May 20, 2008              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVI   No. 29


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, I took part in the Annual Sea Cadet inspection for RCSCC 71 Atlantic in Grand Bank, as well as RCSCC 289 Corvette, Lamaline.

Mr. Speaker, the annual inspection is an opportunity for the cadets to demonstrate what they have been learning for the past year to invited guests and to members of the general public and their families.

I want to congratulate all cadets, and their leaders, Mr. Speaker, for the wonderful display of skill and ability. Things went extremely well with both inspections, and the cadets did a tremendous job in demonstrating their skills and talents. I also want to congratulate those who were named recipient of awards at the banquets.

Mr. Speaker, it was also the twenty-fifth anniversary of 289 Corvette Corp in Lamaline, and I want to congratulate all who have been a part of this group over the last twenty-five years. More than 500 cadets have gone through this corp during that time, and certainly this is a tremendous measure of success for a sea cadet corp from a small community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the cadets worked hard to prepare for this event and I would ask all members in the House to join me in offering congratulations and to both the corps in Grand Bank and Lamaline.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize an outstanding individual in my district. Michael Austin, son of Norman and Evelyn Austin of Lewisporte, was born twenty-nine years ago with a chromosomal abnormality which adversely affects his speech and his fine motor skills.

Michael has lived with many physical challenges. As a matter of fact, Michael has been in the operating room over fifty times in his life for both major and minor surgeries. He has had major stomach surgery twice, open-heart surgery which had to be performed at a hospital in Ottawa, and possibly facing more open-heart surgery in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as we whine about our sniffles, our aches and our pains, or about the weather, it would be good for us, I think, to take some perspective from Mike's experience.

You see, Mr. Speaker, despite his challenges, Mike has been a Special Olympian for many years now. In 2003 he won three gold medals in snow-shoeing at the Happy Valley Special Olympics. As a matter of fact, from 2003-2008, Mike has won one bronze medal, six silver, and twelve gold medals.

He always smiles. He is always excited to see you coming, and he has a spirit that I would say is gentle like the lamb but, at the same time, strong like the ox.

Michael is an inspiration to me personally, he is an inspiration to his family, and his determined character is an example to everybody.

I am sure he is watching today, and I want to say: Thank you, Mike, for setting a standard that the world should strive to meet. You are indeed a remarkable person.

Members of this House, please join with me in recognizing a great person, Michael Austin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate the nominees and the winner of the 2007 Citizen of the Year Award for the City of Mount Pearl.

Volunteers give so much of their time, without need or want for compensation of any kind. The selfless acts of these individuals were especially evident at the 2007 Citizen of the Year Ceremony which was recently held in the City of Mount Pearl. The work of volunteers is oftentimes not recognized and it is vital that ceremonies such as this continue, to bring the efforts of these individuals to the forefront, highlighting the great work that they do.

I would like to recognize in particular Paul Boland, nominated by the Mount Pearl Men's Slo-Pitch Softball League; Shirley Boone, nominated by the Children's Wish Foundation; Michelle Case, nominated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Kidney Foundation; George O'Brien, nominated by the Mount Pearl Seniors' Independence Group; Ros Pratt, nominated by the Mount Pearl Citizens' Crime Prevention Committee; and the winner of the 2007 Citizen of the Year Award, Agnes Murphy, nominated by the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival Board of Management.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all nominees as well as the winner, Agnes Murphy, of the 2007 Citizen of the Year Award for Mount Pearl. Volunteers are truly the heart of our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the late Judge Michael J. Monaghan, who passed away on April 27 following a valiant battle with cancer.

For nearly two years since his appointment in June 2006, he served as the Provincial Court Judge in Stephenville, capping a wonderful career in law and community service in this Province reaching back four decades. He was a lawyer's lawyer and a judge's judge, in that he brought to his practice and the bench a human, practical, realistic, intelligent yet compassionate side that few are fortunate enough to possess.

Following his graduation from Dalhousie Law School, he spent most of his career practising criminal law, family law and civil litigation in Corner Brook where he partnered with both our current Minister of Finance and the current Chief Justice of the Province's Supreme Court of Appeal, former Premier Clyde Wells. Named Queen's Counsel in 1983, he also was a Member of the Law Society of Newfoundland, the Canadian Bar Association, the Rotary Club of Corner Brook and the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade. He held directorships at Air Canada, the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, Gateway Cable Limited and the Nursing Advisory Board of the Western Memorial Hospital Corporation. He was a former president of the Victorian Order of Nurses and, more recently, he served our Province on the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation Board of Directors and the Ireland Business Partnerships Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Monaghan demonstrated a strong commitment to his region and his Province by standing as a candidate in both federal and provincial elections, and all of us in this House recognize the commitment and sacrifices required to stand as a candidate.

He was a truly exceptional family man, lawyer and a judge, a dedicated business leader, a tireless volunteer and, to me personally, a valued friend. Mike and his treasured wife of thirty-eight years, Uschi, raised a wonderful family and brought their intense passion for this Province to friends all over the world. Both professionally and personally, Mike made a profoundly positive difference in the lives of innumerable people and served our Province with pride and distinction.

Mr. Speaker, his unique laugh and his back slapping humour lit up every room that he entered. It was always a pleasure to be in Mike's presence. I personally will miss him, as will countless others in Corner Brook, Stephenville, throughout the west coast, across our Province and indeed around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to the Monaghan family and our sincere appreciation for all they have contributed for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for an advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am pleased to join with the Premier in paying tribute to Michael Monaghan. I never had the pleasure of appearing before him in court as a judge but my two sons who have, certainly said he was a super judge.

I had the benefit of working with Mike Monaghan. In fact, although I was articled to Clyde Wells, I spent most of my time with Mike Monaghan back in the 1979,1980,1981 era, and he was, to put it quite simply, great in a courtroom, handling witnesses and defending his clients. He was fantastic to appear with and to many, although Mike Monaghan might have appeared gruff on occasion, he had a huge heart and a huge capacity for fun. He was competitive but he was very compassionate. He was outspoken but he was extremely bright. He had a great sense of humour himself and he loved a good story and a good joke. He will be sadly missed. Again, I pay tribute with the Premier, all the best to him and to his family. He will be sadly missed by everybody in the legal fraternity and on the West Coast of Newfoundland.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the Premier for the advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am pleased to stand with you and to send condolences to Judge Monaghan's family. I did not know him and I do not have a background in law, so I do not have a lot of knowledge personally but I do know that as a man and as a person involved in law, he had a stellar reputation. So, I am very pleased to be able to offer my condolences to his family and his friends and to the Premier as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge the great work being done by the Water Resources Management Division in my department, in terms of flood forecasting for Badger. The "Ice Progression Model" is a unique computer model, developed by the division, to simulate ice conditions on the Exploits River. It is crucial for providing advance flood warning to the residents of Badger and to our Fire and Emergency Services – Newfoundland and Labrador agency.

Since February 2006, this simulation model has been used, along with satellite RADAR imagery, for flood forecasting. Unlike visual images, RADAR images can penetrate cloud cover and do not require daylight. The technology can differentiate between various ice surfaces and open water. This allows for accurate location on the ice front and represents a major improvement in the flood forecasting capability as the satellite imagery improves prediction of the timing of any impending floods. The initiative combines ground-and-space-based observations to develop an integrated environmental monitoring capability.

Mr. Speaker, we are working cooperatively with other organizations on this important monitoring service. The RADAR imagery service is provided by C-CORE and funded through the European Space Agency's Global Monitoring for Environment and Security program. The satellite images are provided by the Canadian Space Agency, and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Budget 2008 has allocated funding to assist with the continuation of this service. The data which we will acquire through this flood monitoring model adds valuable information to our existing environmental disaster prevention services.

Mr. Speaker, this model demonstrates our government's commitment to use the best available technology to adequately monitor and alert, if necessary, the people of Badger of any potential flooding situations. It combines satellite radar images, weather forecasts and field observations, along with the expertise of staff in my department.


I commend the employees of the Water Resources Division for their significant work in the development of this model. Their expertise is grabbing the attention of nations throughout the world, and they are consistently asked to share their work with the international scientific community. They have presented papers in Frascati, Italy; Cambridge, England; and Yellowknife.

This is a wonderful example, Mr. Speaker, of the great work that is being done right here in Newfoundland and Labrador by our government in terms of service delivery to the people of the Province and the global community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say that we are very pleased to see something like this take place. Each and every one of us in the Province saw what happened in Badger and on the Exploits River through the various medias. None of us ever want to live through that experience. I have to say that it is wonderful to know that there is technology coming in place. When people work together, hopefully, this will never happen again, and that people will be warned.

I am sure the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, as well as myself, we know what we went through last year, and that was very little as compared to what those people went through in Badger back a few years ago.

We want to commend all those involved, especially C-CORE. I know they worked jointly with Memorial University here in St. John's for years - and to the Canadian Space Agency. Hopefully, with the climate change and various things happening in our Province that we have not seen before, it is through technology like this that people will be better prepared.

Mr. Speaker, we just want to say that it is understandable why nations around the world are looking for this technology in what we are doing here and we want to congratulate all those involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and offer congratulations to her and to the staff at the Water Resources Division for this work.

In this day and age, with the technology that we have, this is a clear example of how we can become a leader in the world in so many different ways.

The Badger flood, as my colleague has said, was very devastating to families in the community, and we know from Hurricane Gabrielle that adverse weather events are becoming more common, and we understand that some of these have to do with climate change, so I really encourage the minister and her ministry to continue working in innovative ways to see how we can prepare ourselves for adverse events even before they happen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Premier and the Minister of Health were both carried live on television stations in the Province, saying that government was going to put in place a plan to solve the Province's critical shortage of pathologists, and that it would be done in the next seven to ten days.

I would like to ask today: What plans have been put in place, and have those remedies now been presented to the pathologists in the Province for consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we can advise that the initial meeting took place a week ago Thursday. Since then, there have been meetings between the Department of Health officials and medical officials.

In fact, there was an unfortunate accident over the weekend, of which hon. members may not be aware, where the Deputy Minister of Health was in a serious car accident, so that has kind of put us back for a day or so, but hopefully by this week we will certainly have the matter resolved and have recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly will await an update on that.

Also, last Thursday we made the public aware in the House of Assembly that a leading physician in diabetes care for the Province was actually leaving and had tabled her resignation. A number of patients have contacted us over the weekend, who are very concerned about this. I understand, Minister, her resignation has nothing to do with pay or benefits, but rather the working environment within Eastern Health.

I ask today if you, as the minister, will intervene and see if there is a way that we can retain this leading expert in diabetes in the Province before she decides to make her resignation effective the middle of June.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite indicated she made us aware last week, but we were fully aware of the resignation of Dr. Colbourne. As to the reason for her resignation, I cannot comment on that because I really do not know.

I can tell you, though, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is this Wednesday or Thursday - I am not sure which day it is, but one afternoon this week - she has an appointment with me, and she and I will have a chat. At that time, no doubt, we will talk about a range of issues including her experience with our health system in the Province, her plans for the future, and any suggestions or recommendations that she may want to make to help us improve our health system, and I am looking forward to that discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any efforts to retain this physician in the Province will certainly be to the benefit of those patients she serves.

It is our understanding that there has been no replacement found for her, upon her vacancy, and that her patients will be fielded out to other doctors in the Province who do not necessarily specialize in this disease or treatment.


I ask the minister: Do you know if any plans have been made to take up the caseload that will be left behind if she is to make her resignation effective?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is the normal practice, any time a physician leaves their practice, whether it is in St. John's or anywhere else in the Province, the normal procedure is that, that physician has a responsibility to ensure that someone else is responsible for the care of their patients.

As I understand, in this particular case here, arrangements have been made for the patients of this individual who is leaving to be followed up by other physicians throughout the Province. Because, as I understand, this physician had patients from around Newfoundland and Labrador, so many of those now will be followed by physicians potentially back in the area in which they live, but in some way or other there have been arrangements made, as I understand it, for another physician to be following the patients seen by this particular doctor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, during the Budget consultations, government, through the Minister of Finance, decided to manage expectations around the Budget, especially as it relates to capital costs that are exploding, and basically saying, I think, in two of the consultation sessions that some projects may not get done. I think the biggest capital project that would be proposed by the government to date would be the Lower Churchill Project.

My question today is for the Premier. Premier, can you provide the House with the latest cost estimates for the different components of the Lower Churchill Project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have those estimates with me today, but I am certainly happy to produce them and table them in the House.

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

I would like to have that, Minister, in as short a time as possible as you can. We have been waiting for ten weeks, I think, now, for some information, so we would not want it to drag on that long.

Mr. Speaker, also, earlier on - in December, actually, 2002 - when the Premier was speaking during a rally on the Lower Churchill Project, he was quoted as saying that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there is some redress on the Upper Churchill.

I guess my question would be: Has any action been taken by government to condition that Upper Churchill agreement so that we can see approvals for development moving ahead on the Lower Churchill deal if the rest of the components fall in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to date, as the hon. member opposite is aware, there has not been any redress granted to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the Upper Churchill, and that is an ongoing problem. Of course, as you know, the renewal comes up in 2016, and then there is an automatic renewal out to 2041; and, of course, our Energy Plan speaks from that date.

I have also indicated, too, that if the Lower Churchill is not going - if the power is not going to go through Quebec, then there will not really be an opportunity in that particular project to interface with Quebec. If we happen to go east and we go south then we will not be dealing with the Province of Quebec or Hydro-Quebec at all.

The only opportunity where there would be an opportunity to discuss redress in that package is if we go into Quebec and then on out through to Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I know that in the past the Premier was quoted as saying that the Province of Quebec and its agencies have been doing what they can to try and block development as it relates to the Lower Churchill facility.

I guess my question would be, then: Is there any future consideration being given, or at this time is there still consideration being given, to a possible deal with Quebec for the transport of power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have said from time to time we are keeping all of our options open; and, of course, that is the wise thing to do because it enables us then to leverage the best possible deal, whether it is east and south or whether it is west and south. So, from that perspective, there is always a possibility that a deal could be done with Quebec; but, of course, they would obviously have to pay fair market value.

The problem with Quebec is they have always tried to basically cut us off at the border. So, once we get to the border of Labrador and Quebec, they want us then basically to hand our power over to them.

In the last agreement which was being done with the Grimes government, they were going to build it, they going to contract it, they were going to own it, they were going to manage it, they were going to market it, they were going to finance it, and they were basically going to take control of the whole project.

We have reversed that; we have said Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with the Innu, should do this project, and that is really where we still stand on that, but, by the same token, when we have made applications - and we have a very sophisticated team looking at this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

– which we can be very confident in, and very proud of. Basically, what we have said to them is make the necessary applications to go south and make the necessary applications to go west and south, and that is exactly what we are doing, and we are keeping all options open at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few years ago, there was a study paid for by the Province to look at the wielding rights of power in Quebec. I am just wondering if that study has been completed, and if it will be released to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have not seen that study, Mr. Speaker, but what we have done is – I mean, as far as we are concerned, we do have wielding rights through Quebec. The issue is capacity to transport the power, transmission availability. So what we have done is we have filed an application through the OATT process, which is – I think this is right – the open access process. Is that the proper terminology, Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Open Access and Transmission - which is the first time the Province has ever done it, so we have actually positioned ourselves and got ourselves in the queue, in position to get access to power. This has kind of thrown Quebec for a loop, because it has never happened before, and now they are finding that for a certain segment of power we are ahead of them.

We are now going through the regulatory process, which - I cannot go into all the detail on it, but there are appeals being done through that regulatory process to make sure that any roadblocks that are being put up by Quebec can be opened.

Now, whether we can get through those or not I do not know, but it is unfortunate that Quebec and Hydro-Quebec are really trying to do this to us on the Lower Churchill when, in fact, they basically stole the Upper Churchill on us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier spoke of a partnership with the Innu. We know that over the last two years the provincial government and the Innu Nation have been trying to work out a deal on the Lower Churchill Project itself, but they are also seeking reparations on the Upper Churchill portion, as I understand from the Innu right now.

I guess my question to the Premier is: Have there been any negotiations around that, and will there be some redress for the Innu on the Upper Churchill, if the Lower Churchill Project is moved forward?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations and, as I understand it, detailed negotiations, with respect to the claims agreement, of course, and the land claims agreement is the one that we are trying to basically get resolved first. Now there is a situation where it might have been possible, actually, to discuss all of the issues together and see if we can reach a final agreement with the Innu.

On the public airwaves last week, Peter Penashue indicated that there would be no deal without redress; and, of course, this government does not take ultimatums very lightly. Redress is something we would certainly look at, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not obtained redress on the Upper Churchill yet so we would be hard pressed to be able to provide generous redress to the Innu on the Upper Churchill under those circumstances, but we do not want to negotiate that aspect of it in public. Nor do I really want to negotiate it here in public, either, but your questions are fair and, if you have any more, we will try and answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I guess, Mr. Speaker, a lot of that is coming from the fact that there has been compensation for the Innu in Manitoba on the Grand Rapids Generating Station, which is a project as well going back forty years. I guess the negotiations that you currently have ongoing with the Innu today are based directly around the Lower Churchill project.

Do I understand that there has been no discussion yet on any redress to do with the Upper Churchill as it relates to the Innu?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can probably say with 99 per cent certainty that the question of Upper Churchill redress has been raised at the table. Either myself or the ministers have not been at that particular table because the negotiation has not got to that stage yet, but I do understand that it has been raised and it is part of a shopping list of matters that will have to be dealt with in settlement of the full claim. I can tell you, though, that I think the major priority right now would be the quantum and location of land in the land claims.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have also heard media reports of MOUs signed with the State of Rhode Island and the regional power companies of Nova Scotia on issues such as the Lower Churchill power consumption and the distribution.

I guess my question would be: What agreements have been made for customers of Lower Churchill power? Can you table in the House any market analysis associated with economic plans, such as what you are forecasting to be major customers over the next twenty-five to thirty years, and if you have actually targeted these markets to date?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question relates to an earlier question asked, and the response given to the Premier. We are keeping all of our options open. Yes, we do have an MOU with Rhode Island. We have an MOU with Emera in Nova Scotia. People all over North America are interested in our power. We made four different applications under oath, which we were able to do because of Quebec's commercial arrangements in the U.S. We can now apply for transmission through the Province of Quebec because of those arrangements. This project will cost anywhere from $6 billion to $9 billion. Power purchase agreements are going to be required to help finance this project, and yes, when Newfoundland and Labrador goes out of this Province, we are courted by people who are interested in energy and purchasing energy, green energy from us, from all over North America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just ask the minister for a simple answer. Would you be prepared to table the market analysis and the associated economic plans with regard to the market studies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. These are commercially sensitive negotiations that we are in. We are about trying to get the very best price that we can for our resource, which is green energy that we have in abundance in this Province. Wherever we can get the best deal, Mr. Speaker, is the market that we are going to go to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe then I can ask the minister if she would be prepared to table the MOUs that you have with Enron and also with Rhode Island state?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will table any information in this House that does not compromise our position in what it is that we are trying to achieve in getting maximum benefit from our resource. We are open and accountable and transparent. We make as much information available as we possible can in every circumstance, and we will not deviate from that in this one either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the Estimate Committee on Natural Resources the minister did indicate to me that there was reports or information which concluded that the Maritime route is both technically and economically feasible as an option for the Lower Churchill power developments.

I ask the minister, if she would be prepared to table those reports in the House of Assembly or at least make them available for the public to review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as the last answer I gave. Where I can provide information that does not, in any way, compromise what we are trying to achieve in the development of the Lower Churchill, I am more than happy to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier mentioned on several occasions that the federal government is ready to assist this project through the supply of a loan guarantee. Going back a couple of years, there was some tremendous debate over whether that commitment was actually made by the Prime Minister or if it was not.

I guess my question today would be: Is there any further evidence that indicates that the federal government is prepared to invest or at least provide the loan guarantees that may be required if this project was to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Are you kidding?

The federal government has not fulfilled the promise for the $10 billion that they promised us, in writing. They have not fulfilled their promise on custodial management. This would be of particular interest to you, in Labrador they have not fulfilled their promise in 5 Wing Goose Bay which they promised very clearly, and they have made us a promise on the guarantee. So you be the judge of that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find a lot of governments short on promises these days, I say to the Premier. I guess my next question and my final question on this is: Is a loan guarantee from this federal government still a vital part of this project? I guess if it is, I have to ask: Why is there not any discussions ongoing around it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I did not say there have not been any discussions. There have been discussions. There have been representations by the department. There have been representations by Hydro. There have been discussions with Minister Lunn, Minister Baird, if I remember correctly. Certainly, the matter had been raised on previous occasions with the Prime Minister. So everything that can be done is actually being done, but I can tell you categorically, and I have stated it here time and time again, that this Province is going to move forward with or without the federal government. The guarantee would certainly help. It would be a wonderful help. It would make our cost of money easier but this government, this time, like they did to us the last time, they shafted us on the Upper Churchill but they are not going to shaft us on the Lower Churchill, I can guarantee you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, students from this Province who are continuing their education in the United States have found themselves in a difficult situation after they were informed in mid April that their U.S. student loans were being cancelled. I am of the impression that I think they wrote the Premier and other ministers in government, and to date I have been told that they have not received any response from the Province.

I ask the Minister of Education: Is she aware of this crisis being faced by those students from this Province and, if so, has anything been done to help to address their situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly if there is issues with the student loan program brought to this government's attention it will be dealt with by the Department of Education. I do not have that information on me today but I will certainly take it under advisement and look into that matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is. The situation those students find themselves in from this Province is that they are studying programs that cannot be obtained here in this Province and on a very short notice they were advised that their student loans that they receive down there had been discontinued. Many of them find themselves in a very difficult position now financially, some of them owing as much as $30,000 to $90,000 and still have so many semesters left. With this funding discontinued from the American side of it, they find themselves in a difficult situation. I know they have been in touch with their federal representative, Mr. Manning, and they are looking at the federal side of it. I will just ask the minister now - I know she is going to check this out - once she gets the information, I am wondering if she will work in conjunction with the federal government and hopefully something can be done to alleviate their situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I look into this matter - certainly a portion of the Canada Student Loan comes from the federal government, another portion comes from the provincial government - so many times the policies and the rules or the guidelines around student loans are certainly something we share with the federal government. So as we work through this issue, we will certainly keep that in mind and work with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of an access to information request concerning Mr. John Fitzgerald, our man in Ottawa, I had some questions for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It might be one, depending on what his answer is.

Minister, I am wondering if you would be prepared - I understand there is an employment contract between Mr. Fitzgerald and the Province. I wonder if you would be prepared to table his contract of employment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I guess any contract that is under the Public Service Commission is available, so I will check and certainly get back to you on that.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the election campaign the Premier committed to bringing forth whistleblower legislation to protect public servants who might want to bring information forward in the best interest of the general public. In fact, there was a story carried in The Telegram, I believe it was October 7 in that regard, and the Premier undertook at that time to have it introduced in the first sitting of the Legislature.

Given that we will probably be winding down the House here soon, I am just wondering if we can look forward to seeing that legislation, the whistleblower legislation during this first sitting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member opposite that we are, and have been working on the whistleblower legislation. We have looked at the legislation that is in place across this country, and we have had extensive discussions as to the nature and content of this legislation. However, what we are looking at now, there does need to be some consultation with certain groups to determine the matters of significance that would come under the whistleblower legislation.

My understanding, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, but my understand was that we would bring in the whistleblower legislation during this session of the House, and I think that also includes the fall session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week I asked the Premier about the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee and asked if he could confirm that such a committee existed and who the members of that committee might be. I am wondering if the Premier has had an opportunity to gather that information to date.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee does, in fact, exist under the Conflict of Interest Act. I do not have the names of the members with me, but I will certainly provide same in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my questioning last week, I asked the Premier if he would refer the Andy Wells fundraising dinner situation to that advisory committee for a decision. Albeit, the dinner may have been cancelled, the potential conflict has not.

I ask the Premier: Are you still prepared, or have you committed and referred that matter to the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee to ensure that all of the rules and regulations outlined in that piece of legislation were, in fact, followed by Mr. Wells?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no dinner, therefore there is no list. Given that there isn't a list, there is nothing for the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee to consider, to determine whether or not there was a conflict of interest.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is ensure that we will notify all non-elected officials of their responsibilities and obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act. They are required by this act to self report. We will ensure that they know all the conditions under which they ought to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to ask the minister, regardless of the existence of a list or who was on the list, we had an issue here where the head of the Public Utilities Board, or someone else on his behalf, was going to engage in an activity that potentially could be a conflict of interest under the legislation. Again, for someone to come back after the fact and say: Well, I am not going to do that now. That does not clear or get rid of the potential conflict of interest.

I ask the minister: Are you saying now that you will not be referring the Andy Wells situation to the conflict committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If any conflict of interest existed, it could only be determined by the list of people who would attend the dinner and contribute to the dinner, because if those people had anything to do with him in his role as the PUB, seeing who they are and what they did is the only way that that could be determined. There is no list, Mr. Speaker, so there is nothing to refer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2008 did not provide new funding for emergency medical services in the Province; nor did the government announce incentives for the retention of rural paramedics. We are training and then losing rural paramedics to Alberta and other provinces because they are not being paid a salary and do not have working conditions commensurate with others in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services why this government is not providing incentives to encourage rural paramedics to remain in the Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, paramedics in Newfoundland and Labrador are employed one of two ways. They are employed by some of the health corporations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; there are many institutional or hospital-based services. In addition to that, there are many community volunteer organizations which provide ambulance service in respect to regions, and there is another group of private operators out there, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the issues around compensation for those who are employed with one of our regional health authorities, they would be a part of one of the unions, either NAPE or CUPE, and the President of Treasury Board is in the process of negotiating collective agreements with those groups as we speak.

The other bodies enter into a contractual arrangement with government, and that contract just recently expired. In a very short period of time government will be negotiating with both the community operators and the private operators for a new contractual arrangement to take us into the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Within that contractual arrangement we will lay out the kind of financial reimbursement we will provide to those operators, and those operators will, in turn, use that money - and some others, possibly - to hire paramedics for their services, and the compensation that they provide them will be (inaudible).

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

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

I ask the minister: Does the minister recognize government's responsibility with regard to the retention, and is government really committed to making sure that it is putting things on the table to deal with the retention issues, not just sitting back passively but putting concrete things on the table in the negotiations that he is talking about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite does not need to stand in this House and ask a question about whether or not this government is serious. You just look at the track record of this government since 2003, since we formed government. Every single thing that we have done since 2003 as a government reflects our government's commitment to improving the quality of life for the people who live in this Province; it reflects our commitment to improving services, enhancing services.

I stood in this House last week and commented about the significant financial investment that our government has made. Since we formed government, it is over $500 million - over half a billion dollars - of new investment in Health and Community Services in this Province. So anyone who stands in this House and asks the question about whether or not we are serious about improving the lives of people in this Province, serious about investing in health care, need not go any further than that very significant point: half a billion dollars of new money gone into health since 2003, since we formed government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

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

Obviously, the minister does not have anything specific to put on the table with regard to emergency medical services, because that was my question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 2008, the Minister of Education announced $584,000 for a human simulator for training emergency response teams at the Bay St. George campus of the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Was her statement a re-announcement of money that was originally made on August 18, 2006, by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development?

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, when the paper mill closed down in Stephenville we made a commitment to the people of Stephenville and surrounding areas that we were going to do what we could, as a government, to help diversify the economy. One of the integral parts to that was working with the College of the North Atlantic to expand services, to offer more programs, so they could bring in people, paramedics, the Canadian military, people from across Newfoundland and Labrador, people from across Canada, to participate in training to help diversify the economy, to mitigate the impact of 300 people losing their jobs in Stephenville, and that is exactly what we have done over the course of the past three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 35)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn on Thursday, May 22, at 5:30; and I give notice further to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn on the same date at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present another petition with respect to the access to high speed internet services in St. Mary's Bay.

This petition today, Mr. Speaker, is on behalf of the towns of Branch and Point Lance. My comments at the last sitting with respect to the situation involving the communities of St. Joseph's, O'Donnells and Admiral's Beach apply to today's petition.

Mr. Speaker, we have evidence in that area that internet services are approaching with the emergence of cables and so on. This raises the hope and interest and expectation in all these communities that they want access to high speech internet services.

Mr. Speaker, in government's evaluation over the next couple of months of the Request for Proposals to look at extending these services to government service agencies, I would just encourage the government and the people evaluating these proposals, that in doing so to keep under consideration the requests of these people who do not have government service agencies in their communities.

I present the petition on behalf of these communities, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader should have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, Bill 33, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader should have leave to introduce Bill 33 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act," carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): A bill, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, Bill 33.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General should have leave to introduce a bill, entitled An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 34)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means to consider certain Estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means 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.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

We were debating the Estimates of the Office of the Executive Council on the last day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I will just take a few seconds to set the stage, I guess, of where we are. We started debating the Estimates for Executive Council on Thursday, at which time I believe we had two hours and thirty-seven minutes available to us. My understanding is that there is about an hour-and-four minutes or so left on the clock to debate and ask questions and debate the estimates under the head Executive Council.

Now when I introduced those estimates for consideration on Thursday, I made a few opening remarks, as did the official critic for the Official Opposition and the leader of the third party. Then we got into a situation where we were by and large - I was taking questions and we would answer the questions as best we could and go back and forth across the House that way. I am certainly quite prepared to carry on and do that today but just for the purposes of recapitulation, the estimates that we are dealing with under the title of Executive Council has to do, of course - as I indicated on Thursday - with the expenditures of the Legislature itself, and that includes expenses to operate the House and to pay members and operate committees of the House and all of that kind of thing, and pay for the broadcasting of the House and committees of the House and whatever the House is involved in. In addition to that, of course, it includes Officers of the House, the expenses for operating the Auditor General, for example. The Auditor General operates his office as an independent officer of the House. His expenses and the expenses of his office are a vote that comes directly under the Legislature; as do the Child and Youth Advocate, as do the Citizens' Representative, commonly known as the Ombudsman. These are certain statutory offices that are independent offices of the House whose budgets appear collectively in the Legislature vote.

Also, of course, in Executive Council we deal with the operations of Government House, the residence of the Lieutenant Governor. We deal with the expenses associated with the Premier's office. We deal with expenses associated with the Cabinet Secretariat, with communications and consultation. We deal with financial administration human resources of Executive Council. We are dealing with a new head dedicated to Research and Development, on which I answered a number of questions the previous day. Also, one of the larger offices those days under the head of Executive Council, of course, is the Office of the Chief Information Officer. That particular agency provides support services to all government departments and agents, and does contract work; installing, maintaining and operating information services, technology and so on.

These are the heads of expenditure that we are dealing with. As I indicated, we got into those, to a debate on sort of a question and answer. As questions came up, after a couple of speakers from the Opposition parties, then I would attempt to answer whatever it was that was raised up to that point in time. I am certainly prepared to carry on with that, Mr. Chairman. I believe that is where we are and that is where I am certainly prepared to go from here. I do hope that the clock is going to be fixed though and that it is going to be indicating a bit - what is that? Is that fifty-nine minutes, is it?

MR. TAYLOR: Fifty-nine, thirty-eight.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay. So that is about right then, all right. I was looking at it as fifty-nine hours, Mr. Chairman, and I was beginning to -

MR. TAYLOR: It sounds like it when you are talking some days.

MR. RIDEOUT: I know I am dull and boring, Mr. Chairman, and unless I really get excited, at which point some people out there in the audience tend to kind of accuse me of being Hitlerite and all kinds of other words that come when I get in flights of oratory over here. Nevertheless, the time is right and we have about an hour or so to deal with those estimates, and I will be happy to answer whatever questions that the Opposition has as we go through the next hour or so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Before we continue, we have been governing ourselves in this debate with a ten-minute speaking period. We have not been stringent in sticking to that, but as a general guide for ten minutes. If that is in order for both sides, ten minutes for a question to revert back and forth.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first opportunity to actually have some debate on the Estimates for the Executive Council. As the Government House Leader has just outlined, the Executive Council takes in a number of facets of government in its budgetary process, and one of those happens to be within the Premier's Office.

I do know that in Committee on Thursday, while I was not able to be present for most of the debate around these particular Estimates, I do understand that there were a number of questions asked by my colleagues in the Opposition. If I seem somewhat repetitious, I do apologize, and if the answers have already been given, the Government House Leader can certainly state that claim and I will be happy to look it up and read what the responses were.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the Premier's Office, I want to look at the amounts of money being budgeted here; because, as you know, when you look at the Executive Support for the Premier, last year most of these employees did receive increases in their salary. In fact, a number of staff in the Premier's Office received increases that ranged anywhere from 12 per cent up to 18 per cent increases in one fiscal year in their salary that was being paid to them. The reason for that - I think the Premier used at the time - was that they have a lot to tolerate when they are putting up with me and my demands and my schedules, and also we need to ensure that once we get good people we can keep good people.

I think that is always an argument that is used, not just in the Premier's Office but in our health care system, in our schools, in every facet of society when it comes to recruiting, retaining and paying people; it is always getting the best people you can for the dollar.

The Public Service is no different. The public servants who work within this building are no different than those who work within the Premier's Office oftentimes. So, when you see an 18 per cent increase to an employee in the Premier's Office, and you happen to be a twenty-year civil servant in this Province but you are getting the opportunity to vote and take zero, zero and three as a wage increase over that three-year period, it does not look too good. It does not look good at all.

Now we are into a new round of negotiations and I know that there has been a deal with CUPE, and CUPE is out today recommending to their members that they accept this deal. I know that because I was in parts of the Province over the weekend where they had just concluded meetings in different regions with different sectors of the union. I know that the people who went out and held those meetings on behalf of CUPE were standing in the public rooms and recommending to their members that they actually accept the offer that was on the table, which is a very handsome offer, I must say so myself. It is a reasonable offer, I should say, that has been offered to these people.

That is what is happening now and I can only assume that, despite the fact that employees and political staff in the Premier's Office received raises last year going up to 18 per cent in some cases, if these deals are accepted by the unions across the board, that they would also get these additional increases as well.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the Estimates for the department this year we do see an increase in the Salaries for Executive Support. The increase is about $440,000 and that is an increase over what was budgeted last year, so I do not know if that is for new positions in the Premier's Office under his support staff or if it is for some other part, Mr. Chairman. It says the Cabinet Secretariat, Executive Support, so I do not know if that is new positions that are being created in the Cabinet Secretariat or if it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Under 2.2.01.01. there is an increase of $440,000 and I do not know if that is for new positions and if new positions are being created or not.

Mr. Chairman, if the answer has already been provided that is fine, and if it is not I am sure the minister will be happy to enlighten me.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, under the Premier's Office, I am aware as well that there is an employee or an office maintained in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; it is called a representative, I think, of the Premier's Office. I am not sure what the salary allocation is for that position, and if there are representatives placed in other regions of the Province besides Labrador.

I am just wondering about that, and I am also wondering what the role of that individual is in that Labrador office because I have not in my time, since 2003 when this government took office, I have not seen this individual represented in most of the forums that I have been involved in. In fact, I do not know if I have ever seen him represented in a forum in my district other than I think it was a consultation session that the Minister of Labrador Affairs held at one particular time. So, I do not know what the job of that person is, and I would like to know what the salary outline is for that Labrador office, how much is being budgeted under the Premier's Office to provide for that.

I also know that the position is based in the Labrador Affairs building in Goose Bay, so I am assuming that there is not really an office cost or anything associated with the position. I am assuming that is all incorporated within the budget of Labrador Affairs. I know that they are housed in the same building, so I can only assume that there would be no expenses or cost of having the office there, but I am not sure and maybe you could clarify that for me.

I do not know if the minister prefers that I continue, or if he prefers to intervene at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay.

Those would be a couple of questions that I would have around the Estimates right now as it directly relates to the Premier's Office.

If there are representatives like this in other parts of the Province, maybe the minister could tell me where they are based and also what the cost is, of having those representatives, and again what their jobs would be, because I am somewhat unsure of what their jobs actually are.

The next section that I wanted to look at is with regard to section 2.6.01., which is the Rural Secretariat. Under the Rural Secretariat you will see that, although there was a million dollars, or $1.4 million, budgeted for this department last year, there was $1.3 million spent, and I think the year before there was $1.2 million spent.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this Rural Secretariat, because it is very unclear as to what we get in rural communities for the $1.4 million that is being spent each and every year on this Secretariat. If you look at the Estimates here, you will tell that a lot of the money is actually spent on transportation and communications, so I guess it is because of meetings or discussions that they have around the rural economy, but the results that you have seen for this amount of money, in my opinion, are non-existent. I have seen very, very, little in fact.

What I do know of it is that there are people who are appointed to the Rural Secretariat. They travel around, they have meetings and discussions as a group, but I have yet to see what the real results of those discussions have been; because, if you look at rural economies in the Province today, they are not being guided by the Rural Secretariat. They are not being guided by individuals or expertise in helping them develop new industries in their region. All I have seen out of this Rural Secretariat is just another group of people that government can draw into its web to support the initiatives in a public way, or promote in a public way government's policies and government's plans, but nothing that I have seen has been anything concrete, and it is important to know that this Rural Secretariat, consecutively for the last two years, has spent anywhere from $1.2 million to $1.3 million of taxpayers' money, money that could have been invested into those communities themselves to create opportunity and industry, but rather it went into a group of individuals to travel and get together and have discussions of which we have seen very little or no results at all. In fact, I have even read some of the publications that they put out, their annual reports and their report in which they project what they are going to do for the next year; their planning reports, I guess, which are now required by the House of Assembly. In fact, I see nothing in it; nothing in it, nothing that is tangible. It is all words. It is great phrases. It is good intentions. It is all the slang that you put around rural development when you talk about it, but it is the slang that produces nothing that is tangible in terms of new industries, growing economies in rural areas, creating employment for people. None of those things are a part of the target that this committee has to meet.

What is the function of a Rural Secretariat that does not have any targets within its mandate of creating jobs, building economies, broadening economies, promoting small business or any of those kinds of things? I have to question this, because again this year there is $1.4 million being spent for the Rural Secretariat. Now, I know that there is nothing wrong with having groups of people come together from various regions of the Province to have discussions, but I do not think a Rural Secretariat meeting that is going to meet for four days out in Strawberry Hill Resort, one of the most expensive resorts in the Province to stay in, is going to prove any results or provide any guidance to the people that I represent in being able to do the work of rural communities. That is where I have a problem.

I have no problem with people getting together and having discussion groups. I have no problem with tasking people with the responsibility of guiding rural development in this Province. God knows it needs to be done, but there is a better way in which the money can be invested to get more results. Anyone who is in this Province who works in rural development today will know that they are working on shoestring budgets and that they have the responsibility of entire rural economies on their back, and I know that. I deal with zonal boards and development organizations and the tourism organizations all the time. In many cases they are the only paid staff in a region. They are the only office that has its door open to the public and therefore everything is falling on their shoulders, whether it be a forestry issue, a fishery issue, a manufacturing issue, looking at any kind of small business, everything to do with regulations and regulatory process, right down to: How do I get a business plan and a marketing study done?

These are the kinds of things that are landing on the shoulders of rural development workers all over Newfoundland and Labrador. They are working on shoestring budgets and organizations that are underfunded, where they have limited resources at their fingertips to do the job that needs to be done. Yet, we are spending $1.4 million again this year to bring together the brains of rural development in this Province, to do what? To do what? To meet what goals and what targets?

I would suggest that this money is better spent in propping up the resource teams that are out there doing work in rural communities. It is better spent providing leadership in communities that have lost economies, whether that be in the Harbour Breton's of the world, whether it be in the Port au Port Peninsulas, whether it be on the Coast of Labrador, in districts like my own. Mr. Chairman, I think the money can be better spent than it is holding meetings for a caravan of workers or people all over the Province who seem to have some connection to rural development.

I do not know who all of these board members are. I know some of them. I know people in my own district who sat on these boards, and I have talked to them. I know people in other districts that sat on these boards and I have talked to them. The one question I have asked them all is: What do you do? What is your purpose? How are you guiding rural development in this Province through the Rural Secretariat? I have yet to find one of those board members who could provide me with those explanations. In fact, most of them told me their only involvement is being invited to a meeting where they look at government policy and government planning is being invited to a meeting where Cabinet ministers come in and ask for their input. There is nothing wrong with asking for their input, but is it going to meet the goals that we need to have met?

Mr. Chairman, I will leave those couple of points to be addressed. I am sure there are a number of ministers whose departments would guide those particular initiatives, who would certainly want to respond. I will just await their responses.

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

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

I am happy to be able to speak again to the Estimates, the discussion which we began on Thursday. I note that there were a number of things when I spoke the second time on Thursday. There were a number of things that I did question and did have some queries about for the House Leader. I think what happened was he ran out of time at the end of our session. He spoke specifically to a couple of the issues that have been raised, both by myself and by the Opposition House Leader, different issues that we both raised.

The House Leader did answer questions with regard to the OCIO, which I appreciated when he pointed out the flexibility that has to be allowed with regard to some of their expenses because the money gets determined by requests that come from departments, and I was quite pleased with that answer. He did give some detailed information about how the OCIO is funded. I think he also talked about the office in Ottawa. These were the two last things that the House Leader spoke about at our session on Thursday afternoon past.

I did have some questions that I would have to like answered, some specifics, and I think I am going to repeat them because I do want to know what the expenditures are about. Actually, some of them had to do with the Public Service Secretariat. One was head 3.1.06., two subheads under that. The first subhead being Salaries, which is subhead 01., I note that the salaries that were budgeted in 2007-2008, the amount of money was $1,140,000, the revised expenditure was $250,000 and this year $1,140,000 is being budgeted for again.

Now I do note, under this head, that the appropriations provide for strategic human resource development initiatives throughout the provincial government and its entities with relevant funding transferred to departments. So I suspect there has to be discussion with departments, but I do have a question about why so much is allotted for. Do we have a history of spending that much, and why the budget is allowing for that much again, $1.1 million?

Then, the other subhead in that section, 06., Purchased Services, last year the budget allowed for $806,000 and only $200,000 was spent, and this year the budget is allowing for $1,719,500. That is a significantly larger number than what was spent last year - $1,500,000 more, actually - so I really would like an explanation of those two subheads under head 3.1.06. I did see that the minister copied down those numbers as I was saying them, and I think he is looking for that information, so I look forward to the answers with regard to that section.

I think, as I said, he did answer the questions that I had with regard to the OCIO so I do not have to repeat those, but those questions with regard to the Public Service Secretariat, I would like to know what the answer to that is.

I do not have a lot of other line items. The other thing I did ask the minister about on Thursday, and that he did not give an answer to – again, he ran out of time, I think - I asked with regard to head 2.9.01., and that is the head dealing with Research and Development. I know that nothing was budgeted last year with regard to this head, and this is a new area, but we do have significant money here, $1.5 million, and money is allotted under all of the usual subheads, so my question was, last Thursday, and I will repeat it again: Was there a plan put in place? What guided the budget items? What guided the amount of money that is being allowed? For example, what guided the $520,000 for salaries? What is the expectation with regard to salaries? What guided the budget item, which is subhead 05, of $608,700? What guided all of those? Why, those who put the budget together, did they give those figures when this is a brand new piece of work? I would like to know what the guidelines were for those areas.

That is a serious concern, and it is a legitimate concern, because we have a fair bit of money here that is being spent – it is being spent on important work; I am not saying that it is not important – but it is money that needs to be accounted for, so I think it is quite legitimate to ask how the decisions were made to come up with the budget items in something that is brand new. Because I do have a concern, Mr. Chair, with regard to the fact that we do have a fair bit of money to play with in the Province right now, and yet we still have some areas where we do not seem to be giving priority, and those areas concern me, and I have to refer to the concern that I raised today in Question Period.

The state of our emergency medical services in this Province is quite serious: the fact that we do not have standardized services; the fact that for rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular we definitely do not have standardized services, and people living in the same area, for example, cannot even be sure that when they call for an ambulance they are going to get an ambulance that is going to give them what they need, that is going to have paramedics on it, that is going to be able to give them emergency service right away; and, depending on where you live, for example, on the Burin Peninsula, you could end up getting an ambulance that will be able to meet every one of your needs and help save your life right away, or you could get an ambulance that is not equipped at all to help you. So, the lack of standardization is a very serious issue when it comes to the health and safety of the people in our Province.

The other thing that is really important – and first of all to say, before I go on, that lack of standardization is a real concern for the people who work inside of the emergency medical services. They have lots of concern about that, and even those who work with a good operator, and the paramedics, for example, who have good working situations - some of them - they are concerned about the fact that the service they offer is not universal in the areas where they work.

So, yes, I am concerned about how we spend our money because in some areas I do not see us spending it where I think we should be spending it. You know, when this government sits at the table with the private operators and the unions and the public – which is the public operator of our emergency medical services - they have to be there looking out for the well-being of the workers as well, and government does have a responsibility. If government subsidizes the service – and it does subsidize the service – then government has a responsibility to look out for the welfare of the workers as well as the welfare of the public who are going to use the service, and government does have a responsibility to answer the question: What are you doing with regard to the retention of workers inside of the emergency medical services? When I asked that question today in Question Period – I didn't get one answer to the questions that I asked.

I say to this government and to my colleagues from this government, as we sit here in this room: Don't you think that I, as a member in this House, have the right to an answer to a question when I ask it, a question that is so important? I am not asking these questions, you know, just to be frivolous. They are very serious questions. When I ask, what is our government doing with regard to the concerns around retention of people inside the emergency medical services, I think we need an answer. When I ask the minister to give me an idea of what the government is willing to do with regard to when he sits at the table negotiating with regard to retention, I expected that he had some concrete things that he could tell me, not go off and rant and rave about everything else that the government is doing. I know the government is doing a lot of good things, I know there are good things in the Budget, but when I ask a specific question, I expect a specific answer.

It is the same when it comes to asking the questions that I have asked here both Thursday and again today. I have asked for some specific answers with regard to a couple of the heads that are here in the Estimates, and I look forward to hearing the minister give me an answer. I just want explanations, that is all, explanations with regard to the money that we are spending. If these are things that we are giving priority to, if this government is giving priory to them, then I would like to know the rationale and the reasoning behind government giving priority to the items that I have asked about.

I am ready to hear some of the answers to this, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I noticed that at the end of her comments the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was talking about matters related to health care employees and retention and that kind of thing. These are all very important matters. The hon. member referred to the fact that she raised a question in Question Period today and according to her she didn't get any answer, but there was an answer. Now, the hon. member may not have been satisfied with the answer.

I can only say, Mr. Chairman, there was a time in this House before the rules were revised back a number of years ago, when we had what we used to call the Late Show. The Late Show was a situation where there was half an hour set aside on Thursday evening, from five to five-thirty, whenever we adjourned – in those days I think it was six o'clock – when members had the right to give notice of the fact that they were not satisfied with an answer given by a particular minister and they could debate that: five minutes for the member to debate it and five minutes for the minister to respond to the debate, and there was a mechanism whereby members could express their displeasure with an answer.

The bottom line is, and anybody who follows Parliament knows, that members can ask what questions they wish and ministers will respond as best they can. Not all the time are people going to be happy with the answers, and not all the time are ministers happy with the questions, but there is nothing we can do about it. We have to field them as best we can, and answer them as best we can. That is not to trivialize the importance of a question, but the bottom line is that ministers provide the best answer they can and if that is not satisfactory, well, you will have to keep asking the question again in some other form or in some other forum.

The Estimates of Executive Council are not a situation where I can respond to that particular question as raised by my friend opposite, but I will try to respond to questions that she raised that do fall under the expenditure of Executive Council. One which she raised in Research and Development - a couple of matters she raised in Research and Development that I did not have an opportunity to reply to on Thursday - one was for professional services in the amount, I believe, of $608,000 and change.

Of course, this is a new expenditure area so this is a new item, and the whole matter of the $608,700, this particular funding is to support the establishment and the marketing of the council. We have to establish the council, which we have, and then we have to go out and market the fact that we have this particular council, and we have to contract professional services to be able to do that. There will be, perhaps, ads in the newspaper. There will probably be -

MR. TAYLOR: Saturday past.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay.

I understand there was an ad, for example, in the weekend paper just past.

There will probably be radio ads. For sure, there will be ads in what we locally call the R-B papers all around the Province - I think they are Transcontinental now - but that is the kind of expenditure that will be undertaken under this head to establish and market the council, the development, the compliance and the operation of its policies and its activities.

So we have to be able to tell people that this new council now exists, that we are open for business, and here are the kinds of things that we are looking to do. Would you like to get in touch with us? Do you have something that you would like us to consider? Do you have a proposal related to research and development that you think ought to be considered by this particular group?

It is to market the council; it is for the development, the compliance and the operation of the policies and activities of the council; it is to provide research expertise relevant to the development of a provincial R&D Strategy and the council. All of those activities will be contracted out as necessary and paid for under this particular head if all of the work gets done in this particular fiscal year.

In terms of salary support - believe the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked a question on that as well - the salary costs are for I think it is $520,000 and it is for contractual positions and for temporary assistance as well. It reflects the funding that is going to be required to support the establishment of the council and the development of a provincial R&D Strategy, including a Chief Executive Officer, an Administrative Support and four Senior Specialists. That is what the salary positions will pay, and also some contractual work if necessary. These people will provide the expertise of dealing with operations and the related systems. It will deal with setting the corporate development and strategy development and the marketing intelligence. Again, those people will provide the day-to-day daily operation and direction of getting the council set up, getting it up and running, and doing an analysis of proposals that come forward for consideration and so on. That is what that $520,000 is for; it is for a Chief Executive Officer or an Administrative Support person and for four contractual positions.

I believe those were the questions posed by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Leader of the Opposition posed some questions relative to the Premier's Office again, and she indicated if I had answered them on the last day, well, kind of forget about it and just say that I answered them and she would look up the questions.

Some of them I did answer, but perhaps not in the detail in the way that she posed them. She made some reference to the operation of the Premier's Office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and wondered if there were others. I did indicate on Thursday, in answering this question, the Premier's Office, outside of Confederation Building, has two sites of operation; one is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and one is in Corner Brook. In each of those locations, of course, there is a very minimal amount of support staff.

The member asked about the support staff in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is an employee there, a special assistant who handles matters on behalf of the Premier. The member wanted to know what that person is paid. I think that person is paid at position seven, step four in the Public Service Secretariat pay scales, in the amount of $57,724. So the person who fills the position in the office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is paid approximately $57,500, an executive position type salary doing an executive position type work.

The member is questioning the role. Well, of course, the role of the Premier's Office - there was a time again when the Premier's Office operated in Grand Falls-Windsor; that office has been closed. I had a very good friend who used to be the Premier's representative in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I am delighted that her daughter - Mrs. Jean Shea's daughter - is the Minister of Education in this government, so she follows in good, strong political footsteps, I can say to my seatmate, the Deputy Government House Leader and Minister of Education. I knew her – well, still do; her mother is still with us, thank God, but she was a great employee in the Premier's Office in Grand Falls–Windsor, but some former Premier or other closed out that office and it no longer operates. There was a Premier's Office, and still is, in Corner Brook, that operates out of the Sir Richard Squires Building. I believe there used to be a Premier's Office in Labrador previous to the one being set up now. I believe that some former Premier or other had an office in Labrador, but I am not 100 per cent certain of that.

In any event, this Premier, our present Premier, decided, and made a commitment, I believe, during the 2003 election, that he would set up a branch of his office in the Big Land, and he has. I have indicated who the person is, and what salary they are paid and so on.

The role - well, the role of the Premier's Office, those satellite offices, is to make sure that the Premier is fully informed and fully conversant with issues as they relate to the government globally in that particular region of the Province.

We all see it everyday in our daily work as members. People would come to me, when I was a member representing Lewisporte or Baie Verte-White Bay in the old days, they would come to me as their MHA and they are not satisfied with the work that I have done on their behalf or with the answer that I have given them. So they will go to a minister, they will go to the Leader of the Opposition. They might go to the Leader of the Third Party. Some of them will want to go to the Premier. If there is somebody in Western Newfoundland or in Labrador who wishes to converse with the Premier's Office, then the role of that office is to be available for that purpose. That is one of the things they do.

So, when you talk about the role, the role is whatever the Premier wants it to be. In general, it is to make sure that there is some availability for people in various regions of the Province. Here on the Avalon, and out perhaps as far as Clarenville and Central Newfoundland, it is relatively easy to come east and come into the provincial capital. On the west coast that is not so easy. In Labrador, of course, it is not so easy again. So, we try to regionalize various government offices. We have done it with various departments by setting them up in regions of the Province. So, in those particular regions the Premier decided, for good reason and good cause, that it would be appropriate to have a branch or an operation of the Premier's Office in those areas. They have been there, in the case of Western Newfoundland, for decades I guess; in the case of Labrador, Happy Valley-Goose Bay now for the last two or three years.

The hon. member mentioned the office space. Well, as she indicated, the Premier's Office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is located in space that is rented by the government through the Department of Transportation and Works, which is the landlord for the government, and it provides a lot of office space. It provides office space for Labrador Affairs. It provides office space for Aboriginal Affairs, and there is office space made available to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Culture and Recreation.

MR. RIDEOUT: Culture, Recreation.

There is office space made available to the Premier's Office in that building for which the government is paying rent anyway. So there is not an additional cost in that sense, in that we did not have to go out and rent additional space. There was space available in a government leased building in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that if it was not occupied by the Premier's Office, would perhaps be unoccupied or would be occupied by some other branch or division of government. So, that I think addresses those matters.

The Opposition Leader raised a matter that kind of stumps me in indicating that there was a salary increase of $400,000 under subhead 2.1.01 in the Premier's Office. There isn't any -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabinet Secretariat.

MR. RIDEOUT: Cabinet Secretariat now and the Premier's Office are two separate things. In the Premier's Office there is no increase. There is a $1,700 increase in salaries from the Premier's Office year over year. Last year the budget was $1.372 million and the actual spending was $1.358 million, and the budget for this year is $1,374,100. It is only a minimal increase, $1,700, which I guess would take care of, maybe, somebody moving up on a step or something of that nature.

In the Cabinet Secretariat there are a number of areas where there is budgeting for salary increases. Could you give me the head again, please, the one that you said there was a $400,000 increase?

MS JONES: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: Subhead 2.2.01.

Subhead 2.1.01 is the Premier's Office, and you are interested in 2.2.01?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe the hon. member, when she speaks again, will have to - the activity that is included in this particular head, 2.2.02, under Cabinet Secretariat for Planning and Coordination, the activity provides funding for coordinating and implementing of the requirements of the transparency and accountability legislation, the evaluation and government – now, I spoke about this the last day as well, where we have an ongoing evaluation of government programs. We did have this renewal exercise that we went through shortly after we became government, but we believe that we can always be reviewing and analyzing programs that government are engaged in. There is an amount in here to always be in the mode of having people analyzing and reviewing government programs for their effectiveness and for their relevance. We should never be in the mode that we have programs just for the sake of having programs. Are the programs, first of all, necessary? Are they delivering to the people of the Province the program objectives, the objectives for which the programs are set up?

I remember a day in the life of this Province when we had salary details in departments and they never had a dollar in order to implement the program with. The only thing they had was salary money. There was no money in the votes of those programs to do anything. You had somebody working in a program, getting paid, but they did not have any money in which to deliver the meat of the program to the people around the Province. So, part of the $425,000 expenditure in this particular head is to make sure that programs are evaluated, that they are effective and they are relevant, and that they are being delivered effectively throughout the Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hog the situation here but I believe that that is the essence, really, of the questions that were raised by both speakers. I will take my seat now and see if that provides the information that was requested.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity, about fifteen minutes or so remaining, and the time to debate some of the figures here in Estimates. There are actually three headings that would get dealt with in that time frame here in the House, and that is the Executive Council, which we have been dealing with last week and dealing with here again today, and of course there is the Legislature piece and the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We have not put much time on the other two, and it does not look like we are going to get a lot of detailed time now on the other two, given that we have only got about fourteen minutes left, but the exchange between the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition, it is nice to see that, because there are questions - and he has the information. Albeit, Executive Council comes under the Premier, traditionally the Premier does not come and answer the questions. Someone does for him, either the Minister of Finance or the Government House Leader. In this case today, it is the Government House Leader. It is obvious that some members do not understand the process probably, this back and forth.

One of the members in the Chamber just commented over here, when the Leader of the Opposition was going back and forth with the Government House Leader to try and get some clarification. One of the members over here, the government member said: You should have asked that in Estimates. Well, for the clarification and education of that particular member, this is the Estimates. This is where we do the Estimates on the Executive Council. That member ought to know that when we are doing that, it is totally within the mandate and the right of the Leader of the Opposition, or myself, or any member, to ask the Government House Leader about this information. There are no other Estimates. There is nowhere else that we go off to, to do Estimates for Executive Council. It is done here. So rather than those snide remarks, ask it in Estimates, we are in the Estimates.

I would like to take an opportunity, though, to comment on another heading here and that is the Legislature. The reason I do that is just for the education and information, maybe, of those who are watching. Anyone in this Province in the last two years who has been a party to and listened to the news media and the reports that have come out, particularly from the Auditor General, there has been a lot of commentary about MHAs, MHA scandals - those words were used - and all of that detail as to who pays MHAs, how much they get paid and what they can use their monies for, that comes under a heading here called the Legislature. In fact, Chief Justice Green, who did the report, made a comment, in fact, and said: There is not enough openness. When it comes to the House of Assembly and how it operates and how MHAs operate there wasn't enough openness and there wasn't enough transparency. In fact, he drafted a new piece of legislation which said exactly how the House operations would be run.

For the information of the public again, the House is treated differently than other government departments. It is almost like a law unto itself, because there is a distinction between the Legislative Branch of which all forty-eight members form a part and the House of Assembly. That is a separate branch of government called the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch which is the Premier and the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet and all the different ministries and so on. Then, of course, the third branch is the Judiciary which we are not concerned with here other than through what it costs for the judicial system.

I would like to take a few moments to comment on the Legislature piece. Now, under the Budget here for the Legislature there are a number of things. It is not only the House of Assembly and it is not only what MHAs get paid or what they can use their constituency allowances for. Right now, it is virtually impossible, given the current setup of the House of Assembly, to have any kind of repeat occurrence of what happened in the past and as alluded to by the Auditor General. We keep our fingers crossed in that regard because it is obvious there wasn't enough oversight, it is obvious that it wasn't open enough, and it was dealt with by a committee called the IEC, the Internal Economy Commission. That is no longer the case. It is dealt with now by a board of management.

In fact, anyone who has been watching this cable channel that carries the activities of the House, you will be aware, of course, that it also carries all of the board meetings. Everything now that goes on concerning the House of Assembly and MHAs is dealt with on camera. Now, there are some financial matters that might get dealt with behind a closed door first, but even those because of their personal nature or their financial nature, once the decision is made must be made public. Anyone who has watched here in the last number of months, we have had a number of meetings. The next one, for example, is tomorrow at five o'clock, and that will be televised as well.

You need not worry anymore about who the MHAs are, what authorities they have, what funds they have to help them do their job, what they spend their funds on. In fact, there is a report that comes out every single month now as to every single person in this House, online, saying what they spent their money on. There is no question any more of never finding out what the money was used for.

Chief Justice Green, in his report, wanted that kind of openness, and that is why I wanted to take a few minutes today to speak about it. He said one of the issues before was the legislators, we the MHAs, would never ever talk about it. That is why I want to talk about it, because it is important to do that, to show that there has been an absolute change in how the House of Assembly and how MHAs operate post-Chief Justice Green's report; absolutely, totally different.

First of all, as I say, we have a bunch of rules that never existed before. Chief Justice Green, not only did he do a report, he actually drafted the piece of legislation called the Openness And Accountability Act that we adopted in this House last June before we broke, because we knew there was going to be a provincial election in the fall and we did not want to go into an election not knowing what the rules were going to be for the incoming MHAs or the returning MHAs. This House sat here last year and unanimously, I might add, unanimously passed the law that Chief Justice Green said the House of Assembly and MHAs should operate under.

Now, even though that law exists, we all know that, like all laws, over the course of time it will take some tweaking. Not everything that Chief Justice Green said - and he himself admits in subsequent conversations, there is some tinkering that will be required in order to fit certain particular circumstances, but at least now there if there are going to be any changes done, there is a process as to how it is done. It will not be done any more behind a closed door. If any MHA here has a particular concern and needs to bring his circumstances to the Commission, that Board of Management Commission, and say, look, I am sorry, this is my fact situation, it does not fit with what Chief Justice Green said, can I get this changed, all that has got to be done in front of the cameras. It just cannot be done verbally. That person has got to write a letter, it goes to the Speaker, the Speaker brings it to the Commission, the Commission must have a hearing on it, it must be heard in public, and once it is all decided, it is not even done that day. You must wait a certain period of time before that is ratified. Chief Justice Green and the new Act said, yes, the Speaker can deal with certain things, and the Clerk, but other things, if they require any kind of substantial change, have got to come back here to this House to be debated and to be decided upon.

It is not only the MHAs that come under the House of Assembly. There are a whole bunch of groups. For example, the Auditor General himself and his office come under the auspices or the umbrella of the Legislature, as does the Citizens' Representative. I believe it is currently occupied by a Mr. Fleming, and his office and his staff come under the Legislature. The Child and Youth Advocate come under the Legislature. The Chief Electoral Officer comes under the Legislature, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner comes under the Legislature. There is a whole number of offices that fit under the auspices of the Legislature as well as MHAs, of course, and as well the operations of the House of Assembly itself. Even the TV, Broadcasting, comes under the House of Assembly. Hansard, which is the written transcript of every day we come in here - everything that we say everyday is verbatim, taken down, typed up and becomes Hansard and it is there in perpetuity. Anybody who wants to refer to it can go back and refer to it. The cost of all of those things comes under that broad umbrella of the Legislature.

There is one thing - I put it to the Government House Leader who actually sits as a member, as does myself as the Opposition House member, as does the Leader of the Opposition, as does the Leader of the NDP and as does the Member for Topsail, I do believe, and I believe the Minister of Innovation Trade and Rural Development, the Member for The Straits &White Bay North, also sits on the board. I put it to the Government House Leader - I ran into a unique situation at all of the Estimate Committee meetings I went to. That was that in the minister's office, under every department, it talks about the minister's salary which is paid for by the department. It talks about the departmental secretary who is paid for by the department, an executive assistant paid for by the department, but it also talks about a secretary to the minister. When I asked, who is that person, the secretary to the minister - because you notice it says departmental secretary to the minister and secretary to the minister. I said: What is the distinction? The answer that I received was, that is his Constituency Assistant or her Constituency Assistant, which raised the question - because the Member for Topsail, for example, who sits on the board of management who was the former Auditor General herself, I asked her about it because it seemed odd that we would be having the Constituency Assistant for a minister paid from a departmental budget. Why wouldn't the Constituency Assistant for the minister come under the funding of the Legislature the same as everybody else's Constituency Assistant? That was confirmed by every minister at Estimates, and I have sat in on, I think it is ten so far. That was confirmed by every minister, that their Constituency Assistant and the Parliamentary Secretaries as well for the Constituency Assistants - and I believe it was confirmed as well by the Minister of Finance which is one of the Estimates that I sat in on - actually get paid for by the departments.

I find that very odd and I am curious as to whether or not there is an explanation, because if there are forty-eight MHAs and we all are entitled to a Constituency Assistant, why would the eighteen ministers, we will say, and why would the five Parliamentary Assistants, for a total of twenty-three, why would twenty-three Constituency Assistants be paid for under departments whereas the rest get paid for out of the House? I would have thought, if we are going to be truly open and accountable – and accountable is the operative word here – why wouldn't all forty-eight Constituency Assistants be paid for by the House, or by the Legislature? It doesn't make sense.

In fact, I think it is contradictory, because what that person does for a minister or for a Parliamentary Secretary has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what he or she might be doing in that department.

CHAIR: Order please!

I would just like to remind the member that we are trying to stick with the ten minutes. We only have a little over three minutes left in case the minister wants to respond or if the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has a question.

MR. PARSONS: I will just clue up. The Government House Leader gets the tenor of my question.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He is giving leave as well, Mr. Chair, if that is okay.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Again, it begs to question here: If we are going to be truly open and accountable, why would a minister's CA come under his budget in the department and everybody else's CA come under the Legislature?

As I say, the Member for Topsail, the former Auditor General, happened to be at one of the Estimate Committee meetings that we did and that came up. She confirmed that that was not her understanding. It was her understanding and she thought that it was proper if all forty-eight CAs or Constituency Assistants would be under the Legislature. She did not understand as well.

I do not know if I missed something on the board of management, but if I did she certainly missed it as the former Auditor General. In fact, she Chairs the Audit Committee of the board of management, and I sit on the Audit Committee of the board of management, but it is an issue that probably someone needs to deal with. Albeit we are getting more and more open, it is quite clear that that issue of where Constituency Assistants ought to be placed in terms of payment - their duties is another issue. The fact that they are going to operate out of a minister's office and so on, and have an office in the minister's office or have an office in their parliamentary secretary's office, that is one thing, but their duties are described as Constituency Assistants. They do constituency work for the person who got them hired. They do not do ministerial work. That, by job description, is done by an EA, an Executive Assistant for a minister. A Constituency Assistant, under the job description, works for the MHA.

For example, the Member for Gander, who is also the Minister of Government Services, has an Executive Assistant, but that person gets paid for by his department. That makes perfect sense, because he does the work that the minister needs to do as a minister. The Constituency Assistant, by job description, who the Member for Gander would have as a member, I would think does constituency work for the District of Gander. The question is, it is there and I think it needs to be answered. Maybe if we are doing something wrong we ought to rectify it and put it in next year; because, albeit we are approving the Estimates here and everything is proper, I think that is a legitimate question that we need to have answered.

Anyway, my time is running out here and, like the Government House Leader said, we don't want to hog the time, even though we have nine hours left in concurrence. Albeit the Estimates might be done from this perspective, we certainly have nine more hours down the road to delve into these issues. I am sure the Government House Leader will have an answer for that question as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to briefly respond to the last point made by the Opposition House Leader because I don't believe there was any particular question before that, that I need to respond to.

The matter of constituency assistants to ministers, and parliamentary secretaries, and how they are paid, I don't know how far back this goes but I know it goes back before the life of this particular Administration. At some point, I do not know if it was under former Premier Wells, I do not know if it was under former Premier Tobin, but I do know that when I joined the then old IEC as a member of the Opposition in 1999, and I was there for a brief period in those days before I had some family matters and I had to get off of the IEC and I could not attend the meetings on a regular basis, I remember asking the question why it was that certain constituency assistants, their vote appeared in the House of Assembly vote, and other constituency assistants, their vote appeared in the department.

I was told that is the way the government of the day structured the vote. To keep the House of Assembly vote low, to keep the House of Assembly vote down, back in those days, they transferred those salary units - because there was a time, I understand, when all of the salary units appeared in the legislative budget. For a matter of structuring budgets and departmental budgets, I remember being advised that money was transferred from the House of Assembly back some time ago, I am not sure under which Administration, to pay constituency assistants for ministers out of the department where that minister served.

Personally, to me, that is a bit crazy. The constituency assistant works for the MHA, works for the member for the particular district, whether that member is a minister or parliamentary secretary or not.

I will tell you how crazy it was. I remember this one in particular. I remember asking why Brian Tobin, who was the MHA for what is now The Straits & White Bay North, had a constituency allowance for travel of, I don't know, $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000, and the next district to him had $35,000 or $40,000. The answer was it was because he was a minister, and ministers were, in those days, expected to do their constituency travel out of their departmental travel and therefore it was not necessary to have that kind of thing show up additionally in a vote in the House of Assembly.

I remember we changed it. We changed the House of Assembly budget for the constituency allowance for The Straits & White Bay North while Brian Tobin was still Premier, and we did it on the basis that one of those days there was going to be a member for White Bay & The Straits who was not a minister, perhaps, and certainly was not the Premier, and that member, at that point, had to have an entitlement to a regular constituency budget.

So that was the kind of – you know, I am not saying there is anything wrong with this – but that was the kind of thinking that went into allocating various expenditures back in some of those days, and I guess it is still a carry-over now. My constituency assistant, as I understand it, the salary for that person, even though he works and lives and goes to his work every day in the Town of Baie Verte, the salary for that position is in the Department of Fisheries. Perhaps we should be changing it, but it is a matter certainly for the House of Assembly Management Committee, and it is something that I would not have any objection to.

That is the answer, that is the explanation: it is something that has gone on for quite a long time and perhaps one of those many, many things that have gone on long enough and ought to be changed; because, as the member who took his seat just said, the Legislative Branch is distinct and separate and an independent branch of government.

We have the Executive Branch, we have the Legislative Branch, and we have the Judicial Branch. These are the branches that we have in our government, in its totality, and each of these is separate and independent of the other, and not dependent on the other for their existence or for their operations.

So, if the Legislature is going to be independent, as it is, and a separate branch of government, as it is, then all of the functions related to the functioning of the Legislature - members, officers of the House, that kind of thing - I think it makes a lot of sense to be part of one budget; but, for eighteen or nineteen people, which includes seventeen or eighteen ministers and three or four parliamentary secretaries, it is different, and it has been historically different in this Province for quite some time. Perhaps the time has come to look at that.

Mr. Chairman, on that basis I will conclude debate on the Executive Council Estimates and we will move on from there.

CHAIR: The time for debate on the Estimates of the three subheads has now expired. We will call the clauses.

I remind the hon. members that, with respect to the subheads, or the subhead of the Executive Council, some of these subheads have been referred out and they will be excluded in the calling of the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.2.06.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.2.06. of the Executive Council.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 2.2.06. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.4.01. to 2.6.01.

CHAIR: Subheads 2.4.01. to 2.6.01.

Shall these clauses carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.4.01. through 2.6.01. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.9.01. to 4.1.07.

CHAIR: Subheads 2.9.01. to 4.1.07.

Shall these clauses carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.9.01. through 4.1.07. carried.

CLERK: Consolidated Fund Services.

CHAIR: With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.1.03. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.1.03. inclusive.

Shall those carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 2.1.03. carried.

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

CLERK: The Legislature.

CHAIR: With respect to the Legislature.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 6.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 6.1.01. inclusive.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 6.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of the Legislature, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Departments of the Executive Council, Consolidated Fund Services and the Legislature carried without amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

CHAIR: It has been moved that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded, nay.

Carried.

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

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the estimates of expenditure of the Legislature and the Consolidated Fund Services and the Estimates of the Executive Council, excluding subheads 2.3.01 to 2.5.04, subhead 2.7.01 and subhead 2.7.02, and 2.8.01 and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that they have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that they have passed without amendment the estimates of expenditure of the Legislature, Consolidate Fund Services, and Executive Council, excluding subheads 2.3.01 to 2.5.04, 2.7.01 and 2.7.02 and 2.8.01 and ask leave to sit again.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call for second reading, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 20)

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to introduce the amendments to the acts that Your Honour has just mentioned.

I should say initially, for the benefit of Members of the House of Assembly and the people who are watching us today, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sponsors five pension plans for its employees. They are five defined benefit pension plans. I know that when it comes to pensions most of us are not experts in that area. A defined pension plan, as opposed to what is called a defined contribution pension plan, is one that is characterized primarily by a formula under which the retirement benefits are calculated based on one's pay, the earnings, and credited pensionable service; in other words, years of service, the age at retirement and other factors. It is a pension plan where the benefits that the members of the plan are to receive are, in fact, specifically spelled out and listed in the defined benefits pension so that members of the plan will know, based on the salaries they earn and based on the number of years of service they have with their employer, they will be able to calculate in accordance with that formula, what the benefits they will receive will be when they do in fact retire.

The financial benefits under a defined benefit pension plan are, in fact, calculated by a professional known as an actuary. An actuary is hired when the plan is first set up and the actuary is hired again every three years thereafter. The actuary calculates the amount of funding that will have to go into these pension funds in order to provide the benefits that are listed in the pension plan and to determine how much the employer has to contribute on a monthly basis into the plan and how much the employees would have to contribute into the plan in order to make sure that the plan has enough assets to pay the benefits, the benefits which are clearly detailed and set out in the defined benefit pension plan. Employees in those plans will know by looking at the pension plan, they will know that when they retire, based on their salary that they have earned, based on the years of service, they will know what their pension is going to be. They will contribute to the plan, out of their salary cheques, an amount of funds that the actuary says that will have to be contributed when matched by the employer to provide the plan with the funding to pay those defined benefits.

Another type of pension plan of course is the defined contribution pension plan. I always refer to that as an RRSP type pension plan, where the employee and the government agree on contributions to the plan. The contributions go to a fund manager or an investment manager who manages the monies in the pension plan and the accounts are kept separate. Each employee's account is kept separate from the other employees' accounts. Therefore, the employee directs how the funds should be managed, whether it should, for example, in an equity fund, or in a bond fund, or in a guaranteed income investment, or a riskier fund, like an international equity fund. The employee determines how the funds should be managed. They are given to a manager of the different funds who manages the money. Then when the employee retires, the amount of money in the fund is used usually to purchase an annuity and that determines what the pension benefits are going to be in a defined contribution plan.

So the difference in a defined contribution plan is that the employee takes the risk. The money that will be there at the end of the day, of course, depends on how wise the pension manager or the investor manager chosen by the employee has been. Whereas in a defined benefit plan, which government employees have, the government takes the risk because the benefits have to be paid whether there is enough money in the plan at the end of the day. So that is the difference between the two types of plans.

The purpose of this amendment is really housekeeping in nature. It is to bring our plans, the plans of government employees in line with the Pension Benefits Act.

Now, the Pension Benefits Act is a law that is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, that regulates all pension plans in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this Pension Benefits Act provides for the payment of what is called commuted value in all cases where a member dies prior to commencing to receive a pension and where there is no eligible spouse. So this applies to pre-retirement death, before the employee has, in fact, passed on, and in cases where there is no eligible spouse.

Now, under our plans, under the five government pension plans - and I will just list them; I know, Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned them - there is the Public Service Pensions Act, there is the Teachers' Pensions Act, there is the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, there is the Members of the House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, and there is the Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act - under those pieces of legislation, if an employees dies - and the pension of this fund would have to, of course, be vested – where the employee dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse, the spouse has a choice. The spouse can make an election, and one of the elections a spouse can make is to receive what is called the commuted value of the pension plan.

I have a definition here of what the commuted value of a pension plan is, and it is a little complicated. The commuted value of a pension plan is the present value of the deceased plan member's earned pension entitlement to the date of death. It represents the amount of money that would be required to be invested in another retirement vehicle to provide the same level of benefit promised by the plan.

I think a better way to look at it is to say that the commuted value is, in fact, the full value of someone's pension as opposed to, in the alternative, what would be the return of the contributions, the pension contributions, that the member has made while an employee, plus interest.

Now, what happens under the pension plans is that if a member dies prior to retirement, leaving a spouse, the spouse, as I said, has an election to receive the commuted value of the fund. That is option number one. Option number two, the spouse can elect to receive a pension equal to 60 per cent of the pension that the deceased spouse would have received if they had, in fact, retired.

Now, in a second situation, if an employee should pass away prior to retirement without leaving a spouse and without leaving dependent children then the commuted value, the full value of the pension plan, would be paid to the deceased's estate.

So, we have two situations where the commuted value will go the estate, the full value, but in the middle situation, if you have a pensioner - or an employee, I should say - who passes on before they retire, before they receive the pension, survived by dependent children – not a spouse, but survived by dependent children - then it does not say, our five pension acts do not say, that the commuted value will go to the estate. It says that the children will receive 60 per cent of what the pension would be while they are under eighteen years of age, or twenty-four years of age if they are still in full-time attendance at a university. So, in that situation, they only receive 60 per cent of the value and they would not necessarily receive, when they become of age, the full commuted value.

That means that these five pension plans are not, in that situation where a member dies, the wife is predeceased by the spouse, and has children, the full commuted value of the pension plan may not be paid to the estate. That is not in accordance with the Pension Benefits Act, and the purpose of this legislation is to amend those five pieces of legislation to ensure compliance with the Pension Benefits Act in that particular specific instance.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing the legislation will do, given the fact that there are a number of cases out there, we want to make sure that those children do receive the full commuted value, and therefore the legislation will be made retroactive. The legislation will, in fact, be made retroactive. There will be some transitional provisions in the legislation. So, for those plans where there are children of deceased employees currently receiving the children's benefit, these transition provisions will preserve the child's right to receive the benefit as if the amendment had not been made, but also gives the option to receive the commuted value of their entitlement instead of a pension over time.

So this will correct an anomaly, it will bring our legislation in line with the Pension Benefits Act, and accordingly I would urge that all members support the passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will park Bill 20 now, for the moment, and at this point – you know, continue debate on Bill 20; we will adjourn for the moment - I would like to call second reading of Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act." (Bill 29)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Act is An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. It deals with the provision of right to counsel of choice in certain circumstances in relation to legal aid.

Prior to 1996, Mr. Speaker, an individual charged with murder in this Province was entitled to choose his counsel of choice even though he or she qualified for legal aid. The Legal Aid Act was set up around 1976 in order to allow indigent accused or individuals with very limited financial circumstances to obtain counsel to assist them with their legal problems.

Initially, Mr. Speaker, legal aid was comprised, if I remember correctly, of a couple of staff lawyers. When I commenced practicing law in 1985 legal aid still had a number of staff lawyers but it contracted work out to the private Bar. The way that would work, Mr. Speaker, is that the Legal Aid Act had certain requirements, and an individual or a lawyer had to be on the panel of solicitors. The legal aid lawyer had to be willing to work at the rate of pay which was at that time less than $50 an hour for private lawyers, and there were certain restrictions on the number of hours that could be utilized.

When I first commenced practicing law, and I remember this around 1987-1988, Mr. Speaker, someone charged with break and entry, because it was an offence for which a person could be sentenced to life imprisonment, he or she, the accused person, could be entitled to counsel of choice in those circumstances. Then what happened? Around 1990-1991, if I remember correctly, there was a withdrawal of services by private lawyers in relation to the legal aid rates and a complaint essentially that legal aid was not paying enough money. This led to the hiring of more legal aid staff lawyers so that essentially within a period of time – I am just guessing at the numbers here – there could have been five to ten legal aid lawyers and it doubled to approximately twenty overnight.

Then what happened is that as we reached the mid-1990s the Liberal government of the time amended the Legal Aid Act to remove this counsel of choice option, so that anyone charged with a murder case or a homicide case had to have a legal aid staff solicitor. From 1996 until the present time, Mr. Speaker, the individuals charged with homicide – when I refer to homicide I am using the definition of homicide that is outlined in the Criminal Code. Culpable homicide is comprised of murder, which can be either first or second-degree murder, manslaughter or infanticide. Infanticide is a rare crime in this Province. I am aware of, I think, two cases in the last twenty years, where it usually results from a mother who, as a result of the psychiatric trauma of birth and the disorder which results, ends up causing the death of her child. That is infanticide. What this present amendment relates to would be to provide counsel of choice to individuals charged with first or second-degree murder, or manslaughter.

The reason that we have included manslaughter in this, Mr. Speaker, is that the difference between these offences is not always that easy to discern. First-degree murder is murder that is planned and deliberate. In other words, a murder with some aforethought, where there is not only a degree of planning but the individual knows what he or she is doing and they deliberate, or commit a deliberate act. Second-degree murder results when there is an intent to commit the crime or to kill the person or to cause bodily injury that could result - that the person knew, or ought to have known, could have caused death. The difference is there can be provocation, for example - can result in first-degree murder becoming second-degree murder. Then alcohol and drugs can result in second-degree murder, first-degree murder, going all the way to manslaughter. These are very significant in terms of law because of the nature of the charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada has previously referred to or described murder in a case called Valancourt as the most heinous of wartime crimes. In other words, murder is the ultimate offence in Canada in terms of the seriousness of the offence. A person convicted of first-degree murder is automatically sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for twenty-five years. A person convicted of second-degree murder is automatically sentenced to life imprisonment with a period of parole to be set by the judge that can range between ten years and twenty-five years, if I remember correctly, but it is a minimum of ten years. Then manslaughter becomes a very important offence to the accused person, because in this Province manslaughter can range from two years to fifteen years.

In these circumstances, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile will know, it is important that there be an ability to develop a solicitor-client relationship. Earlier, in one of the debates, there was some discussion on - I cannot remember which bill. I think it was the bill to amend child support. The one that dealt with child support, where we had amended it so that there would not have to be the provision of information which could breach the solicitor-client privilege.

Solicitor-client privilege, Mr. Speaker, is one of the oldest privileges known to our law and is very akin in many respects to the parliamentary privilege, in that it is absolute. The importance of the solicitor-client privilege leads to the solicitor-client relationship. If you, me or anyone in this House, or in society, is facing a charge and which - Mr. Speaker, we can see is not enough to stand in this House and say this could never happen to me. One of the things that we know over the last fifteen years in this country is that unfortunately innocent people can find themselves convicted of murders. Twenty years ago that would have been unheard of in this country, that we would be standing up in a House of Assembly or a House of Commons and acknowledging that innocent people can, in fact, be convicted, despite the best efforts of all involved. It is not a commentary on the lack of judicial resources. It is not a commentary on the competency of judges or of counsel, but we do know that it can happen.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that in this day and age it is not enough for the public to say: Well, they are all guilty, because they are not all guilty anymore. We know that. I will never forget the day when Guy Paul Moran was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, when he came to the mikes and said: The message I want to give you is that this could happen to anyone. In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have seen it in the cases of Gregory Parsons, Randy Druken, Ronald Dalton, and the list goes on across this country.

One of the things that we - the points this legislation, this amendment makes, Mr. Speaker, is that if an individual is going to face the most serious consequences known to our law then he or she, at a minimum, should be provided with counsel of his or her choosing. In other words, it does not mean - it is not a commentary on legal aid staff lawyers, as I will get to in a second. It is not a commentary on a private lawyer or someone in the private bar is superior. It simply means that the relationship that develops between the lawyer and the client is crucial, both from the perspective of solicitor-client privilege and the individual having confidence, but also the public having confidence that we are all trying to obtain the just result.


Let me be clear on one point, Mr. Speaker. There is no one saying that the guilty should not be convicted. What we want as a society is to see that the guilty are convicted. That is why, as a government over the last number of years, we have put so much money into implementing the Lamer recommendation, in assisting the Crown, in assisting the police force in becoming better at what they do. The other side of that is we do not want the innocent to be convicted, because there is no greater nightmare than the innocent being convicted. If you look at it from the perspective of the victim of crime, once an individual is charged with an offence and the standard to be utilized in that respect is the reasonable grounds standard utilized by the police. That is not a terribly high threshold to meet. So, once an individual is charged, well their reputation - the damage to a great extent is done because unfortunately some members of the public, as in human nature, will jump to the conclusion: Well, if the police laid the charge he or she must have committed the act. Well, again, we know that that is not the case.

The two basic principles of our criminal justice system are the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Now what a lawyer does in that role is communicate with the client, defend the client to the best of his or her ability. What we started to find after this amendment came in - and I do not think that the Opposition House Leader was here at the time, but I am assuming that this amendment would have been brought in for a number of reasons. One is that the government of the day found itself facing economic situations where this was looked upon as being a way of saving money. Secondly, we had, as I stated earlier, hired a number of legal aid lawyers and it was probably felt: Well, look, the legal aid lawyers can handle all the cases that are before the courts, including the homicide cases. Thirdly, there was, or there had been in the previous years, some rumblings among the private lawyers as to the fact that they were not being paid enough money. Now we all know that is not a very sympathetic approach, despite the reality of the situation. What we have looked at as a government is: What has taken place in the last ten years? How has what has taken place affected the administration of justice in this Province? So, what took place is we have - and there is a continuous litany of cases that have come before the Supreme Court where individuals have claimed that they want to choose their lawyer.

Now under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an individual charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for his or her detention and they have the right to be informed of the right to counsel. They have the right to, but there is nowhere in Canadian Law, despite challenges across this country, is there the right to counsel of your choice. In other words, although there is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms a right to counsel, there is no right to counsel of choice.

It started out around 1999 that I was first aware of the cases that started challenging this. We have had, Mr. Speaker, a litany of cases comes before both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court Court of Appeal challenging this and saying, I want my own lawyer.

Now, it has been unseemly in many respects, Mr. Speaker. One is that there have been unseemly attacks upon the competence of legal aid lawyers because individuals who are looking to choose their own counsel have tried to utilize that as the main reason for attacking this provision in the Charter.

I think, actually, I can go back as far as 1996 when these cases started to be challenged. Here we are in 2007 and I am looking at my list, Mr. Speaker, and I see in this year, 2007 - and I am not sure about 2008 – but in the year 2007 we had at least two cases go before the Court of Appeal on this issue. In one case, Mr. Speaker, it took four years from the time the individual was charged, and he or she was in custody, to get to the point where the individual was brought to trail. Now, that is simply unacceptable in this day and age where we have victims of crime who have to live with the death of a loved one.

The Greg Parsons case really speaks volumes, because even in the situation where his mother was killed he was also the victim, because there are always victims of crime. If someone is murdered, whether or not the police have caught the right person, there are people who have lost a loved one.

We cannot and should not allow these cases to take three and four years to proceed through our court system. That is simply unacceptable in this day and age. It is unacceptable when we see the cost that is involved with this. I am talking again, Mr. Speaker, about not only the financial cost but the human cost, for these parents, for brothers, sisters and children to be coming back and forth to a court system for four years looking for answers. That is unacceptable. One of the main reasons we have seen here - and some will argue that it is the accused person who is delaying the process, but what we are seeing here are individuals who are coming before the court without a lawyer in very serious cases.

I know, Mr. Speaker, right now there are at least two individuals before our Court of Appeal with murder appeals pending who are unrepresented. I know of a situation earlier this year where, with an unrepresented accused, it took four months to do a trial, but with a represented accused from the same fact situation a trial took place in three weeks. We have the financial cost. We have individuals in a court room who should not be there representing themselves, but we also, Mr. Speaker, cannot force individuals to take lawyers. Up until this amendment essentially, unless in exceptional circumstances - and there are a number of cases I was involved in and I am aware of where legal aid granted certificates - but unless there were exceptional circumstances the line was drawn in the sand; either take legal aid counsel or no one.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, when we looked at this, we looked at the comments that have been made by the judges. We know that Chief Justice Derek Green, during the Q.C ceremony a number of years ago, was so concerned about the situation that was developing that he actually made public commentary about the unrepresented litigant coming before the court. I know in another case Mr. Justice Barry, as he then was, now in the Court of Appeal, made certain comments. So, our judges have expressed concerns. It is difficult enough to be a judge as it is, Mr. Speaker, but to have an unrepresented litigant there - the law states that the judge cannot descend from the bench and become counsel for the unrepresented litigant but he or she has to try to help that person navigate the procedural and evidentiary difficulties of the cases. What happens is the judge is caught in an untenable position.

What we looked at is: how can we alleviate this concern? How can we protect the rights of victims of crime? How can we protect the presumption of the innocence and the right to a fair trial? How can we protect or enhance the administration of justice? One obvious avenue, Mr. Speaker, because the courts have continuously held that while you do not have the right to counsel of choice, one obvious way we looked at it was to bring in an amendment to this Act. We looked at it, Mr. Speaker, from a cost perspective. We looked at it from a financial and human cost.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when we have unrepresented accused they bring with them difficulties. When we have accused who are fighting for the right to counsel of choice it brings with them difficulties. One of the concerns that continuously arose was that we have accused persons who cannot maintain or even engage in that solicitor-client relationship because they say they have no confidence in their lawyers. What I am looking at here now is a list of approximately one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, at least twelve decided cases of our courts in the last number of years dealing with this issue. What we looked at it – well, if we put money into this system in terms of the right to counsel of choice, and this year in the Budget we have allowed $400,000, if we put the money in, will that money be saved on the other end? It certainly will, but it will open up to the legal aid lawyers who are continuously sitting there determining whether or not they are going to be involved in the case. It allows them to do other work. It allows them hopefully to address some of the issues that we are dealing with in family law where there is a shortage of lawyers.

A lawyer, Mr. Speaker, who is tied up in a homicide case - and I have done cases that have basically taken the best part of a year each time, or two years. By opening up these lawyers, they can now get back to working on the files that need to be addressed in their offices. There is a double benefit here in terms of opening up, hopefully, the lawyers who do the civil legal aid to do other criminal legal aid that is before the courts.

When we started looking at this, Mr. Speaker, we said: How are we going to structure this in a way that it accomplishes the end? In other words, the intent of the Legislature here is to ensure that individuals are represented, to avoid the undue delays that have resulted from these kinds of applications, to allow for legal aid lawyers to commit themselves to other work, but also that this is not going to be a windfall for private lawyers. In other words, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have asked here, just as I did this myself, are for lawyers who will agree to do these cases at $60 an hour. To the average person that might sound like a lot of money, but as the member opposite knows when you are running a law practice and you had an overhead that can run you between fifty to sixty cents on the dollar there is not a whole lot of money involved there.

What I am appealing to and what I have asked the private Bar in this Province to consider is the fact that there is an obligation or a duty here that people need to be represented, that in order to maintain the sanctity of our system and the integrity of the system lawyers must step forward.

To put this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the same lawyer who will be doing this case at $60 an hour will be looking at charging - these are lawyers who are downtown, St. John's – between $200 to $300 an hour. Again, to put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the commission counsel, for example, at the inquiries - in the Lamer Inquiry, lawyers who represented clients withstanding were paid $150 an hour, whereas commission counsel, for example, in the Cameron Inquiry were being paid $200 an hour. So at $60 an hour, it is certainly not an exorbitant wage. It is very modest, if I could say so myself. What we have is that we are going to restrict the number of hours. One of the ways we can do that is, myself and the Director of Legal Aid have met on a number of occasions and essentially we have come up with what we think is a fair time frame or tariff for individuals to do the cases. In other words, you cannot go in there and the private lawyer says, well, I am going to run this out for the next three years and get unlimited funds.

What will happen is, there will be a tariff - and it could be, for example, 300 hours could be the maximum. There will be discretion for the Director of Legal Aid, who is very experienced. Mr. Newman Petten is one of the fairest men I have ever dealt with in terms of trying to deal with these kinds of cases. Mr. Petten has been the Director of Legal Aid for quite some time. He has dealt with all kinds of lawyers and all kinds of circumstances. Mr. Petten knows what is valid and what is not valid. As minister, I certainly feel confident in leaving certain discretion in Mr. Petten's hands as to how and when to grant hours requested by lawyers.

This tariff is not in place yet. We are still working on this and we are trying to come up with – we will seek input from the private bar, we will see input from legal aid, and we will finalize it in the form of a regulation, but that won't affect, for example, if a lawyer wants to retain an extra witness in a homicide case. He or she will still have the right – the Director of Legal Aid – to outline the reasons why an expert is required. I think one of the most progressive steps we have taken under the Criminal Code, or the federal government has taken under the Criminal Code, in the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, is now expert reports have to be disclosed. In other words, the defence cannot sit there waiting, get all of the Crown's evidence, and say: By the way, I have an expert.

The expert reports have to be disclosed now at a certain point or it can result in postponements of the trial, and allowing the Crown to obtain experts. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is ensure fairness in the system. We are doing all of this without any more federal money in relation to the legal aid.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the first Federal-Provincial Territorial Meeting I went to, I sat in a room - and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile might have encountered this himself - where civil legal aid was the number one issue in the country for all of these Justice Ministers. Everyone was going to tell the federal government off when they came into that room.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, when the people came into the room, when the ministers, Minister Day and Minister Nicholson, came into the room, no one said boo, other than yours truly, because I firmly believed in this issue. Just as I believe that we have to have the right to counsel of choice in limited cases, we also have to have the right to civil legal aid, where women and children are given equal opportunity to be represented by legal aid and by legal counsel.

So the steps that we have taken in this year's Budget with the Child, Youth and Family Services project in Corner Brook will certainly assist, and I think one of the most important moves we have made, as a government, Mr. Speaker, is the opening of the legal aid office in Labrador. When I met with the women's groups in Labrador, and heard of the inequities that existed in the system as a result of the men being able to obtain the only private counsel in town, and there would be no legal aid lawyers there, I was appalled.

So that is again a commitment. Actually, I wrote all of the ministers across this country, in December, a very strong letter saying: Let's take our fight to Signal – I was going to say take our fight to Signal Hill, but perhaps it would be better to take it to Parliament Hill, and let's start bringing home this issue of what the federal government is not doing.

Mr. Speaker, it probably does not surprise anyone in this House, but what did I hear back from the ministers across this country? Oh, no, we cannot start this yet.

So, what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? We will go to Quebec City this year, and guess what will be the number one issue on the agenda again this year? Civil legal aid. Well, it will not be for me, Mr. Speaker, because I will say to them: You – I was going to say something bad, then – I will say to them: You had your chance. I wrote the letters. I was willing to lead the charge, and none of you came forward.

So what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, as a government, is to enhance and improve the system as it exists in this Province, because as a government we have an obligation to ensure that if we are going to put people in jail for life, that at least they will have some solace – as much as some of them will blame their lawyers at the end of the day – in that at least we provided the counsel that you look for. It allows legal aid lawyers then, Mr. Speaker, to work on other issues.

So, what has happened in the last ten years, the provision that was brought in by the previous government has wreaked havoc in our system and it has led to innumerable applications, innumerable problems, and unrepresented accused where it certainly could have been or should have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what we have decided here, we did not open up this right to counsel of choice to all individuals. We did not open up the right to counsel of choice to individuals, as took place in the past, who are facing terms of life imprisonment. We opened it up in very restricted circumstances, to see how this will work.

To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the number of homicide cases that exist in this Province, at any given time, ongoing this year, and I am just going by memory now, there could be, for example, two or three trials left to go this year and there probably have been a couple of more, so in any given year you have three or four trials.

When an individual is charged, Mr. Speaker, some of them are resolved by way of an individual pleading guilty to a lesser charge, some of them are resolved by individuals pleading guilty to the charge that is before the court and others can be disposed of at a preliminary inquiry, so that not all of them proceed to trial. Right now, we will have in the first year - there is sort of a backlog that exists in terms of individuals who are currently on appeal and there are individuals who are facing trial now.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment itself, to speak to the competence of Legal Aid lawyers, what we have said in this proposed amendment is that where the application is for legal aid with respect to an offence of murder, manslaughter or infanticide, the applicant may select a solicitor employed by the Commission. There are certainly very experienced lawyers down at the Legal Aid Commission, that if an individual wishes to choose them that is up to them, or a solicitor in private practice in the Province. Essentially, we have left it open to the individual to choose whom he or she wishes to have represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to one case this year where there have been four proceedings in the last year and a half that have gone on this right-to-counsel issue. They have been in the three Superior Court judges that finally went to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that arose during this whole episode of individuals choosing right-to-counsel of choice, was that they would apply to have the Attorney General pay for the legal fees. Under a procedure that developed around the early 1990s, if I remember correctly, if an individual did not have counsel then a court could, in exceptional circumstances, order the Attorney General to pay fees. That has occurred in one case in this Province, Mr. Speaker, that I am aware of, but generally the courts have also declined to order the Attorney General to pay fees where an individual can be represented by Legal Aid counsel.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is directed toward improving the delivery of legal aid services, decreasing the time it takes to proceed to trial thereby decreasing the stress and pressure upon victims of crime and helping the system move more efficiently.

On this point, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are trying to do - and it fits in with the recent task report, which I will get to in a second, on increasing efficiencies in the criminal justice system - but what we are trying to do is alleviate the numerous allegations made by an accused person, that legal aid staff lawyers are not competent. I have seen the Chair of Legal Aid stand up on numerous occasions in the court and defend them but that is a common position propagated by individuals on remand. To improve the delivery of legal aid services by again allowing legal aid to free up legal aid lawyers who we can get to doing other work; to reduce the number of counsel of choice applications filed in these homicide matters because that is normally where we see them, Mr. Speaker, are in homicide cases where the consequences are so severe; and to facilitate the access to justice by taking a proactive approach and ensuring that an accused person will be able to get a fair trial in a timely manner, because, Mr. Speaker, under our charter an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a fair and impartial tribunal. Secondly, an individual has the right to a speedy trial. What we are trying to do is assist in moving matters through the court while allowing the courts to do their job without having to engage in the role of defence counsel or engage in what I would refer to as unseemly litigation between counsel and client, and to avoid, Mr. Speaker, increased delays in the hearing of a matter and inefficient use of court resource.

Although it would be difficult, Mr. Speaker, to determine the cost of the individual representing themselves, if we look at a four-month trial, if we look at all of the court staff that are present, if we look at the judge's salary, you put it all together and then you look at how long that trial should have taken place, there would be significant savings.

Mr. Speaker, one other aspect of this is that unfortunately in this Province or in any province is it not only men who are charged with homicide cases. In fact, in certain situations it is the female accused who need lawyers they can trust the most, because oftentimes what we see in female charges with homicide is that they are a result of very difficult relationships. They come from abusive back grounds, they come from a situation where they do need lawyers they can trust and lawyers they can confide in. I do know, Mr. Speaker, that there is currently one young lady on trial for, I think it might be manslaughter right now. She is either on trial or is scheduled to commence trial. We had another lady recently on the West Coast. It was either a stay of proceedings or she was acquitted. Then we had the lady here in St. John's. Those are three that come to mind. Of course, the case that perhaps stands out most clearly in my mind is the case where the Premier himself represented a lady who came from an abusive relationship many years ago, around 1988-1989, and she was ultimately acquitted in the death of her husband.

This is not meant to be a piece of legislation to help criminals. It is not meant to be a piece of legislation to allow people to get off. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is ensure that the innocent are protected, obviously, but that the guilty are prosecuted in an expeditious manner. In other words, that the exasperation felt by prosecutors, by judges, by police, by victims of crime can be alleviated by getting the matter to trial.

In terms of what is going on in the rest of this country, Mr. Speaker. Right now we were, prior to this amendment, the only Province that did not allow for limited access to right to counsel of choice. There are three systems of delivery of legal aid. There is the staff solicitor model which can be utilized in this Province. There is the private bar model which is utilized in other provinces, I think Ontario is primarily a private bar model, and then there is the mixed model. The mixed model involves what we are suggesting here now, would be the utilization of a staff solicitor system with a limited right to counsel of choice.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador were the provinces where there was no counsel of choice provision. However, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, by way of policy, allowed counsel from the private bar to represent eligible legal aid clients at $85 an hour. The Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario all rely upon mixed model to deliver legal aid services. Therefore, counsel of choice is not an issue. In Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, resident lawyers are relied upon in the delivery of legal aid services.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, we are now being brought inline with the rest of the country, and this amendment is fully supported by - after the Lemar Commission, or the Lemar report, there was a committee established of various participants in the legal aid system chaired by Mr. Justice Robert Wells. It had participants from various levels of court and lawyers involved, Crown and private practice. The Lemar working group, or commission, was supportive of this amendment. The Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission is fully supportive of the amendment and, as I have indicated, had comments from the various judges of our court. In all respects, I would suggest that this is a very positive move. It is one that will, hopefully, facilitate the delivery of justice.

Mr. Speaker, the comments I referred to earlier from Chief Justice Green, I just want to repeat part of this. This is what Chief Justice Green said in October, 2005. In criminal cases we are experiencing a very disturbing phenomenon. More and more frequently accused persons are making application to the court asking it to exercise its common law or charter jurisdiction to appoint counsel at the expense of the Attorney General, because they are either not able to qualify for legal aid or they find legal aid staff lawyers unacceptable for conflicts or other reasons. When this happens, what we are assessing increasingly is each party taking essentially a defensive position that in essence asserts that: it is not my fault - without putting forward any positive suggestions for a solution. The problem with this is that the court procedure is not structured to deal comprehensively with finding a practical solution to this problem when no one is prepared to take a proactive approach to find a solution so that the accused will be able to get a fair trial in a timely manner. Well, that is what this government is doing, Mr. Speaker, we are taking a proactive approach to find a solution to avoid these unseemly delays and confrontations in court and to facilitate the delivery of justice and access to the same.

So, this particular initiative, Mr. Speaker, has to be looked at in tandem with other initiatives that we have recently taken here in terms of trying to increase efficiency. I think, and I am trying to remember. I read something somewhere today about a complaint. Yes, it was some woman - and I do not know the details of it all but some woman phoned Open Line and complained about the length of time it is taking to get through court. Well, we are actively trying to, in all areas - from family justice services, we are trying to improve access to justice. In fact, I think that one of the - I am going to be addressing the Senate next week, a Senate committee on this issue of judicial appointments, judicial reform and how things are happening in this Province. So what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is speed up the system, for lack of a better term.

We recently released a report, the report of the Task Force on Criminal Justice Efficiencies that had co-chair of the Chief Judge of provincial court; the former deputy minister in my department; the Chair of the Legal Aid Commission, Nick Avis, who was also a very able and competent commission counsel at the Lamer Commission; Phil LeFeuvre, Crown Attorney; Erin Breen, a lawyer in private practice; Mark Pike, a lawyer who had both Crown and defence experience, and Heather Jacobs from Justice. Some of the highlights of that report, Mr. Speaker, are quite startling.

When I entered this position, I entered it, as I indicated on a number of occasions - I tried to divorce myself from my previous life. I tried to also use the experience that I gained in assisting me to do my role. I thought it was taking too long to get to trial in provincial court. Now, obviously that is not - I was not going to use my personal judgement with whatever inherent biases that existed to change the system. So we put together a task force and said: look at these issues, tell me if I am correct. The task force came back with some very viable and tangible recommendations that can increase the efficiency in our court system. If I can use an example, the average time frame to get to trial in provincial court - and this is low, but this is the figure that is used - is ten to twelve months. By making certain changes, by tweaking the system, by injecting some resources, we can reduce that to three to four months.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that for the last fifteen years we have not looked at this. The system has not changed. Yet, we have a report here which says we have to use technology more, we have to use videoconferencing, we have to cut down on the appearances. In this report, there is reference to sometimes taking as many as eleven appearances before you finally say: Not guilty, and you set a date for trial. That is unacceptable. Now, that is not casting blame. There has to be a global approach here and it has to be looked at from the perspective that defence lawyers have a role. Both legal aid lawyers and private lawyers have a role, but let's face the reality, and now I can say this as the Attorney General, is that not every accused person wants to get to trial. Delay sometimes can be seen as an ally. What I want to do on behalf of this government is say to everyone, here is an early trial date. You accept it if you want it, or if you have a good reason to postpone, so be it.

Let's just look at an incident, Mr. Speaker, of domestic abuse. We have a man - it is usually a man. I am not, again, picking on men but unfortunately, the terrible statistics show us that it is usually the man who is the perpetrator of the abuse. So the man is charged. What happens then, Mr. Speaker, is he goes to court. There is normally a condition put in place if he is given bail, that he have no contact or communication with his wife and only limited contact with the children, and it is usually supervised. What we have is a situation where this can drag on for a year. The Purple Heart Campaign out of Goose Bay highlighted that. This was a group of interested women in the women's centre there in Goose Bay who followed court, casually or informally, for a period of time, and they were appalled at how long it was taking to get to court.

What happens in domestic abuse cases, because of the power and balance that exists in these cases, oftentimes then the woman initially upon making the complaint will say: Well, no, I do not want to proceed. I was drunk, or I hit my husband first, or I do not know what happened.

The police and the Crown, rightfully so, have said: No, we are not going to allow that to happen. Because in these domestic abuse cases what we have seen is, that push - I am not saying it will, but – that push can lead to other violence, and it is that other violence that leads to the jealousy that can lead to the problems, and unfortunately can lead to murder.

In this country, the statistics will show you, you are much more likely, despite our low homicide rate compared to other countries in the Western World, to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. Unfortunately, the home is the place where it can happen. Oftentimes, we have alcohol and drugs involved, there can be sexual or physical abuse, so these cases go on for a year in Provincial Court. The family is totally torn apart or, even worse, they get back together in breach of the court order.

One of the things that we are doing, as a government - and I can say that I am absolutely delighted at the support that the various women's groups in this city have given us from the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and throughout the Province. I am just saying we are looking at a pilot project in the fall whereby these cases - if an individual comes in and wants to plead guilty, then we will provide a court system that not only looks after the offender and tries to encourage his rehabilitation, but looks at the family as a unit. It looks at the men and women, the children involved.

I think this statistic was given to me by one of the Purple Heart Campaign workers in Labrador: unfortunately, 90 per cent, or 88 per cent - I do not know where the statistic came from, but with my own experience it would accord - get back together despite the abuse, this cycle of abuse, the woman who is caught on this treadmill and cannot get off.

What we are trying to do, if the problem is anger management, we will provide you with that anger management and see if that will help. If the problem is alcohol or drugs, we will provide you with the counselling to see if that will help - if it is education, if it is counselling you need. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are certain cases where they are never getting back together, and so be it, but that is the woman's choice.

As a system, how can we justify allowing these cases to take twelve months from the time an incident occurs to the time it goes to court? That is unacceptable. We are not interfering with the individual's presumption of innocence. If he or she wants a trial they can have their trial, but if he or she accepts responsibility and says, I want help, I want to try to fix the family unit – and if the woman, the victim, says, I am willing to try this, so be it.

So this is another proactive approach. Will it work, Mr. Speaker? It has worked in other provinces, and I am hoping it will work here, but that is one example of how the delay in the court system does so much damage.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we had the statistics outlined in terms of the number of – less than 33 per cent of our court time being properly utilized. Statistics of four-and-a-half hours per day being a normal sitting day in B.C. and Ontario, and yet we have situations where our judges, according to this report, are sitting for less than 45 per cent of that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are entitled to ask of judges – the same that we are entitled to ask of ourselves, or the public is entitled to ask of us - is a good day's work for a good day's pay; and I think at $180,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, that is not a lot to ask.

That leads, then, into the next topic, and this becomes one that is going to be a tricky one over the next few weeks, but it is back to my role as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Now, we have commissioned a report, Mr. Speaker. It is a very positive report. It has involvement from all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Our goal is to reduce delay. Our goal is to bring people to trial; to reduce the effect upon victims of crime, the witnesses and innocent accused; to allow for an innocent accused to say, I want my trial and I want it now; to avoid unnecessary delays in appearances.

Our goals are laudable. Mr. Speaker, in this Budget we allowed for an intake worker at Provincial Court to avoid delays in terms of individuals who would come before the court and, time and time again, say, I have not been approved for legal aid. Well, let's look at a lot of these people, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, there are people who have issues. There are poverty issues; there are education issues. If they are ending up in the court system, oftentimes they are ending up there because of difficulties with mental health issues, lack of housing, the breakdown of the family unit, so they need help. It is not enough for the court system to set them adrift and say: Go work your way through legal aid.

We are going to try to provide them with that help. Now, having said that, by providing them with that help, that hopefully will allow them to get counsels who help them out; because we also have a mental health court down there in Provincial Court, Mr. Speaker, that, if some of these people should be going through that stream, as opposed to the ordinary stream, that is something that hopefully we can identify early.

Once we start to get through the court system, we are providing them – like, the little things that were identified. An individual who, for example, was charged with impaired driving last week, he would be given an appearance notice for two months down the road. Why did it take so long? The police cannot provide disclosure immediately. So now we are going to reduce that from two months to two weeks. Then the Crown has to provide disclosure. The defence are saying, well, it takes too long to get disclosure. The Crown provides that; we move the system along, by everyone in the system - the police, the Crown, the defence - all participating. Mr. Speaker, I can have, as Minister of Justice, some control over some of these parties; because, although there is a certain arm's-length relationship with the director of public prosecutions, as Minister of Justice, I do not get involved in investigations, when it comes to saying: What is going on here? Can you improve the system? - There is nothing wrong with that.

With the police, I do not get involved in operational safety issues, but when it comes to policies (inaudible) look, we want things to move a little bit quicker. Lo and behold, this principle of judicial independence prevents the Attorney General from telling the judges what to do. This is the conundrum we have. We have provided resources for the creation of per diem judges. These per diem judges would fill in so that we could start double-booking trials.

You will see from the efficiencies task force report that there has been a system developed whereas, opposed to - what happened now, very quickly, Mr. Speaker? Finally, your day is set after three or four appearances, you go to number seven, you go to number two, three or four appearances; your date is set. That date is set now, perhaps in the fall, eight months down the road, one trial in that courtroom. Now, if that trial collapses, which often happens, because there is no pretrial conferencing, if that trial collapses then there is nothing going on in that courtroom that day. So this (inaudible) system, or the court - I forget the initials - it is not that complicated. You double-book; if both trials go ahead, you bring in a per diem judge. That per diem judge is paid a stipend for a day. It is not supernumerary judge, where they are paid a salary. If you work for that day, you get a salary, so this would move the system along. That per diem system is a factor that could be taken into account.

We have provided more money to help the Crowns improve their system of filing under the internal report that was done, to allow for the improvement of their systems.

The last piece in the puzzle, though, is the judges. Am I, as Minister of Justice or Attorney General, to simply sit back and say: Please, judges, implement this report. Am I, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to say: I cannot do anything here because the law, historically viewed, says I cannot?

Well, let's just look at what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker. Under section 9127 of the Constitution Act, the federal government is responsible for criminal law. Under section 9213 or 9214 of that same Constitution, the Minister of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice in the Province. Now, one would hope that we will work this out, and I am confident that we will. I am getting into a hypothetical situation of, what about they do not? What about a situation where the courts say, sorry? Am I, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to sit back and say: Well, I am not going to do anything here now? Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. We will try to work things out.

One of the ways we work it out is through this Court Administration Advisory Board, where we sit down with the various judges, but some very unfortunate comments are coming back to me as to the approach we are going to be taking. My responsibility is to the people of this Province, to assure that victims of crime and innocent accused do not have to wait any longer for trials than they have to. Now I am not out, contrary to what some might think, I am not out to pick fights with everyone who comes in my – not get in my way, come in my way. I will not, Mr. Speaker, back down from implementing or taking a very strong stance in implementing procedures that are for the betterment of the administration of justice in this Province. At this point, there is no indication that any steps have been taken for the implementation of this report. However, I will be, very soon, determining whether or not the steps are being taken, because this is one of the issues I plan to address the Senate on next week, this whole issue of judicial reform, this whole issue of judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, when you are appointed a judge, unlike any other job that I am aware of - and maybe there is another judge. I can see my friend there from Placentia sitting behind me, I do not know if there is anything else, but I mean, a judge, you are appointed for life. There is a judicial council that can review, and we are currently looking at amendments to deal with the disciplinary procedure under the act. I am not aware of anyone ever being removed. I think there was one case of a person being removed in Quebec, I am not sure.

What we have Mr. Speaker, we have the right to expect from our judges, and that is all we are expecting, is a good day's work for a good day's pay. That is something that I think, as the Minister of Justice - and I am not saying that that is not happening. I have no reason to believe that that is not happening at all, but if and when I have to get involved in the fray I will, because that is where I see my role, to deal with situations that are for the betterment of the public of this Province, and one of them is allowing for speedy justice.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to some of these other issues then we have to look at the system as a whole. This report, all of these proactive steps we are taking, the previous steps that were taken by the present Minister of Finance and yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you were Minister of Justice, the improvements to the police, the improvements to legal aid, the steps we are now taking, they can only all work if the system works together. In order for the system to work together, people have to do exactly that. You cannot draw lines in the sand. One party cannot say: Well, you cannot tell me what to do. Another party cannot say: Well, it is your fault. It is not a matter of blame. It is simply, how can we improve the system? Because that is what all of us want.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment I have made to women and children especially in this Province, and other victims of crime, is that you should not have to live with these matters hanging over your head any longer than necessary.

We will see where all of this develops, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps being somewhat of the fatalist that I am, I have complicated it somewhat. The difficulty is, as I have said, this whole issue of judicial independence - because how far can a Minister of Justice go? We all know there can be no interference with judicial decision making, but there is another side to that, because judges come to us. This is something I am having difficulty with but I am speaking to the chief justices. Chief Justice Wells and Chief Justice Green have been excellent to deal with in all of this. Basically, there is an issue of administrative independence because they rely upon us for their budgets, yet they have to come to us and say these are the monies we need to run the court. Yet, as the Attorney General, our lawyers are down there as litigants in front of them all the time.

There is also, in law, the perception that justice must be done. In a situation where there is this administrative independence, how far do we let it go? Should the courts be accountable to us? Mr. Speaker, as long as I am the Minister of Justice and I have to stand up in this Legislature, and stand up before the public and answer to the public, then certainly, there has to be a way of interacting with the court that does not appear as I, or us as a government, are imposing our wills upon them. Yet we have to, we cannot write them blank cheques.

One of the things that I am really looking forward to over the next few months is examining this issue of administrative independence and seeing if this is something that we can come to a consensus over. What I will tell you, when we started this process - when I started this process in November there were lines, not drawn in the sand but there were some fairly strong views in my department as to how far the court should be allowed to go. Well, I will give you an example. Last week, Mr. Speaker, where I – again, I use the word unseemly, where a court has to come in and look for money from the Department of Justice. There has to be a better way to do it. How we are going to do it? I do not know, but there is a conference here in this Province this summer that will deal with these administrative models of courts, which I am very interested in seeing what they have to say because personally, I would like to be able to say: Here is your money. This is the money you need. Here is your money, now you deal with it. How can we ensure that that money is being spent? Like, we have to account - how can we ensure that money is being spent the way it should be? Not that any of us have any reason to doubt that it will be spent properly.

So, what we have, Mr. Speaker, in this Province right now is what I would refer to as a proactive approach to the delivery of justice and access to justice. This bill or this amendment we have here today, I would suggest, is a very positive step. The court administrations or the Criminal Justice Efficiencies Task Force, I would suggest, is a very positive step. At this point it received good reviews, but it is not a matter of reviews. What I want to see as the Minister of Justice is this report implemented. Now I cannot, as I have said, tell the judges what to do but we can very strongly suggest this is what we need to do.

One of the difficulties we hear, Mr. Speaker, is that there are not enough judges. Well, that is part of the problem with a Province this size. I think, and I saw the statistics yesterday. I think Stephenville, for example, the Provincial Court in Stephenville goes to Port aux Basques. The Provincial Court in Corner Brook goes up the Northern Peninsula. We have very busy courts that do the Coast of Labrador. It is a very difficult situation to have enough judges to do all the work that needs to be done. So it is incumbent on all of us to work together to try to improve the system.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other initiatives I want to speak to briefly that again deal with this government's creative and proactive approach to the administration of justice in this Province is the plan that we are currently looking at of a Innu Healing Court. Now this arises from the courts that have developed in Ontario and some provinces out west called the Gladue Court. There was a Supreme Court of Canada decision around 1999-2000 which outlined how the special characteristics of Aboriginal offenders must be taken into account. We must respect their culture and heritage and wherever possible we must allow for them to avail of their cultures and traditions in the sentencing process. Labrador has been an issue upon which I have spent a lot of time. I have been up there three or four or five times and met with the Aboriginal groups. We are really committed as a government to trying to help them develop. For us to respond to their needs, as opposed to, Mr. Speaker, the imposition of our ways upon the Aboriginal groups, we are saying to them, work with us and tell us what can help you help yourselves. We are seeing that, Mr. Speaker. This Innu healing court is one that we are hoping to establish. It is currently under research, as we speak, but that is again another very creative and proactive measure. The RCMP currently use restorative justice in Labrador but we want to expand the use of that restorative justice throughout the Province. In fact, we currently have an alternative justice section of our department.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that we are hearing time and time again, and this fits in totally with the issue of the efficiencies report, is we have too many prisoners on remand in this Province. They are on remand awaiting trial, so let us give them trials quicker.

Hopefully, the prison review that is currently ongoing will look at some of these issues and will have some suggestions but, Mr. Speaker.

I will use this example. The Labrador Correctional Facility allows for - thirty-eight people is their capacity. There are currently fifty-three people there, or fifty-three at any given time. We can start moving these people off remand, give them earlier trials and the whole system benefits. The same thing with St. John's, Mr. Speaker, where there could be 150 people at any given time.

What we have is a situation where these reports and these steps, these proactive and creative steps taken by this government, can improve access to justice, the delivery of justice, and improve confidence in the administration of justice.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, those are my comments in relation to this amendment to the Legal Aid Act.

At this point - I forgot my words, I had to go to the Government House Leader - I move second reading of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I was talking too much.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did want to have a few words at second reading on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 29, but I am not sure of the Government House Leader's intentions for today. I think the plan was actually to get a bit further than we had gotten. I did have some comments, and rather than start today, if the Government House Leader would prefer we can withhold until tomorrow, or Thursday tomorrow being –

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: In that case I will adjourn debate on Bill 29 for now.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is getting close to the regular adjournment hour anyway, and there is still committee work to be done this evening. I would like to remind hon. Members that the committee work to be done today is as follows: This evening the Social Services Committee will meet in the Executive Dining Room over in the West Block to review the Estimates of the Department of Education and Women's Policy Office; the Resource Committee will meet here in the Assembly Chamber after we adjourn, to review the Estimates of the Department of Innovation, Trade & Rural Development; and tomorrow morning, I understand that the Government Services Committee will meet at 8:30 here in the Assembly Chamber to review the Estimates of the Department of Labrador Affairs. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that will conclude the Estimates work by the various Estimate Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I need to advise the Opposition that tomorrow, being Private Members' Day, we will be debating the resolution that stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two o'clock and that this House now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House should now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two o'clock in the afternoon.

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