December 10, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 43


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the very reasons that members in the type of democracy that we have in the British parliamentary system exist, is to discuss in an open, forthright and transparent way the budgetary process, appropriations by government in terms of the issuance of public service, and the ability of members to pursue this parliamentary work, not as a privilege but as a fundamental right within the system in which we operate.

Mr. Speaker, last night, in debate dealing with Bill 8, a bill on supplementary supply, it was reconfirmed, in our view, that the very laws concerning the appropriations dealing with the budgetary process, the Financial Administration Act in particular, were not only breached but were broken by the very people and the very minister who has been charged with the responsibility of upholding them.

Mr. Speaker, just let me say for the record that we believe that our privileges as members, and all members indeed, that their privileges and rights have been breached and broken. I use page 189 of Maingot to cite the following: Alleged acts must relate to a member's parliamentary work: words or acts must amount to contempt. He says, "But it is because of the nature that a valid question of privilege only arises infrequently. There must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's rights.... The interference, however, must not only obstruct the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his ..." - or her - "...parliamentary work."

Mr. Speaker, on the facts: Last March, while the budgetary process was unfolding, there were a number of special warrants issued, and they were issued under the Financial Administration Act, section 2, where it says: and confirmed by statements in the House by the minister and others. It says: where the sum appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet the requirements of that service during the year for which the appropriation has been made, then, upon the report of the minister that there is insufficient legislative provision and that no countervailing savings are available from other subheads of the head of expenditure concerned, and upon the report of the minister having charge of that service in question that the necessity is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on the recommendation in the writing of the board, order that a special warrant be prepared for signature by the Lieutenant-Governor for issue of the amount estimated to be required.

Mr. Speaker, on March 15 of last year, and on March 27 of last year, special warrants were issued by the minister in Cabinet totalling $48.1 million. Now, under the section that they have themselves quoted as using, it is one of the only ways in which, as I just cited from the act, government can issue legitimately without coming to this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the breach of the act occurred this way: because one of the conditions in issuing a special warrant - and it says very clearly: In the case where the House of Assembly is open and a special warrant is issued, then that warrant must be tabled in this House three days after it has been issued.

Mr. Speaker, last year the House of Assembly opened on the March 11. Special warrants were issued on the 15th, on the 22nd and on the 27th. In all cases - and this is not an opinion but this is one of incontestable fact - under the sections where the special warrants were issued, the minister was obligated on behalf of the government to table those special warrants within a three-day period because the House of Assembly was open. Mr. Speaker, that was not done.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a mere oversight. The Auditor General has confirmed in her reports, and has warned government repeatedly over a period of several years, that the issuance of special warrants in the latter part of March not coming to the House of Assembly when we were in session is a contravention of the act, that the very laws that we were sworn to uphold have been breached.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: On March 25, to add insult to injury, the Member for Ferryland, in asking direct questions to the minister, asked her directly, had any special warrants been issued this month, or were any special warrants going to be issued before this month was over.

Mr. Speaker, the reply - you can search for yourself - is self-evident. The minister did not answer the question directly. She said there would be nothing hidden. At the same time - before that question was asked - two days after, went ahead and issued special warrants.

Mr. Speaker, these warrants were tabled in the House outside the requirements under the law in the latter part of April. Now to those who would say that, in responding to questions in Question Period, it is not a breach of privilege, let me answer it this way. I refer members to page 25, section 92 and section 97 of Beauchesne. First it says, "A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties and not to the work the Member does in relation to that Member's consistency." All of our duties were breached, in our view, because we were debating the very budget and the financial appropriations of the Province. At the same time we were debating that, special warrants were being issued in contravention of the act that denied us the information to debate thoroughly, prudently, in an open and transparent way, all of the money that government was using.

The second section, Mr. Speaker, says, "While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member, if it could be shown that such action amounted to improper interference with the Hon. Member's parliamentary work."

Mr. Speaker, it is our view that we have demonstrated very clearly, supported by an Officer of this House, that being the Auditor General in terms of the breaches of the Financial Administration Act of the law, denying members of this House information that we clearly had a right to have. Government in a willful attempt, Mr. Speaker, denied us that information and broke the law.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: such action undermines the credibility of the House of Assembly. It undermines the credibility that people should hold in members in this House. It circumvented information that we had a right to have. It was not a privilege or something that government could offer, it was something they had an obligation under the law to offer to members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is this very action that questions the public confidence in government and questions all member's integrity when it comes to openness, transparency and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an attempt to besmirch and taint the good record of this government. This is what we have, Mr. Speaker. This is no point of privilege. If this were a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this House would cease to operate, practically.

What this government has done with respect to supplementary supply has been done ever since my association with this House, which goes back twenty-five years. Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever a year when there wasn't supplementary supply brought in with special warrants. What this government has done is substantially reduced the number of special warrants that have come to this House. We have tried to follow the guidelines suggested by the Auditor General. Again, I do not know the year that the Auditor General did not criticize a government for bringing in special warrants. The Auditor General works and calls for perfection. We are not perfect. We are pretty good, but we are not perfect, Mr. Speaker. We have substantially reduced the number of warrants coming to this House, but we are a government of compassion. We are a government that cares. We follow the rules which we are allowed to operate under in providing these special warrants.

Now, the hon. member mentions about the timing. These special warrants were tabled in this House April 30. They became public knowledge April 30. We could not get them to the floor to be debated before this time. There are lots of things on the Order Paper, but once it is on the Order Paper and once it is tabled, it is then public knowledge. Nothing was kept from the public, Mr. Speaker, it was all there. The hon. member debated it when he took up that nine-and-a-half marathon hours back in the spring, when he took up the time of the House, wasted the time of the House, with nine-and-a-half hours of debate. If he had taken normal time, we may have had a chance to debate the supply.

Let me say about the point of privilege first of all, and I quote: If this government broke the law so has every other government in the twenty-five years that I have been here, and no point of privilege was ever granted on that particular issue. If there was a point of privilege granted, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament would be so hamstrung that the government would not be able to move.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Beauchesne, §25. It says, "The Speaker has stated: ‘On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what sets Hon. Members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public does not possess. I suggest that we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons.'"

Mr. Speaker. That is what our parliamentary privilege is about, free speech in this House and it does not go much beyond that. This action by this government did nothing to affect free speech. Indeed, it is the most open government that we have ever had in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, further, Beauchesne - as I have said, whatever it is it is not a point of privilege. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is a government showing good commonsense to address matters of urgency showing compassion and commitment to the public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whatever else this is, it is not a point of privilege. Let me, in conclusion, refer your Honour to §31.(9), "The failure of the Government to comply with the law..." that were the case, Mr. Speaker, is the case made by the hon. Opposition House Leader. This was his sole point of privilege. This was his big emphatic point, that the government broke the law, that it broke its own law. Beauchesne says about that in §31.(9), "The failure of the Government to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker, but should be decided by the courts."

Mr. Speaker, whatever else it is, this is not a point of privilege, I submit to Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. member under advisement.

Statements by Members

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate two residents with connections to the Burin Peninsula who performed extremely well at the Eastern Canadian Powerlifting Championships in Charlottetown, P.E.I. over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, Jamie Emberly, a native of Marystown who now lives in Nova Scotia, broke a bench press national record in the super heavyweight - 110 kilos and over - category at the championships.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I, along with my hon. colleague from Grand Bank, would like to congratulate Byron Monster of Fortune who was a double gold medal winner at the same championship event.

Competing in the Masters 1 category, Byron finished first in the overall 100 kilogram category with a total of 1,388 pounds lifted. That included personal best lift of 550 pounds each in the squat and deadlift and a 308 pound bench press. Byron also lifted 308 pounds in a separate bench press competition to claim another gold in the event.

He now qualifies for the 2003 powerlifting national championships that will take place in Winnipeg this March.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members in this House, I congratulate Jamie Emberly and Byron Monster for their achievements in this national championship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In late November, 1982, in the gymnasium of Truman Edison Memorial in Gunners Cove, a group of young people from the area, and a group of sea cadets from 184 RCSCC Curling in Corner Brook and their officers came together to form the 285th Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp Leif Ericsson.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, as I said, there were about forty-five or fifty young people involved. Officer Zelda Pynn, Madonna Roberts, Eric Young, Gerald Hillier, Marie MacDonald and my father, Leonard Taylor, formed, as I say, the RCSCC 285 Leif Ericsson.

In the twenty years, since that time, there have been many hundreds of sea cadets who have passed through that organization providing a great opportunity for the young people of the area to expand their horizons, to experience new things, to go to sea cadet camp in Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, go on tall ship cruises and, in short, I guess, Mr. Speaker, to have a great life experience.

Mr. Speaker, the Corp is alive and well today. There are fifty-three - I just talked to one of the officers this morning - cadets on strength in the Corp today. Lieutenant Debbie Humby who is Commander Officer, Christopher Humby, Diane Snow, Lisa Pilgrim, Sabrina Humby, and Ida Roberts carry on the tradition of providing young people in the area with an opportunity to grow and to experience, as I said, many of the things that the sea cadet organization has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, over a third of the total youth in the area are involved in the sea cadet corp here. They have done a marvelous job over the past twenty years in providing opportunities for these young people. As Christopher Humby said to me this morning: You know, the great thing about the cadet organization is that it provides people of all backgrounds equal opportunity. The only thing that really sets people apart is the amount of interest and the amount of work that they put into it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to the officers and cadets of RCSCC Leif Ericsson on twenty years of success, and certainly to all people who are involved and dedicate their time to the cadet movement throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently launched a campaign in Southern Labrador, in which a red ribbon will be distributed to residents to spread the MADD message.

The campaign was launched to encourage people to drive sober and, because the red ribbons bring new meaning to the words, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, it is encouraging that people wear one during the upcoming holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Jackie Rumbolt and other members and organizers of this campaign in Southern Labrador, and send out my best wishes to them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a young girl by the name of Niki Rumbolt, who is a Grade 8 student at St. Mary's All-Grade School, in Mary's Harbour. She was on hand for the launch of this campaign. Niki captured first place in the 2002 MADD Canada National Writing Contest for the eleven to fourteen age category. She was presented with a plaque, $250, and other gifts by MADD Canada.

Mr. Speaker I would like the hon. members of this House to join me as I congratulate the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers organization for their recent campaign launch and to Niki Rumbolt for her award-writing essay in the 2002 MADD Canada National Writing Contest. Her essay, Mr. Speaker, was titled: A letter to Daddy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Bishop Field Elementary School, located in my district, on being awarded membership in the League of Peaceful Schools, the fourth school within the Avalon East School Board jurisdiction to achieve this designation.

Peaceful Schools International was founded by Hetty van Gurp, a Nova Scotia school principal whose son died as a consequence of a school bullying incident. To be awarded a Peaceful School designation, the school must demonstrate a commitment to creating and maintaining a culture of peace within the school, with ongoing programs for students supported by staff training for teachers and parent involvement. At Bishop Field this has involved the direct teaching of citizenship skills, a peace festival, visits by RNC officers as part of an anti-bullying program and participation in Remembrance Day and other citizenship activities.

Bishop Field proudly flies the flag of Peaceful Schools International in its corridor and I want to congratulate the Principal of Bishop Field School, Judy Gard-Puddester, the parents, students and teachers who have worked so hard to achieve this designation. I would urge other schools in this Province to consider this program as a way to make their school a safe one for their children, where the culture of peace and respect for each other is demonstrated and celebrated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. She is standing on a Member's Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask leave to present a statement from my district?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a constituent of mine, Mr. Maxwell Hussey, who, last week, celebrated his 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Hussey was born in Herring Neck on December 4, 1902 and lived on Baccalieu Island where his father was the lighthouse keeper. He left the Island at age six to attend school in Herring Neck. At a very young age he began to work with the trade union where he worked as manager at various union store locations, including Wadham Islands, Ladle Cove and Musgrave Harbour. During World War II, Mr. Hussey worked on the base in Gander with a company known as Atlas. From there he began to work with Goodyear Humber Stores in Gander where he worked until his retirement at age seventy-five.

All of his life, Mr. Hussey enjoyed fishing on the Gander, Ragged Harbour and Conne Rivers and did so until the ripe old age of ninety-three. Before 1992 he loved to cod fish and spent time on Duck Island with his family picking bakeapples.

Mr. Hussey married Bessie Abbott from Musgrave Harbour and they had five children, sixteen grandchildren, twenty-seven great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren. Mr. Hussey currently resides at Lakeside Homes in Gander since January 5, 1997, and still greatly enjoys visits from his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Mr. Hussey all of my life and it was a great pleasure to visit him last weekend. They had a great celebration for his birthday. He has always been a very happy person with a really positive outlook on life and I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in wishing Mr. Hussey a very happy 100th birthday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Christmas season is a time of giving. Now that we are well into the season, we once again are experiencing a movement that started in our Province many years ago. It gives us the opportunity to give to those less fortunate than ourselves. What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the Happy Tree. Throughout our Province organizations are involved in providing this invaluable service to those, as I said, who need it.

On November 23, I had the opportunity to partake in the official opening of the Happy Tree at the Placentia mall, which covers most of my district. Each year the crowd seems to be getting larger and larger. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate those involved: the Placentia Lion's Club, CHCM Marystown and Russ Murphy, the Upper Trinity South Salvation Army Band, and all of the businesses, organizations and individuals who give so freely to this worthwhile cause.

Mr. Speaker, this is not unique in my district, as I have said. This effort ensures that no child is left without a gift under the tree on Christmas morning. A very important cause indeed. I would like to congratulate all those involved throughout our Province, and a special congratulations and thank you to the people in my own district. Because of these people, the Christmas spirit is alive and well in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance.

In this House on March 25, 2002, I asked the minister a specific question. I asked her: Have any special warrants been issued so far this month that we are not aware of, and is it government's intent to issue any more before the end of this month? On March 15, 2002, ten days earlier, special warrants were issued for $2,672,000. On March 22, three days before my questions, special warrants were issued for $10,953,000, for a grand total of $13,625,000. I asked the minister, was she trying to hide special warrants from the House? I ask the minister now: Why did the minister tell me that day, five times in her response, that there was nothing hidden?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to answer the questions again. I can answer very clearly that in every case the letter of the law has been followed. There was absolutely nothing hidden.

I would say to members opposite, particularly on the presentation that was made by the Opposition House Leader about violations of the Financial Administration Act, and quoting the Auditor General, at no point has the Auditor General ever commented on a breach of a time frame. Clearly, the Auditor General and government differ on definitions of urgent, but I can honestly say that with every point, with every special warrant, these were tabled in accordance with the law. There has never been a breach of the Financial Administration Act as it relates to the dates of issue and the dates of tabling in the House of Assembly. There is nothing hidden and, in fact, the information is there for all to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General, in her report, on page 73, indicates they were issued when the House was in session, and does make reference, I might add.

The Financial Administration Act right here requires that special warrants that are issued under section 28.(2) - that these warrants were - must be tabled in the House within three days of the special warrants. That is section 28.(4)(d) of the Financial Administration Act. Those issued on March 15 - and I have the date the House was open here - should have been tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question now.

MR. SULLIVAN: These warrants on March 15 should have been tabled before I asked my questions. Those on March 22 should have been tabled around the time I asked my questions. They were not tabled until April 29.

I ask the minister: Why did the minister not comply with section 28.(4)(d) of the act and table them within three days the House being open?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the question because again I can say very clearly, unequivocally, that the letter of the law was followed. The Financial Administration Act was not only never breached; in fact, it was held up to the highest level in that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Members opposite laugh, but I take quite seriously, as do all my colleagues, when there have been motives impugned about breaking the law here, and I take great personal offence, as do my colleagues, when they know the difference. I think power can do awful things to people when they stray from the actual facts here, because I think people need to know the truth here.

Let me quote, Mr. Speaker - if I could have the liberty to clarify this information in answer to the question, I think it is important for the people of the Province to hear this, if they want to hear it. I will say first, the special warrant for Works, Services and Transportation issued on September 18 - was the House open? No. When was it tabled? When the House opened, within the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay, I can get down to all of the other ones if the member opposite wants to hear them. He says it is not the one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can clarify every single one, the date they were issued and when they were tabled, but it is clear he does not want to hear it because he knows the fact is that he does not know the fact, and that he is making false allegations about breach of the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I minister knows full well that the ones that were issued in September and November were tabled when the House opened, and I am not asking about them. I am asking about the ones on March 15 and March 22, that the law was broken.

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, two days after I raised that question here in this House, more special warrants were issued for the sum of $34,631,700. These were not tabled in the House, I might add, until April 29, when the House sat on April 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 29.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Why did she continue to break the law, even after I raised the issue on March 25?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the law was never broken, and if the member opposite would listen, I will only be too happy to say: On March 27 there was a special issue warrant. The House was open. When was it tabled? The same day, March 27, within three days. Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Education, a special warrant for $10 million. When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled in this House? March 27, Mr. Speaker..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Another one, Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker, a special warrant of $6.3 million for drug programs for our seniors and our social assistance recipients. When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled in this House of Assembly? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services, a special warrant of $10.9 million, Mr. Speaker. When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled in this House of Assembly? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services, an allocation of $17.5 million for our hospitals for health equipment and services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled, Mr. Speaker? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister - I did not hear her say when she tabled March 15. Could she tell the House on that one, too?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to answer that question as well. A special warrant for $1.9 million for Justice, issued on March 15, the House was not open, according to my records. When was it tabled? The very same time I tabled all the others, March 27, within the requirements of the Financial Act, section 28(2).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, may I say another one for justice again? Court recording equipment, when was it issued? March 15. According to our records this House was not sitting. When was it tabled? The same time as every other, March 27, fully within compliance of the Financial Administration Act. No laws broken, only motives impugned, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my records show that the warrant was issued on March 15. The House sat on March 19, March 20, March 21, March 25 and March 26, five days and it still was not tabled. Minister, that is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question on March 25 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When I asked the question - I would like an opportunity to ask a question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 15 warrants were issued for $720,000 and $1,952,000. The minister said she did not table them until March 27. She just said that. That means five previous days had elapsed in which she did not comply with that. That is contrary to section 28.4(d) of the act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she admit, by her own admission today, showing that she contravened the administration act and will she get up and apologize for not tabling it in compliance with this act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I will admit is that he does not know what he is talking about. That is the only thing I will admit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say this - let me say this, Mr. Speaker, in response to his very long preamble. I would like the opportunity to respond to your preamble. The member opposite knows, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to get to her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite knows, when he read from the Financial Administration Act, that when the House is not in session special warrants must be tabled within thirty days. I never waited thirty days, Mr. Speaker. I tabled within fifteen days of the House opening. Strictly within the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is correct. It is written here. Maybe he does not agree with what is written in the act. Maybe you know more than what is written as part of the law. I know you are all knowing in many ways but this is the law, I say to the Member for Ferryland. This is accurate. This is the letter of the law. You might not like it, I will say to him, but it happens to be the law. That is what we follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wonder if the minister is clear. Does she understand that section 22 of the act is money expended already under heads that are listed? Section 23 of the act is for a new expenditure not set out. That is the thirty day one. The one for an over-expenditure on a current one is the one that must be tabled in three days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is trying to confuse and tell people that it is a different section.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister: Will she now admit, she said it on the record in this House, that she broke the law on the March 15 warrant? That is the one I asked about on March 25, and she hid it from this House. Would she stand now and tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I urge the member, who is the critic - now, he is talking the whole time I am trying to respond. I listened to what you were saying and I would like to say that you should read the act -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, when they are speaking in this House, to address the Chair.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is written right in the act: When the House is not in session, and you are making an expenditure on an existing service -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. minister ought to be directing her comments to the Chair.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By all means, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the House is not in session, and a special warrant is issued on an existing service, that information must be tabled within thirty days.

Now, I say to the member opposite, that there is no new allocation here. This is an extension of an existing service. It is totally within the law. I say to the member opposite, he knows he is mistaken. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have followed the letter of the law. He knows the difference. He might not like the law, he might have thought he had a big coup going here today and the big unwrapping of clandestine operation. I have to say, this government, these members, have followed the law -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and we stand by following the law, and will continue to make those decisions for the people of the Province, for health and education and other types of community services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, earlier, in Question Period, the minister said that the only difficulty the government and the Auditor General had over the Financial Administration Act was not that it was breached or contravened or anything like that, it was just a question of timing.

In view of that, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. In any unbiased look at what the word contravene means, it means to violate, to break or to violate. Let me ask him this question: How does -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. This minister is responsible for upholding the laws of the Province. How does he, I guess, square the circle, that the Minister of Finance just said they didn't contravene the law, when the Auditor General says clearly that they were issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. the Opposition House Leader that it is not the role of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General to give legal advise to him or this House. Perhaps he might consult with either one of the three lawyers he has in his caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my advise to the Minister of Justice is that you go back and try the socko communications course that he used.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this minister is responsible to uphold the laws of the Province, not only for the people the laws are to serve and protect but also to hold all of his colleagues accountable.

I will ask you again: How do you justify the Auditor General saying that you are in contravention of the Financial Administration Act? How do you, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, justify the breaking of your own laws?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction between Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and I will not belabour the time in this response to explain to the hon gentlemen what the distinction is. If he has a concern with the Report of the Auditor General vis-à-vis the actions of our Minister of Finance, I suggest that he should consult legal counsel, or the RCMP, or the RNC if he feels that there has been a breach. We certainly have not been advised of such by the Auditor General.

I would also remind the gentleman opposite that it is not the role of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of this Province to keep anyone in this House, or in any party of this government, accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during March and April of this year, Work, Services and Transportation entered into twenty-eight lease renewal contract for office space on a month-to-month basis, valued at over $1 million, without calling public tenders. The reasons given for all twenty-eight leases were to give the department sufficient time to determine future space plans for each lease. Will the minister explain why proper procedure was not followed, and why proper planning was not carried out, before the leases expired in order for tenders to be called in a timely manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this department, as you know, acts for all the departments of government in terms of rental of space. Recommendations come in from the departments in terms of allocation of space and the way they want space allocated. Sometimes they are doing a consultation of offices and moving offices around, and from time to time they need more time to be able to do their planning in terms of their human resources and they request that the lease be extended on a month-to-month basis.

In some cases, in small communities around Newfoundland and Labrador, sometimes it is the only space available. In other cases, there are plans to consolidate and put all of the government departments in the one building. There are all kinds of reasons.

As the hon. member indicated in his question, that is the reason that this department exists, to be able to go out and look for the lease for these building at the cheapest rate possible. That is what the department has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question because he does not know the answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why the Department of Works, Services and Transportation entered into five leases of renewal for office space valued at over $166,000 in March and April of this year without calling tenders simply because the client department wanted to stay in their current location? Can the minister explain how this is a legitimate reason for not calling public tenders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: If we are talking about the Department of Health and we are talking about Human Resources and Development, we are talking about a service to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. These offices are set up in strategic locations around the Province, in the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, and all around the Province. Our clients and the people we serve are used to going to these particular offices. They have become accustomed to going to these offices. They may be on a major bus route. All the other conveniences are looked at in terms of providing services to the public.

This government is in the business of serving people. That is what this government is all about, and this department is in the business of providing services to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Air Access.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House yesterday because I gave up my flight to a person from Labrador West who had to get out to visit a critically-ill family member. That is not the first time, I might add, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a question. I ask him to get to his question now quickly.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador West are having great difficulty in obtaining airline travel particularly on weekends. We had cases yesterday, this past weekend and other weekends, where people have had to travel the roundabout way, leave Wabush, travel to Seven Islands, Blanc-Sablon , Goose Bay and St. John's; twelve hours travelling at a cost of $2,300, to get to St. John's when they had to.

The minister had meetings in Labrador West earlier this year and said he would push the federal minister to have the airport in Wabush declared a remote and essential airport. I ask the minister: When will the airport in Wabush be declared a remote and essential service so that residents of Labrador have some chance of getting air service that provides enough seats that allow them to travel when the need arises?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important issue. As the hon. member knows, we are dealing with a federal matter but, because this government is concerned, because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned about air access to and within the Province, we have taken on the task of lobbying with all of the stakeholders and particularly with the federal government. One of our concerns, as a result of the national air policy which designates airports into certain designations, is that all of the airports in this Province, with the exclusion of St. John's and Gander, which have been designated as national, have been designated as regional and local. That excludes the Labrador Coast.

We have lobbied that this decision be revisited and that Wabush certainly be classified as a remote airport. This, we believe, would help solve the problem because, first of all, in order to have air accessability - this is very obvious - we must have an airport, and an airport that is operating. We are very concerned about that and yes, we have lobbied with the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that what happened this past weekend is not a unique circumstance; it is becoming the norm in Labrador West. From Friday noon until Monday noon, from Labrador West, there are approximately seven or eight seats available for people to travel. I say that is far from being acceptable.

I ask the minister again: How long will residents in Labrador have to wait before they see a seven-day-a-week service with a number of flights and seats that can accommodate the need that is arising in Labrador West, so that people who have to travel to the Island portion of the Province will be able to do so, not as an option but as a necessity?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, if we had control, if we had the authority to remediate in that situation, Mr. Speaker, they would not have to wait a day longer; if we had the authority, if we had the control. All we can do is make representation, and we have made the representation. We have made strong representation. We know that Wabush is in a difficult position. We know that they need more air accessibility. We know that they need more capacity, and we are not going to stop until that is achieved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

It is an important issue to homeowners in the downtown area. It is not meant to be a confrontational question in any means. The homeowners in the downtown area are experiencing great difficulty with home insurance policies. Some insurance companies are sending letters demanding repairs such as electrical, oil tanks, and so on, be done within thirty or sixty days. Some insurance companies are sending letters simply demanding that the policy be cancelled, that they are no longer interested in providing policies for protection to these homeowners.

I ask the minster if there is anything that he can do, in his capacity, to alleviate some of the concerns of homeowners in the downtown area, to intervene on behalf of the policyholders and homeowners, to cut out the short notice demands to perform costly repairs and the short notice cancellations of policies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we realize that people are having problems with the insurance companies and the fuel companies. That was the reason why we endeavoured last year to set up regulations to ensure that they would continue getting proper insurance coverage. Unfortunately, some of the insurers and some of the fuel companies seem to be very aggressive about trying to enforce their requirements, and we have been talking with them. We had a meeting. The Minister of Environment and officials of both of our departments called them in for meetings a few weeks ago, and we are looking at what we may be able to do to try to get them to ease off on their requirements.

The fact of the matter, Sir, is that we cannot tell insurance companies, and we cannot tell fuel companies, the conditions under which they will do business, but we do work with all of the homeowners, and anybody who is having particular problems should get in touch with us. Some of the homeowners who are having trouble getting insurance are finding that the rates they are being charged are becoming very high -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. NOEL: - and they get in touch with our department and we are usually successful in helping them find insurance options. I encourage any homeowners who are having these sorts of problems to get in touch with our department and we will endeavour to help them out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister, it is not only homeowners with oil tanks. There are homeowners in the downtown area who have had coverage with the same company for decades without ever having a claim, without oil tanks. These homeowners are having their policies cancelled with only a thirty-day notice.

How is it that so many insurance companies are cancelling policies, yet at the same time, the homeowners shop around and can get a policy from another insurance company at a much higher premium? I am asking the minister if we can have the superintendent of insurance investigate this to find out why one insurance company can cancel a policy on one street and offer a higher premium to a homeowner on another street? I am asking the minister if we can ask the superintendent of insurance to investigate this to find out if, in fact, the insurance companies are acting on the best interest of the homeowners, policyholders in the downtown area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Service and Lands.

MR. NOEL: We do not need to investigate this to know what is going on. We are well aware of what is going on. We keep in constant touch with what is happening in that regard.

The hon. member talks about the problems that people are encountering. He would be much more helpful if he could come up with some solutions. The fact of the matter is that homeowner insurance is not regulated in our Province. The only insurance that is regulated is automobile insurance, and, as everybody knows, it is not very easy to keep down the cost of automobile insurance even though we regulate it.

Homeowner insurance is not regulated. These are private enterprise companies. They are free to operate as they wish. If people think that we should try to look into regulating such companies, we could do so, Mr. Speaker. But the fact of the matter is, the insurance companies are not making adequate profits these days and they are going to keep raising rates, or eliminating risks, until they do. We are doing all we can to help homeowners, but we are very limited in what we are able to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order today because I think it is very important to raise attention to some of the comments that were made here today in the House, as well as last night, but more specifically today. If any member in this House were to call another member a liar, I think, Mr. Speaker, by your judgement they would be asked to recant and apologize.

In this measure today, I know that word was not used, but when somebody is accused - and I speak about accusations made about the Minister of Finance breaking the law. I think it affects, not only the Minister of Finance in my case, but all of us. I have to say that in terms of the magnitude of the problem, I think it is - Mr. Speaker, in terms of the magnitude of this kind of accusation saying that members opposite and me, as Minister of Finance, have broken the law when in fact, Mr. Speaker, not only have I, I think, clarified to the letter of the law how we have followed the Financial Administration Act by both the issuance of special warrants through the Cabinet process and then following up with the tabling of special warrants, not only within the three day period when the House was open, but on the very day.

When the House was closed I say, Mr. Speaker, within the designated time - because the House was closed on the dates the member refers to and still special warrants were issued according to the law. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows this House was not sitting at the time. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the House was sitting the special warrants were tabled appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on the issue of the accusation of breaking the law which I take personally most ‘affrontive' as well as I know on behalf of all of my colleagues, not only as government members but as individuals, when in fact the case has been made that not only have we followed the law but we followed the law as it relates to the Financial Administration Act and in keeping with the rules of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying personally, as a government member and as a minister, on behalf of my colleagues I ask you to take this matter very seriously because of the very serious nature and the ‘affrontive' nature of such very serious accusations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. member under advisement.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 4, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Automobile -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called for Notices of Motion.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Government House Leader. We are under Notices of Motion under Routine Proceedings.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Under Notices of Motion, Mr. Speaker.

In that event, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow, Thursday, the House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m. A double motion, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I put forward the following Private Member's Resolution.

WHEREAS the downturn in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador has had such a negative impact on employment; and

WHEREAS more than 50,000 people have left our Province in the last decade; and

WHEREAS the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer; and

WHEREAS the government Jobs and Growth Strategy is not reaping the benefits we are lead to believe it is; and

WHEREAS the government has failed to permanently fill the important position of Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and

WHEREAS community groups and organizations in this Province that are mandated to address community economic development are raising concerns about the lack of direction and commitment from the provincial government to deal with this situation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call on government to immediately appoint a full time Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development and to convene an emergency meeting in January, 2003 with the stakeholder groups to address these concerns.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS faculty members of Memorial University of Newfoundland's Department of Mathematics and Statistics have expressed concern that they had been kept in the dark about recent changes to the Province's high school mathematics curriculum and that they had discovered major errors in the course program; and

WHEREAS teachers in the Province have expressed concern that the curriculum changes were introduced without adequate teacher in-servicing thereby creating a situation in which teachers were not adequately prepared to instruct their students in the new methodologies; and

WHEREAS one of the major recommendations of the 1992 Williams Royal Commission report Our Children Our Future: Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education was that teachers ought to be thoroughly in-serviced before curriculum changes are implemented;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Education consult with elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators to determine the need for changes to the curriculum and to review curriculum changes before they are implemented;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Education provide adequate teacher in-service before proceeding with curriculum changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition on behalf of retired teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the petition reads:

We, the undersigned, all Members of the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador present at BCM 2002, wish to register our support for an agreement with the recommendations made within the Brief on the urgent need for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am standing here today to present a petition on behalf of this group of people who feel that since 1989 they have not received an increase in their pension benefits. People who have played a very important role in our society in this Province, the teachers, who are, in most cases - when we take our children to school for the first time we put them into the hands of these people. There is a great level of responsibility that these people put forward. Most of these people have spent thirty years in the profession, not only in the classroom but outside the classroom in extracurricular activities, have added much to community life throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, have played a vital role in the all-around education of our children and, I think, it is very important that we take their concerns to heart and that we address this issue.

Just as an example, I have a letter from a retired teacher in my district, Mr. Speaker. If I could take a moment just to read the few sentences that she wrote to me. She said: I am a retired teacher who is proud of my years of dedicated service to the children of this Province. Unfortunately, my retiring years are overshadowed by the inadequacy of my current pension. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador last provided an increase in retired teachers' pensions in 1989. The increasing cost of living since that time places me in a precarious financial situation. My purpose in writing to you is to request that government, once again, grant annual ad hoc increases to teachers' pensions. I respectfully ask that this be made a priority. I appreciate your anticipated assistance and I recognize your acknowledgment that this request is both just and timely.

Mr. Speaker, I know this lady quite well. She just recently retired in the last couple of years and there is no doubt in my mind that she gave incredible service to the students who she taught, but indeed to the community as a whole. An all-around person who gave years and years of service to the whole aspect of education to this Province. I think that her request, along with the requests of all the people who signed this petition, and all the retired teachers through the Province, is a reasonable request and something that government should take seriously and have a look at.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of these people today and ask that government take into consideration the concerns and issues that these people have put forward through this petition here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to present a petition on behalf of the Alzheimer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. The petition is signed by 1,245 people. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province, humbly sweareth;

WHEREAS Aricept, Exelon, Reminyl are the three medications approved by Health Canada as safe and effective for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; and

WHEREAS these medications are not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but delay the loss of ability to perform daily activities in some patients in the mild to moderate stages of the disease; and

WHEREAS these drugs cost approximately $5 per day for each patient; and

WHEREAS according to the Canadian Study on Health and Aging, 5,600 individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador have Alzheimer's disease and other dementia of which approximately 1,500 are in the mild to moderate stage of the disease; and

WHEREAS 80 per cent of the Canadian seniors have access to these medications through provincial drug plans in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to request the government to include these medications and other drugs deemed safe and effective by Health Canada to treat Alzheimer's disease as a benefit under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition today on behalf of the Alzheimer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are lobbying for the coverage of Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl under the Newfoundland and Labrador drug program.

As the petition states, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that as many as 5,600 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians may be affected by Alzheimer's disease, a fatal disorder of the brain that causes a steady decline in memory. This results in dementia, loss of intellectual functions, thinking, remembering and listening, severe enough to interfere with every day life. It attacks both men and women, with those over the age of sixty-five being the most vulnerable to the disease.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia, affecting 10 per cent of people sixty-five years old and nearly 50 per cent of those aged eighty-five and older.

Mr. Speaker, Alzheimer's causes a person to forget recent events and to have difficulty performing familiar tasks. How rapidly the disease advances varies from person to person, causing confusion, personality and behaviour changes. Communication becomes difficult as the person with Alzheimer's struggles to find words, finish thoughts or follow directions. Eventually, people with Alzheimer's become totally unable to care for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, while these drugs, Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl do not provide a cure for Alzheimer's disease -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS M. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

It is proven that some patients in mild to moderate stages of the disease may be able to perform daily activities longer than they would without the use of these drugs. Currently, the segment of the population who could benefit from these drugs are part of 20 per cent of the Canadian population who do not have access to these medications through provincial drug plans.

Mr. Speaker, the 1,245 people who have signed this petition are requesting the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include these drugs as a benefit under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, and offer the 1,500 people in this Province who may be able to benefit from these agents assistance in accessing them.

I will say, in conclusion, that my heart goes out to all persons affected with this awful disease and especially to the families of those affected. As a family member, I have had the experience of watching my grandmother and my aunt fall victim to Alzheimer's. I know what it is like to stand by and helplessly look on in desperation while an otherwise healthy person just drifts away and becomes a stranger to all those they dearly love.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Alzheimer Society, and all those affected with this disease, I implore government to hear and to grant this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of residents of this Province. The petition deals with funding for MS drugs, including Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif. They want these drugs included under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

Mr. Speaker, the names on this petition today come from all around St. John's, Mount Pearl, the Goulds and other areas around the Avalon Peninsula. I think what we see happening here, the petitions that I have been presenting on this issue for the last number of months and years is that there are people all across this Province, as evidenced by the petitions and where they are generated from, who are suffering from MS and other diseases like Alzheimer's who are in need of hormone replacement drugs.

These drugs are quite expensive, Mr. Speaker. I think that when we look around and see all the areas of the Province that these petitions have come from over the past while, it is fair to say that there is not one member in this House of Assembly who does not have people living in their districts who are in need of these drug therapy prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, because I have been presenting petitions on this issue for quite some time, some people have asked me whether or not someone in my immediate family or whatever, has MS. I am fortunate to be able to say that I do not have anybody in my family, or a relative that I am aware of, who suffers from MS or the other diseases that I talk about. But, I do know that there are many people in this Province who are getting wiped out financially; having to choose between taking a drug to improve their health or having groceries on the table or being able to enjoy other things from the fruits of their labour in working.

I would like to read a section from a letter, if I may, that I received today. It is from the MS Society of Canada, the Atlantic Division. It says, "It is of great concern to the MS Society of Canada (Atlantic Division) that individuals with MS in Newfoundland and Labrador are being denied adequate funding for the four breakthrough medications that have been clinically proven to reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks, and actually slow the progression of disability in individuals with relapsing-remitting MS.

"As you are aware, other provinces have created MS drug specific financial eligibility criteria, which takes into account the cost of the four new MS drugs, that they are of great cost and not financially obtainable for middle-income people who are ineligible for social assistance and income support programs."

Mr. Speaker, it is terrible to see what people in this Province have to go through to maintain their health and maintain their quality of life, that they have to devastate themselves financially before this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - that this Province imposes on people that they have to destroy themselves financially, they have to spend any RRSPs they may have saved, spend any money they may have put aside for their children's education, and then this government will step in and help out. So, it is not as if this government will never be able to find the money to supply these drugs, because, once a person destroys themselves and their families financially, this government will walk in and help. It is very unfortunate for all the people in this Province who suffer from MS, Alzheimer's, or need hormone replacement drugs, that they have to do this to themselves before this government will offer any assistance.

I say to the minister, it is very important to a lot of people in this Province, to a lot of families in this Province, that we get in line with other jurisdictions in this country who provide relief to their citizens. It is time that we caught up with the rest of this country and did the same for the residents of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today. To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name change of our University; and

WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and

WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a Province; and

WHEREAS when other political entities changed the name of the university within that region did not; and

WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and

WHEREAS the university is on the Island of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire name of that province; and

WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo the name change; and

WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity attached to a university; and

WHEREAS another proposed university in the Province is more suitable to have Labrador added to its name;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by some 593 signatories from Memorial University, the general public and the Royal Canadian Legion in Marystown, Burin.

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I am presenting today, I guess the strongest reason that I see for the petition today would be that of a cost-benefit analysis. Prior to any change of name of Memorial University of Newfoundland, I feel that there should be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine what benefits there would be verses the cost.

The cost to the university would be enormous, to change the name. In these times of cost constraint and government's cutbacks and so on, tuition fees and students complaining about the rising cost of tuition fees, one has to wonder who will bear the cost of a name change, when you look at buildings, streets, different campus buildings and campuses, in fact, ID for stationery, vehicles, Web sites and so on, that would have to be changed. Certainly we would not pass this cost on to students through tuition increases, or pass it on to the facility itself. Government saying on a daily basis almost that we have to be aware of our costs and expenditures, although sometimes we question whether or not they are, will government take the cost of a name change for Memorial University?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I ask government, prior to any name change to Memorial University of Newfoundland, that a cost-benefit analysis be done. Obviously we have no problem with the university recognizing the entire Province, but we have to wonder whether or not the cost at this point will provide a greater or lesser benefit than those funds being put towards other uses. Who will absorb that cost? Will it be the students? Will it be the taxpayers of the Province? These are questions that have to be answered, and I would ask that government do a cost-benefit analysis prior to any name change to the university.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we will get it correct this time, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, asks leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance Arising From The Recommendations Of The Select Committee To Review The Property And Casualty Insurance Industry And The Government's Public Consultation, Bill 28

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance Arising From The Recommendations Of The Select Committee To Review The Property And Casualty Insurance Industry And The Government's Public Consultation," carried. (Bill28)

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, asks for first reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 31.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried. ( Bill 31)

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, continuing on with Motions, we will do, if I may, Motions 6 and 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today and not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Order 19, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 22)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to introduce amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 22. This will, firstly, provide for an annual increase in the pension payments for future retired teachers; and, secondly, it will permit teachers to receive pension credit for periods of absences due to legal work stoppages.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments result from the recent collective agreement negotiated with the Teachers' Association. As part of those negotiations, government agreed to implement a formal indexing program for the Teachers' Pension Plan which will provide annual increases of up to 1.2 per cent of the yearly change in the consumer price index to those pensioners who retired after August 31, 1998, and who have also reached the age of sixty-five.

Mr. Speaker, eligibility for this indexing program is limited to only those teachers who retired after August 31, 1998; as those teachers, unlike those retired before that date, will have their pensions reduced from age sixty-five because the Teachers' Pension Plan is integrated with the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, while the annual increase is modest, it is within our fiscal means and it will provide retired teachers whose benefits are integrated with the Canada Pension Plan with some protection against inflation in the future. Also, this program will have no negative impact on the financial status of the Teachers' Pension Plan, which is a very important point, as both the teachers and government will pay additional contributions of 0.85 per cent each to cover the cost.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also permits teachers to receive pension credit for periods of absence due legal work stoppages. In order to receive the credit for such services, teachers will have to pay twice the contributions they would have normally paid provided they elect to do so within three months of signing of the collective agreement. Again, this ensures that the provision will not add to the cost of the Teachers' Pension Plan. I think, clearly, this demonstrates that government is committed to working with teachers and pensioners to address their concern, while at the same time exercising proper fiscal constraint.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill, again, it goes into the type of recommendations that we are suggesting here through a collective agreement, a collective agreement that has been signed, and signed with the intent of bringing this forward to the legislation to allow these contributions to occur. It is also important to note that when I said that these contributions will not affect the integrity of the Teachers' Pension Plan, it is because this indexed portion is put aside in a separate fund and those paying in will also receive the benefits from that. Those prior to 1998, in August, will not, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Also, no teacher will be required to pay obviously more than 1.2 per cent. Also, you have to be of the age of sixty-five, which is similar to the Public Service Pension Plan as it relates to the indexing component. Right now, the Teachers' Pension Plan would be indexed, the Public Service Pension Plan would be indexed.

I think that, again, this speaks to a lot of the issues that were raised during the recent round of collective bargaining with the cost of inflation with long-term pensioners who have brought forward the case quite clearly on the impact of a pension over time without an indexation program. Albeit a small one, as I mentioned, it is certainly one that we believe is affordable, and particularly in the case of the Teachers' Pension Plan; it is separate and apart from the main plan with their unfunded liability. That was one of the concerns that both parities had, that we not do anything to actually destroy the integrity of a very fragile Teachers' Pension Plan. As we know, even with the major contributions that government have made over the last four years with respect to significant amounts - $76 million into the Teachers' Pension Plan to try to extend it, and to continue to minimize the unfunded liability even though it is still quite a concern. We will continue to address that. These pension plans are guaranteed by government. This particular component of the indexation, which is really what this speaks to, the two pieces - the indexation, as well as the ability to buy back pension service during a work stoppage provided they do it within a three month period.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that this will be accepted by the Legislature. I think that, again, it speaks to the commitment that we have made to the teachers through the collective agreement that we have, in fact, signed on the premise that this would come forward to allow those contributions to be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to make a few comments on this particular bill. Having been a teacher myself, I would like to say it does not affect me, actually, because changes are after 1998 and it has no effect on me personally. Anybody retired prior to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not in receipt of a pension anyway, I will tell the hon. member. I am not in receipt of a pension for teaching. Even if I was - and I can become eligible to receive one; I am eligible but not of age - it still would not apply. It only applies for teachers who basically - when they eliminated the stacking provision in the contracts it opened up that, I guess. Inflation was eating away at the dollars. All public service pensioners, for example, up to 1989, did not have pensions indexed but they were given increases by the previous governments prior to 1989 to help offset some of the cost of inflation. That was stopped in 1989 and nothing was done since.

This a positive bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill is positive because it is one that is negotiated between government and The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. This legislation is enacting an agreement of the members, an agreement of government, who participated in this, and I guess the School Board Trustees Association.

I just want to comment on a few aspects of it. Obviously it is based on the consumer price index. It makes reference to clauses, and I support these. "A teacher who has a period of absence due to a lawful strike or lockout may have that period credited as pensionable service." But, if you are off due to a lawful strike you have to pay not only your share of the premiums but you also have to pay the employer's share of the premiums and you will pay a double amount. If that occurred before September, 2001, you would have until July 31 of this year past, basically, to have that period of absence credited as pensionable service. You would have to have your decision made, actually, months ago, before the bill actually got discussed here in this House - almost five months ago, basically, four-and-a-half months ago they would have had to make a decision on legislation, basically, that was not even here in the House. That particular aspect there certainly would indicate that we are dealing with legislation here when time limits have already expired.

If a teacher had a period of absence due to a strike after September 1 of this year, they would have only three months, basically, to signify it. One thing different, I guess, in normally contributing or buying back the service for lost time due to a lawful strike or lockout is that basically here you would pay the full amount on that, which seems to be fair because strikes or lockouts are labour disputes and so on but the provision is still there to do that.

A payment under this, too, they are indicating, cannot be made - a lot of people buy back pensionable service and get it deducted from their cheque. In this case, if they want to buy back service for being off on strike or an absence, whatever the reason pertaining to this section, they would have to do it in a lump sum payment. I think that seems fair and that is agreed - I assume that it is here as a part of an agreement that is agreed to by the affected parties, because then they are making that election quickly on what they want to do and they are paying the lump sum so there is no other accrued cost or liabilities incurred by government, by having to wait to collect the rest, or factoring in an amount of interest that might be due during the course of paying it back on that particular basis.

Now, there were discussions in bargaining as to when indexing should begin. There were certainly a lot of interesting people getting indexed at age sixty. I guess, at age sixty there would be a higher price attached to indexing. Indexing is being shared, I understand, on an equal basis between the parties in the collective agreement, one half by the employee and the other half by the employer. That is fine, but there is a cap on the particular amount of indexing. It is up to 60 per cent, basically, of the consumer price index for that year and the previous year, but not to exceed a maximum of 1.2 per cent. So, if the consumer price index is at 2 per cent for those years, at 60 per cent you will get a 1.2 per cent increase in your pensionable amount. Now, if it is higher than that, if the consumer price index is 4 per cent, at 60 per cent it would be 2.4 per cent. It would be double that, but you still only get 50 per cent, in that year, of the consumer price index. So, if inflation goes rampant, which we hope it doesn't, there is a faster erosion, then, of the amount of dollars that you can take home. That applies not only to teachers, but to the public service who have been indexed. Yes, the public service and the teachers have been indexed. I think government employees, in general, most have now come under this particular provision.

It goes on to mention here, too - section 4, subsection 26.1(2) says, "...only applies to a pension or survivor benefit where the teacher to whom that pension or benefit relates retires after August 31, 1998." Because that would be the date, I would think, when the previous agreement expired, with the stacking provision. I am not sure if the minister said that in her opening comments, but certainly she probably can when we get to a particular aspect, when she closes debate, or in the Committee.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What was that, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: The question I asked was: I would assume stacking ended on August 31, 1998. I didn't go back to check the agreement, but that would be the reason why, commencing on September 1, we would have this indexing applying, because obviously those who got stacking are not going to get indexing. Therefore, indexing will apply to the first agreement since stacking was eliminated. The minister nods saying that is the case.

"The amount of a pension or survivor benefit being paid to a person shall not decrease by reason only of an adjustment under subsection (1)." Is it indicating in that, that even if the consumer price index is negative, the cost goes down, I would assume we are not going to see a decrease in the pensionable amount? I will just ask the minister that question, too, when I get her attention, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a question. I assume I am making the right assumption here, that in section 4, subsection (3), "The amount of a pension or survivor benefit being paid to a person shall not decrease...", that is in case the consumer price index shows a negative and goes down, you are still going to get your same amount? Obviously, there is not going to be a decrease in your pensionable amount.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You get the minimum of what you paid in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly. You won't get anything less even if we get a period of negative.

MR. MATTHEWS: De-inflation.

MR. SULLIVAN: De-inflation, whatever you want to call it, not stagnation, not inflation, worse even more so. Things get cheaper. In this day and age I do not think we will probably face that to any great extent, but at least it is not going down and there is a benefit. As least you can benefit by 60 per cent of the inflation rate, assuming the inflation rate does not exceed 2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if it exceeds 2 per cent you are only going to get declining percentages of that rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index and released by Stats Canada.

Overall, it is another area, I guess, where I think it is important to look at, in collective agreements, the long-term because many people retire on pensions very, very small, from the public service and elsewhere. Many people today are not even fortunate enough to have a pension plan but those who do, it is important that they are not going to get poorer and poorer as time goes on, because that is what is happening. There are some people, too, I know - because petitions have been read here in this House - who do not fall into any of these categories. These people are the unfortunate ones who are not touched by this legislation. Of course, they were not a part of the collective bargaining that applies to the current membership there. These people are lost in the shuffle there. They are seeing their dollars eroding and less and less dollars of disposable income to be able to put food on the table and carry out the basic things in life, and necessities that they need. They find they are getting poorer and poorer. They wait for the Canada Pension to kick in to give them a little kick. When Canada Pension kicks in at the age of sixty-five we will be seeing a clawback. You will see a clawback on your Canada Pension, on the provincial pension in lieu of receiving Canada Pension. That is another one, so it is difficult to get ahead. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to make gains because there is always another little catch there to take back some more of that income.

This is a duly, negotiated agreement ratified by the membership and so on. We were a believer that when agreements are reached between two parties and it is acceptable to them, that agreement should - unless something extraordinary. I know they are basically servants or teachers of the Province employed by the Province and taxpayers. That is why the concern. We always have a concern from a perspective of legislators in this regard. They have entered into an agreement. I think it is a positive thing to have in the agreement there. We certainly support it. We will not spend too much time at all, I might say, Mr. Speaker, very little time in prolonging any particular debate on this particular bill here.

I will conclude my comments with that and I am sure our education critic would like to have a few comments on this too.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Member for Bellevue talk about a conflict of interest even before I got to my feet. Certainly, I would be the first to say that I came through the teaching ranks and at present, I am on leave from my position in Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts and any chance, I say to the Member from Bellevue, that I can get on my feet and talk about teachers and talk about their part in the society here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I shall do it.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly I am not in a conflict of interest because this act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, Bill 22, indeed, is an agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the NLTA, the School Boards Association, and it is brought forth to this House for ratification more so than, I suppose, debate, but in any bill that comes through I believe it is important that there would be a scrutiny of the particular bill, regardless of the circumstances in which it is presented.

I would say to the Minister of Finance, I am in full support of Bill 22; and, in support of it, I would have to say that the pension issues, not only of teachers, but certainly of the public service and other groups over the last couple decades, have been a very difficult journey for all parties. I can talk about the pension issues of the 1970s and 1980s, but certainly more of the 1980s and into the 1990s as, I guess, there were attempts made to make sure that the individuals, in particular, teachers, who were coming up for retirement, that the fund was there in the amount that could sustain the amount paid out to these teachers in the years they would be in retirement.

Following the last Collective Agreement, this act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act was drawn up to take care of five or six points that were negotiated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. With regard to pensions, one of the areas which need to be addressed, in any pension plan, is to try and maintain the standard of living that the teacher, or any retiree, enjoyed at the time of retirement.

This gets to be a tricky manoeuver, I guess, as we look at - I heard some comments about inflation and deflation. Of course, my colleague from Ferryland indicated that it was very, very unlikely that the cost of living will decrease, or deflate, as we move forward. But, who knows what the economy may bring.

This is a safety mechanism, I assume, in tying it in, somehow or another, to the consumer price index. Clause one establishes that the Teachers' Pension Act will be adjusted to add terms, consumer price index and pensioner in there. I guess with the idea of making sure that a certain amount is added to the pensions of those teachers who retire and reach the age of sixty-five so that there will be some mechanism in place to make sure that the funding, the pension that they receive certainly adequately addresses their living costs to ensure once again that, somehow or another, they are close to the standard of living that they were when they retired.

It is interesting, as well, to note that the contributions on the part of the teachers and on the part of the government, they are contributing basically the same amount, or the same increase. Again, it is good to see that agreements can be made where both parties are able to thrash out an agreement whereby the increase will cover the indexing of the teachers when they reach the age of sixty-five.

The aspect of a period of service lost due to a work stoppage or a lockout - now, in the past there have been windows that have been available for teachers to buy back service, whether they went to university or whether they did some substituting, and, to some degree, with regard to a work stoppage, lockout, maternity leave, other types of educational leave as well. Again, this Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act certainly addresses a group of retiring teachers who perhaps, for some reason or another, needed the time or the period of service due to a work stoppage or lockout. It is interesting to note, as my colleague brought forth, that in the first part of it, retiring teachers who retired as of June last year, I guess, would have had until July of this year to have bought back that particular period of service due to a work stoppage or a lockout. I guess I assume, Mr. Speaker, that they were well advised of that by their association and by their employer to make sure that anyone who wanted to avail of that was given the information and given the opportunity to do so, because obviously it is a bill that has not gone through yet but they certainly would have been given the opportunity to do so.

Of course, anyone retiring after September, 2002, naturally it becomes part of their package as they prepare for retirement. They know that if there is a work stoppage or lockout before they retire, they have something like three months to buy back that particular period of service. The lump sum, again, I guess, that is not too restrictive. I know in years past there have been some arrangements that could be made to have it deducted from your regular paycheque as you took responsibility to buy back some period of service, but given that it is not a large amount, I suppose, it is double the amount that is normally charged, it would be not for a long period of time, and that a lump sum is indeed something that all parties agreed on.

I guess the whole purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is indeed to provide for the indexing of pension benefits for pensioners once they reach the age of sixty-five and retire after August 31, 1998. This goes back retroactive, of course, and certainly gives this group of teachers an opportunity to maintain a level of pension that provides them with a standard of living much comparable to when they decide to retire.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this does address a particular concern of a particular group but I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is currently a group of teachers, anyone who retired prior to 1998, and especially those who retired prior to 1989. When these people retired prior to 1989, these teachers were given a regular increment for - I think they missed a couple of years, probably 1985-1986, if I am not mistaken - but in the 1980s right up until 1989 there were regular ad hoc increases, I guess, on an annual basis with the intent of keeping the standard of living for these retired teachers to a level that they had enjoyed when they retired.

Since 1989 right up now until 2002, this particular group of teachers from 1998 on has been taken care now, but prior to it - we also have to make note, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers will not get their increase until they reach the age of sixty-five. We all know the requirements, basically, for retirement from teaching is thirty years and out. It is not uncommon to have teachers retire in their late forties, maybe their early fifties. There is a period of time anywhere from up to a dozen years or more that they do not get any increases and, not getting any increases, their buying power or their power to maintain that standard of living is constantly eroded with each passing year.

Again, this is going to address it to some degree but it still needs to be addressed for those teachers who are not going to be covered under this particular amendment to the Teachers' Pensions Act. I do know because I, Mr. Speaker, a number of days back, and my colleague today from St. Mary's, presented a petition from retired teachers. These retired teachers - certainly a good number of them - who retired in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Mr. Speaker, are finding it extremely difficult to maintain, as I pointed out, that standard of living which they had enjoyed during their teaching days and, of course, the year that they retired. They presented a brief - as a matter of fact, they presented it to the Premier - and this brief is asking that the current government look at the situation and look at the possibility of renewing, or putting back in place, those ad hoc increases on a yearly basis to address the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, there are approximately 5,000 or more retired teachers in our Province. Some of them, again, are living on very low pensions, and they are finding it increasingly more difficult to deal with the day-to-day demands on their particular fixed income. They are calling upon the government to look on their brief, respond to the brief, and if a response comes back, they can build on that as to where they are going next.

So, I would call upon the Premier and the government to address that particular request from the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, to look at their request to review their pension situation with the idea of getting them back to a level where they can live comfortably on their fixed income.

I will leave it at that, Mr, Speaker, in saying that this bill is a bill that we would like to see passed. It is a bill that is a response to a collective agreement that was hammered out between the teachers, school boards, and the government last year. It addresses a concern. Pensions, pension funds, unfunded liability, all of these associated with pensions have been problematic over the last decade or so. We all know in this House how situations have changed with regard to pensions as it become increasingly more difficult to fund the responsibilities that the employers, the Government of Newfoundland, have taken on to ensure that our retired workers in this Province are adequately taken care of.

So this bill is welcome. It addresses a part of the difficulty, but again I would call upon the government to make sure that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am just wondering about my time there, if I have gone too long. I am going to clue up and give it to one of my colleagues who wants to have a few words to say on this as well.

In closing, again let me say that I am in full agreement with this particular bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. It is certainly an extension or a commitment that was made in the collective agreement negotiations of last year. It addresses a group of teachers who are retiring after 1998, but, again, I would call upon the government to ensure that they look at that other group of retired teachers who are not covered by this particular act and to respond to the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador to see if, indeed, anything can be done to address their serious concerns of a pension that is slowly losing its buying power as time goes on.

So, on that note I will reserve anymore comments to the Committee stage and I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words. I will not be as long or as tedious or as detailed as the previous two speakers.

I have found out that I am a very interesting speaker up till about ten minutes. After ten minutes I start boring and I lose my audience. I never want to do that, so I make sure that I never go over ten or twelve minutes. Hon. members seem to be automatically locked into twenty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am glad to be part of a government that is passing this bill today, a bill that is protecting teachers' pensions against inflation. That is probably the greatest enemy of pensions, fixed incomes, is inflation. Unfortunately, we have so many pensioners, so many teachers who did not have indexation built into their pensions and, unfortunately, their pensions have eroded to an extent that they are not able to live the same quality and the same style of life that they did when they worked.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be a part of a government that is helping our teachers and some of our public pensioners to be able to protect their salaries against inflation to be able to allow them to maintain a reasonable standard of living and a quality of life that they enjoyed when they were working and contributing to the workforce and contributing to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister and commend the government on this initiative, long overdue and only sad that it is only going to apply to future teachers. We only wish that it could apply to teachers in the past and public pensioners but, obviously, there is a limit as to the fiscal ability of the Province to be able to take care of all of these pensioners but glad that at least we are making a start for future retired teachers and other public pensioners. I conclude by commending the government on this initiative.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can tell the minister that we are not going to prolong the debate. As a matter of fact, I may not be sticking to the twenty minutes but maybe I might, I say to the member opposite. But when you have a chance to stand on a bill, an important bill as this is, and we do support, I say to the minister, and certainly long overdue, as the minister as said. There are concerns, of course, for prior to 1998 with the Retired Teachers' Association has brought many issues to the forefront and it is something that has to be also looked at and, hopefully, over time some of those concerns can be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. It is something that was worked on through the collective agreement. It is something that is long overdue, as the minister has already pointed out. In dealing with this in second reading, which is more of a general sense as compared to getting into committee, I say to the member, as you get into more details. I think both my colleagues on this side of the House pointed out some very important points that should be looked at, and if they do want to go into more detail, I say to the minister, again, they will have that opportunity in committee and they may use up more time just to look through the bill clause-by-clause as you do in committee. That is their responsibility and their right to do that. I encourage them to do that - any member on any side of the House, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The minister had his few minutes to stand up and made a very short comment. That is fair enough, and so should any member of this House have that. I do not know why anybody is continuously chastising people for standing to take two or three minutes, or ten or fifteen minutes to make a few points on legislation, no matter what it is. I believe this to be very important. It is not something we are going to hold up or prolong debate on. It is just to make a few comments.

I read through the explanatory notes, and I understand that 0.85 per cent in contribution by both sides is certainly going to contribute to the expense. At the same time, the point that jumps out at me in more of a general sense instead of going into a clause-by-clause on committee, which we will do at a later date, is the fact of teachers retiring. If anybody has seen the statistics on teachers in this particular Province - in this particular Province we do have a problem with the amount of teachers retiring. If you have seen the graphs and so on of the skew towards the right of the number of teachers in the next three to five years - is the last statistics I have seen of the number of teachers in this Province retiring. It is a major problem, not just in dealing with the pensions part of it but actually the shortage of teachers, which is all connected with this particular bill. Of course, this refers to teachers after 1998.

When you talk about shortage of teachers in this Province - also I had some information, which I saw just a short while ago in the Province of Ontario. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but it is something to be concerned about. As a matter of fact, if I am right, in 2006 Ontario will be facing a shortage of some 30,000 teachers. As we talk about morale in classrooms, and pensions and all issues related to that profession in this Province, then we could have a very serious problem on our hands.

When you go into a lot of staff rooms around this Province today and you go into a staff room - I will not mention the school at this point. I will just tell you that at least 80 per cent of that staff room, within the next two to three years, will be retired. How many teachers do we have coming out of our system who are going to be able to be there to fill those positions? That is something to be very concerned about. This is all related to this particular bill because as new teachers look to a profession that they can feel comfortable in, that they are going to make a longtime career at, then they need to be comfortable with issues such as pensions. That is a reality of life. As these teachers look to this profession they are glad to see changes like this. The Teachers' Association dealt with this. The Retired Teachers' Association has some very tough concerns about prior to 1998, which this does not address.

So those are legitimate concerns. They are concerns that should be raised when we speak about this bill. In second reading, it gives us the opportunity to make those points. As my two colleagues did prior to this, picked different clauses, which I am sure - and maybe the minister do not want to hear this, but in Committee stage as we finish second reading on this particular piece of legislation, which we will support, that they may indeed make more comments referring to the Committee stage. To protect the integrity, as the minister said earlier when she spoke, is very important. Also, that we are addressing this situation today that we can actually vote on this bill, move forward and address these concerns which are important to all of us, and it is important to the profession, and it is important that people heading into the profession are glad to see that these type of issues are being addressed.

Mr. Speaker, without prolonging debate on second reading - and certainly we will have our chance again in Committee stage - these are the points I will make today. It is not twenty minutes. I hope the minister made note of that. These are some general comments at second reading, and I am sure I will be back in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

First of all, I want to talk about the things that are in the bill because it does, as the minister has indicated, act as a legislative implementation of the results of collective bargaining and provides for pension credits for the time that would be lost by a legal strike or lockout. That can have implications. In some respects, it sounds a bit odd that you could actually get pensionable service for being on strike, but the consequence of not doing that could take away, in fact, a full year of pension credit for someone who might miss four or five days, a week, or two weeks if it happened to be on strike. It might take another semester, another year of teaching, to make up that time. The idea of being able to buy those credits back is, in some respects, a technicality to allow the integrity of the pension system to work properly over the lifetime or career of a teacher. So, that is what that one does. It gives a teacher a right to pay both. It says to double the amount but what it really is is both halves, both the employer half and the employee half of the pension service, or pension premium, to be able to fund the amount of service that gives the pension its economic viability. There is no increased cost for that. That is something that allows the integrity of the pension system to work and it is a bargained benefit by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association with government.

The second one is a start, but really only a start, I would say, over the introduction of indexing to teachers' pensions. Indexing is very important in an area of inflation. Indexing is very important where people are dependent upon a pension for their lifestyle and ability to live in a reasonable manner in retirement. We do not have it as high now as it has been in the past, but we are still seeing inflation of 2 per cent, 2.5 per cent, 2.7 per cent in the last couple of months on an annualized basis. One can easily see that your pension, over a period of five, ten or fifteen years, can be considerably eroded in terms of its buying power. If you just took 2 per cent per year of inflation over a period of ten years you are losing in excess of 20 per cent because that is compounded each year. You could be losing up to a one-quarter of the value of your pension benefit by having no indexing in your pension. What we see in the teachers' pension is that many people retire in their early fifties. This pension indexing does not kick in until sixty-five. Today, it is sixty-five. So, it may be, in fact, up to ten years before this actual indexing kicks in in any event. It is kind of a modest indexing, but it provides, obviously, what has been able to be negotiated by the NLTA, for its members, with government. Of course, we endorse the inclusion of that into the Teachers' Pensions Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are two other points that I do want to make, though, and one of them has to do with the large number of retired teachers who are not covered by this act, not covered by the indexing, and I am not particularly talking about the ones who retired in the year before 1998, 1997 or 1996. They do not get the benefit of this indexing, but I am more concerned about those large numbers of teachers who retired a long time ago, who received the benefit on an ongoing basis of an ad hoc increase in their pension from government up until about thirteen years ago.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) situation.

MR. HARRIS: Many of these teachers are in deplorable financial circumstances, as the Government House Leader acknowledges. Many of these teachers were teachers during a time when teachers' incomes were very low, when the teaching profession - and it is still considered to some extent a bit of a mission - but there was a time in this Province when teachers were actual missionaries, where they would go into communities where they never lived before, where conditions were very rough, where the pay was very low, where they were providing an education to students in this Province to build up the education of our population, to build up the school system, to build up the demand for education, and to literally bring people from a state of illiteracy in many communities to a state where they had knowledge and ability and willingness and desire for education and opportunity to learn, because people went out and taught in these schools.

These people were paid very little wages in the early days, and many of them retired with a very small pension - a very, very small pension. One benefit they did have up until 1989, was that they did have the benefit of an annual increase that applied to their pensions.

I do not know if we need an across-the-board percentage increase to deal with this problem. I do not know if we need that. I do not think, necessarily, that we do. I am not suggesting that every single person who is retired as a teacher should be considered to be in the same category. Can we not do something that would ensure that those people who are living on teachers' pensions now, who are living in dire circumstances, with very little pension, below the poverty line, many of whom living solely on their teachers' pension and the old age pension - can we not do something to recognize their service to this Province as school teachers for many years by doing something to bring them up to a certain minimum level? It may mean that some teachers would get a substantial increase if you look at percentage. It may mean that others would get very little, or almost nothing, but can we not look at a way of creating a fund or addressing this problem by saying that there has to be some alleviation of the critical situation in which many of our retired teachers find themselves because of the lack of an increase over the past thirteen years.

I think all hon. members have received letters from retired teachers, pointing out this problem. They have had a letter-writing campaign. There was recently, at the general meeting of the Retired Teachers' Association in Gander on October 2, a unanimous resolution passed, desperately seeking the assistance of this government to address this critical situation.

I think there is a crying need there and this is a group of people who have dedicated their working lives to the young people of this Province, to raising the educational standards, providing basic education, and doing so, in many cases, under severe hardship conditions, where they were, in fact, carrying out what would be described in former times as missionary work, as pioneering work, ensuring that, in the far reaches of this Province, as well as the urban areas, teachers were available to teach our students and to give them an opportunity.

I hope the Minister of Education will speak to this bill and talk about this issue, because I am sure she full knows the contribution given by many of these retired teachers to the basic education of our population, and the fulsome contribution that they have made. They feel that not only are they not being treated with respect, they are left, in many cases, in circumstances where their dignity is insulted by their inability to live a decent standard of living, because their pensions are so low it does not allow them to live in a decent way. That is just one point I want to make about what is not in the bill, something that I think needs to be addressed, and I hope that the government will do that on an urgent, priority basis.

The second thing I want to mention is the teachers' pension fund itself. The teachers' pension fund is regarded as part of the Pooled Pension Fund of this Province, which between the various funds, including the teachers' pension fund and the public service pension fund, there is in excessive of $2 billion, $2.2 billion to be, well not quite exact, $2,222,207,000 as of the end of 2001, December 31, 2001, and I suspect several hundred million more than that right now. This is a fund that has been invested to provide for benefits for teachers down the road, but it is part of the assets of this Province. It is the savings of this Province, of teachers and of government, put into this fund to provide for the benefits that are provided in the teachers' pension plan, in the public service pension plan, and in other pension plans of this Province. We also have the Memorial University pension plan, while not a part of the Pooled Pension Fund, but again it is a publicly supported pension because of the nature of the pension plan.

In other provinces, particularly the Province of Quebec, we have seen these funds used, not only to provide benefits for the pensioners when the time comes, but also to play a role in the economic development of the province. We see, in the Province of Quebec, CAISSE DE DÉPÔT ET PLACEMENT DU QUÉBEC, which is the deposit bank of the pension funds of the Quebec pension fund, as well as the public service pension funds of Quebec, as well as the other pension funds, that is managed with a couple of goals in mind. Obviously, the clear goal of maximizing the return for investors consistent with other goals of the plan, so that there is money there to ensure that the pension benefits are paid. The second goal of CAISSE DE DÉPÔT ET PLACEMENT DU QUÉBEC is to play a role in the economic development of the Province of Quebec.

What we see in these pension plans, Madam Speaker - and I don't have the list of investments, but the vast majority of the investments of these pension plans is directed towards the Toronto Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, International Bond Markets. I am not suggesting that we should take all those funds and invest them in one place or all in this Province, but we should consider the role that they play or that they could play in investment in this Province. We have heard the Premier talk about the triple p, the public-private partnership, to try and suggest that we can use a public-private partnership to build nursing homes and long-term care homes in Corner Brook and in Clarenville and in Conception Bay North area. Can we not, Madam Speaker, see a better source of investment for this as our public pension fund so we could earn a consistent return, a good solid return, a proper return to these pension plans and, at the same time, be a cheaper source of financing for needed public services; a reinvestment in our communities by our public service pension plans. These are the two points I wanted to make about was not in the bill. Nothing there that talks about the retired teachers who do not have access to a decent level of income because their income, as teachers, was very low even though they performed full-time sterling service on behalf of the people of this Province who needed qualified teachers and are now in retirement, and nothing there that addresses the possibilities that exist for economic development in this Province by these funds themselves. It would require significant policy change, it would require changes to the Trustee Act, it would require vision and foresight, Madam Speaker, but it can be done. It has been done in other provinces, and it is a worthwhile cause that we should look into and bring forward in the not-too-distant future.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, there is one question. I do not know, perhaps we will address it during the actual Committee stage, but the actual wording of the giving of a notification or an election under the strike provision, it seems to be worded as if it has to happen in the future even though it has to have already happened in the past, by September 1, 2002. I do not know if that wording is appropriate for legislation being passed now. It seems to indicate that some election has to be made in the future; yet, the date that is given is actually in the past tense. That is something that perhaps we can discuss in the Committee stage or before the Committee stage.

As far as the provisions of the bill go, we have no difficulty in seeing the implementation of the collectively bargained agreement between the government and the NLTA and we will be supporting that bill at second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

If the hon. the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am happy today to stand to close debate. I know there were some comments about teacher out-migration, and the Member for Baie Verte made some comments about the age of the workforce. I think that people in the Province, particularly the Minister of Education and the Treasury Board Secretariat, and all those who are available to plan human resources are quite aware of the aging workforce that we have, not only with our teachers, Madam Speaker, but also with many of our other public sector workers. One of the things that we have been able to find is, as teachers exit, new teachers are being hired, and they are hired at very competitive rates. I think that this particular indexation program that we have just agreed to with the Teachers' Association will also work to enhance recruitment. While many teachers, when they enter the workforce, do not necessarily worry about their pension plans, they very quickly realize that it is a very significant component of the whole work package.

Also, I would say to the Leader of the NDP, when he talks about the notification with respect to work stoppage whereby a teacher who has lost time and wants to buy that time back as it relates to the pension has to give notice. The intent is that it would give notice after a collective agreement not the collective agreement. Generally, a work stoppage is around a collective agreement being negotiated, if it is a legal work stoppage. If it is not - if, for some reason, notice is given, but generally when you provide notice you do it around negotiating a collective agreement or some violation of the collective agreement. The clear intent is - you are hardly going to say within the last three months that any time in the future you would like to buy back your pension. I think the intent clearly is here that, after work stoppage, a teacher would have a period of time whereby, not that they would have to buy it, but they would have to give notice that they are interested in buying back their portion as well as the government's portion, which is the normal process.

I would be happy to speak more on this.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: If the minister would permit a question, I was referring not to the general notion of giving notification after a work stoppage and after a collective agreement is in place, but the one where, in clause 2 there, it says where a teacher has an absence due to lawful strike which occurred before September 1, 2001, which is to purchase pensionable service, they must not later than July 31, 2002, elect to have that period of absence credited as pensionable service.

Of course, July 31, 2002 has already expired and this contemplates giving a notice or an election that does not even exist at the moment until we pass this legislation, but the period for giving the notice actually expired in July of this year. That was the point I was making and maybe the minister has an explanation for that. If not, we can address it a little later.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would say to the member again that the dates here are put in place, and it is to serve notice. It is not to, in any way - as it is pointed out there, it is prior to September 1, 2001. That period of notice, in the negotiations, that was part of the agreement and that they know of the teachers that are interested in doing that. I think that is one of the reasons why the date is there. If there is any other clarification required in terms of the intent, I could certainly provide that at another point.

I will say then, in closing, that this is part of the collective agreement that was negotiated with the teachers as it relates specifically to changes in the legislation required to allow the indexation and to allow the buying back of pensionable services due to work stoppage.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teacher's Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. ( Bill 22)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 17, Madam Speaker, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Bill 13

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Public Service Pensions Act, that will firstly provide for annual increases in the pension payments for public service pensioners, employees, and secondly, provide for further annual payments to the Public Service Pension Plan to address the unfunded pension liabilities.

Madam Speaker, these amendments result, again, from a collective agreement that was negotiated with the public sector unions whose members participate in the Public Service Pension Plan. As part of these negotiations, government agreed to implement a formal indexing program for the Public Service Pension Plan which will provide annual increases, again, of up to 1.2 per cent of the yearly change in the consumer price index to those pensioners who have reached age sixty-five. The program will benefit both the current and the future pensioners.

Madam Speaker, while the annual increase is modest, it is within our fiscal means and will provide pensioners with some protection against inflation in the future. The groups that are covered under this pension plan include: the nurses, NAPE members, CUPE members, Allied Health and IBEW.

Also, this program will have no negative impact on the financial status of the Public Service Pension Plan as both the employees and their employers will pay additional contributions of 1 per cent each to cover the cost of the program.

In addition to the much needed indexing program, Madam Speaker, government - in part of its ongoing commitment to address the unfunded liabilities of the various pension plans - has also agreed to increase the special payments to the Public Service Pension Plan by $20 million annually, from $40 to $60 million. Currently, we were making special payments of $40, now this will increase to $60 million. The increased special payments will start in January, 2003.

Madam Speaker, I think this again clearly demonstrates that this government is committed to working with employees and pensioners to address their concerns while, at the same time, exercising proper fiscal restraint.

Madam Speaker, it speaks to two very important issues that were raised during the collective agreement process; one being, of course, the issue of the unfunded liability. We all know that up until 1989, when the pension act was put in place, there was never any money put in the pension plan to address the unfunded liability, money that was spent over the years building schools, roads, hospitals, those sorts of initiatives. It was only after 1989 that I think the then government of the day, under then Premier Clyde Wells, implemented a formula for allowing the pension plan contributions to go directly into a plan and hence, since then, we have made actual special payments to address the unfunded liability of the pension plan. While it has improved from about 39 per cent to 50 per cent unfunded, currently we still have a long ways to go. I think one of the things that is clearly most important in this process is the recognition from all parties, both the government and the unions, in this particular case, as well as pensioners and managers, that this is a collective problem that we all need to address through both contributions which we have increased over the years, as well as through a commitment to better manage the program. So it speaks to that issue of the unfunded liability, but also it speaks to the issue of indexation. That is one that has been a concern for many pensioners in all walks of life.

Just previously, Madam Speaker, we introduced, through second reading, the indexation program for the teachers' pension plan. This is very similar to that, with the exception that this indexation component actually comes out of the main plan. It is different from the teachers' pension plan in that reason, for that reason.

The rationale behind that was because, due to our actuarial information and best information provided to us by the experts in pensions, some of which are in my own department, as well as some of our other actuarials through Frank Russell who managed the Public Service Pension Plan, that this will not impact the unfunded liability of the plan because it is a benefit that is being paid for and matched.

As we all know over the years, due to a number of reasons - one, not enough money being put in the plan, and being late set aside away from the general revenue and into a separate plan, that the unfunded liability is an issue that is a concern for all of us. We continue to try to address that through special payments, which in this particular piece is being raised from $40 million a year to $60 million, an extra $20 million a year to address the unfunded liability. I think that is a very important component as well. With the indexation, it recognizes that over time the value of a pension plan will decrease if it is not indexed. I think that speaks for any pension plan, whether it is with the teachers or the Public Service Pension Plan. It is one that, while very modest, we believe it is one that we can afford and, more importantly, will not affect the integrity of the program; because, while we have a very large unfunded liability, we do not want to add to that unfunded liability by adding a benefit that is not being paid for.

Madam Speaker, I would say by virtue of the changes that we are proposing, the amendments to the act, this is a big act, but we are proposing these minor changes that will allow the actual negotiated agreements with the public service unions to be implemented through this program. In fact, the increase in the contributions will cover the cost of the indexation. The extra $20 million will provide again a conscious recognition that we need to continue to address the unfunded liability in our pension plan - one, in fact, that has added to the debt of our Province almost a quarter of a billion dollars. We recognize that it is one that is very real. We recognize that we have a guarantee on those pension plans, and we need to continue to address them in a very prudent way.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the comments around this bill, but I will say again that on behalf of all of the people of the Province, government negotiated this agreement with the Public Service Pension Plan owners and, as the trustee of the plan, did that in good faith with the recognition that we would bring this to the House of Assembly to get the legislation passed so that we could implement the indexation program, as well as make the special payments moving from $40 million to $60 million a year.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to have some comments on this particular bill, Bill 13, To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act. I might add, it is very similar in certain aspects to the previous bill, while there are some variances, which I will comment on. It is very similar to the one we looked at for teachers in terms of dealing with increasing our indexing pensions by 60 per cent of the consumer price index when a person reaches the age of sixty-five. With that, of course, we know it brings added costs to individuals in premiums and to the employer, which is government here, and that, like all other contributions, are shared on an equal basis. We will not unduly prolong this particular bill at all. I think we have a few people who want to speak on it, and I am not going to take all my time. I want to take four or five minutes at least to mention a few areas.

One particular area I want to mention, is that it is a growing concern in this Province, the unfunded liability in our pension plans. In this particular plan, there have been steps taken to address some of the concerns in this pension plan, I might add. I think the minister made reference to: this bill will allow the amount to increase from $40 million to $60 million. So that is certainly positive. It is my understanding that $60 million is going to be the commitment by government, I believe - the minister, I guess, when we get to the next reading, or she could comment after - is that there is a commitment of $60 million a year until the unfunded liability in the pension plan has been eliminated.

This current fiscal year we are in now, we are contributing $45 million to the unfunded liability out of the Treasury of the Province. The previous two fiscal years we contributed - I believe the previous three years leading up, right back to 1999-2000, 2000 up to 2001, 2001 and 2002, we contributed $40 million to that unfunded liability and we found out that it was not enough. Just overall in our pension plans generally, I would like to mention that in spite of all those contributions in our total pension plan over the past fiscal year just ended, $143.5 million in contributions to address the unfunded liability, the unfunded liability of the pension plan still grew by $43 million. That is money that has to be paid down the road; money that is due. It either has to be paid by current people working and are going to avail of it, or it has to be paid by future people, either through premiums in the pension plan or through government's commitment to fund that. And putting it under a giant trusteeship - they have been looking at - it is government's commitment, I understand - not referenced by the minister because it is not a direct part of this specific bill, but she did mention it would increase to $60 million and that part of this act is to take effect on January 1, 2003; section 3 deals with the $60 million yearly. In fact, it says: shall pay in the pension plan $60 million yearly. It does mention it, yes. You would imply in the act that $60 million yearly would be a continuation of that amount, I guess, until some other amendment occurs to vary that.

Hopefully, down the road, that this $60 million a year is going to start eating away into that unfunded liability and reducing that. So some time down the road, certainly not in our generation, but the next generation of people will hopefully be able to say we have a pension plan that is 100 per cent funded; because we do have a debt now in our Province of $3.392 billion in unfunded liability in our pension plan. Everybody worries about their future. We probably do not have to worry too much that there could be money there to see us at least close to the end of our time, but people getting into the workforce now - we have to ensure that the plans are funded sufficiently to be able to meet those future needs.

The minister alluded to, that money in pension plans went into the Treasury of the Province for a number of years. The Province spent that money on public services, whether it was health or education, roads or bridges, whatever the case may be, the money was spent out of the general Treasury of our Province. It is positive that we have to look at establishing separate funds for pension purposes other than being funded out of the Treasury of this Province. We have to do that. It is very important that pension plans operate on a basis of sustainability because we cannot afford to carry $3.392 billion debt on unfunded liabilities, we have to start addressing it.

The commitment made to increase it to $60 million is a step, I might add, Madam Speaker, in the right direction to address that. But, while we are addressing the unfunded liability, one might add, there has to be measures on the other side of the coin to stop the growing debt in our Province. It does not make much sense to take it out of one pocket and put it into another. It is important that we have to address to replenish the pocket that it is coming out of, and to operate that on a sustainable basis, too, because the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. We can move pockets of money around whatever way we wish but if we do not address the underlying problem and that is, we cannot continue to keep spending more money than we are taking in. There has to be some long term plan to address that or we are all going to be leveraged so far that it is not going to be able to be sustainable.

That is why these questions were raised, Madam Speaker, by the Auditor General in sustainability. It has to be the ability of our Province to be able to meet its ongoing requirements to the public service on an ongoing basis. That is important. Not only in terms of dealing with the pension plan and its sustainability but we have to be able to deal with sustainability of our social programs. It is important that we be able to deliver and sustain our health programs and our education programs and other programs, not only of a social nature but ones that are incentives to grow the economy. These types of programs are important incentives to do that.

We have to be better guardians of the public money. We have to be able to spend it more prudently. We have to be able to look at ways that is going to maximize the collections and taxation without negatively affecting economic growth. These are the things that governments have to grapple with.

Over the past number of years we have seen a very rapidly escalating public debt. We have seen continual deficits. Madam Speaker, we have seen $1 billion added to the debt of our Province in the last three years. We have seen in hundreds of millions for the past number of years. We have added almost a half a billion this year and we have to go a little step farther then putting money into unfunded liability. That is positive. We have to do that, but we also have to ensure that the kitty it comes out of is going to be sustainable itself and that we are going to be able to carry on and serve the purpose for which this was intended. If not, our children and their children will pay the price down the road in the long term.

Now, I just want to make a brief comment on the aspects to inflation. Inflation chews away at everybody's income. If we could have increases to sustain inflation it would be great but, I guess, it is not within the fiscal capabilities of this government to be able to fund it fully to inflation. What they have done, they said, well, in negotiation with public service sector unions, they have looked at reaching a compromise, at least, an agreement that they would fund at 60 per cent of the CPI when you are sixty-five. Now, there were talks about getting it at age sixty because a lot of people today retire before they are sixty-five. A lot of people in the public service have thirty and thirty-five years of service and they can retire at fifty-five, most people, and you have a ten-year period in which there is no increase in value. Your dollar value of your pension is getting less for a ten-year period, from fifty-five to sixty-five. To do that and take that step requires input from both parties. In this particular instance here, there is about 1 per cent, I believe, of the pension plan set aside to increase premiums, anyway, to deal with that.

As mentioned here in clause 2.(2)(a), "8.6% of that portion of his or her salary which is the basic exemption under the Canada Pension Plan." Once you get to that stage, then we would look beyond that, the 6.8 per cent here. So, I can see that it is a positive index. There is still going to be a period of over ten years where there is no indexation when the dollar value is going to decline drastically. The consumer price index - the inflation is rampant. It is 4 per cent and 5 per cent. They are still only getting 1.2 per cent. They are losing dollars. So there has to be another avenue besides the pension plan to be able to sustain their income. The Canada Pension Plan is one such plan but that is being clawed back on local pensions when become sixty-five and, obviously, marginally supplemented when you get to be a senior at age sixty-five, officially with a basic supplement if you qualify. Certainly, most people receiving pensions will not qualify for the supplement but, at least, the basic amounts many people qualify for.

So, there are some considerations, basically, but there are many people out there today who are not impacted. They are not receiving the benefits of an indexation and there are a variety of concerns and issues to be addressed in this area.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by indicating that the steps here in this bill are positive. We support them here in the bill. They were negotiated between the public sector unions and the government and we would accept that and, certainly, honour collective agreements here, something that has not always been done in the past.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am glad to be able to stand today and make some comments about Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act.

Madam Speaker, this is a progressive piece of legislation. I am very pleased - and it is nice to see, too, that this was negotiated through the collective bargaining process. I think a tremendous amount of credit goes to the leadership of the union movement in this Province being able to, very successfully, negotiate such a provision in their collective agreement. It is an issue that has been a long-standing issue for employees of the Public Service Pension Plan. I think it is a credit to the strong leadership who have persevered and insured that this has now become a reality.

I think, as we look at pensions plans as a part of the overall benefit package that we offer to our public servants, this kind of enhancement to the current benefit program can only serve us well as we develop future human resource planning strategies. My colleague made some comments earlier about the teachers, looking at the profile of the teachers in this Province, and the numbers that are going to be retiring in the next five to ten years. The entire public service, if you were to look at the profile of the public service today, you would recognize that we are going to have a number of people retiring from the public service in the next five or ten years. It is going to be very important for the Province, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to have a benefit program, compensation packages and benefit programs that are able to attract quality people into the public service.

One of the things, we have talked in this House many times about the large amounts of money that we spend on various programs in providing services to the people of this Province. It becomes extremely important that we are able to attract and retain quality, competent people in our public service to be able to discharge the responsibilities in providing those services to a general population. I think we are very fortunate in this Province that we have a highly skilled, highly motivated, and a very talented group of public servants who are committed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and are committed to providing quality service, and are committed as dedicated employees. I think this is a progressive step forward as we enhance their benefit program.

One of the unfortunate things - I recognize that this was a negotiated arrangement and we are talking about moving forward with those people who are currently in the public service and who have not yet retired, but I cannot help but think about the large number of people who have retired over the last five, ten, fifteen or twenty years who will not get the benefit from this indexing. As my colleague from Ferryland had commented earlier, inflation has a way of really eating away at, and eroding, the value of our pension plans, particularly for those people who retired many, many years ago.

There is another group, Madam Speaker, that I think are finding themselves in a very disadvantaged position. Under the Public Service Pension Plan, there is a provision should an employee become sick or disabled and not able to work, and they are able to access a disability provision in their pension plan. Frequently, these individuals find themselves becoming disabled well in advance of their normal retirement age. We already recognized that when somebody reaches maybe fifty-five or sixty and they retire, over a period of ten or fifteen years, inflation has really eaten away at the purchasing value of that particular pension.

Just think for a moment, Madam Speaker, of someone who may be only be in their thirties or early forties, who have found themselves, either as a result of an illness or an injury, unable to work. They now become eligible for disability provisions under the pension plan. They have not been in the pension plan long enough to be able to have a significant pension income as they might had they been able to work the thirty years or thirty-five years to get them to a full pension.

I have an example of an individual in my district, Madam Speaker, who, only in their early forties, found themselves not able to work again, on a disability pension now for some ten to twelve years. Just picture how much inflation has eaten away at that individual. That individual has an illness, but they still may live to be seventy-five or eighty years of age. Can you imagine the effect inflation has on a small disability pension which starts to get paid out at age forty? By the time that person reaches sixty, when most of us will think about retiring, that person has already had a significant erosion of their disability provisions, and these are the people who are a very vulnerable group of people. With these kinds of provisions in the plan, I think it will go a long way to enhance their purchasing power and will make a major difference to the people who will in the future retire.

It is very unfortunate that we do not have the fiscal capacity, despite the tremendous good-news stories that we hear about the improvements in our Gross Domestic Product, and tremendous stories we hear about a growing economy and a prosperous economy. It is unfortunate that, as a government, this government has not been able to capitalize on that prosperity and have not been able to accumulate and secure the kind of resources that might be necessary to provide and extend those types of benefits to individuals who are already in receipt of benefits, either a normal pensionable income or individuals who have suffered from some kind of illness or injury, and are themselves in disability provisions under the pension plan. It is very unfortunate that we have not been able to amass that kind of resource to be able to do that.

Once again, in closing, I just want to commend the leadership of the unions particularly who have been able to provide the strong leadership and negotiate very successfully through the collective bargaining process, such a forward-thinking benefit in their collective agreements, and through that process have been able to secure this kind of benefit for everybody who participates in the Public Service Pension Plan, not just their membership.

Hopefully, some time in the not-too-distant future, this Province will become prosperous and, in fact, we will start to realize, and we will become the kind of Province that the members opposite and the government ministers have been talking about for the last couple of years about a great prosperous Province we have, and what a great future we have, and how they are forecasting tremendous resources and tremendous revenues coming into the public coffers in the future. Hopefully that will materialize, Madam Speaker, and their predictions have been accurate, and they will, in fact, have laid the stage for that to happen. Hopefully then, when we start to find ourselves in that kind of fiscal position, we will be able to extend these types of benefits to those individuals who have been, for quite some time, having to live on a fixed income. They have really found the effects and they are all too familiar with the implications and what happens when inflation starts to eat into a fixed income.

I think, as we reflect on the people who are currently in the public service, it is difficult also not to think about all of those people in this Province, particularly our seniors, who are also living on a fixed income and have to deal with inflation and how it erodes your purchasing power. As we, in fact, now are enacting a bill, Bill 13, to provide some provisions for indexing of our Public Service Pension Plans, I think government needs to be very cognizant of how inflation erodes people's incomes, particularly those on low fixed incomes, and as we move forward with much more progressive social policy decisions in this government, that we will, in fact, reflect that in the benefits that we extend to individuals.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to what I think is a very important piece of legislation, as we move forward.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, unless there is another speaker, acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I would like to move second reading of the bill and to thank the hon. members on the other side for the consideration they have given to this piece of legislation. It is fairly routine in concept, but it is very important in terms of its impact.

As the hon. Member for Kilbride says, he want to be non-obstructionist, and I hope that his mood and his demeanor and his willingness to be co-operative extend well into the evening, if not into the early hours of the morning, so that we can, on behalf of the people of the Province, get some good work and some good business done.

Having heard from him directly, that he intends to be fully co-operative for the rest of the day, I will certainly be doing my part to move, expeditiously, second reading of this bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 13)

MADAM SPEAKER: This bill has now been read -

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Oh, I am sorry.

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

MR. HARRIS: I didn't see the Minister of Finance in the House. I saw two speakers stand on the other side. I didn't realize that the Minister of Mines and Energy was actually closing debate on behalf of the government. There was only one speaker on this side of the House. I intended to speak on this bill. I assumed, when there were two members speaking opposite, that somebody was actually speaking to the bill, rather than closing debate. I now realize that the minister was acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance and attempting to close debate. So, I would ask to have an opportunity to speak to this bill at second reading.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I wanted to say, it is unusual, that we have passed the stage and the hon. minister did say he was closing debate. Do we revert or do we just let the hon. member speak?

MR. SULLIVAN: With unanimous consent.

MR. LUSH: Okay, let the hon. member speak.

MADAM SPEAKER: Is there unanimous consent?

All in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the members for giving their consent.

I will say that normally it is the speaker who says: If the minister speaks now, he will close debate. That is usually the signal for members to know that there is an opportunity to speak that will cease. I think that is an important distinction, I say to the Government House Leader, that when the minister is closing debate normally the Speaker will say: If the minister speaks now, he or she will close debate. He did not say it in this particular case, and of course in the tradition of the House, we have allowed the debate to continue.

I do not have a lot to say on the Public Service Pensions Act, but I did want to say a few things. The Public Service Pensions Act before us, does involve the implementation of the collective agreement reached between the NAPE and CUPE members and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador after the public service strike that took place in the Province in 2001. A very important resolution to that strike was, in fact, the pension issues. It has been a debate in this Province for a large number of years about what role pensions play, first of all in collective bargaining, and secondly, in terms of whether or not there ought to be some indexing and whether or not members of the Public Service Pension Plans, whether it be the Public Service Pension Plan itself or the Teachers' Pension Plan, ought to receive annual increases based on inflation. We have also had the overriding problem of the failure of governments in the past to actually fund the long-term obligations of the pension plan.

I guess it was easy in the early days after Confederation for government not to worry about it because the average age of the public service was perhaps quite young, not that many people were retiring. So pension benefits were actually paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or whatever government had collected in taxes, paid the pensions out of that as a line expense on the budget. The pension contributions made by the public servants were treated the same as taxes and put into general revenues. That could go on for a short period of time. In fact, it was probably beneficial for a short period of time because there was more money coming in in pension premiums then going out in pension benefits. That, obviously, did not last because at a certain point the line of cost of pension benefits was going up, and the amount of pension contributions being made was not getting any higher. At some point, it went into the negative.

The second thing that was not happening was that the government was not making its contribution. We see in the Canada Pension Plan, for example, there is an employers contribution and an employees contribution. Pension benefits now, under the Public Service Pension Plan, under the Teachers' Pension Plan, are matched contributions where the government pays a certain point matching the contribution of the individual employee, but that has only been done in recent years. The underfunding of the pension liability has been pointed out to be a significant financial problem for this Province for a number of years, pointed out by the Auditor General, pointed out by the bond rating agencies and is considered as part of the long-term obligations of the government that they are going to come due at a certain point in time and they cannot be put off forever. So the funds have to be there to make that happen.

One of the things that did happen, Mr. Speaker, over the years, was that on an annual basis, from about 1978 at least, there were ad hoc annual increases given to pensioners. Increases, in some cases, were 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. In some cases, depending on the year, there were no increases. But, it was related to the amount of money being given in wage increases to public sector workers. That went on until 1989. The last increase was 1989, an increase of 2.5 per cent given to public service pensioners as part of the government's general wage increases. During those years - it is very important to point out - the NTA, who was bargaining for the teachers; NAPE, who was bargaining for the public sector workers; and CUPE, who was bargaining for other public sector workers, were told that pensions were not negotiable, not a part of the negotiation process. They did not have any say in whether or not the pensions were going to be increased, what the pension contribution of government were, what the pension benefit was going to be. It was all a matter for legislation and kept outside, by government, of collective bargaining.

When, in 1989, the government of the day stopped granting annual increases to pensions we saw a gradual eroding of the value of pensioners' incomes. During the years from 1990 to 2002 we still saw the inflation rising and, in some cases, as much as 6 per cent per year. In fact, it was 6.2 per cent in 1991, 4.4 per cent in 1990 and various other amounts in different years. In some cases as low as 0.2 per cent. But, the cumulative effect from 1989 to 2002 was that there was a net decrease in the value of pensions by 29.5 per cent. Almost 30 per cent of the value of a pensioners' income was eroded over that period.

The same was true for the teachers that we talked about a moment ago. In the previous legislation where we now have a 30 per cent decrease in the value of retired teachers' pensions we have a 30 per cent decrease in the value of retired public sector pensioners. That has been the reason why we had - week after week, month after month, year after year - demonstrations outside this House by retired pensioners because their incomes have been eroded by as much as 30 per cent. That is just on an annualized basis, not considering the compounding. Probably if you considered the compounding, up in the range of 35 per cent. That is why people have been complaining, that is why people have been hurting.

We have a situation on our hands that is detrimental to individuals and they need help. That is something that is not addressed by this legislation. It is something that government should be addressing, should be finding a way of addressing, particularly those low-income pensioners the same as the low-income teachers we talked about a few moments ago. In fact, over 600 - by the teachers' own estimates - of the retired teachers are living below the poverty line as a result of the very low pensions that they receive. I am sure the number for the Public Service Pension Plan is probably double or triple that amount and something needs to be done to address that.

I will say that these negotiations with the government after the public sector strike were very, very historic for two reasons. Number one, finally addressed was the government's commitment to the unfunded liability and the contribution of $60 million a year over the next large number of years - I think thirty or forty years - is going to address this problem for the long term.

The second thing is that we have started the process of indexation. It does not meet the inflation at all. In fact, it is only defined as 60 per cent of the consumer price index and it is capped at 1.2 per cent. So, it is a very modest attempt to start to deal with the issue of inflation because you are going to drive down the value of pension benefits over time. But, it is a start. It is something that is done within the means of the pension plan and within the contributions that are being made and increased on behalf of the contributors to the pension plan.

I think it is a very good start and I think in this particular circumstance, I know, that the unions themselves and their experts that they brought to the table - in particular, CUPE, who brought in pensions experts and actuarial assistants to point out to government and the other side some of the ways that this problem could be addressed was a very, very important factor in resolving the strike.

We also have the historic working together of the two public sector unions, CUPE and NAPE, who often have been rivals in the past but for the sake of the greater good of the members that they represented, worked together in that public sector strike, in very tense circumstances over a long period of time, to have a common strategy, to work together to ensure that their message was out there in the public. That was a strike - which normally public sector strikes are not well supported by the public. Normally they are not, but this time, Mr. Speaker, the public was behind the NAPE and CUPE workers; knew that they needed a decent increase; knew that they needed to have proper treatment by this government and supported the public sector workers throughout that strike. In the end government, to its credit, resolved, through the negotiation process, that strike.

One of the very positive consequences, in addition to the wage increases, was that we have here today a solution to the unfunded liability of the pension plan by a $60 million annual contribution; which I understand over the next thirty or forty years we will have resolved the unfunded liability for the long term and we will have a healthy pension plan.

I think for the long-term health of the Province's finances the fact that that problem was addressed in those negotiations is probably a very significant contributor to the fact that this Province's bond rating was increased for the first time in - I do not know how many years. I am sure the Minister of Finance would be happy to tell us how many years we have not seen that kind of an increase in our bond rating and have an A rating. I think a very significant contributor to that was the fact that in this legislation, as a result of the agreement with the public sector unions, there is addressed the unfunded liability on a long-term basis. At least there is a plan in place that will address that. It is not expected to be addressed in one year, but the fact that this Province is addressing it is a very significant contribution to the fact that we now have a better credit rating in this Province than we had before this public sector workers strike. That is a bit of an irony, a public sector strike leading to an increase in wages of some 15 per cent plus a partial indexing of pensions leading to, with one important factor, an increase in the Province's bond rating, and that is the fact that the unfunded liability for the public sector pension fund which has been gnawing at this Province's credit rating and credibility in the financial markets for many, many years, has now been addressed and addressed in a very positive manner. I want to thank those people who are responsible for making that happen, and in particular those people in NAPE and CUPE who had the foresight to insist that this be a requirement for a solution of that very important and historic strike in the public sector.

That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 13. It is a very important piece of legislation. It reflects the resolution of that very historic public sector strike and it is a very, very positive thing for the long-term finances of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 15, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, Bill 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill 16)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to introduce Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act. This is an amendment to an existing act, really, that will enhance the effectiveness of our compliance under the program. The gasoline tax imposes a tax upon any fuel product capable of being consumed in an internal combustion engine, and this tax accounts for about $130 million of the provincial revenue each year. The tax is imposed under the act. It varies by the type of fuel product.

The Gasoline Tax Act provides for the exemption of certain fuels from the tax. These exempt fuels include such products as furnace oil, stove oil and dyed diesel, when used in authorized equipment. Those fuels exempted from the tax are required to be dyed by the oil companies to visibly distinguish them from other clear taxable products.

Every year in the House we talk about the expenditures under the Department of Finance and, of course, one of those expenditures is the cost of purchasing dye to be able to dye these products so that we can distinguish them from the clear taxable products.

The Department of Finance has identified tax evasion problems due to the tax exempt fuel being diverted to unauthorized equipment and, consequently, being consumed for taxable purposes. Such diversion, obviously, would result in a loss of revenue to the Province and creates an inequitable playing field for those businesses that adhere to the tax laws as they should. So, in order to more effectively deal with this issue of diversion, it is proposed today that we modify the existing compliance provisions to allow for random inspections. That is the crux of this whole bill, allowing for random inspections of fuel storage tanks of commercial entities, not home entities, to ensure conformity with the tax laws.

Other provincial tax jurisdictions already have comparable inspection provisions within their fuel tax legislation, and this legislation is similar to existing provisions under our own Tobacco Tax Act and the Liquor Control Act.

Basically, this will allow us to crack down on tax evasion. It will allow us to ensure that there is a fairness and equity among all of the taxpayers. I guess, to give the point, it does not make a lot of sense to go to a suspected business that is improperly selling tax, that should be taxable, and tell them you are going to come after you get a special warrant to check to see if they are actually complying with the law. It sort of defeats the purpose.

As I pointed out, in other jurisdictions that is not the case. They are able to do the random searches without a special warrant. I would say, in this particular case, that this really will allow us to crack down, to try to better enable our officials to collect the necessary taxes that are deserving to the people of the Province. It ensures that if one is paying the proper taxes and following the law it is only suitable and proper that all should be doing the same thing.

I would say in this particular bill, it is a very minor amendment as it relates to the overall bill. It does allow us to enter into a business premise, a work site, a storage facility, or a bulk delivery site, and inspect the contents of the tank containing the gasoline, including the gasoline supply tank of an internal combustion engine. For the purposes of analysis, obviously you would have to take a sample and test in that sample the volume per litre to make sure that the dye has been used and in fact that this is not contraband inasmuch as they are selling the proper kind of fuel and therefore we are collecting the proper taxes.

This is an amendment that, while it is routine in many ways, for us it is a very important one and it is one that is already carried out in many other jurisdictions. Really, it is just another method of accountability and allows our officials via the minister of the day to make sure that these violations are caught early and corrected and that proper taxes are able to be collected to ensure that they are put into the services for people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to The Gasoline Tax Act, basically what it does, as I read it, it authorizes an inspector to go in and inspect any tanks on someone's property without a search warrant. Now, the minister has indicated that she feels that is necessary because people are trying to avoid paying taxes on gasoline, I guess, with marked gasoline or dyed gasoline that should be only used for certain specific purposes, which is much cheaper than gasoline that is used for general consumption by individual owners of automobiles in the Province.

I am just wondering, and maybe the minister could give us the perspective on, what about somebody who has never had a violation? He is running his business, there are customers in his business around, and someone comes in without a warrant and goes in and takes samples, and they are doing it, would that cast an unfavourable light on the person with the business? Sort of put them in disrepute or give the impression that he is doing something wrong. I think that would be one of the downsides. If somebody has a history of utilizing it, or if they have a suspicion or phone calls - I guess now if there is a suspicion you can get a warrant, that there is an act being committed that is illegal and you get a warrant, but with this, it gives carte blanche right to an inspector.

We expect people, of course, to pay their taxes, and the Province has to operate. If we do not get it in gasoline tax, I guess it will have to be obtained in some other tax. So, basically, it is a consumption tax and people who utilize it pay the more taxes on gasoline. There are certainly merits and there are also cautions, I say to the minister. I say there are certain cautions that we should be aware of. Do not brand everybody as attempting to break the law and have unfettered access to their premises, their tanks and their property. Is it one other way of encroaching on the general, I guess, parameters of infringements of people's rights? Obviously it could be argued that maybe it is not, but, if this step, what is next? What is the next step? I wanted to raise that particular point of concern, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the minister will probably address that.

The samples cannot exceed one litre. What do they do with all the gasoline they collect, or all the fuel they collect? We do not put that in government vehicles, I hope, Mr. Speaker - or do we? Maybe the minister could tell us what they do with all these litres of samples we collect all over the place. Where does it go, and what happens? Well, it would save taxpayers a few dollars, I guess, if we used it in government vehicles. Maybe that is what happens. It probably goes to different depots, storage areas and so on, and gets used. I hope the Cabinet ministers, I say, Mr. Speaker, are not using it. I hope they are not using it. I cannot see that happening, to be honest with you. I cannot see that happening.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) see my gas running down (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot see the Minister of Mines and Energy running out of energy, that he has to resort to that, but he was the Minister of Finance and maybe he could answer it, too, when he closes second reading.

You know, giving unfettered access to someone to come in on your premises, you had no convictions, you have been above-board all along, you have been honest and straightforward, there are people dealing with you, as customers, coming in, would that be putting, possibly, somebody in an unfavourable light by doing that and by having that without a warrant? This is just one of the cautions I noticed when I was reading the bill.

The sample shall be disposed of as the minister directs. How is the minister going to direct that all these litre samples are going to be disposed of? Maybe the minister can tell us that when she stands. How do you propose to dispose of that?

MR. MATTHEWS: I heard you then (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure the Minister of Mines and Energy is going to use it for his vehicle. I cannot see that. Would it be used in government vehicles, to save us some money there? We could have a regular visit to samples. We could go around every day taking a sample of a litre from somebody to put in your vehicle and then get you to the next stop, another litre and so on. I am not so sure. I do not think, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that a litre is going to get you from one stop to another. Maybe it is going to cost you more and then you are going to save in the long term.

With that, I just wanted to raise that particular caution.

MR. REID: What is wrong with that? You don't (inaudible) gas do you, or what?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is saying about marked gas. I know certain people under his, I guess, jurisdiction, who he deals with, are able to use that, and this is certainly a way to distinguish between people who have certain reductions in taxation, to be able to use it for specific purposes as outlined, but for general consumption in vehicles, for the public, it is not permissible.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments. I am not sure if anyone on this side has a particular comment. It is a very brief bill. There are very few amendments to it. With that, I will conclude comments on it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now she will close debate.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to move second reading of this bill. I would say to the member opposite that I can certainly find out for him exactly what they do with each litre of oil. I can honestly say that in my day-to-day activities with two departments - not to mention the Public Service Commission and all of the other pieces - that particular question about how they store the samples has never come to my mind, but I will get the member the information. In fact, if there is a tank that he can avail of to get his gas, or anything else, I will be only too happy to pass it on to him.

I will say, on a more serious note -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to add: The amendment to the bill says "...as the minister directs..." and if the minister does not know how she directs it, how is the rest of the public supposed to know how she directs it? Could she give us the answer to that?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

There is no point of order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will say to the member opposite - and I think this is a very serious note - that there is no problem to go and check to see if somebody is maintaining the laws of the land, because if they are they have nothing to worry about. It is no different than going in to check to see if there has been an illegal sale of tobacco. You are hardly going to go and get a special warrant to decide if somebody is using contraband liquor, then let them know you are coming down to check the liquor and then go down to check it. It defeats the purpose. It defeats the purpose, as well - if you think that a store is selling cigarettes to a minor, you are not going to go and say to the store: Look, we are going to send an undercover person in there now in the next twenty-four hours and we are going to see if you are selling to minors.

The point is, this is not a violation of the human rights of any individual. What it allows governments to do is to make sure that the laws are being abided. There is no infringement on anyone's rights. If you are following the law, there is no problem. It is not like you are being body searched, or it is not like your home is being invaded. Your business, whereby you are selling products to other consumers of the Province via the law that is being provided, if you are breaking that law, then obviously that would have to be proven and the necessary charges would be laid. If you are not breaking the law and you are selling appropriately, well, there is no problem and there is nothing to fear. The same as if you are selling cigarettes to minors, that is illegal, and then that has to be proven and the law will be applied. The same as selling contraband liquor, if you are doing that and you should not be, it has to be proven and then the law will decide what the appropriate penalty is.

This is something that is done on a regular basis in other jurisdictions across the country. This, in fact, is an amendment that has been on the books in the Department of Finance for a long period of time, but it is another way to make sure there is a fairness and balance, and it is a crackdown on people who are breaking the law. Out of fairness to the ones who follow the rules, pay the taxes, and do what they need to do, I think it certainly does lay a fairer and leveler playing field for all people, for all taxpayers.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 16).

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 22, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association, Bill 33.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association." (Bill 33)

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak to Bill 33 as it relates to the Medical Association. Again, this was a commitment that was given during the process of collective bargaining. Albeit they are an association, they do perform the role of collective bargaining. It was a commitment that, while part of the process has been negotiated another part remains to be administered through the process of arbitration. This is a commitment put forward to the parties of the House, that all parties would respect, particularly the government, in it's commitment. We have said that we would commit, that we will stand by and live up to the recommendations of the arbitration, which is now in place.

I imagine the process will be starting fairly soon. All the parties have been identified and named. The parties will go through the process, through their nominee and through their presenter, to outline their cause and their case to the arbitrator, at which time the arbitrator will decide on his ruling and will bring forward to the parties the outcome of that arbitration ruling.

This piece of legislation puts forward the condition that the government will uphold the results and the outcome of the arbitration and that, that would be enshrined in this legislation which we had agreed to do. So it is very simply, again, a commitment that was achieved partially through a collective agreement process that would allow both parties to recognize the arbitration process, but also to recognize that the outcome of the arbitration would be upheld by government.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to, very quickly, say that the people on this side of the House and the party on this side of the House totally support Bill 33. That was made very clear by our Leader during that process and as soon as that announcement was made that this settlement would go to binding arbitration.

Just for clarity, to make sure we understand, as the minister indicated, that - and the explanatory notes in the bill are pretty straightforward. "This Bill would provide that the decision of the arbitration board appointed under the terms of reference entered into by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is final and binding on these parties." As I said, we on this side of the House, would concur with this and would support it 100 per cent, as our Leader had fairly clearly articulated back several months ago that we would.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in introducing this bill, said, this is pretty simple, pretty clear-cut, and it is. It is a very simply worded piece of legislation and it doesn't take up much paper.

However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are standing in this House, and sitting in this House today, having to pass this bill, is a sad commentary on where we have reached in this Province, a sad commentary, a very sad commentary, about the level of trust that exists between a group of highly dedicated, very committed individuals who have provided yeoman service to this Province and the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador. They protect our health, they are the people we rely on. Every single person in this Province relies heavily on the medical community in this Province. They did not trust this government to live up to a commitment it made at the bargaining table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In fact, the mistrust was so strong and so well entrenched that they demanded a special piece of legislation be introduced. They demanded a special piece of legislation be introduced in this House. Well, Mr. Speaker, when before in the history of this Province, did we see a group of people, who had to negotiate with government, have to request such a piece of legislation? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it speaks to a number of things. It speaks to trust. However, what it also speak to, I think, Mr. Speaker, it speaks to a process that we witnessed unfold in this Province in October that we have never seen before.

As a result of that process, we now have the distinction, among many others, Mr. Speaker, we now also have the distinction of having had the longest strike by physicians in this entire country. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the other distinctions we have, that is not one that we should be proud of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you hiding when it was on?

MR. MANNING: My God, boys, the man is just trying to say (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you hiding, you and your leader, when the strike was on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you hiding when the strike was on?

MR. NOEL: Yes, what was your (inaudible)?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It was very evident -

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, can I have some protection?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that protection.

I have some, I think, rather important comments to make, and I ask hon. members on the other side to afford me the time and the courtesy to make my comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: We knew at the very beginning, when we pick up the local newspaper and we see a comment by the Minister of Health that he called the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association Act irresponsible. Then he goes on to talk about questioning the ethics of the Medical Association, and going to seek legal advice on whether what they were doing was ethical and legal. That was right at the very beginning. The stage was set, I suggest, Mr. Speaker.

Then we pick up other comments when we see the Minister of Health and Community Services saying a couple of days later in the media: it has become obvious that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association would rather continue with their job action than participate in meaningful, productive negotiations. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that how you sit down with a group of individuals to negotiate a collective agreement?

Then we see the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board the next day in a news article talking about how the Medical Association did not show any flexibility. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board accuses the Medical Association of trying to get more money than is needed to achieve parity.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen before in the history of negotiations in this Province, a set of discussions where on a daily basis, during that strike, we would wait until 4:30 in the afternoon and we would see the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, accompanied by the Minister of Health and Community Services, host a press conference. They were like Rambo and John Wayne wanting to take a shot at everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: They would enter this press conference and you knew, Mr. Speaker, as soon as they walked in the mood was attack, attack, attack!

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have some 900-plus physicians in this Province. We have had some very challenging times in trying to recruit physicians. We have had some challenging times in trying to retain physicians in this Province. I think one of the first lessons we need to learn and understand in a collective bargaining process is we may have differences of opinions in the process - and each side will try to negotiate a best position for themselves. One of the things we always need to keep in mind is that at some day the strike is going to be over and we need to make sure that we kept the relationship intact. What we did during this process, not only did we have a strike in this Province that put the lives of many of our residents at jeopardy, but we had massive waiting lists. In fact, a couple of days ago I read The Telegram and there was a comment there from a nursing manager who was talking about the long wait list that exists for cardiac surgery, and one of the things that she attributed it to was the physicians strike. We have over 300 people on a waiting list today for cardiac surgery and we have a nursing manager at the Health Care Corporation attributing some of it to the physicians strike.

Mr. Speaker, it should be a rule in any set of negotiations, regardless to what the group would be. We need to ensure that we respect the position of the people we negotiate with. We need to recognize that these are people that we desperately need to be a part of our system. These are people that we need to ensure we are able to retain in this Province to provide a very valuable service.

Mr. Speaker, we have had Open Line programs in this Province going back thirty years. I have never yet seen - each morning and each night we would have a parade of physicians forced into a position, to come on Open Line in the mornings and nights, to defend themselves against the vicious attack by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: They had full page ads running, showing - I mean this government has a fetish for ads obviously. Everything they want to do, they want to advertise it. This time they wanted to advertise physician's salaries. They wanted to tell the world how unreasonable they thought physicians were being because they were already being paid enough. Relative to what many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians may make, physicians may make a lot of money. But, relative to their colleagues and the rest of the world, they do not make a lot of money, I say, Mr. Speaker. Any time you get a group of physicians finding themselves under attack, under siege to the point where they find it necessary to get on Open Line and not only set the record straight, but we had physicians on radio and on TV coming out and having to lay out for the entire population of this Province exactly what they made and break down what their expenses were to operate their practice, tell how much they owed in student loans, and disclose to the world what most of us only want to disclose to our banker. This government was forcing those people to come out and defend themselves because they were under attack. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what we witnessed and that is the reason today that we are here having this discussion about Bill 33, because the physicians in this Province do not trust this government to live up to a commitment that they made negotiating an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: You made a commitment to the people up in Trinity North, too -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, I made a commitment to the people of Trinity North that I would represent them in this House of Assembly and that I would bring their issues to this House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - and on issues that were important to them and to the people of this Province, I would stand and speak to their benefit, and I continue to do that. I will continue to do that as long as I am in this House, and I can do that on this side of the House much better than I did it on that side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: And after the next election, I will be back on that side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said earlier, a sad commentary about the state that we have reached in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, during that strike of physicians we heard personal testimony from physicians who had already left this Province calling in, telling stories about the reason that they left. We understand on this side of the House, contrary to what the minister might suggest periodically, we do understand the financial position that the Province is in. We understand that we are not always going to have a lot of money to throw around. We understand that but what we do not understand is why, in the process of negotiating an agreement with a group of physicians, do we have to, in fact, destroy the relationship that we have with them. Why do we have to resort to personal attacks? Why do we have to take such personal, vindictive attacks against a group of people who we desperately need in this Province?

We have debated two bills here today talking about enhancing teachers' pensions. We talked about a bill to enhance and index the Public Service Pension Plan. Each time we talked about how valuable those people were and how valuable a contribution they made to society. We heard the Leader of the NDP talk about the tremendous public support that existed for NAPE and CUPE during their last strike. We heard him talk about how, in fact, the negotiation process was very open. This time, Mr. Speaker, why did it change? This time, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and her colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, decided to make this a very personal issue. I suspect that they fully understood how critical these people are to the provision of health services in this Province, how critical they are to ensure that we have a safe society, and how critical they are to our health and welfare. I suspect that they understood that. When they were not able to reach an agreement with them, frustration set in. The frustration set in, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand why. If I were in their chair, I would not want the physicians of this Province to walk out either. I understand that. Members on this side of the House understand that. Again, what we do not understand, what we really do not understand, is why this government, and the minister in particular, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and the Minister of Health and Community Services, would resort to such cheap personal attacks on a group of professional people in this Province who we cannot do without.

Just to prove that what we are saying here today and the comments I am making are accurate, look at the number of physicians who have left this Province since the strike. The other day, Mr. Speaker, I had a chat with some physicians who work at the cancer research foundation. We need today another radiation oncologist, we need today another medical oncologist, but they have consciously, they are waiting to see the outcome of this arbitration award, and to see how this government is going to react to it before they can go to the marketplace and in fact recruit.

Not only have we done ourselves a grave injustice and we have done a tremendous amount of damage with our relationship with the physicians in this Province, but because the physician community is an international community, we recruit internationally for physicians, we ourselves have ruined our reputation, we ourselves have put ourselves in an international marketplace as being a province and a part of Canada that physicians need to be very cautious about when they accept appointments to health facilities in this particular Province. That is the unfortunate state that we find ourselves in today.

Inasmuch as I very quickly said that we would endorse Bill 33, and we very quickly had made a commitment to the Medical Association and to this government that if they were to introduce such a bill that we would very quickly endorse it, however, again, I just want to ensure that the people of this Province fully understand that this government has allowed a state or allowed a negotiation process to deteriorate to such a point that such legislation is necessary. I truly hope, regardless of how long I sit in this Legislature, that never again in the history of this Legislature do we have to introduce such a bill under such conditions and because there is such a mistrust for the government of the day.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I trust that this government learned a lesson from this process. I trust that a lesson was learned here, and that lesson very simply is, we have to value the people in this Province.

We have talked about Voisey's Bay, we have had some discussions in this session about Churchill Falls, but the people in this Province and the human resources we have are, in fact, the most valuable resource we have. If we want to, in fact, stem the flow of out-migration in this Province, and if we want to provide quality public service and have quality people working for us, we are going to have to show much more respect for people. We are going to have to acknowledge that our human resources are our most valuable resource, and show a very different approach in our discussions and negotiations with people like the Medical Association in the future because, if not, this Province is going to find itself in a very desperate position.

Again, I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity. I believe my colleague from Ferryland has some comments that he would like to make with respect to this bill. I am conscious of the time, so if my colleague would like to address the Assembly, I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few minutes in this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I would like to ask a question, whether the minister is proposing to close debate on this bill (inaudible) situation a few moments ago where another minister (inaudible) will actually close debate, without any notice of membership.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, when a minister is closing debate that the Speaker will notify: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. So people can speak. I do want to speak about this bill because I think it is important that certain matters be put on the record in relation to the fact that the bill itself is something that should, in fact, not be necessary.

We have the bill here, and we support the bill, but the bill itself says that when the agreement is made between the government and the medical association that the government is bound by it. That is a very strange provision to require legislation to have an agreement to be binding on the Government of this Province that the government entered into, presumably in good faith. There is a reason for it, Mr. Speaker. It takes us back, of course, to the physicians strike in this Province, in October of this year, when the physicians went on strike because after fifteen years of being told by this government and the previous government that we will solve your problems, we will fix up the anomalies with respect to physicians' salaries in Newfoundland and Labrador compared to elsewhere. You just wait now, we will deal with this in good time. Do not do anything rash. We will deal with you. We will deal with you in good faith. Just wait until this happens. Just wait until that happens. Just wait until something else. Again and again, the physicians were told things that did not come true, and eventually, the physicians decided that they had no choice but to withdraw their services.

It is not very long ago but we easily forget how difficult it was for the physicians of this Province to come to the point of actually withdrawing medical services. They agonized over it for a long period of time. It was totally contrary to their Hippocratic oath; totally contrary to the ethics of their profession to withdraw medical services to their patients. So, it took a long time for this festering frustration, this concern that they had about their profession, the concern about their patients, concern about the ability to carry on, to actually come to the point where they would withdraw services. When they did, once they had made that step, Mr. Speaker, they were determined that they were going to get some result.

What happened? Well, the first thing that was pretty clear from the very beginning was that the public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador supported the strike. Imagine, the patients supported the doctors going on strike and they did that. There wasn't only doctors phoning into the Open Lines. I have no problems with doctors phoning into Open Lines. The previous speaker said that the doctors had to suffer the indignity of going on the Open Lines. Well, I do not see that as a particular indignity. The Open Lines are there for anyone to speak. There is no reason why doctors who speak on Open Lines has to be some sort of indignity. It is a public forum and they are entitled to speak on it. If they want their views to be known, that is a forum open to them, as well. But, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that was obvious was that the public opinion and the patients supported the doctors going on strike.

The second thing that became obvious, and it did not take very long, was that the Minister of Finance who was the lead minister on this, the President of Treasury Board, the lead minister for the government, was out there in the media, in your face, the very first couple of days of the strike. What did she do? Did she contribute to the process? No, Mr. Speaker. What she did was denigrate the doctors, put them down, treated them with contempt, trivialized their concerns, accused them of not knowing what they were talking about, tried to persuade the people of this Province that doctors were, in fact, incompetent. This went on for some days, Mr. Speaker, where the doctors were consulting everyday, twice a day, openly with all their members, doing the democratic thing and coming back with a response to the minister. All the minister was doing was belittling them, belittling their effort, belittling their concerns and putting out propaganda at great public expense to try to sway public opinion, but it did not work, Mr. Speaker, it did not work.

One of the things that bothered me very much was when it became clear that there was an impasse between the government and the doctors. The idea was floated around that perhaps binding arbitration is a solution. The doctors, because of what had happened, because of the attitude of this government - in particular the Minister of Finance, who should know better, having been on the other side of collective bargaining as President of the Nurses Union. The person who should have known better, instead of offering something that could solve the strike and solve the impasse by creating the atmosphere that she did, the thing that could have solved the strike was almost rejected because they had no faith in the government.

I talked to members of the negotiating team, Mr. Speaker, who wanted to know about the history of binding arbitration in this Province and what happened to the binding arbitration that the RNC were supposed to have, and what happened to that, and whether this government could be trusted because of what had happened in 1993. We all remember the legislation in this House of Assembly which tore up collective agreements that were signed a matter of days before. We all remember the Clyde lied campaign that was initiated as a result of government's breach of faith in signing collective agreements and then turning around and tearing them up. That was part of the history that the doctors were faced with in the face of a strike that they had spent many years getting up to the point of being willing to go on strike and then being belittled by the Minister of Finance in a situation were there was, in my view, a fairly obvious solution, a way to end the strike.

We did not want to see a war of attrition. I certainly did not want to see a war of attrition between the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the doctors were gradually - we were losing our medical profession because the strike that goes on and on and on and the doctors get fed up and leave one after the other. That was starting to be the response of doctors, and not just doctors who came here to practice but doctors who practiced here for many years, who were born here, who got their medical education here and practiced here for many years. They were saying: It is time for me to pack my bags if I do not get any respect from the government of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that was the situation that we had, and I was receiving calls saying: What is the story on this binding arbitration? I said: Well, binding arbitration is binding on the government. If they say it is binding arbitration, it should be binding arbitration.

They said: Well, what about the police officers? The police officers had binding arbitration - binding on them, but not binding on the government. The legislation that the police officers had, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, had a provision that allowed the Cabinet, after an arbitrated settlement, after an arbitration board had ruled as to what should be in the contract, the Cabinet over there had the right to take any clause of that collective agreement and outlaw it, or any clause of the arbitration award, and roll it back or change it as they saw fit. So it was binding only on one side, not on the other side.

The Province at that time was offering, or exploring, the option of binding arbitration, that would be binding on both sides. The danger was, when that was offered, that was not going to solve the strike because there was not faith on the part of the doctors that the government would be bound by anything they put together. That is the sorry state that this government put the medical profession and, in fact, medical services in the Province in, in October of this year. That is why we have this legislation here today.

Now legislation, as I told the people I spoke to, can be changed too. The government can change and a new government might not follow it. That is what happened back in 1993. The legislation was brought in to change collective agreements. Legislation could be brought in, in another month, to change this, but the politics of it change very much, Mr. Speaker, when you have legislation or when you have the kind of political commitment that you have here. This legislation is important, and I have every belief that not only this government but any government that might get elected after the next election will support the results of this binding arbitration because of the political nature of the strike. I think that this government put us very close to a situation of chaos in the medical profession, and not only in the medical profession but in the delivery of medical services, because we were about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty in hearing the member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have a little quiet for the couple of minutes that I have left in my remarks to clue up.

It is very important that we have this legislation because it was the actual item that allowed the strike to end. If this had not happened, we would have had an ongoing crisis in our medical profession and the delivery of medical services. We would have been a Province which was seen as to not respect the contribution of medical professions and as a Province that did not care whether or not the doctors and physicians in our Province were kept reasonably happy in the sense of being fairly compensated for their work, and, not only that, being listened to, having their grievances and having their problems listened to and dealt with fairly by the government who pays the bills and by the people who pay the bills.

The people supported that strike from the beginning to the end, and that was what made the difference in the strike. The doctors themselves hung together with a very high degree of solidarity. It was a real object lesson for good collective bargaining. The result, I hope, will be that we will have a medical profession that continues to want to provide the services that we need in this Province, and that patients need, because we do have in this country a very, very good medical system, one of the best in the world, one that needs to be saved from drifting into privatization, from drifting into alternative service delivery, from drifting into public-private partnerships, from drifting away from the system that was created in Saskatchewan by the founders of Medicare, Tommy Douglas and the CCF Party, the fore-founders of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I support the bill and we will support the bill at second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is telling in the name of the bill itself: Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association. Why would an association want to ask government to bring legislation to a House when government said that they would agree to it? There is one thing that comes to mind, why they wanted legislation. It is because they did not trust government's word..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And why should they, the way they were treated, Mr. Speaker?

The sense of trust, I might add, was broken down between them. I hope it is not going to be like the Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. They gave it and now they want to take it away. Maybe they will come around with a bill in the spring and take away what they are giving today. That is what they are doing with the Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. The sense of trust is not there.

I can remember members in this House applauding the commitment they were giving to Labrador when they put a fund there, the same commitment, and now they are not talking about a commitment any more. They are saying, we are giving a bigger commitment. We are going to tear up the legislation and we are going to give you our verbal word. Well, the doctors said they do not want it as verbal. They want it in writing. They want it in legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how valid is it going to be if they want to change their minds again?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, with the time being 5:30 p.m. and we are back at 7:00 p.m., I will adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed that we recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.


December 10, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 43A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did say I was not going to take my full - what is it I have? - an hour, I guess as the critic; but, no, I am going to take just a few minutes on this particular bill, unless provoked. I have to make a few statements of fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not much on times, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, not very much on certain times.

I wondered why, when the minister - I heard the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board in this aspect, dealing in negotiations. She said publicly that they would agree to binding arbitration. The Medical Association did not take her word. The Medical Association did not believe it, Mr. Speaker. They did not believe it. They want it enshrined in legislation that whatever happens under binding arbitration must be enshrined that government will accept that. Why wouldn't the Medical Association trust this government to honour their word?

MR. H. HODDER: Why would they?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, why would they. My colleague from Waterford Valley says: Why would they trust this government to keep their word? Why would they?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Trinity North said it well. After the attack that this government waged on the doctors of our Province during the doctor's strike there is little wonder they would want something enshrined in legislation. What does enshrining in legislation do, Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to follow the legislation? They enshrined in legislation in this House with the thumping of desks and applauding. I do not know but they stood and applauded when they set up a fund called the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to put dedicated money into a fund, $348 million, to serve the people of Labrador for a Trans-Labrador Highway.

What are they putting on the books here tonight? They are putting on the books tonight - and they have in this House - a bill to tear that up, to give government authority to rob that fund too. No wonder doctors are skeptical. I am even more skeptical because they are not even keeping the legislation they gave on the Labrador Initiative. How can we trust them? How can we really trust them, Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill if they would do that? We know that is a government over there that has rolled back wages from collective agreements. They have rolled back wages. They have legislated people back to work. These are the trademarks. They are the trademarks of a government, and no wonder there is a lack of trust. There is a lack of trust. That is why 56 per cent of the people in the last poll said: Well, it is okay. We are somewhat - very few are very satisfied. I think about six (inaudible) with them, but we do not trust them. We do not want them there. We might be satisfied with what they are doing but we do not want them there. Why? Because people cannot trust them.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating this particular bill, which never should have had to happen if there was an element of trust. It never should have happened. Both sides agreed to go to a process to get an agreement, through a binding arbitration process. The doctors said: Fine, you are going to tell us you are going to do that. How do we know you will keep your word? The advantage of coming to legislation is that when it comes to this House we can debate it. If you try to tear it up in legislation and violate it you must bring another bill to this House and then we can address that in very strong terms if they try to do that. So, that is why we are here tonight debating this. The bill was called this afternoon because an element of trust is missing in the relationship, I might add, between doctors and this government.

It wasn't only in doctors. It happened in other public servants. It happened with nurses. We saw them in the gallery here. We seen the current Premier taunt the nurses here in this gallery during labour unrest when the nurses were on strike. The Premier taunted them in the gallery. Then you turn around and you try to bring about a sense of trust. Mr. Speaker, do not kick them one day and the next day expect to get trust. That is not the way it works. Trust is built on a foundation of fair play. It is built on a foundation of being honest up front. You can be honest. You can be tough in negotiations without losing trust because trust is different. Trust is different in tough negotiations. What garners trust is an element that only comes from the practices of what people do in positions. There is very little left when the sense of trust is gone because the whole system breaks down and we only get chaos.

We will support this bill. We will support it because it is a bill, at least, that says we are going to make government keep its word. They might turn around next spring and bring in a bill to tear this up. I have been in the House to see bills brought here, and then I have seen them come back and tear it up. We have one that is on the Order Paper in this session. The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is the one that gives it and then takes it away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he who gives it takes it away. It does not do much -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and Bill 16. I think it was also Bill 64 back in previous administrations dealing with the taking away of rights that were earned. People fought for certain rights, got them into a contract, and then this Legislature came and took away those rights that were fairly and properly negotiated. It is not the way to go, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to conclude by indicating: Let's get on with this now and bring this into legislation and deal with this positively. Hopefully, we will never have to see legislation come before this House again, by any group that is bargaining with government, to say: We do not trust you. We want it in writing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my understanding that if he speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and represent my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, in closing debate in second reading on this very important piece of legislation. I think there are a few things that need to be said for the record, primarily in respond to the hon. member opposite, the hon. the Member for Trinity North, who this afternoon in speaking in debate, spoke at great length about the events that brought this piece of legislation before the House. The fact that we were faced with job action by the doctors in this Province, that lasted for some seventeen days, was indeed a challenge for a lot of us. I would say again today, as I have said repeatedly, we are very appreciative, as we were throughout that whole process, of the patience shown by the people of the Province. The fact that we were able to sustain - that the system did not collapse after seventeen days is a tribute to the people of the Province and the patience that they showed throughout that whole process.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. Member for Trinity North, and the hon. Member for Ferryland talk about trust, the fact that we had this piece of legislation before because the doctors of the Province insisted on it because there was no trust in this government. The reality is that the lack of trust, in fact, lies with the members opposite because when we were pursuing this matter when it was coming to a resolution, one of the issues raised by the physicians was the fact: What if there should be a change in government? What guarantees do we have that a new party coming in and forming government would, in fact, honour what you committed to?

That is the basis for this piece of legislation that we see here before the House. So, despite all of the pronouncements by the hon. members opposite that this was a reflection in the lack of trust in this government, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it was a lack of trust that the doctors saw from the hon. members opposite, that if that should happen they wanted a guarantee, if they did form the government, that in fact what was agreed to would be honoured.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Trinity North, this afternoon in his remarks, was very critical of the way in which this government handled that whole issue, which is rather surprising. The interesting thing from the hon. member opposite that - I know the Member for Waterford Valley things it is amusing. Maybe it was for some people during that period but I can tell you, for those of us - do you know the difference, Mr. Speaker? When the hon. member today was referencing the fact, he referenced myself and the hon. the Minister of Finance and President Treasury Board, when we are on a daily basis giving briefings and updates to the people of the Province, they reference watching it on TV and seeing us going out and doing that, but in case he did not recognize it for what it was, that was, in fact, providing leadership. It was accepting responsibility and getting out there and doing what we, as a government, had to do to report to the people of this Province on a regular basis -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: - to make them aware of what was going on and giving them the assurances that there was someone in control. Quite frankly, the hon. Member for Trinity North referenced myself and the Minister of Finance, he referred to us as Rambo and John Wayne. Well, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I will accept that because if that is the biggest criticism they can throw towards us, I would rather be called Rambo or John Wayne than The Invisible Man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Because, quite frankly, during that whole process the Health critic and the Leader of the Opposition just disappeared for the entire period that we had a job action with the doctors of this Province. They went underground, absolutely disappeared. They went underground. Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media that the Leader of the Opposition had been asked what was his opinion on this and he said: Well, I cannot say because I do not have the information. No one will brief me.

Isn't that surprising, Mr. Speaker? It does not seem to stop him from having an opinion on everything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: The fact that he does not have the information never stopped him from speaking on Voisey's Bay, and it did not stop him on the Lower Churchill. So it is surprising, when we had a job action that was impacting so many people in this Province, that in fact he could not have an opinion because he did not have the necessary information.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the hon. members opposite, and to the hon. Member for Trinity North who, in his comments today, talked about this whole issue - and it was a difficult issue for everyone who was involved. It was a difficult issue for the physicians themselves, who found themselves in those circumstances, and certainly for those of us who were trying to handle the issue on behalf of the people of the Province. It was not an easy exercise.

The only thing I can assume from the comments of the Member for Trinity North is that, were he in this position, he would have capitulated on day one and given them everything they had asked for, because obviously he certainly did not support the view that we were taking, trying to take a responsible attitude and a responsible approach, that we were talking about the finances of the people of this Province and we had a responsibility to them to make sure that we were acting responsibly, that we were not giving away their resources. Obviously the Member for Trinity North, if he were in this position, from what he was saying today, we would have to assume that he would give them everything, which is surprising, Mr. Speaker, because every other day he and his colleagues opposite as well, are on their feet criticizing the same Minister of Finance who introduced this bill today, criticizing the minister for all of the efforts that she has made on behalf of the people of the Province, the many programs that have been brought in, especially in the area of health care, the many expenditures that have been made to provide the kinds of supports that the people of this Province want and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Trinity North again today in his ramble in presenting his position as he saw it, referenced again the cardiac surgery. He referenced it here in the House a few days ago, and was very critical of this government in terms of our response to the needs of cardiac patients who are out there.

Indeed, as I said then and I repeat now, there is a real concern, because we do have a very high incidence of cardiac disease in the Province. It is a concern that we all share, and it is a concern, by the way, that we have been trying to address. Despite the fact as to how the hon. members opposite may try to position it, and how they may try to spin it, the reality is that the number of cardiac surgeries has increased over the last two or three years. In fact, in 1999 there were 485 performed, in 2000 there were 618, and in 2001 there were 693. If that is not being responsible, and that is not trying to respond to a real concern, then I would like to know what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Trinity North, again, in his comments this afternoon, referenced the fact and talked about myself and the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I am responding to the hon. member opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I just referenced him. I did not say he was not here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Sure, if he asked me to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the one who pointed it out.

MR. SMITH: You are the one who pointed it out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Trinity North referenced the fact today, referencing myself and the hon. member, the Minister of Finance. He talked about our personal attack on doctors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every comment that I made at any time, I always prefaced by pointing out the deep respect that I have for these professionals and the fine job that they do on behalf of the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, in the type of situation we find ourselves in, there is no doubt - from time to time there were comments that came from their side as well, that I did not particularly enjoy or particularly find complimentary. Unfortunately, that was the nature of the situation we found ourselves in. I do not think that the hon. member is suggesting the fact that the good reputation of this Province was in any way tarnished or ruined by the situation that we found ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this government acted in a responsible fashion. When we moved forward in dealing with this very challenging issue, having a doctors' strike prolonged for seventeen days, and all of the challenges that brought with it, this government acted responsibility. This government, with the support of all of our health care boards, I have to say, and the many other health care professionals throughout this Province, our nurses and others, who rose to the occasion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: - and I say as well, Mr. Speaker, our doctors as well who did live up to their word to provide the emergency support, which they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: They made sure that out people were not exposed, that we were not at risk of having a serious situation. Fortunately, we were able to come through that period without any serious incident. Now, we are prepared to move forward. In fact, the legislation that we have before the House today with culminate in this piece of legislation that is passed here, which in fact will assure, as the doctors have asked, that the results of the arbitrational award will be honoured by this House and by this government, because, from our perspective, this was not required. The trust they referred to, as I have explained already, was, in the event, the unlikely event, that there would be a change in government, that they would have the assurance that another party forming the government would honour the agreement that we had made to them.

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that, as far as this government is concerned, I felt that we dealt with this issue in a responsible fashion. I really feel that the doctors themselves, now that it is behind them, recognize that the situation that we found ourselves in during that whole period of time is something that none of us would have wanted. Given the circumstances, all of us would have preferred that it would have been avoided, but unfortunately that was not to be. Unlike the hon. members opposite, and the hon. Member for Trinity North, just wishing that it were not so, is not where it is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, you have to deal with the reality where you find it. You are elected to provide leadership. That is what this government, this minister, and these people who sit opposite do, and that is what we did during the doctors' strike. We did not run for cover. We stayed there, we took it, we provided leadership and, in the end, we brought about a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, with those few remarks, to move second reading of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 33)

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Raising of Loans by the Province. (Bill 7)

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased this evening to stand to speak to Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. This bill will provide the legislative authority for new borrowings by government and it is a regular item in the financial administration of the Province. In fact it has been, I guess, part of the regular items of the Province for the last number of years. For example, in 1994 there was a $300 million loan bill; in 1996, a $150 million loan bill; in 1998, a $200 million loan bill; in 1999, a $250 million loan bill; and in 2000 there was a $200 million loan bill. This is part of the annual plan for going into the markets to raise money to cover off borrowings that we need for deficit and debt repayment.

Mr. Chair, the statutory limit proposed for the loan bill for 2002 is $200 million. The statutory limit is in addition to the amounts required for debt retirement, which is $147 million, and the retirement of pension liabilities which is $148 million, as outlined in Statement I of the 2002 Budget Estimates.

The purpose of setting the statutory amount above the requirements already identified in the Budget is to provide the Province the ability to take advantage of the existing optimal new issue size and to avoid arranging loans in the capital markets for small or odd, unusual amounts. As well, it allows for pre-borrowing for the subsequent year in the event that market conditions are favourable.

For example, what it does, Mr. Chair, is that if you go into the markets and you get a good rate, in anticipation, perhaps, that the interest rates will rise next year, you take advantage of the lower rates this year and you borrow the money. I will say at the beginning, the ability to borrow that this loan bill provides, in no way, shape or size, gives any form of permission to spend the money. It only gives permission to borrow the money, and I think that is significant. Any borrowing would have to be approved through the Legislature. As well, it allows for the pre-borrowing for the subsequent fiscal year in the event, as I said, that the market conditions change and are favourable.

Government needs the ability to borrow in the capital markets when these conditions, such as the interest rates, the term to maturity, and the market liquidity, are favorable. When appropriate, the Province has often borrowed in advance of its cash requirements after consultation with its fiscal agents. It is not done at the direction of the minister. It is done in consultation with senior officials of the Department of Finance, in consultation with our fiscal agents.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of this loan bill is consistent with recent borrowing authority approved by this hon. House. As I pointed out, in 1998 the Loan Act was $200 million, in 1999, $250 million, and the last Loan Act passed in the year 2000 was also for $200 million.

Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that any unused authority under each previous Loan Act expires upon the passage of a new act.

This new loan bill is necessary so that government can undertake a borrowing program to meet the cash requirements outlined in our Budget this year. The loan bill, and I will stress again, does not in any way, shape or form, give government the ability to spend or to commit funds.

Mr. Chair, there is no direct link between the loan bill and the budgetary deficit. The loan bill is all about the borrowing and cash management, not budget allocations and not spending authority. I think that is critical. Passage of the loan bill does not provide authority to spend the money. What it does do, it allows you to go into the markets, borrow the money at favourable interest rates, if they are favourable. If they are not, we would not even borrow the money. If it is favourable, it gives the Province, under the direction of senior officials in the Department of Finance, and fiscal agents, the ability to go into the markets and borrow at issues generally around $200 million. That is the issue range.

As I said, and I think it is important to say again, the ability to borrow the money does not, in any way, grant permission, nor should it, to spend the money. This only provides the authority to go into the markets. It is about good financial planning, taking advantage of low interest rates, going into the markets, particularly if you know that there may be an increase in the interest rates. It allows us to go in under the guidance and direction of our fiscal agents to do larger borrowings to do debt repayment, if it is so desired, in future years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We realize the importance of government being able to borrow money on a market if they can do it cheaper and retire debt, and borrow cheaper. We support always borrowing cheaper than you would at a higher amount - we have no problem - but to give authority carte blanche to do that.... This House sits a reasonable portion of the year and I am sure, if we can save the Province a lot of money, this House can come together on short notice and we can deal with special borrowing.

I want to ask the minister -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) last spring and you did not want to (inaudible). It was on the Order Paper last spring.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister did not present last spring, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, nor this fall in this House, special needs where we may need to retire large debt and, when interest rates are low, be able to borrow, repay debt at a higher - that has come due. Even if there is a penalty on debt that is out there, by paying that, in certain cases we may be able to borrow even with the penalty cheaper than we have debt on the books, and tie it in for a longer period of time. That is where flexibility is needed. The minister has not presented any instance. Has the minister, since last spring -

MR. ANDERSEN: It took him seven months to get a meeting for the Public Accounts Committee. Seven months!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ignore them.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not so sure I should ignore those points from the Member for Torngat. I am not so sure I should take insults across this House when the member did not even show up to the meeting we called, and would not do that. I am not so sure, on public accounts. I might tell him that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Then he wanted to raise an issue in Committee, and it is not the place to deal with it here, but the member opened it up. I only have ten minutes here. I will stay away from that and deal with that another day. I will deal with that another day.

The member knows full well we hosted a national convention here and not many committee members, I can tell you, had to meet and do discussion. The vice-chair is well aware of it, the Member for Bay of Islands and myself, because we did the work. I attended, sat on, and chaired that committee. It was a major event. We hosted it. It is only every eleven or twelve years that it comes to our Province. It took up a fair amount of time during the summertime, I might add. The member is not aware of that. He is not aware of any of these things, but he is easy to complain. He is not there when work is needed to be done, but complains about it after.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity, for ten minutes without interruption, to make some points.

I asked the Minister of Finance, in this House in May, for a list of why we needed this money. Here is what she said to me in response, "I can say unequivocally today..." - on May 8 - "...to the Member for Ferryland, the only thing that we would spend this money on, if we are to borrow, and only if the interest rates are actually absolutely good for us, would be on the $93.3 million deficit." The minister said in this House: we would only spend this on the $93.3 million deficit. I have a question for the minister, maybe she can answer: If you said the deficit is now $30 million less, are you going to amend it to ask for $30 million less?

You said, when you brought this down, you proposed a $93.3 million deficit. You are telling us it is $30 million less. Do you want to borrow $30 million less? Because, why would you want to borrow it if you do not want to spend it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know. I do not have to ask the minister. Why would you want to borrow money if you never want to spend it? Can you tell me that?

There is connection between borrowing and spending. Why would anyone go out and get a million dollar loan and pay 6.5 per cent and put it in the bank and get 2.5 per cent for it? They would be crazy. They would be losing 3 per cent and 4 per cent. You do not need to borrow unless you need to spend. That is why you need to borrow, and you have done a good job of borrowing. You put us in debt $1 million. The only good thing we can hope to get from this government is a cheaper borrowing rate. Now that is not a noble objective of any government, to hope that we can borrow cheaper. We would love to have an opportunity to be able to borrow to meet debts; to retire some debt.

We have borrowed on the international market. We borrowed the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen. Those markets have fluctuated tremendously in terms of the Canadian dollar, but we have moved to a larger amount of borrowing; Canadian dollars. We have moved away from foreign borrowing, and that is positive. It gives stability there. Sometimes the rates are so enticing internationally and so much lower that you might take the urge to go borrow on those markets, even if you do have inflation; but we need to hedge against foreign borrowing because it could cost us a bundle in the long term.

Why did the minister say on May 8 that the only thing we would spend this money on - if we borrow and only if the interest rates are absolutely good for us - would be on the $93.3 million deficit? If that was your line of thinking on May 8, Minister, why aren't you asking for less money in this bill today? You told us it was $30 million less and we were going to come in under budget, but we know over here, you are not coming in $30 million under budget. We knew it when you said last year that you had $30.5 million. We knew, and I said it in this House before it was tabled, it was going to be close to $500 million. It was $473.6 million, the real deficit. You are not telling us the real deficit. You are talking on a cash basis here. When the public accounts get tabled once a year, just one day, you have to talk about an accrual basis and you give the people the line, the other 365 days, on a cash basis. The real amount should be converted.

We should have a financial statement that reflects an accrual basis of accounting - reflected in our budget - than people would know. The Auditor General said: Even if people try to understand how we got from $30-point-some million up to $470-some million, we would not even understand it. There is no mechanism in place to able to measure and account for it. That is not a trademark of good financial planning and a good government, as the minister said. That is a trademark of a government in desperation, taking pockets of money out of funds for the Labrador Highway to push it into the Treasury; pots of money for a ferry service.

The very first one came in the early 1990s when the federal Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was the minister and he stood in this House and said: This ferry service is going into a fund, $55 million, forever, and the interest on that, about $5 million a year or less, will be needed to run that ferry service. The very year, within months when he said it, they took it all and spent it. They did the same with the service in Labrador and that is why it is before the Public Accounts Committee. They are spending $20-some million a year to subsidize it, when they were only supposed to spend $11 million or $12 million. We took a bundle of money and we fell short. We were desperate for a grab, a pile of money, and that is why we are dealing with bills here in this House because we do not have good financial planning. We have financial mismanagement occurring here in our Province and that is why we have a very major problem.

The Acting Minister of Finance who was here when the minister (inaudible) said: Oh, yes, we will give you an itemized list. That was the Thursday before the minister answered: itemized list. So I cannot see why the minister would say in May we are going to spend it on the $93.3 million deficit and trying to tell us that borrowing is not tied into the spending. If we have a surplus this year, Minister, and $100 million, $200 million $300 million or $400 million surpluses, do we need to borrow as much? If we are turning over used surpluses we do not need to borrow. We retire debt. We could use surpluses to retire debt. So it is connected, and to try to tell the public there is no connection between borrowing and spending money, that is wrong. You try to tell someone who wants to buy a house to get mortgage, they borrow it so they can spend it to buy the house and then they pay it back. But we have been borrowing more and more, spending more and more beyond our means, and that is why we need to borrow more. That is why we are in a more tenuous financial position in our Province because somebody has to pay the piper sooner or later.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) where are we supposed to get the money to run the (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture must not have had anything to eat for supper or dinner or breakfast because he keeps interrupting this House on a continuous basis here.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It works, though, doesn't it?

MR. SULLIVAN: It works? The Minister of Finance said it works. If that is your strategy to distract from the truth and deflect, you have not been fooling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You have not been fooling them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If that is your strategy, you are digging the hole deeper, I say to the minister, and if you want to keep doing that, I say keep up the work. Keep up what you are doing. As my colleague from Cape St. Francis said, I think, to the Premier one day: Whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. Keep on doing it, he said. Don't do anything any different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, we have put this Province in a difficult situation. In three years we have added $1 billion debt to this Province, and that is not my statement. That is a statement from the former - the current - Auditor General, who has indicated that we have put our Province in debt to a tune of $1 billion in the last three years. Who would want that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Brian Peckford.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Auditor General of the Province has indicated that we have put our Province in debt $1 billion in three years. We have increased the net public debt for our Province, when this government took over, from $4.8 billion in 1989 to up over $7 billion. That includes Crown corporations and it includes money from sinking funds applied against it, which is really cash that we have. So, we have created a very difficult situation in our Province. I cannot see how anyone can stand up and tell us that we are doing fantastic, and rolls out the numbers, the economy. Anybody who watched the news this evening, why are people leaving our Province in record numbers if it is so great here? Can anybody stand and answer that particular question?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have them frightened to death.

MR. SULLIVAN: We haven't got them frightened to death, I can tell you, but you have them scared to death, I say. You have them scared to death. People cannot wait for an opportunity to tell you how scare they are of you, I say. They cannot wait for that opportunity, and the opportunity will come and the people will have their say in due course, what they think of mismanagement over the years that has compromised and jeopardized the future of their children and future generations, why their children have all gone away. Many have gone away, a 70,000 net loss since this government came to power, on a population of $583,000 at the time. It dropped to 512,000-something in the census - 70,000 people. Results tell the story. Results tell the whole story. It is not what you say, it is what you do, and the practice of what you carry out. That is what really speaks for itself.

Mr. Chairman, if lip service solved problems, this government would have solved every single problem in this Province today - there would not be a problem in this Province - but lip service, I can tell you, does not solve problems. Action solves them, and it has to be responsible action on behalf of the government if we ever hope to turn the corner here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hope the minister, when she stands again, if she does over the course of this, she will answer that question for me.

I will end with this point: If the minister said last year that nothing would be spent from this borrowing, it is used for nothing other than $93.3 million deficit, and she told us when this House opened, the very first day, in her financial statement, we are going to be $30 million ahead of our expectations, if that is the case, Minister, amend this bill to have $30 million less than you are looking for, and then that will be the real truth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to answer the questions because I think the member opposite knows, he likes to do his usual fearmongering, and I agree with some of my colleagues, I think members opposite should apply to Occupational Health and Safety for earplugs because they are going to have a hearing deficit when this is over, from the shouting and screaming.

Let me make this point: If the $200 million is not needed in 2002-2003 because we have other funds, we will not borrow the money. The member opposite says: Oh, the House meets frequently, we can come in here and give permission to borrow. The member opposite knows that you look into the markets on a daily basis to do this kind of borrowing. The borrowing amount is then $200 million, in large amounts, to get the kind of interest we want to get to take advantage of the markets. The member opposite knows that. The loan bill also carries over into 2003-2004, so the money could be put towards next year's borrowing requirements if we are able to borrow now at good interest rates.

This is not about spending the money. This is clearly obvious in that what it does is, it gives my department officials, with the advice of the fiscal agents, the ability to go to the markets and borrow if the interest rates are favourable. Will you spend it? No, you do not have permission to spend it. You have the permission to borrow it if the rates are favourable. It is about good fiscal management. It is not about spending money. Although I can hear, from his view of fiscal management, we have too many hospitals, we have too many schools, and we are delivering too much health care. Obviously, we are paying too much money for those services. That should be a frightening message to anybody listening.

What I will say is that if you want to talk about the borrowing - and the member says: Well, would you spend $30 million less? He knows the principle. When you go to the markets you borrow in large quantities, and that is why we are asking for the permission of $200 million to go to borrow if we need it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going now? Do you know (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite is shouting across questions. Would you like to stand and ask the question? I would be happy to answer it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have asked you but you have not answered. That is why I (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What is it you are asking?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I asked the minister earlier in my questions, in case she did not hear: Are there any special things you are doing now to look at refinancing debt at this time? I asked that to the minister when I stood up, and I was hoping the minister would answer that, why you need that money now. Could you tell us how much interest is going to be saved on what you are doing, the net cost of retiring debt, if there are penalties attached, how much will be needed, and what specific amounts or debt that is listed here in our debt are you looking at retiring? Do you have specific ones or do you just want a blank cheque now to do with as you see fit?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite knows this bill doesn't give us permission to spend money on anything; he knows that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). No, I don't know it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no. You asked what I would spend the money on; retiring the debt? What I am saying is that this is permission to borrow and is shows that you truly do not understand what we are asking for in this bill. What we are asking for is permission to borrow in favourable markets. It is not, Mr. Chairman, granting government permission to spend. I want to say again, because he doesn't understand, the reason we are borrowing, if we need to - you are saying: Why are you going out to borrow today? I am not going to be directed to go out and borrow it today. The reason behind a loan bill is that if the markets are favourable, if you know and if it is likely that the interest rates are going to increase next year, you can go to the markets today. When you are borrowing large amounts of money, Mr. Chairman, to pay off considerable debt in the Province over the years, in this year or next year, and you are able to get a more favourable rate, it just makes good sense to do it.

I mean, to use the example of a mortgage, if you know that in six months time the mortgage rates, the interest rates, are going to go up two or three percentage points and you are in the market looking for a house, you are going to be much more likely to go and borrow the money today to secure a house than wait for six months down the road. That is just good money management.

Now, are you going to borrow it if you don't need it? No. Are you going to borrow it, in the example, if you are not going to buy a house? No, you are not. However, if the rates are favourable, if the opportunity exists and you know you can put it into next year, because it carries over into 2003-2004, which allows you then to use that as part of your debt retirement, once approved in that budget process, then you are able to do that with much lower interest rates.

I would say to the member opposite, there is no plan to go out and borrow tomorrow unless the markets would be favourable, if the bill was passed. What would you spend it on? You wouldn't be able to spent it on anything unless it was approved in the House. It does not give permission to spend the money. Do we need the money right now? No, we do not need the money at the moment. Why are we asking for it? We are asking for it so that in the event of favourable market conditions, knowing that interest rates may increase in six months times, we are going to borrow the money now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Borrow it in six months.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, the member opposite says: Oh, borrow it in six months. It only goes to show that if you are looking at the markets on a daily basis, you have to be able to buy it when the rates are good. Waiting for six months - the rates can change overnight, and the member opposite knows that. A percentage point makes a lot of difference, 2 per cent or 1 per cent on $200 million makes a lot of difference. So, it is important.

We are always looking at our debt retirement. The member opposite knows we have taken the opportunity to pay down debt over the years. We have moved very much out of foreign borrowings. We are very much into North American, Canadian borrowings and will continue to do that.

Obviously, when you are repaying a debt you have to look at the penalties you will pay versus what you will get at the interest rate. So, are we borrowing to pay off the debt? No, we are not doing that, if the penalties outweigh the interest that we would save. So, no we are not doing that. We are making prudent fiscal judgements on going to the markets to borrow. We are not seeking permission to spend. This is not about seeking permission to spend. Misleading the people, I say to he Member from Ferryland, to try to give the impression that we are going out to borrow money tomorrow, to spend it on something, which is what he is implying, is totally false and it is not accurate. This is giving government, the governing body of any organization, the ability to go out and borrow money, if the interest rates are favourable, so we can use it to pay down the debt if that is where the money is approved to be spent. It is not the ability, at this point in time, to spend the money.

Can we do this without the 2002 loan bill right now? This is not about spending money today, or spending money - we do not have the ability to spend the money because this bill does not give it to us. What it does, and I will say it again, as clear as I can make it, it is the ability for a government, who is managing the fiscal resources of the Province, to go to the markets to borrow the money and take advantage if it is deemed appropriate, if it is deemed on the best advice of our fiscal agents, to go to borrow the money to use it as we see fit in paying down the debt, if it is approved for that purpose, and I say that. So, to try to give the impression that this is a pot for a slush fund or some sort of flexibility, it is totally inaccurate. It is totally against the law to spend money that you do not have the approval to spend, and we are not into breaking the law on this side of House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it is a privilege to rise and have a few words to say on Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

Mr. Chair, I say to the minister that we understand that it is an ability to borrow, as she said, but also the government does have the ability to apply money that you borrow to a need, and the need would be a debt. A debt would be paid down by money you borrow, and the debt is money already spent, so I would like to say that if we can avail of better interest rates, better conditions, better terms, on our long-term debt that we could retire and pay down on and repay, then I do not see any problem with doing that. It gives us a better financial position to do other things that we need done with our economy.

Mr. Chair, if we look in the past, if we look at 1998, we had a $200 million loan bill. In 1999, we had a $250 million loan bill. In the year 2000, we had $200 million in a loan bill. In 2002, we had another $200 million that, as the minister said, can be carried over into 2003 and 2004 to pay on debt or any case where we need to retire a debt or get a better interest rate.

When we borrow money, it is related to when we are going to spend it. If we plan on borrowing it, then we must plan on spending it. I just want to tie-in some of the things within our economy and within our communities and districts with respect to how we are spending and the way we should be spending. If you want to relate it to things in our own districts with respect to even housing conditions - in my district, I know, we have a low budget to provide the people, the residents, the constituents of my district, with money so that they can have decent housing, so they can do repairs on their houses. That takes a great deal of money and it must be factored into budgets and it must be factored into conditions of borrowing when we borrow money. We must make sure that the money we borrow is used in a responsible way, a way that benefits all of the people of the Province, not only because we expect government to borrow in a responsible way and get the best rates, but to spend that money prudently and in a responsible way, to that we can have full benefit from every dollar we borrow to meet the needs of the people in our communities.

We don't have to look very far. Even in the last couple of days, from e-mails and letters I am getting from people in my district, people are very concerned about such things as a group home closing in Grand Falls-Windsor. They have been put on notice that by the end of March it could be closing. Now, when we do things like that we must stop and think about how we spend our money, we must stop and think about when is the right time to borrow money, to have that money spent for the needs -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: I say the Minister of Transportation, who is always over there beating his gums, but he never says anything worthwhile -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I say to the Minister of Transportation: If you are so concerned about how we spend our money and about how we debate these bills in the House, to make sure that your side does the right thing with the money that they borrow, that if he was so concerned he would be using a lot more salt on our highways today, more than 25 per cent West of Badger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I say that to the minister, and all over the Province where people's lives are put in jeopardy because you are not spending the money wisely. You are considering dollars in the place of lives on our highways. So, Minister, when you want to go shouting across the floor at me, I am going to talk back to you and tell you what you should be doing, because I don't think you are doing what you should be doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Not only with respect to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I can point out cases even with our school boards. Last week I received a letter: The school board in District 5 will be short $450,000 this year. District 5 school board has paid a price. They have done a good job in school restructuring and today they are being penalized for doing that great job by being short $450,000 for the coming year. Now, how can they deliver that type of education to our students in District 5 if we are going to find ways to save $450,000 to balance that budget? If we are going to borrow money, we have to spend money wisely. We have to invest money in our youth. We have to invest money in the public. We have to make conditions safe for our people in the Province. Our roads should be safe, 100 per cent safe. We have to do things to help our seniors. We have seniors today who want to live in their own homes and be comfortable. We have to find a way, when we are borrowing $200 million, that will be spent, one way or another, the government will see fit, in spending $200 million, either the coming year or the next year, and even by paying down the debt, they still have to find money to meet the needs of the people of this Province.

Our seniors today, living in their own homes, are living on less than $500 a month. I say to the minister: How can you expect a senior to keep a house up, buy food, buy oil, and pay the light bill? I know I would not want to do it on less than $500 a month. If we are going to consider responsible government, responsible spending, then we have to start looking at the needs of the people in this Province.

I can say to the ministers across the way, if you are not interested enough to listen, if you just want to argue back and forth in this House today, then maybe you do not know what is going on in your own districts. Maybe you are not paying attention to the needs of the people in your districts. Maybe it is time for the people in your district to have a change when we see things are changing in this Province. We see the outflow of young people in this Province. In the last six years, 40,000 people left this Province; and, in the last thirteen years, 70,000 people have left this Province. Why are they leaving? They are leaving because we are not meeting the needs of the people of this Province today. We are not finding opportunities, we are not giving opportunities to our youth to keep them here. Sometimes we educate them and then we send them off to the mainland to work for somebody else, when they should be working here in this Province, when they should be contributing to our economy so that we would not have the big deficits that we have, so we can be productive, pay taxes in this Province, not in Ontario. I do not want to see the youth of my district move to Ontario, Alberta or anywhere else in Canada. I want them to stay right here in this Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, to work here, pay taxes here, to make sure -

MR. BARRETT: Why were you against people moving public service jobs to Grand Falls?

MR. HUNTER: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he keeps getting on with this foolishness, childishness, that he gets on with. Why doesn't he listen and try to do something good for his district?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Yes. If you want to debate what I am saying, why don't you take leave and stand up? I will sit down and listen to you for a few minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: If you have something worthwhile to say, you can get up and say it. If you haven't, then just sit there and listen to me. I know it hurts; it hurts for you to sit there and hear the truth. You do not want to hear the truth. You are afraid to hear the truth. I am certainly willing to sit down and let you have leave to say a few words.

I say to the minister, maybe he should be more responsible for his department. I say to the minister, back in August month he promised the people of Long Island that a tender would come forward to be closed on November 29, and that a tender would be awarded by December 5. Today we have not heard a sound. The minister is sitting back, he doesn't mind criticizing, but if you are talking about responsible spending and responsible budgets, then he agrees, along with us on this side, that a causeway to Long Island makes good sense. We agree that it makes good sense, saves millions of dollars over a few years, in ten or fifteen years.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: I say to the minister, if you want to hear more, when I get a chance to get on again I will say more and I will certainly give you leave to have a few words, Minister. If you want to debate, I am willing to debate with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, to stand tonight in support of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, my support for Bill 7, because, you know, introducing this 2002 Loan Bill, this is just a regular loan bill related to the financial administration of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you about this Loan Bill. This Loan Bill is no different than any of us, as individuals, arranging a line of credit on our own personal account. To put it in that context, that is exactly what it is. I bet you there is not a man or woman in this House of Assembly who does not have a line of credit attached to their chequing account. If there is, I would like them (inaudible). What that really means is, this is really only authorization, permission to borrow. This gives you permission to go out and shop the world financial markets. It gives you permission to go out and try to get the best rates possible if you need to borrow for this Province; nothing more. It doesn't mean that you are actually going to go out and borrow the money or spend the money. It gives you permission, the same as any of us would have on our chequing account. If you have a line of credit attached to your chequing account and you wanted $10,000 - you might decide to go on a holiday next week and it may not be convenient for you to go to your bank and borrow, but if you have a line of credit attached it is there for your use but it doesn't mean that you are going to use it.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said in this House tonight about this particular bill, but I believe it is much to-do about nothing. I would like to draw the members' attention to this booklet that just came out today, the Economic Review, dated November, 2002, the economic review of this Province. I think it would enlighten all members of this House if they had an opportunity - you see, we will probably be here all night tonight - to actually sit down and review this booklet. What this booklet does, it tells you the financial position and the economic outlook for the coming year of our Province. I tell you, what this booklet says is really enlightening and it is encouraging, Mr. Chairman.

It was only a few years ago that we passed a bill this time of the year for Sunday shopping. I know my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, kept us here night after night passing the bill for Sunday shopping. Do you know something? This book tells us today that retail sales in the first eight months of this year totaled $3.3 billion, an increase of 3 per cent over the same period for 2001. You know, that is not even happening in the U.S. economy. They are worried about the soft retail market this Christmas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Sunday shopping; have you been to any of the malls in St. John's on a Sunday afternoon? Well, I will tell you, it is hard to find a place to park your car.

I want to tell you about some of the good things that are happening in this Province. I know that we have pockets in our Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland, where the economy is not as it should be. Lots of times we hear from the Opposition, and they are always criticizing about what we are not doing. Do you know something, Mr. Chairman? They do not have any solutions. It is okay for them to stand up and say: Our population is decreasing. We are spending too much money. What are your solutions? I do not hear any.

When you talk about relocation, I think that was one of the best initiatives that this government ever launched. In fact, I can speak to Grand Falls-Windsor, my district of Grand Falls-Buchans, where there are100 new jobs in there over the past two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Windsor-Springdale complained about relocation. It does not only affect the people of Grand Falls-Windsor. There are people travelling over the highway from all over Central Newfoundland to go into Grand Falls-Windsor and yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: He came to the opening of the Fisheries Building, didn't he?

MS THISTLE: He did. He helped us cut the ribbon for the opening of Fisheries and Aquaculture. All the more reason, Mr. Chairman, why we need 100 per cent salt from Grand Falls-Windsor to Badger because traffic is coming down to the main centre to go to work there. That is what relocation did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to tell you about some other good things that are going on in this Province. Do you know something? We are positioning this Province for economic development. I am proud to say, as the Minister of Labour, we have had the least number of stoppages in the past five years that was ever recorded in this Province. We have a new partnership launch between business, government and labour. We know what it is like to try to attract large projects to this Province, and if we have the right things in place where business, government and labour are working together as a partnership, we have a good chance at attracting big projects to this Province.

When you talk about spending money, and we have a deficit, I am not one bit ashamed to stand up here tonight and say that we have a deficit because we spent our money on health care. I remember when I was elected in 1996 and I was appointed to Cabinet in 1998, and do you know what our budget was for health care then? It was $900 million. Today, it is $1.5 billion. Where do you think that money came from? It did not come from the federal government. It came out of general revenues because we care about the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I can tell you, I do not mind being criticized because we put dialysis in Grand Falls-Windsor. I do not mind being criticized because we put a bone density machine in there, or because we put the Carmelite House in there, or we put a new school in Buchans, and I am going to lobby hard to get a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor because we need it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what we were elected to do.

MS THISTLE: That is right.

I do not mind standing up here when you are standing for people and you are spending money for health care because, let me tell you, that is what it is all about. I would rather be standing up here with a deficit on our books and making sure people are looked after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the things that were said by the Member for Windsor-Springdale, talking about the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, roads and so on. Well, I tell you, I have no problem with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You just go up over the Buchans Highway and the Millertown Highway, all resurfaced because it is important for the people of that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I would like to tell you what is happening now. Here is a book on workers' compensation. We hear a lot about workers' compensation, but I want to tell you about the good things that are happening in this Province. Here is a book that shows a graph between 1997 and 2001. Do you know, as of 2001, we had an increase of 1,300 new business in four years paying workers' compensation premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Now, would you tell me that creating the infrastructure, creating the atmosphere for new business development, is not working in this Province? You are dead wrong, dead wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I can tell you, when I go to Grand Falls-Windsor and I stand up before my community and there are seventy-six new houses under construction, there are a lot of things being done right, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of things being done right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Do you know something, Mr. Chairman? This side over here, you asked for a child advocate, you asked for an Ombudsman, and you wanted gas regulation. That does not come free. That does not come free.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: That does not come free and, if that adds to our deficit, we are providing a good service to the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, the bill we are talking about here tonight does not talk about spending money. It talks about giving us authorization, as a government, to borrow money, to shop the world markets, making sure that we are getting the best interest rate for the money that we are shopping for. It is all it is saying and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say, in conclusion, good things are happening in this Province and they are happening because we are making responsible decisions.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know what happens here when we come back to sit after supper, because it seems like ordinarily very quiet, reserved people become very hyper and sensitized and become very sensitive to everything that everybody else says. I do not know if it is what we eat for supper, or if it is something that people use for -

MS S. OSBORNE: It is the news. They have been watching the news.

MR. FITZGERALD: It cannot be the news, because the news is not all that refreshing to people on the other side, and I am sure that the polls have not been refreshing.

Mr. Chairman, when I pick up Bill 7 and read $200 million, it is a figure that I cannot even comprehend. I do not even know what it is all about. I am not an accountant and I am the last one who probably should be speaking on finances and on finance bills, and going out and borrowing money, but I think I can talk about spending money wisely. I think, when I talk about why we bring our concerns forward over here on the this side, it is because we have concerns about giving anybody over there the authority to go out and be able to borrow money when we see the way that you have spent money in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is where our concerns are.

When we hear questions raised by the Member for Cape St. Francis, directed to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and we hear the waste of money that was spent on Hull 100, when I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation if he had spent the money, he was very quick to point to the present Minister of Mines and Energy and say no, it was him who spent the money on Hull 100. Whether it was the Minister of Mines and Energy today or the former minister, the Member for Humber Valley, or the present minister, it is still no excuse to go out and take taxpayers' dollars and waste it in a bucket of rust, as the Member for Cape St. Francis continues to describe it, on Hull 100.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is only an opinion.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is more than an opinion; it is a fact. For somebody to go over and buy a vessel in Estonia, and expect that vessel to be brought back here and to be put in service here to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to buy that vessel without carrying out an inspection, before you go and spend the taxpayers' money, and have it sitting for two years here in St. John's, and spend three times what the people were told the value of it was, and here we have it sitting in Clarenville and still do not know what the cost of it is going to be before it carries one passenger here in Newfoundland. That is why people are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, people are also concerned when they see the Premier and this present government go out and talk about spending three-quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money to carry forward and put forward a selling job to convince the people that the Lower Churchill agreement might be a good agreement, and it might be something that they agree with and that they should support. The people in this Province have a real problem with this government going out and spending three-quarters of a million dollars in a fancy ad campaign to sell Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The people in this Province have a real problem with the present government going out and spending in excess of $250,000 on promoting the Premier. That is why people are concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is why people over here on this side of the House are concerned. If anybody up in Alberta - where there are many of our children and many of the people we know, who have had to move away - heard the Minister of Labour speak here tonight, then I would say we should be ready for the onrush coming back to the airport when they hear about the wonderful things that are happening here in this Province.

I can tell you, Minister, there might be wonderful things happening in your district but I suggest you go out where the whales blow. Go out to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Go out where the fishermen are on the wharves. Go out where people have to get up in the morning and see one person going to work and fifteen others looking out through the window with no job to go to, and get a touch of reality, because that is what is wrong with this government!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what is wrong with this government. You have the sunglasses on and you see no further than what is happening here within the city limits. Until you know what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and until you admit there is a problem, then it will never be any different.

My district is no different than many districts over on the other side. I can assure you, there are lots of people over there, including my member, the Member for Terra Nova, who will tell you that everything is not rosy and red in the district that he represents. I can tell you that, Mr. Chairman. If I could see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That might change, I say to the minister. That could very well change the next time around, because I think you have out lived your usefulness as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what I am hearing from the people I talk to from your district.

Mr. Chairman, if I could read this bill and hear that part of that $200 million might be spent to replace a bridge, that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation highway truck went through in Plate Cove East two weeks ago, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation saw fit to go down and bar off the bridge and put a path over it where people could walk rather than admit traffic, then I would say some of this money might be wisely spent.

The Premier was quick to put bridges to cottages in his district, to cabins, but your government today, Sir, have left that community without the bridge leading into the community, and decided to put a pathway there and barred it off without being able to accept traffic today. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, and we are still waiting for Treasury Board and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to decide if they are going to repair that bridge. Is that what responsibility is all about, when the Premier can go and order bridges to be built for cabins in his district and leave a community without access to a bridge leading into that particular community?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: This is a wooden bridge. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It was a highways' truck full of salt that went through the bridge, and the driver got injured. What would have happened if it was a school bus full of children, I say to people opposite?

If I could see money being borrowed to repair and to replace a bridge like that going into Plate Cove East, then that would make me happy and support this bill. If I could see identification to open ten beds at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, where this government saw fit to spend $1.4 million to refurbish part of the Golden Heights Manor to create ten extra beds and then put the beds and the furniture in them and close the doors, then I would say this is a positive bill.

You go to the Minister of Health and Community Services and what does he say? Unless you can show me a waiting list with at least fourteen names on it, those beds will not be opened. Now, how can you go and tell somebody who is calling on behalf of their mother or their father or their grandmother: I am sorry, Sir, but you cannot be admitted to the Golden Heights Manor because you are only number twelve on the waiting list.

Is that the policy of this government? Is that what responsibility is all about? I ask you, is that what responsibility is all about? If those were the kinds of things that minister was going to borrow $200 million for, I would certainly be happy.

You talk to senior citizens walking through the communities on the sides of the road today, where they go out for walks - we do not have sidewalks, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - and you get calls from seniors in the community saying: I wish the Department of Works, Services and Transportation would use some stone to put on the sides of the road, the shoulders of the roads, so we could go for a walk.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has cut back his budget so far that the only thing that is being used today on the shoulders of road through communities is pit run rock, from the gravel pits around the sides of the roads in the Province. Is that what responsibility is all about? Is that the way you spend your money wisely? I am sorry, people opposite, but that is not the responsible way of doing things. If we are going to look after our rural communities then we not only have to pay lip service to them but we have to be sincere and we have to spend our money wisely.

That is what is happening, Mr. Chairman. That is what is happening in this Province today - roads that were never, ever paved. If I could see money in this particular document that would say that you are going to upgrade and pave the three kilometres of road between Birchy Cove and Bonavista, or if I could see evidence here that you are going to pave three kilometres of dirt road leading through the community of Winter Brook, a community that has not seen pavement in over 100 years - they celebrated their 100th Anniversary five years ago and have never, ever seen pavement there. There is still three kilometres of pavement left to be put between Jamestown and Winter Brook.

MR. BARRETT: Which minister put it there?

MR. FITZGERALD: It is still not complete, I say to the minister. No minister put it there. It was taxpayer dollars. They deserve every cent of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It did not come out of your pocket, Sir! It is still not completed, and it is only their own money that they paid back in taxes.

Mr. Chairman, if I could see some evidence in this bill here where you are going to increase the Municipal Operating Grants to communities, then that would make me happy and say yes, that is money well spent as well.

Go out and talk to communities today. I cannot understand how people are motivated today to run and be a councillor in some municipalities that are out there, because all they have become is bill collectors. The amount of money that is coming forward from this government in order to help them look after their services there is pitiful. It is certainly not helpful, and it is certainly not encouraging for somebody out in rural areas who would come and offer themselves to serve on the municipal council so they might implement some change and bring about some change and help in order to serve the people in their communities.

Madam Chairperson, what we are scared of -

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a second to clue up, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chairperson, that is the reason why we have problems with this $200 million. We are scared that this government is going to continue to waste money as they have done in the past.

I could go on about the salaries of spin doctors up in the Premier's offices. I can talk about all the lucrative contracts that have been given out there. That is the reason why we have concerns about this bill, and that is the reason why we want to go on the record as saying that we do not give this minister any direction or any leverage to be able to go out and borrow any money to spend as she sees fit. That is not what it is all about, and that is not the trust that the taxpayers of this Province put in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to share a few words on this particular bill and, in a more focused manner, speak to some of the comments that the hon. member has made.

The hon. Member for Bonavista South by, I think, any standard of measurement, is a good individual. I believe he means well. I believe he works hard on behalf of his people. I believe he does the best he can and he puts forward his point of view in a manner as best he believes it should be, but I have to say to him: I have never heard such diatribe of negativity in terms of a speech in the House that rhetorically comes from the Member for Bonavista South. He gets up in his place and he invariably wants to talk about how bad things are in his district. You would almost say that the people in Bonavista South did not have a member, not that they have a member who may or may not be satisfactory to them. You would almost say that they did not have a member. He talks about the one person who is working and the fifteen people who are not working. He talks about the road that has not been paved in 100 years. He talks about this not being done and that not being done.

I would suggest to the hon. member, Madam Chair, that when he rises in his place again to speak in debate, whether it is on a money bill or not, that he try and find something positive to reflect on, something good to talk about, something that would reflect a positive attitude, an attitude that sort of says at least that a glass, in some instances, is half full in my district, rather than say that, no, my glass is half empty and I do not want it any other way. I am not going to be satisfied to talk about anything that is good that is going on.

Let me talk a little bit about how we manage our finances. He talked about the expenditures in this area and that area and another area. He talked about the Hull 100 as an example. In all of the commentary I have heard about ferries from the other side of the House, I have yet to hear one person stand and mention the issue of the purchase of the Prince Edward that we refurbished for $1.5 million after spending just $300,000 for it, created a world-class ferry for less than $2 million, a ferry that is valued at about $22 million, put it on the run between Fogo and Carmanville and Change Islands, and it represents probably the best investment of purchase power in terms of finding transportation links between islands and mainland that we have ever had in this Province.

Now, I know about it because I happened to have been in the department at the time we made the purchase, but it has nothing to do singularly with any particular minister. It has to do with the fact that ministers take good advice from officials. We give prudent consideration to the advice they give us. We send them out to do work for us, and they came back, and what we have is the purchase of a boat that - there could be no better example of using the taxpayers' money wisely and prudently and spending it in a manner that gets way, way more than ordinary fair value for that money.

Madam Chair, I would also like to remind the hon. members on the other side, lest they forget, because they do not seem to want to reflect on good things that have happened in this Province, they have yet to rise to their feet and say: Government, we commend you for having the foresight to take a position with respect to a boundaries issue between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, wherein you invested a couple of million dollars of the taxpayers' money, the outcome of which is this: that we have gained control over about 700,000 or 800,000 square kilometres of acreage seabed which contains, we believe, according to the best geological information we have, the best seismic data we have, probably hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of barrels of oil, as well as trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The hon. members on the other side never rise in their places and say: Thank you, government. We commend you for what you have done with respect to the boundaries issue that has had such a positive outcome for the people of this Province. I would say to the hon. members on the other side, that it has been a long time, if ever - I don't know that they have never mentioned it, but it has been a long time, if ever - they have mentioned the fact that we, as a government, made wise decisions with respect to issues such as health care that have seen us, on behalf of the people of the Province -

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what you get paid for.

MR. MATTHEWS: Exactly, I say to the hon. member. That is what we get paid for. We get elected to make good decisions on behalf of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: What I point out to the hon. member is that, while they may have queries or questions about certain expenditures that they choose to cherry-pick as being less than optimal in outcome, there are, for every decision like that that may have been taken, hundreds of decisions that we take as a government that reflect more than good value for the taxpayers' money and reflect more than prudent purchasing and public expenditure of funds on behalf of the people in the Province.

We today, Madam Chair, in this Province, have, as a result of decisions we have taken as a government, probably the finest children's hospital in all of Canada, the Janeway Child Health Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Why do we have it? Because we dared to make a choice in favour of the children, in favour of the mothers and in favour of the women of this Province. We have a Child Health Centre and a Women's Health Centre that are second to none in all of Canada, Madam Chair.

Why do we want the people of the Province to understand that we have spent money wisely? Because, while they talk about hundreds of millions of dollars that sometimes previous governments on occasion have spent with absolutely no results in terms of economic development, for a small investment we, as a Province, have attracted between 3,000 and 3,500 good paying jobs to call centres in this Province, because we have chosen to make strategic investments in rather modest or small wage subsidies that have resulted in those things that have happened.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, I am sure, is familiar with the state-of-the art hospital that is about to be completed, if it has not already been completed, in Gander of this Province. The member on the other side of the House fails to reflect on the dozens of new schools that have been built in this Province, because we have chosen to spend our money wisely.

Now, I say, Madam Chair -

MR. BARRETT: One hundred and fifty million dollars.

MR. MATTHEWS: One hundred and fifty million dollars, my colleague from Bellevue tells me, has been spent in schools and the list goes on and on.

MR. BARRETT: A new one in Lethbridge, a new school in Lethbridge in his district.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe the minister would like to tell the story about the millions of dollars they spent on the Gander hospital before they decided to do a study to see if they really needed it.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member -

MR. FITZGERALD: Is that true? Is that true?

MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member will listen, I will tell him.

MR. FITZGERALD: But is it true?

MR. MATTHEWS: I will answer your question, if you will be quiet.

MR. FITZGERALD: How many millions of dollars were spent, and then you decided (inaudible) and build a new one?

MR. MATTHEWS: We embarked, I say to the hon. member, on the extension to the Gander hospital by cutting a ribbon as the first official act of my role as Health Minister in 1994. Of course, as we went through that project, we monitored this to ensure that we were doing the right project for the right purposes at a point in time. The result of us being prudent on reflecting upon what we were doing is that we have completed a world-class hospital for the people in that area.

Let me get back, Madam Chair, to the issue of this bill that we have before us. The Opposition purports in their debating in the House that somehow or other a bill for authorization to borrow $200 million is some sort of a scheme that is being concocted to get money to spend for purposes that nobody would know about and that we would seek not to inform anybody of. The simple purpose of this $200 million borrowing bill is a piece of enabling legislation that allows the government to manage the financial affairs of this Province in a wise and prudent manner. It gives us the ability to borrow when the rates of interest are right. It gives us the ability to pay off higher borrowings that are coming due and replace -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: In conclusion -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: I ask my hon. member, can I have leave?

MADAM CHAIR: No leave granted.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. She recants, bless her heart.

I say to the hon. members, that this borrowing bill is absolutely appropriate for our purposes -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we would appreciate your support so we can get on with our business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

With the exception of speaking during Question Period and presenting a couple petitions, I guess you would have to class this as my maiden speech in the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I ask you if you would permit me to speak more generally with respect to my district as opposed to specifically on the bill at hand.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to my colleagues within this House. Let me say first, I come into this House with a great deal of respect for all of the members on both sides of this House, for what they are doing in trying to make this Province a better place in which to live and which to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: In the coming days I look forward to the debate on public policy issues within this Chamber and I look forward to working with members outside of the Chamber, and I guess, most importantly of all, in serving and representing the interests and priorities of constituents and stakeholders in the great District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, I want to extend my sincere gratitude to all members of this caucus, to our party staff, and especially to the voters of Bonavista North who, on July 24, gave my party and I a strong mandate to serve them in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: It is my intent, Madam Chair, to represent and serve them in the best interests that I can.

Madam Chair, I was born and grew up in the historic Town of Greenspond where I naturally kicked off my campaign. I have lived and worked in the district for practically all my life, serving in different professional and volunteer groups. During that time, I have met and become friends with an awful lot of wonderful people, people who are doing much to make their communities a better place in which to live. On their behalf, I look forward to embracing the new challenges and opportunities that elected office brings, and in discharging my responsibilities to the best of my ability.

Madam Chair, as you well know, the District of Bonavista North has always played a key role in the social economic development of our Province, and a particularly proud role in the development of our fishing industry.

In pre- and post-Confederation years, due to its strategic location on the Northeast Coast, the area served as a vital coastal link in the evolution of the Labrador fishery. Each spring, the annual departure of captains and crews from our shores gave substance and meaning to our once great seal fishery. With respect to that fishery, as most of you know, a great many famous sealing captains came from that area, especially from the communities of Greenspond, Brookfield and Pool's Island, and these great skippers left a compelling legacy of hard work and rugged determination mixed, of course, from time to time, with tragic loss.

Madam Chair, over the years, the past number of years, a vibrant inshore fishing sector has also grown that stubbornly, in the face of the motorium in 1992, has allowed the district to emerge as a provincial leader in the harvesting and processing of multiple fish species. Fortunately, and thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit and partnership effort between the fishermen in the area and the processor, the main employer in that area, Beothic Fish Processors, the district has been able to weather the significant economic storm caused by the Northern cod motorium.

Madam Chair, if I may also, I would like to make reference to the bill in question with this one particular point. It is connected both federally and provincially so I guess, when you are talking revenues and expenditures, they are all interrelated. I would like to make reference to a point made by my colleague from Bonavista South on Thursday, when he was speaking to the fisheries resolution brought forward by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I specifically want to make reference to when he mentioned about the office of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Clarenville. Madam Chair, the Department of Fisheries and Ocean had, for years, an inspection and licensing office both in Valleyfield and Lumsden. A few years ago they decided to move that office from the core fishing area of Valleyfield and Lumsden to the woods up in Glovertown. Fishermen now in our area have to travel two hours to go to Clarenville to pick up their licences, or if they are in area 3K, they have to leave Lumsden and Musgrave Harbour and drive the hour-and-a-half or two hours to Grand Falls or Twillingate to pick up their licences. There are times when these people go to those areas, the computers are down or they do not have all the information from St. John's, and they end up making two or three trips. Madam Chair, a major expense for the fishermen in Bonavista North.

The point I want to really make is with reference to the inspection division of DFO that was transferred from Valleyfield to Glovertown. One of the inspectors for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a resident of Wesleyville, and if you know the area, Wesleyville and Valleyfield are very close together. That inspector has to leave his home every morning, pass the plant in Valleyfield, pass the plant in Wareham and pass the plant in Dover on his way to his office in Glovertown. Upon arrival at his office in Glovertown, nine times out of ten that inspector has to turn around and travel right back to Valleyfield to do an inspection. When the inspection is done, then it is back to Glovertown again to finish up his day and drive home to Wesleyville. The point I want to make with respect to that, Madam Chair, is the cost involved, that it would only take five or six trips like that and they could pay for an office right in Valleyfield where the majority of the fisherpeople are in that part of the district.

That brings me to the point now that I want to make and tie in with respect to the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Last year or the year before when they spent millions of dollars in moving people all over the Province, they moved their regional office at Gander into Grand Falls, away from the core body of fishers and plant workers in the Province, or in that area of Central Newfoundland. It is my understanding, Madam Chair, that a contractor erected a brand new building in Grand Falls at a cost of $500,000. I have been informed that the same contractor picked up the ten-year lease at $50,000 a year for that building.

The point I want to make, Madam Chair, if that building was put in the District of Bonavista North, anywhere along the Northeast Coast, that a suitable building could have been put up much more cheaply and serve a lot more people. For $500,000, I would say that would cover a lease out around the outports for thirty years or more rather than the ten that it is now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, having said that, the District of Bonavista North has done really well, I must say, over the years. If you take a drive through the district, the communities will reveal evidence of wealth and job creation in most all areas.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARDING: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MR. HARDING: Thank you.

There are two parts of that district, the Indian Bay area and the Carmanville North area to Gander Bay, mainly dependent on the forestry. As you know, the great fire of 1961 and the IWA strike took away an awful lot of jobs from people in those areas. I must say, under trying circumstances they really have come a long way, but there is still need for a fair number of services, especially with respect to infrastructure. There are still some communities with no water and sewer, and one of the main issues in practically every community in the district is the need for road upgrading and paving.

In the areas I just mentioned, Frederickton and Gander Bay, there are a large number of people who have found work but they have had to go away. A great many of them work on the lake boats up on the mainland, others on different ocean going vessels, but they still have that strong work ethic that they had when their forefathers were woodsmen, and that is great to see.

Madam Chair, just as the people and the communities of Bonavista North have done a commendable job over the years of evolving and diversifying inside and within the fishing industry, they must now explore and find new ways to diversify outside and around the fishing industry. Pressures on resource supply and fisheries management policies respecting quotas relating to crab, in particular, are emerging; with signs this past year pointing to a reduction in the processing effort required to process the same amount of crab. We can relate that, I think, where there has been more crab plants situated around the Province looking for the same amount of crab. Also, there is a concern with respect to more mechanized equipment that has taken away some of the labour. Then again, that was needed in order to compete in that industry. Along, not only with that but also the announcement now of a possible closure in cod on the Northeast Coast, this is a cause for concern, Madam Chair, not only for Bonavista North but many other districts that continue to make a living from the sea.

Attention and resources over the past few years have been dedicated to supporting a number of grassroots efforts in tourism infrastructure development. I would like to point out two or three of these. One, in particular, is the Greenspond courthouse, the Barbour Heritage Site in Newtown and the Banting Memorial Park and Interpretation Centre in Musgrave Harbour.

Also, Madam Chair, there has been a fair bit of attention diverted towards aquaculture research. We have in Wesleyville one of the best marine biologists in the Province in the name of Mr. John Watkins. He has done many great things with research on underutilzed species.

Also, I would like to make reference to the Indian Bay-Centreville area where they did have major problems, as I said earlier, with the loss of the forestry. I would like to pay tribute to two or three businessmen in that area who have certainly, through their own initiative, come a long way. I would like to mention, particularly, Mr. Bill Noble, who has established a wood moulding business in that community and he is serving building supply stores all around the Province. I would also like to mention Mr. Brian Pickett who is building fibreglass boats in Centreville second to none in the Province, and also the Ackermans who have developed the blueberry industry. All of these, Madam Chair, have come with the initiative of these hardworking people. It is imperative that these efforts and the mechanisms to support them must continue by government. From time to time government has to take more initiative, I think, in helping those people in the dead times during the life of their existence.

Madam Chair, a few of the things that I just mentioned, specifically with relation to the tourism related initiatives, a lot of these came through the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development which, as you know, was a key ministerial responsibility of my predecessor, Mr. Beaton Tulk. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Tulk for his record of service, not only to the district of Bonavista North but also for his years of service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, let me end by saying that we, who sit in this house, in this public office, have been given a special mandate by the people of this Province to serve and lead, serving our constituents of the day, as we work to try and build a vibrant Province for our youth and the constituents of tomorrow. We must be ever mindful of the great men and women who have built this Province in the years that have passed, not only colleagues of ours who sat in this House, but also the many great men and women, the volunteers out there in the community who profoundly and significantly built and sustained communities along the coast of our Province.

As we venture into a new century of developing Newfoundland and Labrador, may we take strength and inspiration from their struggles, from their determination, from their entrepreneurship and legacy of hard work and commitment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sitting in the Legislature often you wonder sometimes what people, who either are listening - certainly prior to the advent of the Legislature being televised - but they must think about the debates in the House sometimes, and you wonder what they are thinking tonight in terms of the particular piece of legislation that we are debating. I believe that those who have been watching in the last little while have seen an example of what it should be about in the speech that was presented by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, it is important, I guess, to put in context tonight's debate in terms of Bill 7, a piece of legislation where government is looking for the authority from the Legislature, from members tonight, to be able to borrow $200 million. It is an important piece of legislation. It is not often that a bill comes before the House where the minister and the government are looking for such a significant piece of business. After all, $200 million is a lot of money.

Now, last year in the debates in this Legislature the Member for Ferryland questioned the now Minister of Mines and Energy, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, and asked specifically: What was the $200 million going to be used for? At that time the minister said that he would stand up and itemize a list of what the money was going to be used for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I am going to take my seat. If members want to converse, I will let them converse.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, when asked under direct questioning, talked about he would provide an itemized list. The support for this bill, in our view, should come with an itemized list. After all, government is asking the members in this Legislature to give this government a blank cheque when they decide it is a good time so that they can go out and borrow $200 million to defray certain expenses or to bring down the borrowing cost of government. Now, the minister earlier talked about - compared it to somebody's mortgage. If we knew, for example, that your mortgage was coming due and you could get a better interest rate, then you would go do it obviously, but that is not what government is asking us to do tonight. What government is asking us to do tonight, in supporting this piece of legislation, is to give them, as the government, the right to go use $200 million without coming back to this Legislature to itemize the list and tell us why they want to use it. Frankly, from this side of the House's point of view, that is not going to happen from our point of view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, if that is the case, if two months from now government needs $200 million - we are not talking about $200 or $2,000 or $200,000, which is equally a big number, we are talking about $200 million. That if government wants to use $200 million to bring down the costs of borrowing or to lower our interest costs in servicing our debt, not a member in this Legislature on this side would stand in its way. But, we do ask, and we do demand of ourselves before we demand of anybody else, transparency, openness and accountability. If you do need to use the $200 million and you can demonstrate to the public, through the floor of this Legislature, that it will save money, then call us back, we will deal with it. We will not hold up a bill that is going to save people money, but we will not support giving this government the outright blank cheque for use of $200 million which they will use and they will see fit without coming for the approval of this Legislature. That is the position of this caucus, and you wonder why.

If we want to look at past history, it has been said that this bill has been coming in perpetuity for some twenty-five or thirty years. Every government does it. That is what I have been told today by the Government House Leader, and been told by the Minister of Finance. That is what I have been told by others, that this is not an extraordinary piece of legislation. That this has been happening since the mid-1970s. Well, those days are over. Today is a different day. Tomorrow is a different time and people in the Province are expecting a different level of accountability from their members in this Legislature in 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the trouble? When asked directly last year, the Minister of Mines and Energy, who was acting Minister of Finance at the time said: There won't be a problem, we can provide you with an itemized list. We are still waiting for it. He stood in his place today and he didn't talk about that, but members on this side of the House are still waiting for that itemized list of where this government is going to use $200 million.

The Minister of Finance talked about, this is a borrowing bill, back last May, for example. I can quote it here, two different quotes that demonstrate the point. "I can say unequivocally today, to the Member for Ferryland, the only thing that we would spend this money on, if we are to borrow, and only if the interest rates are actually absolutely good for us, would be on the $93.3 million deficit." She goes on to say in another exchange during the same Question Period, "Mr. Speaker, we have no list because we do not intend to spend the money." Five minutes before that: If we are going to spend it, it will be on the deficit. We don't have a list.

The acting Minister of Finance, the day before, said he would provide a list of what they were going to spend the $200 million on. The next day, the Minister of Finance stands up and says, "...we have no list because we do not intend to spend the money. The only thing we would spend it on right now - and I will give you the list that I have - one item, and that would be if we chose to go to the long-term capital markets we would us it on our $93.3 million deficit. Nothing else. What the member opposite is confused about, she went on to say, is that this is not permission to spend, this is permission to borrow, and only in good financial administration for the people of the Province that we would even consider doing it."

Now, Madam Chair, let's consider the practices of good financial administration first and foremost and why we, as an opposition, reserve our right, as the official Opposition in the Province, to say we don't support this bill and to demand, in our view, on behalf of the people of the Province, that if you want a blank cheque for $200 million it is not going to happen while we are here. If you want a cheque for $200 million and it is in the public interest, itemize what the expenditures are going to be and, if it is in the public interest, you can have it and you can have it right away. That is what our take is on this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is there any wonder why we feel so strongly about this particular piece of legislation? Have there been examples where the public money has been wasted? From 1998 until the time of this new Premier, Premier Roger Grimes, $35 million was spent on a failed framework agreement to develop the Lower Churchill; $35 million that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will have to borrow.

Now, the plan of the government is to role that $35 million, along with $15 or $20 million that they have spent on this set of negotiations into the project if it ever happens. If it doesn't, somebody needs to answer this question: Who will pay for the $55 to $60 million that has been spent to date on negotiations on Lower Churchill, since 1998? Will it be the ministers or the members opposite? Will it be the members on this side? The fact of the matter is, it will be all of us, each and every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will pay for it through escalating rates. No other way to do it. When you consider the financial shape and how this government has attacked the integrity of the financial shape of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, there is only one source to get it from and that is from everyone in the Province.

Madam Chair, let's consider some other recent developments, or developments since this government took power. Let's ask ourselves, in terms about financial administration: How much money has this government paid out because of dealing with people, individuals, groups, businesses, because they were not treated fairly by either the Public Tender Act, they were not treated fairly, or unlawfully dismissed without cause? Let's talk about it. Government, in 1998, many of the members who owe their existence in this place to former Premier Brian Tobin, went on a certain course of action on, let's talk about, non-utility generators, the development and privatization of small rivers in this Province. What comes to mind? Terra Nova, Torrent River, Big Falls. All of that was in anticipation of needing 200 megawatts to drive what was considered then to be a full-meal deal, a full traditional smelter in Argentia. Now, what happened?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). I thought you opposed it?

MR. E. BYRNE: We did, and had you listened to us, you would have saved the taxpayer $1.8 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: But you did not, and here is why, when we talk about financial administration. Question after question in this House was asked to the then Minister of Mines and Energy, the then Premier, and they scoffed at the idea. They wrote it off and guess what?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: In the fall of 1998 when they changed their policy -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is fine. I thank you, Madam Chair. I will be back up as soon as the Minister of Finance is finished, to conclude my opening remarks.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It is pleasure again to stand and speak to the loan bill, and an excellent opportunity to shed some historical light on some of the comments just raised by the Member for Kilbride. I think history is important, because he talked earlier about previous loans bills and what was used, and sort of said well, we are not so much interested now, we are more interested in the future, but history is important to shape the future, and I think it is important to know. For example, in 1985-1986 there was a loan bill in the amount of $325 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the government then?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Who was the government then? I think everybody knows who was the government then. In 1987-1988 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, no, they disassociate themselves but it is a reality. The point I am making, I say to my colleagues and to members in the House, is that this loan bill is something that has been brought before the House of Assembly and the members opposite somehow think that now, because the bill is being brought forward by this Administration and this government, that somehow it is out of order, it is a new concept, and that, for some reason, it is not as necessary as it was in 1985, 1988, 1990, and in 1981. In 1982-1983 a $220 million loan bill. Why was it done then? Why was there, at that point in time, the need to go to the capital markets to borrow that kind of money? For the very same reasons as today. Now, the member opposite said: We have no problem, bring it to the House. Well, let's all admit what has happened here in the House. Everybody agreed with cellphones, 100 per cent. We spent three days talking about why we agreed with cellphones, and that is fine.

We had the City of St. John's Bill, for example. All it required was that we change the vote from the mayor having two votes to one. We had people from all over rural Newfoundland comment on it. Why? I do not know why. Maybe it is a delay tactic. It is certainly their right to speak, but it makes the point that clearly, expediency is not always the agenda of the Opposition. In fact, Madam Chair, I would say it is anything but.

I will also say, last night and today there were comments made about how this government had breached the Financial Administration Act, when the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Ferryland stood and got the information. In fact, when we went out to the media they said: Minister, we checked the Hansard and you are 100 per cent right. You are 100 per cent right on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is what they said, and they know the difference because they know that this is about fearmongering and trying to place blame and trying to impute motives when the facts were there, and even with the facts they continue to do it.

The Fisheries critic last week did the same sort of thing. He made accusations about the Minister of Fisheries and how he was spending money inappropriately. Any evidence? No. Any apology? No. It does not matter, not to them.

I will say again, very clearly, today it was made very clear to me what the agenda here is, and I also want to say about spending money. The member raised the issue about: How much money was spent on the Lower Churchill? Let's talk about that. Everybody knows that when you are negotiating you have to spend money on issues, like the Lower Churchill, like we did on Voisey's Bay. I ask my colleagues, who remember, I remember as well: Look at all of the previous negotiations that occurred on the Lower Churchill in the 1980s, I say to the Member for Bonavista South. Look at how much money was spent, over $100 million in 1980. In today's dollars, almost $400 million. But no, that part of history is somehow omitted. That was not money spent by a previous government. That is not important to the people across the House but it is important to the people in the Province because it shapes a view of what is happening. The kind of fearmongering and misinformation that is being put out there, the holier-than-thou attitude, that really does not cut bait at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cut bait, you know a lot about that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know a fair bit about cutting bait, I say to the member who has recently moved to Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know a fair bit about cutting bait, to the member for out-migration of St. Anthony, I would say.

I will also say - with respect to this bill, because it is an important bill - that it takes a bit of information, I think, to understand how the loan bill happens. Members opposite say: Oh, let us know. We will come back to the House. We will do it. We will come back to the House. But members opposite know that you look into the markets on a daily basis. In many cases, it takes only fifteen minutes to be able to identify the current interest rates, what you can sell the bond issue for. They know it is done very quickly. They know that. They know that is how it is done.

Even the Leader of the Opposition said today, in his comments: This is nothing more than allowing them to use the money. He knows the difference. This is not about using the money, this is about taking advantage of good financial markets, taking advantage of low interest rates, and being able to go out to borrow the money. This is not a blank cheque, as he referred to. It is not a blank cheque to use without permission of the Legislature. In fact, the $93 million deficit has the permission of the Legislature and if there were borrowings, that is something that has been approved. Members in this House, people all over the Province, know that, because it was read in the Budget Speech in March.

I would say, very clearly, that the intent of this bill again is to give government the ability to borrow just like we gave governments in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, all the way up to 2002, the same ability to borrow on the same concept. In fact, it is identically the same bill, in many cases, as the one that is before the House today.

Members opposite would like to give the impression that this is about going out and spending the money. This is about having the ability - I will say it again - to take advantage of good solid markets, to be able to take the advice of our fiscal agents and to have access to money which next year might cost us a whole lot more to do exactly the same initiatives that we will seek permission to do if we have to do it. We may not use the money. If our revenues increase we may not even borrow the money. It doesn't mean that tomorrow we are going to the markets to borrow. It means, if the need is there, it means, if the rates are good, then government would have the ability to go to the markets to borrow the money.

Now, the government of the day, in 1988-1989, Premier Peckford of the day, went out and borrowed $300 million with a loan bill, the same as this. He used it for debt repayment. I am assuming he came to the House, even though the House was closed for the whole fall before he went to the election. I understand that. The point is that you are governed in this Loan Act by how you borrow the money, but, more importantly, it doesn't give any ability to spend the money. That is a very important piece of information.

Every member who gets up speaks about government spending the money. This does not provide information and ability to spend the money. They know the difference. They would like to lead people into believing, that somehow we are coming here to borrow. I would say, we may not even need to borrow. Why would any government be hamstrung from borrowing if the markets are right, if the ability to do it is there, and if it is needed, especially when, in fact, the interest rates may go up in the next six or eight months? Everybody knows that is a possibility.

I would say, Madam Chair, again, this is not about ability to spend, this is about, for us, the ability to go to the markets and use the advice that is given to us from our own fiscal agents. I think it is important to look at the perspective of history, when we look at what we are doing here and why are doing it. Members opposite would like to give the impression that this is new to this government and administration, and they know the difference. I have records here from 1980.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look what you did last year.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Members are saying: Look what they did last year. We all know what we did last year. We have increased our funding in health care, we have built new schools, and maybe what they are saying is that we should not be doing that. All of that, put aside, is not relevant to this bill because this is not permission to spend any money on anything. It is only permission to borrow if - and I say if - the need exists. That is something I would say that would be dependent upon the advice we get and the markets we get.

If we want to spend the money, how do we do it? We have to get permission from the Legislature. That is how we do it. We got permission from the Legislature, as we have in the current deficit. That would be an allowable expense if we were to borrow it; however, it might be quite possible with our own resource revenues that we may not even need to borrow. I do not think anyone would like to hamstring government's ability to use the best advice of its fiscal agents and go to the markets to get a better deal for the people of our Province.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee is a great opportunity in terms of being able to get up more than once, and that is what this stage of the bill provides. I would like to offer a couple of comments with respect to the minister's comments.

She talks about the bill being out of order, or that we have contended that it is out of order. That has never been said. Obviously that is what you just said, Minister, that the bill was out of order, that we have contended that it is out of order. Absolutely not. What we contend with in this piece of legislation is that if you want this Legislature, and in particular members of the Official Opposition, to approve a bill that gives this government the ability to borrow $200 million when you see fit, without coming back here to tell us what you are borrowing for, then we do not support that. That is the difference in terms of what we have talked about.

Secondly, Madam Chair, the second point I would like to make, the minister has talked about us delaying the House of Assembly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did you say that I was lying, Loyola? Did you say that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did say it. I heard you say it.

I never said that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you going to admit what you just said? (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister has talked about, if it did come back to the House of Assembly, that we would delay it. She has referenced that we have delayed legislation so far. The fact of the matter is, we have been open for three weeks and two days. Do you know what that means in legislative terms? It means that for nine days plus two this week, eleven sitting days, we have been in this House debating legislation. The other three days have been dealing with private members' resolutions. In that time - for your information, Minister - we have passed seventeen bills in second reading, three in Committee, and a lot more tonight.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, the Member for Ferryland just looked across the floor and told the Minister of Finance that she was lying. I would ask that he do the honourable thing and withdraw the comment.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Madam Chairperson, it is between the two of us and I did not say the member is lying. I have never said it. The record will show it. I am right next to the Madam Chairperson between us, and if she thinks I said that then I would gladly say it, but I did not.

MADAM CHAIR: I was listening to the person speaking. I was not listening to what was happening across the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point is that, in terms of the minister talking about how we would delay the bill, or delay the possible coming of such a bill that we requested, the fact of matter is that in eleven sitting days so far, and tonight is not finished, we have passed seventeen pieces of legislation in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not the point because you do not like it to be the point. The fact is, we have not delayed or obstructed this House at all. What has changed since cameras came in - one time, when I first got elected, Minister, prior to your entrance into the House, in 1993 ministers would introduce a bill and the opposition would talk to the bill. We would not hear from another government member until the minister got up and closed it. That was the case when you were here as well, but television changed all of that. The advent of television changed all of that because now, for every opposition member who gets up, which we have been doing since I have been here for ten years, now government members are getting up, which is their right to do as well. So, if you are going to point the finger and talk about who is delaying what, I think we need to look at it for what it is.

The fact of the matter is that what this government is looking for is the approval of the Legislature to borrow $200 million if they so require it at some point in the future. All that we have been saying, and continue to say with respect to that piece of legislation, you have every right to ask for it. As government, I suppose, you have the majority in the House and you may ultimately get it, but from our point of view, all we are saying is this: that if you want it and you want our support for it, we would support it if you can table what you are going to use it for. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money. The fact that it was used in 1981 or 1982, in 1985, in 1989, under the Clyde Wells Administration, under the Brian Tobin Administration, does not necessarily make it true or right.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a caucus, members of this caucus, have said at this time with this particular piece of legislation, that if you want to borrow $200 million to use it for something at some point in the future, then come back to the Legislature, tell the members of the House what you want to use it for, how you are going achieve savings on behalf of the people, and we will gladly pass it.

That is the point, Madam Chair. We can use everything else to try to skirt around it, but therein lies the distinct difference between their position on this bill and our position on this bill, and the people of the Province will decide who they wish to see governing the financial management and financial affairs of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, I just want to take a couple of minutes, Madam Chair, because I know there are other speakers here this evening, but the Member for Kilbride talked about borrowings with Brian Tobin and borrowings under Clyde Wells under the Loan Act. What he failed to mention was that there were many, many borrowings under Frank Moores and under Brian Peckford and others. The point is that this bill has been in the House, this very same principle bill, for over two decades that I am aware of, at least, and that it has been done on a regular basis, it has been done to address issues of borrowing in the Province.

I will say, I acknowledge there have been bills passed. What I did say is that, where bills were in 100 per cent agreement, passed unanimously in this House, that it took three days - I am trying to make the connection, and I hope the member understands, that when you go to the markets to borrow large sums of money like this, you do not have three days if everybody agrees to it, you don't have five days if everyone agrees to it. These are often done in fifteen or twenty minutes if the rates are right, if the markets are right. These debentures, these bonds, are done over a very short period of time. They know, logistically, logically, sensibly, you cannot possibly come back, open the House, introduce a bill, debate all that, and say to the bond markets, RBC Dominion, Nesbitt Burns, the Bank of Montreal: Excuse me, we would like to go into the Legislature, we would like to get permission from the Legislature, just to borrow, not to spend. We don't even know if we are going to spend it, but we know that the rates are good at the moment and, therefore, we can't have the flexibility to do it.

Now, one of the responsibilities and one of the advantages of a government is that you do have the opportunity to make decisions. You have that opportunity because you are elected as government and you make all kinds of decisions. We have made major decisions on health care. We have invested over 50 per cent more in health care. We came back to the House and we put it forward in a budget and that was passed. That is because we spent money in health care and that is why it was passed.

With the Loan Bill, we are not asking to spend the money. If we have to spend the money, we have to come back to the House to get permission, either through the Legislature, if it is open at the time, or we have to put it in through a budget, or we will put it off until next year to do debt repayment, if it is approved to do that. I say, Mr. Chair, with every speaker there is a very clear line of misinterpretation being put forward to the people of the Province. This is not about having the ability to go out and spend money at will. We don't do that.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Roger, you understand that. Yes you do.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the Member for Bonavista South does understand it, even though he says he doesn't know that much about money matters.

MR. MATTHEWS: You will never make me believe you are too stunned to understand that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think he does understand the difference between borrowing and spending. I think the people of the Province understand the difference between - if you know you are going to buy a home, if you are in a position to buy a home, and if you know you have to borrow the money, would you borrow it today at an interest rate of 4 per cent of will you wait until six or nine months time when it could be 9 per cent? Now, maybe you are in the position to do that and maybe you won't borrow at all. That is what we are saying. If we don't need to borrow, we will not borrow. If our own source revenues are such that we don't need to borrow to cover off the deficit, we won't. However, if the rates are such that we are able to borrow at a very good rate, that we will perhaps look at paying down our debt where penalties will be less than what we are able to borrow for, and still save money and put more money into our programs and services. Government is asking, and believes, it should have the right to do it this year like we have every year, in my list in front of me, back to 1980.

Members opposite, would you say that in 1980 the money was spent erratically and inappropriately? I have not heard that. Would say in 1986 and 1987, when there was $275 million, or in 1988, that $350 million was borrowed, was that spent inappropriately? I have not heard about that. Maybe it has. Maybe we will hear about it, but the history of it is important.

This is not a new concept, I say, Mr. Chairman. This is something that has been happening on my list for over two decades. I believe that previous governments have made good decisions about where to spend it - maybe not all good, but I would like to think that unless they have broken the law they have come to the House, as they have to by the law, to seek permission to spend the money. This bill is seeking authority to borrow. I think there is a very big difference and I do not think anybody listening should be fooled into believing that this is about creating a pot of money to spend without some accountability, without full accountability, because it is not the case. I would not want anyone to think any differently, regardless of the diatribe and speeches otherwise.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to have this opportunity to get up and make a few comments on Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

The minister says she is looking for permission to borrow. She says she doesn't want to spend the money, she just wants to borrow it if rates are favourable. Why would you want to borrow if you didn't want to spend?

The minister gave the analogy: If a person was interested in buying a house they would go out and raise a mortgage, if the mortgage rates were low. Of course they would, if they were interested in buying a house, but what is the minister interested in buying? What does she want to use the money for? If I were interested in buying a house, I would shop around for the good rates and I would get a good rate, if I were interested in spending money on a house, but if the minister is not interested in spending money, why does she want to borrow? Does the minister plan to spend the money or does she just plan on borrowing for the sake of borrowing because the prices are cheap?

It is like a person who sees a sale advertised in the paper. There are all kinds of good items on sale some place. They do not need the items, like the minister doesn't need the money, they just go out and spend because there is a great sale on. It is pretty dangerous. You could go into a store and buy all kinds of things just because there are good solid prices. The minister says that she wants to take advantage of good solid prices. So, if you went into a store and there was a great sale on and you did not need it, would you spend it because there are great prices? It is the same thing. You could go broke saving money. You absolutely could go broke saving money.

Then, if the minister did get the money, what kind of responsible spending would there be? There is a freeze on home care. How responsible would this government be in spending the money? How responsible would they be? There is a freeze on home care. We have seniors in their homes going without home support and going without -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, could you save me from those on the other side?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Could the members to my left tone it down?

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

How responsible would this government be in the spending of their money? There is a freeze on home care. We see seniors in their homes needing home support, a couple of hours of home support a day, that would keep people in their homes, keep them out of institutions for a much longer period of time. Instead, there is no home support given to them, they are in vulnerable positions, they live with the risk of over-medicating, they live with the risk of probably falling and breaking a hip and, therefore, costing the government more money. So, how responsible is that?

We have the highest rate of poverty in all of the nation, the highest rate of poverty in Canada. Twenty-six point two per cent of our children are living in poverty. We have children going to school hungry, and studies that have been commissioned by this government demonstrate that if children go to school hungry they cannot learn. If they cannot learn, they get disinterested in school, their attendance falls off, they do not finish school and they, themselves, end up on social assistance, and probably their children are on social assistance, and the cycle of poverty continues in perpetuity because this government does not know how to spend its money responsibly.

We are debating Bill 23 here in the House, where this government has said that they want people on social assistance to have dignity. Nowhere in the bill does it mention being able to get a bed. Nowhere in the bill does it mention being able to get a washer. I know of a women up in my district, a single mother, who has a disable child sixteen or seventeen years of age. She is on social assistance. Her washer broke down and she was unable to get a washer. Here is this women, with a disabled child who is sixteen or seventeen years of age, washing his bedclothes every single say in the bathtub, washing his jeans every single day in the bathtub. That is dignity? That is what this government is classing as dignity?

I have had calls from people who have bad backs, they have no beds to sleep on. They are sleeping on old, worn out sofas or mattresses with the springs coming up out of them. That is dignity?

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I want to point out (inaudible) earlier, that my department is spending half a million dollars a year in house furnishings, that every case is judged on its own merits, Mr. Chairman, so that the people out there will get no misunderstanding of what is happening here in the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: The members on the other side can cheer for that if they wish, but I was in the home of this single mother, who has a disabled son, who has to wash his clothes in the bathtub every single day. If you consider that to be dignity, then, Sir, I do not want to live in dignity.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Have you talked about that to the minister?

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Finance, you should not have to talk about it to the minister. The front line workers should be able to judge a case like that without -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are not clairvoyant.

MS S. OSBORNE: The front line workers, I say to the minister -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Finance, you are asking me a question and I am answering you. Please give me the latitude to answer you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Why wouldn't you (inaudible)?

MS S. OSBORNE: I am about to answer the question.

The front line workers in the Department of Human Resources and Employment should be given the latitude to treat a person in that situation, who sits on the other side of the desk with them, with dignity. It should be part of the policy. Is the minister micromanaging his department, that every single case should have to go to him?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, for the benefit of those listening, that the member opposite on many occasions likes to raise the issue of an individual client in the Province who has a problem. Not once has she made representation to me.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the client service officer has the full authority to make the decisions based on the information they have. So, they do a thorough investigation on what they are doing and make their decisions based on the criteria that they have.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I look forward to having a copy of Hansard to present to the next client service officer who is dealing with such a problem.

We are talking about dignity. I would like to talk about parents and caregivers of people who are mentally and physically disabled. On many occasions I have brought this up in the House. This is a policy. Respite workers are not covered under workers' compensation. The parents -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What does that have to do with the loan bill?

MS S. OSBORNE: That has to do with spending money responsibly and how we would like to -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This is not about spending money. This bill is not about -

MS S. OSBORNE: No, that is right. We are going to borrow it and we are going to pay interest on it and not spend it. That is right, Minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We may not even borrow it. You do not understand that.

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, Mr. Chair, I would like to carry on about the respite workers and the parents and the caregivers of people who are mentally and physically disabled in our Province. They are scared to death. You talk about scaremongering; these parents and caregivers are scared to death. They hire a respite worker that comes in for somewhere in the vicinity of $7 an hour. The people are physically and mentally challenged. In many cases they have to be lifted from the wheelchair into the bathtub. In many cases they are probably prone to seizures. The respite workers are the sole caregivers of those people for certain periods of time. They are in jeopardy of injuring their back or sustaining some other kind of injury. If they do sustain an injury, they have absolutely no comeback with workers' compensation because there is no workers' compensation. The parents or the caregivers could very well be sued by the respite worker because of an injury sustained while they are working on the job.

The government has asked us to support this Bill. No, I do not support this bill. We will not be giving this government carte blanche to go out and borrow $200 million.

Another reference I would like to make: The Minister of Labour, when she was up speaking earlier this evening, said how big the health care budget had become. She failed to mention that the Department of Health went from being the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Community Services. So, instead of just covering health, they took community services in. They cover home -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: They do not want to hear the truth, Mr. Chair. They hate the truth.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, I know quite well the procedures of elocution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I have taught them and have spent a great degree of time concentrating on them, learning them and applying them myself.

Mr. Chair, I have been listening intently to the debate over the last couple of days and noticing the great change that the Opposition, all of a sudden, is trying to initiate in government. Supplementary Supply, speaking about that as if what this government were doing is absolutely new, never done before. Supplementary Supply, Mr. Chair, has been done exactly the same way that we have been doing it. This loan bill has been done so often - usually it is rather routine because people know that the government needs this money to borrow when the market is right, when the interest rates are right.

The Member for Ferryland came up with a brilliant idea, absolutely brilliant. He thought we should call the House together. Every time the government was going to borrow that they should call the House together. Mr. Chair, what a convoluted recommendation. What an irregular recommendation. That every time the government needed money, when the interest rates got right, we had better call the House. By the time we got the House together and debated it, the interest rates could have skyrocketed again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Brilliant, Mr. Chair, absolutely brilliant!

The Opposition House Leader's plan is a little more refined. He wants the list that we are going to borrow the money for. Now, that again -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: The Minister of Mines and Energy, well if he said he was going to - if the Minister of Mines and Energy said he was going to get the list, I believe he is capable of doing it. It is only a matter of the will, whether or not he wants to accommodate the Opposition, and he probably does not. It has never been done before, but all of a sudden - the Opposition House Leader, all a sudden change, thinks there is a sudden change. It has not come over the Opposition, but it has come over the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. All of a sudden the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this. They want this list.

I do not know what mythical or what mystical powers the Leader of the Opposition has, that he is able to speak on behalf of the whole population of Newfoundland and Labrador. He did that yesterday. He was talking in debate yesterday and made the same kind of reference that the whole population, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, accepted this, believed his proposition. Mr. Chair, as I said, I do not know what mythical or what mystical powers he has, that all of a sudden he is speaking, not on behalf, he is speaking for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am speaking on behalf and for my constituents who sent me here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Fortunately, Mr. Chair, there are many people in Terra Nova who view me in a different light than the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: How many years have you been a elected?

MR. LUSH: A quarter of a century, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: And tipping towards the other one.

Mr. Chair, the Opposition House Leader wants the list. His justification for the list is that even though governments have been doing this for years and years and years, there is now, suddenly, a great change that has come over the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they are not willing to give the government this carte blanche money to be spent wisely for this Province. Now, as I said, it changed all of a sudden. It changed this year. The great reformation took place this year. It took place this year, obviously, because it was approved last year, the year before, the year before and the year before. Now, Mr. Chair, I am not a person to suggest that things are not changing. I am all for change but this sudden change now that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this list, I find a little bit baffling, when this has been a long, and particularly in this institution, where we rely on tradition and precedent. The two things that we have been dealing with over the past couple of days, supplementary supply and this loan bill, are identical to what we have been doing - it has been going on, as I said, for years and years and years.

Mr. Chair, hon. members would not be doing, in my humble view, this House a favour by not passing this bill to give their government, to give the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the opportunity to take advantage of the best borrowing opportunities that will open up in the next little while to this Province so that they can borrow money prudently; so that they can borrow money wisely. This is a government that has spent money prudently. This is a government that has spent money wisely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: The Member for Bonavista South, in his narrow-minded, button-down, parochial view, would support a bill if it was going to pave three kilometres of road somewhere in his district, or if it was going to do something else. Well, Mr. Chair, this is what the government does with its money: build roads and pave roads, and we do not build enough and we do not pave enough, but we certainly do what our financial fiscal ability will allow. We put in water and sewer throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we do with this money. Is that not a wise expenditure, to be spending money for water and sewer? Spending money to pave and build roads?

I agree with the Member for Bonavista South, there are some roads not paved in his district. There are some not paved in mine. We have to keep working and it will become a reality as the money becomes available, but the money is not there to pave and build all these roads overnight. It is a process. We have more paved roads in Newfoundland and Labrador than we ever had before, so we are spending the money wisely, building the roads, building a school in the hon. member's district and in my district. Was that not a wise expenditure of money, the great school that we built in the Musgravetown and Lethbridge area? The member never mentioned that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,. hear!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member never mentioned any of that good stuff, just a litany of negatively, and trying to heap scorn and reproach upon this government over here that has been doing a good job in managing the fiscal policy of this Province. That is what we have been doing, a good job, and hon. members do not like it.

The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador like the job that we are doing as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: They know we are doing a good job, and hon. members know that. That is why they have engaged in the debate to try to besmirch and taint this government and try to heap reproach and scorn upon them. If I might say, Mr. Chairman, I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize when a government is bringing in good programs, when a government is bringing in good policy, when a government is bringing in good legislation, and that is what we have done.

We will continue to bring in good public policy and we will continue to bring in good legislation, as we are doing now, and we thank the Opposition for their support of the legislation that we are going to be passing in this session of the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: We thank them and congratulate them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to my hon. friend, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Merry Christmas to you too, Sir.

It is important to deal with some of the points made by the Government House Leader. I am always interested, when the Government House Leader stands to refute some of our comments.

Now, he talks about how important this piece of legislation is, first of all, and how it is absolutely necessary, and how, from time in memorial, certainly from the early eighties under the Peckford Administration and under the Moores Administration and under the Wells Administration, God forbid, and under the Tobin Administration, and now under the Grimes Administration, that this is just a matter of course, that this particular piece of legislation requesting the House of Assembly to give the government the authority to borrow $200 million is just a matter of course.

Let me ask him this. This legislation wasn't tabled in the House today, it wasn't tabled three weeks ago, it was tabled last spring. Now, if that was the case, if what he was saying was true, if you can accept his logic about how much money this government could have saved if we give it to them, then I would have expected that the Government House Leader would have stood up and said: Because we didn't pass it in April, because we didn't for the last six months, we have lost the opportunity to save x number of dollars. It didn't happen. The reason why, Mr. Chairman: Because the legislation was so important in his view that they didn't even bother to call it for us to debate it in the spring.

Second point: The member talks about how, in his view, the people of the Province know they are doing such a great job. I guess, our answer to that is: That is why the Member for the Straits & White Bay North was elected, that is why the Member for St. Barbe was elected, that is why the Member for Bonavista North was elected, that is why the Member for CBS was elected. That is what people think about this government's record. Excuse me - excuse me! - I say to he Government House Leader, if we are a little bit suspect about how you manage the people's finances.

This is the same crowd, the exact same crowd, that four or five years ago stood in their places and lectured about how selling Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was going to solve some of the debt problems of the government. This is the same crowd, Mr. Chairman, that stood in this House and entered into negotiations and deals with companies that the Supreme Court Civil Division found that they breached the Public Tender Act that cost the taxpayers in excess of $80 million because of decisions that you made to reward your friends. And you lecture us!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You stand in your place tonight and lecture us about what a great job you have done with the public finances and how we, on this side, should trust you! The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is this: That, as the official Opposition of Newfoundland and Labrador, we do not take any back seat to opposing this bill and pointing out the weaknesses of this government when it comes to the financial handling of the people's money. Because they know the difference and, if they didn't, Mr. Chairman, I dare say that the last five or six by-elections you probably would have won them, we wouldn't have. They do know the difference.

Mr. Chairman, all we are asking for is for this government to live up to its commitment that the Premier made when he became the Premier, when 638 Liberals chose the Premier of the Province, not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for him to live up to his commitment to be the most transparent, most accountable and most open government since Confederation. That is what we are asking for. If that is too much to ask, if the government believes that is too much to ask, well then too bad. We don't believe it is too much to ask and we don't believe that the people of the Province think it is too much to ask either.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I take the opportunity tonight to respond to some of the comments that were made earlier tonight, because in retrospect and reflection I think perhaps I have given too much credit to the understanding the opposition have of what this bill is all about. We talk about being lectured. If that wasn't a lecture, I don't know what it was.

I spoke about history earlier, and nobody wanted to hear about the history because the history was clearly about how this bill has been looked at in the past, over twenty-two years, and now, all of the sudden, there is all sorts of rationale behind not doing it.

I heard the Member for St. John's West get up in her usual way and talk about individual cases, individual cases that she chose to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to, and never had enough care or concern to go to the minister responsible, who could look into it for her. No, she went to the cameras to make the case. Some might say, grandstanding. I say, if there was true interest and concern about a single mother, or about a disabled family, then I urge her here, publicly in this House, in front of the people of the Province, to go to the minister. If she feels that the front line worker is not doing her work, is not doing his work, then it is her responsibility to go to the minister and raise it to him. That is what she says every time, and I take offence to hearing those kinds of very serious issues in this House of Assembly, instead of going to the minister, if she really had the concern she says she has on issues like this.

It is not just like this. I have heard her get up in the House and speak about individual health care cases without even the health minister knowing the issue. Then she said, well, what is the minister supposed to do, micromanage? I say, no, a minister does not micromanage a department. We have full confidence and respect in the boards, but, with all due respect - and I will say it again - the minister and ministers are not clairvoyant. They need the information, they need to have the facts, they need to know if these issues are real and if there is something that can be done, particularly under the kind of legislation that was just brought in, with the flexibility to look at individual cases.

I urge her, if she doesn't want to read and understand the loan bill, maybe she can read the new Human Resources Act and recognize that flexibility is there to deal with those kinds of issues. I would say to all members, if they have those kinds of issues, they should bring them to the attention of the various ministers.

Now, I want to speak again about the loan bill, because I think it is an important piece of legislation. Historically it has been important and currently it is important. People say: Oh, you just want to go out and borrow the money to put it in your pocket and you are not going to spend it. People know the difference. I have confidence that governments over the last twenty-two years, who have utilized the same bill, have done it prudently and wisely. I have that confidence in people. People don't get elected to go and do anything otherwise. Are they perfect? No, but I do believe that the fact that the loan bill has been in place for over twenty-two years, that I can see in front of me right here, to deal with issues around borrowing, about retiring our debt, it is good fiscal management. Anybody out there listening will know that if you have an opportunity to borrow money and it is going to cost you less today than it is going to cost you in six months time, why wouldn't you do it? People do that every day to consolidate their loans. They do that because they have to pay less out per month.

In this case, for us, if we are able to borrow, if we are able to move that over into the next fiscal year, and seek the permission, either through the budget or seek the permission required to pay down debt, if that is what is desired, but clearly there is no permission given here tonight for spending in this loan bill. The permission is solely and clearly to borrow if necessary. Are we going to borrow tomorrow? No, not unless we need to, and do we need to borrow tomorrow? No, but between now and the next time the House sits, for example, it is quite possible that the markets will be such that we want to go and borrow.

I can say further, people have said and members have said: Oh, bring it in here and we will discuss it. Like I said, clearly it shows a lack of understanding of how you do the borrowing of these major loans through the markets. This is accomplished sometimes in fifteen minutes, with the assistance - not with me, not with my assistance. I don't say borrow now or borrow later. We have the advice of officials, of our fiscal agents. We borrow through and use the services of RBC Dominion, Nesbitt Burns, the institutional investment community, CIBC. This is done through proper fiscal management and it is done in a way that allows the people of the Province to have confidence that we are making good strong fiscal decisions about borrowing.

Will we spend it? No. If we don't need the money, we will not spend it. If we do need it, anything over and above the $93 million which has been approved in the budget process this year would have to get the permission of the House, would have to follow all the laws that are set out by the Financial Administration Act, and we know how that works. We know, if the House is open and if we require a special warrant, it has to be tabled in the House within three days. We know, if it is a new allocation of money, we have to come to the House. We know that those sorts of laws are in place for us to follow, and we have been following them and we will continue to follow them.

Historically, again, I will say that this bill is about borrowing and not about spending. Every member over there stood up and talked about spending in some capacity, and they know the difference. One of my colleagues mentioned to me earlier, maybe I am giving them too much credit. Maybe they don't understand. I don't really say that in a way that is condescending. It is just that, to me, it is such a clear bill. We cannot spend this without permission. We will not spend it without permission, because we will not break the law. We will not break the law.

Now, have we made decisions to spend in health care? Absolutely. How have we done it? Through the Budget. Has it been approved? Yes. Do we have a deficit? Yes. Where is the deficit? The deficit is clearly paying for health care, a 50 per cent increase in health care. We know the challenges we have.

Next week, I go to meet with the Finance Ministers about the challenges around funding for health care, through the Romanow Commission, how we get our fair share of the money. Is it about per capita funding? I hope not because, if it is, as my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services said, it will be far less than what we can ever hope to need to provide the kinds of services we already have, let alone new services like drug programs. We hope, and we continue to urge the federal government, to look at the equalization program, to address issues for us that allow us to deliver the health system that we have, our K to 12 program and our social assistance programs; a social assistance program that is flexible, that is based on meeting the needs of people, that is open to new ideas that, for the first time ever, looks at the ability to be flexible, to allow people to get work, that looks at bringing into place a full consultation for the people. That is about spending money. That is about how we know we can spend money through the budget process, through the Estimates Committee of the House of Assembly.

This bill that we have been discussing since 7:15 tonight, this bill that we have been asking for since 7:15 tonight, approximately, is about the ability to borrow - the ability to borrow to allow good governance, to allow to go to the markets, to allow for us to take advantage of the rates if we need it. Will be absolutely do it? No, not unless we need to. If we don't need to borrow it, we will not borrow it, but if the rates are good, if the markets are good, if it is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, we will do it, but only under those circumstances.

I think it is important to distinguish between spending and borrowing. This is about ability to borrow; it is not about ability to spend. This bill provides no ability to spend. Now, that sounds simple but that is the simplicity of this bill.

Every comment over there tonight was about spending. It has nothing to do with spending. We don't have permission to spend. If we have to spend, we have to come back to this Legislature and seek the permission of the House, of the people, to do that. That is what we have done in the past. That is what we have done, because we know the difference between borrowing and spending.

I will say again, Mr. Chairman, because this is very important, historically this has been done for over twenty-two years, that I have records of, and these particular arrangements, in going to the markets to borrow large sums of money, are done very quickly. They are not done in a day. Sometimes they are done in fifteen or twenty minutes. You have to look at the markets, you have to look at the timing.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No leave?

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to hear that members opposite are not willing to grant me leave to finish this very important bill which I think speaks to the importance of borrowing verus spending.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the minister, we understand that this bill is about borrowing but we also understand and feel that this bill is about trust, trust that they will do the right thing. It is kind of ironic, Mr. Chairman, that we are standing here tonight talking about Bill 7 and this government asking for permission to borrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I ask the members on the opposite side of the House to show a little bit of courtesy and respect and allow me to make a few comments about the bill tonight, because I want to demonstrate that we clearly have an understanding, because it is ironic that we are here tonight being asked to support Bill7 to provide permission to borrow, and last night we were here debating Bill 8, Supplementary Supply, when, in fact, we are asked to endorse a bill of $51 million that had already been spent last year, when, in fact, some of these special warrants were introduced the day after the Budget came down.

Last year, in March, the Minister of Finance stood in this House and introduced a Budget and said: This is what we want for next year. Can you approve this Budget?

The very next day, the very same minister goes to a Cabinet meeting and gets a special warrant issued to start spending more money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Where was the trust last year? When the Budget was tabled last year, we trusted her to say that is all she wanted, but what did she do? She turned around and issued a special warrant. How can you trust her?

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister very clearly, we understand, and I fully appreciate when the minister says it is important to have prudent borrowing. I say to the minister, it is important, and I understand when she says we would like the flexibility to save money on our interest costs. I understand that. What I do not understand is when the minister allows health boards to run around this Province and accumulate about $100 million in debt that they are carrying in overdraft at the bank where they are paying probably prime plus one or prime plus two.

When I look at the financial statements of health boards for last year and I see that health boards are spending about $400,000 a year in interest on overdraft payments, paying $400,000-plus a year on interest on overdraft in banks around this Province, because the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health and Community Services do not want them to use bank borrowing, afraid they might save money. Or is it that, Mr. Chairman, both ministers would rather have $100 million in debt camouflaged in overdraft in various banks rather than come to grips with the real issue? The health boards are underfunded, they do not have the resources to service their debts, and as a result of that we are paying excessive interest.

Tonight she stands here, in almighty glory, wanting to preach to us about prudent fiscal management and giving them the flexibility to borrow when the markets are best and right to borrow. What a contradiction.

I say to the minister, it is not that we do not understand what you are trying to suggest to us. It is not that we do not understand it at all. We fully understand that this is a bill asking us to give you permission to have the flexibility to borrow when you think it is to your advantage, or when you think it is to government's advantage. What we want to be assured of is that, when you do it, it is to the advantage of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we really want, Minister.

As a result of your past practice, and the past practices of government, we are not confident, we are not confident at all, that you will do the right thing when you are supposed to. We are not confident that you are out to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a few moments ago, across the House, if she wants us to trust her this year, then lay out for us what she has done in the last three or four years.

The Government House Leader said this bill is an annual event; every year government introduces such a bill. I say to the minister: If you have been doing this every year for the last three, four or five years, and if this government has been doing it every year since 1989, just lay it out for us. Lay it out in front of us. Spell out how they have done this year over year over year. When we see that your past practice reflects prudent fiscal management, we will then respond to your request and we will, in fact, probably have a little bit of trust and maybe approve this bill for this year.

This will probably be the last year you will have an opportunity to introduce such a bill, so we will give you the opportunity to approve it this year if you give us some sense of your past practice and your track record in having done this in the last five or six years.

Very simply, Mr. Chairman, have the minister table it. We are abundantly confident, on this side of the House, that the minister will not rush out and spend this money on expanding the cardiac surgery program because in 2001 she said she was going to do that, increase it to twenty, and it is still not done. Obviously, she is not going to do that. Obviously, the minister has absolutely no intention of addressing the long waiting lists for admission to long-term care facilities because the list has been there for a year or two and there has been nothing done with it. We are confident that they are not going to do that. We are also very confident that they are not going to do anything with respect to the waiting list for cancer treatment. Right now, today, we cannot be told in this Province what the true waiting list is for cancer treatment, because there is not a systematic method in place to track the waiting time. So, we know they are not going to put it into that, because they have been years and not done anything with it. It just leaves us with a couple of potential options.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Obviously. I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, today I got a request from the President of the Liberal Party looking for a donation to the Party's finances. I got a letter today, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Today, obviously, they appreciate past support. I got another request for this year. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I had to write Mr. Rogers and suggest that he has got his last five cents from this member. In fact, I have plans to spend it in a much better place next year, Mr. Chairman. I am certain my $400 next year will be much better spent in a much better place than the minister's $200 million proposal that she has here.

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, this $200 million will be spent appropriately. I say to the minister one more time -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to stand and speak on Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way of Loan By The Province.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance stood here a little earlier tonight and talked about how this was common practice with previous governments, previous premiers had put the same legislation before the House, previous premiers had gone to the House to borrow money asking for a blank cheque so that they could borrow money when they saw that it was most prudent for government. Previous governments have also been known to put huge deficits before the House. Times have changed, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to get away from that practice. We are trying to get away from creating huge deficits, spending money that the Province cannot afford to spend, and borrowing money that the Province cannot afford to borrow. If we had a list, if we had some idea of where this money was going to go or how it was going to be spent, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we would vote in favour of this bill; but I do not think we are going to because what government is asking for, is for us to sign a blank cheque. What government is asking us to do is give them the permission to borrow $200 million, and that is a blank cheque without any explanation as to where it is going to be spent.

We are being told that we should trust government. The Auditor General says the deficit is $473 million. A couple of days prior to the Auditor General coming out with those financial statements, the Minister of Finance stood in the House and gave a ministerial statement saying that the deficit was $96 million; but they have done such a good job they are bringing it down from $93 million to $60-odd million. How can we trust a government that would tell us, in the same week that the Auditor General tells us, that the deficit is nine times what the Finance Minister tells us? How can we trust that? The truth is that this government, in the last three years, has added $1 billion to the Province's overall debt and now they are asking for another $200 million on blind fate, a blank cheque, without any explanation as to where it is going to go.

As I said, Mr. Chair, if we knew where that money was going, if we had some idea of how that was going to be spent, what it was being borrowed for, maybe we would be in favour of this bill. If government could call this House for an emergency debate on $200 million, maybe we could debate the merits of where that $200 million was going to go. Maybe we could determine that was a wise decision, a good bill, and maybe we would vote in favour of it.

The provincial government wants us to trust them to borrow another $200 million without any explanation as to where it is going to go. This government, the current government, is not used to good financial planning. We have seen that time and time again. We seen that when they took money from the federal government to take over the coastal ferry service on the South Coast for $50 million, upfront money, and now they are responsible for the cost of operating that. We seen it when they agreed to take over the coastal ferry service in Labrador and took an upfront settlement of $340 million, which I believe was later escalated to $348 million, and that was money that they took upfront. It is spent, it is gone, and the Province is still responsible for the cost of that operation.

We have seen them take $130 million upfront on Term 29 of the Terms of Union with Canada to basically write-off $8 million a year. So we are no longer getting that $8 million a year into the provincial budget that used to come our way. One-time fixes; I would suspect that is what this $200 million is, a one-time fix, that that government will not have to worry about how it is going to be paid back because they will not be here to worry about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: They have taken money out of Hydro as a one-time fix. We have seen their financial management of the Province with such lawsuits against them as Atlantic Leasing, Trans City, the Cabot corporation, the Public Utilities Board, and the list goes on and on and on.

We have seen this government before us spend $750,000 promoting Voisey's Bay, trying to promote that and telling the people of the Province what a great deal they have negotiated. They have spent $250,000 trying to promote the Premier's own image in full page ads. An ad campaign throughout the Province - radio, television and newspaper ads - to promote the Premier's image. Is that prudent financial planning? I do not think so. I do not think it is and the people of the Province do not think it is, and that was very loud and clear in the last polling results. The $250,000 that was spent by government to promote the Premier, "Good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador" did not do one thing to promote or bump government's fortunes in that poll. That is $250,000 that government spent, one-quarter of a million dollars, to promote the Premier.

Two hundred million dollars; if we look at that in the confines of one year that is almost $400 for every man, woman and child in this Province. That is what this government is asking us to sign a blank cheque on. That is what this government is asking us to agree to, to take out of the pockets of the people of this Province $400 for every man, woman and child, without any explanation as to where that is going to go. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money on a blank cheque. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money for this government to ask us, and the people of the Province, to trust them and to trust where that $200 million is going to go. Two hundred million dollars is $400 per man, woman and child. Now, let's put that to the people of the Province. Let's ask the people of the Province if they are prepared to cough up $400 per person and put their faith in that government over there. I do not think they will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what that government is asking us to do, to take $400 per person for this year and place their trust in you. That is a joke and we are not going to do it. We are not going to do it because we respect the people of this Province more than to sign off a blank cheque for $200 million. I do not think the people of this Province would be in favour of it and that is the reason we are not going to vote in favour of this bill, because $200 million in blind fate to this government is not acceptable.

Madam Chairperson, when you look at what has happened - and the Minister of Finance has said: The other premiers in this Province have done it. It has happened so many times in the past. We did not have to ask for debate in the past. Premier Moores did it, Premier Peckford did it, Premier Wells perhaps did it as well. But the point is, the reality is, those are different times and that does not make it right. These are different times today when having respect for the bottom line, trying to trim off the excess waste is the order of the day, not to sign a blank cheque for $200 million, not to give government the ability to sign away $200 million to wherever they choose fit.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise tonight to talk on the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 8. I have sat and listened to the debate on both sides of the House, and when we talk about money matters we have to be very diligent, I say, Madam Chair, in making sure that any approval anyone gives with regard to money matters, that you are putting into somebody hands the ability to borrow, the possibility of borrowing, and we are talking about a sum of $200 million. I guess some would liken it to a line of credit; blank cheque has been mentioned. The thing about it, Madam Chair, is that we have to look at the aspect of the possibility that this money is going to be borrowed, that it is going to be used, and that it certainly has to be used in a manner which is befitting, not just for the sake of borrowing, not just for the sake of putting money aside

I say to you, Madam Chair, that it is certainly important, when approval is given for any type of borrowing, that the aspect of risk has to be looked at. When we talk about risk, we have to look at the record of the government to decide whether or not we must, or that we can, give approval in principle for the passing of this particular bill. I would say that, in giving approval of this particular bill, I am rather reluctant to stand or to sit and to give carte blanche to this government to allow them to borrow, or give them the permission, I suppose, to set up a line of credit that would allow them to borrow $200 million at any particular time. I, like most people in this Province, would certainly have to have some idea as to the reason for the borrowing of $200 million, that they would have to know in some detail as to what the money could be spent on and to look at the risk that the Province would be taking in taking on a debt of $200 million.

I mention the word risk, Madam Chair, because I know that if I were to go to any financial institution, in it being a bank, a credit union, certainly if you are borrowing money just from a friend, you are going to be judged on your ability to handle the responsibility of that particular loan, the responsibility of using it wisely, of spending it wisely, and also certainly the responsibility of paying it back. Nobody is going to take a risk on someone, whether it is an individual, whether it is a group, whether it is a government of a province, nobody is going to take a risk of giving a $200 million loan, or a $2 loan, unless they are satisfied that it is a good risk. I emphasize the words, good risk, because you have to look at the record of that particular individual or that particular group on how they have treated finances in the past. It is no good of just simply saying: Okay, the interest rates are okay. We will take a risk and allow this borrowing to go through - unless you do a credit check. If you do a credit check, that should give you an indication of whether or not you should lend the money to this particular group.

On that note then, Madam Chair, I would have to say that when we look at this government, if I were giving them a line of credit, I would be very, very reluctant. I say reluctant because I have been in the House of Assembly here for, I guess, going on four years, and in that period of time I have seen the presentation of three Budgets, if not four Budgets, and it seems to me, in looking at - and I would not, by any means, consider myself to be a great authority on money matters. As a matter of fact, I avoid it as much as I possibly can. I do know some of the principles of dealing with money and you have to be - I think the word used on the other side, and I hear quite often - quite prudent. That is a word that is used, and I might even say abused, because what is said on the one hand and what is actually in practice, Madam Chair, is not reality.

If I were to even consider lending this government any money, I tell you, I would be very, very, very reluctant, because I would consider the risk too great to just give a blank cheque to this particular government. I say a risk because I already mentioned, with regard to the Budgets, I can certainly remember Budgets being presented in this House and, in looking at the Auditor General's report, almost invariably there would be some question as to what the true deficit of the Province was.

Under the premiership of Mr. Tobin and under the current premiership of Premier Grimes, there seems to be some difficulty - the Auditor General has great difficulty in determining what the actual deficit is. I might add that my colleague representing the District of Ferryland certainly has had great difficulty in trying to determine the real deficit of this particular Province.

Again, Madam Chair, I would be very reluctant to give approval to be part of allowing this government to take on anything in the way of a loan or a line of credit or anything, simply because of the manner in which they have hidden the true deficit of this Province in the years that I have been here in this particular House of Assembly, in this particular session. Again, one minute it was $30 million as a deficit, then it was $60 million and $90 million.

I must say, the Member for Ferryland certainly was dead-on in the last budget in saying that we have a deficit of something like, to the tune - he predicted or looked at and estimated it to be $500 million. Lo and behold, just the other day when we got an update from the Auditor General sure enough, the true deficit of this particular Province is indeed $473 million.

This same government who indicated that their deficit was $30 million, or $60 million, or $90 million and back to $60 million, now on top of this deficit of close to $500 million, they have the face to come back, Madam Chair, to look across this House and say: Give us permission, give us the approval, give us the okay to get a line of credit for $200 million. Again, the purpose of which I am not exactly sure. The purpose of which it will be used, I am not exactly sure. I am told, if I listen to that side of the House, not to worry at all because they - and everyone of them who got up on their feet across the House tonight - told me what a wonderful job they are doing with the finances of this Province; a wonderful job. Everyone indicating that we, on this side of the House, are nothing but negativism and fear mongers, that we do not know what we are talking about. That when we are asking questions we are kind of childish at times, that we are delaying bills going through this House because we are obstructionist. All negative things that they are directing at us.

I say to you, Madam Chair, I am not one who has any degree of trust in their ability, on that side of the House, to deal with the finances of this particular Province. I say the finances of the Province because we just finished a debate last night, and into today, about special warrants. Again, a government who does not own up to the fact that they contravened the Financial Administration Act, despite clear evidence, clear facts, presented in a very straightforward way. Again, a refusal to admit that they certainly did contravene that particular act.

I say to you, Madam Chair, as well, that the Minister of Finance attempted, I suppose, to give us some sort of a history lesson; but, in going back in history, you also have to take into account the performance not only of other people but of themselves, and you have to look at history through, I guess, clearer lens, and not jaded lens as the minister did.

Again the risk, I say to you, Madam Chair - and I know my time is getting short and I may get a chance to get up again -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: My time is up?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Madam Chair, just to say that I certainly do not support this bill in giving this government yet another opportunity to put us further and further into debt. Again, I will not be standing in support of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

When I spoke the last time, I was not granted leave to continue. I had a couple of other points I wanted to try to make, and I am glad we are in this stage of the debate because it gives me an opportunity to get up again and to finish some of my earlier thoughts.

I wanted to try to impress upon the minister that we fully understood the thrust of this bill. We understood when you talked about it being a bill requesting permission to borrow and not a bill where you are asking permission to go out and spend some money. We understood that. We understood the minister when she said that, and appreciate that very much, but the fundamental problem we are having here is, we are not certain if we can trust the minister to do the right thing at the right time, and that is fundamentally what this comes down to.

She talked about having permission to borrow, which allowed her to use the flexibility of that permission to enter the money market, to borrow money when she needed to, to ensure that it was to the best advantage of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We understand that. What we are not certain of is whether or not we make the right decision. We are not certain if that is going to be the right decision.

We have heard some major conflicts. I heard yesterday, when we debated Bill 8, talk about the emergencies that existed, and the urgency that existed last year in March when we issued those special warrants to do some things in health care particularly. I will just refer to some of my notes from last night, where the minister indicated that, in the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, an organization that I am very familiar with, she had indicated there were some air quality issues dealt with at Cross Memorial, day surgery renovations at Cross Memorial, and some operating room flooring replaced at Cross Memorial. She described this as urgent. I agree, it was important that it get done, but whether or not it was urgent is questionable. I say to the minister, that those requests were into the department for about three years. I suspect, though, that the Auditor General, in last year's report, was probably more accurate when she said: I have also indicated that government's use of special warrants, especially during the last month of each fiscal year, are used to produce the cash surplus of central government and produce whatever financial results government desires. I suspect that that is a more accurate reflection of what actually took place, not only in March of 2001, I say, Madam Chair, but also what happened in March of 2002.

When the minister stands in this House and says, please trust me to do the right thing with this permission, I really have to question whether or not we can actually take her on her word, when the Auditor General, in fact, in their report last year, in March of 2001 - I suspect that in the next couple of weeks, when we get the 2002 version of this book, we will turn to roughly the same page and we will hear something very similar that says: Our review of the four special warrants, totaling $33,000, issued on the 28th and 30th, indicated a contravention of the Financial Administration Act.

Madam Chair, I have a great deal of difficulty when a person who has the responsibility for the finances of this Province has this kind of judgement passed by an independent individual with the credentials of the Auditor General, has this kind of report - a scathing report, I might add, of the activities of the Minister of Finance - when that kind of person stands in this House and says: Please, members, trust me. Give me permission, in Bill 7, to go out and borrow $200 million at my leisure, when I think it is appropriate, when I think it is going to be beneficial to the Province. How can we stand here in all conscience and give the minister a blank cheque, carte blanche? Say very clearly: Give me the permission to do this and I will do it in the best interests.

Now, if they had a different track record, if we had evidence that there was a different standard, if we had evidence that the past practice of this minister, the past practice of this government, was that prudent financial decisions were being made and that people like the Auditor General could come in and say, this is a wonderful job, you can trust this person, you can trust government, go ahead, give her the privilege of serving you again as the minister, give her permission to do such things as Bill 7, give her permission to issue special warrants, because we know that she will use her discretion and she will only do it when it is really appropriate and she will only do it when it is in accordance with the Financial Administration Act - but, no, no, that has not happened.

The Auditor General has effectively told us not to trust this government, not to trust the Minister of Finance. That is what we have been told. When the Auditor General comes out and says, don't - I am not using the Auditor General's words, Madam Chair. I am just interpreting. It is my interpretation of the Auditor General's report, that the Auditor General is saying: Do not trust this Minister of Finance. Do not trust this government. Do not trust them.

Now, if the Auditor General is saying that - and, Madam Chair, this is a December, 2001, report. We have this one. This was the former Auditor General. In a couple of days we are going to get the new Auditor General giving his report, and I suspect he is going to say the same thing. So, by the time the end of December rolls around, we are going to have two separate Auditor Generals saying: Do not trust this minister. Do not trust this government.

In all consciousness, how can we stand in this House tonight, or how can we stand in this House any time at all, whether it be tonight, tomorrow or next week, and say, in all consciousness: Yes, we wholeheartedly endorse Bill 7. We feel really comfortable in giving the minister the full authority to borrow $200,000 when she wants. How can we, in all consciousness, do that?

Minister, it is not that we do not understand the bill. We fully understand it. We know exactly what you are trying to do here and that is the reason we cannot support it, because we understand and we know fully what you are about to do. That is, in essence, the problem, Minister. That is, in fact, the problem. If we had a greater level of comfort, if we had a different past practice or past experience with this government or with this minister, we would have a very different type of feeling here tonight. We would feel much more comfortable.

The other day in Question Period, I held up the Budget of 2001 and read where the minister, back in the Budget of 2001, said that we will now go from twelve cardiac surgery cases a week in 1999, up to twenty per week in 2001. Here we are, in 2002 -

MR. REID: I have heard you talk about (inaudible).

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, I repeat myself for a very good reason. It takes repetition for it to be able to sink in. I need to continue to say it.

I stood in this House for six months calling on the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to start the planning process for long-term care in Clarenville. It took six months of asking before it sunk in, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. Finally, after six months, it sunk in. The lesson here, Minister of Fisheries, the lesson to me, is if I want action out of this government I have to repeat it over and over and over again for six months. That is why I say, and I repeat, I say again, we cannot endorse Bill 7, because we have a litany - the top of my desk is full of examples here - we have a litany of examples where we trusted this minister, we trusted this government, only to be betrayed.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. gentleman that his time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I don't guess I get leave this time either, do I, Madam Chair?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would just like to rise for a few minutes and speak on Bill 7, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

It is interesting to note, Madam Chair, that in part, under section 2 of this bill, it states that, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorized to raise, by way of loan (b) the sums of money that may be required, or may have been required since April 1, 2002, to retire, repay, renew or refund, in whole or in part, securities issued under this or another act." So, it seems to me quite clear, Madam Chair, that obviously these funds when used and when they become available could, in fact, be used to actually retire and repay or refund, in whole or in part, securities issued under this or, indeed, any other legislation.

We have heard a lot of debate tonight, Madam Chair, and reference being given to what is referred to as the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Province. There is an interesting reference to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, of course, it is found in the report of the Auditor General that was tabled in this hon. House, Madam Chair, just several days ago for the year ending March 31, 2002. There is an interesting definition. I think it is important just to review exactly what we mean by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, because it is a term that is used quite often in our tax legislation. It is used in our loan bills, for example, as we see tonight in Bill 7.

It states quite clearly, in the introduction as found in the Auditor General's report, Madam Chair, that, "Each year a budget document is debated and approved in the House of Assembly." In that document, government's budgeted revenues and expenditures are focused upon, and its surplus or deficit for the fiscal year on a cash basis is determined. The budget represents, Madam Chair, the financial planning information published by government but focuses - and here we see the reference - only on its finances as set out in what is known as the government fund called the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Madam Chair, it is interesting that in the fiscal year of 2001-2002 - and this is a direct quote from the Auditor General's report. It states that, "...if government had chosen not to defer revenues which it had budgeted, and had not incurred expenditures in contravention of the" - well discussed and well debated - "Financial Administration Act, it would have reported a cash surplus of $33.5 million for the Consolidated Revenue Fund rather than a cash deficit of $47.2 million." Clearly, we see an example as to how this government, certainly as reported by the Auditor General, when the final budgeting was tabulated, as opposed to a surplus position, we see a deficit position as found in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Madam Chair, it is certainly important, I think, to make reference to this in terms of the type of legislation that we are debating this evening simply because of the bill's own reference to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as is found throughout the wording of Bill 7.

I listened with interest, Madam Chair, to the reference earlier this evening by the Minister of Labour when she talked about gas regulation and some of the benefits that were given to the consumers of this Province as a result of gas now being regulated in our own jurisdiction. We all receive, as members of this House, Madam Chair, a document, practically on a weekly basis, I would think, called FuelFacts, and in this particular document which is published, by the way, by MJ Ervin & Associates out of Western Canada, they regionalize their reporting, and in this particular report we have an analysis, a comparison of the cost of gasoline to the consumer, per litre, in Atlantic Canada.

Madam Chair, it is interesting to review the comparisons throughout Atlantic Canada, and I will just give some of the examples that are here. This is the week ending, by the way, December 3, 2002, so that is exactly one week ago when this cost analysis was given and was provided to the public. So, this is the cost of a litre of gasoline, the cost to the consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cost per litre, 76.7 cents; in St. John, New Brunswick, 76.1 cents; in Charlottetown, 76.1 cents; in Bangor, Maine, 61.9 cents. Then they give a Canadian average of 70.8 cents and an America average of 62 cents per litre. In our own Province, unfortunately, the only example that is given here is in St. John's. I realize, Madam Chair, that in many parts of rural Newfoundland the cost per litre is even higher than this example. In the capital city of our Province the cost per litre of gasoline to the consumer is eighty-three point four cents.

Now, what is interesting about this - again, I think it is important to make reference to this comparison in response to some of the detail that was given by the Minister of Labour earlier when she was participating in this debate. On the very last page of fuel facts, in this particular edition, there is a little article that states that: Charlottetown pump prices respond to recent wholesale cost decline. In fact, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the cost of a litre of gasoline has gone down in recent weeks and in recent months. However, in our Province that is not the case, Madam Chair. What is interesting about that particular fact is that the Province of Prince Edward Island is the only other province in this country where gas prices are regulated.

Therefore, the question has to be asked - and I will be interested in perhaps hearing from the Minister of Labour or perhaps the Premier himself, who is a big supporter of gas regulation, as to how he can explain, when there are only two provinces in the country where gas prices are regulated and in the only other example, namely the Province of Prince Edward Island, we see a relatively significant decrease to the consumer for the cost per litre of a litre of gasoline. Madam Chair, one has to question, therefore, when I hear the Minister of Labour talk about the many good things that are happening. There are two or three examples. The one that was listed was the great benefits to the consumers of this Province and what gas regulation has meant on a day-to-day basis.

Madam Chair, obviously when we are talking about a loan bill we are talking about the borrowing of money. We are talking about the implementation of borrowed funds presumably for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Chair, it is not only the borrowing of funds, it is also the using of funds and the spending of the public's money which presumably is being done by government on behalf of the people of this Province.

Madam Chair, the Minister of Justice was here earlier and the Minister of Justice, I am sure, ought to have been concerned last week when it was reported by the media in this Province that the staff solicitors at the Legal Aid Commission here in St. John's were essentially saying to the clientele and to the public of this Province: We are not prepared to accept any new clients simply because we are overworked. We do not have the resources. We do not have the personnel. Therefore, we are putting on hold the opening of any new claims, the opening of any new files, and therefore saying to the public that legal aid services are no longer available to those in need.

Madam Chair, it is unfortunate that the staff solicitors at Legal Aid found it necessary to make this statement, and found it necessary to perhaps write correspondence to alert the public of this Province that the resources and the personnel are not available for them to do their work, and, Madam Chair, very important work, particularly this time of year, because as members on both sides know, the Legal Aid offices in our Province deal primarily with two areas of law, namely, criminal law and family law. Of course, it is this time of year when certain aspects of criminal law are not on the decline. There are certain components of family law, Madam Chair, that this time of year, in particular, are certainly on the rise. I am talking in particular of visitation, custody and access issues, because primarily of the Christmas season.

Madam Chair, that is an example of the situation that the Legal Aid Commission now finds itself in, resulting in Legal Aid staff solicitors saying to the public of this Province: We can longer make available to the public of this Province the services that we want to offer, simply because of workload, simply because of an inability because of the lack of resources and insufficient number of staff solicitors to do the work that obviously has to be done.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So therefore, Madam Chair, in conclusion, this is not only about the borrowing, but it is also about the wise spending of public funds to ensure that the public interests are protected.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am going to stand to have a few comments on Bill 7 tonight, and it is a loan bill. I heard many comments throughout the night, when the cameras were on and when the cameras were off, what a difference in the House.

They wonder why the prolonged debate. The Member for Kilbride said it right. We know the reality of what the prolonged debate is all about. The prolonged debate is all because of that side of the House deciding, after the ten years I have been here, that if they cannot get taken up on the camera works they are going to split the time. That is half the reason we are here, Madam Chair. The reality is that people on this side of the House, whenever they want, can stand and will continue to stand and speak on any bill that comes before this Legislature.

Madam Chair, I want to start off this evening with a few comments by first of all congratulating the Member for Bonavista North on the speech he gave this evening, one of the best speeches I have heard in this House of Assembly for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: He spoke with a lot of compassion. I got to know the gentleman. I have not known for him for a long time but I got to know him just before he ran, and I certainly spent some time there with him. I can tell that he is very well respected in his district. He knows the people very well and knows the issues very well. How he spoke today was a speech that he wrote for himself, to begin, I guess, his journey in this Legislature. He must, Madam Chair, he really must -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We have two new members here in this Legislature, two who sit behind me now: in Bonavista North and Conception Bay South. Both members must be amazed - struck amazed, as the saying goes - when they come into this Legislature and see some of the goings on. At the same time, it was good to see the Member for Bonavista North stand in his place, rise above it all, and give his perspective and, I guess, his views on his entering politics and entering this place in the House of Assembly.

Something he did say, Madam Chair, that struck everybody tonight, and maybe we do not say it enough, was the respect that he had for not just members on this side of the House but members throughout this Legislature, all forty-eight members, in offering themselves for public office and being elected Members of the House of Assembly. If we just forget the rhetoric sometimes and start to remember - I spoke to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the same thing, as a matter of fact - about how you stand in this House of Assembly for the first time. I remember like it was yesterday, although it has been almost ten years now. It is hard to believe. When the member stood in his place tonight, for the first time, to speak, it is certainly with a lot of pride as you realize that you have been elected by the people. I think that is what gives people most credit in here, each and every single one of us, that you can stand in your place. Sometimes it sort of gets out of hand, rhetoric takes over and political views take over, but at the same time there is a lot of pride when you can stand up in this Legislature of forty-eight members, only forty-eight people in this Province of some 500,000 people, that we are here representing 500,000 people in the Province that we live in.

As the member spoke tonight, you could tell he was speaking with pride and with the enthusiasm that he is going to bring to this Legislature. I look forward to many debates and input from the Member for Bonavista North.

I am also, Madam Chair, looking forward to hearing the Member for Conception Bay South, because I have known him for quite a bit longer, as a matter of fact. Although younger, he certainly has experience and, although he has spoken a couple of times in Petitions and so on, when he does make his maiden speech I am looking forward to what he has to say.

I believe that both those members will contribute a lot. We had told them, Madam Chair, as people talk about what we have talked about here tonight in this Bill 7, on a money bill, as we all know in this Legislature, there is wide-ranging debate, that you can speak on many different things. That is what gives everybody the opportunity to stand in their places for ten minutes, back and forth. Sometimes comments from one side of the other spur somebody on to speak about something one way or the other. So, I welcome their views. I am looking forward to hearing from them again, maybe even before the night is out, because it could be a long night, into the wee hours of the morning. I am sure the Member for Bonavista North might want to stand again, now that he is past his maiden speech, and contribute to the debate tonight or tomorrow morning, however long it takes.

Madam Chair, I just want to make a couple of comments on some points that were made earlier, before the cameras went off, about what the government spends money on. Nobody is going to argue in this House - members opposite would stand in their places: So, you don't like us spending money on hospitals, you don't like us spending money on roads, you don't like us spending money on infrastructure? The Government House Leader stood and gave a long list of things. Certainly we do appreciate money being spent on infrastructure, roads, water and sewer, hospitals and schools. Who, in their right mind, would ever disagree that those are the types of things you should spend money on? That is not the question, I say to the Government House Leader, what you spend money on. It is how you spend it and how prudent you are with you spending. That is the question that is raised anytime a loan bill comes before this House. For the Government House Leader to stand, in bragging mode tonight, and talk about how the people of the Province are so confident in them as the government, in how they are spending money, well that is what they will have to answer to.

Without going into a long list and being too political here tonight, without going into the long list that the Government House Leader talked about, the people of the Province are not talking about what you are spending the money on, it is how you spend the money. For example, $18 million in roads: Good! Great! Money into water and sewer and infrastructure, especially in rural Newfoundland today which needs it so badly: Good! Great! Is it enough? Definitely not. That is when the questions start to arise. That is when people of the Province - when they still drive over a gravel road everyday, when there is still 900 kilometres of gravel road in Newfoundland and Labrador in the year 2003, fifty-two years after Confederation. The present government, the last thirteen years of this Administration, governments before, they can all take the blame.

We should all be ashamed of the fact that we are still driving over gravel roads in Newfoundland and Labrador; that people are still looking at systems in their communities where they are still carrying water in buckets. That is still happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is some 1,500 kilometres of old pavement in this Province that needs to be replaced. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows it. That is what people in this Province are talking about when they look at a money bill, whether it is for $10 or $200 million. They are asking: How are you spending our money?

The Government House Leader stands up and talks about everybody is satisfied. Well, if the only real indication of satisfaction, not to look at a poll of satisfaction of government, the only real poll that counts, we all say, is on election day. Now, we have had some indicators. If you want to look at election days, we have had real indicators of how the people in this Province feel about the government spending in this Province and how prudent they have been. We have had an answer from Bonavista North, Conception Bay South, The Straits & White Bay North, St. Barbe, and - which one am I forgetting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber West.

MR. SHELLEY: Humber West. How could I forget Humber West? Also, Humber West.

Madam Chair, five chances for the people to show how they felt about the government of day. Now, was it a fluke that these just happened to be strong Tory districts and that they were going to go that way or were there other factors involved? I do not think it was a fluke. I think that people decided. They will take the time to do that, when they can actually go and speak with their vote, that they can put their vote and indicate how they believe the government is doing in the ballot box. That is where they really speak.

Lots of times polls are done, I agree. Polls are for the minute. It is a snapshot in time, but the real poll is when they actually vote and put that X and use this great system we call democracy to work and vote. That is how they do it. So, whether we can stand up here tonight on one side, as the government should do, brag about what they are doing, the Opposition should do what they are doing, criticize. Then, I guess, what it is going to come down to is the people of this Province are going to weigh what the government has been saying and doing, and the way they have spent the money in the last thirteen years, and what the Opposition has been saying. They are going to have to weigh out the balance and then they are going to decide. This is one thing you can run but you cannot hide from, sooner or later there is going to be an election. Somebody has to answer to that.

 

Madam Chair, on that note, elections in this Province, in our short experience, some of us in this House of Assembly, this first election. Of course, it is a big rush. When we were first elected in 1993 - I will just use my own example - we thought we would go into the fourth year, as per normal. No. Change of Leader. In walks Mr. Tobin and decides he wants his own mandate. He is going to call an election. That is fine. Fair enough. We got ready with the resources we had. Our polls were not flying for sure. We went into that election and came back again in 1996. In 1993 the first election, and in 1996.

Then in 1999: no, there was not going to be an election for at least four years. We are going to make sure we are going to go into our fourth year mandate. No, we are going to decide again. We are looking at the polls again. We will call another early election. Funny isn't it, Madam Chair, two early elections? Two premiers who went to the polls, got their mandate and now there is a mandate that people are asking for from this Premier. And what is happening? Are we going to go to the spring? Are we going to go to the fall? Are we going to go to the last day? That is what the people of the Province are asking. That is what the people are questioning.

If things are as well as everybody says they are, or if the government is as good as the government says they are, then the people of the Province will get a chance to alternately decide. It will not be in a satisfaction poll on the government. It will not be on something they will string along -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: My time is up already. Is there any leave, Madam Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to conclude. It has been an interesting debate tonight on the loan bill and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has wanted us to review history. I believe we are going to move into some other pieces of legislation.

In the interest of reviewing history, I agree with the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that it is critical for all of us to understand history, particularly with the bills of loans, or particularly with this loan bill. The minister has talked about how important it is; that this is a routine measure; how in the past it has been passed routinely; that no one has held it up. It has been due and acceptable for the proper functioning of government.

The Government House Leader got up on his feet and attempted to slam us for holding up what was in the best interest of the Province. Well, it just so happens that I have a little bit of history here. In 1987, when this bill was introduced - 1987, talk about history, we are going to review the comments, for the sake of history, of the Government House Leader at the time, of what he said about the loan bill introduced by Peckford, the Member for Terra Nova. Let's talk about history.

I can see him now, in 1987: This is where we get into the shocking news. Can you see him? This is where we get into the startling news. This is where we get into the baffling news. Can we see him do it? I can see him do it. I do not know about my colleagues, but I can picture the Government House Leader, in 1987, saying in this House: This is where we get into the startling news, the baffling new, the shocking news - with his finger going; I can see it - that is mind-boggling when you look at what the Province has to borrow this year. You see, the Province does all kinds of finagling with the money, rolling its debt, and this kind of thing here, and putting it over there, and here we are getting this $350 million just to take care of government's routine activities, the day-to-day activities - I can see him now, Madam Chair - where we are borrowing these monies just to pay off interest on the public debt. We are not going to take anything off it. We are not going to put it down because the public debt is increasing.

Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. All you have to do it stay tuned when we talk about history. All we are doing, he said, is just paying off - so this $350 million loan bill, this is what he says, that this bill is requiring, that it is going to put us $350 million more in debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he said in 1987.

Now, I did not hear him say that tonight. Did anyone in this Legislature hear the Government House Leader say that tonight? This is what he said about how everyone used it and how it had to be current, leaving the impression that in his place in twenty-five years he never heard such startling debate from this side of the House. Well, his memory needs to be served a notice. His memory needed to be served some notice.

Let me go on. It is shocking news that the minister has presided - now this is interesting, Madam Chair. This is what really gets interesting. This is on the loan bill, remember: It is shocking news that the minister has presided over an economy that just kept sliding and sliding into one large abyss. We have the awful news, he said, Mr. Speaker, of quadrupling the deficit on current account - now listen to this; this is what is really interesting - that we quadrupled the deficit from $40 million to $170 million.

This is the same Government House Leader that stands in this House and says that they were projecting a deficit of how much, I say to my current Member for Ferryland? Sixty million? Thirty million?

MR. SULLIVAN: This year and last year $30 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty million, and it went up to $473 million, and he has the audacity to stand up and lecture members in this House about our debating a loan bill which he himself debated as a Finance critic.

Let me read it again. It is unbelievable: This is shocking news that the minister has presided over an economy that just kept sliding and sliding into one large abyss. We have the awful news, Mr. Speaker, of quadrupling the deficit on current account from $40 million to in excess of $170 million.

If only that was the case today. If only that was the case today. They did not quadruple it. It is increased by ten times their forecast. He goes on to say: That is the mess this minister got us into and, as a result of that, he has to go to the markets today and look for $350 million. I wonder where we stand with respect to our credit rating?

What else does he say: I wonder if the minister could comment on all of that and, if not that particular issue, at least assure the people that we will not have to be borrowing monies at higher interest rates? Could the minister address that?

Mr. Chairman, there is lots more in here, and as we debate the loan bill, this loan bill, Bill 7, I look forward to revealing and enlightening some of the members opposite of what they were doing and what they were saying, and we will see what history reveals in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I have lent the hon. member some levity. I want to say that I rather enjoyed it on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) the process, I understand, and we will be doing some more work in Committee.

I think we are going to go to Order 9, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, Bill 18.

CHAIR: Bill 18, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This particular bill, we went through that in second reading. Basically what it does is, it removes, I would say, the second vote to the mayor of the capital city.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like a bunch of townees over there.

MR. LANGDON: I think so.

This particular motion was asked for by the city and we have co-operated with them. I think, as I said, everything that needs to be said has been said on this here. It is pretty much housekeeping and we will leave it with that.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Mr. Chairman, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Loan Act, 1978, Bill 19.

CHAIR: Bill 19, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Loan Act, 1978.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

This particular bill would really bring the City of St. John's in line with all the municipalities across the Province. Up to this particular time, the Cabinet had to give permission for the St. John's City Council to do its municipal borrowing. This particular act will then put them in line so that, rather than going to the Cabinet, it can be done by the minister. That is what this is about.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 6, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act." (Bill 9)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 13, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 27.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 27)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak to Bill 27. Myself and the Government House Leader had a quick discussion earlier. It was my understanding that an amendment was ready or prepared with respect to Bill 27 that had been agreed to and agreed upon with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for Windsor-Springdale and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, if I am not mistaken.

I don't know if members are prepared to move that. I understand that they are. I believe it is being moved by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and seconded by my colleague, the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I will leave it at that. We will have a quick discussion on it and go from there.

CHAIR: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Could the Table be provided with a copy of the amendment?

MR. HARRIS: Before I move the amendment, as you say, Mr. Chairman, I have not had an opportunity to speak on this bill, because it came before the House at Second Reading, while, I believe, I was in Ottawa, along with other hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, for a meeting. I do want to have a few -

MR. MATTHEWS: We are not on television now.

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, we may not be on television but I do hope that Hansard is continuing to record our words for posterity, for the record. I know that if Hansard missed the debate that went on since ten o'clock, I am sure the history of the Province would be much the worse for it.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to say a few words about this bill because it is not very often that we have an opportunity to talk about something as significant as this particular piece of legislation. We often talk in this Province about our resources and how our resources are so valuable and yet our returns from them are so little.

This is an example of timber licences that were granted 100 years ago for our economic development project in the early twentieth century that saw the development of the AND Company and the mill in Grand Falls. A substantial portion of the timber rights granted for that enterprise are now coming up for renewal. I say to hon. members, that is a pretty historic occasion, and one that should engender a fair amount of debate around the Province. It certainly had a great deal of interest in Central Newfoundland, not only when the announcement was made without much pre-notice by the Premier and the minister, along with the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, but even in the period leading up to this there was an awful lot of concern out in Central Newfoundland in particular, about what was going on behind closed doors and behind the scenes.

There was a lot of concern - and there has been for a number of years - in the Grand Falls area about the fate and future of the economy of Central Newfoundland, particularly as it relates to the pulp and paper industry, particularly as it relates to the wood supply, particularly as it relates to the fact that we seem to have an extra paper mill in the Province and not enough wood to supply it, which is being supplied by offshore wood for the time being, from Prince Edward Island and other places; pulp being brought in, wood chips being brought in from Quebec, pulp logs being brought in from Prince Edward Island, and other problems with the wood supply that has been - I cannot say dominating the news, but it has been of much greater interest in Central Newfoundland, as members will know, than it has been in the rest of the Province.

I think it is a very significant and important matter that is before the House, having to do with the expiry of a considerable number of timber licences that have been an important part of the wood supply to the Grand Falls mill. We have some 980,000 hectares of land under licences in a number of different blocks that have been part of the wood supply, that have been controlled by Abitibi Consolidated and its predecessors, that has been used for the mill and for pulp and paper, and also used for other purposes, but all under the control of Abitibi Consolidated.

We have a situation where the numbers of loggers have gone down considerably over the years; the introduction of harvesters as a new method of technology. We have seen greater interest in the ecology and the environment; a lot of study and interest over the years in different forest methods, clear cutting and reforestation. All of these issues have been very much a part of what is going to constitute the future of the economy in Central Newfoundland, the future of the pulp and paper mill in Grand Falls.

What are the fortunes and what is the future of that paper mill? It has been suggest, for example, Mr. Chairman, that the company is less interested in producing pulp and paper than it is in producing power, that they would rather produce power in Grand Falls than pulp and paper. That has been suggested. I do not know if it is true, but that has been suggested. There has been a lot of interest, of course, in what is happening there. Not only interest in what is happening but a lot of concern that there has been very little input by the people of the area, in particular, about what is going on.

Now, I know the minister has been involved in consultations with unions, with union members in particular, union representatives in particular, but there are a lot of other people who have expressed concern about the future of Central Newfoundland and felt that they were not having enough of a say in what was going on. I do know that the mill unions and the loggers union are particularly pleased with this legislation, as it does solve a short-term immediate problem of what was going to happen in Grand Falls. There was a lot of concern about the company's plans or imagined plans and a lack of real, hard information and hard evidence about it. This legislation was welcomed by the people working in the Grand Falls mill who are concerned about the stability of the workforce and, in particular, about the production levels that might be proposed by Abitibi Consolidated.

We do have a piece of legislation that we support, but there is another aspect to it that I think needs to be considered. I do not know if the minister addressed this during second reading. I was not here for the debate. I see that the minister and government have chosen to have a situation where all of the licenses that are scheduled to expire commencing this month, and going on for the next twenty years, are going to be expiring at the same time. This is probably a very good provision. It allows for stability for the next eight years until the year 2010. What has been done is, there is kind of a penalty clause there, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps members will consider - we are not on TV here tonight but we are on the record - whether this kind of penalty clause is one that the government is serious about in the sense that it would be very clear and is willing to use that, not like the Friede Goldman situation in Marystown, Mr. Chairman, where government had the right to impose penalties on Friede Goldman for the lack of meeting production requirements and the lack of producing jobs. That penalty was there, and the penalty was in the form of actual dollars that could have been confiscated and made to pay by Friede Goldman for failure to meet its contractual commitments to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not meet them, Mr. Chairman, and the penalties were never enforced.

We saw what happened when Friede Goldman went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States. The minister was unable to enforce these regulations and in fact had to oversee the sale in the United States of these assets for value going to Friede Goldman and Newfoundland and Labrador. Government gave up those penalties as a part of sweetening the deal.

I am a little suspicious about whether or not this penalty - I mean, it looks good on paper. Is the government serious about ensuring that these are enforced? I would like the minister to comment on that if he would.

I have another question. Maybe this is more of a technical question. That is the question as to what is the true meaning in the new proposed clause 13.1(3) where the requirement is: that Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada must meet production, using both machines, during the period the licences are in force, at substantially the same levels for each machine as the average annual levels in the preceding three years.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what advice the minister has been given about the meaning of the words "substantially the same levels". Is that something that the courts are likely to be able to interpret? Is "substantially the same levels" something that the minister has advice on as to what that actually means? In other words, is that enforceable using the term that is there, or should there be instead a phrase that suggests that, where, in the opinion of the minister, or where the minister has the right to determine that they have not complied, so that it then becomes enforceable?

That is something that I think the minister perhaps has gotten advice on, perhaps has already been advised that the word "substantially" has been properly interpreted by the courts and it can be, in fact, enforceable, but it seems to me to be a word that is awfully vague.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have leave to speak for a few moments and move my amendment.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I wanted to make these points, Mr. Chairman, because I think they are very important points and perhaps other members would have some comment on them. I know the minister would be interested in ensuring that this legislation is capable of doing what it proposes to do.

These are just questions. I am not proposing an amendment at this time. I would like the assurance of the minister that the choice of words that have been used here in terms of the proposed clause 13.1(3) is actually going to do the job that the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, the people working in the mill, the people working in the woods, want it to do. Is it going to be enforceable?

We have had examples of this Province ending up with difficulties in the courts because certain choices have been made that have caused trouble. "Substantially the same levels", I know what the intention is. The intention is not to make it exact. The intention is not to say if they fall off by 10 per cent of production because a machine breaks down. If a machine breaks down and they cannot meet the production exactly and they are off by 5 per cent, or if there is a fire or a mechanical breakdown, I do not think that the people of this Province or the people who are involved, who are trying to be protected by this provision, are going to say: Take away the leases, take away the licences. I do not think that is going to be the case. But what does the word "substantially" mean if it is just simply a choice by the company, an economic choice? We have already heard them make some noises about the fact that they do not like this; that they do not like being told what levels of production they ought to maintain, that is really an economic decision. But what if they start making economic decisions that, in the opinion of the minister, are not substantial compliance, but maybe the word "substantial" compliance does not really have an enforceable meaning and maybe the minister will be reluctant to use it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister says, what word would I use? If you wanted my opinion, I would give the minister, "in the opinion of the minister". Put the words, "in the opinion of the minister" in there so that the minister can determine whether there is substantial compliance or not. Then the minister has the right to take advice on it from his officials so that there is some certainly here.

That is the issue in my mind. Where are we going to get the certainty that there has not been substantial compliance? I do not think the word "substantial" compliance has a very certain meaning. That is my concern here, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is worthy of being addressed by the minister or by the minister's officials, or even by the Clerk at the Table, if I could consult with him.

That is an issue that I raise. I think it is a very important and significant piece of legislation. I think it is a real opportunity for us, as a Province, to consider some mega issues, some very large issues about what we are doing with the forest resources of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is for that reason, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there was an effort made in the week or two or three, perhaps the month, prior to the leases expiring by a group seeking to talk up and encourage a consultation process by forest users on the renewal of these leases. I think it got a considerable amount of support in the communities where they showed up and had their meetings. Even in Grand Falls-Windsor, I understand, they had a very good turnout; including by the deputy minister at the meeting.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans says: standing room only; two rooms full. That was an indication of the importance of the issue to the people of Central Newfoundland, and particularly the member's district. I know the minister supports this legislation. I know that the people who are most directly involved are very happy that the minister has supported this legislation and was participating in the press conference to announce it.

It was also the consensus of that meeting, Mr. Chairman, that consultation was the desirable thing. I believe everybody at that meeting said: Yes, there should be widespread consultation before these leases are renewed. Now, these leases - and they are not really leases. These licences are not being renewed. They are not licences that are subject to automatic renewal. They can be reissued on terms that are determined by government. The desire for consultation is a very strong one, and if it is for that reason - although the minister is required to do some form of public hearing by section 3 of the act - that I wish to propose, seconded by the Member for Windsor-Springdale, an amendment to Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

The amendment is as follows. I do not know if I supplied the - I think the Table has a copy of it, but perhaps we can get one. The amendment is to clause 1 of the bill. Clause 1 of the bill would be amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 13.1.(3) of the Forestry Act the following, which would be 13.1.(4), and would read as follows:

Commencing not less than 12 months before the expiry of the licences to cut timber referred to in subsection (1), the minister shall initiate and conduct a public consultation process with participants in the forest industry as well as interested individuals, groups and affected communities to explore and consider the full range of forest uses in relation to the areas covered by the licences.

That, Mr. Chairman, is designed to expand somewhat on the requirement that minister is already under - under section 3 of the act - to hold public hearings in the event that certain licences are being granted for a period of greater than one year. It would be anticipated that this is a much more important event than the actual renewal, or even a forest management plan that would be a five-year plan.

The idea is to tie the renewal, or the decision that has to be made in 2010, into a public consultation. Not one that is sixty days or thirty days notice, but one that goes on over a considerable period. Initially, I proposed three years. The minister and I discussed it, and others, and three years is too long a time. Things can change too much in a period of two or three years. A year appears to be a sufficient period of time to conduct a public consultation and it . It could, in fact, start before that. It does not have to wait for a year. I know the consultation that went on up in Labrador went on for a little bit more than that.

Four years has been suggested. There may be individuals - in fact, I have heard of some who want to start talking about this several years before the expiry of these leases and we may have various suggestions coming forth in that period of time. There has been a great deal of work done on the whole notion of forest management, different forest uses, different forest values.

I know there is a great deal of interest amongst those people who are directly involved with the Abitibi Consolidated mill to ensure that that mill can survive with a sufficient wood supply to operate properly for the foreseeable future. That is a major factor and they will certainly be actively lobbying, campaigning and making sure that their voices are heard in this public consultation process. It is not terribly rigid. We could be more specific if we wanted to, but I think this is general enough to ensure that there is going to be a full consultation. Reference is made to the full range of forest uses. So that is a pretty broad opportunity for people to come up with whatever it is they wish to say about the environment, the future, the consequences, the alternatives that might be available, what particular land regimes might be available.

I have seen some pretty interesting work, Mr. Chairman, on forest regimes in Canada. Believe it or not, the Senate, you know, that institution that particularly we, in the New Democratic Party, like to denigrate from time to time and disappear, if we can, did a very remarkable piece of work a few years ago on forestry. I think it is called the competing values, the boreal forest at risk. It talks about the whole boreal forest in Canada and the various interests in that across the country. It makes some very amazing pronouncements in terms of analysis of what is going on. It suggests that we could actually produce five times as much from our forests with proper management and proper intensive management of certain forest resources.

I know the minister will say that his officials are doing good work, and I am sure they are, but there are lots of other ideas that are out about what could be done and what should be done. When I look at a twenty-year forest management plan and look at the stock of forests and see hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of acres and hectares of land with the initials NSR afterwards, which means not sufficiently restocked, I understand that previous generations have not done the job - and perhaps the current generation has not done enough either - the job of restocking and making sure that our forests are available for the future.

Anybody who has flown over Newfoundland and Labrador knows that there has been a considerable amount of devastation to our forests that has yet to be restocked. The Member for Bonavista North spoke about the fire in - he did not mention the year - I think it was 1963.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-one.

MR. HARRIS: In 1961. I knew I was pretty close. I wasn't that old then. I was only about twelve or fourteen years old at the time, but it was a pretty devastating fire. I do not think that the forests have come back in Bonavista North for the sake of being able to be harvested, and that is forty-one years ago. Forty-one years ago and that forest has not been restocked. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? It is because people have not taken the time and energy and money and put the investment into restocking that forest. Foresters will tell you that fire is a natural regenerator of the forest. Well, it did not happen. It did not happen in Bonavista North.

Something has to be done if we are going to have forests for our generation, if we are going to have pristine wilderness for future generations, if we are going to have work for people in the Grand Falls mill and in the woods and in the other suggested uses, whether it be tourism uses, whether it be ecotourism uses, whether it be sawmill or other value-added uses.

There is a great deal of interest in the use of our forests in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think this is an opportunity here. Not only is it an opportunity - we are talking about something that is going to happen in seven or eight years' time - but it is something that people are thinking about today. It is something people are thinking about today, who are saying: We are going to have a campaign in three or four years - and I have heard that said - to make sure there is going to be sufficient wood for the Grand Falls mill. I have heard that said in the last forty-eight hours. There are others saying: We want to make sure that people understand that there are many uses for the forest and that all of them should have a hearing to ensure that we are doing the best we can for our forests.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is lots of room for praise of the work of our forestry experts, but there is also room for a critique of forestry practices and forest management as well. The long-term management of our whole forest resource is something that we do not have an opportunity to look at in terms of a specific large piece of land like this, and maybe this is an opportunity for that debate to take place.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member for Windsor-Springdale who, I am sure, is going to speak on this bill, and thank the minister, because we have had a number of discussions over the last couple of days about what form this amendment might take, and I understand that the minister is prepared to accept this amendment as an improvement to the bill. I think it is a good example of how we can work together in the House of Assembly to improve legislation.

I want to thank the Member for Windsor-Springdale, who is also interested in this consultation process, with the minister, for his co-operation in suggesting ways that an amendment might be made to the bill that would be acceptable to the minister and his department.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank members for their extra time to speak here at Committee stage when I did not have an opportunity to do so at the second reading stage, approval in principle, of the bill.

I want to say that I support the bill and the legislation and I commend to all members the amendment that I proposed here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know it is late. It is 11:43 p.m. and I just want a couple of minutes to have a few words to say about the amendment to Bill 27.

I would like to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, congratulations on putting forward the amendment. We both were thinking on the same lines when it came to public consultation and protection of stakeholder interest in it. I say we both had the amendments ready to go. We discussed the content of our amendments and we agreed on this amendment that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is putting forward, in consultation with the minister. It seems like this is a good amendment to it.

I would just like to say that in the press release that the Premier had out when he made the announcement - and the minister - they did allude to having comprehensive public consultation before the expiration date of 2010. Now, with the amendment being added to the act, we have a guaranteed entrenched consultation process twelve months prior. That seems like it would give ample time to anybody who was interested in preserving and having an input into forestry matters with respect to the licences that will expire in 2010. It would give us at least a year or more to do that. With respect to the 965,585 hectares that are being changed and not renewed because they being carried forward and carried back, that is for thirty-eight districts. I know that even in the Forestry Act we do have some type of consultation process that was entrenched in the past. I just want to read this for the record because we will get into more detail in third reading. Some of my colleagues would like to have some say on it.

On subsection 3.(2), "The minister shall, in a manner which he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, consult with residents of the province who may be directly affected by (a) the preparation of a forest management plan under subsection 7(3)...".

Then, refer over to subsection 14.(1) where it says, "Crown timber shall not be cut or removed from Crown lands or public lands except under (a) a Crown timber licence...". That sort of gives the minister power to make sure that any public consultation process that he deems necessary will be implemented; but through the amendment that was put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and through consultation with myself and the minister, we have a good amendment put there that I am sure a lot of the stakeholders will be happy with, that I am sure the company can live with, and I am sure that this amendment can be implemented at a good, meaningful time and a good time frame where all the stakeholders could have important input into this.

We will be going into third reading and my colleagues would like to speak on it. I will be having some more to say on it. I just want to thank the minister for his co-operation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As hon. members have already stated - the mover of the amendment, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the seconder, the Member for Windsor-Springdale - we have an amendment in place now. We already had there, Mr. Chairman, under section 3 of the act, a section whereby we had to have public hearings in any case, especially if there was a permit issued or a timber sales agreement or a twenty-year forest management agreement.

Under this particular agreement where there is a common expiry date in this, it is a trade-off. We do not have to have public hearings. That is already in the act. Where there is a trade-off, you are bringing ahead eleven years, from 2021 to 2010, and we are extending the three or four licences that will be coming due between now - this weekend, in fact - and the year of 2010. Under a trade-off, we did not have to do it. Under a timber sales agreement, under a twenty-year management agreement, under a one-year annual cutting permit, we would have to go to public hearings under the act.

Both members talked to me about this and, I think, for clarification and for further definition and to make people feel more comfortable about it, and more clarity, why not include the amendment and make it quite clear there, instead of residents, that everybody would have a say?

There were some references made to other things in it: We should put in land tenure. We should put in some other stipulations. We have to be careful with that because those things change over the years, Mr. Chairman. As long as we have in there that there will be public consultations, public hearings, everything is covered.

One example I would like to use for members to think about under the land tenure system, we are talking about not eight years, we are talking about seven. We are just about to the end of 2002. What could happen this year, the past year alone, with regard to the softwood lumber dispute - the Member for Baie Verte can certainly equate with what I am going to say, and other members, the Member for Bonavista South, out around his area, what happened with regard to the softwood lumber dispute this year.

One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we were exempt from antidumping in Atlantic Canada, and especially Newfoundland, was because of the fact that our timber here in the Province, and the licences, were considered to be private lands. Although there is quite a bit of Crown land, although there were licences and leases in some cases, and although Kruger owned their lands, we dictated to them where to cut, when to cut, and how much to cut. Because of that, we were exempt from the antidumping, which saved our producers in the Province, as an example, 9 per cent on all their sales for this summer. You have to remember that they are already paying over 19 per cent under the countervailing duty. If that had to be implemented, just image the impact it would have had on our sawmill industry in the Province alone.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was wondering whether the production would be there at substantially the same levels. We monitor that. We know that the mill in Grand Falls goes through around 600,000 cubic metres a year, the one in Stephenville around 400,000 cubic metres, and we know what those machines are producing. We know what they are putting out. If those machines - not just one. Two machines have to be operating in Grand Falls. If not, we have the right under the legislation now to take back licences. We can pick the licences. We do not have to take back the one that is due this weekend. We can pick any licence at all and take it back. So the pressure is on the company in Grand Falls to operate those machines.

The other question that the member asked about the Friede Goldman scenario, under this one you cannot because we could issue annual - for instance, if we had to issue an annual cutting permit we could have done the same thing. We could pluck that annual cutting permit. We can stop them under the AAC, which is the annual allowable cut for the Province. We have a number of mechanisms that we can use to stop this kind of a scenario from happening in this case.

Mr. Chair, without going into it any further, I think it is a good thing that we can do this for the people of Central Newfoundland, and especially the people of Grand Falls-Windsor. It does not only impact Central, with regards to Grand Falls-Windsor, it impacts out beyond that. All the pulpwood producers, all the people who have produced in the integrated system producing chips for the mills, it has an impact all over the Province to supply that mill in Grand Falls.

I think this is good. It is in legislation. It is there for everyone to see. It is public knowledge. We now have an amendment clarifying and defining the definition of public hearings. We will have those hearings for everybody in the Province so that they can take part. Stakeholders can go in and have their say in what is going to happen with those licences when they come due in 2010.

So, Mr. Chair, without anything further, that is all I have to say about it. I would submit that we close debate on this particular part of the bill, and I think it is a great day for the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I realize the hour is late, but I would like the minister to address specifically - I realize he addressed his concerns. The intention that he is expressing is if they do not meet the production levels the minister would have the right to pull those licences.

My concern was that the wording we have in the act here uses the words, substantial compliance. Now I would be quite happy to have wording that left it to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. If in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council they had failed to substantially comply. I would be quite happy with that, because that gives the flexibility that is there and leaves it up to the Cabinet to decide whether the compliance was substantial or not. I know there is an intention to be flexible, on the one hand, but on the other hand, once you have decided, Mr. Minister, and the Cabinet has decided that they have failed to comply, then you want to have the legal right, the enforceable right, to be effectively able to pull that license. I am a little worried that the wording that is there doesn't actually achieve that.

Now, I am not proposing, and I don't like to do this - I know I am a lawyer and all of that, but I haven't researched the issue. I don't want to be suggesting to the House of Assembly or to the minister any strict legal interpretation. I do have to say, from my legal experience, that the wording that is used here is open to question and open to potential problems, if you are really serious about enforcing it. Now, if the minister is not serious about having an enforceable provision, and it is only for political purposes, that is one thing, but I don't believe that is the case. I believe the minister is serious, I believe the minister wants to have an enforceable provision, so that if he believes and his Cabinet believes or the next Cabinet believes, that they have failed to comply with this legislation they want to be able to be effective, in other words, to have an effective hammer.

My question is whether the minister is satisfied that he has gotten advice to suggest that that particular wording is going to give him that power so that it wouldn't be open to a challenge of the court, that 50 per cent compliance was substantial. That is the question that I have. Is 50 per cent of production substantial, or does it take 55 per cent, does it take 60 per cent, does it take 70 per cent, does it take 80 per cent? I don't know the answer to that question. It wouldn't be up to me or the minister, I would say, to decide. It would be up to someone down in the Supreme Court to decide whether or not compliance was substantial. I do not know how the court would answer that question. Now, I do not know if the minister does or if the minister's officials do, but I am suggesting to the House that the wording that is there is a bit vague. It is open to a lot of possible interpretations and it may not give the minister or the Cabinet the power that we think we are giving it in this legislation. I just want to caution the House and the minister on that. I do not know whether we can deal with it tonight. It is rather late at night. It is not the time of night to be having this kind of serious debate. I am sorry for raising it on the spur of the moment. I was not sure this legislation was actually coming before the House tonight, but that was a question I wanted some officials to answer for me, or some of the law clerks perhaps to try and answer for me, and maybe it is something we can address at third reading. If the minister wants to commit to investigating that and consider that question with his officials, then perhaps with the legal advice the Attorney General might be able to give him some advice as to whether or not this is an enforceable provision.

I do not want to see us in another situation, Mr. Chairman, where we had the situation in Friede Goldman, for example, that we had an unenforceable provision. Now, that was unenforceable for some practical financial reasons perhaps, but I do not want to see us in a situation where we have some unenforceable for legal reasons. I would suggest that perhaps we can pass it through the committee stage here today on the understanding, and on the undertaking of the minister, that he would consult with his officials and get a proper legal interpretation to make sure that this is, in fact, doing what he thinks and we hope that it is going to accomplish.

That is what I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) what the hon. member has said. We will pass the bill and the hon. member can meet with his -

MR. SULLIVAN: You amend it in committee.

MR. LUSH: Okay, well I will let the minister address it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, this has been addressed. I did not bring this bill in with all those (inaudible). This has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb. With all due respect to the legal community, I asked the Department of Justice for a recommendation on this. I wanted to put it in there. I just did not put in the same levels. I wanted to put in substantially the same levels. I did not put in exactly the same levels. There had to a little flexibility. I did not put in exactly and I did not put the same. I put substantially, and I made sure that two machines were involved. I had a ruling from the Department of Justice on this and I am quite safe with it, Mr. Chairman. I have no problem with it whatsoever.

The thing here is, the two machines - this is the vital thing in here - the two machines must operate at substantially the same levels. I have great comfort with that, with regard to looking at the historical part of the production of those machines in Grand Falls, and it is not something that is hidden. We know it. We know what wood is going through there. They have to put their load slips. They have to report to us every three months. We know exactly, every three months, what is going through that mill in Grand Falls, so they cannot try to pull or hoodwink us or anything else. I am fairly comfortable with that. I have no problems with it, and we do have a monitoring system in place in the department that knows exactly what is going through the yard in Grand Falls because of the load slip program.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 27)

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 7, Mr. Chairman, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 20.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2." (Bill 20)

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, on review, the bill does not accomplish what we set out to accomplish, so I need to propose an amendment. The amendment is required in order to clarify the ninety-day suspension, where the driver refuses to provide a breath sample. This provision was thought to be adequately captured in the existing Bill 20, but further legal review indicates a need for an explicit reference.

Clause 1 of the amendment would provide for a ninety-day suspension of a driver's license where the driver failed to provide a breath sample. Clauses 2 and 3 of the amendment would provide the same consequences for novice and accompanying drivers as provided for in clause 1. The affect of the amendment, Mr. Chair, would be that all of subclause 2.(1) in the existing Bill 20 is deleted and replaced by a new subclause 2.(1). All of clause 3 of the existing Bill 20 is deleted and a new clause 3 substituted. Clause 4 of the existing Bill 20 is deleted and substituted with a new clause 4. The ordering of Bill 20 will remain the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, clause 1 carried.

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 5 through 8 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 20 with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report having passed Bills 18, 19 and 9 without amendment and Bills 20 and 27 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendmends read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two of the clock in the afternoon.

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