December 7, 2009         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLVI   No. 35


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair welcomes fifty Level II students from Botwood Collegiate in partnership with the Botwood Boys and Girls Club-Community Youth Network from the District of Exploits. The students are accompanied by their teacher: Mr. Darryl Chippett, as well as chaperons: Colleen Hayter, Perry Chippett, Darelene Rice and Heather Brown.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District December of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate Daniel Johnson, a fifteen-year-old Junior Canadian Ranger who won first place in the JCR National Marksman Competition held at 5 Wing Goose Bay, Labrador.

Daniel is a member of the JCR Mary's Harbour Patrol whose patrol earned the right to compete on behalf of this Province by winning the provincial competition earlier in the year. Daniel won the marksman competition with a perfect score of 300 out of 300. The competition also featured team competitions and Daniel, along with Nicholas Cumby and Paula Russell from Mary's Harbour, and Ocean King and Jerome Bradley from St. Lewis, won second in the team competition, behind Nunavut.

Mr. Speaker, this competition features the best of junior ranger patrols from across Canada and provides an opportunity for young people in rural and remote areas of our country to come together and to demonstrate their skills and to meet new people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Daniel Johnson and to the team from Newfoundland and Labrador for their tremendous success during the Junior Canadian Ranger National Marksman Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the recent activities and accomplishments of two students from Lester Pearson Memorial High in Wesleyville. Taylor Best, a Level I student, and Allison Bragg, a Level II student, were both chosen to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay on the Newfoundland leg of its journey to Vancouver.

Taylor earned the right to participate in the event after submitting an essay that focused on a topic close to the hearts and minds of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - environmental preservation. Allison was awarded the honour by the Department of Education for her exceptional academic accomplishments and her outstanding commitment to her community as evidenced by her dedicated and sustained extracurricular achievement.

Both students service as wonderful examples of the outstanding talent that is being developed and nurtured in our provincial educational system. Their efforts and commitment to excellence has provided them with this very special privilege and it is a moment in time that they will undoubtedly carry with them throughout their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Taylor Best and Allison Bragg on their recent achievements, and in encouraging them to continue their pursuit of academic and personal success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Roddickton native, Karla Pilgrim, on being nominated for an East Coast Music Award in the category of Country Recording of the Year for her debut album: I'll Think of You.

Karla's passion for music began at the Roddickton's Apostolic Faith Church where her father was choir director. As soon as she was old enough, she was singing at concerts and choirs, and in 2001 progressed to writing her own music.

Mr. Speaker, Karla has also played for the Canadian military in Afghanistan alongside The Fables and J.P. Cormier. On November 15 of this year, she won Female Artist of the Year and Country Artist of the Year at the 2009 MusicNL Awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Kara Pilgrim on her East Coast Music Award nomination and extend best wishes to her when she travels to North Sydney, Nova Scotia in February for the awards ceremony. I would also like to extend to her the very best wishes for continued success in the music industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 rise today to recognize the great accomplishments of a thriving singer-songwriter in my district, Terry Penney.

With more than twenty years of performance, Terry has independently released four albums of his original songs. He is a contemporary folk artist and a storyteller, and may be best known for the powerful songs he has written in tribute of our WWI and WWII veterans of war.

Terry has been recognized provincially with numerous awards, including Male Artist of the Year in 2002, Country Artist of the Year in 2004, and most recently 2009 SOCAN Songwriter of the Year. On the international scene, just this past year he was a finalist in the Kerrville, Texas songwriting competition, a finalist in a UK songwriting competition, and he also took second place in the Great Lakes, Michigan songwriting competition.

As an exporting business, he attended a trade mission to Ireland last June with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and he has recently been invited to return to Ireland by an Irish music promoter to perform a six-date tour in February. He will perform his songs and share some of our stories.

Members of this House, please join with me, with Terry's wife, who is also his manager, Angela, and with their entire family in recognizing the talent and the achievements of another successful Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Terry Penney.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Mr. Charles Weir on his 100th birthday. Mr. Weir celebrated his birthday on October 8 surrounded by 300 of his close friends and many family members. Mr. Weir was born in Sutt's Arm in 1909 and lived in Pilley's Island until moving to Valley Vista Seniors Home in Springdale.

Mr. Weir is also a World War II veteran and well known for his work aboard the schooners in the 1940s, as well as bringing food and supplies to Labrador. He also brought doctors and nurses to Pilley's Island, Robert's Arm, Port Anson and Little Bay Islands. These doctors and nurses have since passed away but the stories of travelling medical teams are now famous throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues in the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Mr. Charles Weir on his 100th birthday milestone and wish him many more and Merry Christmas, Charles.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in 2007, this government took the progressive step of introducing up-front, needs-based grants for students applying for a student loan. These grants have the potential to cut in half the amount of money a student has to borrow. This past August, we increased these grants by $10 per week, Mr. Speaker, meaning students who borrow the maximum of $140 per week now receive $80 of that amount in the form of a non-repayable grant.

I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that between April and October of this year, approximately $5.3 million has been awarded in grants, translating into an additional $400,000 that has gone into students' pockets over this time last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: We are incredibly proud of our Student Aid package, Mr. Speaker. We are recognized as leaders nationwide in student debt reduction and we have received accolades from student union leaders across the entire country.

We have frozen tuition – tuition that is among the lowest in the nation, second only to that in Quebec, for Quebec residents only. Up-front grants greatly reduce the amount of money a student will eventually need to repay, while our debt reduction grants can eliminate some or all, Mr. Speaker, of the provincial portion of the student loan. Of course, just this past August, we eliminated interest on the provincial portion of the loan with an investment of $5 million annually that is helping 49,000 individuals in repayment.

We want our students to stay in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and to use their skills and their knowledge to continue to build on our success. To that end, this year alone $437 million will be invested in the public post-secondary education system, a 76 per cent increase since 2003. Our investments, Mr. Speaker, are paying off, as CareerSearch 2008 indicates, graduates are finding employment in this Province and the majority are doing so today. These students, Mr. Speaker, have benefited from a top rate education and are now contributing their skills to the economic and social growth of communities across our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to say thank you to the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and certainly want to recognize the great initiative of lowering student debt in our Province and hopefully leading to the elimination of it in the long term. With a budget that has more than doubled since 2003, it certainly would make sense that we would increase the amount of money that we put in the post-secondary education system.

I would like just a comment or two. It has come to my understanding that flight training students do not qualify under this program, and I am not really sure of the details but I would certainly ask the minister that he would look into that.

One other comment, just in terms of accommodating our students and looking after their needs and so on would be the concern of student housing. I know that in the by-election in particular, in my district, there were a lot of concerns raised about student housing, particularly for the campus at St. Anthony, CONA, but also at Corner Brook and St. John's and Lab City as well. An ongoing issue that would allow more students, obviously, to be able to enrol in our campuses and to be able to stay in the Province and enjoy the work, as noted in this statement.

So again, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am sure the minister knows that everything he announced today is good news and does follow certainly what I believe in and hope that we will continue to do for the post-secondary students in our Province.

Recent polls have indicated that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would like to see a continued reduction of the cost of tuition until it is actually eliminated. So I ask the minister to look at those polls and see what it is that people in the Province are saying.

Tuition cost is still a considerable amount of money for students, even though we have frozen it and it is low in comparison to other parts of Canada, but it is certainly high for our people in rural Newfoundland who also have to pay for their –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: It is the lowest, thank you for saying that. I recognize that, but we have to look at rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people who have to come into either Corner Brook or St. John's centres and their costs are increased because of that. We also, too, need to look at those who are still carrying a debt, and I know we have done forgiveness with regard to interest rate but there are many students out there with $50,000 to $60,000 debts and are having trouble surviving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS MICHAEL: Leave please, Mr. Speaker, just one more comment.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: The one thing I would like to ask the minister to look at is possible debt forgiveness for people who are carrying heavy debts but over the years have paid so much interest that in some cases they have almost paid as much in interest as they have had as a debt and could we do debt forgiveness for the debt up to the amount of interest that they have paid? So I would ask the minister to consider that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to provide an update on the transfer of responsibility of the Labour Market Development Agreement programs and services from the federal government to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 2009, the Province officially assumed control for the design and delivery of EI funded employment benefits and support measures that were formerly delivered by Service Canada. This was done as per the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Development Agreement, or LMDA, which was signed by the Williams government in 2008.

This transfer has been a significant milestone in our continued efforts to develop high quality, responsive programs to better meet the employment needs of individuals throughout the Province and to support local labour market and economic development priorities. At $2 billion, the LMDA represents the single largest investment in labour market programs throughout the country. Newfoundland and Labrador's portion of this funding is $133 million per year.

Mr. Speaker, assuming responsibility for these programs was indeed a major undertaking from an administrative perspective. For example, as of November 2, over seventy-five former federal employees not only transferred to the provincial public service, they also physically relocated to our offices throughout the Province on day one, a first in the implementation of devolved agreements across the country. Despite the magnitude of this undertaking, I am very pleased to report that we have achieved our goal of a seamless transfer of services.

Now that this milestone is behind us, we have already started looking ahead to the opportunities we have before us to shape a more responsive and integrated labour market service delivery system. In the short term, we will not be making significant changes to the current suite of programs and services. However, we will be working to streamline processes where we can. Our eye now has turned to the longer term. Together with business, labour, education and non-profit organizations, we are working to ensure we have the programs and services we need to build a strong provincial workforce, to meet upcoming demands of our major projects and to help us capitalize on emerging opportunities.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to the seamless transition of these important employment programs and services. I look forward to what our government will achieve through the addition of new resources and staff to our current compliment of HRLE programs and employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and an update with regard to the transfer of the programs and services from the federal government to this Province.

As the minister stated, no doubt, this was a major undertaking because each and every one of us in the hon. House of Assembly know what those programs mean to each of our districts in conjunction with the provincial programs that we have. It is good to see that the former federal employees have also transferred over to be a part of the program, and I am sure we have all had the great pleasure of working with those individuals over the years.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt, one good thing I see there, they will be in consultation with the non-profit organizations, because those are the people that really it comes down to who are doing those major projects in each of our communities.

I know the minister stated that she will not be making any significant changes in the short term. One thing I would like to put forward - and this is not in a negative way; I am sure we have all had the same complaints - those programs, right now, they are uninsurable earnings unless you want a foreman or someone to look after it. So, all I would suggest to the minister that maybe in the future this can be looked at, those programs would become insurable similar to our Community Enhancement Program.

I, too, with the Official Opposition, want to congratulate everybody with the transition that has taken place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I do believe that the coming together of the programs that were under HRDC, now coming under HRLE is a good move because it has the potential to be an excellent opportunity for the people of the Province. I think being completely based here in the Province with the Province making the rules we should be able to get closer to what the needs in the community are.

One of the things that was problematic with what happened over the years with funding from HRDC and under their programs was a change in focus groups. There was a point at which those groups focused on women, young people, Aboriginal people and people with disabilities. In the latter years, women dropped out of that list in many ways. I looked over and over again many times to see women in the list and it was gone, which was part of what happened with the current federal government in terms of programs for women.

I really would ask the minister, along with the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, to look at reinstating women back into the focus groups that these programs look at. I notice, as you have said, you are not going to make changes in the short term, I just hope the long term is not going to be too long and that women, once again, will become part of the focus of these programs.

Thank you, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I met with the federal Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea, to discuss a number of important issues related to the Province's industry. During our discussion, I learned that proposed NAFO amendments will be ratified regardless of the vote that takes place in the House of Commons this week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, realizing that the ratification of these amendments will have a significant negative impact on the Province's industry on a go-forward basis: Will he contact Prime Minister Harper for an immediate meeting with him to discuss this issue and to bring the concerns of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians directly to his attention before this decision is binding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This convention was brought before the House of Commons in June, Mr. Speaker. Since then, I would like to outline what has happened. Our Premier has written to the Prime Minister on two occasions. The former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture appeared before three committees; we have met. I have personally sent off a letter just the past few days ago asking Minister Shea to certainly not allow this amendment to be ratified.

Mr. Speaker, we have to commend our federal Liberal MPs for the work that they have done. I certainly thank the Opposition Leader for going up on Friday. I do not know if they have done it before, Mr. Speaker, or not, but maybe too little, too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to the point of what we have been doing as a government, we have done everything that we possibly can to make our point, not only this government, but many people in the Province –

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the minister's attention, we have also participated in a lot of letter writing campaigns to the federal government in the last year on this issue.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, letters are not working. This issue is not dead until the treaty is signed and it is binding. Today, that is not the case.

I ask the minister and I ask the Premier: Are you prepared to make the call to the Prime Minister of this country to outline the impact that this will have on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to ask that this agreement not be signed because it is not in the best interest of the fishing industry in this country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in contact with Minister Shea before this day is out. I have asked the staff to arrange that I make a call to her.

Mr. Speaker, the measures that I have outlined that have been taken by this government, we have contacted our Atlantic Province counterparts to see if they would support us. It looks like, Mr. Speaker, that in this case here, we are on our own with this, not barring, like I said, the representation, that certainly I am pleased to hear that the Opposition have made. Mr. Speaker, with all the federal Liberal MPs that are up there, the support of Mr. Harris from the NDP, we have made our case, we are continuing to make our case. If luck is with me, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to Minister Shea before the day is out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has also come to my attention that the provincial officials who were present at the NAFO meetings where these amendments were originally brought forward had fully supported their implementation.

I ask the Premier today: Why would the provincial government representatives be directed to support these amendments on behalf of the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to what officials have done to this particular point. It is something that I certainly will follow up on and check into.

Mr. Speaker, one thing about it, our stand as a government is very clear. I have outlined it, we are against this and we will continue to pursue it until the last opportunity that we have, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well maybe the minister could get the answer as to why the officials of his department would have sat at the NAFO table and originally supported these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that I discussed with the minister was the fish buyback program, which saw a grave injustice done to the fishermen and their families whereby some were taxed on the money they received and others were not. The deadline for action for these hundreds of fisherpeople in our Province is coming in the spring of 2010. So time is running out for many of those people.

I ask the Minister of Finance today: Has your government, through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, conducted any analysis of the tax laws of 1999 to strengthen the case of these nearly 800 fisherpeople and their families in this Province to present to Canada Revenue Agency and the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can assure the hon. Opposition Leader that the government is constantly doing analysis of our tax revenues and our expenditures in the Province, but I do not recall being specifically advised about an analysis of 1999. Obviously, I would be happy to look into that and if there is such an analysis done I would be very happy to advise the hon. member and the members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is an injustice that has been done to fisherpeople and their families in this Province and they deserve to have a fair hearing on the issue. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not budged on this particular initiative and since this case has been brought forward there are approximately ninety-two of these individuals who have passed away in our Province.

I ask the minister today: Through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board are you prepared to advance this issue with the federal Minister of Canada Revenue and the Government of Canada and present a case on their behalf to ensure that these fisherpeople are treated properly and are repaid the money they deserve?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, there is a federal Department of National Revenue and there is the Province. We charge taxes in order to raise revenue to carry out the programs that the people of this Province want us to carry out. We have personal income tax, we have corporate taxes, but also the federal government have their own taxes. That seems to be an issue that is under the complete jurisdiction and confidence of the federal government, and any representations on behalf of those fisherpeople I think have to be made to the federal Minister of Finance and the federal Minister of National Revenue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Minister of Education. Since raising the issues contained in the report on Jens Haven Memorial School in Nain I have heard from a number of teachers and leaders in the community who still have concerns. Mr. Speaker, while these individuals are certainly proud of the accomplishments of many of the students who attend this school and want to promote the positive impacts of their community, and aspects, they also indicated that they have many problems and concerns with the highlights in the report of 2006.

I ask the minister, with the information that you have been provided and recognizing the fact that two-thirds of the children in this school have been impacted by trauma and tragedy in their lives, I have to ask minister: Why have no physiologists been sent into this community and into this school to work with those children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for her question. I, like many of our officials and school board people, share her concerns around what is happening in all of our schools, not only the one reported that we are discussing here today. We are fully aware of the issues and we offer our continued support. Last week I highlighted a number of significant initiatives that we have undertaken.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the initiatives that I announced around the teaching units was confirmed as being the basis of that report by the author, I think it was on Friday, who clearly said that the basis of that report was to present the negative side of that school for the purposes of securing resources, and, in fact, left out a lot of the many positive things happening in that school. That is what tends to be overlooked here.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Nunatsiavit government, we are working with the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and we are working with the local school board. As I said last week, we have responded with extra resources. We responded with special services support. We are reviewing the current curriculum offerings to make sure it is appropriate to the students, and we will continue to respond as we are needed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not answer my question which was related to the two-thirds of the children in the school who had been affected by trauma and tragedy in their lives, and why there is no psychologist that have been sent in there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did state again today and last week, that there have been some additional teaching units. I know that most of them are around FAS support, but I ask him today: Why is there no guidance counsellor on staff for the full school year? As I understand it now, there is one visiting guidance counsellor who comes out of St. John's, who spends about three to four days out of a month at this school, weather permitting and all the rest of the issues around travel into the area. I also ask him, why there are still vacant teaching positions at this school?

One of the areas that is vacant –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the vacant positions is in the Grade 4 area and we know that 88 per cent of the Grade IV students were performing at a (inaudible) rate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the issue of teacher staffing throughout the Province is a challenge in many places. Specific to the allocation of guidance counsellors, we have two significant challenges; one is the number of qualified and trained guidance counsellors available to us. A result of that is it is hard to fill positions, particularly in smaller communities. The member has already highlighted one of the initiatives that we have undertaken to try and at least address some of the burden. We are flying itinerant counsellors in and that is not the ideal, it absolutely is not. It is happening in other parts of the Province as well, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things we have done is we have also offered bonuses to teachers to try and fill the positions. The specifics of the positions that have been named I cannot respond to because staffing of schools, as the member would know, is the responsibility of school boards, not the Department of Education. What I can say –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his response.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say that we have responded to the best of our ability when we have been asked to by school boards to support them in their efforts to recruit trained personnel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Realizing that there have been some efforts made on behalf of the government but realizing as well that there are many improvements that still could be initiated, I ask the minister today: If he is prepared to commit to implementing a monitoring process that will determine what the effectiveness is or have been of the new investments in units in that school and if he is prepared to put in place a plan to address the other issues that are outstanding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let's define what some efforts entail, because the member tends to present a case here that we have done absolutely nothing or next to nothing to support the students in Nain.

We have addressed, first of all, the first and most significant issue raised to us which was the allocation of more teaching resources to that school. We have done that, Mr. Speaker. We provide training in FASD to the teachers who required it, Mr. Speaker. We have also introduced after school programming and a Homework Haven, Mr. Speaker to that community. We provide library night; we provide adult basic education Level I and II, Mr. Speaker, to residents of that community. All of that - those things are things that we have been asked to support and we have responded positively. So to stand here and say we have done some things, Mr. Speaker, is an injustice to the actions that we have taken as a government and the school board has taken to try and provide support to the students of Nain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister has not answered the questions so I will try to phrase it a little bit differently. In light of the fact that there are still issues in this school, that there are still individuals who work and live in this community who feel that the improvements have not been enough and that there are still significant issues that exist there, I ask the minister: Is he prepared to do an evaluation to look at how effective the investments have been, and what is required in order to move forward?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we do evaluations of all of our schools on an ongoing basis. We evaluate through academic programs, through things like the public exam results, through criterion reference testing results, Mr. Speaker. We monitor attendance rate, we monitor dropout rates and we monitor graduation rates. We will continue to do that with that school. If there are other initiatives that the school board would like us to become engaged with, with them, we will certainly consider that.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, for the member's benefit, that the statistics show us, over the last two years, the graduation rates have improved in that school, the attendance rates have improved and the percent of students absent from school has dropped.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to provide the supports, as we are asked to provide by the school board, recognizing that it is the local school working with the school board who helps to set their own localized priorities; we work with them to support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The doctorate program in clinical psychology currently being offered at Memorial University is designed to provide comprehensive high level training in the practice of clinical psychology. The graduate program, Mr. Speaker, is helping to address the need of clinical psychologists not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but across Canada. Students enrolled in the program have been assured that they will be able to complete the program; however, there is a growing concern that funding will not be in place for future students to enrol.

I ask the minister today: Is government willing to commit the necessary funding to ensure that this program will continue into the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the member opposite for praising the programs that we are offering at Memorial University. We, on this side of the House, everyday talk about proud we are of Memorial and the kinds of programs that we are able to offer. Indeed, the one that she has referenced today is a good program, it is a strong program and it is certainly recognized across the country as one that is needed, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to budget commitments, I am not in a position to make a budget commitment today. I can only say to the member opposite that the decision on program offerings is one of Memorial's. They are autonomous; they make their own academic choices about programming. We are engaged in discussions with them, and we will continue to be engaged in discussions over the coming weeks and months relative to their budget priorities. We work with them based on their priorities, Mr. Speaker. I do not sit here and make the priorities on program offerings for Memorial. I can say that there is absolutely, absolutely no plan to eliminate that program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, they did not mind intervening to select a president a couple of years ago, but they have a huge problem to intervene to save an important program at our university that is desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this, many of the people in this program realized that the application for applying for the next season is on February 1, and if there is no assurance from the Province for money to continue with this program, it could very well be cancelled. The minister knows that the university, in order for them to fund this program, they will have to cut another program.

I ask you, Minister: In the absence of coming forward with the funding to allow this program to continue, what would you suggest they cut at our university?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

It is getting really hard to stand in the House and listen to the member opposite continue to praise the initiatives of our government, and I thank her for it, because she just referenced the latest initiative, which was the securing of a new president for Memorial. We could not be happier; we have a top-notch candidate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: We have a top-notch candidate, Mr. Speaker, who is going to take Memorial from where it is today and is going to lead it into the future and help it grow and become a vital part of our Province as it continues to be. So I thank the member opposite for pointing that out for the House and for everybody listening that they support that as well, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the question on the program at Memorial, Mr. Speaker, I can only say it is a shame that the member would stand up, opposite here, and cast fear and doubt out through the public airwaves to students to suggest that the program might disappear when, in fact, Memorial has made public statement that they have no plans whatsoever to cancel that program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the University of New Brunswick is quite happy today too, I say to the minister. We have a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian running the university over in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, in Dr. Campbell.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University is renowned for being one of the best universities in the country; there is no doubt about that. Programs, such as this one, is currently the only one of its kind in English speaking Canada and it is attracting new students to our university and to our Province. Mr. Speaker, you combine that with the fact that there about 200 people in Newfoundland and Labrador on the wait-list today to see clinical psychologists. When you look at that kind of information I think it should be a priority for the government to continue funding this particular program -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I ask the minister today: Instead of putting the university through the search of trying to find the revenues within their budget to continue with this program, why don't you and your government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question, I ask that she pose it now.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat the question again because I was almost finished it. In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that there are forty-five seconds allotted here in the House to ask a question and forty-five seconds to ask one. The present member has been one minute and twenty-six seconds.

The hon. the Minister of Education or I ask the member to pose another question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am suspecting you will not give me the same minute and forty-five, but I will try to restrict my response. I did not hear a question, so I am not going to call it an answer.

I will say that as happy as the University of New Brunswick might be, we are just as happy here in Newfoundland and Labrador with the candidate that we have secured.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: We are quite proud of the candidate we have secured, Mr. Speaker, and we are quite happy with the direction that we see Memorial going in. We are proud to be a supporter of that, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of investments we continue to make in post-secondary education in this Province.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, because I have said this twice already, it is a shame that a member would stand opposite in this House, in the public airwaves and to suggest to students who are out there nervous about a program that they might lose it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday past the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the application of Darlene Neville, in her capacity as Child and Youth Advocate, to address the House of Assembly in regard to her suspension.

I ask the minister: Can government now confirm whether they will be bringing a resolution calling for her removal from office to the House during this session?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I believe there were two actions taken by Ms Neville in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland last week. The first was the one that the hon. member refers to and that was dismissed. There was another action that, I believe, continued or has been set over until such time in January. The government will be bringing forward, before the end of this session, a resolution with respect to Ms Neville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, after the same court, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, denied Fraser March's application to be heard by the House of Assembly government gave Mr. March an opportunity to present his case to retired Justice John O'Neill in an independent review, which is currently underway. This was all after a resolution for his dismissal had been passed here in the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: Would government be prepared, in the case of Ms Neville, to permit a similar independent review by a retired judge prior to the resolution coming to the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the current Minister of Health and the former Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stated when Ms Neville was originally suspended by government that she would have an opportunity to state her case to Cabinet before any resolution was brought to the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: Will this opportunity to address Cabinet still be afforded to Ms Neville, and if so, when; or would an independent review be more appropriate, as then there would be no denial of natural justice to Ms Neville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as he indicated earlier, government's intentions with respect to Ms Neville will be dealt with in a resolution or in a matter that will be brought before the House of Assembly prior to the end of the session.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the deadline for government's oil tank registration program was reached in July, 2009. It became illegal for homeowners to operate unregistered tanks. Within weeks of the deadline passing, government realized it would have no choice but to create an emergency program to assist some 5,000 low-income homeowners who are not in compliance as well as establish new deadlines for oil tank registrations, more so for the people along the Coast of Labrador communities due to human resource difficulties.

I ask the minister: Why were these income, geographic and human resource obstacles not identified by your department prior to the approach of the deadline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify one point by the Opposition member. The deadline is May of 2010, provided you have an appointment to get your oil tank updated. That is for everybody in the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government has spent millions of dollars developing poverty reduction strategies and Northern strategic plans to ensure cross-departmental awareness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your protection because I might read the same question twice. I am known to do that before.

However, Mr. Speaker, the way in which this oil tank registration program was rolled out this summer shows to me that these documents look better in theory than in practice.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Can you confirm that this program ran out of money to meet the high demand for the $300 oil tank replacement assistance subsidy for residents as early as October, and how many people are still owed money through the Department of Finance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will be happy to seek the information, as the hon. member has asked, and give him an answer tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the Premier said that his government would develop anti-scab legislation. Mr. Speaker, the governments of B.C. and Quebec already have anti-scab legislation in place and if the Premier really wanted anti-scab legislation, then we could have it too. Mr. Speaker, if the government really cares about the benefits to the people of the Province from resource development, then they should also care about benefits to the workers who are the backbone of that development, such as the workers at the Voisey's Bay nickel mine.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will his government bring forth anti-scab legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To be clear, it has been two years since we have agreed to do that review and we have been actively engaged in that review.

I would like to remind the member opposite that there are three parties engaged in that review: it is business, it is labour and it is government. We are very concerned about modernizing our labour legislation; there is no question about that. I believe that all three parties are concerned about that. I am assuming that you have asked that question to labour and that you have asked that question to business as well because this is a tripartite committee and we are all working on that process. I would be happy to bring forward any amendments, any legislation once that review is completed and once they offer up those amendments to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the striking workers at Voisey's Bay are entering their fifth month on the picket line. Vale Inco is using scab labour which puts a great deal of stress on the situation and on other workers on the site. Such action by the employer has the potential to create an unsafe work environment. For two years the government has been giving the answer that the minister just gave.

I am asking, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will recognize the urgency of tabling anti-replacement worker legislation or is she happy with the current situation Newfoundland and Labrador workers are facing in Voisey's Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Again, as a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Bringing in anti-scab or anti-worker replacement legislation is not going to solve the strike at Voisey's Bay. There are many issues at the heart of that particular problem and my Labour Relations Agency is at the ready. We are willing to sit down at any time to try to find a successful resolution to the problem at Voisey's Bay. Many, many issues at stake there; conciliation people ready to go, we simply need the opportunity to sit down with them.

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.

My concern is not just for this strike but for other strikes that have happened in the past and strikes that might come. We have had, Mr. Speaker, at least three strikes in particular in Labrador where scab workers have been brought in and we have had others here in the Province, one in St. John's in particular that ended in April, 2008 after eight months of workers being on strike.

My question for the minister is - I will answer her first, yes, I have spoken to other groups. I would like to know the details of how anti-scab legislation is being dealt with within the current review of the labour regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little consensus, actually, about the success relationship between banning anti-replacement workers and successful resolution of strikes. There is very little consensus on that.

I should point out that there are only two jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, two jurisdictions in North America that have anti-scab legislation. So, the jury is not out on that. I think it is very clear that that is not an option at this particular point in time, but in terms of the details, all three parties are working. When they bring something forward to me I will be more than happy to share that with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act. (Bill 56)

I give further notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 53)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give that notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Implement Labour Mobility. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS rural and regional economic development has consistently been among our government's highest priorities since 2003; and

WHEREAS our government since 2003 has consistently demonstrated its commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador by implementing a wide range of strategic policies promoting infrastructure, natural resource development, value-added production, diversification, education, innovation, investment, entrepreneurial initiatives, business success, family growth, youth retention and attraction and a reliable social support network; and

WHEREAS in addition to ensuring our rural communities benefit from these initiatives the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development has established funds dedicated exclusively to rural development totalling $25 million a year and 80 per cent of the department's total funding in all of its program benefits rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms its support for the determination of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue promoting the growth, prosperity and sustainability of our rural and regional communities.

That resolution is seconded by the hon. Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of students at the university who are enrolled in the clinical psychology program.

Mr. Speaker, these students are extremely, extremely disappointed and concerned that there has not been any continued commitment to funding for this program and they have been making an appeal to the university and also to the Minister of Education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they did send a letter to him just recently outlining a number of concerns that they had, and I guess two in particular. One was with regard to the number of students who currently come out of the undergrad program and want to go in to pursue their graduate studies in clinical psychology at Memorial University being one of the only English Canadian universities in the country to be offering this particular program. Mr. Speaker, they are concerned that there is not a commitment beyond those who will graduate this year. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, they have also expressed concern that if the program does not continue, that it may not receive the accreditation that it needs from the Canadian Psychological Association. If that does not happen, if the accreditation does not happen, then obviously there are some concerns about how long it will take them to have their credentials reviewed under the regulatory body process, and therefore become licensed.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are very legitimate concerns, and these are concerns by people who are currently in the program. They are awaiting a response from the minister on those particular issues, which they have not received to date. However, Mr. Speaker, there is drastic concern by the entire university and the undergrad program in psychology that this program may not continue. Now, today in the House of Assembly I did have the opportunity to question the minister on what their commitment would be to the long-term funding of this program. Unfortunately, he has not given an answer or a commitment. That is unfortunate, because the registration for the program is on February 1, 2010, which is in advance of the Budget coming down from government. So, Mr. Speaker, these individuals and people in the Province who seek higher education in this field of study are looking for a commitment that the program would continue.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has also said that it is the prerogative of the university. While we certainly understand that, that it is the university and their board that decide what programs and fields of study that are implemented in every calendar year and carried forward in the university, we also realize that they can only add when they have the financial resources to do so. In the absence of the government committing to extra money to the university to be able to do this, they would have to find that money within their existing budget. In order to find it within their existing budget, it means that they would have to have savings in one area or another. Those savings, whether they come in the form of cutting a program or cutting a service, in most cases, Mr. Speaker, it would come from a cut of one form or another. Mr. Speaker, I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a minute to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly make an appeal to the minister on behalf of these individuals and on behalf of our university that is carrying forward a program which is not offered anywhere else in the country and has certainly become renowned for this kind of program delivery, that he would consider making the commitment prior to the Budget, to allow this program to continue as part of the regular curriculum of our university.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I take this opportunity to present my seventieth petition on behalf of the residents of South Western Newfoundland concerning the dialysis needs that exist in that particular region, from Rose Blanche, Port aux Basques, Codroy Valley and so on. As outlined earlier, the numbers vary. They vary from year to year, of course, depending upon how many people require treatment. Some people unfortunately do not live long enough to get continued treatment. Their health deteriorates and they do, in fact, pass away. So the numbers are always variable.

The current Minister of Health is certainly clued into the need. In fact, I have had some discussions with him in regard to one particular case of hardship where a person had some questions, and hats off to the minister. In fact, he has done his level best to respond. In fact, we could not even get the information we needed from Western Health, but thanks to his intervention, that information was provided. There is also some information that that individual in question, the specific individual, asked about training, that it might be possible to do home dialysis. The minister has undertaken to check into that. I realize he is quite busy, of course, with H1N1 and everything else that is going on in the health care system. Trying to deal with a specific need is not always easy, but he has certainly undertaken it and he has proven himself to be doing that. So we look forward to that information.

We realize as well that it is beyond fair to say that this government has not done anything for dialysis services in this Province. In fact, in the last number of years there has been dialysis put down on the Grand Bank, dialysis in Carbonear, dialysis services in St. Anthony. The issue we are putting forward here, of course, is that we just have not gone far enough and hopefully government will be able to find the resources so that we can do it for the people in the South Western region. We have a particularly treacherous area they have to travel through.

The three issues that come up in dialysis, or course, are: Where will you do it? We can do that in Port aux Basques. Do you have the people trained to do it? The staff there have undertaken to get trained to do it on their own time because they want to see the service available in that institution in Port aux Basques and LeGrow. The other, of course, is the cost of equipment. The people of that region have undertaken to raise the funds to get the equipment to put into the hospital. So those two big issues are removed. The third one, of course, is the operational cost on an ongoing basis. Hopefully, government and the minister will be successful in their Budget deliberations this year, and hopefully if we have the equipment looked after, if we have the training looked after - which, as I say, can easily be addressed - the ongoing operational cost, if we identify those, hopefully the minister will be able to find them in his Budget this year or convince his Cabinet colleagues that it can be made available. I guess he has to talk to the Minister of Finance on that issue as well.

Government, as I say, has gone some distance, but hopefully the people in that particular region can be attended to. I am not aware of any other region in this Province right now that has the population basis which has the need that is not being addressed. Hopefully, that can be eradicated in the very near future.

I call upon government, again, to give that its serious consideration and hopefully the funding can be made available to do that in the budget of 2010.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Condominiums, Bill 48, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Condominiums, Bill 48, and that Bill 48 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 48 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 Condominiums", carried. (Bill 48)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Condominiums. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 48 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 48 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 to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Public Accountants, Bill 49, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has asked leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Public Accountants, Bill 49, and that Bill 49 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 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 Public Accountants", carried. (Bill 49)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 49 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 49 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 to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, Bill 50, 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 Government House Leader shall ask leave to introduce, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, Bill 50, and that Bill 50 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50 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 Petroleum Products Act", carried. (Bill 50)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 50 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 50 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 to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, Bill 51, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has asked leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City of St. John's Act, Bill 51, and that Bill 51 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 51 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 Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act", carried. (Bill 51)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 51)

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

When shall Bill 51 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 51 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 to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 52, 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 Government House Leader shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 52, and that Bill 52 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52 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 Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999", carried. (Bill 52)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 52)

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

When shall Bill 52 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008". (Bill 44)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly move, seconded by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, be now read a second time.

This act was first passed in the House of Assembly in December of 2008. Certainly under the statute, it complies with the requirements set out in the White Paper entitled: responses to challenging times, new proposals for occupational regulation. Certainly, that act, when it was passed in the House of Assembly enabled this particular profession to self-regulate itself, and to govern its own activities.

Also, under that act, I might say that the public interest was protected through the legislation, because under the regulations it required that the association of engineers and geoscientists to file annual reports and establish improved disciplinary process and appoint lay people to their boards under my direction, as the Minister of Government Services. The structure also laid out a clean separation of the regulation of this profession to protect the public interest, or consumers of these services, and members' interests as well.

In regard to the act itself, on review of the act and with some consultation with the association itself, a couple of amendments are needed. One was certainly an oversight on our part in the way we mirrored the legislation after other self-regulating bodies that it actually did not fit. The other one is much the same thing, other than it lies within the regulations itself, but can be interpreted as completely different when you read the section in the act itself.

The first amendment that we need – and it all comprises around the formation of committees is what it is. Those committees are a very part of the function of the particular association, and in regard to protecting the public interest. Under the current act, and under the bylaws section, it requires that all committees established under the act, to carry out the functions of the act, must be comprised of members of the board. This was not the practice of the association in the past, nor did they support this directive as the expertise for certain committees may not very well lie within the board itself. So they have to go outside the board. When we had a close look at that bylaw section, section 9(1)(b), which was incorrectly mirrored on the bylaw section, I believe, of the Chartered Accountants Act, which was drafted much at the same time.

So we at Government Services, my staff, reviewed the act. We see that it was a drafting error and that the wording of this section should have been consistent with the statutes or other self-regulating professions, such as the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act or the Certified General Accountants Act or the Architects Act. So on oversight, we have to change this in regard to allowing the association itself to go outside their membership to form committees and draw on expertise with regard to the issues at hand from people who are not currently a part of that association and a part of that profession.

The other piece is a second amendment dealing with an inconsistency as well in section 38(1)(c). I will not read it all, it is quite lengthy, but what happened is that when you look at the wording it could be interpreted one way or another to mean that only members of the board can complete the regulatory functions of the actual association itself. Again, the wording has to change. It is inconsistent between the act and the regulations. The association does not support the advancing of this direction as the expertise again for certain committees may not exist on the board itself. So that makes all the sense in the world to me as the minister responsible. It is consistent with other self-governing bodies as well. As I mentioned before, chartered accountants and the embalmers profession, et cetera. They have to be able to go out and draw down on the expertise that is outside of their own profession. That will give more consistency and more strength in regard to their self-regulation and their self-governing and also to the protection of the consumers and the general public at large.

With that Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and welcome any remarks by my hon. members across the House in regard to this act. I hope that they will support it because it was a request by the association itself that was brought to our attention and certainly recognized by me as the minister and my staff as a necessary amendment or two amendments to the original act in 2008.

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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand with regard to Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008. As the minister stated, this bill, this piece of legislation was brought forward in the last fall session. As he stated very clearly, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, those are the people who came forward with those two amendments. As the minister stated, it is more or less a bit of bookkeeping to bring the piece of legislation up to standard as other professionals.

With regard to the section that the minister mentioned 9(1)(b); really what it says in the old act that was put forward, "the appointment of committees of the members of the board comprising representatives of elected and appointed members and the duties and responsibilities of those committees and the delegation of some or all of the board's powers to them". Whereas that will be deleted now and the following will be substituted, where it says under (b), "the appointment of committees and the duties and responsibilities of those committees." As the minister stated, those two pieces of changes to the act has to do with the formation of committees and how they are governed.

The second, "Paragraph 38(1)(c) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted…" and the wording is almost identical, apart from one word within it. Under (c) it says, "governing the evaluation by the board, or a committee appointed by the board…" and the only change in that part of the act, (1)(c) is the word "appointed" being added to the wording from the old piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, knowing that it came forward from the association itself - we stood in our place when the bill came forward and supported it because this piece of legislation was brought forward so that it would be in formation with all the other professionals and so on. The minister named them, the accountants and so on.

We have no problems with this piece of legislation and the two amendments, Mr. Speaker. I just want to thank the minister for the opportunity to be able to stand and yes, we will be supporting the amendments to Bill 44.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly I would like to close debate. I will recognize the comments of my hon. member of the House. I compliment him on his knowledge of the act itself and the necessary amendments thereof. Yes, and he just mentioned in one regard, one of the amendments is only one change, one word and one word only. There is a lot of difference between one word and another word when it comes to self-governing and the meaning and the interpretation of that particular section of the act itself. This might seem like a bit of housekeeping or whatnot but it is very important to the association itself in regard to them being able to carry out their affairs on an ongoing basis.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and all said, I will take my seat in the House. If there are any other comments I will certainly welcome them in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008. (Bill 44)

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

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 44)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole 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 (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2". (Bill 38)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 22 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 22 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 22 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009". (Bill 42)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Bill 43, An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act". (Bill 43)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008". (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act". (Bill 45)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45, and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bills 38, 42, 43, 44 and 45 ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Address in Reply.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to have a few words through the Address in Reply section here today.

I want to first of all start out by congratulating the two new members that just recently came through the by-elections. The hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North, I want to welcome him to the House, as well as my colleague here for Terra Nova who is not quite with us in the House yet, but I understand will be within a few days. I want to congratulate both members for their election victory. I know it was hard fought in both cases. Having gone through a couple of those myself, I know the kind of pressures that they go through and the challenges and the stresses and everything else. I am sure it was a lot of fun as well.

I am sure that both of them, like many of us here, will enjoy their opportunity to be here in the House and to participate in public debate and to make sure that they represent the views of their constituents and play a hand, Mr. Speaker, in the future policy development for the Province and policy, hopefully, that will affect the lot in life for many of their constituents. First of all, I want to say congratulations to both members and wish them all the best for future success.

I want to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, just to talk a little bit about my own district, the District of Grand Bank then I think probably I will make a few comments relative to my portfolio in education. Certainly, the budget, this past budget like the one before, has been very, very beneficial to my district and to my communities. It is only this past Thursday night, as a matter of fact, I met with representatives of the municipal councils that I represent and we had an opportunity, as we do twice a year for a round-table discussion, an opportunity for municipal leaders to share items of concern to them, things that are more generic, Mr. Speaker, that is spread across the district, things that would be of concern to all municipalities perhaps and a chance to, in some ways, make some decisions on how they might like to work with me to address their issues. It was a very, very good discussion, very productive. It is the third one that we have done now and I must say very enjoyable.

The message, Mr. Speaker, I am receiving from my municipal leaders is very strong in support of government's investment on the municipal side, in particular, the municipal infrastructure program. In my particular district, all of my communities have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to avail of the ninety-ten cost-share program. It has certainly been very well received and certainly has made some tremendous impact on many of my communities. We have seen any range of things from new rescue vehicles to fire and emergency services, to investment in municipal infrastructure, water and sewer, new water lines, upgrading of sewer, roadwork and paving. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think that my councillors are very appreciative of what they have been able to achieve working collaboratively with government, and very excited about the prospects of the new budget and what it might have available in it for their municipality.

As well, of course, in addition to the municipal issues that are raised councillors are very, very pleased with the roadwork that we have invested in, and on two fronts, Mr. Speaker. One is the actual investment in our particular district around what my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and I tend to call the Loop in my district. We have invested about $6 million I think over the last two years with a combination of culvert work and drainage, as well as guardrail work and, of course, just pure roadwork and paving. It has been a successful investment so far. We have discussed it at the municipal round table on a number of occasions and I have sought input from my municipal leaders as to what they felt the priorities ought to be.

There has been clear consensus, Mr. Speaker, that they want to focus on the main roads, the trunk roads in the district, those roads where it is essential that we have safe for school buses that transport our children on a daily basis. The same roads that many people on the Burin Peninsula travel back and forth to Marystown in particular, or Burin to the fish plants and the shipyard commuters, that we have good highway conditions for them. Of course, the Burin Peninsula is renown as a fishing part of the Province. So there continues to be trucks travelling all parts around the Grand Bank side and the St. Lawrence side.

It has been a very well-received investment in the main trunk roads. Of course, this year as well we have been fortunate enough, the Minister of Fisheries and our colleague, the MHA for Bellevue and myself working together to get some much needed improvements done to the main Burin Peninsula Highway. Certainly, people are appreciative of that, recognizing that it is only a start and there is more work left to do. It has been well-received and I have gotten very good feedback on it.

In the broader context, in my district over the last year or so I think the other issue that people are happy with is the investment in health care. We now have the new Grand Bank health care facility. The facility is fully operational, open and up and running. The previous Minister of Health was down and we did the opening. It was a great event and certainly an enhancement of the services to all those who use that particular facility.

We have also finished, I think almost 100 per cent, the renovations to the Blue Crest Nursing Home in Grand Bank. That is a project, I think, probably worth somewhere in the area of $14 million; a great investment for residents on the Peninsula.

On the St. Lawrence side, of course, our government reopened ten beds that had been closed for many, many years there. The main Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre, we have invested in dialysis equipment and we have invested in CAT scan equipment just to name a few. That one, Mr. Speaker, is a significant investment because the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre serves the entire region, the entire Burin Peninsula. Every single dollar that we spend in there goes to benefit every single resident on the Burin Peninsula. I am very proud of that. I am very proud as well, Mr. Speaker, of the many volunteers who take the opportunity to work on behalf of the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre to fundraise and becoming all kinds of charity events, like yesterday the Happy Tree fundraiser on the Peninsula and so on.

It is certainly an investment that is well-deserved and we are being recognized on the Peninsula as having done a good job in doing that. We recognize, of course, there is more work to be done. The Minister of Fisheries, my colleague, the MHA for Placentia West, and I, and the MHA for Bellevue have had discussions with health officials around trying to extend the dialysis service on the Peninsula. We know it is much needed and we will continue to advocate for that and continue to make the minister aware. Hopefully, in the near future we might be able to see some success there and have the service extended so that more clients who need the dialysis service can actually avail of it there on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments from my portfolio, the Department of Education, because it has been a good year in education, a good couple of years as a matter of fact. The first thing I want to touch on is our student aid package and debt reduction initiatives. It was only maybe three or four weeks ago that I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours or so with student leaders from across the Province. They were gathered in here for a student leadership conference with leaders from the Canadian Federation of Students who had organized the event. They had secured a facility and they had organized an itinerary of events and activities to engage students in, guest speakers were provided.

It was really an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for leaders from across the Province, leaders at the post-secondary level, Memorial and Grenfell and our college system to come together and have a talk about items that affect their life. Items of concern that they might have that affect them directly or indirectly through the public post-secondary system. I had the opportunity to join them for a period of time and I have to say it was just so refreshing to hear what the students had to say. Clearly, one of the things they highlighted as being a significant success story, from their perspective, is the kind of investment that our government has made in order to reform student aid initiatives and the student aid package that we have available.

Just to remind people, Mr. Speaker, I spoke a little earlier today in the House by way of a member's statement around the increase in the grants program that we currently have. This past year we increased for students who borrow, up to a $140 per week, Mr. Speaker. For those who borrow up to $140 per week to further their studies, we now provide $80 of that in free money that they do not have to pay back; pure grant outright. That has seen a steady increase, Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of years in particular. As we bring the grant money up, the $80 goes up. The amount they have to borrow is now down to $60. It continues to decrease, and we have been very pleased with that. As well, Mr. Speaker, another big initiative for us has been the elimination of the interest on the provincial portion of student loans. Clearly, all the students I talk to see that as a wonderful initiative, as a great program and one that certainly is leading the country right now.

As I said a few moments ago here in the House, right now we have the lowest tuition, lowest post-secondary tuition in the entire country, with one exception, Mr. Speaker, and that exception is for the Province of Quebec. The caveat is that, that is for Quebec residents only. So if you are a non-Quebec resident and you want to pursue post-secondary studies in Quebec you pay a much higher tuition. On par comparing apples to apples, Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest tuition in the entire country, with that one exception, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of that as a government, very proud of it. It demonstrates first of all our commitment to education and it is a commitment that we have made and the Premier has made right early in our mandate, that we recognize the value of education to the future growth and the future development of the Province. We recognize the value of education to the economic development of the Province and to the personal and professional growth of students. So we are certainly very, very committed to continuing to work with our students at the post-secondary level.

I have had ongoing discussions, Mr. Speaker, with students there about the kinds of things they would like us to consider for this particular budget. The kinds of investments they would like for us to consider, but overwhelmingly, Mr. Speaker, the message has been one of praise and very positive. Students feel that the kinds of investments we are making in the debt reduction initiatives in particular are the kinds of investments that they would like to see. So I am very pleased to talk for a few moments about that today.

As well, I just of course want to touch a little bit on the K-12 system, as we have had some significant investment in a number of areas. In the last couple of years in particular, of course, we have made significant investments on the infrastructure side. I am discussing the construction of new schools as well as the increase in the maintenance and renovation budget to help us deal with things like air quality, for example, Mr. Speaker.

This year alone, our budget was more than $121 million, Mr. Speaker - more than $121 million. As I said, not only new schools, but that includes things like my colleagues opposite asked me a few days ago, air quality, Mr. Speaker. As I have said here many times, we recognize the importance of air quality in schools and that is why we are investing, for example, in fixing leaky roofs, and fixing leaky windows with new windows, siding and new roofs because that is where one of the problems on air quality is created. When water infiltrates the building, it can lead to the growth of mould. We recognize that, Mr. Speaker, and we are investing in that to fix that problem.

We are also investing in many other things, Mr. Speaker, that often get overlooked, many things that get overlooked, but are also contributors to air quality problems. Things, for example, like chalkboards and chalk dust in classrooms, Mr. Speaker. We are eliminating chalkboards. We are removing them and replacing them with whiteboards. Carpet in classrooms, Mr. Speaker, carpet picks up dust and all kinds of other things that can lead to bad air quality; we are removing carpets.

Those are just but two items, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the core infrastructure that we are investing in because we recognize the importance of having good air quality in schools and will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of questions I just want to speak to for a couple of minutes. There has been a number of questions over the past several days here in the House from members opposite with respect to education. I often find it troubling when you have to sit in the House here and you listen to a question that, in many instances, is lacking in totally accurate information, Mr. Speaker, if I might say it that way. I will rephrase from what I said last week, but sometimes members do not have all of the information required when they stand in the House here and they ask questions. It is a little frustrating, as a minister, when you try and stand up and answer a question that you know for the first part is not based solely on 100 per cent information; there is some information missing.

One today, for example, the PHD program at MUN comes to mind. On three or four separate occasions the member opposite raised a question, and I answered the question multiple times. It has been clearly stated on the public record by officials from Memorial University, and it has been clearly stated here in the House, at least twice today by me, that there are no discussions ongoing right now to cancel, or to postpone, or to do away with a PHD program in psychology at Memorial University. That just does not exist, Mr. Speaker; it does not exist.

I said that twice today and the member opposite continued in the line of questioning. To my mind, all it does is it creates negatively and it creates fear amongst people when it need not happen. I understand, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, very clearly, that students have written me a letter. I received a letter on Thursday. I am going to respond to the letter. I understand that there may be some anxiousness amongst students about this particular program. I absolutely do understand that. I will respond, as Memorial University has done, and what the university has said, as far as I know, on public record, is they have said that clearly that program like any other program requires a financial commitment in order for it to continue. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not take rocket science to figure that out; we all understand that.

What I have said here today, very clearly, is that to continue to support that program will be a decision of Memorial University and them alone. This government will not speak to Memorial and dictate the programs that they offer or do not offer. That is not our role. Their role is to decide what programs they offer, and it is their role and their responsibility to engage with us in the budgetary process as they have done so many times before - every single year, as a matter of fact. Even between the pre-budget consultations, Mr. Speaker, we engage in those discussions with the university as we do with other entities that require this government's financial support for their budget, and we will continue to do that.

As I have said before, there has been no indication whatsoever from anyone that the program is in jeopardy. It is frustrating sometimes here in the House when a member raises the point and continues to raise the point over and over and over, even when the answer has been given on this side three or four times over and over and over, Mr. Speaker.

The other point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and I realize I am getting short on time here. The other point I want to make is with respect to the Nain report, Mr. Speaker. That has come up a number of occasions in the House. Thursday was the first opportunity that I had to speak a little to it. I got a little sidetracked, I recognize that, but I have another opportunity to speak to that today.

Again, Mr. Speaker, a member opposite stands and portrays a picture that is only half correct; maybe that is the best way to put it. I made a statement in the House that suggested a little too directly that there were some inaccuracies in the way the question was phrased on Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: I said it a little differently than that, I recognize that I ought not to have and I corrected that.

Mr. Speaker, what I said on Thursday was verified in the media by the author of the report on Friday in an interview with CBC. I made two statements. To paraphrase myself a little bit, I said that the report was not commissioned by government and I said that the report was intended as an advocacy report by the author to try and secure resources for the school. That, Mr. Speaker, was not meant to diminish the importance of the report. It was said as a matter of fact to clarify, for the record, here in this House how that report came about.

Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, it was not received well by the author of the question; I submit that.

Lo and behold, on Friday, the author of the report was interviewed with CBC and the author of the report says a number of things; let me share those with you. First of all, the report as it is called was actually intended to be a brief for officials, it was never intended to go to the ministerial level, number one. Number two, he confirmed that it was his writing and not a report commissioned by government, which I said. Number three, Mr. Speaker, which I said in my reply in the House, the author confirmed that the report in actual fact was intended for one sole purpose, to get more teaching units for the school, which is exactly what I said in the House, Mr. Speaker, even though it was refuted.

If you sense my frustration in answering those questions on Thursday, that is why, Mr. Speaker. The accurate information does not always come forward.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to acknowledge, as I have done many times today and Thursday, that we understand the seriousness of the issues raised; we do. We have responded and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the response occurred even before it came to the ministerial level. Officials in the department worked with the school board to provide a response to many of the issues identified.

We are very pleased with that and we want people to understand that, just, Mr. Speaker, like we would do for any school in the Province. If they are looking for support from the Department of Education, from the minister or from government for any particular issues that might not be normal and fall outside of the normal scope of operations for a school district or for a school, absolutely, we will be there to assist and to do what we can. We do that on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker. That is how we operate; that is why we are here because we want to provide some leadership and some guidance and some support to school boards in the Province to make sure that we are offering quality education in every school in every part of the Province.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, as was alluded to earlier today as well, that there are challenges around that. We are not able to do every single day in every single school -

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. KING: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Just a couple of more minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members opposite for your leave.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we recognize there are challenges out there and we recognize, as I am sure all members do whether they want to admit it or not, that we cannot provide all of the same kinds of services in every single part of this Province. It just cannot be done.

Human resources continue to be a challenge for us. We have made steps in focusing on the recruitment of qualified professionals. We have worked with school districts who have implemented things like signing bonuses and other measures to try and attract employees to schools. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be challenged in that area. We recognize that. People need to understand that as long as there is a challenge there this government and the Department of Education will be there to assist the school boards and do whatever we can to support their efforts and their initiatives, keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the focus on all of these discussions –

AN HON. MEMBER: We always do.

MR. KING: As we always have in the past, that's right. The focus always will be for us, the focus on the students and doing what is in the best interests of the students of this Province, and the students in the schools in particular that we are talking about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be able to stand and speak today to the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Education with great interest today and it is quite obvious that he has the same syndrome that the Premier has, and that is if you ask a question all of a sudden it is the attack. It either has to be about misinformation or the miscalculation of something. In fact, Mr. Speaker, maybe what the minister needs to do is start taking his job a little bit more seriously and stop looking at the political innuendos that he can shoot across the floor, and rather start doing something about these critical issues that are out there in the Province and facing children in our schools of which he is responsible for.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk today of being called unpatriotic or tried for treason before the next fifty-nine minutes are up, I will attempt to raise a number of issues in the House of Assembly that I feel warrant being raised. First of all, I am going to speak to the issue that was just raised around the clinical psychology program at the university. Mr. Speaker, no one said today that this program was going to be cancelled. In fact, the questions were around: Where is the money coming from? At any time within the university there is not a financial availability for the university to move forward with a program or a curriculum, they have to come to government to find the necessary resources. Mr. Speaker, they are coming to government to find the necessary resources and that is a simple request that is being made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one would think that when you look at the number of issues that we have around psychology in the Province, first of all, retaining people to work in the field. Secondly, we have a two-year wait list in this Province of people looking to see psychologists in the field that they work in, and we are the only university in the country that offers an English speaking program like this. Are there any other reasons why the Minister of Education would need to promptly move forward with a commitment to the university that this program would stay and the cost of it would be incurred by the government if the resources are not found within their own university financial budgets? Well, Mr. Speaker, a very good question but one that we certainly have not received any answer to.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he talks about the situation in Nain and the report that was released last week talking about the issues in the school of Nain. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and I listened to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs who really tried to turn this into emotional issues, an exploitation of Inuit children. That was so disgusting, Mr. Speaker, coming from leaders within the government; ministers who are supposed to lead by example.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Ministers who are supposed to take information, critical of a nature such as this, and move forward with solutions. In fact, what we seen was the complete opposite. What I saw was nothing only emotional babble, that was serving no purpose in finding solutions for the children in these schools. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not one person in this House of Assembly who would not find good in every school in this Province, and Nain being no exception. There are very bright children in this school. As I said earlier in my comments, I had met most of them, Mr. Speaker. They have been very successful, especially in areas of recreation and theatre. I have had the opportunity to meet many of them who have been involved in those particular programs. It does not take away from the fact that government has a responsibility, when information is provided to them to act on that information.

Mr. Speaker, whether the information came to light as a result of a lobby group looking for more teaching units for their school or whether it came to light out of real concern for the fact that there were different incidents ongoing that needed to be dealt with is irrelevant. The reality is that the information came to light. The information indicated that two-thirds of the children in this school had been going through trauma and tragedy in their lives, that they were impacted by the many suicides that were in the community, but yet government, even if they say they did not have the report for three years, I think the minister said we only had it for a year. Well, even in a year, Mr. Speaker, when you are presented with that kind of information, why aren't you prepared to act on it immediately? Why was there no psychologist sent into this school to work with these children when that highlight was there? Why is it that government did not move forward to verify that this information was correct and conduct their own evaluation within the school? Neither of which happened.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was also outlined that 88 per cent of Grade 4 students in this school were performing at less than a basic level in the Grade 4 curriculum. Over 90 per cent of the students in Grade 5 were performing at less than the basic requirement within that curriculum. With those kinds of numbers, Mr. Speaker, you being the Minister of Education in this Province, being presented with that kind of information, why would you not move immediately to try and remedy that situation, to find out where the gaps were within the curriculum? What was the problem that these children are not learning, and what services needs to be provided to them to ensure that they do grow within the curriculum and they are able to do much better? We do not see those things happening. In fact, Mr. Speaker, still today there are vacancies for teaching units in that school, one of them at the Grade 4 level. Right now, they have an FAS teacher who is actually filling in and subsidizing in that school to those children. That is not acceptable and it is not good enough.

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister can exploit this however he wishes. The reality is that not enough has been done. In fact, why is he not prepared to follow up with an evaluation of the school at this stage to see how well those Grades 4s, 5s, and 6s are doing, to see where the dropout rate is in the school, to see where the attendance rate is today, to find out how many children are graduating, to look at how many of those children are still suffering from traumatizing and tragic experiences in their lives?

Mr. Speaker, why is he not prepared to do those things? Why is it acceptable to have a guidance counsellor in this school only three to four days out of every month, weather permitting? Why is that acceptable that a guidance counsellor should fly out of St. John's on a Monday and back on a Friday to service a school in Northern Labrador when the minister already knows the challenges that exist there? Why isn't there someone there full time providing for the needs of these children, providing stability for them in a learning environment?

Mr. Speaker, as a result of these challenges, there has been a lot of stress on the teachers in this school. Many of them who are overworked, many of them who have had to assume extreme amount of responsibility, when there should be other staffing provided to do just that for them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister really needs to get down off his high horse and start putting some of his knowledge to work here, and not trying to foster and develop his political skills in the House of Assembly – because this is much too important an issue to be political about. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have heard from him every time that he has spoken on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised; I am not surprised at all, because this government opposite never wants to be questioned. They never want to hear the comments of other people. One thing I have learned in making decisions and in leading, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, is that you should listen to people; you should listen to what they have to say. Whether you agree or disagree is not an area of relevance. Mr. Speaker, this is a government who never wants to listen. They do not want to listen to anyone. In fact, Mr. Speaker, not only do they not want to listen, they never want to answer for the decisions that they make.

What kind of a government never wants to answer for the decisions that they make? I will leave that wide open, Mr. Speaker. What I will say is this, last week in the House of Assembly we were debating a very important issue in this Province where the minister came out and the Premier and the head of the Nalcor corporation, who is also a part of CF(L)Co, saying that they were going to look at renegotiating clauses in the Upper Churchill contract. Clauses, Mr. Speaker, that they felt were founded in Quebec civil code that was amended in 1994, and they had an opportunity here to challenge Hydro-Quebec or challenge the Quebec government for what they called fairness, Mr. Speaker, in the Upper Churchill contract.

I have no problem with that; I have absolutely no problem with that. If there is a case there, present the case. If there is an opportunity to reopen the contract, reopen the contract, but does that mean that you cannot ask a question about it? That is what it means to the government opposite. That is exactly what it means. How dare you question anything I should say or do? How dare you? You are merely a living, breathing person in this Province. You have no right to question me, Mr. Speaker. You are becoming a traitor. You are betraying the people of the Province because you ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to have my patronage questioned by the government opposite when I raised issues in this Province. I am not, unfortunately, in a class all of my own, Mr. Speaker. I am not, unfortunately, claiming the title of being the only one that has been enduring the wrath of the Premier when you ask a question, Mr. Speaker. There are others out there who have had their patronage questioned in this Province, many others.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you look at the federal MPs in this Province back when the budget was being brought down by the Harper government a couple of years ago, there were some things in that budget that a lot of us did not like. Mr. Speaker, did anyone else in this Province question the patronage of the federal MPs? Did anyone else, Mr. Speaker, say they were traitors to the people of this Province other than the Premier? No. Did we agree with what they did? No. Do I think they are any less patriotic as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because I disagree with something that they happen to agree with? How ridiculous is that, Mr. Speaker? What kind of a leader is that, that has to prosecute, verbally, every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian that questions his opinions or views, or takes a position that is different?

Let's listen to Mark Griffin, Mr. Speaker. Mark Griffin is a young Newfoundlander and Labradorian – I suppose he is young – who lives in Grand Falls-Windsor, who, at the time when Abitibi closed down, felt the government did not do enough to save the Abitibi mill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, took great exception to the Premier's comments when he said he cannot wait to see the back of their heads when they walk out of this Province. Imagine, saying that to a company who is employing hundreds of people in this Province, hundreds of people in Grand Falls-Windsor and the only thing he can say, not negotiate, not try to get a deal, is to look at them and say: I will be happy when I see the back of your heads leaving this Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there was one lone soul in Grand Falls-Windsor who had some courage, who had enough courage to speak up and say I do not agree and I think that more could have been done, more could have been done by the government to save the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, that more could have been done, Mr. Speaker. He had the courage to speak up and say we should be getting some return on the hydro resource on the Exploits River. Something his member did not agree with him on, Mr. Speaker. Something his member totally disagrees with that the people of Grand Falls-Windsor should get a return on the revenue generated on the Exploits River. Something the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor disagrees with, Mr. Speaker. Something the Member for Exploits, Mr. Speaker, disagrees with. Because if they agreed with it, Mr. Speaker, the people in Grand Falls today would be getting a return on their resource on the Exploits River, but they have three members in the government, none of who agree with them. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I will get to that in a minute.

It is an issue, and I will tell you why. In the last municipal election in Grand Falls-Windsor -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - every single individual who campaigned in the election in Grand Falls-Windsor and was elected to the council made this their platform. Their platform was about getting greater return on the resources exploited by the government. That was the campaign of every single person in Grand Falls-Windsor that ran and was elected to council. The ones who did not get elected, Mr. Speaker, did not make that their campaign platform. They did not make that their campaign platform. Maybe that is why they never were elected. The ones who did get elected, Mr. Speaker, that was the hallmark of their campaign platform.

Mr. Speaker, I have quotes from every single one of them. Quotes from every single one of them that say that we should be getting more of a return. The people who do not agree is their Member for Grand Falls, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor and the Member for Exploits, Mr. Speaker, who feels that no, no you should not get any return form the expropriated resource on the Exploits River, Mr. Speaker, you should not get any return from that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, even in questioning in the House of Assembly they would not commit that they were prepared to give it to them. In questioning in the media, they were not prepared to commit that they were prepared to give it to them, Mr. Speaker. They have yet to deliver on it. So there you go.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my point, when Mark Griffin raised this issue in Grand Falls-Windsor, when Mark Griffin said that the government is selling us out, they are not allowing and they are not doing enough, Mr. Speaker, to save the mill and Grand Falls-Windsor and the Abitibi operation, guess what? Mark Griffin again was called a traitor, called a traitor. That makes five now, Mr. Speaker, five people who had a different opinion or asked a question of the Premier and they were dubbed to be a traitor.

So, Mr. Speaker, how dare you speak and how dare you ask questions? What is the problem with asking a question? What is the problem when the government comes out and has a big media campaign and says that we are going to look at reopening and renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract? A song and dance we have heard a hundred times. One we still hope exists, that there is some hope at the end of the tunnel, but when you ask them to provide you with the precedented cases, when you ask them to provide you with the legal views that they have, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, it is a whole different story. I do not have to answer any questions. I can say whatever I like. I can put whatever messages I like out there. I do not have to answer any questions. That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is the attitude. It is definitely not an attitude, Mr. Speaker, of responsibility, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, that will not deter us from continuing to ask the questions, especially on the Lower Churchill project. In fact, if you talk – they all like to talk about when the Upper Churchill was signed and the terrible injustice that was done to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Well, may I remind the members opposite that when the Upper Churchill deal was done there was no member in the Opposition who stood up and asked questions; there was no member in the Opposition of the day who challenged the government on any of their information. The Conservative Opposition of the day supported the deal. In fact, Mr. Speaker, took it to the streets with the government, talking about the wonderful deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Just like I am sure the government opposite will do if and when they ever get a deal on the Lower Churchill project. They will want everyone to support them. They will take it to the streets, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and they will want to rally around their deal. Mr. Speaker, there were no questions asked back then but there will be questions asked now. As long as I am standing on this side of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to ask the questions. The only thing I do know, Mr. Speaker, is under law - under law the only thing I think they can do is call names at you across the House in that childish way that they have, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear over here when they are talking behind me.

Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that no one should ever be condemned for asking a question because if real government is responsible to people, if they want to lead by example, if they want full disclosure of information, if they want full debate on the issues and they want information to the public, they should welcome the questions, Mr. Speaker. Instead, we see childish behaviour like in a play yard, where they shout names back and forth because that is the only response that they have.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to ask because today this is the situation. Today in the Province this is a government that is no closer to a deal on the Lower Churchill than they were six years ago. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had a bit more hope six years ago when they took office than I do today. They are a government that has still not been able to ratify the agreements with the Aboriginal people. They have not completed the environmental assessment process. They have no route to deliver their power, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no route to deliver the power. They have no market to sell the power to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Absolutely no market; and they have no funding and no backing financially for the project. So, Mr. Speaker, it is all right for the Premier to go out and speak all across the country and all across North America about the challenges with Quebec, I have no problem with that. No problem whatsoever. I have a firm belief that raising the awareness of issues often gets you a certain amount of support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that every time you speak in this House there is absolutely no decorum. I tell you, every time I have spoken since this House of Assembly has opened, Mr. Speaker, it is almost like you are trying to raise your voice everyday to speak over the voices, like the Member for Exploits who is whining in his seat behind me, or the members opposite. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little bit ridiculous. If members do not want to hear what is said in this House, well find something else to do, I say to you, because it is obvious you never want to listen. You do not want to listen to the people of the Province. You do not want to listen, respectfully, to anyone else's views in this House of Assembly. This is the behaviour, Mr. Speaker, that we always see. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will carry on.

As I was saying, they talk about the Lower Churchill deal – and I have no problem with the Premier delivering the message across the country and the United States of challenges that we have as a Province in trying to develop this deal, but, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a recognition as well that a lot of these challenges were created by the government opposite, too. They were created, Mr. Speaker, because of their negotiation tactics because they have not brought people to the table to deal on particular power projects like this. As a result, yes, they are hitting roadblocks. Do I like it? Of course not. Do the people of the Province want it? No, they do not. They want a government, Mr. Speaker, where they can see deals; where they can see productivity happening, where they can see development. That is exactly what they want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is exactly what they want, Mr. Speaker, and that is not what they are seeing.

In fact, today on the Lower Churchill project, as I have already said, in six years, Mr. Speaker, the only record that this government has to show is more red tape, more blocks in their way and still no one to talk to or negotiate. How do you do a deal, Mr. Speaker, when there is not a soul left in the country to talk to you? How do you do a deal? In fact, Mr. Speaker, they do not even have a market. After six years they do not have a secure market.

The last big deal for a market, Mr. Speaker, was in Rhode Island; in Rhode Island. They signed on to a big deal with Rhode Island. They came back, they had a big press conference, and what happened, Mr. Speaker? A year later it was not worth the paper that it was written on. It was not worth the paper it was written on. To date, Mr. Speaker, there is still no market. What about the route? They have no route to take this power. The last route, Mr. Speaker, that we talked about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have requested the co-operation of all members of the House on a number of occasions today. Again, I appeal to all members of the House, in regard for the member recognized to speak, for a respectable level of decorum in the Chamber.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as it is right now, there is still no route. The last route this government talked about was bringing a transmission line down through a national historic park in this Province. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? For three months the Premier, the ministers were out there defending the fact that they were going to run a transmission line through a national historic site, through Gros Morne National Park.

They had opposition, Mr. Speaker, from Parks Canada, from environmentalists, to people in the local area, and guess what? After three months, Mr. Speaker, knowing that they could not win the publicity argument around this, guess what they did? The Premier came out and said: I'm only kidding, I'm only kidding! Three months, Mr. Speaker, of saying I am building that line, we are not backing down, it is the cheapest way to go, we have looked at all the numbers, and guess what? After three months, I am only kidding. I am only kidding. I was joking with you. I was joking with you. Come on, Mr. Speaker, how can you take this seriously? How do you take this seriously when you are talking about a major project being developed in this Province and that is the kind of foolishness that you hear? Why would you lead people on for three months because you were joking? I was only kidding. It was all a joke. Well, Mr. Speaker, when you are in a position like the Cabinet is, you do not joke about these things. You just do not joke about these things, Mr. Speaker. That is the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville should pay a little bit more attention. He sits in this House everyday, Mr. Speaker, and babbles on and on and on. He has yet to say anything of any substance, Mr. Speaker. He has a department that has no issues and no files to deal with because they are all being handed over to every other minister over there in government. All I hear everyday when I stand on my feet is him over there babbling in his seat. Well, Mr. Speaker, he has a time to stand and say whatever he wants to say in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I ask that he show some respect when other people are talking.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for Lake Melville, along with the rest of them, do not want to hear the reality. The reality is this, Mr. Speaker, they have no market, they have no transmission ability, they have no financing for the project, they do not have a soul left in the country willing to talk to them, they have no Aboriginal agreement settled, and they have an EIS that is not complete because they do not know what direction they are going in. Now, Mr. Speaker, that about sums it all up, but yet we have the Premier down in New York talking about being the power-broker of North America. Can you imagine? The power-broker of North America without ever having a power project.

Mr. Speaker, these things are not lost on people, they are not lost on people. They are certainly not lost on people in Labrador who are waiting for their own chapter in this deal, their own chapter in this particular development. Just like the people in Grand Falls, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - are looking for royalties and looking for some form of compensation out of the Exploits hydro power project. The people in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are looking for their own chapter under the Lower Churchill development project. Indeed they are. Mr. Speaker, they want to see transmission capabilities, they want to see power to their communities, they want to see a cheaper source of power being delivered, and they want to see the diesel plants replaced, Mr. Speaker. These are the things that the people in Labrador want.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, they have voted unanimously to have a royalty project of the Lower Churchill for Labradorians. That was voted on by every municipal council in Labrador and supported. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville was at the table, one of the ones pushing that issue. We want a royalty program for Labrador! So let's just see where that chapter is, Mr. Speaker, in the days and weeks to come. Let's see if he is going to deliver on the royalty regime for Labrador, because it is definitely not happening right now.

There is a whole chapter around Labrador and the Lower Churchill that has to be looked at, Mr. Speaker. A complete full chapter for those people where they deserve to have cheaper rates, they deserve to have alternative power, they deserve to benefit from the Lower Churchill, not just from the power side of it but also from a royalty side of it. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the people in Labrador want and that is what they deserve to have, and we will continue to fight until they get it because it is only right that they get it. Mr. Speaker, so should the people of the Island deserve to have the transmission of power to Newfoundland as well, and that should be a part of this entire deal. Those are the chapters that people will look for at the end of the day. Those are the chapters in terms of how we benefit.

Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we will have to wait and see as time goes on. Regardless of how the government reacts to being questioned, regardless of the fact that they do not want to hear the comments, they do not want to hear the statements, they do not want to hear the debate, they do not want to hear what anyone else's opinions are. That is why they cause such a raucous in the House of Assembly every time a person gets up to speak. Mr. Speaker, they are going to hear it because we will not give up and we will keep asking the questions because that is our job. Our job, Mr. Speaker, is to ask questions on behalf of the people of the Province who want the answers.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some other issues in the Province now. First of all, we raised an issue out of Marystown a few days ago with NAPE workers who are on the picket line down there. Mr. Speaker, these particular workers are out on the picket line simply because the government is trying to take a clause out of an agreement that was signed with them two years ago. These particular workers provide assistance to people with disabilities. Today, fourteen people with disabilities have had their entire lives disrupted. They no longer have their jobs to go to, and they are left in limbo while their employment workers are out on the picket line. Mr. Speaker, these workers delayed going to the picket line. They delayed it for a long time, simply because they knew in doing so what the implications would be to those people with disabilities and how it would affect their lives, but, Mr. Speaker, they were forced to go. This is the reason they were forced to go. Back in 2007, when there was an agreement with these workers through NAPE and through Finance and Treasury Board, it was the very same minister who sits in the seat today as the Minister of Finance, it was the same people at the bargaining table, it was the same government in power, and in 2007 they insisted that a letter be attached to their contract, and that letter, Mr. Speaker, that was attached to their contract is the issue that is at dispute today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government minister said when I questioned him in the House the other day that this particular issue does not fall within Treasury Board. It is not a contract, a collective bargaining contract of Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, these particular workers are unionized and they do fall under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and in doing so, the government has a responsibility to act on their particular behalf. The issue is around employee classifications. This is a term used in almost every public service contract. I think it is used in all of them. Mr. Speaker, it is used because at different times workers are reclassified into different positions. When you are reclassified, in most cases it is reclassified into a position of a higher level where you get a higher amount of pay or something of that nature.

These workers, which are predominantly women, they make between $9 and $10 an hour, maybe a little over $10, I do not know, with the minimum wage gone up, but it is usually between $9 and $10 an hour. They are not big wage earners. The fact that there is a clause in their contract which says that they have the right to look at reclassification should not be a bad thing when you are so low on the pay scale. Mr. Speaker, the government is keeping these workers in the street because they are refusing to continue to honour that agreement that they made in 2007.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these workers have been looking for a response from government, either through their member or through the Minister of Labour, or the through the Minister of Finance, anyone who will provide them an answer that will satisfy them to go back to work, and to date, they have not received it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is acceptable because I really believe that these workers are sincere. I believe that they stayed on the job for as long as they possibly could, even though their agreement had been expired for months. I fully believe that they deserve the opportunity to have the same benefits as other workers within the public service because they fall under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. I would encourage the minister, and their MHA, to right this wrong, to allow them to continue with the same contract that they have, so that these workers can get back to work, the people that are affected with disabilities will be able to get back to their jobs and carry on with some stability in their lives.

It does not seem like a long and complicated thing to do. I have no idea why government would insist on removing this clause from a contract, knowing that these workers are some of the lowest paid, knowing that they are getting paid minimal wages, they have few benefits, Mr. Speaker. They are committed to their jobs. They are allowing other people in this Province to carry on with dignity in their work. Even though, Mr. Speaker, they have a number of disabilities that they are challenged with, they have been doing very well, and they are very successful at what they do. Their success is dependent upon these workers that support them and provide for them.

So, Mr. Speaker, hopefully the minister and the MHA for the area can get those things sorted out, and not leave them out in the street for another few months like they have already been. I think it is ridiculous that has gone unaddressed for as long as it has. They have been months without a collective agreement. They have been out in the street for the last couple of weeks, but this issue has been going on for months, and it should have been addressed long before this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a couple of other issues, as well. Those are some issues that are really within the purview of the federal government, but how the provincial government deals with them often affects the outcomes. The first one is with regard to the NAFO regulations. I was very disappointed to learn that the motion currently before the House of Commons in Ottawa will have little impact on what the outcome will be in the government ratifying the amendments to the NAFO convention. In fact, it will have no impact, other than for people to raise the profile of the issue and to be able to put information out there to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the provincial government needs to do more. I fully understand that they have made an honest effort in their letter writing campaign, in making representation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries of which we also know, even though they did not agree with the amendments, it bears no weight on the final outcome to be made by the government. Again, an exercise in creating awareness about the issue, but not an exercise in getting a result overturned.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that there are more that needs to be done and that needs to be done at the highest levels of office between the Province and the federal government. That is why we feel in questioning the Premier today, asking him on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to meet with the Prime Minister of the country, to talk about this specific issue and to do it on an urgent basis to see if there is a consensus.

At some point he has got to be able to negotiate with someone to some successful conclusion. He has not been able to do it with the Prime Minister on any other issues, has not been able to do it with Quebec or New Brunswick or PEI. Mr. Speaker, maybe this one time, Mr. Speaker, he can negotiate something successfully on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and he can meet with the Prime Minister to bring highlight to this particular issue and to see if there is a way that we can come to some consensus on where these amendments are under the NAFO agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we make that plea only because we feel that at this stage it has to be at that higher level in order to get any result whatsoever. There are people out there in this Province that did a great job at raising the profile of the issue, putting the views of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out there. As parliamentarians, on both sides, we did our job in presenting to committees and writing letters and meeting with ministers. Mr. Speaker, the MPs have raised the profile of the issue in the House of Commons, but they too realize that that is it; it is a public awareness campaign on their part, and at the end of the day the government has the prerogative to sign or not sign the treaty.

We are asking the Premier, who is the leader of the government to meet with the Prime Minister on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, and to put forward a case where we can negotiate suitable amendments to the convention for the people of the Province and for the protection of the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I was also very disappointed to learn that at the NAFO convention where these amendments were approved, there was a number of people from Newfoundland and Labrador at that table, some of which were representing the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and that those representatives at the NAFO table, from our Province at that meeting, actually endorsed these amendments, had no objections to them. I think they included officials from the union and from the provincial government, or the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I was severely disappointed when I heard that because these people are entrusted with a huge responsibility when they sit at those tables to make decisions regarding the fishing industry for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. To know that such an endorsement could be given for amendments that we see today as being non-beneficial and, in fact, could negatively impact the industry in this Province on a go-forward basis is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Premier would consider that request and, as a last attempt, to take on Mr. Harper in a face-to-face meeting to deal with that particular issue.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, that I feel needs more attention by the provincial government in addressing the federal Department of Fisheries is on the tax relief for fishers who sold back their licence in 1999. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of those fishers live in our Province, from one end to the other. In 1999, under a retirement program they were given the option to retire their licences, and they did. They were directed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at that time, that they would have to pay 100 per cent capital gains on the money they received, but, Mr. Speaker, others who sold their licence in that same year were directed by Canada Revenue Agency and they were told they only had to pay 25 per cent in capital gains. It was two different standards in the same program for the same fishers in Atlantic Canada, hundreds of them who were in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals have been trying to get a fair hearing with the provincial government for the last four years, or five years I think it probably goes back now, when it first came to light through a court case that some individuals were only taxed on 25 per cent under capital gains whereas others were taxed 100 per cent. Obviously, when they were made aware of this they felt that an injustice had been done to them and that they should have been treated in exactly the same manner. They are right, Mr. Speaker. They should not have had to pay at a rate that was different from others who were participating in the program at the same time.

So, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the federal government deserves to listen to the cases of these individuals and to make a decision as to what course of action they should follow. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. So far all of the appeals to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and to the federal Department of Revenue for the country have failed. These individuals have written letters, they have asked for appeals, they have asked for a review of the case, and none of these things have been done satisfactorily or to their benefit. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have had to retain legal counsel in order to provide a case on these particular issues and that legal counsel, right now, has had to go through the course to determine how they could file their case, whether it would be as class action or individual cases. Although there have already been court rulings on this, this was the course of action they are being forced to take.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is unnecessary. The unfortunate thing is that the timeline for many of these fishers and their families will expire in the spring of 2010. What I would like to see the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board do on behalf of these people in the Province – which should have been done, I should say, two years ago when it first came to the attention of the provincial government – is that there should be, first of all, a review of the tax laws in 1999 under the buyback of this program because there was a two-tier system and there were some fishers who were taxed in one way, others were taxed in another way. I am sure the member over there who is the former Auditor General would have some issues with that. Mr. Speaker, there were two tax regimes used for the same program. I would like to see the Department of Finance and Treasury Board review the program, review the taxes that were used, have Justice look at the court case, and then use that information to provide for a stronger argument coming from the provincial government for these fishers in the Province. They need the provincial government to add their voices to their case, and I think that this is one way they can do it.

The other thing I would like to see happen is I would like to see the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board meet with the Minister Responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency in the country and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to go over these particular cases and to make appeal on behalf of these fishers. Mr. Speaker, there are 800 of them that I have in my database over the last four years who are affected by this program. As I said today, ninety-two of those people have since deceased, which is rather unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, they deserve to have a hearing and there has been an injustice towards these people. Many of them whom I have talked to throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are individuals who live on a fixed income, and if they are owed $20,000 or $30,000 by the federal government then they should be reimbursed that money. If they owed it to Canada Revenue, somebody would be out there today taking that money out of their paycheques or taking it out of their pension cheques or taking their house probably to be able to compensate for it. So, Mr. Speaker, if the shoe was on the other foot they would be coming collecting their money and these individuals want an opportunity to collect the money that is owed them.

Now, I did not get a response from the minister today as to what his course or direction will be on this particular issue, but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important issue. I think it is one that deserves to have the attention of the provincial government. I think there is a responsibility for whoever is in power, whatever government it is, to act on behalf of the hundreds of people any time in this Province when things have been done to them unfairly. Mr. Speaker, hopefully, those are some issues that the minister will take up on behalf of these particular workers. I have continued to make their case.

This is not the first time I have raised this issue with a federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, it is the second time I have done so with a minister of the federal government in person. I have continued to write letters on behalf of these individuals and I think what has happened is morally wrong. I think they deserve to receive the money that they were owed. In fact, there is correspondence from the federal government which indicates that it was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that directed these individuals under the tax laws under which they remitted their taxes, which was wrong information. There is also correspondence from the former minister responsible for the government revenue corporation, which I think was Gordon O'Connor, in that he indicated and cited cases that were tested in the court in which these individuals were ruled to yes, have to pay taxes, capital gains taxes, but only at 25 per cent and not at the 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, if we could get some movement from government on a couple of these issues, especially on the NAFO piece and on the tax piece for fisherpeople, we could probably see some results coming from the federal government on those two particular issues which we feel are long overdue. Then maybe if we could get some action from the Minister of Education on the issues regarding the school in Nain and the resources that needs to be put into that school and to commit to a further evaluation to determine what the situation is in the school at this current time, which I do not see it being such a huge issue that it cannot be done, well maybe then we can start seeing some results on that front as well.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, maybe we will see the government lighten up a little bit as well on some of the people who challenge them on issues, who has a different opinion or likes to ask questions as a means of seeking information that not everyone in the Province will be a traitor. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, maybe we can get some commitments from them that will be a little bit more serious, not like we have seen on the Gros Morne National Park issue where three months later they are joking and kidding.

Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the government opposite, to be able to spin a story and then when it does not sell in the public, to spin it in a different direction. We have certainly seen that when they tried to gut rural health care in this Province. When everyday when I stood up here and questioned the Minister of Health on why they were gutting rural health care, why they were closing down lab and X-ray facilities in places like Lewisporte and in Flower's Cove, he would stand up and say it is because we are improving the system; it is because it is the right thing to do; our decision is final, we are not reconsidering it. That was the answers, Mr. Speaker. They are all recorded. It is all in Hansard, anyone can pick it up and read it.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government members at the time, every one of them, was clapping their desks in unison. Clapping their desks, including the current Minister of Health and Community Services, who was applauding his former colleague because he was gutting rural health care in the Province. He was standing there, Mr. Speaker, saying the decisions were final; it was not open for discussion, there would be no retracting. In fact, they had the Member for Lewisporte absolutely frightened to death. Frightened to death, Mr. Speaker, showed up out in his district one day supporting the people, rallying the people, going to bring the message back, and the next day, Mr. Speaker, ducked the issue like you would not believe to the point that he went totally against the people and supported his government. That is what was going on, Mr. Speaker. Go read it. It is all in the paper. I stood and listened to the comments. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what was happening. Within twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker, within twenty-four hours the backbone was not there to stand up for the constituents that they represented and elected them and sent them to the House of Assembly to protect things like their health care system in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, that was fine. That was fine. The fellow that deserves all the thanks, I say, for restoring the X-ray and lab services in this Province is the former Minister of Works and Transportation and the former Member for The Straits & White Bay North, because if that member had not resigned his seat, you would have seen these cuts stay just like the minister said day after day: They were final; they would not change.

Mr. Speaker, they changed their mind because when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North resigned, they figured now we got a problem. Now we have a problem. Mr. Speaker, the greatest service that member ever did for his own district, greatest service he ever did, because the people were adamant about saving their services and the government thought they could push this out and get through an election. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they made trip after trip. They had a minister who became a casualty in the process, Mr. Speaker, and a new minister within and within ten hours of it all happening they were in a meeting on the Northern Peninsula saying we are going to have another look at it. We are going to have another look at the plans, we are going to do this, and we are going to do that, but no commitments. No commitments. Until there was a commitment, the people were not going to relent.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, they came back a week later and they said: We are 99 per cent there, but we are not going to fully commit, but we are 99 per cent there. But still, Mr. Speaker, the people were not satisfied. They wanted a full commitment to restore their services, and in fact, Mr. Speaker, within days they agreed to do that.

Now, we had a minister as a casualty; we had a Premier, Mr. Speaker, who went out and had to admit he made a mistake. He made a mistake; they did not realize what the impact was going to be on the districts where these services were being cut. Mr. Speaker, I say that that is a low blow to the members who represent those districts. If they do not have the ability to impress upon their own colleagues and the Premier what significant cuts like this is going to do to the people they represent, how ineffective are they really? How ineffective are they?

Mr. Speaker, that was the admission. The Premier admitted, we have made a mistake, and that is fine, but to admit it under the context that we did not understand what the impact was going to be on the people in these districts told me that their MHAs were completely ineffective. They could not convey to the government and to the minister what the impact was going to be to their own constituents if they were to lose this service. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, what does it say about a government who is prepared to make critical decisions like cutting health care in rural communities without ever taking the time to find out what the impact is going to be, without ever taking the time or listening to what people have to say? How heavy-handed is that, Mr. Speaker?

I firmly believe from that day to this that if the Member for The Straits & White Bay North had not resigned his seat and we were not part of a by-election that you would have never seen the reversal of that decision. I think it was full speed ahead for the members opposite, just like they said day after day in the media and in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it was not going to make any difference how many times these MHAs raised the issue from their district because no one was listening to them. I do not believe for one fact, for one minute, that neither one of those members came to the government to tell them what the impact would be on their own constituents. I do not believe that for one minute, Mr. Speaker. If they did not go and try to convey to them well then, Mr. Speaker, they do not deserve to be in the seats that they are in, in my opinion. When people send you here, they send you here to represent their views. Now whether you do that in back rooms, behind closed doors, in private meetings, or in public I guess that is your prerogative. To say that nobody understood and that it was not conveyed to them is a big message in that, Mr. Speaker, for the members who sit in the benches opposite. There is a big message in that in my mind.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, hopefully we have seen the end of government's agenda to gut rural health care, but we will keep an eye to it. We will watch what is happening across the Province because if they can do it once without a conscience, they can do it again. There is no doubt about that; if you do it once, you can do it again.

Mr. Speaker, we have a casualty in one minister as a result of this entire situation, but we will see what happens as time goes on. I think if you are going to make important decisions that effect people in the Province, especially when it comes to health care, the very least that you could do is ask the members who represent those districts what their views and opinions are. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the very least is to consult with the people that are going to be impacted to see how significant those impacts are going to be. Mr. Speaker, that would be a time put to better use than just calling those who question government as traitors in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and saying that you are unpatriotic.

So Mr. Speaker, I think this government needs to start listening more and talking a little less before they make some of these decisions.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to speak in the House today. It is the first opportunity I have had in this session. It is also, Mr. Speaker, a privilege to serve the people of this Province.

Over the last couple of years, I have learned so much about politics. What I have learned, Mr. Speaker, is that this Province is not only a good place to live, but this government believes that this Province is a good place to live and is putting the money into the infrastructure in this Province, into health care, into education, to ensure that it remains a good place to live.

Mr. Speaker, when I entered politics, whether it was naively or idealistically, I held the firm belief that people who serve in this House have the betterment of the Province at heart. I guess, again, Mr. Speaker, I naively thought that people would work together for the betterment of this Province. Mr. Speaker, what I did know and I what I did see on a daily basis, was that this government, under the leadership of Premier Williams and his cabinet, has a vision for the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – is for our children, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that our children have the choice to remain in this Province, unlike the mistakes – if I can put it that way – made by the previous Liberal governments, and also to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that they could live here with a quality of life that could be offered in no other Province or, in fact, in any other country in this world.

Mr. Speaker, this is my third portfolio now in a little over two years. Justice was something that I was familiar with in terms of having practised law. The bureaucratic aspect of it was something that I was not as familiar with, but I quickly learned that departments have to identify priorities. When you are looking at spending money, there is only so much money to go around. That, Mr. Speaker, when I moved into Finance, became clear. Contrary to what some people think in his hon. House and elsewhere, money does not grow on trees. Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the amount of money we have and spend as wisely as we can. I think, Mr. Speaker, what the people of this Province have recognized is that we have spent this money wisely, as I will review shortly.

When I became Finance Minister, Mr. Speaker, it was in the middle of a recession. What did we do in the middle of that recession, Mr. Speaker? We announced an $800 million infrastructure program - $800 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What have we done, Mr. Speaker, since we have been in government? We have reduced our debt from $12 billion to $8 billion in a period of three or four years. We had a number of surpluses where we are creating employment. What did we further do last year, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the recession? We gave our workers a 21.5 per cent increase in their wages when throughout this country, Mr. Speaker, there were rollbacks, there were 2 per cent raises and there were wage restraint programs put in place.

Mr. Speaker, what we did was we decided not to lay people off, not to cut programming but to attempt to weather the storm. I remember, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, last year, saying: What is your plan; what are you going to do? Well, the plan has come to fruition. We projected a deficit last year based on the price of oil going down and my colleague, the Minister of Finance today, I understand, gave an economic update where he indicated that we were on a course to reduce that deficit. Again, that is all very positive, Mr. Speaker.

Now, when we get to the health portfolio, Mr. Speaker, I just want to run by some of these numbers because it is unbelievable the amount of money we have put in health - $2.6 billion or 40 per cent of our budget is going into health this year. That is an increase of $1 billion over the last five years and doubled the budget of a decade ago when the Liberals were in power. We are spending more per capita this year than any other province next to Alberta. We are second in the country on the amount of per capita spending for health care, Mr. Speaker.

In the last five years, Mr. Speaker, we have invested over $173 million for new medical equipment such as MRIs, CAT scanners and digital mammography. This year alone, Mr. Speaker, we are spending $76 million on health care infrastructure, and the member opposite says we are gutting rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, just let me go through some of this, Mr. Speaker. Two residential treatment centres for youth were announced in the last budget; one will go in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker. What happened when we announced it in Grand Falls-Windsor? The members opposite criticized that. What is it we are supposed to do, not go outside the overpass?

What we did, Mr. Speaker, then, we have announced $19.2 million – or this year it will be $19.2 million for the completion of a new 236-bed, long-term care home in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, we have spent $9.3 million to complete a fifty-bed, long-term care home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; $3.2 million for renovations of the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander. We have, Mr. Speaker, announced a health care centre in Lab West which the picture was out last week; the tender was in the paper. We have announced long-term care homes in Carbonear, Lewisporte and the health centre in Flower's Cove will continue to be built, Mr. Speaker. There is $4.6 million for redevelopment of the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor; $40 million, Mr. Speaker, for high priority repairs and renovations and we just announced a 460-bed, long-term care home in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Other than the St. John's one, Mr. Speaker - we have just announced also site selection for a new hospital in Corner Brook. Other than that one long-term care home in St. John's, everything is outside. How can the members opposite say that we are not putting money into rural Newfoundland and Labrador when you look at Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Carbonear, Lewisporte, Lab West, all new long-term care facilities, Mr. Speaker that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars?

Mr. Speaker, then we had, last week, an issue raised in relation to home care; we are not putting enough money into home care. In Budget 2009, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government earmarked $35 million to improve services and enhance supports in the Province; $16.5 million to increase home support hourly subsidy rates; $8 million to address home care support program growth; $1.5 million to increase the Personal Care Home Subsidy; $1.1 million to begin implementation of the new assessment tool. As well, Mr. Speaker, $7.5 million to restructure the home support financial assessment process; so that is $35 million there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, actually I only have twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague, the Minister of Education indicated last week, I will just never get through it all, but I want to talk about a couple of other points. I want to specifically discuss the Flower's Cove-Lewisporte situation.

Mr. Speaker, we had a government, a Premier and myself who said we made a mistake. Now what is it the people of this Province want? Do you want a government that when they realize that the course chosen is not the right one to change it, or to continue at all costs like the Liberals used to do? What we did, Mr. Speaker, whether as a result of the by-election or not – the by-election certainly highlighted the issue; there is no question about that. What we did, we talked to the people, Mr. Speaker. We talked to the people of Flower's Cove; we talked to the people of Lewisporte. Myself and the member, the MHA for Lewisporte, we went into a room of people, Mr. Speaker, and they were very reasonable people. They said: We understand the issue that there is only so much money to go around. I put this question to them: What is your number one priority? When they said: Lab and X-ray, we said: Fine.

So, Mr. Speaker, could the process we utilized have been better? Certainly. Did we learn by our mistakes? Certainly. Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition to refer to us as gutting health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not just inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, it is simply the type of politics that she engages in on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, the fear-mongering, the outlining of information which is inaccurate. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? The facts do not matter to the Leader of the Opposition. You know what is worse, Mr. Speaker? She does not know what she is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I have never seen anyone get up in the House of Assembly so much and go on about things she knows nothing about. It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say my learned friend, but as my friend from Lake Melville so rightfully points out, there is a reason she is so low in the polls.

Mr. Speaker, what we learned from Flower's Cove and Lewisporte was a basic lesson in democracy. It was a basic lesson in people saying to the government: This is not the way we want you to go. Mr. Speaker, to me, our response was the appropriate one. As the Premier stated on a number of occasions, yes it was the by-election that highlighted the issue - we did not win that by-election, Mr. Speaker – but will Flower's Cove get their health centre? Certainly. Will Flower's Cove keep their lab and X-ray? We said they will, and they will, Mr. Speaker. So that is what a government with a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador does.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch briefly on the Upper Churchill, because again – I cannot say the inaccurate statements of the Leader of the Opposition because they are more than inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. She does not know what she is talking about, or she does not care. Unfortunately it may be the latter, because it is not a matter of asking questions, Mr. Speaker. That is the role of the people, of the media, of the Opposition, to ask questions. When she stood up last week and criticized this government and this Premier for trying to come up with a way to reopen the Upper Churchill contract, I found it astounding. I have no problem with her getting up and saying, show us how you are going to do this, tell us how you are going to do this, but for her to be talking about legal precedence, for her to be talking about us not getting along with Quebec, I just could not believe it, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we have seven minutes, so I will be very quick. Mr. Speaker, in 1927 the Privy Council in England made a decision on the Labrador boundary. Canada and the colony, or I guess the Commonwealth of Newfoundland were in court. It was decided that the definition of coast gave us a – I think it was the word coast, it was one specific word – gave us a boundary that went in, I think to the fifty-second parallel. Mr. Speaker, Quebec has never gotten over that. They have never gotten over it and it has led to significant problems. Then Labrador, during the Confederation debates, became a significant issue in terms of whether or not Canada, by entering into an agreement with Newfoundland, would also receive the benefits of Labrador. Labrador was the great unknown. It was the great unexplored. Mr. Speaker, again, some of these dates may be off a little bit but it was around 1951, or in the early 1950s that BRINCO, I think, was formed. It was not BRINCO initially. There was a conglomerate of companies that was put together to develop Labrador, and leases were given.

Then around 1960, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations on the Upper Churchill commenced. Now, as we get forward to the entering of the contract in 1969, there was much to-ing and fro-ing, but do you know what was the most amazing, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what the lessons of the past have taught us? Is that you have to be involved. The former Premier, the Liberal Premier who entered into this deal, in Hansard, in 1968, stood in this House and said he had never seen the deal. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, from my understanding is that the lawyers – and there were some good lawyers in that government, at that point, who went on to be – I think the Premier of this Province, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the Trial Division, none of these legal minds, John Crosbie, none of them were involved.

What happened was, the Premier at the time allowed a private corporation to reach a deal. Then, Mr. Speaker, when - and there are very good articles that have been written on this. There is Jason Churchill, Feehan and Baker, some real good background. So what happens is they are not at the table, and we gave it away, Mr. Speaker. It had to come into the House of Assembly for ratification and then we all know what happened then with Premier Moores and Premier Peckford and the attempts to reopen it. What does Grimes do in 1997? He is going to do it again. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that the same mistakes they made in 1969 they are going to do it again, but this time with the Lower Churchill? What is the common theme, Mr. Speaker? Do anything to get elected. Well, that is not what this government is about, Mr. Speaker. It is not about simply getting elected. It is about doing the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The Leader of the Opposition says: Well, what precedence do you have? Article 1375 of the Quebec Civil Code, Mr. Speaker, which came in in 1994 states, "The parties shall conduct themselves in good faith both at the time the obligation is created and at the time it is performed or extinguished." Unlike common law, where a contract is a contract, Quebec civil law recognizes that the good faith obligation continues. Do you know what one of the ironies was, Mr. Speaker? Is that it was that civil code or that civil law because the law of Quebec governed the contract which prevented us or was one of the reasons that the Province of Newfoundland lost in 1988, 1984-1988. So now we are using the civil code to our advantage. What did we do, Mr. Speaker? We take this information that we gained over a period of years, we provide it to CF(L)Co, CF(L)Co will determine if they are going to proceed with a lawsuit, as indicated by the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources. They are the ones who will determine whether or not to proceed with a legal action.

In 1992, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada stated prior to the civil code, the new section, this duty of good faith derives from the same source as the general duty of good conduct set out in article 1053. It goes without saying that a party to a contract must conduct itself just as reasonably and with the same good faith as it would towards other parties. So prior to 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that this duty of good faith existed.

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated in this House on a couple of occasions that one of the lawyers we have retained, or the Province retained, in terms of providing information to CF(L)Co who will make the decision whether to proceed, was a lawyer, a former Court of Appeal Justice by the name of Jean-Louis Baudouin who wrote a book called Les Obligations which I understand is the leading text in Quebec civil law. He talks about this good faith justifying judicial intervention to re-establish an equilibrium which has been compromised.

So, Mr. Speaker, what happens is Justice Baudouin recognizes in his first text in 1993 that this principle of good faith exists in Quebec law, or in French law, or in German law, because it all comes to the civil code. It is then incorporated into the 1994 code. Then in 2005, in the sixth edition of his book, Justice Baudouin states: the Minister of Justice has himself recognized that the well-known French principal that the contract is the law between the parties was not included in the new civil code of Quebec because that rule is no longer immutable, given in particular the rules of good faith. The principle that contracts bind the parties certainly remains, but it is subject to more and more exceptions based, among others, on the principle of good faith.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been told as a government that we have a strong legal case. Now, what would the Liberals have us do? Sit there and do nothing? What would they do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it away.

MR. KENNEDY: Give it away. What does this government pride ourselves on, Mr. Speaker? No more giveaways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: It is not a matter, Mr. Speaker, of the Liberals not asking questions. It is not a matter of their – what was it the Liberal Leader said today? Something about patronage. What it is a matter of, Mr. Speaker, is that we are doing what is best for this Province, and her petty attempts to score political points has not worked. Because what did she do? Did anyone hear any questions today in this House on the Upper Churchill? Because the people of the Province said to her last week – it is my guess, Mr. Speaker - is stop it. You do not know what you are talking about. This government is acting in the best interests of this Province, and that is what we are doing Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Can we say that any lawsuit if CF(L)Co decides to proceed will be successful? No, but what we do have are the best legal minds in Quebec saying to the government of this Province: You have a case, you have a strong case, and that information has been provided to CF(L)Co.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot sit by and we will not sit by while we are being pillaged by the Province of Quebec. Because that is what is happening, Mr. Speaker, and we will fight all the way, and there will be no more giveaways!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is an honour to be able to stand and to give the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech. It is always an honour to be able to do that and to bring up issues that are of concern to me, and of concern to my constituents, and of concern to people of the Province.

I remember last spring after we had the Budget brought down and after the Throne Speech, that I talked about it is a wonderful time to be alive in this Province right now because of the resources that we have pouring in through the development of oil offshore. I also said, to the amusement of my colleagues in government, and I think the Premier understood what I meant, that I would love to be Premier right now. I would love to be the party in power and be Premier with this money coming in –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: With my own party, sorry.

I might do things a little bit differently with some of that money, and I would have more of a say in what is going on with the use of our money.

We are on a wave right now. We are riding a high wave, but, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, not everybody in the Province is on that wave and that is what bothers me. A lot of people are; there is no doubt about it. A lot of people are doing well because of the wave we are on, and a lot of people are being served by things that government is doing. I am not going to say that money is not going into important things, it is, but we have a lot of people who are not on the wave. What concerns me is that their voice does not get heard because government sees them as a minority who do not affect the vote. That is what bothers considerably. People on low income do not have power in their vote because they are not in the majority. Single mothers do not have a powerful voice because they are in a minority. People with disabilities do not have a powerful voice, again because they are in a minority, but it should not matter whether these people are in a majority or a minority, they are part of this community, they are part of this society, they are part of this Province, and they should be on the wave along with everybody else.

I am going to use the parallel of a family because people understand that parallel. If a family, all of a sudden, starts doing well because of more income coming in through one of the people working in that family, the family does not say, let's make it good for four of us, if there are six in the family, and two will have to do a little bit worse because we cannot give the same to all six of us. So we will make it really good for four and we will help out the other two. That is not what a family does; it does not even make sense. What a family does is takes the new income and tries to make it better for everybody who is in the family.

You do not have one person in the family who can eat a $25 meal and say it is okay if another one can only eat a $10 meal if they go out to eat; that is not how it works. Everybody in the family benefits or does not benefit. If that does not happen in a family, we would call it abuse. If there was somebody in the family not benefiting like others and was being neglected, that would be called abuse.

Well, in many ways that is how I see our situation in the Province. We have many people who are doing better in this economy, there is no doubt about it, but we have people who are not. We have many people, especially if you are living on the Northeast of the Avalon Peninsula who are benefiting greatly from the new-found money that we have and who will continue to benefit from that money, but there are many people who are not.

When I spent October and November mainly in rural Newfoundland because of our by-elections, I saw things that really disturbed me. Some of the stuff that I saw that really disturbed me was in The Straits when I was up on the Northern Peninsula working on the campaign up there. We cannot run away from these facts, Mr. Speaker, because what I am going to share are facts. We have to acknowledge these facts and say: How are we going to change this situation?

For example, in The Straits you even have inequality there because it is not the same in some cases for people who are living, for example, in St. Anthony as it is for people who are living either in The Straits or over on the French coast. We have people who are scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to survive in communities on the Northern Peninsula, in The Straits in particular.

I remember when I was in Englee, when I was campaigning in Englee, and every person I spoke to, one after another, they were all the same, they do not know what their future holds for them. I was talking to a man in his house and a woman came out of her house and came over to me and she said: I want to talk to you. She said: Do you see that lookout up there on the hill? I am talking about a lookout way up on the hill like twice as high up a hill than Signal Hill. See that lookout up there, she said, I am helping build that, and I am having to drag wood and gravel up that hill, physically, to get up there to build it. She said: There is no road, it is a trail, and there is a rope tied along the trees so that we can hang onto it to get up as we carry the wood up there. She told me that in 2007, when the General Election campaign was on, the Premier was in that community, and they went to him and talked about when they had built another lookout, and she should me where the other lookout is Englee. That one started so late in the fall when they started to build it, that it was snowing as they tried to go up that trail, and the Premier promised them that never again would a woman in Englee have to climb up several hundred feet up a trail carrying wood, carrying materials, carrying gravel to build what they built up on that hill. She said: I guess the only difference this year, two years later, is that we do not have the snow. So he will probably say he kept his promise and we do not have to do it in the snow again, because she said: I certainly have to do it again. She said: The thing is nobody is going up that trail to go up to that lookout to look out over. The gentleman who was there said to me: No, I certainly cannot walk up that trail. He looked at me and said: I know you cannot walk up that trail. He said: It is not even something that is going to be used.

I went to another house in Englee and a woman, I would say in her early thirties, her two teenage sons, young teenagers in the background, and her husband came along, and before he did, she was just describing the desperation of their situation, how desperate it was, how little income they have, how they have no work, they have tried. Eventually, this woman just broke down crying in front of me and had to go, and her husband continued speaking with me.

These are the things that are going on in some parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the same way with the plant workers who had to make up hours in order to get their EI, and who were cutting brush on the side of the road on the road to St. Anthony, working for minimum wage. We can imagine what their EI is going to be. I had the figure; I cannot remember now. It is a very, very small - it is $100-and-something a week when they get their EI; I think $120-something a week, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, brush needs to be cut, but cutting the brush should be a program, and it should be we are cutting that for safety reasons because of the moose. It should be a program, and it should be a program that has everything considered: the wage of the workers, benefits for the workers, the working conditions for the workers.

I was speaking to women and men – mainly women, because they were plant workers, some of them middle age and older. They were there from 7:30 in the morning until 5:30 in the afternoon, and in October – we will all remember October of this year, we had a very cold October, and it was twice as cold on the Northern Peninsula, especially out in that area, the northern part of the Northern Peninsula than it was here on the Avalon Peninsula; it was bitter this October. There they were from 7:30 in the morning until 5:30 in the afternoon, no porta-potties, nothing. I have no problem with having workers cutting brush; I think we need to do. As I said, it is not a make-work thing to try to give hours to the plant workers. It should be a program that is put in place because cutting brush is important for the safety of people in the community, and then you have all the other considerations about having a safe working place, having a healthy working place, and having a working place where people are going to earn a little bit more for their EI than $120-something a week.

Now that is the reality that I saw in October in The Straits. I know that there are other places that I would have gone to and I would have seen similar realities in this Province. Now that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Not in a province where we have the income that we have now. Not in a province where we have the ability to continue to lessen our debt, as was reported to us again today by the Minister of Finance in the fall update for 2009. Not in a province where we are over $300 million less in deficit than the Budget said we were going to be. Not in a province with that fiscal ability should we have people going through what I saw go through.

Two weeks ago I had a public forum in my district to deal with home care. I had quite a mix of people turn out to that public forum. It was actually a town hall, and I have mentioned it before here in the House of Assembly. I mention it again because it is so important. We had there people who need home care, but do not have resources to pay for it adequately. Some who were going to be helped by the new financial assessment tool and some will not be. We had family members there who cannot get home care for their loved one because we do not have home care workers who are adequately trained to deal with the situation of some of the people needing home care.

We also had present home care workers. Home care workers who are earning just above minimum wage. Home care workers who have trained themselves, some of them, who were able, at some point in time, to be able to get EI, because they left another job and were able to get training, and went to the College of the North Atlantic and were trained, and who are now working for just above minimum wage.

We had people who are using home care talking about how much they feel for the workers who work with them. They have such a special relationship, and they know that the workers who work for them, when they can get workers, that these people love their work, but they are working for just over minimum wage, they have no benefits, they have to pay for their own travel. In many cases, they have to pay for their own supplies.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me how this government and members in this government can hear me speak about this over and over, both here in this House and in the media, and not believe that we do not have to put a full home care program in place, why we do not believe that we can look at a province like Ontario or Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Alberta and see what a full home care program looks like. I cannot believe that they do not hear what I am saying. I am not making up stories. The things that I am saying are reality. They know the reality. So why aren't they doing something about it? Why aren't other MHAs on the government side of the House who see the same reality as I do having a voice in their caucus and pressuring their ministers, the ministers responsible, to get a program in place so that I can stop standing up and talking about the terrible reality of people who are in home care? It is not acceptable; it will never be acceptable.

Some of those people who are requiring home care are people with disabilities. Some of them are younger people, children who have chronic conditions. Many of them are seniors. All of them are groups who are vulnerable. All of them are groups who need the help of our society. If we were a family, in a family context, and had an individual in our family and did not see that somebody in the situation of what I just described was being taken care of, as I said earlier, that would be called abuse. We cannot continue down the path we are going.

The Minister of Health, when he just spoke in his Address in Reply, talked about the long-term care facilities. I am quite happy that we have long-term care facilities, but long-term care facilities are not answering the issue of home care. Home care should be seen as an essential part of an integrated health care system. So whether the health care required is chronic care, and chronic care can be given either at home or in a long-term care facility, or whether it is critical care, which means you have to go in to hospital, whether it is an emergency, all of these are all part of health care.

For the life of me, people have asked me why do I think that the government is not responding to the call for a full home care program, a home care program that has good wages for the workers, a home care program that provides for the benefits for the workers, a home care program that is completely integrated, so that more people can be kept at home. All the research – and I know my hon. colleagues know this – shows that being able to keep somebody in their home where that can be done, number one, it is economically better, and number two, it is better for the health of the person. Isn't that what we want, a healthier society? People who are able to be maintained in their homes are healthier, the families have less stress because the person is in their home, and economically, it is better. So I do not understand it, Mr. Speaker. It just blows my mind.

There is so much, there are so many issues that I could bring up here today, and of course, I do not have the time; I just have a couple of minutes left. By using the examples that I have used, and as I have said, there are other examples. I mean I could go in to child care, and I could start giving all the research around child care and why we should have a child care program in this Province - actually, an early childhood program in this Province. It is proven everywhere where it happens, especially in Scandinavian countries, in European countries, and in provinces like Quebec, when a child care program, a full child care program or early childhood program is put in place, that, number one, it is economically good. The economy increases is bettered because of having an early childhood program. It is beneficial to the children and it is beneficial to the family, and yet that is completely off the table for this Province and I do not understand it. It is like it does not even exist. It is like it is something that is a very strange notion. Imagine; an early childhood program. How strange, a full one not a piecemeal thing. It is not strange at all. It exists everywhere. It does not exist here. The same way with a full home care program, that is not a strange concept either, and if they can do it in other provinces and they can do it in other countries, we can do it here. Why is it we think it is not possible? Why do we think it is so strange to bring up these issues as things that we should be doing here?

What concerns me is language that the Speaker used today, not the Speaker, I am sorry. Sorry, Mr. Speaker - that the Minister of Finance used today when he gave the fall update, 2009. He said that people must temper their expectations. Well, I was really shocked by that language. He said they must temper their exceptions, they must temper their demands. Well, do you know what? They cannot temper their needs and it is the needs that the minister, it is the needs that the Premier, it is the needs that the whole of the caucus of this government needs to look at, the needs of the people. If the people are talking about the needs for people with disabilities, if they are talking about the need for home care, if they are talking about income assistance that keeps them in poverty, if this is what they are talking about, then this government has to temper itself in responding to those needs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been interesting to hear the last number of speakers. I have been jotting down some notes of comments made by the Leader of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that some of the things that she has mentioned are not true or that there are areas that she has commented on that we need more work in, there is no doubt about that. I suppose if we lived in total utopia we would have everything that would be so grandiose and so perfect that everything would be set in place, but in the real world that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I think is important to point out, that the number of things that we are doing as a government are for the immediate but they are also for the long term. I am going to just throw out a number to the Leader of the NDP and to the people in the Province who are watching, that will tell us where we are headed as a government and what that future might hold because of decisions that have been made in that regard. When I entered into this political arena in 2003, our long-term debt was $12 billion. If I remember correctly going around the Province, I was saying to people: Do you know what? The accumulated debt is something like $12,000 or something per individual in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-three thousand.

MR. JACKMAN: Twenty-three thousand, you are exactly right. Twenty-three thousand it was at that particular point. Now, we have lowered that $12 billion debt down to below $8 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can continue to lower that because those are the types of things that will allow us to make investments in a wide range of programs along the way.

I was really bothered by a couple of comments that the Leader of the NDP used, and, Mr. Speaker, it is not in my nature to get up and be very combative with people but the Leader of the NDP is using words like: because of decisions that we are not making. She is alluding to abuse. Mr. Speaker, I have to take that with a little bit of a gnawing of the stomach because anybody who would think or say that because of decisions we are not making, that we are in some way inflicting abuse upon people. I think that is carrying it a little bit to the extreme and a bit too far, Mr. Speaker, to be quite serious with you. Second, I think it would be interesting if she ever had the opportunity to be Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: She will never! Never!

MR. JACKMAN: My colleagues around me are saying that it will never happen. Well, you know, never is a long time, and we do not know how long that might be. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the old adage that it is a heck of a lot harder to govern than it is to oppose, because in opposing all you have to do is get up and just rant off on a number of things that you have not done. Well, it is much harder to govern, because we know, all of us as MHAs; we hear everyday from constituents who have a particular need. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we can meet those and some other times very much, unfortunately, that we cannot. If there is one thing about us as a government, my colleagues here on this side very much care about their constituents and they very much care about their Province.

Mr. Speaker, I can stand here for the next fifteen minutes and I can rant off a number of things that we have done. The Leader of the NDP mentioned about the low-income families and those receiving social assistance, and that we are not doing this and we are not doing that. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have certainly made efforts to do that. One of the things we did last year, we raised the cap so that people could avail of not having to pay in as much income tax. For example, for individuals we raised the bar from $13,511 up to $15,911 for individuals. For families we raised the bar from $21,825 up to $26,625, thus meaning that these individuals now have more money in their pockets. We would certainly hope that they would spend that to make their lives a little better.

Let's talk about the Department of Education. She talked about the gap that exists between different people in the Province. Well, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, eliminating fees for students would translate across the entire sector. As a result of investments made in education, we no longer charge school fees, which benefits them. We have a textbook program. I remember being back in the school system, it was a challenge every September that we had parents who would continuously call the school because they had to come up with money for textbooks, they had to come up with money for fees. As a result of our investment, those things are no longer in place. They are removed. That therefore means that it is more money into the pockets of the people.

Our Poverty Reduction Strategy, and I can go on through a list of things that are contained within, but one thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it has been acclaimed. It has been recognized nationally as one of the programs that are leading within this country, and we take credit for that. We have gone out and consulted with people, the various groups across the Province, and as a result we made major investments there.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about The Straits. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was up there for a couple of days as well and I spent some time in Terra Nova district for a couple of days. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really struck me, in the campaign, is our investment in the Northern Peninsula - $130 million that went into the Northern Peninsula. Any district, Mr. Speaker, who has an investment of $130 million that would include roads, health care, that would include education, these are major investments. Can we get to every little need – I know how significant the need is for that particular individual and community, but those are challenges that we face with a changing rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt about it.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the difference and alluded to almost a type of abuse that exists between St. Anthony and the rural communities. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would contend to you that in that particular district, St. Anthony is the service area of that particular area. If there is one thing that people have asked for time and time again is access to services within their general area. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means we have to invest in places like St. Anthony, thus we provide the services that people are looking for. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can get up and criticize us for that.

I guess it comes down to, I suppose, the leadership - certainly the leadership, and where we want to see the Province going. We have made major gains from the offshore; there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. We have made gains through the dealings that our Premier has done around the Atlantic Accord, the offshore equities that we have gained, the reduction of the $2 billion deficit, and the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, and rightfully so, and is something that we are pleased to report, that we had a projected deficit of $750 million. That now is down to just a little over $300 million. So why shouldn't we be pleased and proud with statements such as that? Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of some of the negotiations that we have done, we have been able to invest in programs that benefit everybody in the Province.

As such, Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it, I think we are doing well, and like the Leader of the NDP said, it is a good time to be alive and living in this Province. There is no doubt about it. I think about my children and my grandchildren. I do strongly believe - and I would not be standing here if I did not believe it - that this Province is a force to be reckoned with in this nation and, as such, it will be a wonderful place, it is a wonderful place and it will continue to be a wonderful place for them to live.

Mr. Speaker, if I could for a moment, talking about my new portfolio - and I think this ties in very much with where the Leader of the NDP kind of talked to; she did not go there. Maybe that is an indication of some areas that she might have to continue and concentrate on in the future. I moved into this new portfolio just over a week ago, Mr. Speaker, I have to say one of the things that struck me is that I do not think I will be going to the Olympics now. I think my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, is taking my place. You never know, you hope against hope that somebody might say yes, there might be a ticket there for a day or so, but we will see where that goes.

I am more than pleased to step into the portfolio of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes I do not know if people, such as the Leader of the NDP, quite understand the importance of the fisheries to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I have said to people that the community that I live in, I would say, 75 per cent of the income that comes into that community comes from the fisheries. As such, I think that community is very typical of where and how important the fishery is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can recall when we had many plants operating on the Burin Peninsula. We still have a fair number, but there were many other plants, many more people working into it, where the inshore fishery was - I do not know if I could say more vibrant, but it was certainly more prevalent than it is today. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that we can get it back to a point where - I will make these statements. I believe that there was a time when a person in the fish plants – and my wife was one of them, she worked there. There were people in the fish plant who walked down through those gates on a regular basis and felt quite proud that they were walking into that facility and doing their job well on a daily basis. Likewise, there were people who set foot in an inshore fishing boat who really took pride in going out on the water and returning with their catch.

I think that pride still exists to some degree, but not to the degree that it was back a number of years because, Mr. Speaker, there is that degree of uncertainty. The fishery is going through a huge transition, and in my contention it would probably look very much different from what it looks today.

There is one thing about it, Mr. Speaker, it has been the essence of our Province for some 500 or so years, and I think it will be the essence of this Province in many years to come. Some people say to me the divide between the overpass – the inside of the overpass and the outside of the overpass. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I do not truly believe that. I believe that the people that live in the St. John's and surrounding communities, that area, understand the importance of the fishery to this Province as much as many of us do that live outside of the overpass. They know that it was this industry that brought us to this Province. They know that it continues to support many, many people in the Province, and they know that it will continue to support people well into the future. It is in our blood, so to speak, and the crowd in St. John's do not live too far from the water, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if we look at it from a departmental perspective and if we look back to the summit that was held, there were many things that came out of that summit. I think, in terms of a changing industry, this will show you the support that government put behind it. Mr. Speaker, after that summit there were several things that came out that needed to be worked on. There were things identified around - we needed a specific direction for the fishery; we needed to look to innovation, we needed to look to rationalization. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, this government has invested quite substantially in this department.

I was really surprised to see, when I went into the department the other day and went through some briefing sessions, that the total budget for the Department of Fisheries is $34 million. That is fine, but the thing that struck me was that this budget is more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined. That speaks to where we, as a government, see fisheries and the investment that we have placed in that.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, committed $140 million to a renewal strategy in the fisheries. One of the most important things, I think, that is happening right now, that I want to speak to, Mr. Speaker, is that in July there was an MOU signed between three parties in the fishery. That MOU was signed by government, by the processors, and by the FFAW. That MOU commits to the three partners working together to bring forward substantial items, if you want to call them, that would bring about improvements in the fishery. Now, I am certainly very much looking forward to what is coming out of that MOU. No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, we have vested interests here, especially, I suppose, more so than anyone, from the FFAW and the processing sector. It means they are going to have to really put things on the line here, and that this cannot be something that you come in, you ask for money; you throw money at it and think that money is going to be the solution for this, because it simply is not. Money will be an important part of it but before we can move on anything there has to be substantial, concrete recommendations that will come forward. I certainly encourage, and I am certainly hoping that both sides will make those submissions to government and then we will see where we can go from there.

Another one is on the fisheries innovation side, Mr. Speaker. Government committed $6 million over three years. Really, what that was intended for is to have harvesters, plants and so on and so forth, look for innovative ways to – whether cut back on the cost of their operation, or make their operation more effective and efficient. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that it was reported to me that over half, almost up to $4 million of that, I believe is the number - that there has been an uptake of $4 million on that. We have seen investments, like I said, around efficiencies, technologies that have improved production, so on and so forth. Those are very positive signs.

Mr. Speaker, my time is short but the one thing that I have to say coming into this new portfolio, and there are other things that I had to mention here that I did not get to, and certainly hope that I will get to over the next weeks or months. I have to conclude on this, and I have already alluded to it to some effect, is that I started out by saying how it is very easy to be on the opposing side but much harder to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing from a personal perspective, and I think I speak for a lot of members in this government. When we make decisions, whether it be somebody with a disability, or somebody with an illness, or somebody who is looking for some work support within their community, we do it with the utmost of sincerity. We are not a group who sits down and just reacts for the sake of reacting. We are not a group that makes decisions on political grounds. We have made decisions, some that may not have been very popular, but we have made decisions based on the evidence that have been presented to us and to the fact that we want to do the best that we can for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I speak on the behalf of my children and my grandchildren. I am not up in age, seventy or eighty yet, Mr. Speaker, but I think my time is getting there. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I look to the future of this Province for my children and my grandchildren. I want this place to be a place where they wear their pride on their chest, and, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that is the type of Province we are creating as a government. I believe it will be one that history books will say to the people that this government was one that made a major difference in policy and in decision making for the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I conclude. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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