December 2, 2008          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLVI   No. 43


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to join many of my colleagues who have paid tribute to the young people serving their country in war-torn regions of the world. I am pleased to pay tribute today to Corporal Darren Butt who returned from Kandahar, Afghanistan, last month and was in his hometown of Pinware last week where he received a hero's welcome.

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Darren Butt has just finished up a ten-month stint in Afghanistan, where he served close-quarter protection for Major-General Marc Lessard. Mr. Butt joined the army in 2003 and underwent basic training in CFB Esquimalt, British Columbia. He then attended battle school in Meaford, Ontario, at the Land Force Central Area Training Centre. He has been based in Petawawa with his family since that time.

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Butt was welcomed home to Pinware by a group of family and friends to great music and wonderful food. Mayor Neal Pike as well as Mayor Agnes Pike from the neighbouring community of West St. Modeste were on hand for the celebration. Corporal Butt was accompanied by his fiancιe, Melissa Rumbolt and their two children Chloe and Cody.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Butt spoke recently to the local newspaper of witnessing significant changes in Afghanistan during his time there, and was very proud that he was able to play a part in this. He stated, "It's a privilege to step into a country where they're underprivileged, and actually see development as in roads and schools, hospitals, and to see the look on their faces when you drive through and they're happy to see you coming because you make a difference. Their life is a bit happier from me being there."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in honouring Corporal Darren Butt and the many other Canadian Forces members from this Province who are so bravely representing our country for the benefit of all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the Pasadena Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. Branch 68 is the Province's latest branch. Both the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and I had the pleasure of attending the branch's creation on November 9, 2008 in Pasadena.

Mr. Speaker, this new branch, under the leadership of President Ralph Rice, has done an outstanding job in putting a team in place that will ensure its success for years to come. The last legion charter was issued in our Province thirty-two years ago, so this was indeed a very significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker the legion network in our Province and across the country not only provides services to veterans but contributes significantly to the greater good of the communities and areas they serve. They support hospitals, schools, and numerous other community activities. Our Province and country is a better place because of their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in paying tribute to Branch 68, our Province's latest branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I rise today to welcome Dr. David Thomas to Port aux Basques, and to congratulate him on accepting the position of Chief of Staff at the Dr. Charles L. Legrow Health Centre at Port aux Basques.

The Chief of Staff position at the Centre has been vacant since November 2006 and Dr. Thomas will provide an important local voice at the regional level. The Chief of Staff position is a part-time job, and duties include: working with the regional medical advisory committee, organizing the rotation of doctors at the local hospital, ensuring standards of care are met, assisting in recruitment, participating in budgeting and planning processes, general administration and communication.

Originally from Musgravetown, Dr. Thomas started a family practice at Port aux Basques this past July after graduating from Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Dr. David Thomas on accepting the position of Chief of Staff at the Dr. Charles L. Legrow Health Centre. All the best to Dr. Thomas and his wife, Susan.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege of standing here today to pay tribute to a constituent and a person I am proud to call my friend, who was recently named as Volunteer of the Year by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Frances Roach has been a volunteer with the Cancer Society for the past eight years. For the first five years, she volunteered at the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre assisting those living with cancer with wigs, turbans or prostheses. As is her nature, we can be sure Frances did this with the utmost of kindness and compassion, and she was always committed and vigilant to her weekly shift.

She is so dedicated and knowledgeable that the members of the staff of the Cancer Centre look to her for information when it comes to programs and services provided by the Canadian Cancer Society.

For the past three years, along with her other volunteer work with the Society, Frances has been the co-ordinator of the volunteer driving program for the St. John's-Mount Pearl area. She spends hours on the phone with volunteer drivers and clients, arranging between thirty-five to sixty drives each week.

This job has no set hours so, day or night, Frances is always ready and available to handle whatever situation might arise, from a last-minute change of appointment to a person calling with questions about how the driver program, or indeed any program with the Cancer Society, works.

Frances is an invaluable volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society, and I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating her on receiving this award.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue team won the Canadian International SAR Games which were held in St. John's for the first time during the week of October 13 to October 19.

Competing against twelve other teams, which included the Irish Coast Guard, the Wolverines placed first after participating in the competition for just four years.

The competition included search management, setting up an actual search, evidence search, navigation, survival skills and rescue operations.

Members of the winning team were: Perry Bowering, Clyde Mercer, Mattie Foley, Darrell Somerton and George Higdon.

The Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue team plan on going to Ireland in 2009 to take part in the Irish SAR Games.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to the Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue and wishing them every success in the future.

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 congratulate the 2008 graduates of Mount Pearl Senior High and O'Donel High School.

These students should be commended for their hard work and dedication over the past several years in achieving their high school diploma. They are now ready to pursue post-secondary studies, if they so choose, armed with the knowledge that a secondary education affords them.

I wish them all the best in their future studies and encourage them to seek out not only careers they feel will benefit them financially, but also offer them personal satisfaction. When you pursue a career in an area you enjoy, the rewards are significant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the graduates of O'Donel High School and Mount Pearl Senior High School, and I wish them all the best for success in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to update residents of the Province on the progress of two new programs the Williams' government announced earlier this year to assist families – the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the high costs associated with raising a child, and these benefits were introduced to assist new parents with some of the increased costs they encounter in the first years of a child's life.

The Progressive Family Growth Benefit provides $1,000 for every child born of adopted, and the Parental Support Benefit provides $100 per month to parents for the first 12 months for each child born or adopted. Budget 2008 includes an allocation of $12.4 million for the program this year, and $9.9 million annually thereafter. The combined total of births and adoptions each year, Mr. Speaker, is approximately 4,500.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that 3,000 applications have been received from families to date for these programs, and I would like to encourage parents of children born or adopted on or after January 1, 2008, who have not already done so, to apply for the programs.

In an effort to increase the number of applications, my department is working in conjunction with the MCP offices to increase awareness of the programs by mailing out an application form to those individuals who have received an MCP card for children born on or after January 1, 2008.

Application forms for both benefits are available on-line through the Department of Finance Web site and at all Government Services Centres, obstetrical units and MCP offices. An application form is also included in You and Your New Baby packages available through public health nurses.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit add to the many family-focused supports that have been introduced or enhanced by the Williams' government.

Over the past four years, among other measures, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has significantly enhanced the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program which assists families with drug costs, expanded the Children's Dental Health Program, provided insulin pumps for children, expanded the Child Care Subsidy Program, increased the Mother-Baby Nutritional Supplement for mothers with low incomes, eliminated school fees, provided free text books for high school students, provided needs-based non-repayable grants to post-secondary students, and reduced interest rates on provincial student loans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit, if people remember, was an election promise that was made by the government opposite during the middle of the campaign in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when they went out and announced the baby bonus, as it has been referred to in the Province, for those who are listening and might not understand, it was made in the middle of an election campaign and at that time it had no dates of implementation, no dates for who would be eligible or who would qualify and, Mr. Speaker, the expectation was left with people that: I will be able to collect this parental benefit because I am now off on maternity leave.

Well, that did not happen, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have e-mails that were sent to me, back when the program was implemented, from women who had their children in December but, because the benefit did not come into play until January 1, they not only did not get their $1,000 but they did not get their parental supplement for the next eleven months of their maternity leave; whereas their neighbour, who had their baby thirty days later, got their $100 parental benefit for the rest of the year.

That is the kind of unfairness that was used in the implementation of this program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So I say to the minister today, because the money that was budgeted for this year is not all going to be allocated under the program, as the application list is 1,500 short of what was projected, maybe he would like to go back now and pay out the parental benefit to those women who are still on maternity leave, and have been since December of last year, who did not receive the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

I had a lot to say about these programs during the Budget discussions, and I will not repeat all of that today, but I do want to repeat one of the points that I made then which I think is so important.

I know that everything that was outlined by the Minister of Finance has been done, and these are all wonderful, but if we really want to help the parents in this Province with regard to child care than a child care program is what we need.

Who knows, with what is happening in Ottawa right now, we might have a government that we might be able to communicate with again with regard to child care. If we do not, I still say to this government that if we have $12.4 million for these programs, I think that money could have been better spent going into child care. We have subsidization that is too low. We have single parents who cannot afford child care and I really urge the minister in looking at the budget for 2008-2009 to start looking at the real needs of people around child care. Many parents have come to me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that I have had many parents contacting me both my phone, e-mail and face to face when meeting me when this first came out saying that it is all fine and dandy, especially the Progressive Family Growth Benefit, but the costs are not the first year. The costs lasts the whole life of the child, and one of the biggest costs is child care.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, over the summer I had the honour to announce that Newfoundland and Labrador has entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada to join BizPal. This online application is an important tool for entrepreneurs as it provides information on business permits and licences that need to be obtained in order to establish a business. As a result, business owners have the ability to start up faster and with the knowledge that they have all the right permits and licences.

Since this announcement, my department has been working diligently to identify all of the permits and licences that the provincial government issues. We have also been identifying possible municipalities that will be participating in the initial launch, which will occur in the new year. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Towns of Stephenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, along with the City of St. John's will be the first municipalities in the Province to sign up with BizPal.

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited that we have these three municipalities on board for the launch for a couple of good reasons. Firstly, in other Canadian jurisdictions where BizPal is already in operation, those provinces only launched the service with one municipality, usually their capital city but we have been able to learn from their experience and best practices. As a result, we are easily able to launch BizPal with two other municipalities in addition to our capital city.

These municipalities are representative of the diversity in our Province, ranging from urban centres, more rural areas and the Big Land of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure other interested municipalities that we will be able to add them to BizPal fairly quickly once it is launched. In October, I gave a presentation at the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador convention and I was encouraged by the interest municipal leaders have in this important new on-line service. I hope that the interest I saw at the convention will translate into many municipalities being willing to participate in BizPaL. As I stated at the convention, the process is relatively simple and with minimal commitment of resources from municipalities to upload and maintain their information.

Mr. Speaker, BizPaL is an exciting initiative that I wish had been in existence when I was setting up my own business. It is one I feel very strongly will benefit the business community and I look forward to the day when we launch BizPaL in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 the statement and to say to him that I am very proud that at least someone came to an agreement with the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the initial launch and commend the two municipalities that were mentioned and the City of St. John's for stepping forward to take part in this. Anything that can help the entrepreneurs or the councils in this Province is welcome news. I have to say to the minister, I happened to be in Corner Brook and I know what he referenced with regard to the municipalities. They are looking forward to this. Hopefully, it will take away some of the red tape that our hon. the Minister of Business refers to from time to time.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the only little concern I do have, I know a lot of the smaller municipalities do not have the Internet as we speak, and maybe there can be some form of program come in place that the government could assist them and then they could all access this, the same as the other municipalities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am quite pleased to see this initiative. I am aware of BizPaL and know that it really does assist in efficient business and helping with municipalities and businesses to run efficiently. I am glad to see that we are joining it. I do not think there is much more to say except to add that I would hope that there would be no municipality who would want to take part, would be held back because of lack of resources and that a way would be found to make sure that every municipality that wants to take part can take part.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The Chair would like to recognize a long time member of the House of Assembly, former Cabinet minister who has joined us today, Mr. Percy Barrett.

Welcome back to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's actions and dictatorial approach to democracy have left this country in a political upheaval. The Prime Minister's attempt to attack democracy and eliminate funding for Opposition parties was certainly the actions of a heavy-handed leader. Mr. Speaker, what happened in Ottawa is not unlike what has been happening in Newfoundland and Labrador when the provincial government members rejected funding increases to Official Opposition parties, especially this party in the House of Assembly.

So I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Did you direct or in any way, shape or form discuss the issue with the government members of the House of Assembly Management Commission on how they should be voting with regard to funding for the Official Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader certainly I sit on the Management Commission of the House of Assembly, along with other colleagues, being the MHA for Topsail, and the Minister of Transportation and Works. Mr. Speaker, we have an open debate in the Management Commission. It is a televised debate. It is one where we are able to put forth our suggestions, our ideas, our opinions and then we also have an opportunity to vote. There are rules established around the Management Commission as regarding who sits on that Commission, how we deal with issues, and we deal with those issues in a very public manner. Mr. Speaker, it is all recorded, as you would know, in Hansard and it is also available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the television. So, Mr. Speaker, we go to that, we perform our role and we certainly make the decisions that we are, I guess, empowered or we have the authority to do at that Management Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But my question is for the Premier. In light of what we are seeing happening in the country today, in light of the fact that in Newfoundland and Labrador government members rejected funding for the Official Opposition as part of a democratic process, I ask you Premier: Did you engage in any discussion in any way with the members of the management committee from your own caucus in terms of how they should be voting with regard to this funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the decisions that were made regarding the funding were made at the Management Commission and were made by the people who sat on that Commission. We have heard it over and over again that the Opposition has no funding but, in fact, Mr. Speaker, following the election in 2007 there was a decision made by the Management Commission at that time, although I was not a member at that time, that without any background or any reasoning just felt that resources needed to be increased and $100,000 at that time was given to the Official Opposition and the Third Party. When it came to the Management Commission, there was a decision made regarding the resources based on a report, but not necessarily the fact we had to accept a report, they were recommendations that came to the management committee and the people who sat on the management committee had the authority to make decisions. Based on that, we certainly felt that the decision to have base funding for all parties at $100,000 was reasonable, and, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition received that $100,000 as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is the same member today who talks about fiscal prudence who went in there and voted for increases for her own caucus, increases far and above what was even required or asked for but ignored the independent recommendations in the report that said the Official Opposition in the Province should have more resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the government today. Differentiate yourselves from your cousins in Ottawa, don't take the approach of Prime Minister Harper, and revisit this issue and allocate the funding that was recommended to the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador so we can have a proper democracy in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Don't try and compare us to what the Harper government has done in Ottawa. We have not done anything with regard to cutting off any political funding for your party. It is up to you to go out and raise whatever funds you want to go out and raise to support your party; it is a completely different issue.

What has happened in this Province - and I concur with the decision of the management committee, I concur with the decision of the majority of the management committee. In fact, there was a base allocation that was given to each party of $100,000. Yours was given to you early - that was not even mentioned. You came back and you asked for $150,000 more. So you wanted the NDP to have $100,000, the Conservatives to have $100,000, but the Liberals should have $250,000.

When we were in Opposition we had $28,000 per member for nineteen members. You have $150,000, $150,000, $150,000, plus the $150,000 that you are paid as Leader of the Opposition. So that is $300,000 plus for you alone to do your job, and $150,000 for you, and $150,000 for you, plus your salaries. Now that is enough money for three people as far as I am concerned!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier is going to speak to it, speak with the facts I say to you, hon. member. Because let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not what we asked for, it is what was recommended by an independent consultant hired and paid for by the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was that individual in that report that recommended the funding configuration for the Official Opposition. It was your government who voted for more money for your own party, more money for the NDP, but less money for the Official Opposition.

I ask again: In light of the fact that we have independent consultant reports that justify the funding being given to the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador and looking at it under the premise that we are the lowest funded in Atlantic Canada, will you do the right thing and will you ask your members to support the additional funding for the Opposition office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the management committee makes the decisions. The consultant does not make the decision. As far as I am concerned, the fact that each one of the hon. members opposite are receiving an extra $150,000 each is enough money for them. When we break out what our forty-four members are getting as support for what they do – and they are also members of this House of Assembly – they are averaging out at about $13,000 each. They are now getting $13,000 extra support if we average it out.

When we were in Opposition we got $28,000 for support and you are getting $150,000 each, in addition to your salaries and in addition to the CAs, Constituency Assistants, that hon. members opposite have as well. Now that is a lot of money for three people, I can tell you right now. I do not care what they recommended, as far as I am concerned, I concur with the Management Commission on their decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member can spin this however he wants. The reality is that three years ago, on a pro-rated basis, when you were the Leader of the Opposition five years ago you were getting more money to run that office then than we are getting today, and that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. That is the fact!

Mr. Speaker, let me –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask members to allow the hon. member to ask her questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me move on to this question since the Premier is speaking today, let me ask this question: Mr. Speaker, media reports have indicated – I asked your minister yesterday, I did not get an answer – that the federal government is considering the sale of federal assets, including the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. Now, over the last number of weeks we have heard your comments in the media about you kissing and making up with Prime Minister Harper. In the course of that happening, were there any discussions in those friendly sittings that you had with regard to the purchasing of those assets that are currently there in Hibernia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating our oil assets, we are re-evaluating the Hibernia piece, which is now, of course, worth somewhat less as a result of the price of oil, but now, because of the political dynamic which is happening in Ottawa, if, in fact, a coalition forms the government as early as possibly next week, we will have a Liberal-NDP coalition, the NDP, through Jack Layton, have offered to transfer the 8.5 per cent interest in Hibernia to the Province (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So my question to you would be: Why pay for it when you can get it for nothing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the Premier for his response, because my next question was how he was going to challenge the NDP to meet that obligation.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that the Harper government does not support a loan guarantee on the Lower Churchill, but in the process of this strategy that is going ahead now to look at a potential coalition government in Ottawa I ask the Premier: What will be the strategy of this Province to ensure that we get a secured commitment this time from the government on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper, had indicated verbally that he would support a loan guarantee.

Our strategy on a go-forward basis would be to obtain the 8.5 per cent interest from Hibernia, it would be to obtain a loan guarantee from either the Harper government or a coalition government, and, in addition, it would be to obtain infrastructure funding – rapid infrastructure green funding – from a coalition government or a Harper government in order to help fund the Lower Churchill and/or a transmission line from the Lower Churchill to provide power to other areas.

I have in my hands a copy of the policy accord from the recent coalition which was formed. It is interesting to note that they have a fairly detailed proposal laid out with regard to an economic stimulus package, rapid support for those affected by the crisis, other priorities, and in their economic stimulus package it states: accelerating existing infrastructure funding and substantial new investments, including municipal and interprovincial projects, transit, clean energy, water corridors and gateways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest, as a result of this accord, if you took the time to read it, you would realize that a new coalition government would support, in fact, clean energy and water, and that is what the Lower Churchill is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also posed questions with regard to the economic shift that we see happening in the country, and how it is affecting our Province. The ministers that responded said it is business as usual. Well, Premier, it is not business as usual for many of the industrial sectors out there in the Province today, and the people who are affected.

I ask you: At what stage will your government now bring forward an action plan to address the economic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and to give us a new fiscal update and outlook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated in this hon. House, and the Minister of Finance has indicated in this hon. House as recently as yesterday, that there will be an economic update which will be provided while this House is sitting, during this current sitting, and that will be sooner rather than later. That will, in fact, happen.

We will continue to do exactly what we have been doing for the last five years, and that is to run this Province properly, fiscally responsibly, and to put us in the best possible position that we could be in, in a very dire economic situation.

So we are well positioned. We will continue to do what we are doing. We will continue to do it right. We are monitoring on a daily basis absolutely everything that is happening, and I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are quite comfortable with us at the helm in this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I hear that we are maintaining the status quo and it will be business as usual, Mr. Speaker, I do not sense that there is going to be any stimulus package in Newfoundland and Labrador to help offset some of the things that are going on.

I ask you, Premier: Is this part of the strategy that you are working on, and will we see some additional investments in the economy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time we have no reason to believe whatsoever that we will be cutting back on our infrastructure program in any manner whatsoever. We are spending as much as a half billion dollars a year on infrastructure. That includes roads; everybody in the Province can see that. They drive over them every day; they know what we are spending on our roads. That includes schools, as the Minister of Education knows. That includes hospitals, as the Minister of Health knows, and long-term care facilities. That includes municipal infrastructure, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs knows, and it goes on and on and on.

We are spending as much as we can to stimulate the economy without overheating the economy, and making sure that we get the best bang for our buck, and we will continue to do so.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last couple of days I have asked questions of the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to IOC, and to tell us what is happening with IOC. Again we have breaking news, after just asking her questions yesterday, of temporary employees and students who are definitely going to be impacted.

I ask you today, Minister: Can you give us some real information in terms of the number of temporary jobs that are impacted, and what the impact is going to be to subcontractors in that area?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

IOC informed me on Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to delay Phase 1 and Phase 2 of their expansion program, that this would not have an impact on their permanent employees other than it might have an impact on overtime. The delay of the expansion is going to have an effect on services that they would have contracted to do pieces of work around that. It would have an impact on temporary workers who would be called upon to do that kind of work.

They did not provide to me at that time the numbers that were affected for potential people who would be involved in that contract. My main concern at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, was for the permanent employees of IOC, and I am glad to know that there will not be any layoffs of permanent employees at IOC at this time or in the short term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you have any idea how many temporary employees will be impacted, how many of the students that normally would go to work there - because, as you know, the mining training facility is there and those students depend upon that company for that work for part of their schooling as well - and can you tell us any idea what the scope of the business impacts are going to be in that area? Do you have a handle on this at all?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am called upon to do many things, as a member of this House of Assembly and as a member of the Cabinet of this government. To manage the business plans of IOC is not one of them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not have information on the expected number of people who would be given contracted services. We know the terms of the money that was announced for that expansion, and it is significant, but they are not people currently under the employ of IOC either in terms of temporary workers or contractual services.

I will undertake to go back to IOC, to see if they can provide any information with regard to that, but I do not have it at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the entire industrial sector in this Province is shifting. The minister could not tell us what was going on with Abitibi in its future in Grand Falls. She cannot tell us what the impacts are going to be with the changes in IOC in Labrador West. We have Wabush Mines today going in to meet with their unions, to look at where they will be downsizing.

Maybe, Minister, you could give us an update; tell us what the future of Wabush Mines is going to be, the amount of workers going to be impacted there, and what the impact is going to be in the local economy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you quite honestly, I am not interested in engaging in this kind of foolishness with the member of the Opposition. This is a very, very serious time for industrial workers in this Province, in Grand Falls-Windsor, in IOC, and certainly in Wabush today as the management meets with workers to find what is in store for them over the next coming months.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged on a daily basis with these companies. We are being proactive and supportive where we can. We are doing everything that we can in the Province to provide an economic stimulus. We are encouraging the federal government in whatever form that it takes to come with an economic stimulus program so that we can ride out this storm, and hopefully, have something to work with at the end of the day that we can rebuild the economies in these commodity markets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that the minister at least thinks it is serious. So maybe she can get a better handle on what is happening in all of these sectors because it affects every single one of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister.

Yesterday the government announced the results of this year's offshore land sales. The numbers for this year are way down, with total bids of $2.4 million and three of five parcels not receiving any bids.

I ask you minister: Have you been given any indication, do you have any idea as to why the interest is down this year? Is it a result of the downturn in the economy or is it business as usual, like you said yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave us a history lesson yesterday on Abitibi and its operations here in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last 100 years. I would respectively suggest that she start using some of that research money, not on that piece, Mr. Speaker, but what is going on in the world today so she can better understand it.

So yes, we have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that in the land sales that we have had in the last two years, we have commanded some of the highest prices for land for oil exploration in this Province since the beginning of that whole industry here. The lands that we had for sale in this last round, Mr. Speaker, are in areas that there has not been a lot of prospecting; they are a very challenging environment. We are absolutely delighted that one of the land sales was picked up in the Sydney Basin. So there are absolutely reasonable answers to why – given the price of oil and the times that we are in – those land sales were not picked up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. I asked a couple of questions yesterday about the release of the recent report that was done into the correctional facilities, submitted in September, not yet released. The minister indicated, or did not give us much timelines as to when it would be other than that it would be.

In the course of answering a second question yesterday, the minister indicated – when I asked about the preventable death at HMP and the suicide, would there be any further inquiries into those particular incidents. You indicated you had had some conversations with the general public.

I ask the minister specifically, I understand a former minister did meet with the parent of one of the deceased and asked that some specific action be taken. Did you, in fact, follow up on the commitments that were made by the former member? Because according to our information, the parents have not had any further contact or follow up from the Department of Justice since that meeting took place.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what parent or what person the hon. member is referring to. Since I have become Minister of Justice I have had meetings with the parent of one person who suffered a death. The questions were asked. I met with the parent at his request. I have had discussions with the officials of my department and at the appropriate time we will make the appropriate decision.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The ministry has obviously found enough in the report so far, or the former minister did, to justify the firing of Superintendent Scoville and the second in command, Ms Aylward, I understand.

Can the minister tell us, this report that you are so far keeping secret, have you picked anything else out of the report or acted upon it in any way that we are not yet aware of, in addition to these firings?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that it would be totally inappropriate for me in my capacity as the Minister of Justice, to comment on any personal employment matters, and I will not do so.

Secondly, as I said yesterday in this House, government is going through the normal processes and protocols that it would be involved with respect to the release of the report, and when the report is released, and it will be released very shortly, the answers to the questions will be apparent.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In June of 2007, the Office of the Citizens' Representative released a report recommending improvements to the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women at Clarenville. It noted at that time, 2007, that there was insufficient programming and no counselling team had even entered the facility since 2006. We are now aware of further problems at Clarenville.

I ask the minister: Was the report of 2007 by the Citizens' Rep ever acted upon?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, my predecessor in the Department of Justice, with a view to safe living and working conditions in all of our correctional institutions, including the women's institute at Clarenville, hired two officials with - or contracted with former senior managers of the Correctional Services of Canada to do a complete and independent review.

That review is very all-encompassing. It was a very comprehensive report. There are seventy-seven recommendations over ten general themes, and that report will be released shortly. We look forward very much to the recommendations and how it can help the correctional system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, last year I went around this Province with a clock to draw attention to the interest on the public debt. I think this report will draw attention and make the needs of the correction services of this Province part of the public debate and public discourse to the Province of Newfoundland. That is very important, and we all look forward to it.

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, yesterday and the day before I had some questions for the Minister of Government Services, and I just have a couple of more that I would like to put to him to get more information on what I have been asking about.

Yesterday, the minister said that he did not believe that all occupational diseases can be covered at all times under regulation and that diseases will continue to develop and be recognized as time goes on, and that is so, I understand that. However, the evolving nature of occupational disease is not a reason to remove the listing section for the OHS regulations.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, if the list under section 24 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Regulations is not sufficient, I ask the minister why this government cannot find a regular mechanism to keep the section updated and current. There shouldn't be a time lapse.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday and I said on Thursday, the mandate of Occupational Health and Safety is to identify and keep the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in regards to their workplaces, safe on an ongoing basis. We identify, we evaluate, and then we enforce. We remove the actual issue or we have it controlled within the work site itself.

In regard to section 24, the way it was written forty years ago is very, very broad. It was hard to actually be able to maintain. It was never enacted, it was never used. It is also covered off under S.23 of the Workers Compensation Act which identifies diseases in regard to industrial sites and as well in regard to mining and everything else that is out there.

We don't see the value in duplicating. We have Codes of Practice within our regulations themselves that identify specific issues in specific workplaces. We identify those –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. O'BRIEN: - and we follow them thereof.

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.

My next question relates directly to section 23 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Regulations under the related act.

I am asking the minister: Does that section cover all the specific cancers that have been proven to be related to fire fighting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, what I will say to that is, in regard to the safety of workers on the job sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, I, as the minister responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, actually doesn't need a list. Our officers are very, very – and I mean very – professional. They go in and they identify and they remove or they control the issue. We don't need a list. If there is an issue in regard to a workplace in this Province at any given time our Occupational Health and Safety officers are in there on an ongoing basis and we will identify and evaluate and then we will enforce.

In regard to the registry itself which you come back to all the time, they are contained within the Codes of Practice, such as the Silica Code of Practice which is hailed worldwide as a template in regard to any issues with regard to the mining industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. O'BRIEN: This is the way we do it. We have the opportunity to extract valuable information…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to table two sets of documents.

One set of documents would be the minutes from the Management Commission meetings for May 28, June 4, July 3 and October 15.

The other tabling of documents would be the Annual Report of the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Conception Bay North with regard to a long-term care facility for that area.

Just to go back over the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, there was an external consultants' report in 2007 which stated they recommended that there should be a three-storey long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area totalling some 210 beds, Mr. Speaker.

I know last year, from documentation, that the department put forward a request to government for funding to consider this facility for Conception Bay North. I guess why I stand here every day, Mr. Speaker, I get calls from constituents throughout the area, only this past week from a family who has an individual who has to go to one of those facilities. We know the infrastructure is many years old now and we need new infrastructure, but many of the people now have to be moved to other areas far away from their families. The family that I speak of, they have to transfer them to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, that is why those petitions are coming in; the people have concerns and they are asking me to bring forward the petitions, and hopefully my hon. colleagues opposite will reconsider their decision. They have made announcements this year for two new facilities for the St. John's area, and I am just asking government - we are getting close to budget time now, and consultation on the Budget - that they will consider the facility for Conception Bay North, which has been on the priority list for quite some time, and hopefully it will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the second reading of bills.

From the Order Paper, under Second Reading of Bills, I will call Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act." (Bill 43)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to get up in the House today and just say a few words in regard to this act, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act, Bill 43.

In Government Services we have over 150 pieces of legislation and it is a continuous process in regard to evaluating and re-evaluating the legislative agenda that we have in Government Services. One of the things that we do is to have a look at legislation and make sure that they are relevant to today's world.

One of these acts that we found that was outdated and certainly no longer relevant, and is antiquated, is the Corporations Guarantees Act. That act goes back to – actually, it was enacted in 1896 and evolved from the guarantees by companies act. What it did back in those days is set out circumstances in which a corporation may provide guarantees on behalf of individuals occupying positions of trust within that corporation. It established criteria to be met by the company in providing those guarantees. However, we find over the years that this requirement is not currently enforced or applied; nor is it apparent to my officials, on research, that it has ever been enforced or applied.

The act also empowers a Judge of the Supreme Court Trial Division to require a surety in certain court proceedings such as matters of trust or estate law. The Registrar of the Supreme Court Trial Division advises me that it does not appear that any judge has ever relied upon these provisions since 1986, and indeed the 1986 Rules of Court act empowers any judge to require security during court proceedings.

Further sections of the current and modern Corporations Act provide a corporation with all the powers of a natural person, including the provision of corporative guarantees.

We consulted with the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did a poll in regard to their membership and they certainly support the proposed repeal of the act. They do not see any value in it at all.

As I said, the Department of Government Services has made a concerted effort to examine the many pieces of legislation that fall under our mandate and, in keeping with that, this is a piece of red tape reduction as well because the legislation is there. It is covered off by the Corporations Act, in particular, and also under the Rules of Court act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I welcome any comments by my hon. colleagues across the House in regard to that, but I see it as a good piece in regard to removing it because it is not relevant to today's standards.

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.

Just a few comments with regard to Bill 43. As the minister just stated, this piece of legislation goes back to 1896. When we had a briefing on it just yesterday it was amazing the way it was explained to us what happened back at that time. I would have to say, there is no doubt about it, this piece of legislation is not needed today. Guarantees or sureties have to be paid by individuals in different professions. Similar to our Public Service Commission today, if something went wrong, this was held against them. I know, as the minister stated, there have been no known cases since Confederation. I guess he has confirmed that it has not been used even back to 1896.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the minister. I understand that there may be some sections or subsections in this legislation that may be carried forward to another piece of legislation with regard to the Rules of Court act. I do not think we are repealing all of it, but some of it may be carried forward in additional legislation that is already here.

I agree with the minister, that this is a good piece of legislation in regard to it is not used any more now. Like the minister said, it is more or less red tape and it is not needed any more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am quite happy to speak for a couple of moments on the repeal of this bill.

This bill is sort of like going through the resolutions book of an organization, like our political parties, and finding resolutions still in the resolutions book back fifteen or twenty years ago. You say: Oh, gee, did we really pass that resolution? Even the wording of it is so ancient that you have to get rid of it, and that is what we are dealing with here.

I am not going to take a lot of time to speak to this. It obviously needs to be repealed. I do understand that the portion in the act concerning the Judges of the Trial Division asking for security is actually already covered under the rules of conduct of the Court Act, 1986. So the one piece that needed to come out, it already is covered so that does not even need to be done, I don't think. It is just that it was never invoked up to this point.

There is one thing I would like to point out, and I think maybe this would be a good place to do it. I actually have spoken to the Leader of the House, or the House Leader, about this. It may seem like a small thing, but it actually takes time - and I am sure the minister will understand it when I say it. When we received this bill, the Explanatory Note says, "This Bill would repeal the Corporations Guarantees Act." That is it; that is the Explanatory Note. Now, since this act is not something that we are in contact with on a daily basis, or even a yearly basis as it has turned out, that means that I do not know what that means. My staff and myself, with several of the bills, then have to find out – I have to say: Can you find out what that Corporations Guarantees Act is? Can you go look for it? In actual fact, it takes a fair bit of time for my researcher to do that kind of thing.

So I am really requesting of ministers, if I may be so bold as to do so, Mr. Speaker, could you see – because some departments are really good at it – that the Explanatory Note gives us enough information so that in my office, with one researcher, I do not have to waste time getting information that is very, very simple. Because two or three sentences with the Explanatory Note, the kind of thing the minister said, would mean I would not have to go look for that.

Now, from some other departments we will get a bill and the bill, for example – especially where there have been amendments, but even with one of the repeal bills - it will give four, five or six points, and it is enough information that you do not have to do any extra research. The people in the departments have that information. The information is included in the briefing note for the minister, and I really would request ministers to think about giving some direction with regard to an Explanatory Note. It is obvious the bill repeals the Corporations Act. That is what it says, a bill, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act.

So, to have that repeated as the Explanatory Note is not helpful. Unfortunately, the three bills from Government Services that we get today had that same one line as the Explanatory Note.

The other day we had to call the Department of Finance on the Income Tax bill – which we have not looked at yet – to ask questions as well. I just think it would really save time if we could have basic information about what the repeal is dealing with, so that we do not have to do this extra research which becomes busy work but which takes away from the one researcher I have to be able to deal with the major issues that I need her to be dealing with.

I humbly present that to the ministers here today in the House, and hope that they will take that under advisement.

As I said, I did mention it in a meeting with the House Leader the other day, but the House Leader, I don't think, would have control over all of the ministers so I thought I would use this bill today to make the comment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 43.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the hon. member, and I will certainly check into the Explanatory Note piece in regard to my own department. I am not sure what I could do there, but I will have a talk to my officials to see if there is anything that could be done.

As the hon. members mentioned, they recognize that this act is certainly antiquated and is not needed any more because it is being covered off by other acts such as the Corporations Act, which is a more modern act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave the debate because I do not think there is any need to have a debate in regard to that because we are all in concurrence that this is a good piece to repeal this, for a number of reasons: one being that it is not needed, and the second is that it just removes some of the red tape that people have to go through in regard to corporations and dealing with government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 43 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 43)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper under Second Reading Bills, Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act. (Bill 44)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, again government is repealing this act, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

Back in 1967 the Institute of Chartered Accounts of Newfoundland and the Certified Public Accountants of Newfoundland merged into a single profession, a professional accounting organization. Therefore, these two acts are being repealed today because they are no longer, again, relevant and are antiquated. As I just said, the two particular groups have merged and any measures contained in these two acts that need to be maintained are already provided in the Chartered Accountants Act. This one here is particularly dealing with the repeal of the Certified Public Accountants Act, and the accounts are fully governed, as I just said, under the Chartered Accountants Act. Consumers are fully protected by this Act, so there is no impact to consumers with the repeal of this Act.

Again, the Department of Government Services has made every effort to examine all our pieces of legislation that fall under this mandate to determine if any need to be updated, streamlined or repealed. This is again in keeping with government's commitment to reduce red tape. This repeal is an example, really, of the continued work that the department is doing to ensure that all the legislation is up to date and relevant to what we do in today's world.

Mr. Speaker, this is self explanatory in that it is a piece that is already governed off by another act. I again will take my seat and welcome the remarks of my colleagues across the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with regard to Bill 44, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

I understand that this legislation was brought forward probably three sessions ago in the House of Assembly. I think at that time the Chartered Accountants or the Public Accountants had some concerns about it, but since that time their concerns have been addressed, is my understanding.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to whether it is the Department of Justice or the association both of them have confirmed that the new legislation will take care of what is in here. Really it is a housekeeping issue. The legislation, as the minister has stated, is obsolete. With regard to the various Chartered Accountants or Public Accountants, their concerns are addressed in other legislation.

As the minister said, there is very little to say about this, only it is a housekeeping issue and all the documentation with regard to those associations is addressed in other legislation. We concur with Bill 44, The Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Really, just to say I did consult with the Government Services Department and got the information on this, some of which the minister has given, and obviously we will be passing this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 44.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is just a housekeeping process, and certainly as the comments reflect, in regards to my colleagues across the House, they are in full agreement in regards to this act to repeal the act because it is already covered off under a new act, a more modern act.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is not much else to say other than this does not infringe on the public or the consumers. They are fully protected under the new and most modern act.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 44 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 44)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 10 under Second Reading Bills. Second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act." (Bill 45)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, again, this act, in regards to Bill 45, An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act, is also related to the previous act in regards to the repeal of the Certified Public Accountants Act.

Again, as I referenced in the first one that was up in the House just a little while ago, that in 1967 these particular two chartered accountant groups merged into a single profession, and they are covered off under the Certified Accountants Act; a more modern act. Again, the consumers are well protected under the new act. This act is certainly out of date, not relevant any more, and is antiquated.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, it is, again, a housekeeping piece of work that we have to do in regards to keeping our legislation current and updated. It is also a piece of red tape process too, as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and welcome any comments by my colleagues across the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to confer with the hon. minister. As he said, this piece of legislation is jointly with Bill 44. We had the opportunity, as did the hon. colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to meet with the officials of the department. With the explanation, we know that this piece of legislation, as the minister said, is more or less housekeeping. It is obsolete, and more or less tunnelling through because this is taken care of now in other legislation.

We concur with this bill and tell the minister that we do support the repealing of this particular Bill 45.

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

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

Just very quickly; again, another logical change. I noticed that the whole action around this, the harmonization of the different pieces of legislation and the bringing together of the different designations of those involved in public accounting does go back to a 1997 White Paper. Actually, 1996 it was announced and then consultations began in 1997. So trying to get all of this in place and now having harmonized legislation has been going on for eleven years. So, yes, let's pass the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 45.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank my hon. colleagues for their participation in debate and their support in regards to the repeal of this act. Actually, I might want to mention too, as well, that this act has been redundant actually since 1967, because that is when the certified accountants or Chartered Accountants Act came into effect, 1967. Again, it is a bit of housekeeping work in regards to my officials and my department. Good work done and it is a good piece of Red Tape Reduction too, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say in regards to the repeal of this act, other than it is a good piece of work by my department. I thank my colleagues for their comments and support with regards to repeals of these acts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 7 from the Order Paper, under Second Reading Bills. Second reading of, An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act." (Bill 40

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to propose changes to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Act. The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council was established in January of 1980, under the Arts Council Act, which falls under the responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

As mandated by the act, the purpose of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council is to foster and promote the study, enjoyment of and production of works of art in the Province and to encourage the preservation and public awareness of cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this government is committed to growing the arts and culture sector in this Province. We have invested in our culture because we know that our culture is integral to our socioeconomic success and well-being. It is what defines us as a people. It provides us with a sense of pride and a sense of self and we must never take it for granted.

So, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we released a cultural strategy, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture, which committed $17.6 million in new funding to the culture and heritage sectors over a three-year period.

In that strategy, Mr. Speaker, we recognized the crucial role of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council in the development and promotion of art and culture within the Province. That is why we committed to more than doubling the provincial government support for the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council over a three-year period, and we have lived up to that commitment.

In 2008, the provincial government provided $1.8 million to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, funding that goes directly to artists and to programs and services which support artists in their creative endeavours. We support the work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council and we are committed to ensuring they can continue to nurture and support our artistic community.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Arts Council celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary. As part of the milestone and to ensure continuing relevance to the arts community, the Arts Council conducted a series of public consultations and produced a planning framework. This framework will provide direction for the Arts Council as it continues to foster and promote artistic creation and the enjoyment of the arts for the benefits of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its planning process the board of directors of the NLAC and TCR reviewed the Arts Council Act and recommended a number of changes to ensure the Arts Council remains relevant, current to the arts community, to emphasize its involvement in the creation of the arts and arts policy, and to emphasize its operation as an autonomous organization. The proposed changes have been developed in consultation with the Arts Council, and they are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the changes fall into four broad categories. One relates to language, recognition of the changing role of the NLAC in the development of art policy, governance and operations. With respect to the language, for example, it was determined the act needed a more concise and contemporary definition of the arts. For example, the term multimedia, in a new art category, was not included in previous definitions.

It was also deemed important to add a definition for a professional artist, as we want to acknowledge that our artists are professional people who contribute not just to our society but to our economy as well.

The amendments we are proposing will also acknowledge the growing leadership role of NLAC in advising on provincial art policies, streamline operations so as to reduce the burden on board members, and encourage broader community representation on the board.

The latter is particularly important, Mr. Speaker. By including more members from the community, it is hoped that the NLAC will extend its reach and ensure its relevance to the general community. It will bring together other sectors to the table - for example, those involved in business - whose experience may help the council in its business-oriented activities; for example, in financing, marketing and promotion. It is all about getting fresh points of view and fresh ideas to the table.

Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council to ensure that our legislation enables the organization to function more effectively and efficiently as a modern-day organization, but it is also critical that the Arts Council Act should reflect a more contemporary view of art and the professional artists who contribute to our social and economic well-being. That is the spirit in which we are proposing these amendments, and I look forward to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to stand and speak to the bill that was just proposed by the hon. Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the Arts Council in Newfoundland and Labrador has probably done more to foster the participation of people in the artistic community than any other organization that we have seen over our history. Not only do they allow for an opportunity to advocate on behalf of issues and concerns, but they are an organization that seeks out new talent, that recognizes the abilities of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be able to contribute to our Province in an artistic manner, whether that is through craft, through art, through music, through drama, whatever the case may be, but these are the unique things that they look for within the Province, the people they look for who display that kind of talent and energy, and then they give them opportunities to be able to develop their work, whether it is through writings or drafting or design or sculpting or whatever the case may be. They do so in a number of ways, and one of the ways the minister talked about is in terms of the grants that they give out, but also, Mr. Speaker, they do it through the nurturing of relationships, through networking with different groups and organizations, providing encouragement to these individuals and to their peers to allow them to be able to grow and develop within the field of work and study that they are engaged in.

Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the rich culture that we have in this Province and if you look outside of the work that is done through our museums and through our archives in terms of preserving that culture and that tradition and that history, the other group that comes to mind is the Arts Council who allows us to preserve our culture, our history, our language, our traditions, all through the work that they do as a council through their artists, through their musicians, through their writers, through their sculptures, through their crafters and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, it has become an invaluable part of the history and the fibre that makes up that history within our Province, but it is also a group that is enlightening future generations, encouraging them in the field of performing arts in particular but encouraging them in other fields of artistic ability as well.

I remember only in the last decade, in this city alone, if you look at the amount of culture that is available to you on any given day, the number of venues that you can walk into now and see a play, have a dinner, listen to really good local artists and musicians perform, Mr. Speaker, even in the last decade I have seen that growing noticeably within Newfoundland and Labrador and it has become a major contributor to the tourism economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, it was only recently I listened to an article on CBC Radio and they were interviewing this couple in Maine who owned a ship and I think it was a small cruise ship that was travelling around Newfoundland and Labrador. I forget the name of it; maybe it was the Wind Mere or the Windermere or something. They were out of Maine, and they were talking about how they had just set up a small craft store in Maine, to be able to market art in Newfoundland and Labrador. Primarily, what they were selling there was carvings, soapstone carvings that were coming out of Northern Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of the work and the nurturing of artists in the Province through the Arts Council, the incentive that it has provided them, the encouragement that it has provided them, it has allowed that to become an industry, an industry that has taken on a complete life of its own, and one that is fostering a lot of good opportunity for people in the Province and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak about another small piece, and that is the role that the Arts Council is playing in allowing for musicians and artists to go into the classrooms around our Province. It is a program that has been ongoing, I know, for a long time, but in the last few years they have really nurtured that program along and they have developed it into something far greater, I think, than it has been for a long time.

Right now, today, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of the children who live in rural, outport communities do not often have exposure to the top artists in the Province or to the teachers of art and music and craft. Well, now they have that opportunity because through the partnership of a number of groups and organizations and government, but the Arts Council being a key one, many of these people are now getting to go into a small outport classroom to sit with a Grade 6 class or a Grade 8 or a Grade 9 class and to talk about the importance of the arts and music and also, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do workshops with them. They, too, in their school, can learn different skills and different talents and be able to identify with that kind of business in the Province.

I know of a number of children, even in my own district, who had the opportunity to have some well-known musicians in their classroom and well-known artists, who helped them with painting and drafting and drawing and music and so on. It really meant a lot to them to be able to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Arts Council, like every organization I am sure, as they go forward there needs to be changes and tinkering with legislation to allow them to provide a greater role, a more positive role in the community and in our Province. I understand that these amendments are doing just that, meeting the needs and the requests that they have put out there and put forward.

I certainly hope that the Arts Council will see tremendous success continued in the years to come because I think they have already had some great success stories in the past. We will certainly support any changes in legislation related to this organization.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 40, the Arts Council Act. I understand, as well, the Leader of the NDP would like to have a few words but she got called outside to deal with the media, I guess. So she asked me to stand and have a few words in the meantime, which I intended to do in any case.

First of all, in regards to a comment that was made earlier today by the Leader of the NDP talking about the explanatory notes that we get on the bills, I would certainly support her in what she said, that it makes it a lot easier if there were at least some basic explanations on the bills. I notice in this one in particular, Bill 40, it is pretty thorough, actually. There is a fairly good condensation of what we are going to deal with in this act. It saves a lot of time, it saves a lot of effort, at least when we become aware of it.

To give you another example, if you look at Bill 59, which comes under the Department of Municipal Affairs, which we are going to be dealing with in this session as well. We have a brand new act called, An Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The Province. Seventeen pages of new law that we are going to implement during this session. If you look at the explanatory note it says: "The purpose of this Bill is set out in the Long Title." Now, that is the explanatory note on this new act. We do not have a lot of help and a lot of direction and guidance when it comes to the explanatory notes. It would be very helpful if the legislative draftspersons who do these things could at least give us some indication. We can all read the long title and figure out what it might be about, but it is certainly not an explanatory note as to what might be contained in the piece of legislation. So I think in future that would be helpful.

With regards to Bill 40, as I say, the explanatory notes were fairly detailed. In fact, by just reading through the notes you get a good sense of what is contained in it in terms of the amendments, and some of it is, no doubt, housekeeping. We have the transparency piece which says that, because of the Transparency and Accountability Act, there are certain sections of this act that we do not need any more, so those are fairly straightforward housekeeping things.

The number of meetings that the council would hold each year, obviously they have decided - these people are all volunteers who work on this council and we cannot expect volunteers, who do a very good job as it is, to be tying themselves up totally to the point where they impact their own businesses and their own careers and whatever else - I notice the number of meetings now has been cut down to a minimum of three per year, rather than bimonthly. That certainly helps, and that is a prudent administrative feature as well. If they need more they can have more, but at least you are not mandating and requiring them to have more than that. If is it not necessary it obviously would not need to be done.

I notice the membership piece on the council; they have made some changes as to how the membership is done and so on – all of which, after years and years of implementation of an act and a law, you need to go back and review these things, because housekeeping certainly becomes necessary. You tidy up some of the loose ends that you have over the course of time, and you only find out by applying the act what the shortcomings in it are. So it is good to see that there are going to be some housecleaning moves made here.

A couple of concerns that we did have, and I don't know if they are concerns or more of a question point of view to the minister in terms of explanations when he gets an opportunity, either in cluing up second reading or when we get to the Committee stage – it does not really matter where - these are just some of the issues that were raised.

First of all, on the definition piece, we notice you have a new definition here of the arts. Back in the old definition it used to say, arts include theatre, dance, folk arts, literature, music, painting, sculpture, the graphic arts, crafts, and other similar and interpretive activities. That is what it used to say.

Under the new definition that we are dealing with here it says, arts include the performing arts, film, video, writing, music, the visual arts and multimedia arts. Obviously a lot of changes were required because the arts have broadened so much in the years with video coming on stream, and multimedia, but a question was raised by someone in the arts community of the fact that we have left out the graphic arts. Is that a shortcoming here, and should we have included it?

Not that it is necessarily a defect or whatever, but there was somebody we were talking with in the arts community who expressed a concern that they might, by oversight, be leaving graphic artists out of the definition of art.

I spoke to the director of the Arts Council today, actually, to ask him, and he explains that he thinks it is okay, I guess, and they do not have any problem with it, and he certainly indicated that there was consultation between the department and the Arts Council to try iron it out, but this person did express that concern to us so I am just wondering. If it is included under multimedia that is fine, or if it is included under visual arts, but that person who was into the graphic arts specifically felt that they might not have been covered by the new definition. We want to be inclusive rather than accidentally or unintentionally exclude anyone. I just raise that question to the minister as well, and perhaps we might get some explanation of that.

I also have concern about the purpose of the act. Maybe it is all answered, because a lot of these things, of course, come down to interpretation. Under the old act it says: The purpose of this act is to continue the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council to foster and promote the study, enjoyment of and the production of works in the arts of the Province, and to encourage the preservation and public awareness of cultural heritage.

That was the purpose of the old act. We are now changing the purpose, and the purpose says, "The purpose of this Act is to continue the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council to foster and promote the creation and production of works in the arts in the province, the study and enjoyment of those works, and to encourage public awareness of the arts."

The question is the reference to historical and cultural heritage preservation; that piece is no longer there. I think it is important, if it is not broad enough - we are not only interested in encouraging the arts in our Province, which I think you have adequately done in the definition, but I do not think we should lose sight of the fact of our preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of the Province. The definition, I think, in its present form, might not be including - the preservation piece got lost somewhere here in the drafting, and maybe there is a very legitimate explanation for that. That was an observation of ourselves when we had a look at this.

The piece about the definition of professional artist, there is certainly no problem with that. These people, of course, I guess if you use – I do not know how you determine a professional. Do you determine on the quality of a person's work, the percentage of time that a person dedicates to a work, or the fact that they are compensated for the work, or is it a combination of all three things? We have no issue with it; it is just that we do not want to exclude anybody simply by using a definition again. This is all about being inclusive and encouraging, rather than discouraging or exclude anyone from there.

The other issue - and again it is just a matter of why, I guess - I noticed previously there was no question that the Arts Council can have an executive director. In fact, they do have one. I spoke with the gentleman today. The act that we are dealing with now changes the appointment of the executive director from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the minister.

I am just wondering, why would that be necessary or what is the streamlining or what is the purpose of that? I think the Arts Council of the Province is a fairly significant position, and certainly the executive director there. I am just wondering, what the logic is for having that person selected by the minister now, one person, as opposed to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet? To me, there are some cases where it is not a case of too many cooks spoil the broth; I think in the case of, in a selection of that magnitude, the more edge you have involved and the more opinions you have might be worthy. So I am just wondering why that particular change would have been made in that regard.

Other than those comments it is fairly, as we say, straightforward housecleaning things. Our only concern is that, albeit the consultation took place, which is great to see that government did consult with the Arts Council, we would not want to exclude anybody accidentally or unintentionally, and perhaps there are very good explanations as to why these things are there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for those few comments.

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this act. While I am interested in everything that comes to the floor of this House, on a personal level I do have a lot of interest in the whole issue of arts and culture. It has been part of my whole life, and part of my family, and it continues to be. I have both family members, many, and many friends who are affected by things like the Arts Council and the funding of the Arts Council, et cetera.

There are a number of things that I would like to speak to. First of all, just to say that I do find the act that is before us, and the changes that are being suggested under the act, very forward-looking. I am actually quite pleased with many of the changes that are there. It is not often that you can give an act like this to a group of people who are affected and say: What do you think of this? and get back almost 100 per cent positive response. I have done that. We do have an arts caucus in the New Democratic Party, and I did ask some members of our arts caucus to look at the act. They also knew that the council, of course, had been consulted. The people I spoke to are also part of a strong network and they know people involved with other provincial arts councils. I think that it is really good to point out that all of the people I spoke to really are pleased with the direction in which this act is going and the amendments that are being made.

One of the things, I think, that was pointed out to me that is significant is the election of a chair by the members is not a usual thing. This actually was seen by somebody as being a particularly enlightened thing, that that happens. I was delighted to learn that, that it was something that was not happening with every single council. I think it is extremely important that the act says that the council shall select one of its own members and they shall do it to be the chairperson and two members to act as vice-chairpersons of the council.

I have spoken to the minister, I chatted with him before this came to the floor today, and the one thing I did say to him is that I hope this will be in practice what is being said on paper and that the subject to the approval of the minister would be more for accountability purposes rather than any kind of management purposes. By that, I mean that the minister would trust the judgement of the council when they choose their chairperson and not step in and say: Well, I do not agree with you and I think it should be somebody else. Because if the council has been approved by a minister - and that it would have to be the case – if the council is approved by a minister, then I think a minister should be ready to accept the person who is selected by the council to chair and the persons who are selected to be vice-chairpersons.

I think this is important for accountability and I hope that – I know the current minister, that is his understanding of it and I think it is important for us to see it that way. Why am I making a point of this? Because of what happened recently, just a short time ago, some months ago, with regard to the president of the university, where the practice always was that the Board of Regents would submit to the government the person they chose as president and the government would trust the judgement of the Board of Regents and accept their nomination. We had something happen this year that changed that. That is why I am pointing this out. I would have a fear that the same thing could happen here. I think that when we have a body that is appointed by government, that once they are in place then government has to trust them and they have to have the freedom to do their work. I point out that I am really pleased with section 6.(2) and I would hope that that would operate in the spirit in which I am told by the minister it is meant.

I would also like to refer to section 8.(1) because this also refers to appointment by the council. In 8.(1) we are talking about the executive director of the council. Once again: "The council may, subject to the approval of the minister, appoint an executive director…" Of course, an executive director would be a staff person and in some ways would be the equivalent of the president of an organization. So I have the same concern that again, this would be for accountability purposes and that a minister would recognize that this council of qualified persons, if they come up with somebody as executive director that they know what they are doing, the minister would accept that, trusting in them and would not intervene in any way to usurp the decision that they would make.

I would like to point out to the House that when we had this discussion around the presidency of the university there are some people on the government side who said: You cannot expect us to rubber stamp. Well, the thing is, it is not rubber stamping, it is trusting the people who you have accepted to be in this body to make their decision and to have them accountable for what they are doing. If they mess up for some reason, then you also have to trust them to fix the mistake they have made, if for some reason they have chosen the wrong person. We have to leave groups free. Even groups who receive funding from government, they have to be accountable, they have to be transparent, but they also have to be free in running the organization that they are in charge of.

With regard to 8.(1), I did have one concern and I will put it out, but the minister and I have spoken and I realize I was interpreting it one way and the way he explained it made absolute sense. Section 8.(1) says that the council may, subject to the approval of the minister, appoint an executive director of the council for whom the council shall provide remuneration out of its general funds. I wondered why in 8.(1) it said "may" and in 6.(2) it said, the member of the council shall select one member as the chairperson.

The explanation makes all the sense in the world. It is not that – and here is how I was reading it – it is not that the council may appoint an executive director who would be rejected by the minister. It is that the council may or may not appoint an executive director. They may decide they don't need one for whatever reason. If they do, it is subject to the approval of the minister, but they made the decision whether or not they appoint an executive director. I see the minister nodding, so I've got the understanding correctly and I am satisfied it was just the way in which my mind was working when I read that section.

Obviously, at some point the council may choose to use money in a different way. Sometimes you have a very, very high level of volunteerism involved and maybe they don't need it. Leaving the option to them, I think, is very important. The one thing I would say is that I would hope they would never have to make the option because they weren't receiving adequate funding from government. I would hope that the money would always be there, that if they choose to have an executive director they have adequate resources to do so.

When it comes to those points, I am quite satisfied. I actually like the fact that the "subject to approval" is now "subject to approval of the minister," not of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I think it simplifies the process, number one, and it also gives a point person when it comes to accountability. It is much more transparent to have the minister as the one who gives the approval rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It becomes a little bit more amorphous and a little bit more difficult to pin down who is responsible for things when you say Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

There are some times, obviously, when things have to be Lieutenant-Governor in Council but I think in the context of something like an Arts Council having it under the minister makes all the sense in the world, and I think will make for a more fluid operation of the council.

I am also quite pleased, as I am sure professional artists are, that professional artists are in the amendment, that they are now included, that this is a new thing. I am also pleased that great attention has been given to spelling out who a professional artist is. It is quite detailed and I was quite pleased to see that. From my own knowledge and from the knowledge of other people in reading it carefully, I know that it really does seem to have every angle covered, and I am really pleased about that.

There are a couple of more things that I would like to talk to. Having this act gives me the opportunity to do so. I know that the minister has pointed out that money for the Arts Council has increased, and there is no doubt that it has but we still have a long ways to go. There is still a long ways to go in order to bring artists in Newfoundland and Labrador up to artists in other parts of the country when it comes to their income.

We have choices to make I know, government has choices to make but I really would encourage the minister, as he involves himself in the budget process, and I would encourage the Minister of Finance as he listens to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to understand that we still are very far below what needs to be done. That one of the most important roles of the council - I mean everything they do is important and the promotion of culture is very important, and promotion of the arts is very important, but one of the most important things they do is make sure that artists in Newfoundland and Labrador receive funding to help them as they do their work. Especially as professionals do it, because professionals depend on the grants that they get from Arts Council. It is not the only place that they get grants but we know that things are inadequate when we look at the statistics. Right now, and these are the figures for 2008-2009, the average artist's income in Canada is $23,490. That is the average Canadian artist's income. The average Newfoundland and Labrador artist's income is $16,925; so almost $7,000 less.

We do know that very few artists make a living exclusively from their art. As a matter of fact, in Canada it is only 10 per cent of artists who make their income exclusively from their art, and the percentage actually is about the same in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no difference in the percentage but the income for Newfoundland and Labrador artists is much lower, the average income is much lower. When we look at average, we all know what that means. There are some professionals who are earning below $16,925 and there are some who are probably earning well above. We know there are some earning well above, but for the most part, an awful lot of artists in this Province are poor. Even with all the things they do to try to promote their art and make money, a lot of them are poor.

We also know that they do not have benefits. When they, for example, get sick, have an accident, cannot work, one of the things the arts community has to do is to raise money to help their peer, to help their brother or sister in the arts be able to make it over the hump of the time that they cannot pay. So there is a lot that has to be done to help artists in our country so that they can, not only earn money, but also be able to deal with times when they cannot earn money. This is something that I think we need to look at as a government. We absolutely need to look at what happens in other countries to help artists so that when they do not have income, that they can still have something that helps them along.

Now, if they have a job – sometimes you will have an artist who is also a teacher, spends part of the time teaching. If you are lucky enough to be in that situation, then you are going to have a benefit at a time when you get sick, but there are an awful lot of artists who, even when they are working in something else to try to earn money, they are still not working in a job with a lot of security and a lot of benefits. So it is another issue for us that we really need to look at. Right now we have about 8,000 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador that could be termed jobs that fit under arts. That means we have a lot of poor artists running around this Province who need our help.

Just to bring it down even more, in terms of the allocation, the funding allocation that goes on. Again, I know that funding has gone up, and the minister has pointed that out, but right now in Newfoundland, the Newfoundland Arts Council in terms of the allocation that they are able to make in Newfoundland and Labrador, the per capita is $3.85. That is the allocation funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador council. It is not the worst in Canada. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are below. They are well below actually, they are only $1.72, but it is certainly far from the best. You go to Quebec, for example, $11.01 is the allocation funding for the council. In the Yukon it is $56.33. So we have a lot to do to bring the allocation up to match other places in Canada with regard to the allocation that is allowed to the Arts Council. In doing it, it will always be money that will, for the most part, be helping the individual artist.

In this time of economic uncertainty, I think more money going into the Arts Council is something that will stimulate the economy, because the money going to the Arts Council is money that is going to artists. The money that is going to artists, we all know - and I do not have the particular statistic in front of me, and we do not need statistics all the time. We do know that there is quite an amount of money in this Province. I think in the whole area of culture, $289 million is the figure of money that is generated under the title of culture in this Province.

As the government moves into - and I am sure that the Minister of Finance is already there - looking at the budget for 2009-2010 and with the economic times in which we find ourselves, which are recessionary, then economic stimulation is very, very important. We just had a federal government which wanted to ignore that and I feel certain that this government is not going to want to ignore. I am sure this government understands why economists say governments have to be involved in economic stimulation at this time and not adding to what could be the burden on individuals in the community.

When we look at something like artists who already have such a low income, anything that can be done in the next budget to increase money to the council so that it can have more grants for artists will be a positive. It would be an economic stimulant, not an expenditure that is draining the coffers, and we need to look at it that way.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have been able to speak to the issues of artists and of the whole industry of culture and art in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am pleased with the act. It is on record now and hopefully if ever the time came that we needed it, it will be on record. I do stress once again that we have a forward-looking act or bill that will become part of our Arts Council Act. I hope that we maintain the forward-looking nature of this and interpret carefully especially the two sections I talked about with regard to the minister approving decisions of the council, that we maintain that in the spirit in which I am told that it is meant, and that is, for the sake of accountability, they notify the minister but a minister, I would hope, would accept the decisions of a council when it comes both to choosing the chairperson and to choosing an executive director if they decide to do that.

With seven seconds left, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to ask for leave.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. If he speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I will start off by saying it is very encouraging to hear the discussion that has gone on. I do not think there is a group in the Province that all people of the Province can have a connection to any better than the artists within our Province and within our larger community. I suppose you could say, as a lay person coming into the portfolio of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, it is quite an eye-opener when you sit around the table and you start to discuss things about artists, what it means to be a professional artist. I think it resonated with us just a short while ago.

I will refer to one of the statements that Margaret Atwood made in the media recently, in light of the cuts that were coming federally, when she said that you have to understand that - she referred to herself as being one of the people who makes a good living from being an artist. Her point was that, for those that do, the number that do not far outweigh those that do.

As such, the Leader of the NDP makes a very valid point. It was an eye-opener for me. When I come into the department, as I have said, sit down and discuss these kinds of issues, and if you look at the way we perceive our artists sometimes, that we would expect that someone who paints, or someone who performs, whether musical instruments or whatnot, that we often call upon them to volunteer, and they often do volunteer, but the second point is that we often expect - and they do come forward – to charge nothing. I think that is where we as a people need to reflect our mindset. Every time that they get up and they stand up for an hour performing or painting or sculpting, that is their livelihood. We need to understand, as a people, that we cannot always expect them to do that, no more than I as a teacher or someone else in another profession would give freely of our time.

I think, as well, to respond in terms of this act, there are a couple of words that I would like to put in here. One is that it is giving more autonomy to the Arts Council. If we look at the sections that were mentioned, 6.(2) and 8.(1), if we look at the may in appointing an executive director then we are leaving that decision-making in the hands of the council, which is a good thing. I mean, 6.(2) says shall. Well, we have to have a chairperson but again we are not doing that. The recommendation is being made by the council and it comes forward. As to why now the decision finally rests with the minister, well, you know, I think very simply it eliminates another level of bureaucracy, if you want to put it that way. This will expedite the process and again goes back to giving more autonomy to the council, and hopefully it is seen as being a progressive piece of legislation.

I would like to address a couple of the comments that were made by the Opposition House Leader. He talked about having spoken to someone, a graphic artist. Well, you know, indications are that those individuals would be captured under the visual artists, the multimedia. So, that has been addressed there.

From an historical perspective, you know, we certainly want to be into preservation. If there is one thing that has come from our cultural fund, it is that we have invested in the cultural infrastructure in our Province and it is something that we will continue to invest in and continue to maintain.

Again, I have already commented on the aspect of professionalism in the artistic community, and that we have taken in line with what has been established as professionalism under the Canadian council. So, in coming forward with the recommendations, that is where we have arrived at that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much more than that I can add to it, but I will say one thing. I have said this quite often, over and over again. If there is one department in government that is the face of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it is the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, especially if we look at things that are promoting our Province in terms of our ads. Then, if you look at the cultural side of it, the artistic community, all you have to do is take a look at some of the art that is around the Confederation Building, and the art, the paintings that are out in different shops across the Province, and then if we listen to the songs, the stories, the music, the sculptures, the new media that are coming on stream, if there is one thing that portrays us as a Province, it is this sector of government. It is these people that often bring us together. All you have to do is to be in the presence of some of these performers, these musicians, and see how they can rally the people and make us proud of who we are as a people in this particular Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act. (Bill 40)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, Second Reading Bills, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46, An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act." (Bill 46)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an act to repeal the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act, but it will also give me an opportunity today to talk about what has essentially replaced the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited was a Crown Corporation that existed until 1994 and which essentially did all the computing work for government. It was doing then what the Office of the Chief Information Officer does today.

In 1994, Mr. Speaker, under a Liberal government at the time, this work was outsourced to Newtel, or Aliant, and it operated at that time as xwave. There was an amendment act in 1994 which deleted references in the various legislation to the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, and this bill today will repeal that act.

However, Mr. Speaker, this bill also gives me an opportunity to speak, as I say, about the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which is one of the most important offices that we have here in government that no one knows anything about.

The only time we hear about the OCIO is when we have a privacy breach. If you will remember when we had the issue with the Newfoundland and Labrador – I think it was the health centre, we had the issue at the Workplace Health and Safety Commission. So what happens at that time is when the OCIO or the Office of the Chief Information Officer comes in and tries to determine what went wrong and performs a troubleshooting function.

As minister, I am not only the minister responsible for the Finance and Treasury Board, but also for the OCIO or the Office of the Chief Information Officer. I think that that is fairly new in terms of when my predecessor was there, because the OCIO at that time, I think, reported either to – perhaps to the Executive Council.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 2005 as a result of recommendations by the Chief Information Officer, to bring all information technology functions into one organization. Now, back in 1994, when the work was outsourced at that time, computers were certainly playing an important role in government, but compared to today, I would say that they would have had to play a much lesser role.

Is there anyone in this House who does not have a computer in their office? All of the administrative staff, Mr. Speaker, everyone has computers in which they access for e-mails, to look up information, to access the Internet. As a result of some of the initiatives that have occurred in terms of the privacy breaches, we have also - for example, no one can access LimeWire anymore on our computers. There are certain locks put in place. Firewalls are being developed. So all of this is done through the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Prior to the formation of the OCIO, information technology services and support were spread across eight departments. The Chief Information Officer was appointed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in November, 2004, to review the government's information technology function and identify opportunities for enhancing and streamlining service delivery.

The OCIO and the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which is led by Pete Shea - and I can indicate that in my dealings with Mr. Shea, extremely professional and knowledgeable individual and one that we are very lucky to have someone of Mr. Shea's quality in government working on these very important functions.

The OCIO is responsible for the application, development and support for over 100 different commercial software applications and over 500 custom-built applications that service the business of government. These applications, Mr. Speaker, are delivered to users on 7,000 personal computers which are supported by the OCIO. They reside on 650 servers, the majority of which are maintained by the OCIO, but some are maintained elsewhere under a data service provider contract.

Mr. Speaker, in the OCIO right now there are approximately 291 positions, 213 of them are permanent, mostly located in the St. John's area, but some in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, some in Corner Brook, some in Stephenville, some in Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander and Clarenville. So what we have is an OCIO which employs numerous people. It is almost like a faceless entity until you have a problem with your computer and then someone comes in and fixes it, or if there is a privacy breach, everyone rushes into action.

OCIO is also responsible for information management and technology polices and standards for government, as well as information management consultancy services and support to all government departments.

I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but when I go into my computer I find it very agitating. I always have to go in - I have to put in my password to get into the computer. Prior to being elected as an MHA, I did not fully appreciate how easy it is to access information on computers if we are not careful. It was as a result of the work that I took on in justice and then dealing with the privacy breaches that it really alerted me to the need for secure computer systems. Even though I have to go in and put in my password to access information and the password will change every now and then, these are the security requirements that are necessary to protect the extremely private information that we are accessing from our constituents and, in terms of clients and government departments, on a daily basis.

In this particular timeframe, Mr. Speaker, government owns a significant network infrastructure as well as a province-wide area network. This is a very complex environment, Mr. Speaker, which requires high levels of security and information protection, preventative maintenance, disaster recovery plans, and software license monitoring.

The OCIO also contracts out, Mr. Speaker, information technology and information management which in the year 2008-2009 will be valued at approximately $35 million. This work is contracted, Mr. Speaker, to companies with local offices like Allstream, Infotech, Plato, Tamarack, xwave, Zedit IT and the like.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where we have a very active entity with a lot of people employed who are continuously seeking the newest technology, the newest information technology programs which provide a vital role to the functioning of our government and to the protection of private information, the accessing of information.

Mr. Speaker, there are five branches of the OCIO: the application development; application services; corporate operations and client services; information management; and operations.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a crucial entity within our government which to date, I would suggest, has made exceptional progress in improving government's IT infrastructure. There is always work to be done, and this work is taking a period of time, so that by 2011 the OCIO, we feel, will have improved the information technology and information management function to strengthen and modernize service delivery for the provincial government entities.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the OCIO continues to upgrade equipment, replace outdated computer systems, and develop improved IT and IM processes and standards. The OCIO is focused on continuing to provide and enhance IT services and support to government and clients. In particular this year, Mr. Speaker, the OCIO has made information protection a priority and is in the process of implementing information security processes, developing policies and guidelines and educating government employees in information protection best practices.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, there are in excess of 100 different commercial software applications and over 500 custom built applications that service the business of government. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is essentially an office that not only serves the government of the Province, and thereby the public by protecting information but by continuing to improve access to information and by bringing in the latest technology. So what we have, Mr. Speaker, in the Office of the Chief Information Officer, is a very well-educated, well-trained and dedicated staff who are dedicated to improving the use of technology in the running of everyday government.

Mr. Speaker, as you are also well aware, we are looking at, in this age of a lot, the use of everything from BlackBerries to laptop computers, but we always have to be alert to security issues and the importance of the protection of privacy where we are dealing with the information, very sensitive information, of individuals.

In terms of the constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure a lot of other hon. members in this House would also confirm, a lot of the issues brought to us include very sensitive health issues, the issues that deal with human resources, labour and employment, that deal with education, housing. This is information, Mr. Speaker, which has to be protected by government and which we have an obligation to protect.

In terms of computers, I am always amazed, Mr. Speaker, that I can be in, let's say, Toronto or Calgary and I can go into my e-mail back here. I say back here because my physical computer is located on my desk, but essentially by going into Web mail, putting in my password, I can access my e-mail. That is very helpful, as a government member, when I am travelling. Mr. Speaker, it is very helpful. Even though I have my BlackBerry with me, it is very helpful to be able to access those e-mails and to look at information and to access the information not only of constituents but also of departmental requests and general public requests. So, by going in and doing this, I can check my e-mails and continue to work on these files as I am away. Also, Mr. Speaker, it can be done from home, although I think recently the changing of the passwords has confused me somewhat in moving from one department to another. It is not as easy right now to access the passwords, but this group performs exciting work, very sensitive work and very important work.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take that opportunity as we repeal this act today, which is essentially one that has been on the books for awhile, to simply outline the important role of this crucial entity in the running of everyday business and to also praise the staff in terms of the dedication that I see from Mr. Shea and his group, and to let them know that we really appreciate the work that is being done and to indicate to members of this House that what we take for granted every day requires a lot of work and a lot of dedication from a lot of individuals.

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 just want to speak briefly on Bill 46, An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act.

I think the minister's comments with regard to the Office of the Chief Information Officer - he said probably it is one of the things that we know very little about. No doubt about it, I was impressed by some of the comments that he did make, and knowing the size of the operation, the job that those individuals carry out, but I guess the act that we are repealing here today, like he stated, goes back to 1994, and at that particular time the work was carried out through public agencies and various departments at the time with regard to finance, health and education.

I notice the minister mentioned today that just about every department now is all under the one umbrella and under the Office of the Chief Information Officer. We know back at that time it eventually went from being Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. Then it was taken over by Newtel and at the time there were a tremendous amount of jobs created, but I guess with the decline in the IT industry there was a downturn and eventually that entity was taken care of. They tried to sell it, but I guess it did not happen, and all the services were combined together.

We are very pleased today to know that the Office of the Chief Information Officer, as the minister stated - I think there are some 291 positions, and we all know how important it is to have the information that we have available through all the technology we have today, the security aspect of it, and to know that this is taken care of.

Really, Mr. Speaker, the piece of legislation now, with the takeover by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, this piece of legislation that we refer to today as Bill 46, is obsolete; it is a housekeeping issue.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments I have to make, and I want to thank the minister for his update on the actual duties and responsibilities that are being carried out by the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Port de Grave for his comments, and I would say that this is something that affects all of us in government and it helps all of us do our jobs, so his comments are appreciated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act. (Bill 46)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 46)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order please!

We are now ready to debate Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act." (Bill 39)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now ready to debate Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act." (Bill 40)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 9 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 42, An Act To Repeal The Memorial University Foundation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Memorial University Foundation Act." (Bill 42)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Memorial University Foundation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 43, An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act." (Bill 43)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 44, An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act." (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

 

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 45, An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act." (Bill 45)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 46, An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act." (Bill 46)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 47, An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979." (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 47 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 48, An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement (Amendment) Act, 1979.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement (Amendment) Act, 1979." (Bill 48)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement (Amendment) Act, 1979.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 48 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 41, An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act." (Bill 41)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few further words with respect to this act to repeal the Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

I made a few comments in second reading on this matter last day and I have had the benefit of reading the comments of the Government House Leader when she closed out second reading on this issue. Quite frankly, notwithstanding her attempts to sugar-coat what is being done here, and say and suggest what the process is going to be in the future, I am afraid that does not do enough. That does not justify the actions of this government in what they are doing.

I would like to go back again and make a few comments, because I do believe that the insistence on government in pushing this repeal bill, you are pushing the Red Tape Initiative to the extreme and to the extent that you are going to cause a black mark on a piece of our history, and that is unfortunate and there is no need of it. Absolutely no need of it!

I would like to take apart, if I could, somewhat piece by piece the comments of the Government House Leader in this regard, because this is all being done under the guise of the Red Tape Reduction Initiative, folks. That is what we were told. That is what we were told, and the Government House Leader said: well, we give out lots of scholarships in this Province. Nobody debates that. Hundreds of them, probably thousands of scholarships, but there is only one, to my knowledge, that is given out as a result of an act of the Legislature and we cannot forget our history.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation stood up here a few moments ago, when we were debating another bill, and talked about the importance of culture, our history, in this Province. That is what we are losing sight of here. Because we want to do one thing, i.e. reduce red tape – which is, by the way, not a valid reason at all and I would like to demonstrate that later on – under the guise of one initiative, we are doing something that is absolutely unnecessary.

First of all, I would like to make a couple of comments. I raised a question the last day: Did anybody have the foresight to consult with the Pickersgill family as to what was happening here? I checked with the Pickersgill family, or at least I checked with the only known relative that I am aware of, the son of Mr. Jack Pickersgill, who lives here in this Province. We checked with him. He knows nothing about it. Now, that is not very nice.

We are talking about something that we had here, historically created in 1968, and the government, because of red tape, is going to eradicate it from the books of our statutes and a piece of our history forever, all in the interest of supposed red tape, and never had the courtesy to contact the family member to even give him a heads-up as to what was happening.

Now, that is one thing. That creates a bit of red tape, in my view. That creates a bit of misguided – shows how misguided this thing is, that we are so purposeful in what we are doing that we even forget the basics of respect to some other people in what we have done here. So, that was not done.

I went back, by the way, because some people, a lot of people asked me - members of this House, some of you – said: We didn't know as much about Jack Pickersgill, never knew who he was. They didn't know who he was, and that he had done so much for his Province. I had several calls from around this Province as to my comments about what was happening on this particular bill. I am not one to stand up and talk for the sake of talking, and criticize for the sake of criticizing, but I am a student of history; I respect our history. I have an honours degree in history from Memorial University, so I do appreciate our historical significance, and it just hurts you to see that somebody could willy-nilly disregard and run over something that has an historical significance to our Province, and think nothing of it. Think nothing of it.

So I went back, actually, and I read the transcript. I read Hansard from 1968, to see how this bill came about, and the bill was brought in on a motion by the Minister of Education of the day. Our Government House Leader today is the Minister of Education. It was introduced in this House on a motion by the then Minister of Education, and who was the person who spoke to the bill? The hon. Joseph R. Smallwood.

Now, we can think what we want of our history. We can talk about whether we thought he did a good job or a bad job on the Upper Churchill or anything else in this Province, but he was the first and, at this point at least, the most famous Premier we have had, I would submit.

For twenty-five years or so, he was the Premier of this Province. It was not any other member of the House of Assembly who spoke on this bill, creating the Pickersgill endowment. It was the Premier, and the reason it was done by the Premier is because a lot of times, even today, if something has a cultural, historic significance to our Province it is usually led off by the Premier.

Premier Smallwood was the Speaker at that time and introduced the Pickersgill bill, and he was giving some reasons as to why they were doing it. It is quite fascinating, actually, when you hear – I heard a lot of stories about what Jack Pickersgill, as they called him, did for this Province, but Premier Smallwood put it in actual facts and words as to some of the things he did do.

I will quote. He says: Another good reason for adopting this bill is the fact that it bears the name J. W. Pickersgill, and it is an attempt on the part of the government, and I hope on the part of the House, to honour Mr. Pickersgill for the astonishingly great service he rendered to Newfoundland in the House of Commons and in the Government of Canada.

He outlines some of the particular things he did. A lot of us here represent rural districts. One of the things he was known for is that he convinced the Government of Canada to allow fishermen to get, in that day, Unemployment Insurance. Up to that point, fishermen could not get Unemployment Insurance. It was Jack Pickersgill who convinced the Government of Canada – because we had so many people involved in that industry, it was so important to us - that fishermen could get EI. That is a pretty significant accomplishment. That is just one thing. God knows, there have been thousands and thousands of fisherpersons in this Province since 1968, the 1960s, who have availed of EI. That was not anybody else. That was not Joey Smallwood giving credit to somebody who was in his own caucus. That was Mr. Smallwood, the Premier of the day, recognizing someone who was not even from Newfoundland, was not born here, for something that they did that impacted so profoundly on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that was just the one thing.

He called him one of the greatest social reformers we have ever had in the history of our Province. For example, did members know that Mr. Pickersgill was the father of the idea of university grants? I am sure there are a good many members of this House who had the benefit of going to university and probably getting grants. Jack Pickersgill - not only for Newfoundland folks, by the way - he created and invented the idea of governments in Canada giving university grants.

There is a little story, and this again is historical but I think relevant and important. There were two gentlemen who made a sizeable contribution to the Government of Canada, two very rich individuals. One was named I.W. Killam. He owned a company called Royal Securities. Another gentleman was Sir James Dunn. Anybody who has been in New Brunswick certainly heard of Sir James Dunn. He was the Chairman, at the time, of Algoma Steel. These gentlemen, between the two of them, contributed $100 million to the Government of Canada. Of course, the Canadian government found itself with $100 million and they were saying, whoa, this is going to add greatly to our bottom line. We have to remember now, we are back in the 1960s and $100 million is a pretty significant contribution.

The Government of Canada didn't get their hands on it to use for ordinary programming and servicing of the day. Jack Pickersgill convinced them to put it into a foundation, into a separate account, to be used solely, exclusively, for the students of this country for grants. Now, that is pretty big. We know what he did for fishermen on EI and we saw what he did in terms of grants.

The other piece we might not be aware of: virtually everybody here, I would suggest, at some point in time have driven on that ribbon of highway that we call the Trans-Canada Highway. We are all aware of the famous saying, of course, by Joey Smallwood, "finish the drive in 65". Folks, every highway project back in those days at the very best, if you did it with the Canadian government, was done on a fifty-fifty basis, except for the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland. That was done on a ninety-ten basis.

As Mr. Smallwood himself said in recognizing Mr. Pickersgill: we probably never would have gotten it when we did and in the timely fashion that we did, we would have never finished the drive in 65, if Jack Pickersgill didn't secure a ninety-ten arrangement on the Trans-Canada Highway. That is a pretty significant impact on our transportation. It is a pretty significant impact on our education. It is a pretty significant impact on our fishermen and EI.

Folks, those are just some of the reasons as to why this endowment was created. That is why it was created and we should never lose sight of why we sometimes carve out and make special attention and recognition for some people. Some of us here, no doubt, have benefited from what he did, IE and the Trans-Canada. We have friends and relatives and family who probably benefit and benefited as regard to the EI piece, and students, probably ourselves, who got grants as a result of his initiatives.

All I am saying is, don't ever get rid of or diminish our history and the significance of the contributions that people have made, simply because we have a Red Tape Initiative.

That is the other piece I would like to address, as to why the red tape piece here is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense to try to justify what is happening here under the guise of red tape. There is a Statute that sits over under this Table in this House of Assembly. I have it right here. I went over and picked a copy out from under the Table. There are lots more of them. It is the Statutes of Newfoundland, and the Pickersgill Act takes up exactly three pages. We have volumes and volumes of these. It takes up three pages of our statutory history, sits over under that Table and on lots of law shelves and everywhere else in this Province. It outlines where it came about, why it came about and how it is administered, and by the way, I now know a bit more about how it is administered.

All that happens is, you have the Dean of Arts over at the university, you have the head of the History Department, you have the head of the Political Science Department, and since 1968, folks, this is the red tape that has been involved. Those three persons get together over at MUN, they say, here is our choice for the Pickersgill Scholarship or endowment. They call over to the Department of Finance, the Department of Finance cuts the cheque and sends it down and it gets presented. That has happened since 1968, folks. That is the red tape.

Guess what? If we pass this act to repeal the Pickersgill endowment, it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to change that process; nothing. The minister is still going to cut a cheque in the Department of Finance. The Dean of Arts, as the Government House Leader says, is still going to get together with the head of the History Department and the head of the Political Science Department. They are still going to make that call up to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education and say, we have our choice, send us down a cheque. That does not change.

How are you reducing red tape if you are going to have exactly the same process after this is done as you had before? I would like for someone to explain that to me in terms of red tape. That is no reduction in red tape; the exact, identical process. If there is no reduction in the process – by the way, we are not saving any paper. These three pages are still going to continue to exist. In fact, we might have added to the paper because now we are going to have another piece of paper saying, the repeal of the Pickersgill endowment.

For the rest of eternity and in perpetuity the Pickersgill Act is still going to sit under this Table and everywhere else. We are going to add three more pages here now saying we repealed the Pickersgill Act but the same process we always had is still there. I do not know if you would call that common sense. I do not know if you would call that red tape reduction. I ask myself the question: if that is the case, if we are not accomplishing anything here, we have not changed anything, why would we even want to suggest or leave it to suggestion that we are in any way denigrating or taking away from the reason we created it in the first place?

CHAIR: Order please!

I remind the hon. member his speaking time has lapsed.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back at another opportunity, thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take a few minutes here in Committee with regards to Bill 41, An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear from the outset that on my behalf it is not just standing here to play games with a piece of legislation. I want to make it very clear, over the last couple of days there were five other pieces of legislation that I had to speak to, Bills 39, 43, 44, 45 and 46. I had no problems, Mr. Chairman. I stood and spoke in support of what each department was doing with regards to this legislation.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill that we are referring to here today, the Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act, is a different situation. I believe that it has been explained very carefully by my hon. colleague, the history of how this came about, why it was done. I believe it is for that reason and that reason alone that I stand to say I think we should reconsider this particular bill.

I know yesterday the minister gave explanations to some of the questions that I asked, and some of my hon. colleagues, when she said that the Pickersgill Fellowship will continue, it is just that the Pickersgill Fellowship Act will be repealed. That is all fine, Mr. Chairman, and it will be still awarded at the university. There is nothing changes, it is just that this piece of legislation will be repealed.

The minister mentioned about the Red Tape Reduction strategy. I think my hon. colleague just explained that part fairly well as well. What damage or what hurt is being done by just leaving that bill as it is today? It is not a reduction in red tape, Mr. Chairman. We have to look at it in a different light than from the other legislation that was brought forward.

The minister also mentioned that the legislation does not require scholarships to be enshrined. We agree with that, Mr. Chairman, but I think in this particular case, why and how this came about is a totally different situation.

I am pleased to know that the minister answered one of my questions yesterday when it came to a part of the legislation. I think it is item number 3. She explained very carefully that there are no assets with this foundation and that they are automatically awarded annually and the funds that are there are used up.

Mr. Chair, she also went on to say that the repeal does not show disrespect for the late Right Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, and I am not here today to say that the minister is even suggesting that, but I have to say it is the perception to take away this piece of legislation when it is not cumbersome on government. It is not a piece of red tape. There is nobody dealing with it only the call that comes from the University letting government know who will be accepting the scholarship that will be awarded this year.

Mr. Chair, for that reason I can conclude my comments just to say that I think there is enough reason to justify why Bill 41, An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act, should remain as is. Just for the reasons, what it is about, the individual and the work that he has done not only in our Province but throughout Canada, I think it should remain as is.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to make a few comments about the legislation before us.

Perhaps some of it is going to be a little bit in response to some of the members' opposite comments, but I want to remind everybody who is watching this debate through TV today and all members of the House, that there is no intention at all by the minister and by our government here to disrespect the individual, Mr. Pickersgill, who we are talking about. I think it is very important as well we remember the numerous scholarships that we continue to fund and will continue to fund as a government. I am not going to repeat them all because it has been said many times in this House.

Certainly we keep hearing, Mr. Chair, across the other side terms like insulting to the individual and demeaning to the individual, and phrases like, ‘I do not mean to play politics'. Mr. Chair, let me submit to you that if anything is being done here today, that is what is happening. It is just politics being played with this.

The fact of the matter is the minister has said very clearly that there is no intention to remove the scholarship. There is no intention to remove the honour that is associated with the individual there. The intention is simply to clean up the legislation that has been on the books for many years and serving no particular purpose, Mr. Chair. The more that we hear the kind of language coming from the other side of the House the more it tends to suggest that, if anything, that is what is happening here today; is just politics being played.

The fact of the matter is that our government is continuing to support the scholarships that are in place. We are continuing to support this particular scholarship both in terms of what the scholarship means and financially. That will continue on a go-forward basis.

I would ask perhaps the Opposition if they would like to speak to this, what they have done in the past to promote and to support this piece of legislation, if they think it is so important. From our perspective, we have reviewed this in detail and removing the legislation from the books does nothing to impact upon the continuation of this scholarship being awarded and it does nothing to impact upon our government's continued commitment to fund this scholarship, as we do with so many other aspects and so many other scholarships that go towards Memorial University and the students of the Province who dearly need that support.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few more words with regard to this issue.

I will not respond to the hon. gentleman who just spoke because it is actually demeaning to suggest that any comments that I have made in the last two or three days in this House regarding the Pickersgill endowment are in any way political – absolutely disrespectful and unnecessary.

Any comments that I made here are factual, accurate. I quoted from transcripts of the House of Assembly as to when things were done. That is the whole problem we have here, and that is the public perception of this government sometimes: that in your haste to accomplish something you forget about some basic human courtesies. Human courtesies, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, like calling the family members and letting them know it is even happening. That is a basic courtesy. That was not done. To have the gall to stand up and say I am trying to politicize an issue when he never had the basic courtesy of contacting the family member here to tell him what was going on.

The whole point is that this government missed the boat again on this particular issue. I do not know if it was because it was done in haste or if it was done as oversight. It was not intentional. I am not suggesting that it was deliberate, but what I am saying is that it is misguided. If something is misguided and it is not appropriate, it should not be done. That is all I am suggesting.

We cannot change the fact now that the Pickersgills were not consulted, we cannot change the fact that it hit the Order Paper here in the House, but that does not take away our right, and indeed our obligation, to make comments about it.

I am well aware, for example, of the many scholarships that this government and prior governments gave. We did not get into the scholarship business since 2003, folks. We might have increased the funding since 2003, and there are hundreds and indeed dozens of scholarships that are awarded in this Province. Nobody is denying that should be done. I am fully supportive, and the Opposition is fully supportive, of it.

The more you should do it; it is not only government. There are businesses in this Province that have all kinds of endowments and scholarships that they give, and that should continue because that only helps our students. Anything that puts a dollar in their pocket and recognizes their achievements and encourages them to do better, we need more of it, not less, but the issue here is not the money. Because, by the way, I fully agree and understand what the minister is saying, that we are continuing to give the money. We are continuing to have it called the Pickersgill endowment. It is still going to be done by the same committee at Memorial.

If that is the case, I come back to my question: Why do we have to take away from the honour that was bestowed upon Mr. Pickersgill by having it done in an act earlier?

It is not being done for red tape. As the minister says, and I quote from the minister's own comments, December 1, when she said, "It is just something that we do year after year through the budgetary process of the Department of Education."

Now, folks, if we are still going to do it year after year through the budgetary process of the Department of Education, it does nothing for the red tape initiative. So let's not fool ourselves or think we are going to fool anybody in the Province. If that is what you thought, and if that was your justification or rationalization, excuse me, it was not a good reason, and now it has been shown not to be a good reason.

If you are going to keep it there, you are going to keep paying the money, and you are going to keep sending the cheque down, and you are still going to have the same people selecting, you have not done anything.

MS JONES: Same application.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Same application process.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either reducing the red tape or you are not. If it is not a Red Tape Reduction Initiative, do not try to justify it under the guise of such. You made a mistake. I would not go so far as to suggest, nor did I think anybody – I do not think anybody in this House of Assembly did this, and brought this to the floor of this House of Assembly, because they were in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, trying to do anything to embarrass or take away from the Pickersgill family. I do not believe that. There is nobody here with that motivation. All I am saying is that if we have made a mistake, and that is an incidental, accidental consequence of our actions, you can haul back from it. You do not need, once you make a mistake, to keep your foot in it. If you walk in it, you do not have to keep your foot there once you realize that you have made a mistake. That is the sign of wise, mature, understanding, compassionate government.

We will see now if this government has the wisdom, has the courage, to do the right thing and say that we do not need this. I suspect they will not, because this government is not about doing what is right. They are about doing what they want to do. Whether it is right or not does not matter.

We got into this red tape thing last spring. The Minister of Business came in here one day. One day he tells us about his red tape initiatives and then he came in on March 13 and he proceeds to say that he is so pleased to announce that he just announced three things. We are going to have a third party use policy, we are going to have a monitoring system put in place, and we are going to have a local licensing policy. In one day he did all of that, and then he came and stood up the next day and said: Oh, by the way, we were very successful in our red tape committee, our Red Tape Reduction Committee.

You cannot talk out of both sides of your face and have any kind of credibility. If you are going to do the red tape thing, do it. Do it properly. By the way, the Red Tape Reduction Committee, I would submit, has nothing to do with cleaning up the books, as you call it here, and getting rid of an act. What has that to do with it? I can see if red tape means we are going to help the people of this Province by, instead of running through ten hoops, you only have to run through eight. That is helpful, if you are doing that. That is great. If that is what you call red tape reduction, go for it - I am supportive of it – but I don't see much red tape reduction here. Who is this helping? What process, what government administrative process, is being enhanced, improved, as a result of the repeal of the Pickersgill endowment act?

Now, I do not know how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are positively impacted by your red tape reduction on Mr. Pickersgill's endowment. I do not know. I can see some forms in your licensing and registrations and applications for licenses where it might be helpful, but I do not see much help here for anybody, any person resident in this Province. So why are you trying to justify what you have done here under this red tape thing? It is a red herring, never mind a red tape. It is a red herring.

Yet, the government will not have the common sense here to say: Sorry, guys, we might have overstepped it here. Maybe we might have overstepped it here. It does not fit under red tape. We are sorry, Mr. Pickersgill and family. We did not mean to have any negative consequences to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have to comment on that. I do not usually comment to the hecklers, but I just heard the Minister of Business say: What a joke!

I do not usually respond to hecklings, Mr. Chair, across the hall, but I certainly do not think paying due respect to the Pickersgill family is a joke. I certainly do not think it is a joke. I am treating this in all seriousness, and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Business does not treat it in all seriousness.

I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chair, by saying, I think I have made the point, and I think there are members in this government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I have made the point. I think the government knows that it is a valid point. I think they are well aware that they overstepped it here, that it was absolutely unnecessary. If they have any respect for the family, they will not proceed with the repeal of the J.S. Pickersgill Endowment Act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record, it is the J.W. Pickersgill Fellowship that we are talking about.

Mr. Chair, what is important here, and I really want to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the hon. members in this House understand that in no way is the repeal of this act going to affect the fact that we have the J.W. Pickersgill Fellowship that we fund and that we will continue to fund. It goes to a student at Memorial University on an annual basis who is studying in the areas of political science or history. The selection is done through the dean of arts and we will continue to do that.

I certainly do not want anybody to have the impression that in some way we are not going to continue with this fellowship. The Right Hon. John Pickersgill has been honoured through this fellowship for years, and I think it is a fact that we were able to award this fellowship year after year. That is what is absolutely important to the students, to Memorial University, and to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of this Province.

What is also important to note, Mr. Chair – and this is going to be particularly interesting, because each week in this House we have a Private Members' Day, and it alternates week by week as to what we introduce into the House of Assembly. If the Opposition feels so strongly that by the only way to ensure that we honour somebody who we have a fellowship or a scholarship in their name, is to have it enshrined in an act in this House – because what can happen, Mr. Chair, very interestingly enough, is the next Private Members' Day that the Opposition has, they can go through the list of scholarships that are awarded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and introduce – if they think it is important that we honour people

and the only way that we honour them is through an act and not through the distribution of the money that is attached to the fellowship or the scholarship, it will be interesting to see if the hon. Opposition, if anybody over there brings in a private member's motion that will honour people in an act who we have scholarships in their name, and that could be Dr. Arthur Barnes, that could be Dr. Vincent P. Burke, that could be Dr. William W. Blackall, that could be Rev. Dr. Levi Curtis, or Ronald K. Kennedy.

Mr. Chair, it is going to be interesting to see. If they feel that we have missed the boat and they feel what the right thing to do is, if there are scholarships or fellowships in someone's name that there needs to be an act from this Legislature that honours that person, it will be extremely interesting. I think everyone in this hon. House will agree with me, it is going to be interesting to see if it becomes a priority and they feel that they need to bring in legislation that we can debate here so that they can make sure that the names of these most hon. people who are being honoured by the Department of Education through scholarships on an annual basis, if they think that these people will also have to be honoured by an act.

Mr. Chair, what is important here is that we honour the person, the person whose name is on that fellowship or on that scholarship. How we do that, Mr. Chair, is by awarding the money every single year to a person who meets the criteria. By awarding that scholarship to the individual, what is absolutely important is that the money is used to assist that individual, that student, as they continue their studies and to acknowledge their contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, the act is an act, but the action of putting the money into that fellowship and awarding that fellowship is truly what counts. It is what counts to the students, it is what counts to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we look at that name and we make sure that that name is honoured.

Mr. Chair, the point that I want to say at this point in the debate is the fact that we have been accused here of missing the boat and doing what is right. I will be most interested to see if they can follow through from the other side of the House in what they feel is right. I will be very much interested to see if they are going to introduce legislation to honour each and every individual who the government gives out a scholarship on an annual basis to see that we are doing the right thing because the rationale behind it would be, it is not the fact we give out the money, it is not the fact that we named a scholarship after somebody, it is the fact that it is an act of this Legislature.

Mr. Chair, I think we will see, as members in this House, what is truly important. When that will not be a priority - I highly doubt if it will ever be a priority because what is going to be important is that we maintain these scholarship, we fund these scholarships and we award them on an annual basis. That is exactly what is important, Mr. Chair.

With that, Mr. Chair, I want to conclude by saying that this government is committed to the J. W. Pickersgill Fellowship. We will continue that commitment. Again, what is important is the fact that we will continue with it. We will honour the name of J. W. Pickersgill and we will make sure that a student who is in history or political science at Memorial University will get the benefit of this fellowship.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few further words on this issue. I cannot believe this is a crowd who is going to go out and have a party celebrating that we are a have Province. Agreed, it is a very historic event. We are going to go out and have a party because we have gotten somewhere supposedly in our history that we were never before. Here we are today dealing with the repeal of a bill that involved one of the individuals who played a big part in us getting here as a part of Canada, pre-Confederation time. He played a big -

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible)

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, no, I say to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Mr. Pickersgill was on the go a long time before 1949. He played an instrumental role behind the scenes and then out in the open as to the process to get us into Confederation. Of course, later became an MP here, as we all know, Minister of Transportation, Secretary of State. Here are the same people going to have a party because we are a have Province. Yet, we are going to throw out an act that years ago, forty years ago was done to honour one of the men who made us part of this great Confederation. Now doesn't somebody see the irony in that? There is something missing in this picture, folks. You never forget your history. You never denigrate your history, and you do not ever denigrate or take away from or cast aspersions upon anybody who did anything to make us what we are. That is what is happening here.

I say to the Government House Leader too, the best defence they say sometime is an offence. Well, I will tell you one thing, you do not have to worry about private member's days and what the Opposition members would do, and the Government House Leader's suggestion: Well, if you are so serious about this put it in a private member's motion and bring it forward. Well, I will tell you one thing, if we had been the government you would not have to worry about any of this nonsense getting on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This nonsense – any kind of bill that we see here, absolutely misguided. The whole point, Mr. Chair, is – the whole point here is that they missed the point. They do not understand what we are saying in the sense that the Act - for example, the minister listed off a number of people who have scholarships granted in their names in this Province. They absolutely should be done and should continue to be done. Dr. William W. Blackall, Vincent P. Burke: absolutely should continue to be done.

Mr. Chairman, the point here is different honours in this Province are bestowed in different ways, but once you bestow the honour you do not take it back, you ought not to take it back. If you followed a certain process to get there – for example, we have a part of the inner city transportation system here now, and government, in its wisdom, decided to name it the Gushue Highway. Now, they chose a process to do that, through the Department of Transportation and Works, to name that highway after one of our Olympians and they put the signs up and so on. Now, to think that we were going to do anything to change the process as to how it was done is absolutely nonsense.

For example, we have another place called Jamie's Way. I believe the municipality did that out in Harbour Grace. You do not change the process on how you do it. This was done by an act for a very special reason.

I come back to the Government House Leader again, and rather than get into this deflection about saying, if you are so serious why don't you use your Private Members' Day to do this - and by the way we have lots of motions for Private Members' Day, including one like this. I say to the Government House Leader, I look forward to her comments before I make any more comments actually. I will just pose my question to her, Mr. Chairman, and I will sit down. Again, I come back to the guise under which this is being done, red tape reduction.

Can the Government House Leader explained to us and to the people of this Province how the repeal of the Pickersgill Endowment Act is reduction of red tape?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this House of Assembly is a pretty interesting place. We had Question Period today started off by the Leader of the Opposition talking about democracy. She consumed the first eight minutes of Question Period in a very self-serving line of questions, getting more money for an Opposition party that is already over funded. I say over funded because if they are using the money that they have to produce the quality of the debate that they are contributing to this House they are not getting any value for the money that they are spending.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Chair, I would raise the issue of relevancy.

Any comments that this member has made, or the Member for Port de Grave - we are in committee stage, Mr. Chair, and as everyone in this House understands, in committee we speak to the sections, and I do believe I am still speaking on section 1 of the Pickersgill Act which has nothing to do whatsoever with resourcing issues for anybody in this House.

I think the member is out of line in referencing anything that is not concerned with the particular sections of the Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Yes, I would remind the hon. member, the Minister of Health, to stay relevant with respect to the discussion on the bill.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I have offended anyone in the House, I apologize for that, but I find it ironic that the members opposite would bring out relevancy on any point in the debate. That is what I find amusing and somewhat – but let me get to my point, because we have heard a lot of rhetoric here today.

We talk about democracy, and I ask some latitude from the Opposition House Leader in making my point.

As we talk about democracy and the democratic process, this House and this Assembly is to have informed debate, informed discussion, an opportunity for people like myself or members opposite to stand and exchange their point of view. I think, when we spend time and minutes and hours upon end talking about something that is important - it is an important point that was being raised - I think it is important, as we talk about this in a public way, to make sure that we not only are relevant to the bill that we are addressing, but the issues that we raise are relevant to the thrust of the piece of legislation.

I think one of the things being missed here - and I think the member opposite is playing a lot politics here today, as he may be trying to chew up a lot of time in the House. He may be trying to make sure that he gets an opportunity to have, his common phrase was, Joe and Martha out in his district understanding what he says. Whether he is playing to that audience or not, I am not sure.

Fundamentally here, Mr. Chair, there is something being missed. The member opposite would try to give the impression to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are somehow or other eliminating a scholarship that is now in place in the honour of someone who has made a major contribution to our Province. One of the things here, I say Mr. Chair, that everybody needs to fully understand – and the member opposite needs to be honest with people as he talks about this – very clearly this government is not eliminating a scholarship in someone's name. Very clearly, this government is not tarnishing, in any way, the reputation –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Point of Order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a Point of Order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The member speaking is referencing myself for the record and a transcript can prove this. I have never, ever in the last two days suggested that the government is taking away the Pickersgill endowment. Never! To use the word, if I was honest in what I said, I think that is inappropriate. I have never made any suggestion whatsoever. I fully acknowledge that the scholarship will continue.

CHAIR: Order please!

The Chair is, at this time, not about to check Hansard to see what the discussions have been in the last couple of days. There is no point of order.

The Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, there is no point of order. The member opposite just wants to interrupt my speaking time, because I only have ten minutes. He does not like what I am saying, obviously. I touched a nerve with him, because he recognizes that I did not say that he was saying it. What I am saying, very clearly, is he is trying to leave an impression, and that is what is important. The members opposite do this daily in this House, they twist words. They take words and massage them. They are not trying to lie but they are trying to massage words. They are trying to leave an impression.

The member opposite knows fully what I am trying to say here and that is why he is so sensitive and that is why he wants to eat into my speaking time, I say, Mr. Chairman.

Fundamentally, our government fully recognizes and will acknowledge the major contribution that Mr. Pickersgill made to the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and the contribution he made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to continue to honour that commitment and that contribution that he made. Our commitment is to continue with the scholarship. In fact, our commitment is to enhance scholarships and that is why this government has, in fact - do not know what the exact number is but I think we have significantly increased the contribution to the scholarship fund, I say to the Minister of Education. That is correct, isn't it?

MS BURKE: Seven thousand, five hundred dollars.

MR. WISEMAN: Seven thousand, five hundred dollars we have increased the scholarship funds by. That is a reflection of where we -

MR. TAYLOR: That does not sound like a crowd that is being disrespectful.

MR. WISEMAN: No, not at all. When you start enhancing the amount of money, building on what was initially established, it is a clear message that not only do we think it is valuable, we think it needs to continue to be built upon with more money year over year over year. We will continue to do that, I say, Mr. Chairman.

The question here is: If we have a piece of legislation on the books that does not necessarily contribute to the honour of Mr. Pickersgill, what happens is every single year - the member opposite got up and talked about a process, how a group of individuals at the university review the applications and make a recommendation to the minister. When that scholarship is announced, every single year that scholarship is announced, at that time not only do we celebrate the recipient of that but we celebrate the man whom it is named after. On an annual basis, Mr. Chairman, we honour the contribution that Mr. Pickersgill has made. Every single year a student walks home with the Pickersgill name attached to an award that they just received.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, when the member opposite takes –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - an hour on end talking about semantics –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - I say, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to have the members' co-operation.

The member only has two minutes left to speak.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is what I was trying to say a moment ago. When the members opposite do not like what you are trying to say, you touch a sensitive nerve, they get disruptive or they stand up on a point of order to take your time, or they will try to interrupt you. They exchange barbs across the House to try to derail your comments; but, Mr. Chairman, regardless of how much of those tactics the members opposite get on with, the point still remains, Mr. Chairman.

The debate that has been raised by the member opposite in and around this particular piece of legislation is utter nonsense. He would have the people of this Province believe that we are not wanting to honour Mr. Pickersgill. He would have the people of this Province believe that we are going to discontinue the scholarship. He would have people believe, in this Province, that we do not understand the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, and nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman, nothing at all.

We are committed to maintaining a scholarship fund in this Province, we are committed to maintaining a scholarship in the name of Mr. Pickersgill, and regardless of how much the member opposite would want to stand in this House and twist and manipulate and change words and try to create an impression, I want to stand here today and lend my comments to my colleague, the Minister of Education, and other colleagues who have stood in this House and spoken on this bill, that very clearly our government is committed to maintaining a scholarship that honours the name of Mr. Pickersgill, honours the contribution that he made to Newfoundland and Labrador, and the place he has in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say, Mr. Chairman.

Let that be abundantly clear to not only the member opposite but to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. They need to fully understand what we are committed to here, but they also need to understand fully the games being played by the members opposite when they stand here and suck up hours of legislative time in an issue that they are trying to manipulate and twist, I say, Mr. Chairman. Just like today in Question Period, they got up and consumed eight minutes of time in a very self-serving way, but I have not fully understood what self-interest is being served in the last couple of hours and yesterday in this debate around this particular piece of legislation that revokes a bill that does not change the substance and the thrust of it in the first place, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Despite the interruptions and despite the interference from across the House, hopefully I have made my point abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I certainly want to have a few words on Bill 41. I listened very attentively to the comments by the minister as he just spoke, Mr. Chairman. He is awfully concerned about why we would want to be debating this particular bill as part of the committee process within the House of Assembly. In fact, Mr. Chairman, he could not understand why we would spend hours on this legislation. Well, let me remind the hon. member that last week, the full first week of the House of Assembly, not one piece of legislation was called to the floor here as every single member, one after the other, stood and paid homage to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, and bowed down, Mr. Chairman, and praised up, Mr. Chairman, every single act of the government.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health, on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I stand on a point of order.

There is an old saying: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I was standing a few moments ago and the Chair - and I respect your earlier ruling - you did remind this House that it is really important in third reading to speak, in Committee, to have your comments relevant.

The member opposite stands and, right off the bat, starts out with a rant about irrelevant comments, nothing to do with this particular bill.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, would you direct the member opposite to focus her attention on the bill at hand.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Minister of Health has made his point.

I would ask the members to keep relevance in mind in all their comments in Committee.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly do that.

Mr. Chairman, when you get into Committee stage on a bill we all know that the Committee stage is to debate the different clauses of the bill and to ask questions. The minister, when he stood, did pose the question as to why we were taking up the time on this legislation. I tried to clarify for him the amount of time that was already wasted in this House in the last week in which no legislation was called to the floor.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we wanted to talk about this because we feel it is an important piece of legislation and we feel that the debate is important, not only because of the role that this individual played in the history of our Province but, Mr. Chairman, because government is doing this unnecessarily. Withdrawing this bill and repealing it is doing nothing to reduce the red tape process in this Province.

When the minister stood in the House of Assembly - the Minister of Education, I think, introduced the bill - stated that this was part of a red tape reduction process. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman, simply because it is not eliminating the application for the scholarship; it is not eliminating the evaluation process for the scholarship; it is not eliminating the scholarship itself. In fact, it is not eliminating anything other than the act of the Legislature. That is the only thing it is doing.

How can you claim that it is part of a red tape reduction process? Because it is not. It is not a process that is reducing the legislation, the paperwork, the evaluation, the application that takes place inside of government. All it is doing is repealing an act that is sitting in the archives of parliamentary legislation within this Province. That is the only thing, Mr. Chairman, that it is doing.

Mr. Chairman, why do you need to do that anyway? The argument that there is no other scholarship that is enshrined in legislation is a very weak one in my mind, very weak. In fact, it is a very poor excuse to be able to defend the actions of what government is proposing to do right now. My question would be: Why do you need to eliminate that act? To say that because there are no other scholarships that are legislative is a reason to revoke it, that is pretty lame. That is pretty inexcusable. That is pretty flat in terms of an excuse when you are talking about an act that is dealing with an individual who has contributed immensely to the history of this Province - not that any of the rest did not; I am not saying that. All I am saying is, when this individual was chosen to be honoured in that manner in the Province then that should be respected. It should be respected by all of us. I think that is our job; so it will be the job of future parliamentarians as it was the job of parliamentarians who served here for the last forty years.

I see absolutely no point or rationale in government's actions. In fact, it is moot. It is moot, in my opinion. It does nothing only to basically disparage - not disparage, but probably minimize - the contribution that this individual has made. That is probably the only thing that it does. I think it is important to point out that Pickersgill was not just a synonymous name with the history in Newfoundland and Labrador but also with our Canadian history. He was a strong proponent of Confederation with Canada. He was one of the individuals who was instrumental in negotiating our Confederate terms, the Terms of Union and Confederation that your government claims it wants to celebrate coming the end of March, in which we celebrated ten years ago when we had our fiftieth year of union with Canada, which was a great celebration, and I think we should always continue to celebrate it. He was one of the individuals who certainly contributed to that process.

Mr. Chairman, he was also an individual, like my colleague said earlier, who fought and achieved Unemployment Insurance benefits for people who worked in the fishing industry in our Province, and still today they are able to access those benefits. That is a major accomplishment. That is an accomplishment that has sustained families in this Province over the last five decades, that has allowed them to be able to continue in an industry that has been volatile at best, that provided little better than seasonal employment for most of their families, but because of his insight and foresight he was able to achieve this.

Mr. Chairman, he was able to set up a fund for scholarships for post-secondary students right across Canada - not just in Newfoundland but right across Canada. I am not saying all of this to belittle the scholarships that are named in the names of any other people in this Province, only to say that this was the manner in which he was chosen to be honoured, this is the manner in which the parliamentarians of the day chose to move forward, and I think we at least owe some regard and respect for that process to allow it to stand.

It is not going to be the end of the world if this legislation remains on the books in this Province for the next forty to fifty years. In fact, it will probably have little or any implication to future governments or parliamentarians, so why would you, as the minister, want to be so adamant about withdrawing this?

Mr. Chairman, there are still a lot of questions here that are not answered. We do not buy into the part that it is part of a red tape reduction, a very lame argument. We certainly do not see the need to eliminate the legislation. There is no need for it. I think it is just a move of the government that acted in haste. Well, we know they acted in haste because they did not take the time to even give the courtesy of a phone call to the family to tell them that the way your father was honoured forty years ago, we are going to take that away now. We are going to take away that legislation and that act in the House of Assembly now. We will keep the scholarship there, we will put the money there, but we will withdraw the legislation because we think it is going to bog down and clutter the legislative shelves of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, because we are going to have a three-page bill that is going to sit there for the next forty years. It is going to bog down every library in Confederation Building, so therefore we are going to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, none of these things make sense. Do the honourable thing and leave the legislation in place. Leave it in its place. Let it be a tribute to this individual who brought Unemployment Insurance to the fishing industry of the Province, who created scholarships for post-secondary students right across Canada, who was part of the team of people that was instrumental in negotiating our Confederation with Canada, Mr. Chairman, who was part of the negotiating team that secured the funds to build the first Trans-Canada Highway across the Island of Newfoundland – the Trans-Labrador one we are still working on. We could use his help now, I say to hon. colleagues, to get that piece done.

Mr. Chairman, why would we not continue to leave the legislation in place, just as an honour to this individual? There is absolutely no need to repeal this act. There is absolutely no merit in the action that government wants to take.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: We have a half-hour yet.

Lorraine, do you want to speak to that?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Any new further speakers?

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act." (Bill 41)

CHAIR: Call clause 1.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

 

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Returning to the Orders of the Day, number 2 on the Order Paper, Address in Reply.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we keep the best for the last.

It is certainly a great honour for me to stand here today as the Member for Labrador West to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we all know that the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered in March of this year by the Lieutenant-Governor, is our government's plan, our blueprint, our vision, not only for this session of the Legislature, but for, indeed, the entire mandate of this government.

Mr. Speaker, what an overwhelming mandate this government received in October of last year, a mandate to build upon the initiatives and the successes of the past four years. Since day one, Mr. Speaker, the guiding principle of our Premier and this government has been one of no more giveaways. This is the principle that has set us on the road of self-reliance, to be masters of our own house and to control our own destiny.

Mr. Speaker, when we consider the economic mess which our friends across the way left us, which we inherited back in 2003, the accomplishments which this government has been able to achieve in such a short span of time is certainly nothing short of amazing. In the final term of the previous Administration, the Liberals ran four consecutive deficits totalling $2.4 billion, which brought our total accumulated deficit close to $12 billion. What an astronomical amount, the highest per capita in this country and twice the national average. The cost of servicing the interest payments on this huge debt were running close to $1 billion a year.

Now, let's compare the record, the performance of this government since we came to power. In year one, we cut the deficit from $900 million, which was the last year of the Liberal Administration, down to $450 million. We had to take some tough measures back then and some unpopular moves but we were not out to win a popularity contest. We were out to stave off financial ruin and to turn this financial situation around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: And turn it around we did, Mr. Speaker. In year two of our mandate, we recorded a surplus of over $200 million. Compared to the $900 million deficit in the last year of the Liberal Administration, that was an improvement in our financial situation of about $1.1 billion in just two years.

Despite a (inaudible) in oil production at the Terra Nova field in 2006-2007, this government kept its expenditures in check and managed to bring in another surplus, this time for $70 million. We follow this up in the past year, Mr. Speaker, with an unprecedented surplus of $1.4 billion. Despite the recent dramatic drop in oil prices, this government still expects to meet its projected surplus of approximately $500 million in this current fiscal year. That will give us four consecutive surpluses, Mr. Speaker. That, and the $1.4 billion surplus last year are two records that have been unmatched by any Administration since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the policy that this government is taking in using a percentage of the surplus to pay down the debt is a very sound and sensible policy. This policy promotes long-term sustainability for the social programs and the services which our people need. A lower debt means lower interest charges paid to our bankers and more money going into programs and services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to run down through a list of accomplishments that this government has accomplished over the past five years. Of course one of the major ones, one which was recently announced, the Hebron development, a multi-billion dollar deal which will result in billions in revenues and royalties with a 4.9 per cent equity stake which will give us a seat at the table where the decisions are made, in addition to higher royalties and at least, when this project is up and running, 3,500 new jobs for the construction period.

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of no more giveaways for this government. We held out on this deal for quite a long time until we found a deal that was acceptable to this government, a very great accomplishment indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: We have negotiated and signed a New Dawn Agreement, which marks a new beginning for the Innu of Labrador and their relationship with this Province. The Lower Churchill issues, obviously, will be greatly enhanced. The means of achieving that project will certainly be facilitated by this particular agreement. If time permits, I will come back to the Lower Churchill again a little bit later.

Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion Atlantic Accord; this money was used to pay down the unfunded liability in the Teachers' Pension Plan, something which was costing this government close to $170 million a year in interest payments on that unfunded liability. So, again, something that has positioned the financial position of this Province.

We have issued a long-term energy plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, again which will look at the offshore oil resources and the hydro electric power in Labrador. Mineral shipments in this Province, Mr. Speaker, have risen from $770 million in 2003 to a projected $5.5 billion for 2008, representing a growth in value of 706 per cent.

One more item, Mr. Speaker - and considering the current economic situation of this country and of the whole world, actually - personal income tax reduction, again an economic stimulus which will put more money into the pockets of the people of this Province to stimulate the economy. For two years in a row we have seen tax reductions for the people of this Province; again, a major accomplishment.

One other item, the elimination of the insurance tax, which again puts back money into the pockets of people, more money to spend, more disposable income for the people.

Our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker, shows that this government has a great social conscience, and we look out for the under-privileged people who are less well off than some of us in this Province. This model that we have for poverty reduction has been acclaimed as a great model for the rest of the country. As of 2008, government is investing $100 million annually into this program.

The infrastructure plan, Mr. Speaker: I want to mention this one because of the impact that it has in the area of my district, in Labrador West, as it does for all the areas of this Province. Previous to this particular plan for multi-year capital grants – of course, we are all aware that the cost-sharing was on a fifty-fifty basis. Now, Mr. Speaker, this left a lot of towns in this Province with the inability to borrow funds to do necessary capital projects or necessary capital infrastructure. By reducing the ratio for the towns – in my case, for instance, in Wabush, the cost-sharing is now at ninety-ten, ninety per cent for the government, ten per cent for the provincial government, for our government.

Based on this year's capital works projects for Wabush of $1.1 million, this means that $1 million will be spent by the government and the town will only have to come up with $100,000, a saving from the previous formula of about $500,000.

In Labrador City which falls under the seventy-thirty formula, the $3.4 million planned for that town will see the government spending $2.4 million with $1 million to the town, again a saving of $700,000 for the Town of Labrador City. Mr. Speaker, this means the towns have more funding available or more credit available to do the projects, the infrastructure that is required, and as well it relives a burden of taxation on the residents of our towns.

The Provincial Roads Program, $73 million in the Budget - but I want to come back to the funding that was made available, and I will come back to that, for the Trans-Labrador Highway and other investments in Labrador shortly.

There are a lot of other items in here, Mr. Speaker, which have been spoken on in the past, so I will just move on to some other items in here. Of course, before I leave that I certainly would be remiss if I left out the crowning achievement which was just announced recently, the fact that, you know, Newfoundland and Labrador is no longer a have not Province, Mr. Speaker. This Province is now a have Province, a great psychological boost, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this Province. Finally, after years of being taunted as being a welfare province, people who depend on handouts from Ottawa, we can hold our heads high as we have over the years as a proud, strong, determined people and say, you know, Mr. Speaker, we are now a net contributor to the economy of this country today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the rich resources of Labrador have in the past and will continue to contribute to the economic prosperity of this Province. The iron ore mines in Western Labrador, which are the greatest industrial employer in this Province, have for the past fifty years provided steady high paying jobs to thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and have made a valuable contribution to the economy of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, of course we are all aware of the recent announcements out of Western Labrador in the last few days. We have come from an announcement which was just made a few months ago of economic boom. Things were prosperous, housing was at a premium, prices had gone through the roof, jobs were in scarce supply, companies were hiring and doing everything to try and hire people to fill the positions that they required. IOC had planned an $800 million investment to bring their production rates up from 17 million tonnes of concentrate and 12 to 13 million tonnes of pellets by about 40 per cent which would have brought them up to close to 22, 23 million tonnes of production.

The recent events, of course, have thrown sort of a monkey wrench into those plans. IOC is still well positioned to ride out this economic storm. They have put a temporary hold on the expansion plans. From speaking with IOC today, their plans are to keep one of the pelletizing machines. They have six pelletizing machines in their pellet plant. They will keep one of those machines down from now until July, at which time they will take a four-week shutdown and all employees who are not necessary for maintenance or whatever will then take their vacation during that particular time.

Certainly, right now there are no plans for any layoffs, but, of course, there is some impact on contractors. We expect as well that the students in Labrador West will probably not be able to avail of the high paying jobs which they have become accustomed to over the last number of years. I think last year, Mr. Speaker, there were about 250 student jobs in Labrador West.

Certainly, there will be some financial impact to the region, but, Mr. Speaker, over the years – I have been in Labrador for well over forty years, I have spent over thirty years with the Iron Ore Company of Canada - we have seen these economic boom and bust situations. The mining industry is a cyclical industry at best, but IOC, in particular, is certainly well positioned to ride out this storm and hopefully within a short time things will get back on track again and IOC will continue to prosper as it has.

The situation in Wabush Mines is a little more precarious but I expect, as well, the news out of there will be managed to the advantage, hopefully, of the employees, with limited layoffs and production cuts, enabling that company as well to ride out this economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, just coming back to some of the other resources that have been providing valuable contribution to this Province, we are well aware of Voisey's Bay and the recent announcement of the hydromet plant for Long Harbour.

Of course, the Churchill Falls power station, in excess of 5,248 megawatts, which is the third-largest in North America and the second-largest underground facility in the world has been, unfortunately, not providing a lot of benefit back to this Province. It certainly can be looked upon as one of the biggest giveaways ever in the history of this Province. With net revenues up to last year or the year before of over $20 billion, this government was only the recipient of a mere $1 billion. Until this situation is rectified in 2041, we will unfortunately see the benefits of this great project flowing out of our Province into our neighbouring Province of Quebec.

My time is running short and I wanted to touch on the situation facing the health care facility and the health care issue in general in Labrador West. There has been a lot of talk in the media, and some of my political foes, I would say, back in Labrador West have been using this for their own political agenda, to say that this government started off with a hole in the ground and left it there, and that the promise of this government has been broken.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. This government started this project with the selection of sites back in late 2006. As a matter of fact, the final site selection was made in the spring of 2007 based on a recommendation and the preference from the Town of Labrador City in particular. The site on the highway, Route 500 in Labrador City, was selected as the best site. The mineral rights to this particular site had been held by Labrador Mining and Exploration. They recognized this as a contribution in kind to the construction of a new health care facility and gave up their mineral rights. IOC, as well, acknowledged this site, and the government proceeded to award a contract for the site development in early fall of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, this project, the first phase of this health care facility, was about 75 per cent or 80 per cent completed when winter set in, in Labrador West, and the project was put on hold. Then, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, just after that time, the Iron Ore Company of Canada presented us with a computerized model. I guess they had second thoughts, because part of their expansion plans was to move into an iron ore development, a rich deposit behind Smokey Mountain, which was about three kilometres away from the proposed site for the hospital. In November, on November 20 - out of the blue, actually - I was informed by one of the vice-presidents of IOC, and our Transportation and Works Department, as well, were advised that this site, based upon their computer modeling, would be subjected to high volumes of noise and vibration which would exceed what was considered to be acceptable for buildings in that area.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, based on this information, government stepped back, did our due diligence, and put the project on hold, as well as the planning, because a lot of the planning was site-specific. So, until we were sure of the site, planning was stopped.

Anyway, between the jigs and the reels over the last year, we finally came to a decision with IOC that this was the only acceptable site available, because all other sites would be impacted as well by their blasting, so we made the decision that we were going to go back and use this site for the health care facility, as well as a new College of the North Atlantic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Labrador West that his speaking time has expired.

MR. BAKER: Just a minute or two, Mr. Speaker?

I know I am running out of time; I am long-winded.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. BAKER: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker, this project is now back on track. Government has just signed off on the master plan for the hospital. The conceptual engineering is underway. Detailed design work will be done over next winter. The tender will be called next fall. In early 2010 we hope to have the contract awarded, and construction will start in the spring of 2010. The estimated completion date will be 2012, which will put us one year behind schedule; but, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this government is still there. This project will go ahead, along with the college which is further advanced, and we will see work carry on next year with completion of the site. This project is full steam ahead and Labrador West will indeed see these projects come to fruition in due time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know my time has run out and I thank you. That is it; I will shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House does now stand adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

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