Trinity-Conception 2006-2007 at the second annual Miss Teen Trinity-Conception Pageant.

Danielle Seward of Heart's Delight-Islington was first runner-up, while the Miss Victoria Fire Queen, Kelly Clarke was second runner-up. Collette Garland of Cupids won the Miss Teen Friendship award for the second year in a row.

These young women competed in the categories of: interview, personal introduction, speech, evening wear, casual wear and on stage interview.

Mr. Speaker, the evening began with contestants performing an opening number and introducing themselves individually. Other contestants included: Andrea Carvalhal of Bay de Verde, the reigning Miss Carbonear Nicole Wareham, Robyn Crummy of Carbonear and Stacia Smith of Bay Roberts.

The pageant prides itself in striving to focus on the intelligence, academics, leadership, volunteer work and community involvement of the young women in the Trinity-Conception area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Gina Colbourne, Miss Teen Trinity-Conception 2006-2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous and admirable young man, Mr. Andrew Dunn. Andrew is an active member of Scouts Canada in the District of Conception Bay South and Holyrood and was nominated for Scouts Canada's Award of Fortitude. Upon review, the awards committee in Ottawa upgraded the award to the Jack Cornwell decoration.

Andrew is only the third recipient to receive this honour, which is the highest award in Scouts Canada. Recipients of this award are recognized as true heroes of this organization, and through their actions are considered to be role models.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Andrew fell ill and was diagnosed with a rare brain tumour known as Skull Base Chordoma. This courageous boy underwent surgeries at both the Janeway and Toronto Sick Kids hospitals, followed by a series of radiation treatments. Through it all, though, he preserved, never complained and was determined to get well. While fighting for his life, this eleven year old remained committed to his scouting activities and was the top seller in their popcorn fundraiser.

Mr. Speaker, Andrew Dunn is a true inspiration to all of us. I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating him on the Jack Cornwell decoration.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brandon Roach, a twenty-one year old Bay Roberts native who plays with the Acadia Axemen men's hockey team and has been selected to play as a member of Team Canada's men's hockey team at the 2007 Winter Universaide in Turin, Italy.

Mr. Speaker, Brandon left for the Maritimes when he was seventeen where he played with the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for four years. This past August he started with the Acadia Axemen University hockey team.

Brandon attended camps with the NHL's Colorado Avalanche and the AHL's Albany River Rats this past summer where he could have turned pro, but said he was not prepared to sacrifice his education package from junior for anything less than an AHL contract.

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, Brandon was eyed by Team Canada,, along with Saint Mary's University's head coach Trevor Stienberg and Axemen's coach Darren Burns. He ultimately was selected to play with the Canadian University team in Italy.

Brandon, along with Sam Roberts of St. John's were the only Newfoundlanders on the roster. They will depart for Italy with the team on January 14, 2007.

I ask all members, Mr. Speaker, to join with me in congratulating Brandon Roach on his accomplishments and wish him and Team Canada the very best in Italy in January.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take notice of the passing of Mrs. Stella Tomkins, a prominent citizen of Stephenville.

Stella Tomkins was a mother, a nurse, a churchgoer, patron of the arts, an avid reader, grandmother, generous spirit and loyal friend. She was a mixture of the traditional and the progressive.

She was a faithful churchgoer who often joked that the church was her second home. Throughout her nursing career she was a strong advocate of individuals taking responsibility for their own health through preventative measures such as diet and exercise.

A quiet, understated woman, Mrs. Tomkins loved language and sending and receiving letters. She was well known for often writing letters of encouragement, congratulations, comfort and gratitude to colleagues, friends, community leaders and others. This also applies to her eight children, all of whom she was immensely proud and she often put that pride in writing, sending messages of support and praise to acknowledge their accomplishments and significant developments in their lives.

Stella was a huge promoter of education and literacy, having served on the local library board in Stephenville when the new library was constructed. She also served on the board of directors of the long-term care facility in Stephenville Crossing.

An environmentalist, she was a passionate recycler who applauded and encouraged any and all efforts to reduce landfills across the Province. She had a great deal of admiration and respect for human kindness and those who gave of themselves for the betterment of others, be it in the community or around the world. Mrs. Tomkins was a kindred spirit whose belief in others was unwavering and provided them with tremendous support and encouragement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in extending condolences to the family of this wonderful woman.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Katie Flynn, who was crowned Miss Teen Canada Galaxy 2007.

Katie, is the daughter of Dean and Nancy Flynn and a resident of Forteau, in the Labrador Straits. She was given the title on September 23 at the Miss Teen Canada Galaxy Pageant in Mississauga, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as a participant in the pageant, Katie met people from all across the country, and participated in a variety of activities, including a masquerade ball, a banquet dinner, and sightseeing tours. She got to know other participants, directors and last year's winners, and shared her ideas, her goals and discussed her education and career plans for the future.

Kate has no doubt become a celebrity at her local school, Mountain Field High, where she has the support and encouragement of her classmates. Throughout the coming year, she will be public speaking on topics that are important to her and attending a number of selected events. In July, 2007, she will get the opportunity to participate in the Miss Teen Galaxy International being held in Orlando, Florida.

Mr. Speaker, Katie was thrilled to participate in this event. It was an experience she will cherish forever, and she says participating in these kinds of events has been helpful in boosting her self-confidence and self-esteem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating Ms Katie Flynn on her new accomplishments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of Tramore Productions Inc. Tramore evolved from the Tramore Theatre Troupe, which was founded in Cuslett on the Cape Shore in 1999 by Agnes Walsh and Arlene Morrissey. It was established to promote the unique cultural legacy of the Cape Shore and Placentia Bay.

Tramore has become an established and very successful arts organization, which offers cultural events unique to the area. Throughout its activities, it has increased the regional and provincial profiles of one of the most attractive areas of this Province. It has a direct connection with the country of Ireland with its artist-in-residence, Agnes Walsh, who works with artists and community groups in West Cork, Kerry and Waterford. It provides first-class professional theatre, which is the only one of its kind to use the oral history of the ordinary people, depicting our Irish ancestry.

Tramore just completed another successful season, performing at the Irish-Newfoundland Conference at the Fairmont in March, hosting the ICH Conference Field Day Trip in June, performing Tramore's Festival of the Arts Synge Fest in July, and performing local plays in August, including its new play, "A Family of Strangers", as well as participating in the Festival of the Sea Cultural Collaboration Conference in September, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, Tramore Productions has a larger vision of the Cape Shore as the home of a cultural-academic centre, designed to facilitate and host artists and academic exchanges between Newfoundland and the world, with an emphasis on our Irish heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Tramore Productions, of the tiny community of Cuslett, in wishing them well in their future endeavors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues of a local company and an educational institution currently benefitting from two new programs born from government's Innovation Strategy.

The College of the North Atlantic is using $50,000 from the Innovation Enhancement Program to investigate establishing a Centre for Northern Peninsula Diversification at its St. Anthony campus. The college will conduct a feasibility study to address issues surrounding the establishment of such a centre. The centre is being proposed to focus on opportunities in the biotechnology field, with emphasis on the greater use of existing natural resources, such as berries and non-traditional fish products, in the local area.

MedicLINK Systems Limited, based in St. John's, specializes in developing innovative software solutions for eye care professionals. MedicLINK identifies and analyzes the steps required to deliver quality patient care. It has optimized those steps into its workflow management system called Eyesistant.

The Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development approved a loan of almost $58,000 from its Commercialization Fund, and approved over $12,000 from the Business and Market Development Program, to help the company launch its product in Canada and the United States.

As a result, the company has recently entered into a partnership with two prominent U.S. medical professionals to create a tool that could revolutionize the way a typical clinic operates. It is expected the tool will help clinics become more efficient and automated, leading to improved patient care and business growth. The company is also in discussions with two investment groups interested in helping them break into other medical industries.

Mr. Speaker, MedicLINK is a new company that has made impressive gains in a short time. That is, no doubt, one of the reasons why they were given the New Start-up Award by the St. John's Board of Trade last week.

Mr. Speaker, our Innovation Strategy programs were created to support government's vision of transforming our Province into one of the of country's most innovative. These funds assist companies and institutions to embrace innovation and to realize their goals.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the College of the North Atlantic and MedicLINK, and in wishing them every success for the future.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

I also want to congratulate MedicLINK Systems. I think it is a locally-based company that we can all be proud of, and I think the St. John's Board of Trade recognized that when they, in fact, awarded them the New Start-up Award; so I, too, want to congratulate MedicLINK Systems.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the whole issue surrounding the College of the North Atlantic and their spending $50,000 to investigate the possibility of setting up a centre on the Northern Peninsula. Now, if that is the extent of this government's involvement in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, make no wonder we are seeing 9,000 people lined up looking for work in Alberta.

Here we are, looking at the St. Anthony campus, looking at the possibility of establishing such a centre. I am wondering if we are going to talk to the Burin campus about the possibility of establishing such a centre on the Burin Peninsula, and if we are going look at the Bonavista Peninsula, and look at the possibility of establishing such a centre there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, nothing more than investigating the possibility, with nothing concrete once again for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, too, would like to congratulate MedicLINK on their latest achievements and their award that they received from the St. John's Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker, this, I think, will lead to good potential. Hopefully, this will take place in St. Anthony; because, if there is one area of the Province, St. Anthony is an area that has a long history of providing medical service to the residents of the Northern Peninsula through the Grenfell Mission and it is great if something like this would happen and occur there. Being a part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it also encourages other development in rural areas that would hopefully lead to further innovations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in this House to inform my colleagues and the residents of this Province about the upcoming Provincial Arts and Letters Awards.

This awards program, now in its fifty-fifth year, encourages and stimulates the creative and artistic talents that flourish within Newfoundland and Labrador. Tens of thousands of submissions have been received since the inception of this program in 1952. An increased number of entries over the last few years indicates that interest in the Arts and Letters Awards is indeed growing.

This program affords a special opportunity for writers, composers, sculptors, photographers and painters alike, both young and old, amateur and professional, to participate in a program that honours the incredible artistic talent that is uniquely our own.

Mr. Speaker, the alumni of the Arts and Letters recipients speak to the integrity of this program and its influence in supporting and inspiring creative and artistic achievement in this Province. We just have to look at the names of some of the past winners to understand the significance of these awards: Cassie Brown, David Blackwood, Scott Goudie, Harold Horwood, Ed Kavanagh, Kevin Major, Carmelita McGrath, Bernice Morgan, Helen Porter and Christopher Pratt, just to name a few.

Prizes will be awarded in two divisions: Junior for twelve to eighteen-year-olds, and Senior for those nineteen years of age and older. Categories include literary arts, musical composition and visual arts. The Percy Janes First Novel Award is also presented to encourage Newfoundland and Labrador writers who aspire to enter the writing profession. As well, for the very first time, a literary award in the French language will be offered for both the Junior and Senior Divisions.

Mr. Speaker, I do anticipate another highly successful awards program, which has greatly enhanced this year with our increased investment in support and development of the arts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Minister, this is quite an achievement. I do believe it was last year when I had the opportunity to attend the awards and to see a young girl from the community of Rigolet receive an award for a carving that she had done.

The only thing I will say politically, Minister, is that fifty-five years - I guess it had to be started by the Liberals, which is a good initiative. Certainly, Minister, we on this side of the House want to encourage as many people as possible to submit their submissions, and certainly we want to congratulate everyone who has taken the time to go out there and play such an important role in part of a culture that we take very seriously and we are very proud of in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, applaud the move to put more money into the Arts and Letters competitions. I am delighted to see the increase in the money, and the fact of how wonderful an investment that is, is shown by the artists that you have named who were recipients.

I do encourage you, though, to continue doing everything that you can, Minister, to put money directly into the hands of artists. One thing to consider is a big increase in funding to the Arts Council, which does directly fund the work of artists. I encourage this and ask you to move further.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Premier.

Premier, concerning the fibre optic deal, we are all aware that the House passed a resolution here and the Auditor General will be investigating this matter. I do believe the Minister of Natural Resources was asked last week, would this government agree to stop and not permit the flow of any funds under the anticipated fibre optic deal until such time as the Auditor General has filed his report. The minister here said no, but I think we ought to have an answer to such an important question from you, the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what the hon. minister indicated was that, you know, it is now December, these monies definitely will not be spent until April. We are at least four months out. It is quite likely, I think, that by the time the construction starts and gets done we could be into six and seven months. There is certainly ample time for the Auditor General to come back and give his report. You know, we will be going ahead. This is a good business proposition, it is good for economic development in the Province, and we will be proceeding, bearing in mind that the Auditor General has a good six months to deal with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Premier.

We are talking $15 million here and we are talking questions of the contracting awarded to persons who are close friends of the Premier. We are talking about the due diligence having been done on this contract, and was it properly done.

The Auditor General advised myself and the Government House Leader and the Leader of the NDP in a meeting last week that he might not be able to report until August. It is a fairly straightforward question. We have an opportunity here whereby the Auditor General can tell us before any money is spent whatsoever, one penny, whether it was a good deal or not. Now the Auditor General is usually in a position of tracing money after the fact.

Why would you not agree upfront that not a penny would be spent until the AG reports? We are not going to pass it until the Budget of the spring of 2007 anyway, so what is wrong with committing that we will not spend a cent until the Auditor General does his due diligence? If not, what is the point of having the Auditor General?

Also, as a supplementary, if you spend money and the AG determines that the deal was not proper, how do you propose we get the money back then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, you know this is an unusual procedure for a government to even allow an Auditor General to come in on a very reasonable business deal, an economic development tool, and allowing him to come in and even have a look at it. We are giving him lots of time to do that.

It is interesting you mentioned the word penny, because as a result of your new diligence, as a result of the cross, that we are on the road to Damascus, where now there is a whole new scrutiny in government, we have decided that we are going to take a closer look at what they did. Now that you mentioned the word penny, it would be interesting to note that the brothers of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, since 1998 to 2004, got $76 million in contracts from Works, Services and Transportation. Now, we are not alleging that there is anything wrong with that, but we are putting that out for public disclosure because we are going to disclose all the information. We will even disclose what your sons got when you were Justice Minister and the legal work that they got from the Department of Justice. Do you know something? They are good lawyers and we do not see anything wrong with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nor do we see anything wrong (inaudible) the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I love the way the Premier slips into his bully mood and his personal attacks when you ask questions that he cannot answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I tell you, Premier, you might bully the minions that you have over there but (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I ask the Premier again: Premier, instead of trying to deflect here - you have all the time in the world, Premier, to give the answers and any information you like about anyone, and I welcome you to give that because we have a problem as it is getting any information out of you people - I say to the Premier: Answer the question. You are a smart man; answer the question. Why would you agree to spend any money under the fibre optic deal before the Auditor General gets his report done? If it is spent improperly, based upon his report, how do you propose we get it back? A simple question. How about a simple answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know, Mr. Speaker, while we are at it, maybe we should get the Auditor General to look at a whole pile of deals that happened over the years. Maybe we should perhaps look at the cost of relocation, which I think that government indicated was between $7 million and $10 million. Well, some of the estimates that I have gotten now within the public service, that cost actually $100 million. That is ten times; that is a lot of money. Maybe the Auditor General should have a look at that. Maybe the Auditor General should have a look at the Apollo contract. That might be worth having a look at. Do you think the Auditor General should have a look at that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Maybe the Auditor General should have a look at Country Ribbon Chicken, for example. There is a good one for him to have a look at. Do you want us to keep on going?

If you want the Auditor General to look at every transaction that was done in government, we have no problem with that. That will be an open book and we will see exactly what went on while you were in government, and I have lots more. Just keep coming with the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for our open and accountable government. So much for that. Even the Premier of this Province, who prides himself on being open and accountable, cannot answer a simple, straightforward question. That is three times you deflected from that question, Premier. You don't have the courage to answer it.

I will go to someone else. Maybe the Minister of Natural Resources can give a few answers here, because the Premier cannot give any.

Minister, what role does the site manager play at Bull Arm with respect to contracts? Who is the Bull Arm Site Corporation manager at the present time? When was he hired, and what were his credentials?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated here last week, the site manager's name is Mr. Greene. I will have to find out exactly when he was hired by the corporation. His involvement in contracts would be those assigned by the CEO of the corporation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is our understanding that the former site manager was terminated by the former Minister of Natural Resources, Minister Byrne, and that the current site manager is, in fact, a close personal friend of former Minister Byrne. What role did the current site manage play in the CSL Services Limited winterization contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot speak to the personal relationship between Mr. Byrne and anybody, other than his relationship with me.

Certainly, in terms of the winterization contact, I was the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, as far as I understand, other than the day-to-day observation of the work that went on in the site, I am not aware of any other role that the site manager played in that contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, you told us last Thursday here in this House that the CSL winterization contract was done outside the Public Tender Act, and, in fact, I read your press release of today of 12:40 p.m. whereby you confirmed that it was indeed awarded verbally.

Can you tell us at this time who it was who verbally gave the contract for the winterization work to CSL Services Limited, and when that was done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The contact was awarded verbally by the President and CEO of the Bull Arm Corporation, and I will have to check back, my documentation, to get the exactly date of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

At least we are getting some answers. I love that. The minister is very forthcoming.

Minister, you said yesterday, and I quote: I have reviewed it completely. Justice is having a look at it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That will come later, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

Justice is having a look at it, as well as the Government Purchasing Agency. There was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference; nor was there any criminal intent.

Well, Minister, if you determined all of that last week, as of last Thursday, enough to justify your request to ask for her to resign, Ms Cleary, why did you feel it was necessary to refer it to Justice if you had already concluded those things: no criminal wrongdoing, no wrongful intent, no political interference? What smelled about the winterization contact that made you send it over to the Minister of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amused by the Opposition House Leader's newly-acquired sense of smell. We do not do things by smell over here; we do them the right way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, we realized that there had not been any pubic call for bids, tenders, or Request for Proposals. That was a very serious situation outside the Public Tender Act. As a result, there were very serious actions taken.

Mr. Speaker, files were reviewed in the office of the Natural Resources Building in St. John's. Files were reviewed on-site at Bull Arm around any other documentation that might be relevant in terms of scope of work, all of those kinds of things. That review concluded yesterday, that we did not have documentation around the awarding of the contract. In all of our discussions with the people who have the contract, with the site manager, with the former CEO, there was no indication to us, Mr. Speaker - and that is all I can speak to - that there has been any criminal wrongdoing, that there has been any intentional wrongdoing. I can only accept that information as it is put forward. I do not have anything to substantiate any other kind of claim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, can you confirm that you have received a request from the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to the CSL Services Limited contract, and when do you anticipate that we might be hearing something from it? How long do you think this is going to take? Is this going to be beyond 2007 as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has a number of lawyers who provide legal services for various government departments. Those departments contact those lawyers when they need work done. The minister just indicated to me that one of the officials in the department, she has referred that work to that official and in due course the proper advice will be given to the minister to enable her to carry out her functions and her responsibilities as she considers appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Justice regarding a contract that was let for food services at the Labrador Correctional Centre. The minister said he would try to get that information and I asked him to table it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the minister could not recall having any conversations regarding this contract with his colleagues; however, the Member for Exploits has publicly stated that he has spoken to the minister regarding this file and even reminded the minister yesterday that these conversations took place. I hope this is not convenient memory loss.

Mr. Speaker, Station Steakhouse in Central Newfoundland was called by staff that they had won the first tender. They have written the department looking for clarification as to why this process was apparently manipulated in favour of a strong supporter of the PC Party.

I ask the minister: Why have you not responded to Station Steakhouse regarding their request, and it was brought to your attention that the proper process appears to have been tampered with?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member for Bay of Islands has it wrong again.

Mr. Speaker, the person was the unsuccessful bidder who contacted the hon. Member for Exploits, who contacted the department, was responded to by officials of the department on July 13, 2006. First of all, there was a telephone conversation and a subsequent letter July 13, 2006. So the person was, in fact, notified.

Mr. Speaker, this particular contract, the person who the Member for Bay of Islands alleges is a friend of the government, this particular company that was the successful bidder in this contract for the Labrador Correctional Centre at Happy Valley-Goose Bay is a company called Atlantic Catering. That company first was awarded a food services contract at the West Coast correctional centre in June of 2000. One year later in September, 2001, that company was also awarded a food services contract at Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's. Two years later, in June, 2003, that company was awarded the food services contract for the Labrador Correctional Centre. All of these contracts took place under the former government.

Mr. Speaker, I also want -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask ministers if they could keep their responses to approximately a minute, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But they were all probably tendered and they were probably awarded, I say to the minister.

Minister, the letter that was sent back July 13 to Station Steakhouse said that the bidder qualifications by your department - the bidder qualifications! I just find it ironic that it was bidder qualifications. Why was this bidder, who got the tender, allowed to make the bid on the second tender also if there was a problem with the bidder?

Mr. Speaker, after Station Steakhouse was advised by officials from the Labrador Correctional facility that they had won the contract, it took twenty-two days before they were notified that it had been cancelled and it would be rebid.

I ask the minister: Why did it take twenty-two days to advise the winner of the original tender that your department would be scrapping the first tender process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member for Bay of Islands has it wrong again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the proper process in the awarding of this contract was properly followed and it was followed under the auspices of the Government Purchasing Agency, an independent, arm's-length agency that reports, not to the Department of Justice, but reports, with respect to tendering matters, to the Speaker of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member for the Bay of Islands is on the IEC, we should be asking him about tendering contracts in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair invites the minister to complete his answer

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there were deficiencies identified in the specifications contained in the original tender call. There were also concerns regarding compliance by the original bidders with the mandatory specifications in the call. These deficiencies are confirmed by the Government Purchasing Agency. As I said, the Government Purchasing Agency is an arm's-length body that reports on tendering matters to the Speaker, not to the department, not to the department that issues the call for tenders. The GPA has over -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I will table a document from your department to the Government Purchasing Agency asking that it be cancelled. It was your department that requested it to be cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated to the people of Stephenville and the Bay St. George region that the Abitibi mill would not close under his watch. He also gave his personal commitment to expropriate the mill assets, and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East said the Premier would meet with the union executive. None of these things have happened. The Premier has stated previously that he could not travel to Stephenville to hold a meeting because he needed a holiday.

I ask the Premier: Will you commit today to hold a meeting with the union executive and hold a public meeting in Stephenville to discuss the mill situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have met with the union leadership to discuss the future of the mill in Stephenville and we do everything we can. We are scanning constantly to see if there is an interest in that mill. Not only were we interested in talking to the union members, but we paid their way in here so they could come and talk to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a supplementary.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is saying I am having a bad day. Not as bad as the 300 people who lost their jobs, I say to the minister.

It was the Premier who made the personal commitment to the union executive that he would expropriate the mill, not the minister. The Premier made the personal commitment.

I ask the Premier: Will you go out and meet with the union executive and hold a public meeting to express your personal commitment that you would expropriate the mill to the union executive? Yes or no, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Member for Bay of Islands that he review some of the editorials from the papers in the region that talk about the good work that is being done there (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Stephenville mill was a terrible thing. We have responded by working with all of the grassroots organizations and the municipalities in the area to diversify and rebuild that economy; $4 million invested to date, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to look for opportunities to revitalize that mill. Should one become available, then we will talk about expropriation and other matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier and have to do with further requests for meetings.

The Concerned Citizens' Committee of Fortune, on August 22, requested a meeting with the Premier. They are still waiting to hear in response to that request. I understand as well that the union in Marystown, who are representing the plant workers there, have been looking for a meeting with the Premier for months now. In fact, they have asked the Member for Burin-Placentia West to arrange such a meeting but it has not yet happened.

I ask the Premier: Do you intend to meet with these individuals, and if so, when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the issues on the Burin Peninsula, and have been concerned about them for a long time. I have a commitment to the people on the Burin Peninsula that we are going to look at all the issues that are down there; a much bigger commitment, of course, than the hon. member had when six months after she was elected she sought the nomination in St. John's and lost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No different, of course, than the Member for Torngat or the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They decided to go federal when they lost the government. And you can stand up, sanctimoniously and piously, on behalf of the people of Marystown and Fortune when you wanted to live in the big city. That is where you wanted to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if it was not so serious it would be ironic to have the Premier stand up and try to bully me in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Business said yesterday that in awarding the contract for the branding initiative of the Department of Business that they followed the normal process and used a division of tendering and contracts in the Department of Transportation and Works. He said we followed the process.

I ask the minister: Now that you have checked with your officials in your department, is it true that the entire process was handled by the Department of Business?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I am slightly mystified by her question because I do not understand where her questions are coming from. Is she talking about the signs or is she talking about the brand development strategy?

If she is talking about the signs and (inaudible) with regards to the signage itself, the purchasing and installation of those signs was conducted through the Government Purchasing Agency and followed the proper process. Also, the information includes information from third parties which is privy to the third parties, and they were received in confidence. Also, if I were to release those, I would have to notify the third party previous to. Once that follows through the proper procedure, I would be glad to share it with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously has no idea how this branding initiative unfolded or who awarded what contracts, but I can tell him. The entire process was handled by the Department of Business.

Mr. Speaker, the same company that was given the contract by the Department of Business was also the company that the government hired, without public competition, to do a review of government's communications needs. That company, Target Marketing, did a comprehensive report for the government. In fact, it was 640 pages. We do not know how much that cost, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Don't you see the conflict in approaching that same company, which obviously had inside information, and asking them to bid on the branding project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the Request for Proposals in regards to the development of a Newfoundland and Labrador brand strategy, six proponents submitted proposals in regards to that. It was not narrowed down to just one. Three gave presentations to a select committee. Also, from that, there was a recommendation made to Cabinet which Cabinet accepted, and Target Marketing was the agency of record from that point forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not acknowledged that there is an obvious conflict of interest here; even for government to approach the same company who did all the work.

Mr. Speaker, this government campaigned on a promise to be open and transparent in contracts and purchasing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Taken right from the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, yet we have contracts being awarded under the guise of being done fairly, and in some cases, even the Premier apologizing for not following the proper process.

I ask the minister: Would you table for this House, or tell us tomorrow, what exactly government paid to Target Marketing for that comprehensive review they did of the communication's plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the new-found righteousness that has come over on the other side. This is the same minister who decided to take her husband on a little trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They went to Australia and New Zealand to see if they could find Crocodile Dundee maybe - Crocodile Judy. They also went to China and they dropped into Hawaii on the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Premier that you should not refer to members by their first names but by their districts.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I apologize for using the name. I was trying to take just an angle on Crocodile Dundee, but having said all of that - so you traveled all around. Now she has a new sense of accountability, and since we have decided to take a closer look, we took a closer look at some correspondence in her department when she was minister. This is to one of her employees: Could you, please, order a case of wine for me, half red and half white, from the liquor store on Kenmount Road and Howard will pick it up for me tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I forgot to mention it earlier and I have some businesspeople dropping by the house - to drink the case of wine now, mind you - on Monday and this will be the only opportunity you will have to pick it up for me. The red is Wolf Blass Yellow Label, and the white is Trapiche. Let Howard know after you have placed the order. Here is the invoice to the government, Mr. Speaker. Sense of accountability!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier -

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

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday the minister said I was asking the government to take part of the $400 million earmarked for the Public Service Pension Plan and use it to index public sector pensions. That is not what I asked. I applaud the government for providing this lump sum to make the public sector pension fund more stable. That is not the issue.

My question today for the minister is: How quickly will the government adequately finance the public sector pension fund so that it can begin helping former public sector workers now living in dire poverty?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 14 she said publicly that we should not fund the Teachers' Pension Plan. She said there are more important things to put $1.9 billion into. Don't fund the pension plan she said, and now she is standing up here and asking us to fund the pension plan. I would like for her to make up her mind which side of the fence she is on today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I have never said no money should go into the plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: What I said was, I did not believe that $1.9 billion should have gone into the plan, that priority should have been given, that some of the money....

I will now ask the minister - what I was talking about yesterday was that additional money be earmarked to make up for the lost income that public service pensioners have suffered because pensions have not kept up with the cost of living. We have the funds to do it, with oil revenues at $1 billion per year for the next twenty-five years.

Will the minister make it a spending priority - and it is priorities that I am talking about - will the minister make it a spending priority to redress the public service retirees for loss of income between 1989 and 2003, and take money from general revenues to pay them a lump sum payment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She must be getting her advice from Bob Rae, a carryover from when he was in Ontario. That is where she must be getting it.

She said: Why was it so important to put $1.9 billion into the teachers' pension when we have a lot of other needs in this Province? Quoted on September 14, 2006, in a newspaper, I think, published in this Province, The Advertiser. That is where she said it. Now she is telling us we put too much, and now she is glad we put another four hundred, and when are we going to put more in? That is what she is asking.

Do you want it put in or don't you want it put in? Make up your mind. You are on both sides of the fence. Until we find out where she is going - she is all over the map. She does not know what she wants. She wants everything, and the next day she wants something different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a thirty second question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and an equal amount of time for a response.

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

MS MICHAEL: I only want to ask the minister if he would start reading everything that I have said, every time I have spoken. I have said publicly that I thought part of that money could go to the teachers' pension fund. I questioned the $1.95 billion.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I read everything she said, I would change my mind 100 times, and I am in the habit of making firm decisions and sticking to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

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

In fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

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

In fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Labour Relations Agency and the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Pan for the Department of Government Services.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JACKMAN: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of Health and Community Services.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the House, as per Standing Order 11, not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday and, furthermore, as per Standing Order 11, that they not adjourn at 10:00 p.m on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of the residents of my district. Seeing this is the first time this petition has been before the House, I will read the prayer of the petition.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS young children are being left to walk to and from school in dangerous circumstances; and

WHEREAS the current government has ignored concerns about the safety of these young children; and

WHEREAS these serious safety concerns could be addressed while incurring very little additional expense;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to enact a policy that ensures that children are provided with a safe way of getting to and from school.

And, as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace in presenting a petition.

A number of conversations are going on across the floor, which is interrupting the procedures of the House.

The Chair asks for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the members opposite are eating too much fibre, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my district are faced with a grave and serious problem. Young children going to school in the morning, because they are within the 1.6 kilometres of the school, are being asked and even forced to go to school on the busy highways.

The highway between Victoria and Salmon Cove is one of the busiest highways out in Conception Bay North. It is not in the best state of repair. It is full of potholes and ruts. The kids are being -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members again - there are offences on both sides of the House. We cannot have talking across the House without both sides being involved in the conversations. Therefore, I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who is attempting to present a petition on behalf of his constituents.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have always accorded every member in this House the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker, and I have a very serious issue here that I would like to bring forward to the members of this House and ask for some conciliation.

Mr. Speaker, small children carrying bookbags almost as big as themselves are walking along a busy highway, traffic going back and forth. Cars, trucks, and even the buses that these children used to travel on, until this September, are swerving around potholes and so on, and these little children are walking along the sides of the road, faced with the perils of that walk every morning and every afternoon. In fact, in one community, Mr. Speaker, the parents themselves had to enter into a side agreement with a bus company, paying a certain amount of money each month to take the children home in the afternoons.

Mr. Speaker, this government took away a very basic service that was there in place last year. This September, the first week that school opened, the parents were notified that the children were no longer allowed on the buses. Last week, when we had the snowfall, the roads were not plowed, there were mechanical problems with the equipment out there, the plows never got out in time, and children were walking to school in a foot of snow, splashed with slush and snow and everything else.

I know, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I will have another petition tomorrow, and I hope tomorrow I will receive protection of the House to get my full message out there.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had allocated the member an extra minute because of the disruption.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting a petition today in support of the community of Williams Harbour.

Williams Harbour is on the South Coast of Labrador, and I think I have probably given close to about twenty petitions with regard to this issue in the last three years, but it is a very important issue.

Williams Harbour is on an island. It is separated by a body of water called Winter Tickle, and Winter Tickle is just a small channel that separates the community from the main land. In fact, you could easily put a bridge across there so that you could connect a road to that community. In fact, prior to the government changing in 2003, there was a commitment from the Liberal government to build a road into this community. It was a road of less than twenty-five kilometres that would cost $5.5 million. In fact, the bridge was already left in the area to be used to cross Winter Tickle and, to my knowledge, the bridge is still there.

The environmental assessment was being conducted, the engineering and routing work was completed, and this road was well on the way to being built as being the next community to be connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Now, I cannot tell you how disappointed the residents of this community were when they learned that the Williams' government would cancel the road for their community. They were very disappointed, and so were the people of the region disappointed, because it was a small amount of money to pay to connect this community to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

For those of you who are not familiar with the community of Williams Harbour, you need to know that there are no medical facilities in this community. People have to travel outside of the community to seek medical services at a nearby clinic in Charlottetown or Port Hope Simpson. The children beyond Grade 8 or Grade 9 have to leave the community to be educated and to go to school. All the amenities that they require need to be brought into the community. In fact, you cannot even buy fuel there for your snowmobile or your boat, or home heating fuel for your house. All of those things they have to go outside to be able to get, so this twenty kilometre road and this bridge across Winter Tickle at a cost of $5 million or $5.5 million to the government would have been a very relatively low-cost initiative for the government to improve the quality of living for the people in this community.

Prior to the last couple of years, many people in Williams Harbour could access outside communities from the island by snowmobile, but because of global warming the temperatures have changed in Labrador and the amount of ice that we get on an annual basis has deceased. We do not get the ice conditions that we used to get, and as a result the people in Williams Harbour can no longer access the mainland by snowmobile. Last year, in the one attempt they made to cross the ice at Winter Tickle to get to the main land, they actually went through the ice and two individuals nearly drowned. That is the seriousness of this issue. As a result of that, they have not been able to use snowmobile transportation to get off the island in the last couple of years.

I want to encourage government, and press upon government and on the current minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon the government and upon the minister - who happens to be the Minister for Labrador as well, happens to reside in Labrador, and is very familiar with this community and the struggles in this community - to look at this in the Budget. Even though the government cancelled this initiative three years ago, it deserves to be re-looked at, it deserves to be reviewed again, and it is a very small investment to be made on behalf of these people to ensure that they have safe access to the outside areas and safe access to the services that they require. I hope that this year we will see in the Budget a road for the community of Williams Harbour.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to this House.

I will just read the prayer of the petition. It is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a rich culture and a proud heritage; and

WHEREAS the very foundation of a democratic society is its government; and

WHEREAS it is important to celebrate our history; and

WHEREAS the first Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador was elected on New Year's Day, 1833 and 2008 marks the 175 Anniversary of this event in our proud history;

WHEREFORE this petition urges the House of Assembly to formally endorse the nomination of John Bingley Garland of Trinity, Trinity Bay, by the Trinity Historic Society to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as a Person of National Historic Significance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Garland was a native of Poole, England and started his political career as a mayor. In fact, he served two terms as the Mayor of Poole before moving to Newfoundland, and was first elected to this Legislature in 1832.

The Historic Boards of Canada has several awards and one of them is an award that acknowledges significant contributions by national figures and they have identified the award as a Person of National Historic Significance. The Trinity Historic Society believes that John Bingley Garland, and I endorse that belief, is a person of such distinction. His picture hangs, Mr. Speaker, to the left of your chair.

The Historic Society, together with local residents on the Bonavista Peninsula, are planning a special celebration in 2008 to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Mr. Garland made to not only the History of Newfoundland and Labrador, but particularly to the local Trinity area and the Bonavista Peninsula.

I am asking this Assembly to endorse the recommendation made by the Trinity Historic Society to have John Bingley Garland designated as a Person of National Historic Significance.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a petition that I am presenting on behalf - the people who have signed this petition for me represent communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I am asking the Assembly to endorse the nomination and support the request by the Trinity Historic Society to have Mr. Garland designated as a person of National Historic Significance.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 12, at 5:30 o'clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing we got such a resounding ovation on that one, I now move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 12, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of Bill 64.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 64)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very similar to what was done in the spring with the MHA pension. Anybody who contributes to a pension plan, where the contributions that you put into the plan were above the amount that would be allowable under the Income Tax Act, we had to set up a supplementary plan. The same contribution rate - we can only put in what complies with the federal law Income Tax Act and anything in excess of that would go into a supplementary plan. Under this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly the same as we are required to do by law with all plans.

In fact, back in the mid-1990s the former government had assured the federal government they would move legislation to do that. Based on that commitment, they have not taken any action against it and made that contribution as a taxable. What this bill does now, it just puts the other ones in line. It puts the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act on the same footing as the MHA Pension Plan, as we do with all our pension plans, because we have to comply. If not, contributions will be taxable there and that is not practical so we moved it to supplementary plan. It is doing the same for these particular pension plans as we did for MHAs in the spring.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just close my opening comments there on second reading.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today and respond to the Minister of Finance on Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act.

It was interesting, for the past two days our newest member into the House of Assembly, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, was questioning the Minister of Finance on the inability of government to recognize that our pensioners, our public service pensioners, out there have not been indexed. I think she has been given the cold shoulder by this government in saying they have no interest in that and will not be including pensioners in the upcoming Budget in March.

As everybody knows, the union is largely responsible for putting forward the plight of pensioners and those part of their active union right now, the workforce. As a result of that, I expect that is largely the problem of why current pensioners have not been indexed. I could understand that in the past several years the money was not there to address that need, but I would encourage union leadership.

The President of NAPE who has - their union has a contract in place with this government. I would encourage the largest union in this Province, and also others, to look at the plight of pensioners, public service pensioners, in this Province. We are now in a financial position in this Province where those pensioners should really be included in indexing, as well as any other pensioner.

There are no grounds for the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, to stand up and say that these were not negotiated as part of the contract for indexing. There is a certain conscience that this government must take and must bear. Now that they are in a financial position to look at that area of concern, it is now high time for them to do that. It does not have to take rallying around the flag by the union membership. It should be just government's way of looking after the social net of this Province and the people who are getting pensions from government. Some of them, years ago, were very, very small. I know for a fact that the pensioners of this Province who worked for government, some of them had very low pensions, probably $10,000, $12,000, $15,000. Everything has escalated in cost, but pensions have not.

Public service pensioners, once they receive their old age pension they are clawed back. They are clawed back if they go over that imaginary line, the line that is instituted by Revenue Canada. Their old age pension is clawed back. There is only one group in this Province that does not have claw backs, and that is the teachers of our Province. They negotiated a deal several years ago where there would be no claw backs. They are in the best position of any pensioners in this Province. You cannot hold that against teachers, either, because they had to give up benefits in order to achieve that one. It was during a time where they decided they would not take any raises - government was not in a position to provide any raises - but, for holding off getting a raise, they negotiated, I guess, what some people would refer to as a Cadillac pension plan. As a result, there would be no clawback for teachers when they reached the magic age of sixty-five, but for the new ones coming on stream today it is a different matter. Their contributions are higher and they are under the same rules and conditions.

Now, I know I tweaked the interest of the Member for Mount Pearl. He is very interested in what I am saying because he is pensioner - no, he is not a pensioner yet. He is hoping to be a pensioner one of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Minister of Finance to look at the plight of our pensioners, the ones who have not been indexed, and this is the best time for anyone to bring up those concerns. The minister is going around the Province and he is doing those pre-budget consultations, as he calls it. This would be the best time for him to hear from pensioners, and let pensioners remind him again of the fact that the Province is in a good position financially. I do not know how long we will stay in that position but right now, through no initiatives of this government, I would like to say, the financial position we are in, it is a carryover from the investments that were made from previous governments. You can giggle all you like, people in the front rows across from me, that is the truth.

In the pre-budget submission, by the way, that was made in Grand Falls-Windsor, I looked over the written submission that was made by the Exploits Valley Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce and I could not believe what I was seeing. This has been an ongoing plight, I might say. The Exploits Valley Tourism office in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is located on the Trans-Canada Highway, they do yeoman service for promoting tourism throughout the Exploits Valley and they are running it single-handed.

While we were the government, this office or tourist chalet - there was one in Corner Brook. I don't know if they ever came to any kind of an arrangement, because they ran into the same problem. The tourist chalet in Grand Falls-Windsor, on the Trans-Canada Highway, is operated by the Exploits Valley Development Association. They basically run that tourist chalet from the arts and crafts that are put in there on consignment, from the revenue they generate from that. Many times throughout the year there are make-work jobs in the area, and the administration for running those jobs, part of that revenue goes into that pot as well, but to supplement the tourist chalet in Grand Falls-Windsor the previous government, of which I was a part, gave them an annual subsidy of $10,000. I cannot believe it, that this current government reduced that to $5,000. In the land of full and plenty, more money than they have ever had since Confederation, they want to promote tourism - and I saw the Minister of Tourism stand in his place today and give a Ministerial Statement. That same minister recommended to the Minister of Finance to cut that subsidy from $10,000 a year to $5,000. That is hard to fathom. Why would he do that? He is trying to promote tourism. He is trying to bring up the number of tourists that stop in our Province and here you have a volunteer agency that is trying to run a tourist chalet for Central Newfoundland, that are not even getting a decent subsidy from this government. They reduced the subsidy from $10,000 to $5,000 a year.

How can you operate a tourist chalet on that kind of money? You cannot open from May to October without a subsidy from government. You cannot do it.

We have a bunch of volunteers who are trying to promote our Province and Central Newfoundland, and government has cut their subsidy, that they had on their books for years, from $10,000 to $5,000. This is the same government that had $130 million surplus last year. There is something wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Finance reminded me that it was actually $200 million in subsidy, in surplus last year and still he has the gall and the face to stand up and reduce the subsidy of a volunteer agency who is trying to promote tourism in this Province.

Apart from that, when I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, one of the last things, a request that the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor asked for, while I was the minister, was to have access to Duggan Street. I had approved, through government, an access from Duggan Street to the Trans-Canada Highway.

As soon as this government became the government, they cancelled that right away. I noticed in The Advertiser about two weeks ago that the Member for Windsor-Springdale is trying to lobby government to get that done. Three years on the job and nothing done since. That is incredible. Who has clout in this government to get work done in their districts? Who has clout in this government to get -

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am so glad that the Member for Gander just brought up that. I can't wait to respond. I cannot wait to respond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS THISTLE: I cannot wait to respond.

The Member for Gander, the Minister of Business, just said that the Member for Windsor- Springdale had clout.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not relevant.

MS THISTLE: It is relevant; it is money!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a pensions act here; it is not a money bill. There has to be relevance. She should speak to the general principle of this bill, and that is completely unrelated to the bill that is presently before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had some discussion recently relative to relevance during the discussion of certain bills. The general practice across the parliamentary systems in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, is that when we are discussing items of Bills of Supply or Budget there is a wide-ranging discussion permitted; however, when we are doing other bills members should be relevant to the topic of the bill.

The Chair asks the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - and I am sure she is going to do this - to make her comments relevant to the bill.

There is a point of order, obviously.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of trying to keep relevance.

There are two ways to look at this bill. It is money, in a sense. We are talking about the Teachers' Pension Plan, and they do not get this for free. There was $1.9 billion put into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: The Speaker is able to speak for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking the member if she could make her comments and make her presentations, and make them relevant to the bill under discussion.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, there are two areas of this bill that are very relevant to money, and that is the way that the Teachers' Pension Plan will be paid out, and actually the requirement by Revenue Canada setting out a requirement as to how this Teachers' Pension Plan will be administered. That is the reason why this legislation is coming forward today, for no other reason.

When you look at the Teachers' Pension Plan, there has been a large injection of Accord money being put into the Teachers' Pension Plan. The reason why that was put into the Teachers' Pension Plan is actually debatable, because there were so many areas of the Province looking for funding, but a decision was made by this government -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill has nothing to do with putting any money into the pension plan or anything related to it. It is strictly the money that is in the plan, the premiums that people pay. The premiums they pay have to comply with the Income Tax Act. A commitment was made several years ago by the former government to rectify it - it had not been done - and basically they have informed us that we have to do that to comply with the Income Tax Act. All it is doing is, any amount of money there that is surplus, that does not meet the Income Tax Act, goes into a supplementary plan like we did for the MHAs this spring. It is not any new money. It has nothing to do with that. It is how you would put it there to comply with the Income Tax Act. That is not what the member is indicating there.

On the second reading of a bill, Mr. Speaker, in this bill you have to talk about the bill, and even in Committee you have to speak to a specific clause of the bill.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the point of order. I actually heard the Government House Leader raise it earlier.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, I am addressing the Chair, which I understand is the proper protocol in this place. I will direct my remarks to the Chair, and the Government House Leader, if he wishes, can respond. At least do me the courtesy of listening to me.

Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make, I happened to be outside the Chamber when I heard it being made by the Government House Leader concerning the relevance of the comments of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans with respect to this piece of legislation.

I have been here since November 20, I believe, this year in this session of the House. We have had something like twenty-odd, almost thirty, pieces of legislation passed, and in second reading it has been understood - there has been a very wide leeway given here. I appreciate and I agree with the ruling that the Chair has made. I have absolutely no problem with the ruling that you have made, Mr. Speaker, with regards to the point of order raised just a few moment ago by the Government House Leader. All I am saying here is that we have been here since November 20 and we have put twenty-odd, thirty-odd, bills through second reading. We have had a wide latitude, and the Chair has allowed a very wide latitude, and I have at least twenty-two Hansards to prove it. I am just saying, I find it unique that all of a sudden we are here with three days left in this session, when the Government House Leader and myself have already discussed what business in going to take place today, and that is usually how this place works, and the Government House Leader is up now on points of order. He knows as well as I know what we have agreed to. As far as I know, neither himself nor myself have breached any agreements that we have had between each other, number one. He knows the protocol that is going to unfold here the rest of the day. He knows when we are going to close here today. He knows as well, and the Chair knows full well, that we have given a very wide latitude when it comes to second readings.

Not withstanding, I agree that he made a valid point of order and the Chair made a very valid point of order. I will just say, there are two ways we can play this game if he wants to. If you are going to come in here and think that we are going to have agreements on the one hand, but then he is going to jump up on points of order and everything else when I happen to be out of the House, it is just not going to work here, Mr. Speaker.

I think, in the best interests of everybody, we have had a very co-operative session here and I think we ought to keep things on the rails the way they are, but if that is the way they want to play the ball game, this place could become a very disruptive place unnecessarily, I would submit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds members of the rules contained in Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 13, page 530. It discusses the rules of relevance. A few moments ago the Chair reminded members that when we discuss supply bills, when we discuss Budget, that there is a wide-ranging debate permitted in that discussion. However, when we are discussing bills like we have today, there is more of a constraint upon members, and this is the subject of a previous commentary of the Speaker just a few moments ago.

In this particular matter now, the Chair is mindful that there should be some leniency as contained in the guidance given by Marleau and Montpetit. The member, I do believe, does have some latitude. The Chair believes that it is possible for her to make her comments without offending the rules of relevancy and the Chair would invite her to do that. However, we remind all members that on second reading we should be mindful of the necessity to keep our comments focused on the topic under discussion.

The Chair again recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what it is, whenever I get up to debate the members across the way seem to be very touchy and they are always ready to ask about relevance. I do not know if it is because I am a woman or if it is because they just do not want to hear what I have to say or what it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of supplementary clauses in this particular bill. Almost every issue that you will bring up will affect a certain group in our society; a large group, in fact. We have public service pensioners and we also have teachers. When you look at the makeup of the public service in our Province, you have really 40,000 active members today, as I speak, besides all of the pensioners who are out there as well. You look at the fact that you are talking probably to an audience of maybe 60,000-plus people who are affected, those who have worked for government and those who are currently working for government and those who hope to retire at their pace from government; not to be fired. Everybody is hoping that the contributions they pay in, as prescribed by their particular profession, will lead them to a retirement that they can enjoy and be happy with.

If Revenue Canada comes out and advises the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that they have to make adjustments to their record keeping of the pension plan, for pensioners and would-be pensioners in this Province, well naturally the Province has to comply; naturally the Province has to comply. By me getting up here today and outlining some of the benefits of our pension plan and the reason why our pension plan is pretty much totally funded at this point, because there was a large injection of Accord money put into the teachers' pension plan, I find that totally relevant to my discussion. I find that totally relevant to my discussion. I know I depend on the Speaker to make that decision of whether or not it is relevant.

When you are talking about a pension fund in this Province for teachers, had no injection of money been put into that plan, they would have been pretty much bankrupt by the year 2015. Under the previous government there was a plan put in by the Tobin government, I would say. He was the first Premier who recognized that you cannot keep spending pension fund contributions that ordinary people are making every payday -

MR. TAYLOR: Tobin did? I think that is the only thing that he was (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Tobin did. He was the first Premier who said we have to sit down and recognize that we are spending - the ordinary man and woman who are paying in their pension contributions every two weeks into the public treasury, we have to decide right here and now that we are going to start to try and make that pension fund whole again. A decision was made in 1998 to fund all the pension plans. As a result of that, it was done, but paying $200 million or $300 million a year on a big pension plan does not even cover the interest. That is the reason a large injection of almost $2 billion made a great contribution to the teachers' pension plan.

There are a couple of things that pushed away any other group, any other group that was looking for money in this Province, any other group such as Multiple Sclerosis, those looking for drugs for diseases that are not looked after today. There are a number of drugs on our formulary that are not looked after where there are needs out there in the public. We get e-mails everyday. Instead of dealing with those groups, the government of today decided they would take the lion's share of the Atlantic Accord money and put it into the teachers' pension plan. Anyone else who was looking for money would go home with their tail between their legs and say: That's it, I cannot get any money.

As a result, you have a teachers' pension plan that is in pretty good shape today, but there are public servants out there who are not in too good a shape. We all know very well that those public servants never got a chance to settle their contract the last time. They were sent back to work through back-to-work legislation and whatever they were given they had to take. We almost ran into the same difficulty three weeks ago when there was no negotiation for pharmacists. As a result, pharmacists had to be looked after in a crisis situation under the guise of the health boards.

By acting on the request of Revenue Canada to set up a proper accounting system for payment of the Teachers' Pension Plan and the Public Service Pension Plan, we are complying with Revenue Canada requirements.

Now, there is one clause here that I would like to bring to everyone's attention. They are talking about pension payments - Revenue Canada - and a part of this legislation says, "... a pension calculated under section 18(1) relating to service accrued prior to September 1, 1991 shall be paid from the pension fund."

What they are saying is that the pension fund today is going to be in several pots. Those who were being paid prior to 1991 will stay the same, but for the new ones coming on stream there will be just an internal accounting system to look after their payments when they are ready to retire.

Now, the question is, with all the news on the radio and in the media the past couple of days about the fact that teachers themselves - one-third of the teachers now who start out teaching in our high schools, our elementary and primary schools, one-third of those teachers do not stay in the profession. One-third of teachers do not stay in the profession. Of course, we have classic examples right here in our House of Assembly. How many former teachers are right here now today in our House of Assembly, who never got their pension plan? They never worked their thirty years through the provincial government, through the NLTA. They never stayed in the classroom for thirty years. They are now here in this House of Assembly.

There are a good many teachers here who never retired from their teaching professions. They have taken on political careers. We are getting those type of politicians at the end of their teaching career, not at the beginning, but what we are hearing today is that teachers today, one-third to the teachers who graduate and get their teaching degree from whatever university, and they get into the classroom, one-third of those teachers are not staying.

Of course, we all know that the teachers are happy with their pension fund but we are finding out in the past week that teachers are not happy in the classroom, and they have launched a huge campaign in the media to let government know that they are not happy in the classroom. It is timely, because they are launching this campaign prior to the Budget.

Now, they think, by launching this campaign right now, that the Minister of Finance and the Premier and others who sit around the Cabinet table will hear their plight and they will make an announcement in the upcoming Budget in March that will address their concerns. Because, if they do not hear from any group around the Province that is having a problem, they will go and do whatever they have on their Budget plan.

I would say the Budget, at this point, is pretty much written. All the Finance Minister has to do is have someone write the speech, and that will be day-to-day looking at what is going to happen between today and March 25. So there will be room, there will be some flexibility in the upcoming Budget in March to address whoever shouts the loudest between now and March and lets the government know that they have an issue that must be addressed in the upcoming Budget.

Now, the teachers in the classroom have a big issue and that is distraction and not enough people in the classroom to assist when there are different categories and groups of children there. There is not enough help so that the teacher can spend the best time, and the most time, on task without having to deal with all the other issues in the classroom.

I saw three retired teachers last night being interviewed on CBC television. You can tell that life in the classroom has changed significantly since they were teachers, from the time they started to the time they finished. I think it would be pretty rare today to see teachers work beyond their thirty-year requirement. I do not know of too many teachers today who are working beyond their thirty-year requirement, because most of them will say that in the classroom today it is pretty stressful. Most days you have to be probably a parent or a guardian, a babysitter, a social worker, a guidance counsellor, and everything that falls under the umbrella of giving good care to children. Sometimes the time that is left for actual teaching is pretty draining.

Then, of course, there is the book work. How many forms and letters and so on are you required as a teacher now to complete your assignments so that children are ready to be taught the next day? How much homework is involved? How many parent-teacher interviews? How often do they have to deal with new curriculum with no time to really get adjusted to it before they are in the classroom and they have to teach it? There has been a problem with math in our schools for twenty years and there has been no influence from anybody trying to fix the math problem in our schools. Everybody complains about a math problem in our schools. Curriculum is something that not all children can adapt to, but we have not found a way in the past twenty years to deal with the math situation in our schools. So, right now, teachers are launching a big media campaign because the onus is on teachers to make sure that every child gets a good education and they do not want to be held responsible or look in years to come and say: Could I have done more for that particular child? They cannot do more if they are stressed to the max and they do not have enough resources to make sure that every child has the same opportunity.

We have a situation in rural Newfoundland today where teachers and students have to rely on being taught a curriculum through a TV monitor. Now, that is hardly good enough. Some subjects are difficult enough, and it is great to have a face-to-face teacher in your classroom where you can ask a question if you are not sure, but if you have to deal with a monitor and someone there in front of a podium teaching hundreds of children all over the Province, that is not the right kind of situation.

There is a danger, too, now that the necessarily existent schools in our Province might be changed. Maybe government is looking at a situation now that necessarily existent schools - that legislation may be changed. Well, I hope that never happens while I am here in this House of Assembly because I will be the first one to stand on my feet and say that no government should ever do that.

Every child, no matter where they live in this Province, has to have the opportunity to a core education. You cannot put small children on a school bus and expect them to sit there in the cold for an hour and get up early in the morning, probably dark. I mean, it is dark now in the mornings at 7:00 o'clock, and for a child to have to get on a school bus, Kindergarten, Grade 1 or Grade 2 or a Grade 3 student to have to get on a school bus and travel for an hour in the cold in the morning and then be ready to learn. That child then is probably having to sit down to a school breakfast that was provided. So, you know, it is not all rosy. The teacher in the classroom today has a lot to deal with.

That is why it is so important that government should, when this Budget comes, not take teachers out of the classroom. Keep teachers in the classroom as they are today. Even though our population is dwindling, we have an obligation to the children of this Province to provide them with a good education. You cannot base everything on numbers alone. You have to look and see, there are faces behind those numbers.

Mr. Speaker, these changes that are coming about by way of legislation now for this particular act will put in place a proper mechanism that this government can report to Revenue Canada that all payments made to retired public service pensioners, and also to teachers, are done in accordance with the legislation, both federal and provincial. Basically, that will be done.

In closing this part of my debate, Mr. Speaker - and I know everybody across the aisle are delighted, but I will have another opportunity to talk on another bill before too long - I want to thank you for the opportunity of being able to debate Bill 64.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 64. I was curious first about what the bill was all about, did a bit of digging and still did not get an answer. The Minister of Finance did give us the answer today. I am glad to know that he is concerned about keeping the law. Keeping the law is important.

One of the things that struck me, knowing why we need this amendment, and knowing the reality in the Province, while there could, sometime down the road, I suppose, be a danger of contributions exceeding the Income Tax Act, especially for the public service sector, or for both, there could be a possibility, it is not there right now. I think both areas, both the public service sector and the teachers, pay well under what the Income Tax Act allows. There is certainly no big danger in the present, but even if there were a danger in the future with regard to the contributions exceeding what is allowed by the Income Tax Act, looking at it from the perspective of public service pensioners that I have been talking to there is certainly not going to be any fear of the benefits payable exceeding what is allowed by the Income Tax Act.

When I talk to the pensioners who are living in poverty, living on less than $10,000 a year, some of them, they are never going to have to worry about their benefits coming out of the new supplementary plan account because there is no way the benefits going to them will ever exceed what is allowed under the Income Tax Act.

On the one hand, while I see the need for this act, on the other hand I sort of smile at it and say it is an exercise. Yes, it is in place, the law is in place, and the federal government can be content, or the Revenue Agency can be content, that we have something in place so that right accounts would be kept if necessary. I doubt that the government is very often going to be using the supplementary account, especially as I said when it comes to benefits payable.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit more about government and pensions. I am not going to talk long, but there are some points I would like to make. I would like to make my points briefly. Maybe I am going to have to talk a bit longer and speak more so that I will not be misinterpreted, and be sure that when I say something I am saying enough so that members across the way do not misinterpret what I have said.

With regard to this Act, I see the government, when it comes to looking at its responsibility to the public service sector and to teachers, to all those who work for government directly or indirectly - government has two responsibilities. It has the responsibility as the employer and therefore that employer-employee relationship when it comes to the payment of benefits, when it comes to paying into pension plans, for example, and when it comes to paying the benefits that accrue from pension plans. But then the government also has the responsibility for the welfare, the social welfare, of every citizen. Under that responsibility, the government has a second responsibility to its pensioned employees, both employees in general and to its pensioned employees.

When the government has pensioned employees, retirees, who are living in dire straits, retirees who do not have enough pension coming to them, government has a double hat that it has to wear. Government, yes, has to say, okay, we were part of the agreements that allowed these pensions to be so low, and in some cases the pensions are low because of the time in which people did their work. Government as an employer has that responsibility to say: Well, what can we do in negotiations to better benefit the retirees? That is where the unions come in and that is where government and the unions sit down and hammer things out. I certainly hope in the next round of discussions, that the relevant unions and the government will look more seriously at the plight of the pensioners who are living in poverty.

At the same time, the government is the government. It is not just the employer; it is the government. As a government, it has to look at the fact that there are people who worked all their lives and who are living in dire poverty. It has to look at the fact that these people are senior citizens. While government, yes, has taken some steps in this year's Budget to improve the lot to senior citizens it has to do an awful lot more, because an individual trying to live on $9,000 is not getting much. An individual trying to live on $9,000 is an individual who is hungry, is an individual who has very little. Government has to improve how it is taking care of senior citizens.

When it comes to the retirees from the public sector, these retirees expect two things from government. Government has to fulfill its responsibility as the employer of these people while they worked and government has to fulfill its responsibility as government. Government has a responsibility to maintain a social net that keeps people in the status of living that meets the Human Rights Code, for example. People have the right to have heat. People have the right to have a shelter over their heads. People have the right to have food. All these things are outlined in the Human Rights Code and all these things are outlined in the Charter of Human Rights. This is the week that we have been celebrating our human rights, the declaration of human rights.

Yes, I am glad that government is so concerned about keeping the law, that it has put effort into putting this Act in place, and I am glad that our books are going to be kept carefully. As I have said, I am not going to take more time on this because it is a rather simple exercise. We are never going to have to worry, I do not think, about breaking the law that this Act is trying to meet, but it is there, it is in place. I would like to think that this government has plans for the future. I would like to think that this government has plans for being able to put more money into pensions. I would like to think that this government has plans for increasing benefits to the point that we will need what this bill is allowing for. That would be wonderful. If this government has those plans, I will be happy to hear them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for my time and I look forward to speaking further today on other items.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Acting Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 64.

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues on all sides of the House for their contribution to the debate on Bill 64. I think my colleague, the Minister of Finance, did his usual admirable job in explaining in detail, minute detail, the implications of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with the minute of his detail and resting on that, I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 64)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

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

I am pleased to rise today to introduce this bill. It is a companion bill of Bill 55, which I just put through the House a couple of days ago. This basically is a consensus document also, the same as the previous bill.

This toward the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, of course, will make it a more modern and efficient Act to follow. It was, as I said, in consensus with labour, government and the employers' council and so on. It certainly complements Bill 55, which was just passed in the House a couple of days ago. I look forward to debate in the House on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am back again. I am glad to be standing and debating Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

I will say from the outset, Mr. Speaker, anything that provides a better mechanism for collective bargaining in this Province is a good move. I was disappointed myself three years ago when government decided to dismantle the Department of Labour because there was a lot of good work done in the Department of Labour. If you were to ask the business community in this Province about the strides that were made in the Department of Labour, prior to it being dismantled, they would all say to you that there were a lot of good strides made. In fact, there was a lot of activity made around the minimum wage act and so on. As a result of that, there have been a lot of groups that have contributed to the actual increasing and the mechanism for increasing the minimum wage.

This bill speaks to the mechanism now that is going to be in place for grievances and hearings and so on, and trade unions that have made rulings on any particular issues surrounding their employees and the mechanism for hearing these grievances and so on.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

MR. SHELLEY: All parties agree (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of - what is your title now?

MR. SHELLEY: Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS THISTLE: Okay. The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment has said that all parties agree on this bill. I would be the first to say that, yes, our party agrees on this bill, but it is also timely. This is what the House of Assembly is for, to actually debate the bills because lots of times legislation is made into law, and we do not see it at the time. Sometimes there are situations where the legislation needs to be revamped or amended because something that is turned into law today might act as an impediment in actually administering that particular piece of legislation.

This bill sets out the requirements for the Labour Relations Board, the number of people who can sit on the board and the actual running of the board. This board acts as a very important intermediary between, actually the people who have an issue and the company, or whether it be government and so on. Lot's of times there are situations around our Province where there is a strike that goes on for days and days and months and weeks and many times the only way it can be settled is to bring in a mediator. That is government's job to do when requested.

Of course, there is a situation out in Deer Lake now as we speak, where the security people have been out, I think this is day seventy-one. It looks like there is going to be some movement on that particular strike, as we are hearing now. I do hope they will get that settled before Christmas so those people can get off the line and get back into their jobs where they should be. That is a situation where a mediator is required. Lot's of times when there is a dispute like that it will take a certain length of time before a strike or a labour dispute is ripe for a conciliator or a mediator, but an experienced person in that particular job will know when the time is right.

I look back to when I was the Minister of Labour. I had a deputy minister by the name of Joe O'Neill. He is still there with the Labour Relations agency, and what a good person he is. I have nothing but positive things to say about Joe O'Neill. He has proven time and time again that he can work for any government, regardless of the stripe, and he can do a good job as an official. He is well regarded by the business community and by labour groups all over this Province. He is one of a kind, I can tell you that. He is certainly well respected in his field. He has a feel for when it is right to step in and when it is right to step back. That is experience he has gained over a government career, mostly in Labour. It will be a sad day when he retires. I know he is close to retirement now, probably two or three or four years away from it, or maybe less -

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe within months.

MS THISTLE: Maybe within months, the Minister of Fisheries is telling me.

He was one of the key people, actually, in the Final Offer Selection for our fishing industry, one that was working, then thrown out. We had a new revised version of it back again. We know that was the one, with him and Dave Vardy and others, who had developed the Final Offer Selection and it was the best yet that we can find which really worked. We have a new version now of that, or a revised version, that the fishing industry will use this coming spring. He was one of the people involved in developing that, along with Dave Vardy and others.

When you talk about this piece of legislation, it is important. If you talk to any of the industry around this Province right now, I am hearing that there are a considerable number of grievances that need to be attended to in this Province. I have not heard from the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment about the status of grievances in this Province but I know there are a lot out there who are waiting for decisions. Having a proper board in place to deal with these grievances around the Province makes for a better working system and, of course, improves business.

I will not tarry on this bill today, Mr. Minister. As I said from the outset, I am pleased with the mechanism in place and I am pleased to speak to this bill and I will be voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now he will close the debate.

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

I am glad that somebody is getting the name of the department right, Mr. Speaker, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. As a matter of fact, it is exactly what we are doing today. This is a companion bill with Bill 55, which we put through the House just a couple of days ago.

The good news about this particular piece of legislation - and the member pointed it out, too - is that we have had all sides working on this together. When people in this Province - the Employers' Council, government, the Labour Relations Board and the Federation of Labour all came together on this document and the previous bill, Mr. Speaker, and it bodes well for labour relations in the Province.

I do want to say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Labour and the labour agency is running very well. It is not dismantled. As a matter of fact, there were many compliments in the last number of months of how well they are working with people. The member just referenced Joe O'Neill, for example, in the department, with the commission. There are many people in that department that I would like to name here today, who are doing a great job, and I will respond to the member in saying that there are a number of grievances. At any time if the member or any member wants an update on any particular grievance that is happening in the Province, certainly the Labour Relations Agency is there to answer questions. We are certainly helping out the situation at Deer Lake Airport as we speak, and we are always hopeful that a resolution can be found. I am certainly hoping it can be, especially this time of year, Mr. Speaker. Any time, really, but especially this time of year.

On this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a companion bill to what we just passed, dealing with the boards to make it more effective, to make it more modern, to make it more efficient. I am delighted that both pieces of legislation have had the support of everybody in the House. It shows that, besides labour relations and the federation and employers' council coming together, also we can work together in the House when we have something positive to bring forward, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 68 be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider those two bills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 64 and Bill 68, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I call Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 68)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 15.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 15 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think the Clerk may have read the wrong title there.

CLERK: I am sorry.

Oh, yes, I did the clauses.

CHAIR: I think the clause numbers have been read out wrong as well, so what we can do is revert to Bill 64 and allow everything to fall in order, and I think the Committee would be in order at that time.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is fine, Mr. Chair, I agree with that. We will not have to go back over it again.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' 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 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 64 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board, and Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 68)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 5.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining 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 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 68 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 64 and Bill 68 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 Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, passed without amendment, and Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, with leave, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted. The Chair recognizes that leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 64 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 64)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move with leave, I say to my colleague, Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 68 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining 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 Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, " read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 68)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act." (Bill 67)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is an honour and privilege for me to move passage of Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

Mr. Speaker, this deals with two issues, obviously. The amendments that are proposed to both pieces of legislation are to enable the Crown and the police, the registrar of motor vehicles, the courts and the fines administration staff of the department to deal more effectively with convicted persons who break provincial laws related to road safety, and will also enhance our ability of the Province to collect monies that are owed to the Province in court by delinquent fine payers.

I know the Opposition House Leader, when he was in the Justice portfolio, was very aggressive and very concerned about collecting fines. I went through some of his news releases when he talked about stiff measures being necessary. He said, it is government's responsibility to ensure that every possible action is taken to recover outstanding debts and government cannot reward a person for failing to remit taxes or pay a fine. Again, in 2002 he said that these are stiff measures but it is the responsibility of the department to ensure that every possible action is taken to recover outstanding debts. In 2002, June 26, he called for more aggressive collection efforts, and at that point they allowed these fines to be registered as judgments in the Supreme Court Trial Division and in the Sheriff's Office, the Judgement Enforcement Office. He said at that time: we will persist to take every action to ensure government gets the monies it is owed. Of course, he was right. In 2003, the Department of Justice announced its intention to implement a system to allow for more aggressive collection efforts. They were allowed vehicles to be seized and other property seized by a Deputy Sheriff and to have wage attachments.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, in this Province we have a very aggressive collection system in place to try and collect the monies that the Province is owed. Mr. Speaker, despite the current legislative and regulatory mechanisms that we now have in place to deal with offenders under the Highway Traffic Act and to improve our efforts to collect outstanding and delinquent fines that are owed to the taxpayers of this Province, monies that could be used to help people who are poor, to build more schools, build more long-term care facilities and health facilities, the number of repeat offenders who engage in illegal activity without any apparent consequences to them is still significant. These repeat offenders ignore the legal penalties, they ignore the fines and continue to flaunt the law by engaging in the continued and repeated commission of highway traffic offences, such as driving without a licence, driving while a licence is suspended and driving without insurance. This erodes public confidence in the administration of justice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that proper measures are taken to ensure public safety and to deal with persons who repeatedly choose to break the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. Ensuring that proper measures exist to deal with these repeat offenders is necessary to deter, to correct and to properly punish such behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, our police forces, the RCMP and the RNC, officials from Motor Vehicles Registration or the Motor Registration Division, do take such steps as they deem prudent and as the law permits, to get vehicles driven by the uninsured driver, the unlicenced driver or the suspended licenced driver off the road. Effective legal mechanisms for preventing such behaviour, particularly in the case of repeat offenders, do not exist. This is frustrating to the public, to the police and to government officials. Presently, the Highway Traffic Act does only provide for the possibility of incarceration on the third offence. There is incarceration for when there is default in the payment of a fine, and we do not believe that any person should be in prison if they have an inability to pay a fine. That is Dickensian, it comes from a long time ago. We do not believe in (inaudible) prison. This government does not believe it and I know the previous government does not believe it as well.

To deal more effectively with convicted persons who do repeatedly break provincial laws related to road safety, the amendments that we are proposing today will provide discretion to a judge to impose various periods of incarceration for those who have repeatedly committed highway traffic offences of driving while uninsured or without a licence or with a suspended licence. The amendment will provide that a person may - and I emphasis may - be incarcerated for these offences where that person has been convicted of a second, third, or a subsequent offence within a prescribed period of time. It is important to note, again, that incarceration is not mandatory. I would suggest that in most cases incarceration will not be the option chosen by a judge, but I believe it is important that the judge have the discretion because there may be cases when incarceration is the only way of ensuring compliance with our laws.

Mr. Speaker, the second issue, of course, is with respect to the collection of outstanding fines. The amount of outstanding fines owed to the government now is $26 million. In spite of very aggressive efforts that the department undertakes today, and that were brought in by the Opposition House Leader when he was the Justice Minister, each year more and more fines are owed and the amount gets higher and higher.

In July of last year, the Province wrote off about $380,000 in outstanding fines that were owed by nineteen people who were registered with the Fines Administration program, who owed money to the Province for having been repeatedly convicted of offences under the Highway Traffic Act. Within one year, these same nineteen persons have re-offended and have incurred an additional $113,000 in fees. So, as you can see, action is needed.

Mr. Speaker, the top 300 people registered with the Fines Administration program, which persons have been convicted of a variety of provincial offences, such as wildlife, fishing, forestry, contraband offences, motor vehicle offences and parking offences, owe over $4.2 million in outstanding fines to the Province. The Province is actively collecting these fines, as I indicated previously, by a number of methods, including notices of conviction and fine. That is mailed out three weeks after the conviction date. Late payment penalties are, in fact, assessed and these are forwarded to the Motor Vehicle Registration Division and licences will not be renewed unless the amount of the fine is paid, or what we are doing in this legislation is to provide an alternative. The licence and the permit can either be refused if the fine is not paid or, instead, we will allow the person who owes the fine to enter into an arrangement satisfactory to the minister to pay off the fine over a certain period of time. Obviously, if someone needed to hunt a moose, for example, to have food for his family, and that person owed a lot of fines, then it would be very unfair and inequitable to prevent that person from being able to have his licence, go out and get a moose. An arrangement could be entered into satisfactory to the minister, whatever minister it happens to be.

We also have collection officers who work in the department for Fines Administration. I know when the Opposition House Leader was minister he added three more of those to help collect fines, and it was successful. I think after new employees are hired to deal with this there is usually a rise in the amount of fines that are collected, but then after awhile it falls back again. I believe in this year's budget, I should say - yes, we are now hiring two more of these collection officers to attempt to collect the money that is owed to the people of this Province.

Another matter that was instituted - another technique, I should say, that was instituted by the previous government, was to allow the judgements to be registered with the Trial Division of the Supreme Court and become a judgement. Then the Judgement Enforcement Agency of the Sheriff's Office could use those tools and techniques to attach money in a bank account, attach a salary, seize some property and sell that property. That was instituted by the former government as well - very, very aggressive techniques - also the staff involved in collection tools, including account analysis, letters, phone calls, but we have to do more.

One of the things we are doing, and what should be fully implemented this year, is to implement the electronic interjurisdictional set-off program with the Canada Revenue Agency, whereby Income Tax refunds, and HST and GST payments will be intercepted for persons who owe fines. This will take place early next year. This will substantially improve the Province's collection efforts in this area and will intensify measures to deal with the number of repeat offenders who continue to engage in illegal activity without any apparent consequences to them.

Mr. Speaker, in March, 2006, a Provincial Court judge in Corner Brook was faced with a twenty-one-year-old single male who was charged with driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from operating one, driving a motor vehicle without valid insurance for the vehicle, and failing to report a motor vehicle accident to the police under the Highway Traffic Act.

The accused had twenty-eight previous convictions, including nine previous convictions for operating a motor vehicle without a policy of insurance in place, one previous conviction for having failed to report an accident, and one for having driven a vehicle while disqualified from doing so. Also, there were $27,500 owing in outstanding highway traffic fines. In addition, the driver's licence of the accused had been suspended on eight previous occasions.

While there was a guilty plea to these offences, the court found it obvious from the accused's driving record that he was incorrigible. The court noted, however, that the present driving legislation in this Province could not deal with this type of offender. If you have an offender who is unemployed, if they have no assets, then obviously there is no way to realize upon those assets and to have the fines paid, so the court could do nothing in this situation but impose another substantial fine in the amount of $4,300, which was meaningless to the accused as he already had over $27,000 in fines that were owing and that prevented him from operating a motor vehicle.

The court indicated that the Province needed to reconsider its approach to the collection of fines. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has constantly called upon the government to do more. It said the government is not doing enough to collect this fine money that is owed to them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice and the Department of Government Services put in place a committee which reviewed the current driving and collection legislation in the Province to deal more effectively with convicted person who repeatedly - repeatedly - break provincial laws related to road safety and to improve the collection of fines owed to the people of this Province. As a result, we have the recommendation of this committee which was set out in this legislation. This is not the government imposing this legislation. This is the recommendation of the committee. I have already talked about incarceration for the second and third and repeated fines.

With respect to the Provincial Offences Act, the amendments will now require the minister to send to people who owe money to the government by way of fines, a statement of finances which they have to fill in and send in to the government. If the statement of finance is not forwarded, the legislation will allow a court to summon a person to court, to answer why he or she has not paid the fine which is in default, and to examine, we used to call it a judgement debtor examination, to determine what income that person has, what assets that person has, what liability that person has. In other words, we want to determine whether or not the person has the means and the ability to pay the fine. If the person does not have the ability, if the person does not have the means to pay the fine, then that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, if the person does have the ability to pay, and if the refusal of the person to pay the fine is because, while they have the means to pay, they are just in contempt of the order and just are not prepared to pay, then we are bringing in an amendment to the legislation to allow incarceration in that situation, only where the person has the ability to pay and has refused to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we also have an amendment to allow the minister to garnish a lottery prize valued at more than $1,000. Section 34 of the act will be clarified, that a person having authority to issue an instrument under the act, or of the Legislature, may, in addition to existing powers, suspend that instrument until an outstanding fine is paid.

Again, that would be ministers other than the Minister of Justice. That could be the minister responsible for wildlife, the minister responsible for fish licences. As I said before, the arrangement can be entered into to allow the fines to be paid over time.

Mr. Speaker, allowing persons to continue to choose not to pay a fine, allowing them to ignore the legal penalties imposed on them and to flaunt the law by engaging in the commission of these offences, erodes public confidence in the Ministry of Justice. As the judge in Corner Brook said, and as the Auditor General said, we have to do something.

These amendments will enhance efforts to collect outstanding and delinquent fines owing to the Province. They will intensify the existing measures to deal with the number of repeat offenders who continue to engage in a legal activity without any apparent consequences to them. This is known as a scoff law. They scoff at the law because they know the law has no teeth. These amendments will greatly benefit the general public, they will benefit the public purse, and they will boost public confidence in the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, the collection situation, as well as the legal and regulatory environment in other Canadian jurisdictions, is similar to that in this Province. Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have introduced a variety of similar measures and have commenced pilot projects to deal with repeat offenders, to address safety issues, to deter and punish repeat offenders, and to improve collection efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments should be positive for the Province. This government cannot tolerate the compromise of public highway safety by certain individuals who flaunt the law by engaging in the commission of offences where they are driving without a licence, or without insurance, or a suspended licence.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments by the Auditor General, the government is taking steps to improve the collection of monies owed to the Crown.

I thank hon. members for listening to this today, and I move passage of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate it. It is not every day I hear compliments from the Minister of Justice. He has been very effusive in his praise this afternoon about what the former minister did, particularly concerning this issue here. I appreciate that, because I do think, and I did think at the time, that it was a good move. This Province is owed a lot of money by people who did not pay fines, for example. I spent eighteen years as a prosecutor. It was only after giving up the prosecutorial side of things and getting into politics that I got an appreciation of just how many of those fines that we had gotten imposed as a prosecutor ended up not being paid. It was in the millions of dollars. That was why I had a personal crusade to see that you carry through on what is started. If you committed a crime, they say you do the time. In that case, if you committed a crime you pay the fine. It is nice to see that the old saying about, do the crime you do the time, is going to be possible.

I would like to distinguish as well, because some people - there has been a lot of talk in the public domain recently as a result of some supreme court cases involving impaired drivers and the fines that were imposed. Some people have called me and e-mailed me to say: Well, how come the provincial government is not doing more about it? You hear lawyers for the accused, for example, being on TV explaining the situation. For the record, what we are dealing with here today does not involve the penalties that might be imposed for impaired driving. There are two areas of jurisdiction, one being federal and one being provincial. The federal government deals with what would the fines and penalties be for impaired driving itself, and that is what was unfolding in our Supreme Court matter recently involving the death of a child. That became a huge topic of public discussion and debate.

What we are dealing with here today, of course, is provincial offences, or areas that the provincial government has control over. For example, driving while suspended, driving without a licence, or driving without insurance. Those are three issues that fall under the provincial domain. That is why we are here today and this government can deal with that issue.

What do we do with people who get these types of offences? What can we do with them? Before, there was no provision to put them in jail. We had incidences, as the minister related, where people were convicted multiple, multiple times for driving without insurance; just absolute disrespect, no respect for the law. You take them to court four, five and six times. The police were picking them up as soon as they got out of the courthouse, driving again with no licence and no insurance and did not care. What did you do with somebody like that? You bring them back to court. The most you could do is ask for a fine.

There comes a point with somebody who has absolute disregard for the law like that, that you have to do more than give them a fine, because that type of individual was usually the same person who did not pay his fines. What did he or she care if they had $20,000 or $50,000 in fines and they were still at liberty to do what they wanted when it came to driving without a licence, or driving while their licence was suspended? That is why I am pleased and supportive of this initiative here, that we are finally going to see something done with that type of individual.

There was an old saying one time - in fact, I remember saying it in provincial court in Port aux Basques years ago first when I started. I remember an accused person looking up and he said to the judge, you cannot get blood out of a turnip, when he was talking about getting a fine. He said: Your Honour, you cannot get blood out of a turnip. The judge said: No, sir, I guess not, but I can put the turnip in jail. That is what we are going to see here now. If someone is such a vegetable that they have as little respect for the law that they take it into their own hands and go out and drive without licences and while their licences are suspended, they are indeed turnips and they do indeed deserve to be put in jail.

Some would say, for a Liberal type person like myself, that is a pretty Harper type comment to make, but I do not think I am totally to the right. I just think that is a very reasonable response in our democratic society. I am very pleased to see that piece of it. We will be speaking and will be voting in support of the bill.

The minister made mention as well of the dollars involved here. Last year alone, for example, this Province wrote off $380,000, I believe he said was the figure, from fines that had been on the books for so long that we just have not been able to collect. It comes a point when, in reality, you have to write it off, otherwise it just sits on your books forever and a day. Some of these people have died and some of these people have left the Province. That is the issue we have here, a lot of this is happening because people have left the Province. How do you ever track them?

I know there was one incident where a person owed thousands and thousands of dollars. After they got in so much trouble here and they were spending all their time going to court every second day and they were being hassled, they figured, they got out of the jurisdiction, they left and went to BC so that they could avoid liability. Many of these people did not have any assets. They did not have a pot to whatever. They did not have a pot. So what do you do with those people?

MR. HICKEY: Porta-potty, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARSONS: They did not have a porta-potty, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, they did not have a porta-potty.

There comes a point when if people are going to totally disrespect the law and if they do not have any assets that you can use the normal roots to get at, you have to find a way to bring the seriousness home to them and to deter them from doing the unlawful activity. That is why I see here that we have added some extra teeth. We put into place before where you could, for example, register judgments against them and go after their bank accounts and garnish their wages. That was all great stuff, good stuff as the minister says, but it was not far enough.

Notwithstanding of all of our faith about - you know it is a pretty serious thing to take anybody's liberty and in our society we do not believe in taking anybody's liberty away from them very quickly, but there comes a point when in some circumstances you have to use it because you do not have any other tool left to use. I agree with this.

The Minister of Finance, of course, likes to pride himself and thinks that he is the only keeper of the gate, whoever tried to recoup monies outstanding to the provincial Treasury. Of course, I am very pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has acknowledged that it was the former Administration, not this one, it was the former Administration that took these moves to try to get some of this money back that was outstanding. Given that, we will be very supportive of this piece of legislation. I say to the minister, like we always say here when we are doing legislation, you outline your reasons why you are doing it, it gets passed and you implement it and we see how it works, hopefully. I hope we do not have to be back here in a year or two year's time.

I would encourage the minister, that once this passes and I am sure it will pass with the consent of members over on this side, that he should monitor the situation very closely. If he sees, within the next year, that the imprisonment options outlined in here are not sufficient, increase it. I am sure if he came back to this House and asked to increase it if need be, he would have no problem with that. For example, it says in here right now that it is thirty days. A judge is going to have the option now in the future in the case of a second offence up to thirty days, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence he can go from thirty-one days up to six months.

Maybe that will not be sufficient. Maybe we will find, if we come across one of those repetitive offenders who have absolute disrespect and owe the tens of thousands of dollars - pop them away. There are two issues here. One issue is the money recovery but equally important, probably more important - it is more important - is the public safety issue. Because many times when you have these individuals who are repeat offenders of driving without licences and driving while their licence is suspended, they are usually people as well who have already been convicted of impaired driving. That makes them very dangerous individuals to be operating.

I say to the minister, this is a good start, but it may not be enough. You have to give the judiciary a greater option and greater leeway so that they can go beyond the thirty days. On the case of a second offence, I would certainly have no concern whatsoever about giving that to them. I know there are several judges in this Province who have no time - there is a broad range, of course, amongst judges in terms of sentencing patterns. Some are more lenient, shall we say, than others when it comes to looking at incarceration. I think society has reached the point, when it comes to this type of offence involving the misuse of motor vehicles, that society is ready for this incarceration piece.

Now, judges use their commonsense. If an individual who is eighteen or nineteen years old, who is not involved in an impaired driving situation, gets caught maybe for driving without a licence the second time around, those are all factors that go into the mix and a judge will use his or her discretion to decide if this is necessary. I have no concerns about that. These are wise persons we have on the bench and they are quite capable of making those decisions when it comes to the particular facts of a particular case, but it is certainly nice to see that they will have the leeway now and the latitude to, at least, put some teeth into these types of circumstances.

I say to the minister, we will be supportive of this piece of legislation. I do not anticipate there will be any conversation whatsoever or comments over on our side when it comes to Committee. We wholeheartedly support what you have here and we will be supporting and voting for it.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am happy to speak to Bill 67 and to say that we support the bill.

I cannot help but remember the first time as a driver that I was ever stuck - my car was struck by another car. The person driving the other car, who was responsible, did not have insurance. I remember having to pay for the damage to my car because of that.

I was glad to hear the minister speak to the issue of the incarceration in the way that he did. While I do agree with bringing the possibility of incarceration into the bill and to bring it in even for the second offence, I also think that we have, and we will, give judges not just a leeway but a sense of the context in which the person re-offended the second time. I was glad to hear the minister say that he did not want to see the bill being used in a way that just puts people in jail for the sake of putting them in jail. I think that incarceration should be taken seriously and just popping people in jail is not always a deterrent, unfortunately. We know that too much. It is not always a deterrent.

For me, one of the most important parts of the bill is the new section 32.1 and 32.2, because here if the bill is followed, and obviously the bill will be followed, we will see people pretty quickly being summoned with regard to the fact that they are not paying fines. The detail of that I think is really important.

I think part of the reason why so many of the fines have gone unpaid is because there has not been a real active going after people. I think this is what is needed. If people know that the system is serious about collecting money and that it is serious even if it is collecting money slowly with payments coming in, but that the system is really serious about it, they may respond more than serving a couple of weekends in jail, actually.

I cannot imagine saying it is okay to spend a weekend in jail, but I have actually heard people say that. They might react more if they have to come up with the money than spending a couple of weekends in jail. I have heard of people who, when it was their third offence, under the old law and did have their thirty days or fifteen days, or however many days were given by the judge to them, they just served them on weekends. They keep their jobs, they serve them on the weekends and they say: What the hell - excuse my language. I do not know if that is parliamentary language or not, I am sorry.

MR. R. COLLINS: Coming from an ex-nun that is permissible.

MS MICHAEL: Coming from an ex-nun, my colleague tells me it is permissible.

Just spending weekends in jail for some people -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to have to do penance now.

MS MICHAEL: Going to have to do penance, right.

Doing time in jail for a weekend, I have known people who have said that it is all right, I will do it. If you go after their money and go after it aggressively, I think it will mean more. That is why I think those sections are so important.

The options to the judges, yes, absolutely essential. Because judges do have leeway and some go in different directions than others, I think it is important to give ideas to them. I am not saying judges cannot make these decisions themselves, but obviously, if it is found out that the person has no insurance because at the same time the person had an accident, that increases the severity of the fact that the person was driving without insurance. If it turns out that the second offence of the person - it was just by pure accident that it comes to light that the person does not have insurance, then we may not want to throw that person in jail. It just so happened that for some unforseen reason it is found out the person does not have insurance. I am sure judges can make that decision, but also giving some context for it, I think, is important as well.

Something else that I think - I do not see it, it is not in the bill that we are discussing, in Bill 67, and I have been looking through the full act which, of course, is a major piece of paper - it would seem to me that if somebody insists on re-offending even after all of this, we cannot throw them in jail for their lifetime but we can take away their right to drive for a lifetime. I do not see that anywhere. Maybe it is there and the minister may want to speak to that. The loss of a licence for the rest of their life, not being allowed by society to drive for the rest of their life, if none of this works, would be something to consider. As I said, we are not going to throw them in jail for the rest of their lives because they are driving without a licence or without insurance but we can take away that right for them to drive.

I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to support this when we go into Committee.

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.

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

I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, for their comments. I think the people of the Province can take some solace that sometimes in this place all parties can come together and agree on a course of action. I must say, from my own point of view, I am delighted to see that.

I gave credit earlier to the Opposition House Leader for the actions they took to aggressively collect this money, and I can assure him that this will be monitored. I know the Auditor General will monitor it, if we do not, and I know that the media will continue to monitor it as well as the courts.

With respect to people who have left the Province, yes, there are people who have left the Province, but I just want to emphasize again that this interjurisdictional support order, or set-off program, I should say, I believe that will be successful in enabling us to collect money from people who have fines here but have moved away to other provinces, because they will file their income tax returns in other provinces and we will be able to intercept those refunds here in this Province. I think that will help a lot, and I certainly want to echo the comments made by both the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party about incarceration. It is something that we do not lightly do. We will not incarcerate anyone who does not have the ability to pay a fine, but we will incarcerate, now, people who do have the ability and just refuse, contemptuously refuse, to do so.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move passage of this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 67.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 67, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act." (Bill 67)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 8.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 67 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: 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 67 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 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, has been passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, with leave, third reading of Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 67 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 67)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to continue debate on a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No 2.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this evening to be able to say a few words in support of this bill.

A few moments ago we heard comments from the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans making reference to the number of ex-teachers who are on this side of the House. I am very proud to be one of them, among other things, Mr. Chairman, but we do, in fact, have a number of ex-teachers over here. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl, here in front of me, the hon. Minister of Tourism, the hon. Member for St. John's North, the hon. Member for Topsail, there is a whole pile of them over here, Mr. Chairman, barrels of them, and we are very proud to be on this side of the House. As a result of all the educators over here, we are very proud of the input that this government has made in its budget in education.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to relate that only two weeks ago I attended, out in my district, the great and historic District of Placentia & St. Mary's, along with the Minister of Education and the hon Minister of Natural Resources, the announcement of a new state-of-the-art high school for Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: At a cost of at least $8 million - and I say at least - state-of-the-art.

Mr. Chairman, being an ex-educator from that area, I was involved in a number of different school infrastructure changes in that area over the last twenty years or thirty years, where schools were closed in one area and students moved from one area to another and so on. It was not always done amicably, I might say. When parents wanted to move their kids from one community to another, they were sometimes met with some acrimony and some dissension because of the community rivalry that existed and so on.

I must say, this one, Mr. Chairman, I have to congratulate the three school councils of St. Anne's, Laval and St. Edwards who came together in a collective and collaborative effort and made a very professional presentation to the Eastern Regional School Board, which they accepted, and it resulted in the presentation that was made in Placentia two weeks ago for a brand new $8 million high school in Placentia, and I am very proud to be a part of that.

That is only a reflection, Mr. Chairman, of what is in this government's commitment on this side of the House to education in Newfoundland and Labrador. If I could just take a minute to reflect on some of them - because, being an ex-educator, you never get tired of saying these things. As far as good news stories, we have been accused sometimes, the people in the backbench over here, of coming up with our good news stories, by the other side. You know, we could keep this House open until March with good news stories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: We could keep it open until March with good news stories - all kinds - and we could keep it open for months on good news stories just in education alone, Mr. Chairman. It bears repeating, some of these commitments that we have made to education.

I hear so often from the other side: What are we doing for rural Newfoundland, or what are we doing for the ordinary person? I do not know who the ordinary person is. I assume they might be the people that the hon. Opposition House Leader on the other side refers to as the Joe's and Martha's of rural Newfoundland, but I have not been able to define them. I only can define who they might not be.

Certainly, they are not people who have anybody involved in education. They have no children in school, they have no children in university, or they have no family, or none of their family have children in school, because there are all kinds of things in this budget for education, so I would assume that the ordinary person in rural Newfoundland has nothing to do with education, because there is $6.3 million for the reduction of school fees. The ordinary person must have nobody in school if he does not get anything out of that.

The millions of dollars that are put in for the purchasing of physical education equipment, upgrading lab safety equipment and so on in our schools, and the $37.5 million in the budget for school construction. I just mentioned the $8 million in Placentia.

While I am on that, I have to say that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources was out with us the other day and announced the results of the agreements between Inco, the Town of Placentia and the Argentia Management Authority, a package of $5 million associated with it at present but will, in all likelihood, go much higher. Part of that package was $1.8 million that Inco has given to the Town of Placentia to assist and to enhance the development of the high school. That was great news for Placentia.

I know that is not government money, but it is the efforts of this side, the government, who, in discussions with Inco, brought them to the table to put this money on the table for Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I am very appreciative, and the people in the Placentia area are very appreciative, of what this government has done to support the people of Placentia who got short-changed, by the way, by an agreement that was signed between the other government and Inco that left us with no possibilities whatsoever in Argentia of getting the plant. When that plant moved to Long Harbour - it is still in our backyard, we have to say that, and we got our benefits out of it, but, as a result of losing the plant, Inco came to the table and realized its moral obligation and agreed to put some money on the table for Placentia. We congratulate Inco for that and we thank them for it. They exercised good corporate citizenship in doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: As educators, ex-educators and ex-teachers, you could go on for days talking about the benefits in education as a result of this government. I just want -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not in the original deal, was it?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it would have been a lot better deal if you had to put something in the agreement to tie them to their commitments.

In terms of education commitments, I just want to reference a couple of things. I want to reference a focus on skilled trades. My hon. colleague from St. John's North and his task force, that is one of the best announcements made in this Province for some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I mentioned in this House before, we have a tendency in this Province, a lot of us, to focus on our kids going to university after high school. Many of us were of the opinion that, especially young parents, if their students did not go to university then there was something wrong. Anything less than university was not a proper route. You had to be a professional of some kind. Well, as a result, we lost our focus on the trades and the skills of this Province. That is why we see today, not only because of out-migration, the lack of skilled trades people in Newfoundland and the lack of emphasis on skilled trades. I am looking forward to the results of what this task force is going to do and what it is going to mean for this Province.

I am not going to spend any time on infrastructure and roads, I have already talked about that in this House. There are people in my district who, as a result of some money we put into paving this year, are still getting down and feeling the pavement just to touch it again. It is so long since they have seen it. They did not know the colour - what is this black, shiny stuff on the road to make the road so smooth? It is so long since we have seen it. Enough said about that. We are going to get more of that this year.

I do want to mention again, with regard to rural Newfoundland and the ordinary citizen, the ordinary rural Newfoundlander, the Joes and Marthas, when there was nothing being done on this side - you can go on for hours on the anti-poverty program. That has been taken care of in the last few days. I just want to mention a few things from Health and Community Services and capital projects. You got $2.9 million to renovate the James Patton Memorial Hospital in Gander; opening a second MRI machine in Corner Brook; another MRI in the Janeway Hospital; $30 million to proceed with the new long-term care homes in Corner Book, Clarenville and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and on and on it goes; $2.4 million to improve cancer services in the Central region; $1.1 million for the new fifteen bed provincial treatment centre in Corner Brook. In terms of social responsibilities, $3.4 million to (inaudible) resources for persons struggling with mental illness and addictions.

Just a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend some time talking to health professionals and health care givers and civic leaders in the Placentia & St. Mary's area to get some input so I could make some presentation to the Minister of Health with regard to his budgetary preparations. One of the big things that they came up with was preventative medicine. Everywhere I went preventative medicine was a key issue with people in my district. They talked about wellness clinics and the importance of wellness clinics. Well, this government invested this year $695,000 in wellness grants to community organizations, and I am proud that in my district we have a couple of them. The importance of these is significant, and they are very well attended, wellness clinics in Diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, these sorts of things. Preventative medicine will save this Province millions of dollars in terms of budgetary expenses.

Again, for rural Newfoundland and the ordinary Joe, Mr. Chair, the commitments on this side of the House can go on forever. The person in outport Newfoundland or rural Newfoundland, or the Joes and Marthas of the world, must not drive. They must have no cars, because if they did - or they must be too consumed with justice - they would be happy with the commitments made by the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice this year expanded victim services. It includes those under the age of sixteen; $515,000 to create four new RMCP officer positions; $592,000 for the creation of five regular member positions, including three highway patrol; $900,000 to build nine vacant regular member positions regularly to the Province; $970,000 for the (inaudible) of eight new constables, and on and on it goes.

AN HON. MEMBER: It never ends.

MR. F. COLLINS: It never ends, you are right, absolutely right.

Six hundred-and-seventy-nine-thousand dollars to expand Unified Family Court services; eleven new positions to expand family law services across the Province; and Legal Aid, improve and increase the number of lawyers in Legal Aid.

Mr. Chair, I came into this House in February. I said then, and I say it again, the timing was impeccable. What a time to join a government with all these good news stories. They are going to go on. These good news stories are going to continue. They are going to continue this year and they are going to continue for the next two or three years, and it is going to be a tremendous feeling to be part of it all.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are laughing on the other side but I don't (inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: They are laughing on the other side. Of course, they are laughing on the other side. Great times over here. What a transformation in this Province in the last two years. What a transformation!

Mr. Chair, the commitment that this government has made to rural Newfoundland is immeasurable and I am proud to be part of it and I look forward to many more commitments from this government, many more good news stories, and the good news stories will continue to flow.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to stand and respond to Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

Of course, income tax affects every working person in this Province. It was interesting when I heard the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, he was talking about the good news of this government. It was interesting when he was making the announcement of how Inco had gone to his district and made an announcement of $5 million. Well, I would like to say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, did you see a Mack truck parked outside the school when you made the announcement? Because that is what your Premier said, that he could drive a Mack truck through the Voisey's Bay deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: You are glad enough today, aren't you, to have the revenue from that, because if you never, you would not have a thing; not a thing. If it wasn't for the oil business and Inco, Aur Resources and the mining, there was nothing started by your government, not a thing started by your government. You only drove people away. Anyone who has been out on Topsail Road and saw this: If you are not going to Alberta apply within. Then the crowd in Alberta are publishing a book. It says: Work Out West.

Nine thousand people saw that in their mailboxes and they decided to go up to the Capital hotel and see if they could get a job with one of those thirty companies, because do you know what? They are paying their income tax. That is the crowd who are paying their income tax to this Province and there is the invisible workforce that are out in Alberta working. You are taking credit for them as if they are working here in this Province and they are not working here.

The topic that has dominated the media, the airwaves in this Province, is the fibre optic deal. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the questions that have not been answered on the fibre optic deal. I have watched this debate unroll day after day and I have watched the Minister Innovation, Trade and Rural Development get up and make a mess of something he said today. He contradicted it the next day. What we are looking at, we have three partners. As far as we know, we have three partners in this deal. There are two anonymous partners, you can call them, because we have not heard a sound from Rogers and we have not heard a sound from MTS Allstream. I think they are still in the loop, are they? Are they still business partners for this deal? Does anybody know? We have not heard a word from these two partners. The only one that we heard from so far was Persona. The project is to build two fibre optic lines that will connect the Island with mainland Canada. They are going to connect the Island with mainland Canada, from the Gulf over to Nova Scotia, but they forgot all about Labrador. Labrador is not on this plan whatsoever.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, said there were four meetings with proponents one day and then the next day he said there were eight meetings. So, I do not know if he had any meetings in his office or outside. He said there was no need for that group, Persona, to be registered as lobbyists because they only had a few meetings and they would not have to be registered as lobbyists.

What do we know about that deal? What do we know about the fibre optic deal? Not very much. Even as late as this afternoon during Question Period, when the Premier was asked in this House of Assembly if he would postpone the deal until he heard from the Auditor General who is going to scrutinize the whole proposal and we asked the Premier if he would hold off -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear myself think. Listen to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What a crowd of buffoons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is unparliamentary.

MS THISTLE: I do not care.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has been recognized by the Chair. She has fifteen minutes to speak. Anybody else who would like to speak after can stand and be recognized.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

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

I am trying to debate this bill here in the House of Assembly today and all I have heard was noise from the other side of the House. It is clear that they do not want me to speak, number one and number two, they certainly do not want to hear what I am saying because it is the truth.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to determine, as well as everybody that is in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether or not the taxpayers' money of this Province should go into the fibre optic deal. Now, I have not seen a business plan, I have not heard from the proponents, and I am unaware of the benefits that are going to be accrued to this Province by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which are the taxpayers, in putting $15 million into this deal. What are the benefits we are going to receive?

They talked about how rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be hooked up. Now there is no plan by this consortium, the nameless consortium, that they are ever going to link up Labrador. That is not in the plan. There is nothing in the plan for this nameless consortium to hook up rural Newfoundland, the Island portion. There is nothing in the plan that says how much it is going to cost to hook up rural Newfoundland and Labrador, nor does it say when it is going to be done, or who is going to do it. We have $15 million being asked for on good faith. Sign here on the bottom line. Believe me, trust me, sign on the bottom line and give me your $15 million. That is basically what you are asking the people of this Province for. Now, we heard it said there are going to be x-number of person years of work from this project. The only person years of work that can be defined from this project are during the actual construction of the project.

We saw the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development the other day stand in this House, and when asked if he would delay the final approval of this project until the Auditor General had his work done, he said - and it is interesting when people say what is on their minds and the tip of their tongues when they are on the spot. I recall distinctly what the minister said. He said: The infrastructure must be built. This is what he said. When asked the question, the minister said: The infrastructure must be built.

Now, I ask the minister: Why does the infrastructure need to be built? Are you telling the people of this Province that the infrastructure is already being constructed? Is that what you are telling people? The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is programed. In his mind, he knows he has to get this deal, he has to sell this deal to the people, and he does not care how he has to do it. Whatever the cause is, this project has to go ahead. He is under the gun. The minister is under the gun, he will say whatever needs to be said for this project to be done.

He says he has the support of the university and the College of the North Atlantic and Nati and whoever. Wouldn't it be natural for any of these institutions to say: Yes, we agree with that. He is leaving the Chamber now, he does not want to hear the truth. Wouldn't it be natural for any group in this Province who are using communications excessively to want an improvement? That would be natural. If you would ask any business or institution in this Province, they would say yes. The minister and this government have not demonstrated to the people of this Province if we are getting a good deal. Are the taxpayers getting a good deal for our money? Why are we not hearing from Rogers? We know Rogers has plenty of money. We do not know much about MTS Allstream. We do not know much about them. Those two partners have remained totally silent. Those two partners are silent. There is something suspicious about this whole venture, why the two proponents, they are saying now that this deal is going to cost $52 million. The amount that is being looked for from the taxpayers of this Province is one-third. One-third of the entire deal comes from Joe and Martha. You just talked about Joe and Martha in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, one-third of the money, which is $15 million, is going to come from Joe and Martha. Don't they have the right, as citizens of this Province, to ask how their money is being spent, and whether or not it is a good deal and what they can expect from it?

What will happen to the employees of Aliant? There are approximately 2,600 employees with Aliant in this Province. They are in every nook and cranny in every community in our Province. Aliant must provide a basic telephone service to every place in this Province. What will happen when the big chunk of business is taken away? Will Aliant then still have to maintain the basic domestic service into every community in our Province? These are the questions that have not been asked by this government.

Now, what would be wrong for the three partners to go and build their fibre optic project and then us, as a government, we would have the opportunity to go to tender and see which company can give the government of the day the best deal? Now, that is the way it should be done. There is no reason for us to put $15 million into a project on blind faith. There is no reason.

We have a Finance Minister here who scrutinizes every paper that goes before Cabinet that is a money issue, but still, for all of that, he had an opportunity - and he did, as part of his job - have his department analyze the business plan. Now, to the best of my knowledge, he then sent that to an expert, he says.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sorry to disrupt my colleague here, but I just want to be on the public record with this as a point of order.

Usually, there is a code of honour that exists between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. The Government House Leader has breached that code of trust this afternoon, absolutely.

I had the word of the Government House Leader that this House was open until Thursday, absolutely. Tomorrow was Private Members' Day, and we had an agreement that this House would be open until Thursday of this week. That was scheduled, that was discussed, that was planned, and that was agreed.

I have just been advised, after being tipped off by a media source, that the minister intends to call this bill out of Committee that we are currently on and close the House for the remainder of this session.

I spoke to the minister behind the Speaker's chair a few minutes ago, exactly at 4:46 p.m., and he advised me that we cannot come back on Thursday because he could not get a certain piece of legislation printed.

I asked the Government House Leader at that time: How come you have not, up to this point, 4:46 p.m., taken it upon yourself to advise me, as a courtesy, that there was going to be a change of this magnitude?

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that this Government House Leader has broken his word to me, as the Opposition House Leader. I want that to be recorded publicly. The government can do whatever they might to try to duck the scrutiny that we have placed them under, under this session, but it will not work.

You can run, but you cannot hide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has no way of knowing what agreements are made between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader.

There is certainly no point of order that the Chair can rule on.

I ask the Government House Leader if he is standing on a new point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Number one, I provided a list of bills that we would do each day, if we went to Thursday. I provided a list. I moved that the House not adjourn, and gave notice for Thursday. I never indicated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like for him to hear me. I heard them, and I would like for them to hear me.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I gave no one any indication that we would be here Thursday or Wednesday. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I spoke -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, I spoke with the Government House Leader. We are on this bill over a week. I asked him, were we sitting? Are we finishing this, this evening? He said, no, they are coming back tonight.

When he indicated that to me, I came back to our people and indicated we would be here tonight. I said we were not prepared to stay here tonight, so what we did, I immediately made a decision - it is the only bill that we can debate right now, this one, and they are planning on dragging it out for a day or two - I went back and informed the Speaker to call the Lieutenant-Governor, and came in the House. When he came in the House I did not have a chance to tell him after our conversation. That is exactly what happened.

Besides, Mr. Chair, it is the right of the Government House Leader to call for adjournment whenever he desires. There was no agreement to adjourn this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are getting into a debate on an agreement which was either made or not made between two hon. members.

I say again, there is no point of order. The Chair has no way of knowing what deals are made and what agreements are made.

I ask the hon. Opposition House Leader if he is standing on a new point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, it is a new point of order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I feel strongly enough about this, the point that the minister just raised about not telling me - the press were notified about this closure, the Lieutenant-Governor was summoned to this House, and I was not told about it as the Opposition House Leader.

I challenge the minister and the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I will challenge him to a polygraph as to what he did or did not tell me!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee Chair is not about to hear any more debate on a point of order about this House being recessed or about agreements being made by two hon. members.

I ask the hon. member if he is about to speak on the bill?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, your time has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are speaking here on a money bill.

I can tell you, I told nobody in the media or anybody other than the Speaker, to call him. I told my people here when I spoke to them that we were going to shut it down, and I went out and told the Speaker. I did not get a chance to speak to anyone else. That is the process that was followed. He did not get time to talk to him because he was not available here to talk. I was intending to tell him.

Now, on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, it is a bill on the Income Tax Act, 2000.

As much as he does not like to hear it, Mr. Chairman, as much as you do not like to hear it, that is the fact, and I will be subject to any polygraph test - it makes no difference - because I know I am telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

Are you rising on a point of order, I ask the member?

MS MICHAEL: A point of order with regard to process.

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

MS MICHAEL: I am not sure of the process. I can only put it out, Mr. Chair, and then you can rule, but I was in my office just five or seven minutes ago and my staff informed me that they had been told by people in the building that the LG was coming at 5:00 o'clock. So, I do not know who the House Leader told but obviously, whether he meant it to or not, it went further. I should not be finding that out from my staff.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled that he was not about to hear any more points of order on the adjournment of the House, and the member is raising a point of order on the same topic.

I call on the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is a motion on the floor that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. REID: A point or order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Are you rising on a point of order?

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are certain principles to which we hold ourselves in this House of Assembly. There is also an element of trust that we have to have in this House of Assembly between members on that side of the floor and this. In particular, the trust that has to exist and the principles that have to exist between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. Those are the principles on which this democracy that we call the House of Assembly has operated for many, many years.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I have never seen such a blatant disregard for principles and trust as what the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance exhibited here in this House of Assembly this afternoon, because we had an agreement with that individual but we know now -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is here. If not, we could recess until he arrives so he can give Royal Asset to these bills.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, at this time of year, when we close the session before Christmas -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, we have had enough of your shenanigans today. Can I speak or can't I?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Government House Leader to stand and to withdraw the comment he just made when he said that the Opposition House Leader was not telling the truth.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unparliamentary to say what I said, so I will withdraw the statement that he is not telling the truth. I withdraw that.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say for the record, normally we would bring best wishes at the conclusion of these services and session of the House. That would have normally happened if everybody had stood by their commitments here on Thursday. The Lieutenant-Governor is coming here and we in the Official Opposition do not wish and will never show any disrespect for the Chair, for yourself, for this House or for the Lieutenant-Governor, but, Mr. Speaker, given what has unfolded here today by the Government House Leader, we will not be present for the attendance of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now in recess until His Honour arrives and the Chair will cause the bells to be rung.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour bills for the appropriation of Supply and Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

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, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 45)

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, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2. (Bill 62)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Ed Roberts, ONL, QC): Mr. Speaker, in Her Majesty's name, I thank her loyal subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 33)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 34)

A bill, An Act to Amend The Environmental Protection Act No. 2. (Bill 36)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 37)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 35)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act. (Bill 43)

A bill, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province. (Bill 23)

A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act And The City Of Mount Pearl Act. (Bill 41)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act. (Bill 42)

A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 46)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 47)

A bill, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)

A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 49)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2. (Bill 51)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act No. 2. (Bill 39)

A bill, An Act To Implement The Convention On International Interests In Mobile Aircraft Equipment. (Bill 58)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. (Bill 54)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes. (Bill 52)

A bill, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's. (Bill 53)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 55)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 56)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of the House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 59)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And the Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

A bill, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care And Treatment. (Bill 61)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Mr. Speaker, in Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House, before I leave and allow you to get on with your business, whatever it may be, of the House, I should add, I did see the denouement of the proceedings shortly before you adjourned. I have no comment on that obviously, except to say, I was here once and I understand, I think on both sides, what has been going on.

Let me wish every member of the House of Assembly, the men and women who support the members of the House by working in the various support positions, let me wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year. It is a pleasure to be here. It is a pleasure to wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas. Enjoy the holiday, whenever it begins.

Thank you.

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, leaves the Chamber. Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have just come to the conclusion of a successful fall session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we passed thirty-five bills in this House. That is the most that our government has ever passed in the fall session. This is indicative that we have done a considerable amount of business there. In addition, we passed two resolutions here on the judges tribunal on salaries and benefits, and also a resolution on the appointment of a Citizens' Representative.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, we have conducted all of the government business on the agenda, with the exception of three bills that have not been printed. One was not possible to do with the minister being away. That left one bill on the Order Paper really, that we were prepared to do. With that bill, we have been two weeks on that bill and we have been making no progress on the bill.

With that, I would like to take this opportunity while I am on my feet to wish a very Merry Christmas to all Members of the House of Assembly, you, Mr. Speaker, to Table Officers, the Commissionaires, the Sergeant-at-Arms, everybody, the Pages, and all the people here. Hopefully, you will have a very enjoyable Christmas and I hope Santa will be good to you. After all, I did not want to be the scrooge I was portrayed to be. We are out of the House now and people can enjoy it and get ready for Christmas.

With that I conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to be able to speak for a moment to say that this has been, obviously, an interesting session for me as my first session in the House. I want to thank my colleague, the MHA for Labrador West, for his tremendous support during the past three-and-a-half weeks, and for other colleagues, both on the government side and on the Opposition side for your support.

This has been an interesting afternoon, to put it mildly, but I would like to make the statement that I have been saying for the past three-and-a-half weeks, and I would like to repeat it again. I believe, as I am sure all of my colleagues believe, that my responsibility is to the people of the Province. Having sat here for three-and-a-half weeks, worked on bills and debated, I felt it was important for me this afternoon to be here for the people of the Province, and especially for the people of my district who elected me.

I would also like to say I really do wish everybody in the House, all MHAs, those present and not present, and your families, all the support in the House, all the different individuals, all who play the roles that they play. I particularly would like to remember Percy Barrett and wish him and his family well and hope all will go well for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Speaker adjourns the House, the Speaker would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by the entire staff, the people who serve the House, who are not seen here on the floor of the House, the people in the library, the Hansard staff, our Broadcast Centre and all of the people who work in the Speaker's office.

I particularly would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by the new Clerk of the House. It has been his first session and he had not had any -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: He had not had any direct parliamentary experience before. It is an entirely new role for him and I would like to compliment him on the tremendous job he has done as Clerk of the Assembly.

I would like to acknowledge, as well, the people who watch this House by way of television. We want to acknowledge them for their loyalty, for their support, for the comments they give us. We want to wish them, and all of the people who watch by way of television, a very, very, Merry Christmas and we wish them and all of you that the songs of Christmas, the laughter of children, the joy that comes with this season be yours and with your family throughout this entire season. We look forward to the new year with hope and with happiness and with a great deal of pride in the fact that we, in this Province, are proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we are proud of the role we play here in making laws and making sure that the people of this Province, that their voices are heard. With that, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

I do understand that the Government House Leader will now move the mandatory motion for adjournment.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House do now adjourn to the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House now adjourn to the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.