April 27, 2009              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLVI   No. 10


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome students who are the first, second and third place finishers of the Sanofi-Aventis Biotalent Challenge. They are Rebecca Hollett of Holy Heart High School, Megan Howse of St. Peter's Junior High, and Heather Warren and Stacey Roberts of Bishops College.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte–Springdale; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I guess I have to wait for the light, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they have mine on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They have the wrong one on.

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

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

I was only gone for two weeks and they forgot me already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate ten-year-old Kelsie Hodder from the community of Margaree in my district on winning gold at the provincial YBC bowling tournament in Grand Falls–Windsor recently.

Kelsie is a member of the Port aux Basques Bowling Council. Her team placed second in the western zone competition held back in February at Corner Brook. Kelsie had the highest number of pinfalls in her division and won the right to compete as the bantam girls single in the provincial tournament. At the provincials, Kelsie bowled 92 pinfalls above the second place bowler, earning her the honour of representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the YBC bowling nationals to be held in Markham, Ontario, on May 2 to 4.

Kelsie will have to bowl seven games per day over three days at the nationals and her dad, Darren Hodder, will be coaching the provincial senior boys team and her mom, Trudy, will also be going along for support. They hope to see some of the sights in the area during the trip despite their busy schedules.

Kelsie started bowling in kindergarten and this is her fifth year bowling. She absolutely loves going to competitions and meeting new people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Kelsie Hodder on winning the provincial YBC single bantam girls' competition and wish her well at the nationals on May 2 to 4. All the best, Kelsie, to you and your family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this is bowling day because I also have a statement about bowling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a very significant accomplishment by a ladies bowling team from my district. The team is made up of five ladies from Winter Games Lanes in Lewisporte.

On Saturday, April 4 of this year, Shirley Sceviour, Sherry Gillett, Claudette Tulk, Stacey Reid, and Melanie Tucker represented our area by participating in the Bowling Proprietors Association of Newfoundland and Labrador Classified Bowling tournament. This is an annual five-pin bowling tournament held in St. John's.

Our team bowled five consecutive games and won the tournament. In the twenty year history of the Winter Games Lanes this is the first time a ladies team from Lewisporte area has brought home the provincial title. Their win gives them the right to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in the National Five Pin Bowling tournament being held in Winnipeg, Manitoba on May 23 and May 24.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all hon. members to join with me in extending congratulations to the team from Winter Games Lanes and to wish them the best of good luck as they head to the national competition.

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.

On April 23, I had the pleasure of attending the Canadian Bible Society Newfoundland and Labrador District's 197 annual general meeting. The event took place at the Evangel Pentecostal Tabernacle in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Since April 19 to April 25 was National Volunteer Week, it was very appropriate to join all denominations to salute and thank them for their continued volunteer work.

The highlight of the evening was the presentation by a Ms Sarah Townley who was born in Hebron, Labrador and is currently employed at the Labrador School Board as a program staffer for Inuit education. Ms Townley joined four other translators to complete the work of translating and editing seven individual large books into the current Inuktitut Bible which has been presented to the Moravian Church in Labrador.

Major Lorne Pritchett, District Director for the Canadian Bible Society stated that this venture was truly the highlight of the year.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations and continued success to the Canadian Bible Society on their 197 year in translating, publishing and distributing the Bible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding individual in my District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

In the words of June Warr, also an outstanding Springdale resident, Mr. Don Huxter is a community stalwart and supporter of civic projects and innovations. Getting his hands dirty with a project has never been a turn off for Don, who is always right there to clean up, put up and stand up for what might improve our town.

A retired high school Biology teacher for the past seventeen years, Mr. Don Huxter has tirelessly and enthusiastically served his community at all levels, locally, regionally, and provincially.

Being selected Springdale's citizen of the year and inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame is a testament of Mr. Huxter's immense contribution not only to his town but also to his Province.

Don coached and mentored many school teams and students in his day. The Member for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame, my colleague, is a prime example.

If the town or some other organization wants something done and done right, everyone says phone Don Huxter.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in thanking and recognizing Mr. Don Huxter for his countless hours of volunteer service to his community and to his fellow man.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this hon. House today to speak of nine individuals from my district and the neighbouring District of Burin-Placentia West, who work with the CP Rail Crew #1 in Ontario. This crew organized and participated in an on-site recycling program, bringing home proceeds of $1,450.00 from the program and presented this amount to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Foundation.

This crew comes from all parts of the nation, but is strengthened by nine Newfoundlanders from the Burin Peninsula communities of my district, St. Bernard's and the Terrenceville area, along with members of my neighbouring district in the Rushoon area.

The nine members of the crew from Newfoundland are: Sammy Sheppard, Robert Whiffen, Robert Halliday, Kevin Whiffen, Fred Norman, Michael McGrath, Gerard Hynes, Gordon Saint and Frank Stewart.

It is kind and charitable acts like these which help to ensure we keep our health care system strong and vital. We all have to play a role in finding unique ways to meet the challenges of the future.

I ask that all hon. members join me in giving an extraordinary congratulation and a thank you to the CP Rail Crew for their favourable donations to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Foundation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to recognize National Victims of Crime Awareness Week in Canada which takes place April 26 to May 2, 2009

The purpose of the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week is to raise awareness about issues faced by victims of crime, inform them of the services that are available, and also to acknowledge the rewarding, yet often challenging, work of those who do assist victims of crime.

In our Province, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has eleven Victim Services offices staffed with dedicated individuals who put the emphasis on helping those who have unfortunately experienced crime. These professionals work on the principle that victims should be treated fairly, with courtesy and, most importantly, with compassion and respect. Victims should not be inconvenienced by their involvement with the justice system and should receive fair redress.

In 2005, Mr. Speaker, Victim Services assumed the mandate to provide services to child victims and witnesses as well, those under the age of sixteen in the criminal justice system. Since that time, wonderful work has been undertaken to prepare children for the often intimidating process of criminal justice proceedings.

A children's workbook has been prepared in 2008 and is being used with children aged seven to eleven and youth aged twelve to fifteen. Most recently, a DVD entitled Making a Difference has been completed and is available for children and other vulnerable individuals.

This fifteen minute DVD prepares children under the age of sixteen, and other vulnerable individuals, for testifying in court. It is available at all eleven regional offices of Victim Services, and its creation and production has been supported through the Violence Prevention Initiative.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this DVD is also available on the Internet through the Department of Justice Web site for all residents of the Province, but particularly children, their parents and guardians, to avail of at any time.

The DVD is also focused on children whose first language is not English, and is representative of cultural diversity, rural/urban experiences and gender balance. The Violence Prevention Initiative is providing $22,000 to have this DVD available in both official languages and several Aboriginal dialects this year.

Mr. Speaker, once an individual has become a victim of a crime, his or her life can be changed forever. Nonetheless, Victim Services employees are working hard each and every day to lessen these impacts. During National Victims of Crime Awareness week we recognize them and remember victims of crime throughout Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It has often been said that perpetrators sometimes have it better in our system than the victims, with all the rights that are afforded them in terms of legal aid services and so on. It is great to see that we have a recognition here nationally now of an awareness to the victims of crime; because, whether it be an assault or a robbery or a fraud or a break-in, people are impacted by these crimes, and not only the individuals themselves, of course, but their families, depending upon the nature of the crime. So it is great to see that we do have – and we have had, in the last ten or fifteen years - a greater emphasis on providing services for the victims, as opposed to just providing for the rights of the accused person. That is great to see, because we certainly need to have the balance between the two. Whether it is our courts, our social workers, whether it is legal aid, sources and facilities are available - and case workers.

It is nice to see, as well, we now have a new Minister Responsible for Child, Youth and Family Services, and I would think, if you deal with child victims, that minister will, of course, hopefully be playing a role in the services to them as well, rather than just not only exclusively health services, for example, but anything that children would need.

Anyone who watches the media in this Province on a nightly basis, of course, you need only see the perpetrators that go through our courts and just how busy our courts are. Behind that, there is probably a four to one ratio in terms of the victims that are impacted by the crimes that these individuals have committed.

There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. I would point out to the minister, as the Associate Chief Judge just recently pointed out, we do have some vacancies in our system which, of course, slows down the process. So, if you are a victim, it is bad enough that you have to deal with the issue, but when you have that issue being dragged through the courts because we do not have the proper courts in process working to their full efficiencies, that is when we have problems. It is not only in the court systems here in the St. John's area but also in Central and the circuit courts, for example. I can speak from personal experience; I know on the West Coast some of the circuit courts are delayed by months, and that impacts victims.

So it is nice to see it is recognized, and hopefully we will keep working towards making it even better than it already is.

Thank you.

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 advance copy of his statement.

I am very pleased to see the work that is going on with regard to Victim Services, and I am especially pleased to see that this statement is mainly about providing services to children who are victims. Children are the most vulnerable in our society. Very often, the crimes that are perpetrated against them are crimes of violence: both physical violence, sexual violence, even children being taken by other people, whether family or not. Children are extremely vulnerable.

I am sure that this DVD that has been put together by the Department of Justice will take steps towards alerting children both to their rights, to the ways in which they can take some kind of preventative actions depending on certain circumstances, and especially their rights once they have had a crime perpetrated against them.

I would encourage the minister, thought - and I know that the DVD is only meant to be a tool, and I think that is how we should see such a tool, that it is that, and it is a tool that can be used by parents with children, and used by teachers with children; because, with children, nothing will replace the human, nothing will replace the personal, contact to encourage children to know what their rights are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Province's extremely talented young people who are taking their science lessons to a whole new level. The Sanofi-Aventis Bio Talent Challenge gives students the opportunity to gain experience in real-life biotechnology research under the guidance of scientists working in the field. The experience also gives them an understanding of the principles of science and a chance to compete for a spot at a national event in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, the junior and senior high school students participating in this year's event certainly delivered.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Rebecca Hollett of Holy Heart High School on her first place win with a project that explored the use of juniper tree extract to fight malignant breast cancer cells – truly incredible, Mr. Speaker. The second place winner was Megan House, a Grade 8 student from St. Peter's Junior High, followed by Heather Warren and Stacey Roberts from Bishops College in third place. By every indication, these young people have what it takes to become leaders in biotechnology research and development.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so critical that we continue to place a great emphasis on education and providing the best education possible for all students. Through unprecedented investments over the past several years, Mr. Speaker, our classrooms are changing for the better.

For example, science labs are not what hon. members may remember from their time in school. Many of us, many of you, would have been lucky to have had a frog or a worm to dissect, or perhaps a Commodore 64 computer - we would have been so lucky - but, Mr. Speaker, science and technology are now integral parts of our society and therefore integral parts of our education system. In fact, in recent years, $3.8 million has been invested to upgrade our schools' science labs, bringing them into the twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House here, I offer congratulations to all students who participated in the local challenge. They are great examples of the wonderful achievements students from across our Province are capable of, and I offer best wishes to Ms Rebecca Hollett as she heads to the national challenge next month.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement and to say congratulations, Sir, on your new appointment. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We in the Official Opposition also want to thank all those who took part with regard to the challenges, when it comes to the field of science, and in particular to the students who are here in the gallery today. We want to congratulate Megan House, Heather Warren and Stacey Roberts, as well as the winner, Ms Rebecca Hollett, on the fine job that they have done.

It was only this past week there was an individual in my district, and I hope she continues with regards to the case that she won first place on, and that was to explore the use of juniper tree extract, because I was told by an individual who has another form of cancer, that this is an old remedy. I look forward to her continuing with it because they find a real benefit to that particular issue.

I also want to reference the comment made by the minister, how times have changed and that maybe some of us only had a frog or a worm to dissect. The minister knows full well where I came from, there was not a worm or a frog there, let alone did we have a lab to do it in if we found one.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition want to congratulate Rebecca and wish her every success as she goes to the nationals in this wonderful competition.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advanced copy of his first statement as the Minister of Education and welcome him in his new role.

It is wonderful when our students can get opportunities to do the kind of research that these young women were involved in. It makes us proud, of course, of our system that this can happen.

It is also wonderful to see the kind of advanced things that were being dealt with, especially the use of juniper tree extract to fight malignant breast cancer cells. I had heard of this research going on and I really look forward to what will happen with this research in the future and hope that Miss Hollett will be part of some groundbreaking results as time goes on in her life.

I would like to ask the minister, though, to look into the whole thing of the vetting by government of corporations that sponsor events in our schools. I do have some concerns about the particular company, Sanofi-Aventis, which is the fourth largest drug company in the world, with some reports of some of their practices in research. I think it would be good to know if we have a policy that looks at corporations that do get involved with our students and if there are practices that they take part in that we would not want to see shared with students. What kind of materials do they share with students? What is the role that they play?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been another three weeks of bad news from AbitibiBowater and unfortunately for its former employees in the Grand Falls-Windsor region. Mr. Speaker, we have seen three more weeks of inaction on this issue by the government opposite.

On April 17 AbitibiBowater entered bankruptcy protection, thereby cancelling severance benefits for workers, these severance payments that were to provide security to these workers at a time when they were without employment.

I ask the Premier today: Now that AbitibiBowater has cancelled these payments is government willing to step up for these workers, make the payments and deduct the amount from what will be paid for the expropriated assets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just one point of clarification. Abitibi is in creditor protection, not bankruptcy protection, and there are some nuances to that that are important that we understand.

With respect to the question that the Leader of Opposition asked about, as has been indicated by this government many times, we are certainly going to be standing up for the workers and with the workers of AbitibiBowater, but in terms of doing that we are not going to let the corporate entity of AbitibiBowater off the hook for the obligations that they have incurred and that they have on a go-forward basis.

We will ensure, as a government, that AbitibiBowater lives up to its obligations and we will also ensure that at the end of the day the workers receive what it is that they are entitled to receive from that company.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the government to say that we will work to ensure that this company lives up to its obligations, but the fact is that this company was not capable of meeting these obligations. That is why they have already filed for creditor protection, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, we learned that 119 former AbitibiBowater loggers in Central Newfoundland were losing their early retirement funding. This funding provided $1,200 to $1,400 a month in bridge payments until they were officially able to retire. These payments were agreed upon with workers who retired before the mill closed.

I ask the Premier today: Is government going to do anything to provide financial assistance to these workers now that they have been told the payments will not be coming?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is correct, AbitibiBowater employees, 119 in total, were engaged in a workforce reduction program whereby they and their union, in negotiation with the company AbitibiBowater, did receive some-$1,200 to $1,400 per month to bridge them to a retirement age.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the company, in its callus way, has decided to break that arrangement with the employees and have indicated to them that they will not be paying it. Their union has already countered with a challenge on that. There are legal ramifications that must be explored before anything else is to happen. It is those kinds of decisions, in terms of moving forward in the appropriate way with the processes that are in place, that are being followed by the union and will also be explored by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AbitibiBowater has launched a challenge to the Province's expropriation of company assets and the Premier appears to have great confidence in the government's ability to defend these actions. However, this process will take years to wind its way through the courts and the workers need assistance now.

I ask the Premier: Is it right that these workers are now caught between a company who is broke and a government who has retrieved the assets but are unwilling to pay out the money that is duly owed the employees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, on this side it is not a government that is unwilling to pay out any monies for obligations for which we are responsible. We are currently in negotiation with AbitibiBowater on an expropriation of assets. They have, as is their right, instituted a NAFTA challenge and that has its processes that, potentially, will go through the court system. There may be an agreement that would happen before that. Any obligations that our government has, we will pay monies on for those obligations. Some of those can be negotiated; some of those may be mandated through some type of a court process, but any obligations this government has, this government will live to, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I ask the minister if he could give us an update as to what the status of the negotiations are that he just alluded to and if they are only in the context of the NAFTA challenge or if they are also dealing with other issues around the pension fund and around the wage bridging program that the workers have just been told they are losing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have stated quite publicly a number of times the parameters of the talks that we are having with AbitibiBowater. They concern compensation of value for the bricks and mortar assets of their generating facilities, environmental remediation, and severance for the silviculture workers and the harvesters, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

Maybe the minister can tell me if there is some timeline around when they are hoping to conclude those negotiations because there are a lot of workers out there waiting to see if they are actually going to get paid those severance benefits or not.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government would have liked to have concluded those talks several weeks ago. We can only move as quickly as AbitibiBowater will allow us to do in this circumstance.

We are more than prepared to pay a fair market value for the assets, but we also have to make sure that the environmental remediation is taken care of, and that the severance package is fully what is owed, we feel, morally, if not legally, to the former workers of AbitibiBowater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 7 I asked the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development about a case of former AbitibiBowater workers who had fallen between the cracks of Abitibi and Nalcor Energy.

These workers were expropriated by Nalcor, along with the power assets, without any severance or holiday payments, and some have even been laid off. They have been told by both parties, you do not deal with me; you deal with the company. They have been told by the company, you deal with Nalcor Energy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical matter. At the time, the minister indicated that they were looking at some resolution. I would like to ask today, has the issue been resolved, and give us an update on where it is now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, again, the workers were not expropriated by Nalcor. I just want to make that point, first of all. There were assets that were expropriated, and there were decisions made by AbitibiBowater that the workers were employees of Nalcor. That is the decision that AbitibiBowater made.

That, Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, and in the opinion of the union representing the workers, is fundamentally incorrect. They were employees of AbitibiBowater. AbitibiBowater laid those workers off, and AbitibiBowater has not, as we know, lived to its obligations with regard to severance.

There were some workers who, after being laid off by AbitibiBowater, were re-employed by Nalcor but there are some who were not, and we believe that AbitibiBowater has an obligation to those workers, as does their union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should know that these workers do feel like they have been expropriated, and they feel like they are caught in the middle, just where the assets are: between a huge disagreement between government and the company.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again today: Knowing full well that AbitibiBowater is not prepared to pay out the holiday pay and the severances that are owed these workers who are now employed by Nalcor Energy, will government and Nalcor work to ensure that the financial rewards they were due are indeed paid?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, we have said it publicly - I have said it myself here in this House, some of my colleagues have said it – we will ensure that all of the workers of AbitibiBowater who are entitled to things from AbitibiBowater, as their former employer, will receive what it is that they are entitled to with regard to their severance, for instance.

We are working diligently with the workers, with the unions, to ensure that all of the obligations of AbitibiBowater are realized. It is a very complicated process, Mr. Speaker. It involves a number of jurisdictions provincially, federally and internationally in terms of the labour laws, and we have to be very careful about how we do this so that we do not compromise what it is our end result is that we are trying to achieve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A group of former AbitibiBowater workers in the fifty-two and under age group formed a committee a number of weeks ago to propose an economic stimulus package that would benefit the Central Region while providing benefits to those same workers who are unable to access a pension.

I ask the Premier today: Has his government given any consideration to this proposal? If so, what action do you intend to take to help these workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt - and I assume this is what the hon. Opposition Leader is referring to - I am in receipt of a proposal from one gentleman who has indicated he is representing about 100 gentlemen, and he called it, in the discussion I had with him, a pension bridging exercise, not an economic stimulus package, so I assume we are talking about the same thing. That pension bridging piece of information, I have received. I have passed it on to my officials to review and to come back with some commentary to me on it. Once that is done, I will make some decision as to whether or not that is something we want to pursue further, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the next few weeks the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could be facing a nursing strike. Nurses have agreed to government's wage proposal but are frustrated with two particular clauses in the agreement, namely: the extended earnings loss benefits and the market adjustment clauses.

I ask the Premier today - I know that both sides have made compromises, but I ask again: Why won't government move away from these two clauses in order to avoid a nursing strike in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have made a most generous offer to the nurses, Mr. Speaker, in this time of economic recession - a 27 per cent increase to the top-tier nurses, and a 31 per cent increase to the starting nurse, along with signing bonuses, bursaries - but it is all part of a package. The package that we have put on the table included two clauses which have been signed off by 30,000 other public sector employees represented by all of the major unions. So, what we have done, we have said this is where we are, this is the package we are willing to offer, and it is a package.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the market adjustment and the extended earnings loss, I really do not know what the difficulty is. All of these other unions have signed off. We feel that this offer is most generous. In fact, it is unheard of in these economic times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the minister is saying, but it is not a good rationale to have nurses on the street today in this Province, or looking to go on the street in this Province, in the form of a strike simply because everyone else has done it so you have to do it. To me, it is not a good argument.

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that the market adjustment clause would be accepted by nurses as market adjustments are already happening, such as sign-on bonuses and relocation incentives. Minister, you know that these things are very different. What you are proposing is that nurses who work side by side in the same health care facilities would receive different pay for the same job.

I ask you: How do you expect this kind of proposed market adjustment to bring stability and to be able to maintain nurses in our health care system?

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, again, and I speak for everyone on this side of the House, and I am sure everyone in this Chamber, we all appreciate the role that nurses play in our health care system -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - but, as a government, there is only so far that we can go.

What we have done is we have addressed the situations of recruitment and retention. We have done that through the raises that have been put forward. They said to us, we do not want pattern bargaining applied. So we done that; we have gone outside the template. We have never said - I have never said, nor am I aware of the Minister of Health ever saying - that we will pay two people working side by side more money.

The purpose of the market adjustment letter is to give us maximum flexibility in addressing recruitment and retention issues and thereby addressing what nurses are saying to us, that their concern is about work conditions and the ability to have time off.

What we have said is that we need the flexibility, and I am not aware - maybe the Minister of Health can point out, but I am not aware - of two nurses working side by side where Eastern Health or any other health board is paying one more than the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You may not be aware of it now, and it is not what we want to see, and what you are proposing is just that.

This minister knows that he and his government have already broken the template for bargaining - he has said that - so why not go all the way? Why not go all the way? What is there to gain by government, to insist that these clauses stay in an agreement? We know what the loss is to patients in this Province. It is a loss of stability in our health care system when nurses are on the street.

So, Minister, is this going to be financial savings for the government in some way? Is that why you are so stuck on ensuring that this clause is in the agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not stuck on anything, other than improving this health care system and making it as good as it can be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: However, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point in time when that average Newfoundlander who is making the $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 who has gotten that 21 per cent increase. We have now gone to the point where we are at 31 per cent.

Federal service employees, Mr. Speaker, got a 6 per cent raise over four years. Now, what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is be fair. We feel we are being fair and reasonable. The market adjustment is currently being applied out there where we have health boards applying it inconsistently and perhaps it could be said, unfairly.

What we want to do is bring all of this under one roof, under Treasury Board, where we can apply a consistent policy and ensure that the very issues that the nurses' union is complaining about will not occur. That is the purpose of what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have heard nothing but good in the last week or so, despite the threat of this impending strike, of the way that nurses have treated people, the care and compassion with which they are treating people. All we can say, Mr. Speaker, is we have been fair and we are continuing to be fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if this is not going to achieve any kind of savings for government, if the real objective here is to get nurses to stay on the job and not walk off the job in the form of a strike, I have to ask the minister: Why are they not prepared to go to binding arbitration? There are no monetary issues here. It is simply issues of policy that can be decided by an outside party.

So I ask you and your government, to avoid a nursing strike in this Province, to ensure that there is protection for the health care of the people of the Province, will you not agree to go to binding arbitration on those two clauses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we are acutely aware - again, everyone on this side of the House and everyone in this Chamber - of the impact of a pending strike on the patients and the health care system of this Province. Our number one concern are the patients. However, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when we have gone as far as we can go.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the government, we have given, we have given, we have given. Recruitment and retention, we are addressing it, Mr. Speaker. Working conditions, we are addressing it, Mr. Speaker. These issues have been signed on, and, Mr. Speaker, they were not easily accepted by some of the other unions. So what we are trying to do here is maintain the consistency, Mr. Speaker, treat all our public sector employees alike. We have said to the nurses, we value your work, we know the role that you play, we are giving you the biggest increase in this country right now. In relation to that, Mr. Speaker, there has to be something back. There has to be something in it. In this particular case all we are asking, Mr. Speaker, the two clauses that every other union in this Province has signed onto are accepted. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is an unreasonable request. In fact, it confuses me, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, as to why the union has made such a big deal about these two issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It was recently revealed – my questions are for the Premier – that the former PC Party Leader, Mr. Byrne, inappropriately used public funds to pay a party worker $3,000 in the 2001 St. Barbe by-election. As the Premier knows, taxpayer money is not permitted to be used for such expenses. It was also identified in the Byrne Statement of Facts that one Gus Coombs, a PC candidate in 1999, inappropriately used $2,000 for an election expense. The same statement of facts referred to helicopter use to travel to that district around the same time for the St. Barbe by-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In addition, there were also three lawyers paid $13,000 for PC Party work from Mr. Byrne's constituency allowance.

I ask the Premier: Will Mr. Byrne be repaying this money pursuant to the restitution order, or will the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador be reimbursing the taxpayers for money specifically used for PC Party operations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just let me begin by saying that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of this House and we have every confidence in his ability to deal with this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we were not aware of these circumstances, as the Opposition House Leader has said. We became aware of them in the Statement of Facts in the case of Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Speaker, we were more than prepared to pay back the funds from Party resources but we understand that the courts have ordered Mr. Byrne to repay these funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, these instances are in the Agreed Statement of Facts relating to this case and there may well be many other examples of inappropriate expenses that have not been uncovered or reported.

I ask the Premier and the government: Are you willing to support an independent third-party investigation into election campaigns, to determine whether any other inappropriate funds were channeled to the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my earlier answer, we have every confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer and his ability to deal with these issues. If there was impropriety it was not by the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The facts were discovered, Mr. Speaker, because the Auditor General was allowed back into this House and able to audit the affairs of MHAs; the same Auditor General who was kicked out of the House by members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

In case the minister was not aware of it, the individual in question, Mr. Byrne, was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador when this happened.

Mr. Speaker, all parties have supported investigations into problems that have been identified in other areas. For example, in health care we asked Justice Cameron to investigate, in Justice we asked Justice Lamer to investigate, in the House of Assembly –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member put forward his question. I ask members for their cooperation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in other areas, as I say, where we have had issues: in health care we asked Justice Cameron, if it was Justice we asked Justice Lamer to come in, and if it was the case of the House of Assembly we asked Justice Green to come in.

I ask the Premier: Why are you so adamantly opposed to a third-party investigation that protects the Province's electoral laws and would identify any abuses that have occurred?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to deal with this issue, we have every confidence in the Auditor General and his ability to audit MHAs here in this House to ensure that funds are spent appropriately, and we have every confidence in the courts of the land to deal with any improprieties or legal misdoings that may have taken place. All of those processes, we feel, Mr. Speaker, adequately protect the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In a public statement, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Reynolds, justified his decision by stating that Mr. Byrne had already been convicted and dealt with by the courts, therefore no need to investigate.

I say to the Premier, who we all know is also a lawyer: Why are we refusing an investigation under the Elections Act, which is a totally separate issue than anything the former member might have done under the Criminal Code?

Absolutely separate, got nothing to do with each other: Why is this government refusing, when they claim to be open and transparent, to allow such an independent investigation?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

Members may not agree with the questions being posed, but the member has every right to ask the question, and a minister identified has every right to provide an answer.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in hiding anything. That is why we brought the Auditor General back in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: That is why these investigations have taken place. That is why these court proceedings have taken place. It is because we believe in transparency and accountability.

We did not turf the Auditor General out. We brought the Auditor General in and said, have a good, close look at what is going on here, and if there is any inappropriate activity, then deal with it. He has done that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: And the Chief Electoral Officer will do the same. We have every confidence that he has the tools and the ability to take whatever action is required surrounding these issues, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday and Friday past I spent time in Grand Falls-Windsor. I spent time with the workers who have been displaced because of the closure of the mill. I have heard what they are going through at this moment. I spoke with the workers who cannot get their severance, with the loggers who cannot get the workplace reduction program that they expected. I have also spoken with workers who have told me there are people who are now going to social assistance.

So I have a question for the Premier, and my question is: If this government is so sure that you can negotiate with AbitibiBowater to get the severance covered and the workplace reduction program money covered, if you are so sure you can do that, why won't you put money up front to deal with what the workers are going through right now at this moment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been meeting with the workers out there for a long time, and we did not just hear their story the last couple of days. We have been out there many times. We knew that there were troubles with that company. We have been working with the employees out there and with their union representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I alluded to, in response to an earlier question, that this a very complex issue. With all due respect to the hon. member, I do not want to denigrate what she is saying, it is not as easy as just writing a cheque, and covering something off by writing a cheque, and I understand that is not how she may exactly have meant it, but there are things we have to do. Because of the legal processes that are open to the company, because of legal processes that are open to the unions and the employees, we have to be very careful not to do something that may damage - what it is we are trying to achieve here is to see that those employees receive their severances at the end of the day. So we have to be very careful how we do things. The suggestion being made is not something that we believe is something we should be doing at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday and Friday were not the first times that I have been out to Grand Falls-Windsor, not the first times I have met with the workers; just so the minister is aware of that fact.

I am well aware of the situation, and I am also well aware of the frustration that they are going through. These workers, right now, are getting more and more frustrated with every day. The message they gave to me loud and clear on Thursday and Friday was that they are not feeling, at the moment, that the government is carrying their needs.

I ask the Premier: Why can't this government give a clearer explanation to them so that they will feel something is going on to meet their needs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration of the hon. member opposite, I share the frustration of the employees, and we should be directing it to the appropriate place. The appropriate place is not this government. It is the company that has made these callous and heartless decisions that are impacting the employees that we are speaking about in this House of Assembly every day.

We are reacting to what the company is doing. We are trying to make sure that the employees, at the end of the day, receive everything that they are entitled to receive. Because of the complexities, it is not my place to go out and explain all of those complexities because I am not in a position to do that, but the union has access to legal opinions. Other people, the employees themselves can certainly engage, if they wish, legal opinions. I can just tell you as a layperson, not a lawyer, that there are legal complexities that I have to be very careful about what it is I do as chair of the task force not to compromise what it is we are trying to achieve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am not asking the minister or the Premier to go out and explain the position of AbitibiBowater. I am asking them to explain to the workers why they are so confident when they say they are going to take care of them, because they do not see themselves being taken care of. Explain your own position to them, Minister. That is what I am asking for.

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have always said, as a government, that the obligations to the employees regarding the severance are AbitibiBowater obligations. By taking care of that obligation we have indicated already, publicly and to the workers, that we will do everything within our power to ensure that we exert whatever pressure, whatever influence, whatever legal authority that we may have on the company to live to its obligations.

There are, as I said, legal processes involved here. To do something like the member opposite suggested may in actual fact be illegal for us to be doing. It may in actual fact be something that we cannot do. These are federal laws that govern these things. As I indicated earlier, there are also international and provincial laws but the particular example that the member uses has to do with federal laws that we have to be very cognizant of and respectful of and, again, not compromise what it is we are trying to achieve here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

I would like to ask hon. members - when the hon. Opposition House Leader stood to deliver a member's statement he had trouble looking at his light, noticing that the light was not working. I have been informed by Broadcast that if members have been identified by the Chair to speak and if the light directly in front of their own microphone is not working, they can look to either side and if either one of those lights are working continue to speak. The Broadcast Centre has had some difficulty with some of the microphones. If they switch to the microphone adjacent to the microphoned person who has been identified to have the floor, the microphones are sensitive enough to pick up the speech. So I ask members to continue to speak if there is a light close by them that has been lit. Just for information purposes.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and table the annual report from the Public Utilities Board on operations carried out under the Automobile Insurance Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

As Speaker of the House of Assembly I have three reports to table. One is a report from the Chief Electoral Officer on election finances for the by-elections held in the electoral districts of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on November 1, 2006; Ferryland, February 8, 2007; the District of Kilbride on February 8, 2007; Port au Port, February 8, 2007; the District of Humber Valley, February 12, 2007; and from Labrador West on March 13, 2007.

A further report, which is the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer on election finances of registered political parties for the period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007.

A final report is a report from the Chief Electoral Officer on election finances for the October 9, 2007 General Election.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) of the Standing Orders of the House, I give notice, Wednesday being Private Members' Day for the Official Opposition, of the following motion, moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave.

WHEREAS it has been revealed in a court of law through a statement of facts agreed to by both the defence and the prosecution in the case of R. v. Edward Byrne that improperly received public funds were used to finance political campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS these improperly received funds were not recorded or received or spent as per the provisions of the Elections Act and associated regulations; and

WHEREAS the Chief Electoral Officer of the Province, through his actions and inactions, has been shown to be compromised and biased in his ability and willingness to investigate potential misconduct on the part of members of the governing party; and

WHEREAS it is in the public interest to determine the precise nature and extent of this channelling of improperly received public funds into campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to ensure public confidence in our political system and our government;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly calls for an independent, third-party investigation to determine the extent and nature of transfer of public funds into partisan political operations and campaigns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: I am going to go to Motions, Mr. Speaker, to some first readings.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chiropractors. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to ask members for their co-operation. The Chair is difficulty hearing the Government House Leader put forward Orders of the Day. I ask members to take their conversations outside or, if they are eager to get involved in the debate, to come forward on Wednesday, and to hold off until Orders of the Day is called at that particular time.

Right now we are dealing with Monday, April 27, and I am asking the Government House Leader to provide Orders of the Day.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I will start again, Mr. Speaker, with the Order that I had been addressing.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chiropractors. (Bill 8)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chiropractors, Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 8 and that Bill 8 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Chiropractors," carried. (Bill 8)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Chiropractors. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 8 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, Bill 3, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce Bill 3, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act," carried. (Bill 3)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 9)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 9, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce Bill 9, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 9)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce Bill 9, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 9)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has been now read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 10)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 10, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 10, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 10)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Credit Unions. (Bill 11)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Credit Unions, Bill 11, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 11, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions," carried. (Bill 11)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Credit Unions. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act. (Bill 12)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, Bill 12, and that Bill 12 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 12, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act," carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act, Bill 13; and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act, Bill 13; and that Bill 13 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce Bill 13, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act," carried. (Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act," Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 13 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, Bill 14; and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, Bill 14, and that Bill 14 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce Bill 14, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

 

The motion is carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, carried. (Bill 14)

 

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," bill 14.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 14 be read a second time?

 

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

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

 

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 15; and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 15, and that Bill 15 be now read a first time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 15, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

 

All those in favour, 'aye'.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

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

 

The motion is carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, carried. (Bill 15)

 

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," Bill 15.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 15 be read a second time?

 

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

 

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend the Tobacco Control Act, Bill 17.

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act, Bill 17, and that Bill 17 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 17 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act," carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 17 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 18, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 18, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce Bill 18 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 18 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, Bill 19, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, Bill 19, and that Bill 19 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 19 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act," carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as we move through the business of today in the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House of Supply to consider the Estimates for the Consolidated Revenue Services and the Executive Council.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Osborne): Order please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, in the Committee of the Whole on Supply this afternoon we will debate the Estimates for the Executive Council and the Consolidated Fund Services, and that debate will be led by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we are now in the process of going through what is referred to as the Estimates in relation to Executive Council. The Estimates, as I reviewed Hansard from last year to try to get a view as to why we are in the House of Assembly as opposed to in Committee, as we have done in other departments like Finance. I reviewed the comments of then Deputy Premier Rideout, where he indicated that apparently into the mid 1980s, Estimates would be done in the House of Assembly. It has gotten to the point now where we do so much in Committee. By that I mean - I will go through the process in a second. There is a Committee comprised of Opposition members, government members, and there is an opportunity to ask questions. It is part of the Budget process, I suppose one could say. The Budget process – it is perhaps helpful to outline how that whole process commences.

Each government department has to come forward at the beginning of the fiscal, or leaning towards the beginning of the fiscal year with their proposed expenditures for the following year. As a government then we look at our revenues. What do we expect to have come in? Of course, what we have heard so much in this Province, Mr. Chairman, has been a downturn in the price of oil and other commodities, which affects our revenues. Of course, if your expenditures exceed your revenues that is where you end up in a deficit situation as we are this year.

So the budget process goes department by department, and in the departments, Mr. Chairman, they are then responsible – for example, in the Department of Health, the health boards come in looking for money. So when we have a total budget of the Department of Health this year, I think it is $2.4 billion, and it could be as high as $2.6 billion, it is all proportioned and we look at where the money is being spent as best you can.

Then, under the Department of Justice, for example, you would have the police forces, the Sheriff's Office, the correctional officers, or the prisons, I suppose, to put it more appropriately, come in, and they would outline the money they need.

Mr. Chairman, we then look at all of that. There are discussions. Each minister comes forward in front of the Premier and the Minister of Finance in what is referred to as the budget defence. With the budget defence, then, there is: Why do you need this many positions? What are you going to do with this money that we give you? What happened last year?

There is a rigorous process, Mr. Chairman, and it is ongoing for months at a time. My colleague, the now Minister of Justice, who was Minister of Finance before me, will tell you that the process itself is time-consuming. It involves an unbelievable amount of work, Mr. Chairman, by departmental officials, especially the Finance Department officials, as they put it all together.

Then, Mr. Chairman, when Budget day arrives, we come forward and there is a Budget Speech. Also, there are other documents, and the number of documents include, for example, Estimates 2009, Departmental Salary Details.

The Opposition and government members are then given an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and it can be, for example - I am the Minister Responsible for the Office of the Chief Information Officer and also the Public Service Commission. We were here this morning and the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, along with members from the government party, were given an opportunity to ask questions.

In essence, Mr. Chairman, we do it one department at a time. Last year, my first exposure to it would have been in Justice. It is an interesting process, because the Committee is given an opportunity to look almost line by line in terms of the budget: This is what you spent last year; why are you spending this much this year? What has happened? Where did the money go?

Mr. Chairman, in this booklet here, Departmental Salary Details, department by department it is broken down in terms of who is being – not names, but the number of positions that are held. Then, Mr. Chairman, in this book, the Estimates, it outlines where the money is going and it looks at – for each department you will see the 2008-2009 Budget and then Revised and 2009-2010 Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition - primarily the Opposition, although the government members can also ask questions as well: What is the difference here between this line last year, and what were these professional services that monies were paid on?

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, most of these are done in Committee. It is my understanding that they are not televised, although there has been some discussion of the Committee meetings being televised. I personally have no great problem with it being televised, Mr. Chairman. There are logistics involved, there is cost involved, but from my perspective the more knowledge that is imparted to the people of the Province as to how the process works the better.

What we want to do, Mr. Chairman, and this is consistent with our approach to openness, transparency and accountability, is demystify the process; say to the taxpayers of this Province, this is the money that we have and this where it is going. We are trying to spend your money wisely.

Mr. Chairman, we are, some would say, in somewhat of a hypersensitive age where we have gone from what appears to be, according to the report of Justice Green, an almost lack of accountability to one where there are, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, very stringent requirements for accountability.

Last night I was in my office doing some work, Mr. Chairman, and 10:30 at night I just went in and clicked on my name and looked at the monies that I had spent as a Minister of the Crown. I think that is very important, Mr. Chairman, that myself and my colleagues, and all MHAs, that the monies that we spend are there for people to look at.

Mr. Chairman, when we come here today, when we are doing Estimates in the House, we are now dealing with Executive Council. Under Executive Council there are a number of different divisions of government. What we will do in this House this afternoon, we will do Government House.

Government House, as everyone is aware, is where the Lieutenant-Governor resides. The Government House is a fascinating building. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions now to go through the building. It is just so important to our history. Lieutenant-Governor Roberts was there, and Lieutenant-Governor Crosbie, and they know so much about the history of the building.


It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Government of Canada appoints the Lieutenant-Governor as the Queen's representative in our Province, but that we incur the costs. We, being the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, incur the costs.

The second heading we will do in the House, or the department, will be the Premier's Office. The Premier's Office has a staff of approximately twenty-one people who are outlined in the Departmental Salary Details. The Premier and his staff are on the eighth floor of Confederation Building. There is, however, an office in Corner Brook, an office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in Labrador; again, showing this government's commitment to recognizing the importance of issues that arise off the Avalon Peninsula. So, we have the two offices out there.

The third division we will deal with is that of Cabinet Secretariat. Now Cabinet Secretariat, I would describe, is the support mechanism for Cabinet and the committees of Cabinet. In order for a paper to work its way to the upper reaches, it starts in a department. It can come from ideas in the public; it can come from the department themselves. Eventually, someone will say: well, perhaps we should change our policy or adopt a new policy, or adopt a policy. Someone will say: well, maybe we should bring in a new piece of legislation. So then it will work its way through whereby the department will prepare a paper. That paper then goes to Cabinet Secretariat, for example, with the social policy committee, and I think economic policy committee, where they provide an analysis. The same thing takes place with the Public Service Secretariat in relation to the Treasury Board papers. It then works its way to Cabinet. So that each step of the way there are people scrutinizing from both a budgetary and a policy and a legislative perspective the steps that as a government, or any government, we wish to take.

The Cabinet Secretariat has Executive Support; Planning and Coordination; the Economic and Social Policy Analysis division; Protocol office; and a Public Service Development plan. So the role of Cabinet Secretariat is to support and assist Cabinet.

There is also, however, as I have indicated, various other functions that Cabinet Secretariat provides. There is also Communications and Consultation, and this branch gives communication advice to government as a whole. Again, salary details are outlined in the Departmental Salary Details book and in the Estimates 2009.

Then there are two others, the Financial Administration and Human Resource Support and Public Service Secretariat. Public Service Secretariat performs many functions in government. One, for example, I have already touched upon, that being analysis of Treasury Board papers. Public Service Secretariat also is comprised of the collective bargaining division of government which plays such an integral role, especially in times like this where there is collective bargaining ongoing and has been ongoing for the last, well almost eighteen months now. Public Service Secretariat also develops policies in terms of work conditions, work environments. It is very important that we as a government, as said by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission earlier today in Estimates, that we try to market ourselves and to make sure that we get information out there which assists us as being an employer of choice.

In the Estimates now, it is my understanding today is that I will, when I am finished speaking for fifteen minutes, then the Opposition will be given an opportunity to speak for a similar amount of time. Then it is my understanding that if the Opposition has questions, that the questions will be put to me as the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and I will then attempt to answer them and we will go back and forth for ten minutes.

Now what is unusual about this is that we are here in the House of Assembly doing this as opposed to the Committee. In other words, the full House is here today and the proceedings are televised. Now from my perspective, and I am sure I can speak for anyone on this side of government, that is a good thing. That we, contrary to some of the comments made during Question Period today, we are striving to be open, transparent and accountable. One of the ways you do that, Mr. Chair, is by saying this is the money that we have received. This is how we are spending the money and this is the value we are getting for our money.

So, Mr. Chair, the Opposition is given the opportunity, I cannot say that I will have the answer to every question off the top of my head when we are looking at six different divisions of government in one form or another here today but I will certainly try, and if I cannot answer a question I will say, well give me an opportunity to obtain that information. I will see what I can do.

Now, under Executive Council there are a number of other headings which have either been done or will be done in Committee. There is Intergovernmental Affairs, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. There is also the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat. It is my understanding that they have been done. There is the Rural Secretariat, which has been done or will be done it is my understanding, when Estimates are done for Industry, Trade and Rural Development. Women's Policy will be done at the same time as the Department of Natural Resources, and I would assume that is because the same minister is responsible for the Women's Policy Office - the Minister of Natural Resources.

There is the Research and Development which will be done, also, with the Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Estimates Committee. Then there is the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and we had the opportunity to do that earlier today. It was very informative, very technical. I am also the Minister Responsible for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. The Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had some good questions today, prying questions. This is an opportunity to ask those questions, to outline concerns, and it is all done with a view, from our perspective as a government, to say, as best we can, this is where the money goes.

Mr. Chairman, what I say to the members of this House and the people of this Province is that this is a good process. It allows for questioning. When you allow for questioning, Mr. Chairman, and when you put everything there in writing, it says to people that we are confident that we are doing the best we can to ensure that the procedures are being followed and that we are protecting the taxpayers of this Province as best we can.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my fifteen minutes is up and I will now move on to - whether it be the House Leader or the Opposition - whichever Opposition member wishes to speak.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly thank the minister for his overview comments. As he has already said, when we do the Estimates we look at every single government department within the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature as well as any agencies that may be funded or affiliated directly as part of those particular departments.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, prior to Easter week, we were able to get through the Estimates and the budgets for a number of departments within government, some of them which are very large expenditures because they are large departments that provide a lot of services to people in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, as an Opposition I guess our job is always to look at each and every line in the budget, to look at where all monies are being spent, and to hold government accountable for that spending in terms of what it was spent on, why it was spent, why monies sometimes are often budgeted and not spent but carried over year over year over year in various budgets.

That is part of the job that we do as an Opposition, and most times those particular Committee meetings are held outside of our normal day of work. Most of our Committee meetings are held either in the mornings, outside of the House sitting, or in the evenings, usually at 6:00 p.m. until about 9:00 o'clock or 10:00 o'clock; or, in the case of larger departments, we have often gone to 11:00 o'clock and sometimes beyond. It makes for a very long day for everyone, there is no doubt about that, but it is a very important piece of business because it is how we are able to determine what programs and services are continued to be funded. It is also how we determine if there are programs and services that may be underfunded, or funding may have been cut. It is also an opportunity for us to learn where infrastructure spending is occurring.

Just because government makes an announcement that they are going to go out and pave a road or build an arena, or put in water and sewer, or build a new school, it does not actually mean that work gets done in this current year. Sometimes it is when we find out that there could be projects on the books for two and three years, that a school might not have been built, or a hospital might not have been built, but is continuously being carried over. It is one of the ways that we learn what is happening in departments.

What we are doing in the House today is the expenditure of the Office of the Executive Council. Primarily, that is the office of the Premier, as well as the Executive Support for the Premier's office, Cabinet Committee, the Resource Committee, the Social Services Committee and the Policy and Planning Committee. There are also other offices as well, some which will be dealt with here today and others which will be dealt with, or have been dealt with, as part of the hearings for those various departments that they are affiliated with.

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of notes that I want to make, first of all, with relation to the Premier's office, because this was a Premier who, on being elected to form the government in this Province, did so campaigning on a belief that Cabinet should be smaller, that there should be fewer portfolios in Cabinet, that there should be fewer departments in government and fewer ministers that sit at that table. In fact, Mr. Chairman, when he was the Leader of the Opposition he took great effort to monitor the size of the Cabinet of the day and the positions that were being created within that Cabinet, and took great efforts, Mr. Chairman, to be very vocal and outspoken on those particular issues; vowing, I say, to the people of the Province, that he would lead a government that would be smaller. He would lead a government that had fewer bodies at the Cabinet table, that would have fewer departments in government, and to use his own rationale for that, it was to keep down the cost to the people of the Province, that these departments of government could be run leaner and meaner from the top management levels.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, that commitment did not last too long; because, if you look at how the Cabinet of this government has been inflated over the past four to five years you will realize that we are almost on an average of one new department every year-and-a-half. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, by the end of this term we could see a Cabinet that will be even larger than we see today.

Today, Mr. Chairman, I think there are nineteen Cabinet ministers with nineteen different portfolios. There are five Parliamentary Secretaries that are paid within each of those departments, and those Parliamentary Secretaries are MHAs as well – MHAs that are duly elected in their ridings, that are given an appointment. I guess they are seen as MHAs that have the potential to become the next Cabinet minister if there were a vacancy. So they are appointed to those positions in the hope that they will learn from the minister of the day in the department that they are in, that they will learn the skills that are required to be a minister of the Crown, and that they will one day succeed that individual or someone else within the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman the only difference that I see between the Cabinet that was created under the current government, by the current Premier, the only difference I see between that and the government that he was very critical of, under Roger Grimes, are the differences in pay for these individuals. We have the same number of departments, we have the same number of Cabinet ministers – if I were to go back and count, I think my memory serves me correct – and we have the same number of Parliamentary Secretaries. The only difference is, today they are all paid far better. They are all paid far greater. They get more money for doing the job that they do. Parliamentary Secretaries are paid better than they were five or six years ago, and Cabinet ministers are paid better than they had been five or six years ago, all because of public service increases, because of negotiated wage increases and things of that nature. So, the only difference in what the government vowed they would never do and what was in place under the former Administration is the amount of money that is being paid out today.

Let's talk about staffing, another issue; another issue that was raised by the government opposite and their leader when they were in Opposition. Staffing in the Premier's office, the number of people that worked there, who those people are, how they got there, and it was all arguments about political patriotism. It was all arguments about being connected to the government of the day. Well, we did not see anything different. In fact, Mr. Chair, if I wanted to stand up here today, I have in my drawer right here two pages of individuals that have been appointed by the government opposite, the names of those individuals, to positions in the Province that have been either affiliated with the Premier or with the PC caucus and the PC government, but I am not going to get into that today because that is not the context of where I want to go. I am just saying that sometimes those who speak, these are things that they would not do, that does not always fall through.

Let's talk about the staff in the Premier's office because we know that even at times when the public service wage increases were negotiated, even at times when those wage increases where afforded to the thousands and thousands of other public sector workers in this Province, that there was select wage offers given to staff in the Premier's office. Very select, Mr. Chair. In fact, if you wanted to look at it, they were given much higher wage increases than the rest of the public service and those wage increases went to key individuals in the Premier's office, such as his Chief of Staff, such as the Director of Communications, special advisors, principal assistants. In fact, Mr. Chair, directors of operations and managers of community outreach. These were the particular positions that were given far greater wage increases and salary benefits in addition to what was being received by other people in the public service.

Mr. Chair, this was rationalized or justified by the Premier and the government at the time. You have to realize that these wage increases were put in place following a two-year wage freeze by other public servants. There was a two-year wage freeze in 2004 and 2005. There was a 3 per cent hike in wages in 2006. It was during that time when there was a wage freeze for other public servants that the staff in the Premier's office received anywhere from 8 per cent to 16 per cent increases in wages.

Many of them, Mr. Chair, or some of them, were reclassified. We know what that means. Any of us who follow public bargaining in this Province, you know what reclassified means under the government system. It means a way to pay you better for the job that you do. It means that we can only give you 8 per cent raise this year, but we feel that you should be reclassified into a different position where you will get a higher wage.

That is how government often does it, through reclassification, or through additional – and by doing that, they get additional step increases, which means they get additional salaries because they are now in a new position. For example, there might be an individual who might be a clerk in an office who could be reclassified to a different level of a clerk and in doing so would get extra benefits as well. We also know that there was reclassification done in the Premier's office for employees who were classified to top-level positions, which meant they got more money for the work that they were doing.

Government justified this by saying this is the kind of money that you have to pay out if you want to keep workers in your office. If you want to keep these people, who they considered to be very highly skilled, very intellectual individuals, very well-researched, great understanding of how government works, they felt they were invaluable and they had to do these kinds of measures in order to keep them working in their office.

Well, Mr. Chair, I can understand all that. I can understand all that. I happen to be the Leader of the Official Opposition, which is the other political party, which happens to be the critic to the Premier's office in this Province, but we did not see those kinds of expenditures voted for the Opposition staff, who do the same job as the people in the Premier's office does. You have a Director of Communications, several in fact, in the Premier's Office, who have received high wage increases and classifications that are far and above those of any other level of government employees doing the same job in departments, that are far higher than employees doing the same jobs in offices like the Opposition office or the third-Party office.

Now, some might say: well, it is a greater responsibility being the Communications Director in the Premier's Office. I am not going to dispute or debate that, but I also know that there is more than one person who does the job of communications. Whereas in some departments there is only one, in other departments there are up to four.

I remember doing the Estimates for the Department of Health and learning that there were actually four people doing communications in the Department of Health. I would say they need four more over there to keep the messages straight, because even with four employees highly paid, paid much more than I can pay employees in my office to do the job of communications, in that department there has been nothing only miscommunication, mixed information and bad messaging. I would suggest they look at seeing if they can contract out a few more.

Mr. Chairman, to maintain my point, my point is this: The Premier's Office or a government department does not have to come to a Management Committee of the House of Assembly, they don't have to go to an external consultant to look at whether they should get more staff or their staff should get paid better. They can arbitrarily, as a government and as a Cabinet, give wage increases, do reclassifications, and create new jobs in those offices whenever they want to.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

I will just clue up. I know that I have time to ask questions.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

The point I am trying to make is that they can arbitrarily make those decisions to do this whenever they want. In fact, when we went to the Management Commission as an Opposition office to get additional increase in our budget so we could pay our Communications Director the same as was being paid in other government departments, so that we could pay our staff at the same rate, so that we could hire additional staff to do our work, we had to go to an independent consultant to determine if that was warranted. That independent consultant had to study every Opposition Office across the country in order to come back and file a report and make a recommendation.

They did all of that and they came back and they made a recommendation. The recommendation stated that the Opposition should get more money. In fact, it was $162,000 more that they should get for staffing in their office and to pay their staff appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, it was the members opposite, Cabinet ministers, who sat and voted on increases for staff in the Premier's office, who sat at that Management Commission meeting and voted that those increases not go to the Opposition office.

That will show you a little bit of fairness in how this all works, and it will also tell you that there is no fairness, that arbitrarily these particular people can be paid, staffed up, reclassified, given wage increase whenever you want, and they also arbitrarily have the option to vote down independent advice that would recommend similar increases for other staff that work for offices within the Legislature, such as the Opposition office. So I will have some questions for the minister now in just a minute.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand today in Committee of the Whole and speak to the Estimates for the Executive Council.

It is extremely important for democracy, and for this House, and for the public, that we here in the House get the opportunity to look at the Estimates for the Budget, to ask questions, to probe how money is being spent, and to raise issues, issues that we can deal with here in the House and issues that the public need to think about. The money that we spend, of course, is the public money. It is the money of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have quite a responsibility to make sure that the way in which this money is spent administers government - well, that is obviously one of the things that has to happen - but that the money is being used for the full benefit of the people of this Province.

I think it is important that all aspects of the government spending get questioned, that all aspects of government spending get scrutinized. So I think we have a real responsibility when we speak here in Committee today, and when we take part in the other Estimates' meetings, to ask questions that will clarify issues, and ask questions that will make sure that things are clear to the public, and also to point to how money maybe can be spent differently. Maybe there are alternative ways to spending the money that is being spent. Maybe there are other options in some cases, and I think that is the role of Opposition: to ask the probing questions but also to point to options that might be appropriate in various situations.

It is very interesting for me to stand here today and to do exactly that, to look at the Executive Council. The Executive Council covers quite a bit, because the Executive Council covers the Premier's office, the Cabinet Secretariat - that is the secretariat that works for the Cabinet – it covers bodies such as the Economic and Social Policy Analysis Committee of Cabinet, and we see, this year, a new office in the Executive Council. The new office that is there, for me, begs a question of how decisions get made about what needs to be under Executive Council and maybe what could be somewhere else.

I found it very interesting when I went through the Estimates booklet, and went through the Estimates for Executive Council, to see an office listed under Section 2.2.04., Office of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Emissions Trading. I thought, I don't recognize this office. Then I saw that the Estimates provide for the establishment and operations of such an office.

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that climate change energy efficiency and emissions trading are extremely important, and anybody who listens to me either speaking in the House of Assembly or speaking publicly knows that I have great concerns about energy efficiency, and everything that surrounds energy efficiency, so I really became curious when I saw this new office in the Estimates of the Executive Council. I thought, that is funny; I don't remember hearing about this office on Budget day.

I went to the Budget Speech and, no, it was not in that. Then, actually, one of my staff said: I remember hearing about that. I know I read about it.

We finally found it. We found it in the news release that comes out with the Budget, and the news release that says: A Green Investment: Budget 2009 Invests in the Environment. I thought, that is really good. I really liked the fact that we have an office that is going to concentrate on climate change, energy efficiency and emissions trading.

Then it struck me really strange that when I read the news release from March 26, and read about how Budget 2009 invests in the environment, we find that an office that is going to be dealing with policy development and analysis in climate change, energy efficiency and emissions trading is not going to be located in the Department of the Environment. It is going to be located in the Executive Council.

I know that Cabinet requires people to do research, I know that they have policy discussion, but it still seems very strange that a new initiative like this would not seem to be under the Department of Environment and Conservation, especially when I see that the amount of money that has been allocated for this new office is $800,000.

I am glad to see the money going in there, and I am glad to see that money is being allowed for professional services and purchased services when it comes to dealing with climate change, energy efficiency and emissions trading, but I am curious about the decision for this to be located in the Executive Council.

There is no doubt that we have to have tools, policies and strategies to deal with these issues, and I am glad to see that the Budget does allocate $1.3 million in the Department of Environment and Conservation's budget towards the development of the necessary tools, policies, and strategies to help communities assess and adapt to climate change impacts, but I still question why the $800,000 that is here allocated under Executive Council should not be inside of Environment and Conservation so that the policies that government considers are policies that are being dealt with inside of Environment and Conservation, the department that has to deal with these issues, because it is not just an office to deal in a general way with a policy area. For example, we have the Economic and Social Policy Analysis of the Executive Council, and that has over $800,000 allotted to it.

It is general, it is not one specific program, but here we have an office dealing with something extremely specific that does fit very specifically under a department that already exists. I really would be interested in knowing – and I see the Minister of Finance is looking at me carefully as I am speaking. I hope that when we come to listen to the minister with regard to some of the queries that we make in here, as we are standing in the Committee of the Whole, that he will help me understand why this office was put where it is put.

Money to deal with the issue of climate is extremely important. While I am saying I am looking at $800,000 being spent here, I am glad $800,000 is being spent, but I would like to see that $800,000 be part of a larger package dealing with the issue of climate change and dealing with the issue of energy efficiency. In the Budget we have small pockets of money that are going towards these issues.

My message to government is, you tell us what your priorities are, not by your words but by your decisions and by your actions. I cannot help but point out that when I look at the issues, such as climate change and energy efficiency, I do not find the same level of commitment when it comes to the dollar sign, as I do to something, for example, like the oil energy. So when we look at energy in the Budget, and we look at the whole piece around oil energy, we find over a quarter billion dollars in the Budget going to that area, and we find a few million going to issues like energy efficiency and climate change. Then we find that a major office that is going to deal with policy in this area is not part of the broader discussion inside of Environment and Conservation, instead it is located within the Executive Council. So that is one thing I wanted to raise here today. As I said, I look forward to when the minister stands up to respond, down the road, to hearing what he has to say about that.

I notice that my time is up. I know I will get a chance to stand again. What I have to say next, Mr. Chair, is a new topic, so I will wait until my next turn.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start with the issue raised by the Leader of the NDP in terms of the climate change. While I do not have all of the knowledge here, it is my understanding that this policy office is based upon a similar model in England that was used by Tony Blair's government, that, in fact, the lady who we have in charge of this had completed similar work in the United Kingdom and set this office up over here.

Mr. Chair, what we have is a situation where as a result of the importance of climate change, it is decided to create a separate office, but obviously, it will work very closely with the Department of Environment and the Department of Natural Resources. Obviously, there is an intertwining here. Again, it is my understanding - and the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources would be in a better position to answer. What we have tried to do is recognize the importance of climate change, recognize the impact that it can have on our society and thereby try to raise the profile, as we have done here, by creating a separate office.

So that is my understanding of the rationale for the creation of this office and that the money there is meant to, again, assist in getting this office going, getting it off the ground and allowing it to work in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Chair, a couple of points, first in relation to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I find it somewhat disconcerting at times when I hear comments like: Look at the size of this Cabinet, look how the Cabinet has grown, it is now the size of the Cabinet under the previous Liberal Administration and that is what the Premier swore, or I think the comments made is that the Premier campaigned he would not do.

Just look, if I could, at two of the departments that have been created. That is why, again, I find it discouraging when I look at the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. We now have a Department of Aboriginal Affairs, recognizing the significance of the Aboriginal culture, the significance, especially, not only in Labrador, but in Labrador, in Conne River, in the Port au Port Peninsula. So we have a specific department to deal with the issues facing Aboriginals in our Province.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the new department that was just created under the Budget, and I am not quite certain of the name, if we have a name. Is it Child, Youth and Family Services?

AN HON. MEMBER: Child, Youth and Family Services.

MR. KENNEDY: A Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the issues out there facing our children. How often have we heard people say our most valuable resource is our children? Well, what we are doing now is putting a most experienced Cabinet minister with a background and training in this area in charge of this new department.

It is easy to say the Cabinet has gotten too big, but when we look at these two particular offices I say it speaks volumes about our government that we are addressing these types of issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I also find it somewhat disconcerting and it perpetuates the view that somehow or other that politicians are overpaid when we hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about the amount of money that people receive.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition also receives the same amount of money as a Cabinet minister. She is being paid more money as a result of the increases that everyone else has received, so I do not think – again, it is somewhat disingenuous to talk about the amount of money that people have been paid, and that it is entwined with the role of Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make myself out and say, well, look at the work I have to do, but I am not only the Minister of Finance but the President of Treasury Board responsible for collective bargaining, which has been a full-time job in the last number of months, the Minister Responsible for the OCIO, the Minister Responsible for the Public Service Commission, and entwined in all that is the Public Service Secretariat.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we have the Minister of Natural Resources, who is also – let me see if I can get all this correct – she is also the Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, the Status of Women, which makes her responsible for the Women's Policy Office, and also she is Deputy Premier. So I think, Mr. Chairman - I am not going to say that all of these departments require ministers, but certainly, as Cabinet ministers, we have our work cut out.

Then, as the Opposition House Leader is aware, the role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General certainly is very encompassing in terms of the oversight capacity in that case.

We have Minister Sullivan, then, who is responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, Persons With Disabilities, the Labour Relations Agency, and Francophone Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make is that we work hard. All MHAs that I am aware of, and all Cabinet ministers, work hard. As to money, people are paid for what they do, Mr. Chairman, but I think, if you are going to do a job like we are doing here, first there has to be a gratitude that you have been elected by the people to serve in this Chamber. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is not only about money. Which brings me, then, to the point raised: Well, look at the Premier's staff, and look at the wages they have.

Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges in government, one of the challenges as a Cabinet minister in this government, is trying to keep up with our Premier. He works day and night. I have never seen such a level of commitment, Mr. Chairman. He expects those who work around him to work the same way. He expects Cabinet ministers - if you are going to be a Cabinet minister of the Premier then you are going to work the way that he works, and that is a struggle in terms of the work ethic of the Premier. The people in his office work very hard, Mr. Chairman. That I can tell you from personal experience, just watching them, how hard they work on a daily basis because that is required of them.

It is not only the work ethic, Mr. Chairman; there is the dedication. As the members opposite would know, there is a dedication required to do the job, both as an MHA, as a Parliamentary Secretary and/or as a Cabinet minister.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of NDP, the difficult job, day in and day out, she has in terms of being the only person in this House, to come prepared and to do what she has to do. I am aware of the difficult jobs, Mr. Chairman, that the Opposition have to do - the Member for Port de Grave, not only in terms of dealing with all of his constituents but coming to the House to ask questions. The same thing with the Opposition House Leader in terms of the Estimates today, coming in every day prepared. The same thing with Leader of the Opposition. These are difficult jobs.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the Premier's office – and this is quite interesting, actually – the total positions in the Premier's office right now are twenty-one. Under the Grimes Administration there were twenty-six positions in the Premier's office. Even more interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that they were – I don't know if hid away is the word, but they were individuals who were working in other offices, funded by other offices, but worked in the Premier's office. There were twenty-six of them, Mr. Chairman. Then, if you look at today's dollars, they would be making more money than the current Premier's office. Mr. Chairman, we have less people today in the Premier's office than in the past. In the previous Liberal Administration, we had positions funded under other departments, and less dollar value than today's dollar. Again, it is somewhat disingenuous, if not misleading, to state that the way it has been stated.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in terms of openness, transparency and accountability, as I indicated all of expenses of the MHAs, plus the Cabinet Ministers, are on the website and anyone can go in and look at them.

Now, I don't think the previous Liberal government had their Cabinet Ministers' expenses printed on the web. I would certainly encourage them at any point in time to put those forward and have a look at them and compare them to the amount of money spent by today's Cabinet Ministers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I remind all members that when referring to members of the House that you should refer to them by either their Cabinet portfolio or their district.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few comments, and then I will start getting into some of the questions. Of course, my colleague, the critic for the Department of Finance and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, will certainly continue with most of the questioning.

First of all, under the Premier's Office, you need to be clear in terms of the context in which I made the comments. First of all, it was in the context that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, prior to becoming the Leader of the Government, when he was the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Province, went out publicly and made statements that he would lead a government with a smaller Cabinet. He would lead a government with less departments. He would lead a government that would have less bodies around the Cabinet Table. In fact, Mr. Chairman, he was very critical of the previous government, very critical of the number of seats they held in Cabinet, and actually looked at it as a waste of taxpayers' money. He said that no government should be this big, no government should have these many departments, and I will commit to reducing the size of Cabinet.

Coming into the position he did, but today we have a Cabinet in this Province, lead by the current Premier, that is no different from that which he criticized, that is no different from that which he believed was a waste of money to the taxpayers of the Province.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, today you have something like nineteen ministers in Cabinet and you have five parliamentary secretaries, the hopefuls I call them, the five hopefuls who one day will probably step up to become a Cabinet minister.

So that is what I say to the Minister of Finance. The only difference between the government led today by your Premier and the government led under the previous Liberal government is that the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries are paid more today. They are paid much better. They are paid that way simply because of the wage increases that have been afforded to the public service under collective bargaining that warranted that those increases are passed on as well to MHAs and to ministers and to leaders of other parties, such as myself, and other members in this House that hold different offices.

Mr. Chair, that was the point I was making. Maybe the minister could tell us why their government saw the need to go back on the commitment to have less departments and less ministers at the Cabinet table, why they felt the need to expand their Cabinet size to the size that was currently there in 2003 and that of which they were very critical. I am sure there are some very good reasons, but it just goes to show that until you are really on the inside looking out, that it is very different when you are on the outside looking in and much easier to criticize.

My first question is with regard to the Premier's office directly. If you look at the Budget Estimates for 2003-2004, which would have been the first budget introduced under the government opposite, the Salaries in the Premier's office was $981,000. Today we are asked to approve a budget of $1.6 million for the Premier's office. It is an increase of over $600,000 in less than six years, in fact, in little over five years.

My first question to the minister would be: What accounts for the differences in the salary in the Premier's office from the estimated budget of 2003-2004, when they came into power, to today, 2009-2010, which is a difference of over $600,000?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not have the Estimates in front of me for 2003-2004. However, a couple of things come to mind. One, that there would be the increase that goes with the Public Service. Again, I can check on this, but I am assuming that the 8 per cent and 4 per cent would apply. That in this particular year there is – I can give you this year. For example, there is an extra $100,000 that deals with the 4 per cent salary increase adjustment and $54,000 for an additional pay period this year. Apparently - this came out in Estimates earlier today - there was an additional pay period. So that would be $100,000 there.

Then, Mr. Chair, there is the cost that has gone up – but the point, again, I would make is that there are less people working in the Premier's office today than there were in 2003 in the former Liberal Administration. In fact, there were at least six people who were paid for or funded out of other departments or agencies. So if you look at what has taken place and then you compare it - in fact, today, the previous Liberal Administration, the amount of money paid to the Premier's staff is still less money, and if you convert it into today's dollar, Mr. Chair, there is more value.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Maybe what the minister could do, if he does not have the answer to the question, is to provide the information in the next day or two. Basically, I know he is saying that there are twenty-one positions in the Premier's office today, but the reality is, since 2003-2004 the budget has increased in the Premier's office to $1.6 million. Today he has an additional $600,000-plus that is being paid out in salaries alone. Not in other expenditures, just in salaries alone, directly in his office. Not to executive support even, but directly in his office. So I would like to get an account for that period of time and what that money is being used for. If there are less positions it can only mean that these individuals are being paid far greater.

My next question to the minister would be to provide me with a list of the positions that are being held in the Premier's office by title, and also what the salary range is for each of those title positions.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Chair –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition has the Departmental Salary Details in front of her, but at page 9 of that it outlines the Executive Council Permanent Staff Complement and, in fact, outlines then the title of each individual - there are no names there but the title of each individual - and what they are paid. I do not know if that is what she is looking for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, it is Departmental Salary Details, the supplement to the 2009 Estimates, and it outlines each position. Now, it is my understanding that these are not necessarily filled. The Manager, Community Outreach, for example, is not; that is a vacant position right now. I do not know if that is what the Leader of the Opposition is looking for.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Yes, it is exactly what I was looking for so I am glad that you referred me to it. I am just going to run down through those positions now for just a moment.

First of all, according to this, the Premier receives a salary of $78,202. I guess that is on top of his salary as an MHA, so that would be the salary he would receive as the Premier. So that salary of $78,000 to the Premier is being paid out from the public purse. Because there was a lot of public commentary that the Premier was not taking a salary, but according to this he is receiving $78,000.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I will have to check on that. It is my understanding, again from talking to a couple of my hon. colleagues, that the total of the Premier's salary is received but it is donated. That includes both his salary as an MHA and what would be here as his salary as the Premier. Again, I can check on that but the Deputy Premier is indicating that is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Okay, thank you.

So he is being paid a salary, because I think there is a lot of perception out there that the Premier of the Province does not take a salary. What he does with it after, I guess, is really not my business. My business is just that: Does it come out of the Estimates of government or does it not? I am just noticing here that it does come out of the Estimates of government and that there is a public salary paid out. It is like all of us; what we do with our salary when we receive it is entirely up to us. It is really not of business to the public. The only business to the public is that we get paid what we are supposed to get paid for the jobs that we do.

The Chief of Staff, according to this – first of all, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, it says here they are paid $28,000. Do they work part time? Do they receive salary for another position within the office? Or, Mr. Chairman, this is the amount that is paid out to the appointed MHA, I am assuming, Mr. Chairman. I am assuming it is paid out to the appointed MHA who would be the parliamentary appointed Secretary to the Premier and it would be an additional salary that they would receive over and above their MHA salary. I just wanted to verify that is correct.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Chairman, first, again, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows better in terms of the Premier's salary. It is my understanding that Finance told him he had to take the salary in order to donate it to charity, which is essentially what he does. To leave any other impression, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is not fair. The Premier's salary is provided to, I think it is the Williams Family Foundation, which then distributes it to charity. The Premier of this Province does not receive one cent to himself for the benefit of what he does. Unlike the rest of us, or at least unlike me, I use my salary to live.

The second point, Mr. Chairman, and again we are here in Estimates today and I am trying to treat this with the seriousness it deserves, but unless the system has changed a whole lot it is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition was a Parliamentary Secretary at one point and she would have, I am assuming, received something at that point.

The Parliamentary Assistants receive a supplement to their MHA income which, I think, then would amount to the extra $28,000. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition, for example, would receive her salary and then she gets a second part of the salary, the same as Cabinet ministers, dealing with her role as Leader of the Opposition.

These are figures, Mr. Chairman, that are determined by the Management Commission, or they are in the Green report. Although I recognize that things have changed and that there are no longer any tax-free allowances, that money received by a Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier is the same as received by any other Parliamentary Secretary. I think also, for example, people who serve on certain committees - not all committees - receive additional supplements. Again, I am not sure, but I think the Opposition House Leader also would receive a certain amount of money for serving his role.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The five parliamentary assistants who are appointed to Cabinet Ministers, then, receive a salary of $28,348 over and above their MHA salary. I just wanted to confirm that that was the case. That is the extra money they are paid out for those positions.

Under the Chief of Staff position, the Chief of Staff in the Premier's Office actually receives $145,781. I am wondering if that is equivalent to what a Deputy Minister would make in a department, or is it less than what a Deputy Minister would make.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, again I think the figures for Deputy Ministers may vary somewhat, but this would certainly be in the range of the Deputy Minister's salary. I think there are some Deputy Ministers who may make more, and I think some would be making about $135,000 or $140,000. It seems to me that this salary is clearly within the range of a Deputy Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Also, with regard to the Director of Communications, again these were positions – and that is the reason I question it – that were arbitrarily given wage increases at a time when the public service had a freeze on wages. One of those positions that were given a salary increase at that time was the Director of Communications. Today, that individual earns nearly $120,000 as a Director of Communications. Is that on par with other Directors of Communications in departments throughout government or are they paid more?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know a number of times now the Leader of the Opposition has referred to our government arbitrarily making decisions or arbitrarily giving pay increases. As we are all aware, and it came up earlier today, when you are dealing with recruitment and retention issues in any aspect of either government or the private sector today, certain monies have to be paid. It is my understanding that the Director of Communications – and again, I am not ware of the salaries that are paid to Directors of Communications. For example, I have a Director of Communications in my department.

However, I will say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Director of Communications in this present government appears to play the role that two Directors of Communications were required for in the previous Liberal Administration. There appear to have been two Director of Communications in the previous Liberal Administration, adding up to a lot more money than what our current Director of Communications is being paid.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the minister to go back and check that information because I am prepared to dispute it at any point.

Also, Mr. Chair, not only is there a director of communications in this office, but there are other people in other positions that are assigned to the role of communications. They are in a number of other positions, and the minister knows that.

The minister would also know that directors of communications in other departments of government are paid around $66,000-$68,000, according to the Estimates that I am looking at. In fact, some directors of communications are a little bit more, maybe up around $72,000, and that is probably based on their experience and their years of service with government. So what we are seeing here is a position in the Premier's office where the director of communications, in some cases, is paid nearly double what other directors are paid, or at least by 40 per cent more.

I do not know if the minister can give us an explanation as to why there are different wage rates for different positions of classification across the system.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR: Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. KENNEDY: One second there, Mr. Chair, I read this last night. If I could just have a second please.

Mr. Chair, again, I have gone to page 12 of the Departmental Salary Details. I see under Communications and Consultation Branch of Cabinet Secretariat that there is an assistant secretary to Cabinet who is paid a certain amount of money, and then the Director of Communications appears to be paid a lot more than the current Director of Communications in the Premier's office.

Mr. Chair, it is like everything, we have a director of communications who has a very busy role in dealing with the situations that our Premier has to address on a daily basis. In fact, Mr. Chair, I can tell you now that the current director of communications, over the last two weeks, every time there was a question that either came from – my Director of Communications, even though she was on vacation she answered, the same.

I am not aware, Mr. Chair, of any requirement for any public service employee to take their Blackberries with them when they go on vacation. For what it is worth, the director of communications appears to be paid somewhat more than director of communications but less than if she was a communications branch.

I do not know that I get the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make. The Leader of the Opposition knows that people have to be paid and that oftentimes in life we have to pay people what they are worth. That is what the nurses said to us and that is how we have responded to them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, if you look at the Director of Communications in the Communications and Consultation Branch that the minister just referred to, you will notice that the salary quoted is for two employees, not for one. In fact, it makes their salary a lot less than what is actually budgeted for a Director of Communications in the Premier's Office.

I guess the point that I want to make is that you can tout that there are twenty-one positions but the reality is that these people are being paid far more than other people who do a similar job, as what they do right across the public service. This is just one of the positions that we are seeing it in. In this particular position the Director of Communications is paid nearly $120,000. I am not saying they do not deserve it. I am not saying they do not work hard. All I am saying is that in other departments people who work in a similar position as the director of communications are making less than $70,000 a year in most of these other departments.

Mr. Chair, when you look at those things you notice that there is a huge discrepancy and we have to question the reason why. In addition to that, we know in our own offices that we cannot pay these kinds of salaries to our own staff who work very hard and we think do a great job as well in the roles that they are in because we are restricted by the opinions of your ministers on a committee which determines what they get paid and if there should be more money for them. So we are just saying that it is not consistent in terms of the kind of wages that are being paid out.

Also, you looked at the Chief of Staff, now we are going to look at the Deputy Chief of Staff. The Deputy Chief of Staff in the Premier's office would receive nearly $108,000 a year as a salary. Can you tell me if that is equivalent to an assistant deputy minister, for example, in a government department, or what the equivalency is to the public sector in terms of the job and classification of the position?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to make one last comment on the director of communications, is that it is important to note that the Premier's office does oversee all departments, so that the Communications Director, its role by its very nature, involves dealing with issues that arise in other departments. Also, we have had, as you are well aware, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, we have issues which have to be dealt with, the communications issue on a national basis that the Premier – that advice has to be given.

Also, Mr. Chair, there is, I would suggest, an oversight role, so that the communications director certainly plays a very significant role. The Director of Communications of the Premier's office plays a very significant role. For what it is worth, Mr. Chair, all communications directors play a significant role in what we try to do. They all work well together and coordinate.

Mr. Chair, in terms of the Deputy Chief of Staff, it is my understanding that the salary received - again, I am not exactly sure what an assistant deputy minister's salary is but it would certainly be around the amount of money there. Again, the – and perhaps this will put it into perspective for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chair, I can remember the first FPT meeting I went to, it was a Justice meeting, and there were two staff members with me. When we went there every other province had six and seven people there. Then I watched the Minister of Justice come in for the federal government with thirty people. He left; the Minister of Public Safety came in with thirty people.

The Premier, Mr. Chair, when he travels, to the best of my knowledge, oftentimes travels with either his Chief of Staff, his Deputy Chief of Staff, the Director of Communications. In fact, being able to be surrounded by such capable and experienced people results in us saving money as a government because he does not have to have an entourage like the federal government or like other provincial governments. My understanding is the Deputy Chief of Staff at times will accompany the Premier if the Chief of Staff is not available. Considering the weighty issues in which the Premier's office has to deal with on a national basis and considering our relationship with the federal government and the need to have a strong hand on our part in dealing with them, it is amazing to me that the Premier, when he travels, only has a couple of these people with him. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the monies paid are certainly well spent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is obvious that the minister is a little bit sensitive about this questioning. When he gets up talking about the Premier going to meetings and only taking a couple of staff, we have no problem with those things. The Premier is the Premier of the Province. He has a job to do. He has the resources to do his job, and hopefully he utilizes them in the way that he sees best. If he wants to take ten people to a ministers' meeting, it has no relevance to me, if that is what is required to do the work and the business of the Province.

Let's not skew the facts here. All we are doing is asking questions regarding the salaries in the Premier's Office, salaries that we know were arbitrarily increased and set at a time when there was a public wage freeze going on in the Province. We also know, Mr. Chairman, that not all of these salaries are paid consistently to the wage rates that are paid out in other departments across government. Our job, as an Opposition, is to ask questions about that.

Nobody is questioning whether the Premier should have a number of people in his entourage when he goes to a meeting. That is entirely up to him. He makes those judgement calls based on the context, I am sure, of meetings, the information he requires, and the resources he needs to have around him at that time. We are not calling those things into question.

Mr. Chair, there is also a position for a special advisor to the Premier. Again, it looks like it is consistent with an ADM salary position at nearly $108,000, but I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what a special advisor to the Premier would do. What would be the context of their position and their responsibilities?

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

MR. KENNEDY: I will have to find that out and get back to you, because I do not necessarily know which name is attached to that particular role. Again, I will have to get that information and get back to you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is also a position here for a Manager of Community Outreach. I know the minister said that position is currently vacant. Maybe you could tell me about what they would do, what would their job be as an Outreach worker in the Premier's Office.

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

MR. KENNEDY: I know that this issue was raised by the Opposition House Leader in last year's debates on the Estimates. It was not clear to me at that point, from reading the Estimates, and because the position was vacant I did not take further steps to identify what that position exactly is. In fact, I understand that it was filled at one point, but it has since been vacant.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Is it still the intention of government to recruit an individual for that position of community outreach? You said it is vacant. Are you going to fill the position?

MR. KENNEDY: It would (inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. So you are still going to fill that position.

There are a couple of other positions here I am just going to outline. There are two positions in the Premier's office for a Director of Operations. I am not really sure what they do. Maybe the minister could outline that to us in terms of what the Director of Operations would do, and why there are two people required to do that job.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you.

I see Director of Operations. There is one person next to that. What I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that, any time I am on the eighth floor in the Premier's Office there is no one sitting around not doing anything. I can tell you that. Each person has a role.

On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition says, well I am not criticizing the number of people in the Premier's office, and on the other hand you are saying, well why do you have twenty-one people.

What I can say to you is that these individuals play a crucial role in the running of an office which is crucial to the role of our government. The Premier's Office deals with issues that encompass government as a whole.

As you will remember, during the inquiry, there was evidence given as to the number of e-mails received, for example, on a daily basis. Again, I think in the previous administration there was a Director of Administration who would have played a similar role.

I will find out for you what the Manager of Community Outreach does. I will find out for you who the special advisor to the Premier is, although I think I since know that. I will say that there is one person who is the Director of Operations, to the best of my knowledge.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the other positions that are in the office - and I am just going to read them into the record. The Director of Operations - and I did make an error - is one person and they get paid a little over $95,000. There are two Executive Assistants. I am assuming that both of these would be to the Premier directly. They get paid a little over $80,000 each. There is a Special Assistant who is also paid at about $80,000, a Personal Assistant at about $65,000, another Special Assistant, actually two positions that are well over $60,000 each, a Secretary to the Chief of Staff, a Press Secretary, a Policy Analyst, two Administrative Assistants who are paid around $46,000 or $47,000 each, and a Secretary to the Parliamentary Assistant, one person.

Mr. Chair, I did not realize there were secretaries to parliamentary assistants, but I guess there are in this case. I am not sure if that is the case throughout the public service, if all five of them would have a parliamentary assistant or not or if you could explain that particular wage line in the Estimates. Also, there is a Receptionist in the office as well. Maybe you could clarify the secretarial. It says Secretary to the Parliamentary Assistant. It does not say Constituency Assistant.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: It is my understanding that the Secretary to the Parliamentary Assistant would in fact be the Constituency Assistant and it comes out of this budget the same way, I think, that my Constituency Assistant comes out of the Department of Finance. That is my understanding there.

In terms of the other positions in the Premier's Office, it appears to be a very lean office in terms of the number of people working there and there is never anyone just sitting around. In terms of the amount of money spent, as I indicated earlier it would be less than what would have been spent by the previous Liberal Administration in today's dollars. In fact, perhaps to put things in perspective - and I do not know, maybe any of my hon. colleagues know or the Leader of the Opposition would be willing to tell us: How many staff members does she have in terms of running her office.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister should know - he pays them - how many staff are in my office. It comes directly out of the Budget. It is voted on by the Management Commission, of which the Government House Leader is a member of the Management Commission and sits on that particular committee. As well, the Minister of Transportation and Works sits on that committee. In fact, they were the very people who voted down increases, voted down the increases for the Opposition Office based on an independent public consultant's report, Mr. Chairman. They came in and voted it down, but they went to the very Cabinet meeting and voted for increases to the employees in the Premier's office at a time when there was a wage freeze for other public servants in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, that should give you a little bit of insight into what we deal with as a Management Commission, and the individuals that we deal with in that particular board and committee.

Unfortunately for the minister, it is the Opposition who gets to ask the questions in this Concurrence debate, Mr. Chairman, and he does not need me to stand and give him the answer to his question; he already knows it. He knows it, and so do half the front benches on the other side, because it was entirely them who made the decision. I did not make the decision. I did not make the decision. I was at the mercy of a majority of government members who sit on a committee, Mr. Chairman, and obviously who sit there not giving fairness to all parties in this House. Because if they were, the Opposition office would have gotten the money that should have been voted to them and we would be paying our staff today that would be on par with other public paid employees within government and within the Premier's office, but that is not the case. That did not happen because they set two standards, Mr. Chairman. They set two different standards.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, the number of people in the Premier's office – the Minister of Works is shouting across the floor, as he normally does, because he does not stand on his feet and say anything. He just sits in his desk and makes smart comments every day. If he wants to talk about who works for government, in my drawer there are two pages, I say to the minister, of people appointed and hired by your government with all kinds of political affiliations, so if you want to get into that debate today we can certainly get into that. It is there, it is all there, and we are just waiting for the opportune time, Mr. Chairman, to bring it out and have that debate in the public.

I am sure the public would be very interested, just like they are very interested in knowing who works in the Premier's office and what they are being paid. The members opposite get all defensive because you ask a few questions about it. Well, it happens to be public information, public information that everyone is entitled to know.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister is telling me is that the line item in here, Secretary to the Parliamentary Assistant, is actually that individual's constituency assistant. I guess my question would be why it is not listed as a constituency assistant. Because in the other departments, from what I recall doing the Estimates, they were listed as a line item for constituency assistants, not secretaries. I need to go back and double-check that, that was the case, but I am not sure why it would be listed that way as opposed to listed as a constituency assistant.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to use the Estimates here today to criticize the hard-working members of the Premier's office but she has raised a point that actually now - when I asked her how many employees she has, she would not tell me. Then I go to the book, Official Opposition Caucus, they get $762,600. That is what the Opposition gets now. Then I go the Leader of the Official Opposition; she gets $54,000. She gets an extra $54,000. She is paid exactly the same as a Cabinet minister. So there you go. Now, let's see if I can find what they get. Actually, $653,000 in salaries for the Opposition - that is the Official Opposition Caucus - so they seem to be doing fairly well.

Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition has any specific questions in terms of the Estimates, I would be more than pleased to answer them as opposed to simply the – it is not even debate; it is more rhetoric that we are hearing here today. If she has any questions, I am more than pleased to answer them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Finance for some clarification.

Earlier on, in his comments, he said that under the previous government there were twenty-six staff people in the Premier's office. I am looking at the Estimates for 2002-2003, which told me there were sixteen staff people in the Premier's office. Also, for 2003-2004, which tells me there were fifteen staff people in the Premier's office. Can you clarify for me where you came up with the number of twenty-six people?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All I can give the Leader of the Opposition are the figures I have been supplied with. There was a Premier, a Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, a Chief of Staff, two Directors of Communications, an Assistant Chief of Staff, a Senior Policy Analyst, a Director of Administration, a contractual employee, two Executive Assistants, a contractual employee, a Special Assistant, a Secretary to the Chief of Staff, a Special Assistant Communications Press Secretary, two Administrative Assistants, a Secretary to the Minister, and two Receptionists.

Mr. Chairman, that appears to me – and this the list I have - to be more than sixteen. This is then where it get a bit tricky, if I can use that term. It is my understanding then, that what the pervious Liberal Administration had done, they had basically seconded people from other departments to work in the Premier's office. In other words, they were funded by other departments. One example - and I have at least six people here who would have been funded by either policy divisions or departments, making up, by my calculation, a total of twenty-six.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has been asking questions for a considerable period of time. I am wondering if we are prepared to proceed on this line of questioning. I ask if someone else wants an opportunity to use their time limit. There is a ten-minute time period.

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

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

There are a couple of more questions and points that I wanted to make, so I appreciate standing again.

One of the areas that I look at in the Executive Council is the whole question of the Ottawa office. I think we asked questions about this last year and the year before, but I really do think we should ask once again what the government thinks this office is doing that is so important to the government for $397,000, almost $398,000 actually. I have to say, just even as a taxpayer, even if I were not leader of the party, even if I were not the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, just as a taxpayer I would have to ask: what does this office do for me as a taxpayer? What does it do for this government? I just cannot figure this office out at all. If I could get a clearer answer this year than we have gotten in the last couple of years that I have been in this House and asking, I would really appreciate it.

Can we get anything concrete told to us? Can we say that there are meetings that were held, even, because this person was in Ottawa and set up important meetings? Can we find out that, yes, we actually found out about programs because of this person being in Ottawa, that we actually got money that we did not expect because this person was in Ottawa?

It seems to me that $398,000 is a lot of money to have a person in Ottawa supposedly helping with liaison with relationships between us and Ottawa. I fail to see what connections this person is making on behalf of the Province in Ottawa. If we could get some concrete information I would really appreciate it. I have asked for concrete information before. I think the Official Opposition, as well, has asked for concrete information. We just do not get it. I do not understand the importance of this office being there. Well, if I were given some real concrete information that explained it to me, maybe I would understand. With the lack of answers that I have heard over the last three budgets that I have been around for, I have to say, no, I do not understand that. Nothing is clear to me about why we are spending $398,000 for basically – I will not continue on with it – but for another person who is really there particularly for the Premier.

I really do not understand this Ottawa office. I do not think the average public out there understand that Ottawa office, and why we are spending the money on this office; especially when I think about so many other areas that we need money for, or could use money for. I do not think that we are in a terrible way in this Province. I think, in actual fact, that this government is doing very well with regard to money, but I do not want to see money in the way that I think is being wasted.

As I said, if the minister can give me some really concrete examples of what this person's presence in Ottawa really does for this Province, I would really and truly appreciate it.

Well, I am going to ask that question and see if we have an answer to that question.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I am not sure that my answer will be any more satisfactory than you have received from other ministers, but I will try to give you concrete examples.

It is my understanding that the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs will be coming before the committee at some point and dealing with this issue, or he can. The Ottawa office is outlined for me here as being one of the issues that Intergovernmental Affairs will be responsible for.

However, what I would say to the Leader of the NDP is, that is exactly what one of the purposes for the Estimates is, to ask these kinds of questions and say, look, there is money being spent, now what is the value for this money.

I will say, though, the same question was asked in Hansard last year, and I am not going to try to repeat the same answers. I know that there is question as to the utility of the office.

Let me use this example: when I was the Minister of Justice, I was appearing in front of the Senate, and there were a number of issues that we were dealing with. One of these issues was the potential for an appointment of a person from this Province to the Supreme Court of Canada. Dr. Fitzgerald set up a number of meetings for me with leading constitutional experts – one from the University of Ottawa – to discuss that issue.

I also met with two senators. Meetings were set up that day by Dr. Fitzgerald to meet with two senators as to how they saw this issue unfolding.

During that same appearance in the Senate, a larger issue was going to arise as to the appointment of judges and the judicial appointment process, because one of the points being made was that once a person is appointed, then the principle of judicial independence interferes greatly with the ability of government to do anything with the appointment. If fact, there is nothing that we can do.

These were a couple of thorny issues and one in which I wanted to get a feel for how, this Senate Constitutional Committee, how were they going to view and address this issue. I have to say that the meetings set up by Dr. FitzGerald were very helpful in terms of informing me and were invaluable in terms of the presentation to the Senate committee.

Another example, I can say to the Leader of the NDP, is that when we were fighting for the new prison, the federal-provincial prison in this Province, a meeting had been set up with Minister Stockwell Day at that point. Again, Dr. FitzGerald was invaluable in setting up meetings, acting as a liaison and also obtaining information through contacts that he had in Ottawa by being on the ground in Ottawa. Dr. FitzGerald attended that meeting and followed up that meeting with Minister Day with me and for me.

So, those are a couple of examples when I was in Justice. I was just speaking to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and he said that while he was in Ottawa last week the NDP MP for St. John's East had used Dr. FitzGerald to set up a meeting with the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Those were a couple of concrete examples.

Last year, in Hansard, I know there was reference to other provinces having offices in Ottawa and there was specific reference to the Northwest Territories. Now I do not know if that, in fact, is correct or not correct, but what I will say to you is that Dr. FitzGerald has impeccable academic credentials, that he is doing a lot of work with people on the ground in Ottawa.

Another time I was there we attended the Parliament, and after Question Period there was an issue as to the equalization payments. There was a Liberal MP from Nova Scotia, Mr. Casey, who had certain concerns and we had a short meeting with him in the halls of the Parliament buildings. That is the way that Dr. FitzGerald has been very helpful to me, as a minister, in carrying out my role.

In the one meeting I attended with the First Ministers' meeting, Dr. FitzGerald was integral again in being a liaison in coordinating and in telling us what he was hearing from his contacts with other MPs. It is my understanding that on a daily basis he attends Question Period, talks to people after and gets a feel for what is happening.

Again, I do not know if you would call that concrete but all I can tell you, that is from my experience of how Dr. FitzGerald has provided a very helpful role. Also, I think other ministers will tell you the same thing.

In terms of the specifics of the money spent; it is, again, my understanding - although I am willing to do as best I can to answer. It is my understanding that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who – let me see my list here. I do not think he has finished in front of a committee yet. I think it is to be done. So, some of those questions could be asked to him.

I know, for example, that the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were recently in Ottawa dealing with the seal hunt. Now what role, if any, Dr. FitzGerald played there, I do not know.

Finally, one point I will make is that – you may say that this is irrelevant, and I understand if you do, but Dr. FitzGerald's expertise is in history. He is perhaps one of the foremost experts in this Province on the place of Newfoundland in Confederation, in terms of what took place between those crucial time frames of 1927-1949 and afterwards. So he provides an insight. I know a number of occasions when I have had questions on the Upper Churchill he has been able to provide background information. I know this whole issue of the fisheries and why the fisheries was not part of the – or why it was dealt with in the Terms of Union the way it was.

A lot of the background information he can apply, because as I am sure you are aware, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is that we have to always be aware of the lessons of the past. It seems to me it is very helpful to have a person who understands who we are, where we came from, and from a particular historical perspective, in terms of our place in Canada.

The relationship we have with the government right now, it may be rocky, but I know that Dr. FitzGerald is continuously in contact with both parties in terms of the Liberal Party in Ottawa, the Conservative Party, and also the NDP.

CHAIR: Order, please!.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know if that is helpful, but I –

CHAIR: Order, please!.

The Chair would just like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs have already been heard, and the Ottawa office was discussed and debated at that hearing. Just for a point of clarification.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. Unfortunately, I was not in town and was not able to be at that, and I did forget that this area usually is covered by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I do thank the minister for taking time for an area that he was not prepared in, to actually give me what were some helpful, concrete examples. Maybe if I had been here for when the discussion happened with Intergovernmental Affairs I would have heard similar stuff, but I have to say, I did not last year or the year before. So, at least you have given me some concrete things.

I, too, know Dr. FitzGerald and I know his qualifications. This has nothing to do with him as a person; it has to do with the role of an office. I think you have pointed out benefits that are there and I will have to wait for Hansard to find the answers to some of the specifics because I do have some specific questions around some of the expenditures but I will not put them to you because I know that they do not belong there.

However, I do think that section 2.5.02. in the Estimates, the Strategic Human Resource Management, does come under the Minister of Finance. I do have a question with regard to one of the subsections of that area. That is the Purchased Services. I am really interested, it is a large expenditure. I am wondering, what are the purchased services that are required under the Strategic Human Resource Management?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my understanding that the financial administration - and I say to the Leader of the NDP, you are right, this comes under my department. It deals with five different departments. The purchased services, there is funding for learning and development for five departments. Now I cannot tell you at this point, but I will find out further detail, as to what exactly these departments and what comes under these purchased services because I have everything under purchased services. For example, my note tells me everything from photocopying, printing costs, repairs, maintenance, up to professional training and funding for learning and development. I would assume that, or is it fair for me to assume that the professional training and funding for learning and development would perhaps be a focus of your question or do you want it broken down as best we can in terms of everything?

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible) broken down.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, I will certainly try to obtain that information for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments and raise a few questions concerning the Estimates today.

I actually had a couple of -emails, people saying: What is going on in the House of Assembly? How come there are no speeches? What are you doing going back and forth with this question and answer stuff? Anyway, I tried to explain to them that it is part of the Estimates process and it is one of those opportunities where you would get to question a minister of a department, for example, as to what funds does he have or she have to spend for that year? What are they being spent on? How many staff do you have, and that kind of thing. Rather than in Question Period, where you do not get an opportunity to go back and forth very much, you have an opportunity in these exercises to keep asking the questions, hopefully, until you get an answer, not like Question Period.

Most of these meetings are held outside of the House for all of the departments. Unfortunately, they are not televised. I have suggested, in fact, to the Speaker that we should consider televising the Estimates Committees because that is sometimes the most appropriate place where you really see if a minister knows what their department is all about. In Question Period, of course, you can give a non answer and still you can get away with it, but in questions, if that was televised, the people of Province would really see how a minister would conduct themselves.

Of course, here also, when you ask a minister in Estimates, the benefit you have is not only do you see how a minister would conduct himself or herself, but he or she would have all of their departmental officials with them, the deputy minister, different directors and so on, so it is great for information flow; because even if the minister does not know it – and you cannot expect the minister to know everything that is going on in his department, the true, intimidate details and so on - sometimes you need a bit of explanation. It is great because you can have those individuals there and they can provide that clarification to the questioner.

Unfortunately here, of course, today we are dealing with Executive Council, but the person who runs that, the Premier, we do not have for questioning. The answers are coming today, of course, from the Minister of Finance. We are still not getting that direct connection between the department that we are dealing with and the person who runs the department. Unfortunately, the minister here stands up today and answers these questions, so we are not truly having a comprehensive questioning when it comes to Estimates with regard to this issue.

It is like, for example, the same individual, the Premier, when he was Minister of Business the first year, he would not even come to the Estimates himself. That is the obligation of the minister, to come to Estimates to do that. The Premier would not come to Estimates, never did. The people asked the question: Why wouldn't you come, if you are the minister? You created the Department of Business. Why wouldn't you show up and go through the questions like everybody else? You would have your staff with you. It is not a big deal. Anyway, he never has, never did. Of course, people question that when it does not happen.

It is like here today; the minister is getting up and giving some responses to questions that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but the facts are the facts. Just as an example, when you look at this book that the minister has been referring to all day called the salary estimates, when the questions were asked, the Salary Details, how many people do you have, and so on, in the department, that comes under a book called – there is one book called Estimates; there is another one Salary Details put out every year. I have them here going back to 2002-2003, which was the last full year of the Liberal Administration. In 2003, you are sort of in between because the election was in October, so you had from April to October under the Grimes Administration and you had from October until the end of March under the Williams Administration. So that is sort of a transition year, what was set up in the budgets there. Yes, there was some tinkering in the latter part of the year once the government changed, but not a fair representation of who was where. Both of them pretty well had fifty-fifty.

Anyway, dealing with the facts, the fact is - and the minister can cut this any way he likes - the fact is that in 2002 and 2003, the last year of a Liberal Administration, it cost $900,000 to run the Premier's office. There were sixteen employees. That is a fact. You cannot change that. We can fudge it, coat is all we want to, there were sixteen employees in the Premier's office and it cost the people of this Province $900,000 to run it.

Now, another fact is that today, in these Estimates today, eight years later - seven years later, actually, from 2002-2003 to now - the fact is that we have twenty-one employees in the Premier's office, five more employees, and it costs about $1.5 million to run it.

Now, all of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition was asking, whether they are justified or not, that is what we are trying to get at. It is fine to say they are people with integrity and they work hard and there is nobody running around up in the Premier's office when we go up there. The question that she was asking was, once you take the facts, sixteen versus twenty-two, $900,000 versus $1.5 million, the bottom line is it costs a substantial amount more to run the Premier's office now than it did then. The purpose of Estimates is to try to find out, is that justified? That is all. Nobody is saying that anybody up in the Premier's office is not doing their job. Nobody is saying that the twenty-one people up there do not need to be up there. That is not the purpose, and for government members to get sort of sensitive and defensive when you ask these questions. The question was: What has happened in that short time period to go from sixteen to twenty-two and to go from $900,000 to $1.5 million?

Now we know, for example, that some of that increase in terms of dollars had to do with normal annualized increases in people's salaries - not a problem. No doubt, some of it has to do with the fact that we have five more bodies up there, but that does not take away from the question: Are all of those bodies at that expense needed?

Because when this government took over, you see - this is where it called into. We were the government, they said, the Liberal Administration, of waste and want, the government of waste and want, reckless expenditure, drunken sailors.

Now, folks, the same Premier's office, different individuals, seven years later, the drunken sailors must still be on watch if that is the case. If you simply look at the number of employees and you look at the amount of money and you say sixteen people at $900,000, they were spending like drunken sailors, what do you call them now seven years later when you have twenty-one people and they are spending $1.5 million? That is all. People look at that, you see. People see that and they ask the question. Just a minute now; this is the people who told us that they were not wasteful. This is the people who told us that every cent we spent was needed to be spent. We are going to run this ship properly; have no fear about it.

People out there do not know about these figures. Very few people, I would venture to guess, go on line or call the Department of Finance and say, give me all of that information; but it comes out when fellows like myself and people in the Opposition get up and raise these questions. Gee, I didn't know that the Premier's office have more people now than they did then. I was under the impression that he came on board in 2003, he cleaned house, gutted ship, and he was running that with a skeleton crew.

That is what people thought; but, you see, after a while people start to see these things. You are not one year into a mandate, or two years or three years or four years or five years or six years. You are seven years in, and all of a sudden you have a bit of history of yourself; you have your own history being built. That is when you get these figures, and you can look back at them then and say, aha, now we are going to do a comparison. We are not comparing 2003 any more to 2002. Let's do a little comparison on the other ones. That is why people finally now are going to see a little bit of this information. That is why we are asking these questions.

I would say to the government ministers, and the members, don't get too sensitive. Don't get upset. It is a legitimate question. I have a minute and thirty seconds left, and I will frame the question for the minister now that the public are aware of what our question is all about. The public and this member would certainly like an answer, if it is possible. Maybe there is a simple, easy explanation. Maybe there is more work. Maybe there are more departments under there. It may be simple. The question is: What justifies or requires five extra people in the Premier's office now, and what requires the extra $600,000 in expenditures?

There is no need to fuss and figure with the facts. Those are the facts. The question is: Is it justifiable or not? It is a very simple question. Nobody needs to get defensive about it. Nobody needs to say the Premier works hard, and all of his staff work hard. I would think they do or he would not have them up there. He works hard, and if they did not work hard I would think that he would not have them there, so nobody is questioning their work ethic. Nobody is questioning that they are very skilled people. The only question is: have our circumstances changed in this Province in that degree, from then to now, that we need the extra bodies at the cost of $600,000 to do it? Simple and short! If there is an explanation, we would just like to have it.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the Opposition House Leader has referred to the fact of what people do not know. Well, maybe the people do not know, also, that the Official Opposition caucus, with all the complaining that we are hearing, gets $762,600, which for three members is averaging out to $220,000 per member. I certainly think, that if you are going to ask questions in relation to our party, well why wouldn't the Leader of the Opposition tell me the number of staff members that she had over there? Do they have something to hide?

Mr. Chair, what has happened since 2002-2003? Hmm, let us see. We were left with a debt of $12 billion. It is currently now at $7.9 billion. We have had four surpluses in a row amounting to $4.2 billion. We currently have the lowest income tax rates in Atlantic Canada. We have a $100 million to $130 million a year Poverty Reduction Strategy. We recently came out with an $800 million infrastructure strategy. Mr. Chair, the number of schools that have been built, the amount of money that has gone into highways, the number of hospitals and long-term care homes – so, why do we need more staff? Because we are doing things. That is the easy answer to all that, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: When you look at the previous Liberal administration and what was going on in the Premier's office, I do not know. All I can tell you is, in this administration the Premier's Office is the epicentre of how government runs.

The Premier, Mr. Chair, is involved in everything that takes place. He is a team worker. We sit around a Cabinet table and make decisions, but in order for the Premier to be involved there has to be cooperation from departments and cooperation for his staff.

Mr. Chair, in terms of why the staff has increased, it is like, why have our revenues increased, why has our spending increased.

It is the period of time, I say to the Opposition House Leader. When you are going to engage in the type of ambitious projects like we are engaging in as a government, then naturally there are going to be more people required in certain places to do it.

I took a quick flick through the salary details, and I see the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the salaries paid to certain people. The salaries paid, Mr. Speaker, appear to be consistent with salaries paid to people performing executive level support in other government departments.

I think it is again somewhat disingenuous and somewhat unfair to say to me, as minister: can you point out why it costs $600,000 more? It is like saying: why has the health budget gone up from, I do not know, $1 billion to $2.6 billion? There is an increased cost in doing business. There is a flurry of activity, Mr. Chair, in this government for the last five years. We look at Hebron. We look at the continued work at the Lower Churchill. Mr. Chair, what essentially we have tried to become is an effective and efficient government. That means all the time, or as best you can, hiring people who have the skills.

I appreciate that the Opposition have their job to do, but I forget - perhaps the Minister of Transportation could help me. How much money did we get when we were in Opposition? Do you remember?

MR. TAYLOR: (inaudible)

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, you could say: well, when we were in Opposition and there were eight of us, why did we get whatever the amount was, and look what the Liberals are getting today? I would suggest to you, it is probably a very similar – was it $762,000? Very unlikely!

Again, what I would say to the Opposition House Leader is, you have to look at these things from the fact that six or seven years ago there was a different government. Mr. Chair, in terms of the roles that are played, I do not know the role that was played by the members of the Liberal administration in terms of the Premier's office. What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that what you have to look at here is how effective this government has been in pursuing a very ambitious agenda. It is not simply enough, when you have a $6.7 billion budget, to say: how come there is $600,000 more here than was spent five or six years ago. I would say what we have to look at, and I would put it quite simply, that the proof is in the pudding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have a couple of good friends, really good friends, who watch this service every day that it is on. They would not rest without it. A gentleman by the name - I do not mind saying his name, I have his permission, actually - Horace Meade, and a lady by the name of Anna Mushrow, in my district, watch it faithfully. They know, they are pretty on the ball people. Do you know what? Those individuals are smart enough to realize that I asked a question and the Minister of Finance of this Province, who is suppose to know these answers, got up and did not answer it. You can run around the bush all you want. You can throw out all kinds of red herrings and talk about, well, that happened over here and that happened somewhere else, but these two individuals, like many people in this Province, know that the Minister of Finance did not answer a very straight forward simple question that I put to him just now. It was not lost on them.

I will ask another one, because that tells after a while, when people know that someone ducks the issue and does not give the answer. That tells sometimes what you do not know, very obviously, because if you knew you would answer. It was a fairly straight forward question. We will go back there again.

I sat in this House in the spring of 2004, the first spring sitting, the first sitting actually of this government after the election in October of 2003. We got here at the time and the first Cabinet that we had the Premier said: we are getting rid of the waste and want. We do not need a Cabinet that is bloated; nineteen people, five parliamentary secretaries. We do not need it. Anyway, I went back and I happened to do a little chart up for myself, I said, I wonder what the history has been on Cabinets in the Province in the last number of years. It is very simple to get. Go online and get it. Anybody can see it. I will just give you a few stats now. There is no difference in number, not a bit, between the current Administration, in numbers and certainly not in cost. It does not compare in cost. We will go there the next time I get up. No comparison whatsoever as to the numbers and what is now.

Back in the last Grimes Administration there were nineteen ministers and five parliamentary assistants. Guess what we have today, folks? Guess what we have today from the government who said back in 2004, we do not need that many people, and slashed it down to fourteen? No parliamentary secretaries – oh, yes, they had five back then too. We do not need that. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. We can run this ship a bit tighter and more efficient than that. What do we need nineteen Cabinet ministers for? Well guess what, folks? By the time 2006 came we were up to fifteen. Then later on that year it was sixteen. Then we jumped up to eighteen. Now we are up to nineteen with the recent appointments. Nineteen! Right back to where it was when the last Administration changed. We have nineteen, and five Parliamentary Secretaries.

You did not need all of those people because this Premier was going to run this ship more tightly, more efficiently. We were not going to waste any money on Cabinet positions, because every time you created a Cabinet minister, of course, you had to have a deputy minister, you had to have an assistant deputy minister, you had a director of communications, you had all of these trappings that go with it.

I am pointing this out to show that the very government who said just six or seven short years ago that we do not need that, all of a sudden got up –

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the Minister of Transportation was one of them - got up here during the Budget debates of 2004 and pounded his desk left, right and centre: We are not going to be as wasteful as you. We are not going to be as wasteful as you crowd were.

My God, having nineteen Cabinet ministers was a waste. I ask the question: I wonder which one of the six Cabinet ministers there, I wonder which one of the six out of the nineteen that are there, are the wasteful ones, or the unneeded ones? Because the Premier only needed thirteen.

As a matter of fact, that was in the famous Blue Book: We are going to cut the Cabinet. We do not need that waste and want. Lo and behold, we have nineteen. I wonder who the six are that are in there now. Is it a case we needed six more because the thirteen were not up to the task? Is that what it was, or was it a case where we are so busy that we had to have six more?

The bottom line is, history will prove that politicians are the same. Like they all say: Don't put both feet in your mouth because you won't have a leg to stand on. That is what happens with all of us from time to time. That is what we all say. It happens to the best of us. It happens to the best of us, Mr. Chairman, I say.

This government, now there is getting to be a history, you see. When those statements were made here in 2004 we had some pretty powerful speakers on the government side of the day. I will tell you, we had some powerful speakers. Mr. Byrne, the last MHA for the District of Kilbride, was the most powerful speaker I have heard in this House, ever, and behind him was the former Member for Baie Verte. Nobody, in my short and brief experience here in ten years, ever gave a better speech, was ever a better parliamentarian than those two gentlemen. I am telling you, they tore strips off us in that spring session of 2004; you wouldn't believe it. I used to go out of here, and you almost felt like putting your head between your legs, they tried to make you feel so bad over stuff like that: that you had nineteen Cabinet ministers, what a waste. My friend Horace – who is a businessman, by the way – is looking at all of this. He knows. Kelvin knows, this fellow in there, my member knows what he is talking about. This was not wasteful. We just got this figured out now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, they say the true test of when you are hitting home is when you get the other side on the defensive, and that is exactly what has happened here. When you start to hit the kernels of truth, and the people see the truth, that is when they start to squirm then, because they cannot handle facts. The chairman of this committee, for example, he is a lawyer; he knows all about facts. You can get up and add all the fluff you want to a speech, but the bottom line is, facts are facts. Premier Roger Grimes' Administration had nineteen Cabinet ministers and five Parliamentary Secretaries. Premier Williams' Administration has nineteen Cabinet ministers and five Parliamentary Secretaries. Now, I do believe that is the same thing, and we are adding them, folks, at the rate of one per year. If it keeps up, we will have to build an extension on the Cabinet room. They will not have enough room up there to hold them if he makes it any bigger.

Anyway, my question now to the minister again - and we never got an answer the last time. Given my background I just gave there now on the Cabinet increases, I am wondering if the minister, based on what we know the facts to be, what was and what isn't, can you give us the reason why the Premier's originally stated position of we could get by with thirteen has proven not to be the case; why we, in fact, did need nineteen; why that figure was not so out of the realm of reality, the same figures? Is there an explanation why we need that? What has happened in the seven-year period that we had to go back to the nineteen? The rumour back then when we were in government, for example, they used to say, oh you are just putting everybody in Cabinet because you owe the member something. It had nothing to do with whether they were needed or whatever, was the allegation.

I am just wondering: What is the rationale as to why we are back to where we started when this government took power in 2003? What has substantially happened? We know the Premier's office has gone from sixteen to twenty-two. We know the salary has gone up over half a million dollars up there. We know the Cabinet is right back to where it started, and it costs more to run the Cabinet than it ever did in the history of this Province. I am just wondering if the minister can probably explain to us why we are here today, in this year 2009-2010 Budget, back to nineteen Cabinet ministers when that was always, according to the Premier himself, obviously, patently unnecessary. It was not needed. The people I brought into here are hard-working individuals, no question. We can get by with thirteen. We do not need that waste and want that existed back then.

Maybe the minister can give me an answer to that one, because then I have another fifteen or sixteen like that, that I just do not understand the logic of when you deal with facts. So let's see if we can get an answer to this one.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As for why the Cabinet has grown, we reiterate - and again I cannot speak for the Premier but I will reiterate - that two of the positions that have been created in the last two years are very significant positions. We have, for the first time in our history, an Aboriginal female in the position of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I think that is something that speaks volumes about this government's commitment and our approach to things, what we are doing. We are not simply talking the talk; we are trying to walk it also.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, and again I use the word disingenuous but I am not sure that is the proper word, because I know that the members opposite must know better, but in the fall sitting of the House, and in the spring sitting, they continue to raise issues in relation to the problems with mental health and addictions and young people. We have heard issues raised in the public in relation to child, youth and family services. So what we did, Mr. Chairman, as a government, and what this Premier did, as a true leader does, he addressed the issue.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier could probably anticipate this kind of question being thrown at us in the House, but we have a new Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - someone who can focus on the issues affecting the youth in our Province. Because there are issues to be dealt with, and we have a minister here now, with her background, both her professional training and her coming from the department she is coming from, who will do an exemplary job.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have, Mr. Chairman, is a Premier and a government who are addressing the needs of our times, the issues that have arisen and the ones that society says to us are bigger issues. So the Premier or government, we could all say, well, we cannot have a Cabinet the size of the former Grimes' government because at some point they will say we criticized them for having a big Cabinet, but let's look at the difference, Mr. Chairman, in terms of where we are today. Let's look at the difference in government. Let's look at the difference in the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, hopefully we will get to go back to this tomorrow and I will have an opportunity to go and look at some of the previous spending and look at the difference between expenditures and revenues. Any time you have expenditures that are going to increase, which we know they are increasing here, if you look at the Department Salary Details, the book that has been referred to here today, and you look at the salary allocation and you look at the amount of money that is being paid out in salaries in this Province, it is absolutely amazing. Not only are there approximately 6,000, 7,000 or 8,000 employees employed in the sixteen departments of government, but in terms of the agencies, boards and commissions there are a total of 38,000 people employed. So to run a business like government with that many employees, with all the agencies, boards and commissions, you have to have people. In this day and age, you have to pay people to do the jobs. So you look at the amounts that deputy ministers make - and I have no problem that a deputy minister should make as much as a Cabinet minister, or some, apparently, who make more. I have no problem with that; that is the way we have to run this.

Mr. Chair, to say that simply what took place in 2002 can be compared to 2009, again, just makes no sense. Again, I will find the difference in the number of employees, as to why we have the number of employees in 2002 in government as a whole and the government today.

One thing I will say, and I have heard comments here today, since we are talking about government and comparing one government to another, Wednesday will be an interesting day because let's get into the Cabinet ministers who flew their spouses around the world. Yes, let's look at some of these things. Let's look at some of this. Let's have a look at it. If you really want to get into it, you look at the expenditures because that is what it is about here. It is about openness, transparency and accountability. So let's see that $3,000 and how that $3,000 will pale in comparison. Let's have a look at the expenditures of the Cabinet ministers in the previous government and see where they compare to us today. Let's see how much money was spent on entertainment and transportation. I welcome that because if we are going to throw it all on the table, let's put it all out there.

We hear the member opposite say: Why is this person being paid so much? Well let's see what was spent by the government of the previous Administration. If you are going to compare one government to another then everything that we are spending is up there on the Web and it can be looked at. Let's compare that. Let's have a look at it. That is what Wednesday will give us the opportunity to do. Let's see where the $3,000 is compared to the expenditures of that Cabinet and the previous Administration. Let's see where we are in comparison, because if you are going to look at comparing one government to another, then let's look at all aspects of it. So what we will do, Mr. Chair - and hopefully it looks like we will be back tomorrow. I will certainly have a look at some of these numbers, get some of them together.

As for giving a definitive answer, the Opposition House Leader is aware that I cannot give a definitive answer as to why one increase has gone from, for example, $900,000 to $1.5 million, but I can also say to you that the information I have here indicates that there were positions funded through other departments that were working out of the Premier's office in the former Liberal Administration. So that when you look at – and I repeat these numbers, and I say them again, is there are less people. They may be paid more, but that is a function of the times and the role that people play.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, the former Liberal Administration had positions funded under other departments, and that we are at less dollar value in today's dollars.

So, Mr. Chair, again, for a point of comparison, let's look at what was paid to the PC Opposition in 2002, for example, and compare it to the $762,000 that the Liberal Opposition receives today. There would have been, by my recollection, eight members, I think, in the PC Opposition in 2002 as opposed to three there now.

As for the other issues raised, I have indicated, Mr. Chair, that I will attempt to find the answers to some of the questions. There are a couple of questions that were raised by the Leader of the NDP, which I will certainly try to determine the answers.

As for the issue raised by the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Chair, I will attempt to find a more definitive answer, and hopefully I will have an opportunity tomorrow to answer the same.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions on some other sections of the Executive Council budget as well. One of the offices that falls under this particular section, I think, is the Rural Secretariat. I am trying to find it here now – the Rural Secretariat?

Mr. Chair, under the Rural Secretariat, this is a budget estimate that spends quite a huge sum of money in the Province. I am not entirely sure as to what they do or how their results are even –

CHAIR: Order, please!

There are too many conversations going on across the floor.

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Natural Resources seems to be making an awful ruckus over there this afternoon. I do not know what is really on the go but I just had a few questions on the Rural Secretariat, Mr. Chair. I did not really want to get anybody upset over that but –

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

The Rural Secretariat, although part of the Executive Council, will come up in the Estimates when the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, which is tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. The minister responsible is also responsible for the Rural Secretariat and at that time the Estimates for the Rural Secretariat will be heard.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Am I to understand then, that we do not ask questions on this section now, or we have the option to ask questions, it is up to Cabinet if they want to answer them or not?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, it is the practice that the parts of the Executive Council that are under individual ministers, whether it is the Rural Secretariat or the Women's Policy Office, those questions would be answered by the minister responsible for that secretariat when they do the Estimates for their department. So that would be the time set aside, and it is also on our schedule for Estimates that the Rural Secretariat is scheduled for tomorrow morning. Again, another aspect of it, Women's Policy Office will be covered when Natural Resources is being covered.

CHAIR: Thank you.

That has been the practice in previous Estimates hearings in the House and sometimes there is some slippage over - we had a debate on the Ottawa office, for example, but realized that that had been discussed in an earlier Estimate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Chair - to respond to the point of order, I guess.

I do not have any disagreement with what the Government House Leader said as to what the protocol has normally been, but it has also been a part of the process that if some member of the Opposition who, for some reason, could not have made it to an Estimates meeting had a particular question, they were allowed to ask the question here in the House. It is not a case of repeating.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, no, I just say that, I say to the Government House Leader, not in response to the one about the Rural Secretariat because that has not been heard yet, but there is a question that the Member for Port de Grave had, for example, that deals with the Opening Doors policy. Now, he could not make it to the Finance piece, and Finance is closed off. So I am just saying that because he does have a question. He could not make it to the Estimates. Now if you want to be closed-door about this, that is fine, but I am just saying usually we are fair, that is all.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Since the Estimates on the Rural Secretariat will be heard tomorrow morning and the Opposition will have the opportunity to present a question then, we will defer those discussions until tomorrow.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of questions in relation to the Premier's office that is located in Corner Brook, and I think one in Goose Bay. Maybe the Estimates for those offices are included under Executive Council and we are permitted to ask a question on them. If we are not, I guess the Government House Leader can inform us, but if we are permitted to ask any questions on this part of the spending of Executive Council I would like to know where the budget breakdowns are for the Office of the Premier in Goose Bay and in Corner Brook, and if you can tell me what staffing positions are in those offices. Are they already part of the twenty-one that we have reviewed today, or are they in another part of the Estimates somewhere?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, in preparing for the Estimates I know I read somewhere, in relation to the Corner Brook and the Happy Valley-Goose Bay office, I prefer to have a chance to try to find out the information for you on that and provide more details. I am not sure whether or not they are actually included in the twenty-one. It does not look like it to me, but again I will have to check and make sure of that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe additional information around that would include not just the number of staffing positions but the salary range as well, which I am sure will be contained in the Estimates somewhere, and also the expenditures for running those particular offices.

I understand that the office in Goose Bay is located in the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs building. I think I understood from doing those particular Estimates that the cost of that particular office is incurred under that department because it is physically located there, but you can tell me if there is any additional cost to running that office, and also the office in Corner Brook, what the cost of having that particular office is in terms of leasing, rental and other expenses that would accompany it.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to find that information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under the Economic and Social Policy Analysis, I understand that this would be the support that is provided to the Committees of Cabinet, the Social Policy Committee and the Economic Policy Committee. The salaries budgeted for this year is $800,000. Last year there was $525,000 spent. Were there some vacancies there? If so, do you anticipate filling them? Also, what the work of this committee would do.

The other thing I am wondering is that, under the Economic and Social Policy Analysis, the Transportation and Communications budget that is outlined there, that would be for the staff, I would take it, not for the ministers who sit on the committee, for travel that they would incur?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am looking at page 10 of the Departmental Salary Details. Is that the same document you are looking at?

MS JONES: Page 15 in the Estimates.

MR. KENNEDY: Page 15 in the Estimates, okay.

As the Leader of the Opposition would be aware, because I think this has been a standard approach toward Cabinet papers and Cabinet decision-making for quite some time, there are two -or there are actually three - policy committees of Cabinet, being economic policy, social policy and Treasury Board. Different ministers may be on one, two or all of these committees.

As I indicated in my initial comments, what happens is that an idea or a policy issue arises, and through discussions either in the department with an assistant deputy minister or with a deputy minister or a minister it is decided, well, perhaps we should look at this. The paper process will be commenced. A paper policy will be commenced. It will commence with either a note or a (inaudible) paper. Then, and I am sure this would have been the same in your government when you were Cabinet ministers, it would go to an analyst or a social policy - for example, a paper would go upstairs and it would be a Social Policy Analyst who would look at it. When I am looking at page 10 of the Departmental Salary Details, because this is not outlined, it is broken down further here, there are two Social Policy Program Analysts, a Director of Resource Policy Analysis and Planning. Now, I am assuming that these are the individuals who will then look at the papers and provide the analysis of the same.

It appears that under the Economic and Social Policy Analysis, there are in fact five positions broken down into two resource policy and planning officers and two social policy program analysts. When you look at or compare the two pages here, that is apparently how it breaks down.

I think the Leader of the Opposition referred to $803,000 in salaries. Under the Economic and Social Policy Analysis I see five positions at $306,863. How we get to the $803,000 there, I cannot put them together off the top of head here right now. You have five positions that add up to $306,000 and they appear to be part of a greater amount. Again, I will have to try to find out that information for you in terms of how we reconcile the $803,000 with the $306,000.

The other question was in relation to Transportation and Communications. That is my understanding, that this would be in relation to the officials if they travel. For example, there can be social policy meetings, and I think that has happened, outside the city. This would not be for ministers. Any ministerial travel, it is my understanding, will come under the minister's budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation.

The numbers that I am quoting under Salaries for Economic and Social Policy Analysis occur on page 15, section 2.2.03 of the Estimates. It is estimated this year that the government will spend $803,400, but according to the salary numbers, you are entirely correct, they are saying that you will only spend $306,763.

We have noticed, going through these Estimates, that there is a lot of inconsistency in numbers. We have noticed it between what is budgeted in salaries and what is outlined on line items. We have noticed it between what was budgeted in the Estimates last year and the revised figures, and once they are transferred into here the numbers have changed. We have outlined a number of departments where that has happened.

I do not know if you can give us an explanation for that, if there is a way that the department has changed the way they are calculating their numbers and reporting them or something of that nature.

I notice, again tonight, I am doing the Estimates for the Department of Natural Resources, and I have been comparing the numbers for the 2008-2009 budget in this Estimate book to what was budgeted last year in the 2008-2009 Estimates, and the numbers are all different. What was budgeted last year and what they are saying they budgeted here are two different numbers. It is happening quite a bit. I am doing another department tonight where all of those numbers are changing again.

I am not sure if there is an explanation for it. I am sure there is an explanation for it someplace. Again, when we look at this section and we look at the salaries that are estimated in the Estimate book, but you go to the actual salaries and you find out that it is somewhat different.

I am not seeing in here if there are any contractual positions, temporary positions or other employees, but maybe that might be an answer for it; I have no idea. Right now, from what I am looking at on page 9, I think it is, or 10 – the page you were reading from – those things are not clear.

I do not know if there is an additional number or figure someplace.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can understand the difficulty. Perhaps if I could do it this way: if you look at page 15, we start with page 15, you will see that there was budgeted in 2008-2009, $743,900, and the revised was $525,000. Well, there were savings of $218,000 due to delayed recruitment as a result of staff turn over and vacant positions.

Then we go to the next number, the $803,400. That is a salary cost of five permanent positions, and temporary assistance to support the Economic and Social Policy committees of Cabinet.

The $306,000 I referred to at page 10 of the Departmental Salary Details is the permanent employees. We then have $456,200 for temporary assistance as required, and temporary and other employees. That can be Economic Policy Advisor, Program and Policy Departmental Development Analyst, Manager of Organizational Development. Then, with permanent and other adjustments, salary increases, step increases, the twenty-seven pay period and rounding is another $40,000. If you add the permanent employees with the temporary and other employees and the permanent and other adjustments, it does add up to $803,400. So, these Estimates reflect an increase of $59,500; $29,800 for a 4 per cent salary increase and $29,700 for the additional pay period.

What I have tried to do is reconcile the different numbers you will see under Budget and Revised - the $803,400 on page 15 - and then put that in the context of the $306,763 referred to on page 10. So what appears to be inconsistencies, if I could say to the Leader of the Opposition, may require looking to a number of different documents in trying to reconcile the numbers.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and the hon. Assistant Chair of Committees.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, before I do a motion to adjourn, I would just like to remind the hon. members that this evening, or this afternoon, the Resource Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources and the Women's Policy Office commencing at 6:00 p.m. here in the House of Assembly, and tomorrow morning the Resource Committee will meet in the House of Assembly at 9:00 a.m. to review the Estimates of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council, and the Rural Secretariat.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow being Tuesday.

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