The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of privilege that was raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader on Tuesday, December 10. The hon. the member's point of privilege arises out of what he considers to be a breach of the Financial Administration Act.

The requirements of the law in this instance are a matter of dispute between the Official Opposition and the government. It has been ruled on numerous occasions that the legality of an action by a member or by the government is not an issue on which the Chair can rule, and the Chair does not rule on points of law.

For members' reference, I refer them to Speaker Lamoureux in the House of Commons Debates on March 15, 1967, page 14015, in which the ruling was similar; Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons Debates, June 19, 1978, pages 6525 and 6526; Speaker Sauvé in the House of Commons Debates on March 27, 1981, pages 8716 and 8717; and on February 10 a similar ruling in 1983 on page 22714. I also refer members to Beauchesne §31.(9).

In the opinion of the Chair, based on these references, no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established.

As well, on December 10, the hon. the Minister of Finance raised a point of order concerning allegations of members of the Opposition, that the hon. the minister had broken the law. This point of order, of course, relates to the circumstance that I just cited in the point of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, on which the Chair has just ruled.

It is the opinion of the Chair that the hon. the minister and the Official Opposition disagree about the requirements of the law and that the matter is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. The hon. the minister has taken, of course, the opportunity to explain the government's point of view on this matter, and, obviously, there is no point of order.

On Thursday, December 12, the hon. the Premier raised a point of order concerning the approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during Oral Question Period relating to a disclaimer in a contract with Inco respecting the Voisey's Bay development. I have reviewed Hansard and can find nothing out of order in the questioning. It seems that there is a difference of opinion again between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition concerning the interpretation of a provision in a document, and a difference of opinion is not a point of order.

As well, on Thursday, December 12, the hon. the Opposition House Leader rose on a point of order concerning comments made by the hon. the Member for Humber East. I have reviewed the transcripts of Oral Question Period in Hansard and can find no unparliamentary comments by the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time in its history, a Newfoundland and Labrador forester has been named President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry.

Mr. Leonard Moores, Director of Ecosystem Health with the Corner Brook office of the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, has been named the 2003 President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry. Previously, Mr. Moores served as the first vice-president of that organization.

The Canadian Institute of Forestry is a professional forestry organization with a national membership of some 2,700 foresters, forest technicians and forest technologist, forest educators and scientists and others with a professional interest in forestry.

Leonard has worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Service for the past twenty-one years, having graduated from the University of New Brunswick in 1981 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry and from the Lakehead University in 2001 with a Master of Science in Forestry.

Mr. Moores has published numerous papers on forest site classification, forest management planning and forest policy, and is currently Chair of the Advisory Committee for the Forestry Technician Program at the College of the North Atlantic.

At the community level, Mr. Moores has been a scout leader for twenty years and is currently co-ordinator and coach of the Corner Brook Special Olympics Program and treasurer of the Corner Brook Branch of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Leonard Moores in being named President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry for the year 2003.

Thank you.

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 offer congratulations to the school community of Roncalli Central High, Avondale, for taking a bold curriculum initiative in technology. Mr. Brendan Veitch, school principal, and his staff, have adopted a vision based on the view that the new technology can be a powerful, liberating force for teachers and students and have actioned a plan to bring technology into the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, at a school assembly on Friday past, I, along with my colleague, Mr. Terry French, the Member for Conception Bay South, joined with representatives of business, community and government to celebrate the school's acceptance into Canada's Network of Innovative Schools. Mr. Randy Williams, Industry Canada, acknowledged this tremendous feat of winning such a prestigious award, presenting a banner to commemorate the event.

The Roncalli Rappers, a student group, marked the occasion with a unique creative song, "We're Innovative", to the absolute delight of the crowd. Teachers were presented with certificates of merit for completing the program Intel Teach to the Future, a commitment they made on their own time at their own expense.

Mr. and Mrs. Fred and Agnes Lewis of Holyrood, life long supporters of youth initiatives in the area, were recognized for their $5,000 donation to the project. Coupled with this was the acknowledgment of a corporate sponsor, Canadian Helicopters Corporation, of $20,000. Mr. Craig Dobbin and his wife, Mrs Elaine Dobbin, a former resident of Holyrood, took a very keen interest in this project. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, the company representative, Mr. Chris Flannigan, in accepting a plaque on behalf of the company, promoted literacy, indicating it was a piece of writing that was the catalyst for this donation, the script for the movie, The Red Door, starring Kiefer Sutherland, which sparked the company's involvement. Evidently, movie producers filmed the movie at the Dobbin's home at Beachy Cove on condition they donate $10,000 to the school. The company matched the amount for a total of $20,000.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of this House join with me in congratulating the school community of Roncalli Central High for their foresight and determination to provide their students with the technology skills and resources to be the best they can be, and to their partners, especially Fred and Agnes Lewis, Craig and Elaine Dobbin of Canadian Helicopter, for their commitment to the youth of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on this past Friday Mr. John Bishop of Tilton celebrated his ninety-first birthday.

Mr. Bishop started working as a plasterer/painter in 1939 in Gander and remained employed in his trade until his retirement at age seventy-three.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that he mentioned to me on Friday that when he traveled to Gander for the very first time some forty people went in their looking for work. They went by train and they would not go into Gander because they knew that they would be sent back home, so they got off in Appleton and walked all the way. What an inspiration for young people today.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, he kept busy in his profession after retiring. For example, just prior to his ninetieth birthday, he plastered the basement apartment of his own home.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Bishop still enjoys excellent health and is able to attend various functions in the community.

Mr. Speaker, people like Mr. Bishop are an inspiration to us all and I would ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating him on his ninety-first birthday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take this opportunity today to send congratulations to a very special couple in my district, Roland and Ina Abbott of Musgrave Harbour who celebrated their sixty-seventh wedding anniversary on Thursday, December 12. They were married at the Salvation Army Citadel in Musgrave Harbour December 12, 1935.

Roland, when he was seven years old, attended the Salvation Army school and received his education up to Grade 10. In 1932, he attended the Salvation Army College in St. John's and graduated with Grade 11. He taught day school for a short period and then on to Memorial University where he graduated. He retired from teaching June, 1969 after thirty-nine-and-a-half years. In 1980, he helped to organize the Central Newfoundland Retired Teachers' Association and became its first vice-president. He thought in several outport communities across the Province and spent nine years in Peterview where the new school of 1963 was named in his honour, the R.W. Abbott Academy.

When he returned to Musgrave Harbour, he served as a councillor for a term and later became the Town Clerk for eight years. It was during this time he arranged for the Newfoundland Library Board to have a library located there called the John B. Wheeler Library and he became the first chairman of the local board. During the same period with the Town Council, he negotiated with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by permission of Council, to organize a Volunteer Fire Brigade for the town. In 1969, he was appointed Justice of the Peace by the Department of Justice. He is a member of the Masonic Lodge of Gander; member of the Oddfellows of the Maritime Provinces; past Grand Master of the Grand Black Chapter of Newfoundland.

Roland is the author of two books, one entitled Three Seas in which he tells the stories about shipwrecks on the Northeast Coast, and the other one, The Million Dollar Rock about the Offer Wadham Islands.

Mr. Abbott is what the town considers our local historian. He has provided many families with information concerning their family tree. He is a resource person for the local school students when needing information on past community events.

Mr. Speaker, while all of that is about Mr. Abbott, no doubt behind every good man there is a good woman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARDING: I ask the members of this House today -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARDING: - to join with me in offering congratulations to Roland and Ina Abbott on their sixty-seventh wedding anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, recently I had the honour of joining MP John Efford to be the Honourary Co-Patron of this year's Conception Bay North Jingle Bell Walk held by the Arthritis Society. Although the weather did not co-operate, sixty walkers turned out for the event and nearly $2,000 was raised for research and education programs endorsed by the Arthritis Society and for the purchase of a piece of equipment for the Carbonear Hospital Physiotherapy Department.

This year's Jingle Bell Walk was organized by Ruth Brown of Bay Roberts and Darrell Swain of Carbonear, with help from many volunteers. I should also note that great entertainment was provided that afternoon by local Country-Bluegrass band, The Country Buddies.

The Arthritis Society is the only organization in Canada dedicated to finding treatments, and in time cures, for the over 100 different forms of Arthritis. As well, the society administers the Arthritis Self-Management Program, and has several groups operating in the area, to assist those living with arthritis and cope with the problems presented by this disease.

Arthritis is commonly thought to be a disease for the elderly or those with a hard-working life behind them. The fact is, arthritis, in its juvenile forms, such as Juvenile Rheumatoid, can affect children and there are several individuals living with this disease in the CBN area. Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis are the more frequent forms and are quite serious in their own right and can greatly diminish a person's quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in commending the organizers of the Conception Bay North Jingle Bell Walk and the people who participated in this very successful event.

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 pay tribute to a person I have never met, but whose actions are certainly worthy of note. The person I am speaking of is a twenty-four-year-old hockey player named Mike Minard from Hamilton, Ontario, who has a very positive impact on many young sick children in our Province.

A very moving story was in Sunday's edition of The Telegram outlining Mr. Minard's involvement, with emphasis on particularly one young girl from our Province. One day after vising a Hamilton hospital he decided he wanted to do something to make a different. He created Mini's Munchkins, he purchased a block of tickets to donate to children's hospitals so kids could come and watch the games. Following the games, he would meet the children, sign autographs and make them forget their personal situations for awhile.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Jack Hand, Director of Pediatric Oncology at the hospital, was quoted as saying, "Sometimes it was hard to get a smile on those kids' faces, but when Mike appeared, we would see a smile we hadn't seen in weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Minard is hoping to return to St. John's this year, and we certainly hope he will. One of Mike's reasons for doing what he does is simple. "I just like making kids smile," he said.

During his stay here in St. John's he met an eight-year-old girl names Amanda Joy from Mount Pearl who was suffering from cancer. A bond formed between them that will last forever. The full, very emotional story can be read in Sunday's Telegram.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in acknowledging Mr. Minard's positive involvement with sick children in our Province and elsewhere. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House to send a letter to Mr. Minard thanking him, on behalf of all of us, for his unselfish commitment and being an inspiration to sick children in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy made statements that I was misleading the public regarding Voisey's Bay, as their method of counterattacking the problems that I identified in the signed documentation. Unfortunately for them, and unlike the Lower Churchill, the actual signed document is now in the hands of the public, so that they can see the facts for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, to prevent any confusion, my questions for the Minister of Mines and Energy will be very straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that there is no commitment from Inco that there will definitely be an underground mine and it will employ 800 people at Voisey's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the basis or what the point of the question really is. The fact of the matter is that the Statement of Principles was announced on June 11, and the Statement of Principles, in and of themselves, outline very clearly a progression of events that will lead to an eventual thirty year lifespan of a mining operation at Voisey's Bay, based on about eighty million tons of known reserve out of a potential 130 million tons of known and inferred reserves, so that means it could be much longer than thirty years.

Over that period of time, Mr. Speaker, a number of events will take place commencing with what happened this summer, ramping up of work in Voisey's Bay and starting the work in Argentia to get that site ready for a major R and D program.

The fact of the matter is this: based on the schedules that have been laid out, we fully expect - because we have the written commitments with guarantees to back them up and penalties that are enforceable if performance does not happen - that project to proceed as outlined, as announced, and as further articulated and reinforced in the final and binding legal agreements that the hon. member refers to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will ask the question again. It will again be a very simple, very straightforward question, and I will ask the minister for a very simple yes or no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that in the signed agreement there is no commitment from Inco that there will definitely be an underground mine and it will employ 800 people? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Subject, Mr. Speaker, to the terms and conditions of the Statement of Principles and the binding agreements, I can confirm the exact opposite to the hon. member: that, in fact, there will be an underground exploration program carried out. It will be part of a series of events that are planned as per the Statement of Principles on the final and legal binding agreements.

Now, if the hon. member is asking me to confirm that pieces of the planet will not break off over the next thirty years, and events that are unknown to mankind heretofore will not happen, then I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm to him this: that we have such a fantastic deal on the development of Voisey's Bay that I, along with this government, and along with the vast majority of the people of the Province, support the proposition that we have; and on the weekend I did issue a press release, and in the final paragraph I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, together with his party over there, to, for once, get on the side of the people of the Province and join with the majority of the people of the Province in supporting a fantastic project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked that question is that the hon. the minister on Friday released a press release that said the Opposition Leader - being myself - misleads the public regarding Voisey's Bay. Minister Matthews said, comments by the leader concerning future job figures are misleading -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- and incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: He then pointed out that during Question Period I indicated that there was no commitment by Inco.

I ask you now, Minister, why you are issuing a press statement saying that I am misleading the public when I have asked you twice the same question and you have refused to acknowledge that in fact there is no commitment from Inco for an underground mine at Voisey's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see a continuation of the same desperate tactic that was used before. When the Leader of the Opposition is shown to be wrong, he runs out to the media and calls it personal attacks. That is his defense every time, Mr. Speaker; it is known tactic in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: the Leader of the Opposition, today, is trying to use the language about commitments for 800 jobs in the underground in the year 2016, 2017, 2018. What he knows to be a fact - and this is the point that we have been making Mr. Speaker - what he knows to be a fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what he knows to be a fact and what he is trying to characterize it as is absolutely incorrect. He is trying to use the word commitment. The language - and he knows this because he studied it in detail - the language in the Statement of Principles in section 19 talked about the underground operation in the years 2016 and beyond being subject to completion of an underground exploration program.

No one said it was going to happen regardless. You have to prove that something is there. It is a phased-in program, Mr. Speaker. Now he is trying to suggest that there is some difference between that language which was in the Statement of Principles and similar language in the legally binding agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: It is exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. He knows it and he is trying to mislead and misrepresent the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy a specific question as to why he issued the press release, and the Premier answered it for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: He refused to stand on his feet and explain why he told the public (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Shame on you, Minister.

Another very simple, very straightforward question for the Minister of Mines and Energy: Will the minister confirm for the people of Argentia that there will definitely be a processing plant in Argentia? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am at a grave loss as to understand why the Opposition would be trying to, at this point in the year if no other point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - instill such a sense of potential insecurity in the minds of the people of Argentia who, up until this point in the year, I would say, have had a very, very circumstance in terms of the announcement.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the question that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition just asked was answered clearly by the Premier last week. I would only be repeating myself and repeating him if I answered it again. But, for greater certainty, just so he will not say I did not answer the question, there is an absolute commitment to put the R and D program first, and then the processing facility in Argentia subject to meeting all of the normal things that have to be met; the main one being, Mr. Speaker, the passing of the environmental assessment process.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should either do away with the environmental assessment process or that we should write laws that guarantee us a certain outcome, well, we are not into that type of activity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: We have confidence in the process that we have in place. We have confidence in the proponent who says they want to build this plant in Argentia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we believe it will happen to the greater good of all of the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - notwithstanding those who fear it will happen indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Argentia have an absolute commitment subject to, and the underground mine is subject to, if. Those are not absolute commitments, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier, in Question Period, was asked if Inco could walk away from a hydromet plant on the basis of the words economically feasible contained in Article 4.6 of the signed deal and he said, absolutely, positively, no.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Article 4.6 does, in fact, state that the construction of a hydromet plant is subject to economic feasability? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and a bit disappointed at the tenor of the questions that suggest there is doubt and uncertainty that does not, in fact, exist as being asked at this point in time in this Legislature. I am sure it does nothing for the people in Argentia or for the member who is trying, I suppose, in his own way, to instill some level of confidence in the people out there with respect to the economy.

What I can confirm to the hon. member is this: We are certain, we are 100 per cent certain - we are 100 per cent certain - that there will be constructed, at Argentia, a processing facility as per the Statement of Principles and the agreement that has been signed. As I said in the House of Assembly when we were debating this issue, I will take the 98 per cent chance of having a hydromet plant full-blown there at a cost of $800 million, but I will also take the 100 per cent guarantee, because we have taken that guarantee, of having at least a $750 million processing plant built there as per the schedule that has been agreed to, within the time frames that have been agreed to, and for the benefit of the people who will have the good fortune of accessing employment and business opportunities from it. We have no doubt that the Voisey's Bay deal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - is one of the finest, if not the finest, deal that has ever been struck by any government in this Province on behalf of their people, and we look forward to seeing it happen as announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have an estimated $750 million facility or some other facility, similar facility, which is not defined in the agreement. That is what we have, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period last week as well the Premier was asked to explain why the words, committed to processing Voisey's Bay concentrate in the Province, which were in the Statement of Principles, had been in fact deleted from the signed deal. He answered, "...it absolutely must be processed - in Newfoundland and Labrador under the legally binding agreements."

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that if there is no hydromet plant and there is a nickel matte plant or some other facility, in fact, all of the Voisey's Bay concentrate could leave the Province and it will not absolutely be processed here as the Premier indicated? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the hydromet plant, which is a virtual guarantee, at least 98 per cent certain, or a full-blown processing plant of another type will be built in Argentia within the time frame starting in 2008, being completed in 2011 or 2012 as the Statement of Principles has announced.

I would say to the hon. member: If he would spend his time viewing this project as being what it is, an excellent project on behalf of the people of the Province, and put some effort into promoting the well-being of this project on behalf of the well-being of the people of the Province, his time would be much better served, the people of the Province would be much better served, and I think it would only add and enhance his stature as the Leader of the Opposition who would finally be saying to the people of the Province: We recognize, finally, a good deal when we see it, and notwithstanding what we might have wanted to see done or what we would have done if we were there, the fact of the matter is, the deal is done, it is a great deal. Seventy-plus per cent of the people of the Province support it, 26 per cent of the people have questions with it, but on balance we look forward to seeing it move forward with the full-blown plant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and with the final finished nickel product coming out of the end of that for the next thirty years for sale right around the world so that we get our taxes, we get our jobs, we get our royalties (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would enhance your stature as a minister, Minister, if you did not release press releases indicating that I was trying to mislead the people of this Province, when in fact all I am doing is giving the details and asking the questions that you wanted a week ago and now you do not want to hear. That is the bottom line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I think your response to the two flubs that the Premier made in the House of Assembly are basically that he was absolutely wrong in his answers. Isn't that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: So, in fact, the Premier was wrong in both of his answers. Isn't that correct, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, under Article 6 of the signed agreement, the government has committed to give Inco the lowest industrial electrical rate in the Province. Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that this rate to this multi-billion dollar company is actually subsidized by the people of our Province? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble to the question, let me say this: that whereas the Leader of the Opposition last week raised the issue of the job numbers not being appropriately identified in the final and binding legal agreements, the fact of the matter is that the 800 jobs were appropriately and were fully mentioned and referenced and included in the final and binding legal agreements.

Now, I am not suggesting any more than this: that he suggested they were not there, and I am telling the people of the Province, the Premier has told the people of the Province, that they are there. That all I would say to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: With respect to the electricity rate, let me say this to the hon. member: that we will no more or no less provide power, subsidized or otherwise, to the Inco operation than we are doing for the North Atlantic Refinery, that we are doing for any of the paper mills in the Province, or any other major heavy industrial user that will come to the Province. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have an industrial rate in the Province. It currently and has for a long time applied to heavy industrial users and it will similarly apply to this particular project as we have committed in the Statement of Principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So Inco's electricity will be subsidized on the backs of the people of this Province. That is your answer, Minister, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the test of economic feasibility is also used for Inco to determine when the mine ceases to operate under the definition of cessation of mining operations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I confess, I did not hear the question clearly. I would be happy if he would repeat it and I would attempt to answer it. I am sorry about that.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the test of economic feasibility is also used for Inco to determine when the mine ceases to operate under the definition of cessation of mining operations? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the development of this project is fundamentally premised on it being an economically sound business case that allows it to move forward, and any part of the operation is always subject to economic viability. Nobody is going to do anything against which they are going to be permanently and consistently losing money. The fact of the matter is, that would be a very imprudent and a very stupid business person who would do something like that.

The mine in Labrador will cease when it will cease. We think it will be thirty-plus years. Based on everything we know, and on all of the data we have and on all of the independent analysis that we have received with respect to that reserve, that ore body, laying that against projected prices of nickel out for the next thirty to forty years, we have every confidence that it will move forward for that length of time. At some point, mines always cease because they become economically unviable. Unfortunately that is the circumstance, and that day begins, that clock begins to tick, the first day that the mine opens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is a non-renewable resource. That is why we have sought to get, and in fact we have gotten, such a fantastic deal for the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that, given that Inco is not obliged to build a smelter, can walk away from a hydromet on technical or economic feasibility, can build some other facility that has yet to be defined, can process all Voisey's Bay concentrate outside our Province, and has the option to walk away from the underground mine, that all these exit mechanisms by Inco can be considered off-ramps or loopholes in the agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have the opportunity, but I know Question Period is not the venue or the time for it, to also walk the Leader of the Opposition through this project. What I would say to him is that the starting point is this. I would say that Inco will have a $1 billion expenditure having been made in this Province before they get one five cents worth of nickel out of this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is not a bad circumstance to start with, when you have a company that is prepared to spend $1 billion of their capital without getting ten cents out of the ground, and with a whole bunch of commitments along the way that ensure we are always ahead of the game, they are always behind the game, in terms of getting to the final, finished processing plant.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is a circumstance where I believe again - and it may be my last opportunity to do so, so I will take the opportunity to do it - I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to join with the people of the Province in celebrating, in 2002, a great project.

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.

My questions today are for the Premier.

The people of the Placentia-Argentia area have been waiting a long time for the Voisey's Bay development to come to their area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: They have been left with the impression many times that economic benefits and employment opportunities are just around the corner.

On Wednesday, December 11, the Premier answered questions for the Leader of the Opposition in regards to the development at Argentia. He said, and I quote, "They have already started to open the office. They have already started to fence in the ground. They have already starting to put down the warehouse space." Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Premier is aware, but this is not accurate. There is no office open in the Argentia-Placentia area, there is no fence being constructed, and they are definitely not started to put down the warehouse space.

I would like to ask the Premier: Can you tell us, today, when exactly these activities will begin, what are the completion dates for these projects, and, as most people in area ask me, when are people going to work in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member that, in my commentary, I did not used the words that he just used. I do know for a fact, as does he, as the member for the area, that the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company has been into prolonged and detailed discussions with the Argentia Management Authority, to have the office space renovated in the office building. He knows where it is. I believe he has actually been there. I believe he has actually been to the site where the office is about to be opened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what I did say is, that there are plans to fence the property. I did not say they were already fencing the property. Now he is learning from his star there, I suppose, his idol, the Leader of the Opposition, in trying to misrepresent the words. I did not say the fence was being erected. He knows because he does know the plans, because he did vote for the project, and he does hope that it occurs in Argentia, that there are plans to fence the property and there are plans to put up the warehouse space. The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, has had the same discussions with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company officials as I have had, and he knows what I said to be an absolute fact. Why he would now stand up, because the Leader of the Opposition asked him to, to stand up and try to talk about it, Mr. Speaker - he knows that he now is trying to misrepresent the facts, as well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - because the knows the difference of what he just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to let the Premier know that my idol is not in this building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Hansard of December 11, and I quote the Premier, "They have already started to open the office."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: "They are already starting to fence in the ground. They are already starting to put down the warehouse space."

Mr. Speaker, I ask the question once again to the Premier, because people out in the area are asking me: Can you tell us, today, when exactly these activities will begin, what are the completion dates for these projects, and, as the people in the area have asked me, when can people expect to go to work in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you again, as I answered the last question, that the hon. member knows exactly as I do. He has had the same discussions. He does not need to ask me a question in the House of Assembly. He has had access to the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company officials. When he speaks to them, he pretends that he is on their side, that he wants it to happen, he is glad to get the information, he is working for the people of Argentia and Placentia, Mr. Speaker, and then he comes in here and asks the question because his idol did ask him to ask a question, the Leader of the Opposition. I guess he was disappointed to know today that his idol is not in the building. He thought that he was your idol. It was a startling revelation for him to find out today that this is not your idol right here in front of you today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that in answering the question, they are down there renovating and opening the office, they are making all the plans to fence the property and they are doing all the plans, as he knows, to put the warehouse in place and to spend $5 million in the area before the end of March. He knows that to be a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and it concerns the use of food banks in this Province. The Canadian Association of Food Banks reported, this year, that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate per capita of food bank usage in the country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of those people using food banks are social assistance recipients. Mr. Speaker, the last time the social assistance rates were raised was 7 per cent over four years while the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, has gone up 29 per cent since 1990.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier commit to increasing social assistance rates in this Province so that people can buy food, or is this government going to continue to offload its responsibility to the volunteer sector that runs food banks and rely on the charity model?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting, I guess, to look at one narrow part of an issue in terms of tying food bank usage to a social assistance rate. Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, what the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi omits and leaves out in his question and his preamble, is this: Most of those people who are visiting food banks are families with children, low-income earners and others, and there have been major changes in Newfoundland. Most of them are not social service recipients. They are low-income earners, the working poor as they are referred to. For those people, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I do believe he knows this - have partnered with the Government of Canada, with the Child Tax Benefit, so that, in fact, that amount has increased by over 30 per cent in the last couple of years, because it directs money to families with children so that they have a greater capability today, a far greater capability today, Mr. Speaker, than they have had in any of the last four or five years, to provide for themselves and their families because of the thousands of dollars that go into those families, above and beyond any social assistance rates that are paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Because it is directed at families with children whether they are on social assistance or not, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to making more of those positive changes in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier needs to know is that his own government's survey last summer, in consultation on social assistance, showed that a key message from participants was that there was an inadequate amount of money to cover the cost of basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing, and, in fact, parents with school age children reported that there was not enough money for lunches, extracurricular activities, fees and school supplies. So, Mr. Speaker, they are clearly inadequate. The social assistance recipients know it.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker: Is this Premier prepared to commit his government, as a priority next year, to increase the social assistance rates so that people on social assistance can live in dignity, Mr. Speaker, and with respect, instead of having to go around looking for food in food banks and doing without things that are basic necessities for their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me state again, that in the budget process we are going through we deal with all of those issues and we will make those decisions in the budget as we have done in past years.

With the representations that were made, Mr. Speaker, the same presenters did acknowledge that they would be in a lot worse circumstance if it was not for huge and significant increases in the child tax credits and the benefits that are actually paid out by both governments, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have targeted the initative and actually have been lauded by the same people, and applauded as the government, for targeting initiatives at families with children so that they can provide for the very kinds of things that you just mentioned in your question and the preamble. They have these expenses, we know it, and we know that there is a distance yet to go. We are trying to lobby the Government of Canada to go further, as are all the provinces and territories in the country, and we are certainly playing our part.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: We have reinvested every single cent back into the child tax credit and benefits, Mr. Speaker, that have been made available to the Province and we will make further moves and they will be discussed in the budget in March month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow, I will move, under Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and the companion part to that, Mr. Speaker, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

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.

I would like to present the following Private Member's Motion.

WHEREAS the federal government is giving consideration to increasing its spending on National Defense; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is strategically located and has historically played a significant role in National Defense; and

WHEREAS this Province is naturally positioned and suited to be the location of certain defense facilities and training; and

WHEREAS the amount spent on National Defense in this Province is very low and has been decreasing in recent years; and

WHEREAS people from this Province represent a significant proportion of miliary personnel in Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal government to increase the current level of National Defense spending in this Province and recognize the strategic role that we play in the defense of this country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly and it reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that has been presented to me to bring forward to the House of Assembly. It is the people in Birchy Cove, the upper-middle-lower Amherst Cove area, Kings Cove, Keels, Duntara, all the way up Route 235 to Keels, who use this road on a regular basis to go and access government offices, schools and places of work in Bonavista, it is a situation where we have three kilometres of this particular main artery leading into the town of Bonavista that is in a deplorable state, asking this government if they would commit funding to complete Route 235 in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, now I am getting calls from people who use this road on a continual basis complaining about the snowclearing. The road is in such bad condition that the snowplows there, in their efforts to try and clear the road, are unable to remove the snow from that section of road because of the shape and the condition that the road is in. Because of that, they are experiencing very, very unsafe driving conditions. When you consider school buses having to use that particular road on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, taking school children to and from some of the communities that I just named into Bonavista, it makes this concern very real.

Back a few years ago, this particular piece of road was identified by not only the people in Birchy Cove and Newmans Cove but by people from the whole area there, as their priority. While the roads that are leading into their communities - and I am thinking of Upper Amherst Cove, for instance. Mr. Speaker, the people came forward to a public meeting and they said: Here is our priority, Mr. Minister. We would like whatever funding is being approved for road repairs and upgrades in this particular area this year to be spent on Route 235 to deal with the main thoroughfare first and then we will deal with the roads that go through our communities after. In spite of the pleas by people living in those communities, the government of the day, this government, went out and instead of paying attention to the main road, instead of paying attention to the wishes of the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Instead of listening to the pleas of the people there, they went out and paved and upgraded a section of road that was not even the wishes of the people in the area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the government pay attention to those petitions and allow the funding in this year's capital works budget to upgrade and completely finish this section of roadway.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity again today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Conche. I presented petitions similar to this in the past, and once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about - I will read the prayer of the petition first of all.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the road linking Conche to Roddickton is in deplorable condition and is in desperate need of upgrading and paving; and

WHEREAS the deplorable condition of the roads makes it a hazard for the large volume of traffic using the road including the residents and transport trucks and truck fish products out of Conche; and

WHEREAS the road conditions hinder tourism development in the area and with the historical connection to the French Shore, roads need to be maintained so they do not deter people from visiting the site; and

WHEREAS the twenty-six kilometres of dirt road have to be travelled daily by its residents in order to access needed services including the hospital, pharmacy, groceries, gas, et cetera., in Roddickton.

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to make this road a top priority and begin upgrading immediately.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have here, I guess, the last of the signatures from the people of Conche and surrounding area. There are 143 signatures on this one. I presented a petition from Conche last week with, I suspect, the remainder of the names of the people in Conche.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Conche asked me awhile ago about the road. They said, when the election was on the go, when the by-election was on the go - and I have referenced this before - there was a commitment made by the minister at the time, there was a commitment made by the people who were going around campaigning for the person who was running against me, Mr. Pilgrim, there was a commitment made that the road was going to be done within two years. Here we are now, practically two years have gone by, there hasn't been a start made on it and the people of Conche said: What are we going to do? What are we going to say? How do we get at these people?

They have made representation to the government, and nothing. They said, if the election was on the go, sure, they would be around promising the road to us again. I said, well, the only thing that you can do, if the minister is not going to acknowledge, is send in a petition. At least we will be able to raise it in the House of Assembly, raise it to the minister.

Two years in a row I have sent a letter to the minister with a list of priorities for road work in the district. One of the roads was Conche, that I put down on my list of priorities. There were others in The Straits, Croque and other gravel roads that need to be upgraded.

This is a twenty-six kilometre road, Mr. Speaker, that runs through a community that roughly about 300 people live in. There are substantial amounts of fish trucked in and out of this community over the course of the year. It has a long history with a connection to the French Shore. It is something where there are great possibilities for tourism development in this area.

As I said the last time I presented a petition here, the French Shore Historical Society, the French Shore celebrations in 2004, plan to have Conche as part of its celebrations. Mr. Speaker, how do we ever expect to develop a place like Conche -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - to give the people a chance to move ahead in the tourism industry when we have just a gravel road for people to travel on in order to get there?

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, again, a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of Grand Falls-Windsor, Bishop's Falls and Botwood who have signed this particular petition asking the government to provide coverage under the Prescription Drug Program for MS and other diseases, who need high cost drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription Program currently only provides coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy Program and for people on income support. These drugs are quite expensive. All citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with the cost of these drugs, using a co-payment or a sliding scale program, and these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS.

Mr. Speaker, the undersigned on this petition are asking the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program to assist them with the purchase of these drugs.

Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province suffer from MS. I have presented petitions during this session of the House, and for the last five or six sessions, asking that government introduce such a system, because the only people who are not covered in this Province are people who are working for a living, trying to provide for their families, make ends meet on a day-to-day basis, and they should not be subject to having to make a choice in providing for their families or taking the medication that can improve their situation with regard to the disease that they are afflicted with.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on many other occasions, this is not a disease that they inflicted upon themselves by some actions that they took. They have no control over inheriting this disease and now they must deal with the consequences. It is not fair and it is not proper for this government to subject them to having to ruin themselves financially, to spend any RRSPs they may have saved, to spend any money they may have put aside for their children's education, for their own retirement, to reduce themselves to income support levels and then, after all of that is said and done, this government will help out. So, it is not the fact that this government does not have the money; it is the fact of what they require people to do to themselves and their families before they will help.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage and I urge this government, in their next budget, to make allowance to introduce a system of co-payment or a sliding scale program similar to every other province in this country, and allow the people of this Province the ability to take advantage of that program so they do not have to ruin themselves and their families in order to get relief from a disease that they suffer from.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 4. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and, the companion Motion 5, that the House 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 Monday, December 16, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 19.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Order 19, Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a few questions regarding perhaps some clarification and response from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I wonder, for the purposes of Committee, because obviously clause 1 was just referred to, where I am going over a number of sections and asking a few questions with respect to the entire piece of legislation, maybe at this point if I could have the scope and leeway of the Chair to perhaps go from section to section, that may make it a little bit easier, with the Chair's consent.

CHAIR: Is that agreeable to both House Leaders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular piece of legislation, at the outset I think it should be stated, and I know it has been stated by our critic, the Member for Lewisporte, that this is certainly a piece of welcomed legislation in that it deals with an issue of great importance to those spouses who are obviously seeking support from the other spouse, particularly as it relates to the needs of support for the children of the marriage or the children of the relationship.

Mr. Chairman, essentially what this piece of legislation allows is, it now allows a codification of this legislation. It repeals a piece of legislation that was somewhat archaic in this jurisdiction and, as the Member for Lewisporte indicated in second reading last week, it now brings us in line with other jurisdictions across Canada to ensure that the reciprocity of these particular court orders will be recognized and enforced with respect to one jurisdiction and the other.

What is interesting to note is that it is not restricted or limited to just Canadian provinces. There is a provision, as I understand from the Minister of Justice in his introductory comments last week, that allows for foreign orders, in other words, extra territorial orders outside the jurisdiction of this country that indeed can be reciprocated in this Province again for the ultimate benefit of our young people who will be the recipients, Mr. Chairman, of the support being paid by one spouse to another for the support of these children.

However, I do have a few questions and maybe I would indulge upon the Minister of Justice perhaps to make a few brief comments in response to some of the points as found in Bill 30, An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

I notice under section 2, Mr. Chairman, that there is a definition of an appropriate authority and there is a distinction between appropriate authority and designated authority. I would perhaps ask the minister if he could share some commentary with respect to the need for the distinction as it relates to appropriate authority as opposed to designated authority. I know, by definition, if we look at the definition found under section 2.(a), appropriate authority is with respect to the reciprocating jurisdiction and means the person or persons in that jurisdiction who correspond to the designated authority.

So, my question is: Is it absolutely necessary that, in terms of perhaps only leading to confusion in terms of the wording that is being used and the definition that is being used, is it essential that we have two separate definitions for what is ultimately the same thing, namely an appropriate authority versus a designated authority? I would be interested, Mr. Chairman, in hearing the feelings of the Minister of Justice in response to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the purpose is quite obvious and clear. The reason is, again, for simplicity rather than having any confusion over what are designated authorities. For example, each jurisdiction will have a designated authority within its province. So, the question is: If you were dealing with a case that was going to be transferred from here to Alberta, for example, you would be transferring it from a designated authority of Newfoundland to a designated authority of Alberta. So, to get away from that confusion where everybody has a designated authority, how you are going to get around it is by saying, in your own province you will be called the designated authority.

Now, where you send it to, you are sending it to the appropriate authority in the other province. So, if it is coming from here, yes, you are sending it to a designated authority in Alberta, but for the purpose of doing the paperwork, rather than get confused between two designated authorities, you call the province where it comes from the designated authority and the reciprocating jurisdiction to where it is going, you call it the appropriate authority.

If, in fact, you look at section 2.(a), it specifies that, "‘appropriate authority' when used in reference to a reciprocating jurisdiction...", so you only ever get an appropriate authority when you are talking about in the other reciprocating jurisdictions. In our own Province it will be called the designated authority, which, in our case, would be the Support Enforcement Agency which operates out of Corner Brook.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I understand what the minister is saying, but, because the legislation refers to two different definitions, isn't it not possible that in this jurisdiction we would refer to the Support Enforcement Agency as a designated authority, correct? Then, the authority in Alberta, for example, if that is the province we are dealing with, would be the appropriate authority, but because it is legislation that deals with reciprocal acts, you would have the situation then, assuming that this thinking is even carried out in Alberta, that you would have the Alberta jurisdiction referring to Newfoundland as the appropriate authority and their own jurisdiction being referred to locally as a designated authority. So we have a reciprocal arrangement whereby two different authorities and two different jurisdictional uses are using, in fact, two separate titles.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: That is exactly what happens, Mr. Chair, and that is the purpose. The jurisdiction we are in, the request arises and originates, will, in all cases, in all jurisdictions, be called the designated authority. The jurisdiction to where it goes will be called the appropriate authority, and that is to avoid the confusion. This is not a Newfoundland act. This was a model that was designed this way by all Provinces of Canada and the Territories who agreed upon these designations to get rid of any confusion, so that if you are in your own province, you deal with a designated authority. Anybody who makes an application here, who is the designated authority in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Our Support Enforcement Agency. Where does it go after you file your paperwork with your designated authority? You send it to the authorized authority in whatever jurisdiction you want your order and your paperwork to go to. No matter where you start in Canada, you always start from the same premise. If you are in Nova Scotia, you file your paperwork with the designated authority in Nova Scotia. They take it, and where do they send it? If it is in B.C., they send it to whatever the Province of British Columbia has authorized to be their appropriate authority.

I do not see any confusion. In fact, I think it makes it quite simplistic and clear.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, under the same Definition section, we see the definition of a provisional order meaning "(i) a support order of a court that has no force or effect until confirmed by a court in a reciprocating jurisdiction, or (ii) a similar order made in a reciprocating jurisdiction and received for confirmation in the province."

Obviously, when we are talking about a provisional order, or you will notice in subsection (h) a provisional order of variation, we are talking essentially about a support order, although provisional in nature because it has not been confirmed.

Having said those few words, I would like to go to subsection 2.(k) which defines a support order, meaning "...a court order or an order made by an administrative body requiring the payment of support and includes the provisions of a written agreement requiring the payment of support where those provisions are enforceable in the jurisdiction in which the agreement was made as if they were contained in an order of a court of that jurisdiction...".

My first question, I guess, for the minister is the reference that is found in subsection 2.(k) where it states, an order made by an administrative body as opposed to a court order. I wonder if the minister could perhaps elaborate on that point for the purposes of this act in terms of an example that the public would understand, I guess, as an alternative to a court order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the intention here is to differentiate between what is an existing order, for example, or what is a variation of an existing order. That is why, for example, the provisional one is exactly that; it is provisional. It is something that has varied, as they used the word their in subsection 2.(h)(i). They talk about an order of a court that varies a support order; for example, it is something that varies something that already exists, but it is a similar order made in another jurisdiction; for example, a variation of an existing order in another jurisdiction, but it is still called a provisional no matter where it happens. It is a variation of an existing order, but in all cases where it is a variation of an existing order it is called provisional as opposed to item 2.(k) which is a support order that has been made, it is not provisional. It is already existing. It has been made by a Supreme Court, for example, in the course of a divorce hearing where they dealt with support.

Regarding the issue of administrative body, the distinction is being made here in subsection 2.(k). It says, "...means a court order or an order made by an administrative body...". The reason they are distinguishing it is because it is not always a court in all jurisdictions that makes support orders. There are, in some jurisdictions, administrative bodies that take it out of the hands of the court and allow them to make a support order. For example, even here in Newfoundland we can have a support order that is made by a Supreme Court Trial Division, we can have a court order that is made by a provincial court, and in some jurisdictions they even have other agencies of their governments that deal with support for the very purpose that they do not get bogged down in long drawn-out court proceedings when they are trying to deal with the immediate needs of a support order. To give an example here in the Province where this would fit as well: We are currently doing a pilot project through the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook called the Recalculation Model. Albeit, we have an existing order made, say, by our Supreme Court Trial Division in the course of a divorce hearing and that order is registered with our support agency.

Right now, the person who was the recipient of those funds doesn't have to go back to court to make a request for more monies under the support order. Automatically, at the end of the year now in Corner Brook, all support orders get recalculated, so that, if Mrs. Jones, for example, was receiving $200 a month from her spouse who is living in Alberta we now have authority, in Corner Brook, that they recalculate, they send out a notice to Mr. Jones and say: Give us your income tax returns for the last year. Mr. Jones is required by law to bring that in. The Support Enforcement Agency looks at the financial information and decides whether Mr. Jones should, in accordance with the federally established guidelines, be paying more. If he should, based on that information that he submitted, be paying more, the Support Enforcement Agency makes the calculation and sends Mr. Jones back a notice saying: Here is your new recalculation.

That is an example where someone other than a court, i.e. an administrative agency, is making an order. They exist in some other places in Canada, but not in the Recalculation Model. Agencies in other parts of Canada actually do make orders rather than just a court. It is an arm of the court or an agency of the government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am wondering, though, where we have a definition of a support order and where the act certainly contemplates another type of body dealing with support issues and rendering a decision - and that is, I guess, what is referred to through other administrative bodies - is it fair to say what the minister is also contemplating here, that issues of support obviously can be dealt with by way of a separation agreement or, indeed, a mediation agreement, simply agreed upon and mediated with the social arm of the Unified Family Court, for example. Then we have, presumably, an agreement between two spouses as it relates to support issues?

My question then: Is that mediated agreement, or what is mutually agreed upon between both spouses and found in a separation agreement, can the basis of that agreed upon document be an enforceable document for the purposes of this particular section, not only this section, indeed for the whole act? Is that something that is contemplated?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing different here regarding the definitions of these various types of orders. We have support orders now, currently. We have provisional support order now, currently. If you look item (j), for example, it talks about support variation orders again. The purpose of putting the three definitions up front in everybody's piece of legislation is that we are all dealing from the same level when we talk about what is what. For example, if you are going to make an application under this act to send off your documentation to another jurisdiction for enforcement, what do we have? Do we have a court order, do we have a varied court order, do we have a provisional order, do we have a straight support order or do we have a support variation order? So what it does is, they designate an authority in each jurisdiction now by using these definitions and all of us across Canada and in the Territories will use the same definition base. There will not be any confusion any more about what we are trying to identify.

When we file our documentation here and our designated authority ships it off to B.C., for example, that documentation will state what it is: this is a support variation order that is coming at you. The Court in B.C., immediately, when they read the documentation, says: What is a support variation order? They go to the definition section, which is the same as we have because this is a model piece of legislation across the country and everybody is dealing with the same definitions and in the same ballpark.

How they arise - you are quite right - they come from different sources. You can have, for example, the recalculation model I referred to, to get it to be in order stage. You can have a provincial court make a support order, a Supreme Court Trial Division Trial Division make a support order. Parties can agree in a separation agreement. A will pay B $200 a month and the support enforcement agency will agree to take that and enforce it, because the parties agreed, in their separation agreement, that it would be filed with the Support Enforcement Agency, and that happens today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From the minister's comments, though, is the minister suggesting that it is not necessary that an order be filed with the court? For example, if there is an agreement between the parties, as a result of a mediated agreement with the assistance of the social arm of the court, or simply an agreement whereby both spouses, by virtue of a separation agreement, agree as to what the quantum of support should be, is the minister suggesting that that alone will be sufficient to have enforced in other jurisdictions? Or, is it still necessary to have that agreed upon document supported by - if I could use that word - a court order to allow enforcement in other jurisdictions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, there has to be some recognized acceptance by somebody, whether it be an administrative body or a court, that the parties have entered into this legitimate agreement, even in a case of separation agreements. You may agree in a separation agreement to pay your support and you both may willingly say in your separation agreement that we will file it with support enforcement, but everybody still does, in fact, file it with the court. A copy of it still gets filed with the court. It does not stipulate here whether it comes from mitigation counsel or remediation, remedial counsel or whatever, but any document - the intention here is that anybody who agrees to pay support willingly and signs a document, whether it be through a court process, a separation process or whatever accepted mediation process, that you file your documents obviously then with the court. My understanding is that even in mediation, if you agree to support, you file it with the court. The court then usually ends up with a record of what you have agreed to. That is the whole process, that you did not use the court process to arrive at your decision, you stepped outside the courtroom through mediation, resolved what your differences were, came to your agreements with the help of mediation, but the court still finds out what was mediated.

In that case, similar to a separation agreement, the court gets notified of what you have agreed to and also the Support Enforcement Agency will get notified. Regardless of how it comes about, the order, if it is a legitimate order, through mediation, separation or a court order, if it is accepted here in our jurisdiction, it will be accepted in the reciprocating jurisdiction.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's. East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let's just expand upon this for a moment, if we may. If, in fact, a document is filed with the court - let's say it is a mediated agreement - and that is the base document that is used for enforcement purposes, in the absence of a court order that simply, perhaps, may only recognize the existence of a mediated agreement, or simply confirms the provisions of a mediated agreement in the absence of a supporting court order, would it then not be difficult to apply for a variation of an order when, in fact, there is no court order that has been filed with the court, notwithstanding the fact that we do have, perhaps, a separation agreement or a mediated document simply agreed to by both parties?

My question, again, for the purpose of this definition, and to ensure that claimants in this Province who may be seeking support from individuals in other jurisdictions - wouldn't it be absolutely necessary to have an order filed, although only a supporting document on an agreed upon arrangement, simply to allow for: (a) the enforcement, because of the wording that is used in this act; and, perhaps, more importantly, to deal with the variation application, because variation states specifically, it is a variation of a court order?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we have stepped now from the realm of the definition section into other parts of the act, but we cannot look at one in isolation of the other. For example, Part I, in answer to your question, hopefully, deals with the issue of Claims Where An Order Does Not Exist. So, there is a whole bunch. In fact, there are five or six pages in here as to what happens and what the process is going to be if an order does not exist.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but there is also a provision in the act which deals with the protocol and the process to be used if you do not have a support order. There are two circumstances under this act: if you do or if you do not. Part I deals with where you do not.

Mr. Chairman, if it is helpful at all, I do not mind - I do not know if this is the right forum to do it in but, obviously, we have other than just definition sections here. Understanding the full scope of the act, it might be beneficial if myself and the Justice critic spoke, if he wished, to have a conversation and then come back and review these matters in more detail, if that is what he would prefer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, under section 3, "The minister may designate a court or courts in the province for the purpose of proceedings under this Act," is the minister contemplating courts other than what, in fact, are the courts that deal with support issues? Are there, in fact, changes being envisaged at this present time, which is why this particular section is found under section 3?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: The only, shall be say, possibility is intended for other jurisdictions, not our Province. We have three levels of court now that deal with support orders: Provincial Court, Supreme Court Trial Division and, in the St. John's area, we have the Unified Family Court that deal with these types of issues. There is consideration - and I am sure most people saw the announcement just last week by Minister Cauchon where they are going to actually create forty-six more Unified Family Courts across the country. So, they knew that was coming in terms of Unified Family Courts. It is put in here so that as those courts get rolled out in the other jurisdictions, they will designate their new Unified Family Courts to be support-making bodies, as well, but here in the Province absolutely not. We have three and the intention is to keep the three levels of courts we have: Provincial, Unified and Supreme Court Trial Division.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On the issue of jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman, there is an appeal provision that is found in section - if I can find it. I am looking for the appeal section. Anyway, it is there towards the end under appeal issues. I cannot find the section right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 37.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Section 37. Yes, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I notice there is reference here that the court of reference for appeal issues will be the Court of Appeal. Am I reading that correct, Mr. Minister?

For example, section 37.(1) states, "A party to a proceeding under this Act or the designated authority may appeal to the Court of Appeal a ruling, decision or order of the court under this Act."

I am just wondering - and again I am seeking clarification from the Minister of Justice - if, in fact, we have Provincial Courts dealing with issues of support, and obviously Provincial Courts should because they are accessible courts in many parts of the Province where our Supreme Court and Unified Family courts do not exist, I am just wondering if the Provincial Courts of this Province deal with these issues, how is it that the next appeal court is the Court of Appeal as opposed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, which is a court that is much more accessible to all of the people of the Province simply by virtue of geography?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that again is for the purpose of uniformity, because we had different levels of court in different jurisdictions that make the court orders. We do not know, for example, it may have been a case in Newfoundland where a Provincial Court made the original support order; an appeal, as you suggest, would logically then go to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court before it would go to our Court of Appeal.

You are also going to have circumstances where the orders might have been made originally in the Supreme Court in the matter of a divorce, in which case the automatic next level of appeal would be your Court of Appeal. To avoid any confusion, and to avoid having different levels coming from different places across the country, all provinces have agreed that, rather than get into a time-consuming appeal process, if there are any appeals from any orders made under this jurisdiction, every province will use their Court of Appeals to settle it once and for all, even if there might have been normally an intermediary step in here. If you, for example, want to appeal Provincial Court, it would mean you would have to go to a Trial Division of the Supreme Court, then you would have to go to a Court of Appeal, all of which, in the context of what we are dealing with here, which is support legislation, is not only expensive, is not only time-consuming, it delays what the intention of the legislation is, which is to resolve it quickly. So the Province has said: Let's get rid of these bi-levels or tri-levels of appeal and let everybody agree that we will go immediately, if there is an appeal here, to our Court of Appeal and end it once and for all in each Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some issue, though, with the comment made by the minister in terms of it being time-consuming and perhaps the Court of Appeal being a court that is more accessible. It seems to me, and although this may contradict perhaps what is found in other similar legislation in other provinces, it just seems to me, in looking at our own Province, that clearly the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland would be a court that is certainly more accessible, again in terms of geography. We have seven such courts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We have only one Court of Appeal here in St. John's. When the minister talks of time and cost, it seems to me that, simply by virtue of geography alone, the Trial Division would be a court that would lend itself more favorably on the issue of accessibility for claimants who want to question and raise the issue once again in response to the issue having been dealt with at a provincial court level.

Again, I have some difficulty understanding why the Court of Appeal itself is the designated appeal court when we are dealing - I understand it would have to be for Trial Division or Unified Family Court determinations, but for Provincial Court determinations why the Trial Division is not identified as the appropriate appeal court seems somewhat puzzling.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is no puzzle to it. Everyone has decided, there is only one Court of Appeal in any province in Canada. If you live in Newfoundland and you are out in Port aux Basques and you ran into this problem, you would have to go to St. John's for an appeal. If you live in Northern British Columbia and you run into this problem, you have to go to Victoria.

The geography argument, that is part of the rationale here, that everybody has difficulty with geography throughout the country when it comes to accessibility to the courts. Geography was not a consideration. The greater consideration is who, in any jurisdiction that we are going to be dealing with, has the ultimate authority to make a decision on the order, and that is the Court of Appeal of any jurisdiction.

It ties in as well, not only with Canada, it ties in with the foreign jurisdictions. For example, if you end up using this order to go after somebody in Massachusetts on a support order and you have to go through the levels of appeal, the support will not be the issue because there will be no kids small enough to require the support by the time you get through the multi-tiers and levels of support and appeals in the United States, between your state courts and your federal courts and your supreme courts. So, the idea is, in any jurisdiction, if it is Massachusetts you go to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Massachusetts who would be dealing with family issues. In Canada, the same thing in any jurisdiction.

That is one of the problems we had before, the complexities, and where do you go and what courts were you involved with for months and sometimes years? That is why they chose to go to the highest level of authority in any jurisdiction.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Despite the efforts of the hon. minister, I am not convinced on this point, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the very comments that are being made and the very justification that the minister is making only supports the points that I think we are making, that the Trial Division would be an accessible court and would be a court that would much more readily deal with the issues of appeal; but it seems to be, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is determined to abide by what apparently is found in, I guess, all other legislation in Canada which, I would like to say at the outset, does not necessarily make it perfect legislation, Mr. Chairman. If there are changes perhaps that ought to be considered in our own jurisdiction for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we ought to seriously consider that.

Mr. Chairman, under section 12, it is an interesting section and it deals with the whole issue of parentage. It states, under 12.(1), "Where a child's parentage is in issue and has not previously been determined, the court may decide that issue." Of course, it does become necessary in disputed cases where the issue of child support is being raised and the issue of parentage is often raised, it is an issue that a court will have to deal with in order to deal effectively with the issue of child support. The wording of may, however - I do wish to question the minister with respect to section 12.(1), because it states, "Where a child's parentage is in issue..." so, obviously in 99 per cent of the cases it is not an issue, but if it becomes an issue it states that, "...the court may decide that issue."

I am just wondering if the minister would comment on the wording of that section because if, in fact, the issue of parentage is an issue, how does the court deal with a determination of child support if, in fact, the issue of parentage has not been determined? Therefore my question is: Ought there not be an obligation on the court to deal with the issue of parentage in cases where either it is not resolved or has not been determined, and it is then up to a court, on the basis of evidence, to make a determination, wouldn't it be more appropriate for a court to be put in the situation that it must? Therefore simply changing the word from may to shall. Obviously if parentage is an issue, it is questioned by one of the two spouses or one of the two partners, why is a court left open to perhaps deal with it as opposed to having the obligation to deal with it in order to conclude the issue of child support?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose sight of the intention of this piece of legislation. It is to simplify the process of someone having a support order made. Section 12 is permissive by using may for that very reason. The court may want to expedite things and get the support order made and does not want to get into the technical DNA type orders for testing to prove parentage. The court may feel warranted, based upon the evidence that it has before it, that it has sufficient evidence to make an order now without making a definitive decision on the parentage. But in section 12.(2), it is made quite clear, that order is not cast in stone because it says, "A determination of parentage under this section has effect only for the purpose of support proceedings under this Act." Again, it is done for the purpose of expediting what we are trying to do here, which is get support matters dealt with in a timely fashion, but if parentage is a legitimate concern, the person who has been ordered to pay support still has a right to contest this at any step of the way but they are not putting the onus upon the court who is involved in this reciprocal enforcement legislation of getting into the nitty-gritty detail of proving someone's parentage. The purpose of this legislation is to expedite support orders and getting payments for kids, not slowing it down.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the argument to expedite an issue, however, certainly it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that one has to question how an issue of support can be effectively dealt with when one of the parties to the action is seriously questioning the parentage of the child. We can expedite proceedings all we want; however, if decisions are being made in the absence of absolute evidence and absolute proof which confirms parentage that would then allow the court to proceed with a support order, it seems to me that it could be somewhat counterproductive because what ultimately can happen is that there is a provisional order made, the court has made a determination which is found to be perhaps incorrect or subject to reversal upon appeal, only to find out that we have an unusual situation where support payments are made only to be found that the recipient of that order must reimburse the payer simply because the issue of parentage has yet to be determined. The wording Mr. Chairman, is somewhat unusual. However, let's move on and deal with a few more other sections.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to section 33 which deals with the issue of support order. It states in clause 33(1) "On the conclusion of a hearing, the court may, in respect of a party or a child or both, (a) make a support variation order; (b) make an interim support variation order and adjourn the hearing to a specified date; (c) adjourn the hearing to a specified date without making an interim support variation order; or (d) refuse to make a support variation order." But, under subsection 33.(2) it states: "The court may make a support variation order that is retroactive."

I guess my question, seeking clarification from the minister, is this: When subsection 33(2) states that a support order is retroactive, is it retroactive from either (a) when the application has been made by the claimant or (b) is it retroactive when an application has been heard in court but not determined by a court - in terms it can be retroactive to when the issue came up in court - or is it retroactive to when the application was first made? Or, for that matter, is it retroactive to when there was an obligation under the agreed upon document and just was not, perhaps, brought forward by the claimant?

This issue of retroactivity, I know it is an interesting issue, Mr. Chairman, even in dealing with support issues today, not even talking about reciprocal orders but just ordinary support applications. Often, you know, a spouse will say in his or her application: Is it possible for me to get retroactive payments? Perhaps a father has not paid for twelve months but after a twelve-month period the mother then takes out proceedings in Unified Family Court or Provincial Court to seek, obviously, the support payments, either to vary them or to make sure that the order is enforced. Often the issue of retroactivity is raised. Is the claimant/spouse penalized for twelve months because he or she did not take out the application until twelve months later? Therefore, are payments then retroactive to that, or are they only retroactive to when the application is brought forward? I wonder if the minister could make some comments with respect to the concept of retroactivity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

It is my understanding that there are no limits, on the judges making the order, as to when the support would have started. If he feels, based upon the evidence that he hears, for example, that it should have been from the day the parties separated, that this person should have been paying support, is within his or her parameters to do that. If he feels that there was fault on the part of the person who was looking for support, for example, in the sense that they waited for six months before they came looking for anything, it is up to him then if he says: Okay, your support shall start as of this date because you waited six months before you did anything. If he files the application on January 1 and does not get into court until June 1, it is up to the judge to say: Based upon these facts, you filed your papers back in January, why should I deny you from January to June because we did not get around to hearing it until June.

Retroactivity is there for that very reason, to allow judges to use their common sense, to look at all the facts as to who is seeking support, when did they come seeking it, and when is the best and most appropriate time that they should be entitled to this. We leave that to our judges. I think that is the right party to leave it to because they hear all the facts.

There is all kinds of provisions throughout this piece of legislation, that at any point in the process that a judge is not satisfied that he has all of the facts, he can halt the proceedings and go back and request that the parties provide the information that he needs. I suggest that we do not have too many circumstances in this country where judges make support orders without having what they feel is all of the necessary information. Again, this piece of legislation is here to help those seeking the support, not the deadbeat dads who have run away. The courts are not into protecting or doing everything possible to stretch out the period of time that the deadbeat dads may have for not paying their support.

The purpose of this legislation is, when we get you in a courtroom, when we get you in a position where we can put an order on you to pay up, we will look at all of the facts, we will decide as judges what is reasonable. If it means that is has to be retroactive because we could not catch you before now or whatever, we will make the order. That is the intention here, to get the support and get it from when the judge feels is the appropriate period of time, and do not allow people, intentionally, deliberately, to use pieces of legislation to stymie what is the good intentions of it, i.e. recover support for people who need it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chair, I know my colleague from Lewisporte has a few points on appeals, so I will leave that particular point for him now in a few moments.

Under section 38, under General Matters it states, "The minister may appoint one or more persons to act as the designated authority in the province for the purpose of this Act." In keeping with the definition of designated authority, and I guess the explanation in part that was given by the minister a little while ago, section 38 certainly contemplates, perhaps, the opportunity being given to the appointment of one or more persons, perhaps other than the designated authority now, which is the Support Enforcement authority which is housed in the City of Corner Brook.

I guess what I am saying, Minister, is, is it possible that either a separate agency would be established to deal with reciprocal orders as envisaged under this legislation, or is it more in keeping with the agency that we have now in place to ensure for the purposes of cost perhaps, and ensuring that all these issues remain under one roof? Is the thinking of the department that this act will be dealt with and continue to be dealt with under the existing Support Enforcement Agency, or is there thought being given to the establishment of a separate agency to deal with enforcement of this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the only thought and intention pursuant to Section 38 is to have one designated authority, i.e. the Support Enforcement Agency which currently exists in Corner Brook.

I would point out, however, that under section 38, subsection (2), "A person appointed under subsection (1) may, in writing, delegate a power or duty under this Act to another person or persons." So we fully anticipate that whoever is the head of the Support Enforcement Agency at Corner Brook will indeed appoint people in other parts of the Province, for example, in Goose Bay where there is a Supreme Court, or in St. John's where there is a Unified Family Court, may well appoint somebody to help him carry out and ensure the free flow and the proper movement of the documentation under this act. There is not any intention to create more bureaucracy. The intent here is to use what we already have.

In fact, the Support Enforcement Agency and the people who work at it here in Newfoundland are 100 per cent behind this legislation because, as you are aware from various reports that have been filed in this House, one of the big difficulties with our Support Enforcement Agency is they try their darndest to collect these monies on behalf of the claimants who come to them but they are stymied quite often. All that is happening is the accounts receivable to these claimants are getting higher and higher every year on the books of Support Enforcement. So, they see this as a very useful tool to help them do their jobs.

That is our only intent is one agency and that is the one in Corner Brook unless they need someone to help them to do the administration to make it easier for the people who want to use this act in other parts of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the minister in his response and I agree with his comments totally, because it would seem to me that, obviously, issues of support have to be dealt with in one location and have to be administered, I guess, from a group of individuals who work together, have developed some degree of expertise and are prepared to deal with this; notwithstanding, again, very often we do hear complaints, I suppose, from individuals who find that the procedure is somewhat time consuming and somewhat frustrating, and, of course, the whole issue of child support is a very contentious issue.

On that note, I know that, in dealing with the Support Enforcement Agency here in our own Province, we do have a very dedicated staff who, certainly, works its best and its hardest to meet the demands of the public. However, it would seem to me, though, Mr. Chair, that there ought to be, I guess, a form of monitoring put in place, and the minister and his officials ought to ensure that, to protect, I guess, the interests of the public and to ensure that the public is being serviced as well as it can be. There should be a monitoring mechanism put in place to ensure that what is being done is effective and it is the most effective way to deal with the needs of the people of this Province who are dealing with very sensitive issues of child support.

We are dealing, of course, with parents and claimants who are frustrated, perhaps, largely from the very type of issue that this legislation contemplates, dealing with parents who live outside the jurisdiction, perhaps living in Fort McMurray, Alberta, or living in Toronto, Ontario or living in Edmonton, Alberta. They abdicate their responsibility for child support and it causes and leads only to frustration on behalf of those claimants who live here in the Province and who seek redress, not only from the courts, but, ultimately, as well, from the Support Enforcement Agency.

Mr. Chairman, there is an intriguing section that I would like to refer to the minister. It is under section 46 and it talks about other remedies that may be available. It states that, "This Act does not impair another remedy available to a person, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province or territory of Canada, a jurisdiction outside Canada or a political subdivision or official agency of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, of a province or territory of Canada or of a jurisdiction outside Canada."

I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments to this particular section, when it states that the act does not impair another remedy available to a person. I would be interested in hearing from the minister what he envisages other remedies to be that would, indeed, be outside the scope of this legislation and outside the purview of what is intended under this act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, the intent of this legislation is to, as I say, expedite, hopefully, the recovery time that someone has to wait to get their support. If a party feels at any time that they have another remedy, if they feel they want to go to the other jurisdiction to sue, if they feel they want to hire their own lawyer, if they feel that going the route alone themselves is more beneficial to them than what this legislation does, that is their prerogative. It is not to insist that you must do this at all cost, because there may well be people in the system who do not want to use this system. They do not want the bureaucracy. Maybe they feel they want to follow their own route. All this is saying is, any other remedy you have, do not think that we are going to impair your remedies here. This is another tool that we think will be of assistance to you, if you want to use it, and I am sure that many people will use this route. Because it simplifies things, they will use it. It is not to take away from any rights that a person might have.

I notice that person is defined here both ways. Person might not be taken to be the person who is necessarily using this system to expedite it. Maybe the person whom the money is being sought from may feel they have a remedy too. For example, in the case of the parentage, maybe the person whom support is being sought from feels that I am not the father of that child, in which case any remedy they have as well can be utilized. So, you are not taking away rights. We are here to create a tool to help people enforce their rights and expedite it.

The bottom line here, that we cannot lose sight of - we can get caught up sometimes in intricacies and what ifs - we cannot lose sight of the fact that the purpose of this legislation is to expedite things, to simplify things, and to make it useable easily by the vast majority of people who need it. We are sure and certain, the same as any law that we have ever passed here, that if people want to they will find loopholes with it to try to beat the system again. We are sure that is going to happen in the courts across this country in the next number of years. What we have tried to do here is to make it a system that is so simple that hopefully they will not be able to find any of those loopholes and that it will benefit the people it is intended to benefit.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to reserve my further comments, Mr. Chairman, until afterwards. I know my colleague from Lewisporte has a couple of points as it relates to the Court of Appeal. I will now defer to my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no interest in delaying, for any great amount of time, the passage of this piece of legislation. I spoke on it in second reading last week, and generally I indicated that we were supportive of the legislation as progressive, good legislation, but I could not help but wonder, as I listened to the minister explain to my colleague the rationale of all jurisdictions across Canada identifying their Court of Appeal as the appropriate body to appeal a decision to. The justification for that kind of escapes me, and for this reason: What about if there are hundreds of those orders appealed and they end up, of all places, in our Court of Appeal down on Duckworth Street? How soon are they going to get heard?

The Court of Appeal - I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but - our Court of Appeal seems to me to be relatively limited in the amount of work that it can do in a month or six months or whatever. If there were to be - and I do not know whether there will be or not, only time will tell, but was any thought given to the fact that many hundreds of people may not like the order that comes down from the appropriate court, whether it is a Provincial Court or not, and feel that they want to appeal it, and they have a right under the legislation to appeal it.

If hundreds of those people end up with a case before the Court of Appeal down here, it is not going to have the effect, I do not think, I say to the minister, of being expeditious. It is not going to have the effect that the minister wants it to have, because it is my view that the Court of Appeal is certainly limited in the amount of new work that it can take on, and if hundreds of people, maybe thousands of people, would be dissatisfied with an order and they are going to exercise their legal right to appeal it, what is going to happen when it hits the fan down in the Court of Appeal?

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I notice, under section 3, it talks about, the Province can designate a court that they want to deal with this act. I guess it is half a dozen of one and six of the other. We say, if we designate a Provincial Court only to deal with these matters and then if somebody wants to appeal we end up in our Court of Appeal, bypassing our Trial Division, we can designate, if you wish, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court as the court for this act, if we want, and then the Court of Appeal has the appeal matter mechanism which would then be automatic. There is no bi-level. We would have to go to our Court of Appeal if that happened anyway, if we designate our Trial Division as the court that has to administer this act.

Most jurisdictions feel that by designating both your Provincial and your Supreme Courts and your Unified Family Courts as courts that can deal with this act, you are giving a broader expanse and accessibility to the people who use it, so the person in St. Anthony, for example, does not have to travel to Corner Brook to go to a Trial Division to get this thing done for them, if they want to use that court. So, I guess it is a matter of where you start. You can start at the Trial Division if you want, so that your Court of Appeal is your automatic level that you have to go to next. We feel it is better to give every court that deals with family law matters the right to deal with these matters now because it gives greater accessibility to people.

In terms of numbers, we do not know. I would suspect that most of the appeals that are going to come from this are going to be those persons who, first and foremost, had to be tracked down because they abdicated their responsibility. So there is a portion of people who are supposed to pay their support but do not. They have left this jurisdiction and ran off to wherever, for whatever reason. The purpose of this act is to get at those people.

In comparison to all the people who pay support, thank God, most people pay their support obligations. We are dealing with a number who do not do it, so we have had to track them down, shall we say, if we get to this point to use this legislation, and some judge - it is usually not going to be, I would suggest, the applicant who wants to appeal, because that is the intention here. We know the guidelines, and 99 per cent of the time the person seeking support knows what they are going to get because they know how many children they have. They know their financial circumstance. They have applied the guidelines, and they know they are entitled to x number of dollars a month. It is going to be that 1 per cent who are upset because some judge in some reciprocating jurisdiction made an order against him.

So, I think in terms of numbers, we are dealing with a very small number of people who are going to be appealing. Quite frankly, if we are dealing with 1 per cent of the non-paying deadbeat dad - I use that expression of the world - who want to appeal, and if that 1 per cent is not satisfied because some judge, using established guidelines, using established documentation that has been provided to him by a claimant, decides that someone has to pay x amount of dollars in accordance with the legally established guidelines is upset and has to appeal, and it necessitates that he has to go to a Court of Appeal to do it, I am not too upset about that. Yes, he ought to have his rights or her rights to justice, no question about it, but I would suggest it is a very small number -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: We never know, I guess, when we do any piece of legislation, I say to the hon. member, what the ultimate impacts of it might be. We do things hopefully in good faith. In this case, ten jurisdictions - at least in this country - thirteen, counting the Territories, have agreed that this is good model legislation to start with. We will iron out some of the wrinkles as we go.

I would make a comment as well, in regard to our Court of Appeal, that if I had to appeal a matter such as this today, given what I understand to be the workloads in any court in this Province, I would take my chances going to the Court of Appeal, because the Provincial Courts - we have twenty-four courts in the Province, judges, and they do 95 per cent of all cases that are dealt with in this Province, done in Provincial Court. The other 5 per cent finds its way into the Supreme Court Trial Division or the Unified Family Court, who are extremely busy. You cannot get a date in Unified Family Court unless you are four or five months out, whereas in the Court of Appeal, probably for the first time in the last five years, they are not that busy in comparison to those other levels of court. In fact, I believe, the last docket that they called, at least in September month when they called the docket, I think there were actually four matters called in September.

If we get the onslaught, I agree, we will have to do something about the number of judges we have made available, but I think the system is good. I think we are going to be dealing with small numbers. If it does not work, obviously, that is the purpose of Legislatures, to monitor these things so that if it does not work and the system is not working, this is about unclogging the system and making the system work to expedite support orders. This is not about trying to clog up our court system, trample people's rights, or keep people from getting their support orders in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just, I guess, to summarize and perhaps repeat the point that was made by my colleague from Lewisporte, and perhaps it in some way may be an effective way to deal with this, that is, again to use the example - the hon. minister used St. Anthony, but let's use Marystown where we have a Provincial Court and we have a Supreme Court Trial Division in Grand Bank. Using that geographical example in the Province, what the minister is suggesting is that if a party wishes to appeal a decision under this act, that the person who lives in Fortune, or in St. Lawrence, or in Lamaline, who wants to appeal the decision must now go the Court of Appeal in St. John's as opposed to the Trial Division in Grand Bank. Therefore, perhaps what may be an appropriate way around this is under Section 37 where it states, for example, to "...appeal to the Court of Appeal." Maybe we could say: We could appeal to a Court of Appeal. Then we could define what is meant by an appellate court for the purposes of this act. If we have a decision that is rendered in a provincial court of this Province, an appellate Court could be the trial division. If we have a decision that is rendered by or being dealt with either by the Unified Family Court or a Trial Division Court, the designated Appellate Court would then be the Court of Appeal.

It seems to me what this allows, Madam Chair, is an option for a claimant, an option that may be available for an appellant. Again, if geography and costs are considerations the person can then choose that if a decision is coming from the provincial court it can then be dealt with in the nearest Trial Division. It seems to me that it is something that the minister may want to take into account to deal with the very points that were raised by my learned friend from Lewisporte.

On that note, Madam Chair, I have concluded my comments at Committee stage and I will leave any further comment to my colleagues on this side.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders." (Bill 30)

On motion, clauses 1 to 51 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 18, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)

MADAM CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say a few words on this particular bill in Committee, because I think there are probably a few things that have happened since we had debate in second reading here. I notice the minister is listening and I would like for him to probably answer a few of my questions as it relates to this particular bill.

I do not know if the other piece of legislation, known as the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, ever mentioned the word FANL, but if it did or it did not, it is not an issue now. I notice here we are using the word processors. The word employers is replaced by the word processors and trade union by an association and the employees by the word fishers.

Madam Chair, it is my understanding that when this piece of legislation was brought about, that FANL was probably the association or the organization that represented most of the, I should not say most but the larger processors in the Province. I think of Daley's, I think of Barry's, I think of FPI, and I think of Quinlan's.

In negotiations, where we had the Final Offer Selection, which is what this piece of legislation is all about, FANL, I understand, would put forward a price on behalf of the processors and the union would put forward a price on behalf of the fishers or harvesters, and then the Final Offer Selection would come into effect, if there was no settlement on which price would be accepted. The way that would work: An independent arbitrator then would select one price or the other; either the price put forward by FANL or the price put forward by the union. There was no in-between. It was either one price or the other. As the minister stated and as we, on this side, have stated, it worked quite well.

It is my understanding now that a couple of those larger processors have opted out of FANL. I will not say the names because I am not even 100 per cent certain if what I am hearing is accurate or true, but the minister would certainly know that in his dealings with the industry and with those people on a regular basis.

I would like to ask the minister: If that is the case, if some of those larger processors now are not part of FANL, does he see this piece of legislation going forward in the next year in such a meaningful way as it has done in the past five years? In 1998, I think, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act was implemented and came into effect. Like I said, it has worked very well, but now if we have the majority of the larger processors not being a part of FANL, I am wondering how the minister sees this process coming together, where it will, again, work in a meaningful way and it will allow the fishing industry to continue to open on regular schedules and to allow fishers to harvest and allow us to access the marketplace at opportune times to get a good product in a timely way to, not only satisfy customers, but to put a good product on the marketplace so that we might compete, not only this year, but in years to come, as well.

Quality has always been a problem. Quality is probably one of the main reasons why this particular piece of legislation was introduced in the beginning. It was brought about, Madam Chair, where quality would be the order of the day and to look after this industry that has, in the past, been worth in excess of $1 billion to the economy of this Province.

I am wondering how that will unfold, who the representative will be for the processing industry. I mean, is it a situation now where we will bring all processors together and we will have a meeting? If that is the case and if they are not represented by some organization or by some group, then how is the process going to unfold in an orderly fashion so that it might allow this piece of legislation to continue to be the order of the day and to allow this very important industry to unfold and open in a timely way and continue to have good quality product go forward into the marketplace?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I would like to respond to the Member for Bonavista South. You wanted to know: Currently, as the act sits today, who may engage in negotiations? It is clearly defined in the current act, they are an association of fishers or a certified bargaining agent for fishers and a processors' organization or an accredited processors' organization. What we are doing here today, we are changing the definition of a party to include a single processor. We are doing that because it may be necessary to allow a single processor to engage in collective bargaining with the FFAW/CAW in the event that no processors' organization exists.

Of course, the idea of bringing this legislation to the House of Assembly is to ensure that our fishery starts on time in the spring. There is no other reason but to preserve the model. However, as I committed to the other day, Madam Chairperson, early January I will be contacting all sides who are interested in getting involved and doing a comprehensive review of this collective bargaining fishing act. I know that there will be a lot of items that will need to be addressed with further amendments, probably early spring or maybe next fall. Any items that you would like answered connected to the actual fishing part of the act itself, I am going to turn over to my colleague, the hon. Gerry Reid, the Minister of Fisheries. However, if there is anything towards collective bargaining, I will answer those and I think I have as a result of your question.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, just for clarification: I understand the way part of the process works and I know that part has not changed. The FFAW will represent the majority of the fishers, if not all of them in the Province. I am wondering how the process will unfold. I am still not clear, because I guess I do not know how it unfolded in the past. For my own information, in the past I know that all processors were not members of FANL. In fact, one of the largest processors in the Province was never part or hasn't been part of FANL for a number of years now. I am thinking of Beothuck Fisheries down in Valleyfield.

My understanding is that FANL was certainly the bargaining agent or the representative that put forward the wishes of most processors in the Province. In the past, was it a situation where all processors- if you were negotiating the price of crab, I say to the minister, for instance, would all crab processors come together and be a part of the bargaining and a part of negotiating where a Final Offer Selection would be put forward? Or would FANL, which represented the majority, especially of the larger processors, have made a presentation and say, here is what we would suggest, and then the smaller processors would accept that? They would have to, in order to go out and compete, because the larger processors, whether it is crab or whether it is shrimp, would certainly control the market. They would allow this industry to open and unfold and the industry would take place. If they did not compete, if they did not pay the same price, then they would be left behind because fishermen, naturally, would take their catch to where the season opened and where they could get a price that was agreeable to most of the processors.

What I am asking now, and what I want clarified is, with the present situation, where you have some of the larger processors that were a part of FANL, and it is my understanding they have opted out and are not part of this organization any more, how is it going to unfold now? How are we going to shepherd this piece of legislation along as it stands for another year? Is it going to be a situation now where all processors will come forward individually, or will they be called in as a group? How do we come up with a Final Offer Selection from a group of people who do not have the common bond of being involved in an organization to represent most of them? Who is going to take forward what price in order to be put forward as a counter-offer to what the union would put forward?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the Member for Bonavista South.

What this legislation did in the past was, it recognized a processor that represented 52 per cent of processors in the Province, which, in the case of previous legislation, was FANL. However, after receiving FANL's intention to opt out of this Final Offer Selection, we had to preserve this model. Now what this model will do is, it will allow any organization, or any single processor, to negotiate a Final Offer Selection.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chairperson, maybe the question I should direct to the minister is: Have there been processors who have opted out of FANL within the past number of weeks? Some of the processors who have been part of FANL, have been part of this organization, have been part of this process and have abided by legislation in the past, have some of those processors now opted out of FANL? If they have, I wonder if the minister would inform the House as to who they are, number one, and what percentage of the market did they process? Maybe we can start off with a line of questioning that way so we can be clear if this is accurate information or not.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In response to the Member for Bonavista South, I have not been officially notified whether or not members have left FANL, but there is a general rumour out there that two of the larger processors in the Province have indeed.

To get back to one of the questions that you asked earlier, the reason FANL negotiated with the union before was that FANL made up 50 plus 1 per cent of a particular species like crab. The members of FANL collectively processed 50 plus 1 per cent of the crab, and for that reason the union negotiated with FANL.

Unfortunately, FANL decided this year that they were going to back out of the Final Offer Selection. They gave us notification of that in October, that they were opting out at the end of this year. If we did nothing, what would happen in the spring of this year is that the union, the FFAW, would have to then go and negotiate with individual plant owners in the Province, and the contracts that were signed with each of these individual plants would not be binding on any other processor, and this could happen again this spring.

The mechanism part of Final Offer was, you sat down at the table with a particular company - FPI, for example - and you tried to negotiate a contract; but at the end of the day you could both, both the processor and the union, or either/or of them, could walk away from the table without a contract being signed.

What we are saying under this legislation, at least, whomever goes up to the table to negotiate with the union this spring, they use the Final Offer method so that as soon as they sit down, they know that there is going to be a resolution at the end of the day and that a price will be set. Most likely it will be binding on other fish processors, because you are establishing a minimum price.

If, for example, the union were to go to Beothic Fisheries in spring of the coming year and say: We want to negotiate the fish price with you, or the price for crab, and they agree to a minimum price, or it was set by an arbitrator, at the end of that day or at the end of a certain period of time, the price would be settled between the union and Beothic Fisheries, and it would be a minimum price. Obviously, then, any harvesters in the Province - if, for example, the agreed upon minimum price was $1.70 a pound, there is a good possibility that will be the minimum price for crab in the Province, because I cannot see any harvester then wanting to sell his fish product to another processor in the Province for any less than that $1.70 or that minimum price that was established between the union and Beothic Fisheries.

This spring you could very well have another organization, or a group of plants, who might come together to negotiate a price with the union. There is nothing in the legislation that says that a group of processors could not come forward and negotiate a price with the union. There is nothing to say that an individual plant could not come forward and negotiate a price with the union, but we think, even though this is not perfect, at least the price will be settled for those out in the industry who want to negotiate a price in the spring of the year. Rather than have the union and a processor sit down for a month and walk away from the table with no resolution or no price set for a particular species, it cannot happen under this legislation, because the minute they sit down they know, when they get up, a price will be settled. They will either agree with that price or an arbitrator will set that price.

I hope that clarifies what we are trying to do in this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, I know very well how the legislation is supposed to work. The only thing that would cause me some concern, and what I have been hearing out there, and I am not so certain the minister can confirm, then, if he foresees any problem with it. In the past we had an organization that controlled 52 per cent of the processing industry, known as FANL, and most of the processors, naturally, were part of that organization. This organization, known as FANL, would come forward and they would be the governing body or they would be the negotiating body, and when they settled then they controlled most of the processing industry.

I guess my question that I want to direct to the minister is: In light of what has happened now, who now decides what the minimum price will be? Is it going to be a processor who processes probably 10 per cent or 5 per cent of the crab, for instance, or the shrimp that is landed? Or, does the minister expect the people who are not part of FANL to come together as a group and have somebody identified and designated to be speaking on behalf of the group? Because, Minister, it could be completely different than what we have been used to in this piece of legislation working the past five years. Hopefully it will work well again, and hopefully it will not be a deterrent to the fishing industry opening and getting off at the right time and for the right reasons.

I guess my question is, again, to the minister: Do you have any concerns, if there is not a group of people known as FANL or some other organization, and if we are going to be negotiating with individual processors in order to settle a Final Offer Selection, is that going to cause some concern? Is it going to be confusing, or how do we decipher what the minimum rate is going to be? And, how will we determine whether those people are the people that represent the majority of interests within the industry?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the member opposite for his question.

The reason we are having to bring this piece of legislation in is because the majority of those processors who existed under FANL and controlled 50 plus 1 per cent - more than 50, plus 1 per cent - said they were opting out of the whole system. We were left with two choices. We either did nothing and in the spring of the year you would have no negotiations or, if you did, you had the possibility of having negotiations that would not be resolved at the end of the day, and would revert to the 1997 one. I think we were into July before we got the crab fishery started. So, as it stands right now, we did not say to FANL: Listen, we want you to opt out of this. They opted out themselves. In fact, we did everything that we possibly could to get them back in, to withdraw their letter. For reasons that probably would be better discussed with FANL members, they decided they were going to opt out of the Final Offer Selection model. We could not just sit here knowing that, before the season starts next year, or before we get back into the House of Assembly in the spring of next year, the fishery could start, especially for shrimp, because it starts on April 1. So, what we said - and everyone out there was aware of it - was that we would look at legislation to make the Final Offer model be the role of the day for whoever negotiates the price. Now, obviously we would prefer if every group, every individual plant owner out there, were to come together and say: Listen, we will act as the processors to negotiate with the union; but, we cannot force people to negotiate. In fact, in conversations with FANL just after they gave us the letter of opting out back in October, I said to them: Well, maybe we can bring in legislation to force FANL to negotiate with the union, force them, as a group, to negotiate with the union using the Final Offer method. They said: Well, you can pretty well force us to use the Final Offer method but you cannot force us to stay as a group and we could disband, so then you would not have a FANL to negotiate the shrimp prices or any other price in the spring of the year.

I am saying, that the legislation we have right now is not flawless but it is the best that we can offer in the spring of the year. At least, at the time, and I think even under labor relations rules and regulations, if the union were to pick a plant and say we want to negotiate fish prices with you, I think under the act that particular plant has to sit down and negotiate. What we are saying is: If you do, or if you have to, then you use the Final Offer method.

Hopefully, it will be a group that will come forward in the spring of the year. Hopefully, the majority of them will sit down at one time and negotiate a price with the union. We cannot force them, under legislation, to act as a group or the majority of them to stick together as a group. There is a possibility, yes, that one plant may sit down next spring and negotiate the price of shrimp with the union for that particular plant and then they would move to another plant. It is a cumbersome way to negotiate but it is certainly better than having to go to each of the plants and maybe after a month of negotiations both sides walk away from the table and have nothing resolved. At least this way, once you go into negotiations you know that negotiations are going to end at a certain time and we are going to have a fixed price, at least for that plant, because if the union and whoever negotiates with the union do not come to an agreement after a select period of time then the arbitrator sets in and he determines the price.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess, to say that we are dealing with a very complex situation would be an understatement. Crab pricing is a very complicated business. It involves assigning a value to a regulated commodity in a highly committed, competitive and volatile international marketplace, a marketplace that is certainly froth with a lot of uncertainty.

I can certainly empathize with the processors who are out there and do not want to be caught up in a non-competitive situation. I also can empathize with the fishers who want to make sure that they get a fair price for their product so that their business can be viable at the end of the season.

One of the problems that we have in this industry, especially the crab fishing industry, is the mistrust that has developed over the years between the sellers and the buyers. I know that it is natural in business for parties to try to protect their own interests and try to seek the best deal that they can, but, as most people here know, the crab fishing industry in this Province is not just another industry. It is the backbone of many municipalities in this Province. It is one of the few things that we have that is keeping people in their own communities. It is one of the few things that we have that is keeping those people employed. For this reason, Madam Chair, and because the stock of a finite night supply, it has to be regulated very closely. We have the federal government doing part of that regulation with respect to quotas and, on the other hand, we have the provincial government regulating the processing licensing part.

There are times, however, despite the regulations that the industry has operated on the free market principles - and the Minister of Fisheries referred to that a few minutes ago - a time when the picking and choosing was done according to quality, a time when setting prices was done according to the fluctuating demand in the market place.

Our competitors, Madam Chair, outside of the Province often have a free rein, a free rein that we have very little control over. Their actions can make things very difficult for the processors in this Province. Processors also would like to have a free rein to engage their competitors and generate as much success as they can for their own individual business. Some would argue that giving processors a free rein, though it might cause some great hardship in particular cases and in some communities, that some operators may not survive and others may just barely hang on to what they have.

The counter argument for that, I guess, is obvious, Madam Chair. If you let processors set prices, as they will, and open and shut down plants, as they will, then some fishermen will be ruined for want of a fair market price, especially fishermen who, over the past few years, have entered into long-term contracts for financing with some of those processors.

Madam Chair, we have come to view this industry as a social fishery, a social industry, an industry where we have control to the extent necessary to ensure maximum social stability and, at the same time, minimum social chaos. The processors and fishermen, in recognition of this fact, notice the harm that each would suffer from an industry wide shut down. They agreed four or five years ago to enter into the Final Offer Selection process. It was a voluntary abandonment of the right to let market forces dictate to a local price.

The fish processors felt, early this year, that they were getting a raw deal, so the mutual agreement feel apart. It has been obvious, too, for sometime now, that this was about to happen. It is not in the processors' best interests to have the industry shut down. We have seen shutdowns in the past and we know it could happen again this year in the absence of a price selection agreement. The processors seem now to have concluded that the risk to their enterprise of a bad price selection is greater than the risk of a shutdown in the absence of a pricing agreement. They feel that the selection process is unfair, that they are willing to risk having everything shutdown, but I want to say that, in my opinion, the processors or a number of them have brought this on, to a large extent, themselves.

If it comes to imposing tighter and tighter restrictions to instill stability, Madam Chair, we are again left with the question: What price are we paying, as a Province, for the government's failure to bring the parties together sooner and work out a solution? How much better the situation would be if everyone were to co-operate. Who is to blame for the lack of co-operation? Is it the fishermen who are trying to make a living and cover their expenses, is it the processors who are trying to keep their businesses afloat and make a profit, or is it the government which regulates this industry and has the social obligation to look out for the best interests of the people in a province that depend on the stability and prosperity of this industry?

Madam Chair, the minister is promising a review of the industry, but at this point in time the promise comes a bit late. I do believe what she said a few days ago, that the review will be done. Now we are caught in this situation, and it feels more like an afterthought than a serious initiative, more like a deflection of criticism than a genuine attempt at a resolution to the problem.

Madam Chair, we will vote yes for this legislation. We will vote yes in principle, on the condition that the parties understand our preference and our intention is to adopt a proactive approach that spends time wisely in concerted efforts to find co-operative solutions. Again, we will support the legislation because we know, and I know personally, what kind of chaos this Province will be left in with no pricing agreement when the season is about to start in April of 2003.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I had no intention of rising today, but I cannot ignore the comments that the Member for Bonavista North just made, because what he said is basically misleading and not entirely what has happened, when he said that we should have reacted sooner. In some way, he is trying to say today - and I do not believe it is him trying to do it. I think that there is someone behind him telling him to say this because I do not think the hon. member would do it. He is trying to give the impression in the public, while he waxes so eloquently here in this House this afternoon -

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: A minister can counteract whatever any member says on the opposite side, but he cannot leave the impression, which he has just left directly, that what the Member for Bonavista North said was not what he believed. What the minister just said, is somebody else behind him, directing him, as if the member is a puppet.

The member stood in his place and articulated his views, which represent the views of this House, on this side of the House. No one is directly him to say anything, and that is what the minister said about it.

The Member for Bonavista North stood in his place, based upon his experience in the industry, and we support what he said, as a caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I ask the member to do the right thing because what he has insinuated directly, and said, is that someone else is directing the member to say these things. It is not true and it is unparliamentary. He is casting aspersions and motives on the member that do not exist, in fact, in reality whatsoever.

So I ask the minister, when he stands again, to remove any reference to that because it is unparliamentary. He has every right, obviously, to defend his government's record on this issue. Whether I disagree with it or not is irrelevant, I defend his right to get up and do it, but don't be casting aspersions on members because you happen to disagree with what he said. Defend your government's record, and let the people decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Madam Chair.

I do not want to delay the House. It is obviously not a point of order. What the hon. the Minister of Fisheries was doing, indeed, was just the opposite of what the Opposition House Leader was saying. He was not casting aspersions; he was simply saying that if the hon. member had made some negative remarks, in his opinion, about the fishery, that he was excusing the member.

Madam Chair, I just want to point out that there is obviously no point of order. It is just a matter of the Opposition House Leader again trying to waste the time of the House.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The last few days I have been involved in debate here in the House of Assembly, I listen attentively and do not interrupt, but it seems that every time I stand to my feet, the members opposite rise on points of order that are later determined not to be points of order. I think the reason for that is to try and throw me off my way of thinking, but for the hon. member to say that we waited too long and this was a last-ditch effort, he knows the difference of that, Madam Chair. This started last spring when FANL gave an indication, both verbally and in writing, I think, to the Department of Labour that they were considering pulling out of the Final Offer Selection. I can tell the hon. member opposite that I have had numerous discussions with harvesters, as well as numerous discussions with processors, about the seriousness of this issue, the impact that it could have.

In fact, I have spoken to the company that the Member for Bonavista North worked for, for fifteen years on a number of occasions, on that. In fact, I met with some of the lead people in that company about three weeks ago and discussed the issue with them thoroughly, and I understand their concerns and they understood where we were coming from.

I said this earlier, it is not that this is a knee-jerk reaction late in the year. The reason this legislation was delayed coming into the House of Assembly until this late in the year is that we were hoping to negotiate or facilitate an agreement between FANL and the union so that we would not have to resort to these measures, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: It gives me no pleasure to have to bring in legislation - or my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour, to bring in legislation - to force somebody to do something. We did involve ourselves in extensive discussions with FANL and the union on this, not only in our offices but I have had calls late into the night with both the union and FANL - Mr. Allister O'Reilly. He can attest to that himself. We did everything in our power. We offered things but we could not - in fact, one of the main reasons that FANL is pulling out of the Final Offer Selection is because they applied for accreditation - and they had the right to, under the act, to apply for accreditation - and that accreditation request had to go before the Labour Relations Board, Madam Chair. When they applied for accreditation, there were a number of fish processors in the Province who did not want FANL to have accreditation because they were not part of FANL. Obviously, they did not want to accredit FANL as the bargaining agent for them if they were not part of it. The hon. member knows that, sitting across the floor, and this is why I find it a bit strange that he is up saying to me that we let this go. He knows the difference.

Anyway, FANL applied for accreditation. Because there were processors in the Province who did not want FANL to be the accredited body representing them, they launched an objection with the Labour Relations Board. Madam Chair, I could not tell the Labour Relations Board which way to act, and the Labour Relations Board came back and said FANL wanted an answer before December 31. FANL wanted to know if they were going to be accredited or not before the end of this calendar year. I could not force the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board decided that they were going to hold hearings on this issue so that they could hear from the other processors and individuals out there who did not want FANL to become the accredited member for processors.

The Labour Relations Board made the decision that they would hold hearings but they could not guarantee that the hearings would be concluded before the end of this calender year. I could not, Madam Chair, interrupt or interfere with the Labour Relations Board. I could not pick up the telephone and call the Chairman of the Labour Relations Board and say: Listen, we want you to accredit FANL, or we do not want you to accredit FANL; we want you to have this concluded by the end of the year, or we do not want this concluded by the end of the year.

I do not have the power, I do not have the authority, and I would not do that, Madam Chair. I would not do it, because to do any of those four things would certainly mean that we would have to throw out the Labour Relations Board, because what would be the point of having basically a quasi-judicial board determining labour, things pertaining to labour in this Province, if a minister of the Crown could pick up the telephone and call them up and say: Listen, we want you to rule this way, we want you to rule that way, we want you to rule by this period of time.

I explained that to FANL, and they said: No, guess what? We do not believe you. We do not believe that you cannot do this. We do not believe that you are not interfering with the Labour Relations Board. We do not believe that you cannot or that you have not interfered with the Labour Relations Board.

I can tell you, Madam Chair, I, for one, certainly did not, and no member on this side of the House did, because I would not do it for one thing, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: For one thing, I did not even know who was on the Labour Relations Board. Maybe I am remiss in my duties as a minister of the Crown, but I did not know who was on the Labour Relations Board. Do you know why, Madam Chair? I have never had to deal with it before, and I certainly could not call up people on the Labour Relations Board and order them to do something. That is not how this government works. That was one of the main reasons that FANL decided they were going to pull out of the Final Offer Selection, and we have dealt with this day in and day out for the last four, five or six months. For the member opposite to be standing in this House of Assembly today and saying that the reason this happened is because too little, too late. I find it insulting, insulting not only to me but insulting to the members -

MR. HARDING: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: I would like to tell the hon. minister - and he is quite aware - the company that I worked with was not a member of FANL, and has not been for the past twelve or thirteen years. The company I worked with had no connection with FANL, so how would I know what talks you had with FANL on this matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't be making the statement, then, if you don't know.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Exactly, but you stood in the House of Assembly this afternoon and your very words were that I should have brought the parties together sooner. I am telling you, I did. I spoke to them both individually and together at times. I did not make any reference to the fact that your company, Beothic Fisheries, was a member of FANL, or if it was not. All I can tell you is that I spoke with the principals of Beothic Fisheries two, three or four weeks ago. I can tell you that. I did not cast any aspersion that Beothic Fisheries was a member of FANL. I did not say that here in the House this afternoon.

Anyway, for him to come out this afternoon and say that we waited right up until the last minute in this year to do something about that, it is just not fair to me, it is not fair to the officials in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and it is certainly not fair to the officials in the Department of Labour who spent many days and many nights working on this issue this fall. In fact, the member's staff, including the deputy minister, spent all weekend in this building doing exactly that, hoping that we could still salvage something and have this system stay in place for the coming year.

To be up here today saying that you acted too little, or you are promising to do this and you are promising to do that but we know you are not going to do it, look, we did our best on this one. If you talk to the people in the industry, if you talk to the processors inside and outside of FANL, and if you ask them to be truthful, they will tell you: Yes, he indeed - and my colleague, actually, did indeed - try to resolve this issue long before last Thursday when we brought this legislation into the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say a few words here. We supported this legislation in second reading and I just want to put on the record my support for this provision. I think, to be fair, in this particular circumstance, the government is responding to a situation that was created as a result of things that happened within FANL, within particularly the processor side of the fishing industry. It appeared as a result of these events, some of which the minister has described, that there was going to be a breakdown in what has been regarded as a very good success story the past five years, particularly by the fishermen, in that they now have an opportunity to establish the price for fish without having to tie up their boats and ruin themselves, ruin the season, and, not only that, potentially ruin the market.

We had a situation in 1997 where the boats were tired up for four months; the crab fishery did not start until July, by which time the crab shells were soft, the product was not very good, the market had been waiting for months for Newfoundland and Labrador crab. It was a very serious circumstance that ultimately affected the price and caused a lot of fear within the situation.

You know, this is not something that has come on suddenly in some sense. I have a letter here from November 28, 2002, from Kirby Browne who is the chair of the 2J Shrimp Committee. It is a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier. He says in this letter that in 1996, in the absence of an agreement, some harvesters resorted to selling their catch outside the Province. That year the union and FANL agreed to a process called Final Offer Selection. In our view, this process has worked well and to the benefit of all parties. We now learn that processors want to unilaterally scrap the system. We believe that this will send us back to those days of delayed openings and interruptions in this fishery which is now, more than ever before, so important to the livelihood of harvesters and plant workers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and to the very survival of many rural communities. We have to question the processors' motivation for doing so. We encourage your government to do what it can, whether by legislative means or otherwise, to ensure stability in this process and avoid the disruption of previous years. We urge you to act as soon as possible to put some measures in place, even if it is only for this next fishing season, for now. That is the sentiment out them amongst the fishers of the Province. Kirby Brown is the Chair of the 2J Shrimp Committee.

I have other letters from others in the fishery to the same extent, Madam Chair. This is something that was a sense of great concern out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that this process which worked was going to break down and, all of a sudden, we would be back to the bad old days. So, I think that the government's measure here, and I actually called for this action a week or so ago, given the fact that it is a very short timeline - this letter is dated November 28. The House opened sometime in mid to late November. We only have a few short sitting days to act. I think it is fair to say that the government did act, when requested to do so and prompted to do so in this House. I was not aware of all of the details of what went on behind the scenes, but it is clear that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries did have some behind the scenes action, as well, to try and resolve the problem without this happening.

The way the act is written and the way the legislation is written and the way the process goes, if this was not done now before Christmas, then the process could not be restarted in January. In fact, it would be off for another year. So, it was really vital that this legislation be brought in and brought in now. I, frankly, do not know what the government could have done, short of bringing the legislation in sooner, to prevent this from happening. It was anticipated, I suppose, as soon as the notice was given to the minister, that there would problems, but it was not clear whether it would be resolved quickly or not. Clearly, it has not been and I believe that this legislation is necessary and, in fact, vital, and would urge that we go ahead and pass it.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I just really wanted to stand here to respond to the Member for Bonavista North. I just want to say to members in this House: You know, you can do a lot of things in this House of Assembly but one thing you cannot do, you cannot legislate cooperation; you cannot legislate cooperation. For the benefit of the members of this House, I received that letter from FANL. It was dated October 10. You know, they were within their right to opt out of this Final Offer Selection. One of the provisions with that was that they would notify the Minister of Labour in writing, which they did. I respected their request, but I did not let it sit on my desk. Immediately, upon receiving that letter, I instigated a meeting right away. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I had several meetings with both sides, FANL and also the union and the Fisheries Inshore Council. Right up until taking this bill to the Legislature, we had hoped that FANL would change their mind but they have not.

I have to say, everyone has a vivid memory of the Mary Queen of Peace building, 1997, and since that we have had a system that worked, Madam Chairperson, but we still have to respect the right of FANL to opt out if they so chose. What I am saying here is, this is the best of the situation that we had at hand. We heard from processors and harvesters all across the Province who wanted us to stabilize the system so the fishery would not be in chaos for early spring. We did the best we could. We brought legislation forward that would ensure that we had a Final Offer Selection to deal with. That is what we have before us today.

We have also made a commitment that there are many things out there concerning the fishing industry and the collective bargaining, and that all stakeholders will have an equal opportunity to come to several meeting places and let us hear their issues. We will have an opportunity, early spring or next fall, to put all of those issues into new legislation and amend this act. To get us through this spring, which is most important to rural Newfoundland and our entire Province, Madam Chairperson, we had to deal with the situation at hand. This legislation will allow us to get our fishery off in early spring.

I think that is it in a nutshell. We did not delay in trying to get these parties to cooperate. They just did not see their way clear to cooperate and we had to deal with the decision at hand. This is what we have here today. I think we have the best legislation that we can bring forward to get our fishery off to a start in the spring.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, Order 16, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. (Bill 23)

A bill," An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province." (Bill 23)

Shall clause 1 carry?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We, on this side, in second reading, gave general support for this particular piece of legislation, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment support To The People Of The Province. We want, today, to engage the minister, if we could, in a number of questions relative to this particular matter. We still do have some concerns that the bill, of course, does not in all cases address the more fundamental issues of the economic and employment circumstances in the Province that leaves so many of our people, particularly in rural Newfoundland, dependent on social support. We wish that we could all have a solution to the unemployment problems in rural Newfoundland.

Certainly, we want to, again, at this stage of the bill, make that particular point because this legislation is intended - and indeed we do believe that it is a step in the right direction - to address some of the issues and to offer some support for those people out there in our communities who need help to be able to get into circumstances where they can get off the social support system into meaningful employment.

We wanted to note, as well, as we did at second reading, the terrible circumstances surrounding child poverty. While there might be some disagreement relevant to the stats as they have been communicated in this House, none of us, not any member on either side of this House, is happy when we read the high incidents of child poverty in our Province, standing at 26.2 per cent. It is indeed a very grave issue and a grave concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

At the second reading, I also mentioned the connection between the consequences of poverty in terms of illness and health costs. We also had a brief discussion, at that time, and I made some comment on the inadequacies of federal funding under the drastically cut, population based Canada Health and Transfer Program, the CHST program. Of course, as long as the Government of Canada continues to address those issues on a per capita basis, Newfoundland and Labrador will not be in a position to be able to adequately address not only the issues that this bill addresses but also our health care issues and our educational requirements as well.

At the second reading, I made mention, as well, of the seasonal nature of our economy in Newfoundland. I mentioned how we have little room for diversification. That is compounded by issues of geography, how widespread we all are, in small communities spread all throughout this Province including Labrador and the Island portion of our Province. This compounds issues of infrastructure needs and demographics and weather and all the other circumstances that impact upon being able to attain a job, being able to access a job, and being able to keep a job, a job that pays meaningful wages in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We did also mention that this bill will require some continued commitment of funding from the Province. There are very important principles laid down here, particularly in the enabling section of the act which is at beginning, in what I call the whereas section. That is different. I commend the minister for putting it there because it again outlines the philosophy and we believe that philosophy is a step in the right direction. We believe that is where we should be going and it is nice to see these statements there because they communicate for everybody the philosophy on which this bill is founded. However, I have to say to the minister, that we do want the government to acknowledge that there has to be a substantive commitment of funding if this piece of legislation is to be operative and have meaning for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Also, at second reading I made mention of all of the regulations that are mentioned here. At that time I said that the devil is in the details. Well, this particular bill will require thirty sets of regulations. I do not say to the minister today - I know he has not got it ready. There may be some drafts available, but when the bill is passed the regulations will then be drafted, they will be communicated and, hopefully, communicated to all people in the Province, communicated to all members of the House. The detail is going to be in the regulations, (inaudible) that we will develop regulations that will give strength to, and give support to, the enabling legislation that is contained in this bill.

Madam Chair, I did want to ask the minister if it is possible if we could go through, at Committee level, like we just did with the previous bill - for us to have some general statements and then he can react to these. If that is his wish then I would like, at this stage, to let him know that we do have an amendment that we are putting forward. The intent of the amendment - I communicated this previously to the minister and he has replied back to me - is that we would be asking the minister to include in certain sections, particularly clause 2(j) and clause 3(3)(a) and in clause 3(3)(f). We wanted to include references here to include self-employment. We believe, Madam Chair, that we should be encouraging people in Newfoundland and Labrador to include in their work plan or in, shall we say, their attempt to be able to find employment, the idea of self-employment.

In Newfoundland there is a great history of people finding their own jobs, a great history of people making their own jobs. Many people in rural Newfoundland survived in years gone by because they were able to make their own jobs, they had the skills. It might have been carpentry skills, it could be skills particular to the fishery, but they were able to go out and make their own jobs and be able to create their own employment. I think that we have to recognize, in this bill, that that is an important part that is not adequately reflected. I wanted to put forward that amendment to the minister now and ask him if he could give some commentary on the amendment and other issues that I have raised.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We, on this side, do not have too many concerns in terms of how the hon. critic wants to proceed, in terms of some people over there wanting to make some general comments on the bill itself. I guess it is probably fair for me to say, as minister, as long as they are not too inflammatory. We are doing the best that we can under the financial circumstances that we find ourselves in here in the Province. We try to balance all of the needs of the Province. We certainly want to do that.

The member referred to child poverty. I have said on many occasions, that nobody, especially this minister, is satisfied to see even one child in poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not make any difference whether it is one in four or one in five, one is too many anywhere in this country. We realize the challenges that we have in trying to overcome child poverty in the country but I am impressed, Mr. Chair, with the Prime Minister's verbal commitment to, I think, pretty well double the National Child Benefits next year. That will certainly have an impact on child poverty.

It is also worthy to note, Mr. Chairman, that when it comes to single parents with children, we are the highest of all the provinces in terms of income support, and we are actually fourth with single parents with two children. So, we are making progress even though it is not easy. It is difficult taking into consideration all the other challenges that we have in the Province. I do not want to belabour the issue, I guess. He had referred to the regulations and I am sensitive to some of the issues that we have and we are determined, as a government, to sort of streamline, I guess, is the proper word, the language and make the language more precise, better understood in regulations, looking at the challenges and the needs that these people on income support have.

I have no problem with the amendments put forth. I should, for the record, I guess, Mr. Chairman, read them into the record. It is clause 2(j) of the bill which is amended by adding immediately after the words "keep employment" a comma and the words and a comma "including self-employment,".

Clause 3(3)(a) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the words "keep employment" a comma and the words and comma "including self-employment,".

The third one, clause 3(3)(f) of the bill, is amended by adding immediately after the words "keep employment" a comma and the words and a comma, "including self-employment,".

For the record, Mr. Chair, I would like to point out - my hon. critic brought this forward - you will find in 3(3)(g), for those who are following the bill, what we refer to as a basket clause, that would have covered self-employment. Clause (g) says, "provide other programs and services that the minister may, as needs demonstrate, decide are appropriate." My hon. critic felt very strongly about self-employment being spelled out. For the information of the House and the public at large, we are already doing that. It is one of the things that we can do, we can accommodate.

The whole ambition here and the whole objective here is to serve clients. That is what it is all about. So, we do our utmost all the time to serve clients with dignity and respect and to make sure that they get the benefits that they deserve and to make sure that we are working with them in order to do an assessment of their skills where it is needed and help them with upgrading their skills, so they can be full participants in society.

So, I will listen, Mr. Chair, now to what my colleagues also have to say.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of issues that need to be raised on this bill at Committee stage. I will start by just making a few general comments in response to the two previous speakers.

The minister talked about the generosity of our social assistance rates or income support rates. I have to say, that is not the case at all. In fact, the one category that he mentions, a single parent with one child, saying that we are the highest rate in the country, that is not the case at all. In fact, we are the second lowest in the country. There is one way you might consider us being higher than other provinces, is as a percentage of the poverty line, and, in that case, yes. A single parent, one child, is at 73 per cent of the poverty line. That puts us ahead of some of the other provinces. In fact, maybe all of them in terms of a percentage of the poverty line for those provinces.

The poverty line varies from province to province, to the point where it is much higher in other provinces. A single parent, one child, in Quebec, for example, receives $3,000 more per year as the total welfare income, as a percentage in actual dollar, although as a percentage of the poverty line, Quebec's rate is at 57 per cent instead of 73 per cent because the cost of living differs from one province to another. In fact, we are the lowest in the country when it comes to single employables. When the single employable person receives 20 per cent, one-fifth of the low income cutoff, one-fifth of the poverty line, received by a person who is a single employable person. A couple with two children receive about 57 per cent of the poverty line and a person on disability receives 55 per cent. So a full 55 per cent than what is considered the poverty line for people on social assistance. Now, that is not a record to be proud of, and that is not something that we can rest our laurels on and that is not something that is acceptable in a Province where 85 per cent of the people going to food banks are in receipt of social assistance. This minister is responsible for these rates. I asked the Premier today these very questions. I did not find out, until I went out to talk to the media afterwards, that the minister tried to dismiss this statistic by saying: Not very many food banks in the Province responded.

Well, Mr. Chair, if you go by sampling techniques, in excess of 70 per cent of the food banks in this Province responded to that survey and the information was added to by information given by the Newfoundland Food Sharing Association. So, in any kind of survey, to say that we had a 72 per cent response rate is an accurate reflection to what is going on.

So this minister seems to be interested in trying to let people think that somehow or another things are not as bad as they really are in this Province. The minister's own consultation that was undertaken last spring states repeatedly, that the key messages received from participants in the consultation process were that there was not enough money on social assistance to meet the basis requirements of food, shelter, clothing and the other necessities, let alone buy toothpaste, shampoo, or other things that people need for personal hygiene. The fact of the matter is, that in this Province people are left pretty close to being destitute on social assistance. They are struggling to meet their basis needs and struggling to look after their children. That is why they are going to food banks. That is why their children have trouble participating in extracurricular activities. That is why the children and the parents are complaining about school fees. That is why the children do not have the kind of clothes they need to be able to go to school, because the social assistance rates are too low. They are too low. The amount available for rent, for example, does not meet the changes that have taken place in the housing market in this Province, particularly in the St. John's region. I only mention that, the St. John's region, because of economic factors, because of increased investment, because of economic buoyancy in some respects, the rents are in fact higher. The shortage of affordable housing is a fact well known to members of this House and well known to members who have been asked by individuals who try and get access to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units. The minister knows about it. I have to acknowledge that the minister of municipal affairs and housing knows full well the needs of people in this Province for social housing and he has worked hard to try and get a national program and supports a national program on housing, trying to get something going there. I only wish he would sign on to the National Housing Agreement to get that kick-started.

There are serious problems because the increase in rental rates for housing has gone up to the point were the average rent for a two apartment house in St. John's is fully $100 more than the maximum available for rent on social assistance; fully $100 more than the maximum available. I will not go in detail through the rates; these are really a matter for regulation. They are not covered by the act but I could not and I cannot let go, without comment, the minister's comments about how well we are doing in terms of how we are looking after people on social assistance because in fact we are not. We are providing to people on social assistance somewhere between 20 per cent of the poverty line income and, in the case of a single parent with one child, for some reason an anomaly, we have 73 per cent of the poverty line. I think that is not reflected in the other rates and I do not know why that is the case.

If you look at the actual amount of $20,000 - and $209 for a single person with one child, with a total welfare income, that includes Child Tax Credit and other benefits, it certainly seems to be that we are on a par with Prince Edward Island. In fact, we are $130 higher than Prince Edward Island and we are exactly the same as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, whereas Quebec and Ontario are about $3,200 higher. Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia are all at the same amount, about $3,200 higher, but in each case as a result of the poverty line being different, their percentage of the poverty line is, in fact, lower. Because the poverty line is actually lower in Newfoundland, that $20,000 produces a higher rate of percentage of the poverty line for a single parent with one child. I do not think that is anything to be particularly proud of, frankly, because of the anomalies in that particular rate.

The cost of living index has risen considerable in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen some benefits, yes, to the Child Tax Credit principally, which this government, after much criticism and calling for it through the Open Line, through press releases, through advocacy groups making representations, agreed that they would not claw back the Child Tax Credit, but that was the intention initially. To their credit, they changed their mind when the pressure was put on them to ensure the Child Tax Credit was available without a direct clawback. We do not see, as a result of that, other than being ahead of Prince Edward Island in the area of a single parent with one child, we do not see any remarkable rates for welfare incomes in this Province as a percentage of the poverty level.

These figures, by the way, are national figures. These are national figures organized and produced by the Canadian Council on Social Development, a national body with representatives from each province, including this one, which produces reports on an annual basis on welfare incomes across the country, and other issues, and provides, in fact, comparable statistics so we can look and say: Well, what are we doing in Newfoundland and Labrador compared to what is happening in Alberta and what is happening in Prince Edward Island and what is happening in Quebec? The Newfoundland and Labrador rates just do not stack up when it comes to particularly what is happening to single unemployable people where we are drastically low, at 20 per cent of the poverty rate.

Mr. Chair, what does this lead to? This leads to people disappearing. This leads to people taking off. This leads to young people living in parks. This leads to people who are homeless. This leads to people leaving the Province and ending up homeless on the streets of Toronto. That is what has happened. In fact, when we look at the year-over-year statistics in Newfoundland and Labrador, we see that about 3,000 people - 3,000 young people, in particular - who were on social assistance, disappeared. They do not show up any more. They are gone. They do not show up in the employment statistics. They do not show up anywhere. They, in fact, have disappeared from the statistics altogether and there is no explanation given as to what happened to them. These are young people whom, we assume, have dropped out of the system, have gone to Ontario, Alberta, or disappeared somewhere and are not really accounted for. There is not tracking being done as to what happened to them.

There was an enormous number of people cut off social assistance. The minister of the day agreed that the principal reason why they were off the social assistance system was because of changes in policy that this government undertook a couple of years ago. This is the kind of thing that is happening in this Province on social assistance, and these are things that this party, and this member, are going to continue to bring up, unpleasant though they may be, facts for the government, and unpleasant though they may be when they want to paint rosy pictures about good things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact of the matter is, there are an enormous number of people who are hurting and hurting badly every single day. That is why they are going to food banks. They is why they are complaining. That is why they have increased diseases, Mr. Chairman. That is why they have been increasingly susceptible to diseases. That is why they are increasingly susceptible to hospitalization and the use of medical services. That is why there are continuing problems that we have. We have not properly, in the real world -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will undoubtedly speak again in a few minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that this minister did not dismiss the fact that people are going to food banks in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was asked certain questions and responded appropriately. I do not think anybody is that naive, to think that there are not people going to food banks in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I do not need any direction or any lectures from the member opposite to know what it is like to be poor. I was raised on social assistance. My father became an invalid, crippled, disabled, at a very young age, so I do not need the member to tell me what it is like to face challenges anywhere in this Province. I was brought up in a time when challenges were great, when you had to travel some twenty-five miles by boat to see a doctor. I do not know if the hon. member would have ever experienced that, but I want to tell you that I understand and know the need that people have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when they are on income support. It is a challenge, but we are no different. We are no different than other parts of this country. We are different from P.E.I. and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because we are as large as these three provinces put together. When you want to deliver a program in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to compare us to P.E.I. as a single province, and to compare us to Nova Scotia as a single province, and to compare us to New Brunswick as a single province, then there is something wrong with the vision of those who do that.

I heard the Minister of Transportation talk the other day about some 23,000 kilometres of roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have invested some $500 million into health care in the last five years. Income support has gone from $108 million in the early 1990s to $207 million in 2003, and you are talking about a balance, and that is what we have to do, try and balance those needs. We are the highest or closest to the poverty line of all the provinces in the country when we talk about single mothers. We are the highest, the closest to the poverty line. We are fourth when we are talking about two children. What the member failed to mention was, he did not take into consideration the property taxes that we pay, the transportation that we pay, vision care that we pay. So, when all of these things are taken into consideration, then, it is all associated with cost. We are doing the best that we can do with what we have.

What this legislation does, it bounds the government by law, that every three years the rates will be reviewed in a very comprehensive way so we take into consideration all of these things, so that we can try to do better for those who are in need.

This minister has no illusions about what we can do, but I can guarantee you this, Mr. Chairman, that I am prepared to do whatever I can to help those who are in need. We have already increased, by $300,000, the support to people with disabilities so they can get into the workforce; supply them with supportive employment, over and above what was already budgeted. So, we are here to do what we can based on the finances that we have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.

It is a pleasure today to be able to stand in this Committee stage and talk about Bill 23, An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.

I mentioned the other day, to the minister, when I spoke in second reading, around some issues that I had raised at that point to give him an opportunity to reflect on the points that I raised to be able to provide some comment today. As he has pointed out, this particular bill and the service that he is talking about in his department, income support - and he has already alluded to the things that are provided in addition to the direct payment of monthly income. The point I am referring to, Mr. Chairperson, to the minister, is to the co-ordination of services with Health and Community Services. There were three areas in particular that I identified, and we talked about in second reading. One was the Prescription Drug Program, the second was the medical transportation, and the third one was the assessment process for medical equipment.

I say to the minister, I guess the purpose part of the bill in section 3, my reference would be around that particular point. One of the things that is happening, and I recognized it a few years back when there was some movement in some of the services now provided by HRE moved over to Health and Community Services, there was some transition period involved and some consolidation of services, but I believe, Mr. Minister, that there are three of those areas still now administered by your department that require a significant amount of co-ordination with Health and Community Services. It has been my experience, to be quite frank with you, in dealing with constituents in my district, that is not necessarily happening. It is not happening, not necessarily because of the people involved but because of the way the programs are structured.

Let me give you an example. Under the area of medical transportation and/or the assessment of medical equipment, I have had experiences where constituents have gone into the office of Human Resources and Employment to do the means test; and the complete application is taken, only to be told that they are not eligible because of their income level and their circumstance. However, upon their calling my office and my following through with them, I find that through a program through Health and Community Services, called the Enriched Needs Program, they are able now to factor in further things. What happens now is that, as a result of intervention from my office, we find that the person is now entitled to benefits. They are sent back to HRE office with new information and the direction that this would be covered off under the Enriched Needs Program of Health and Community Services. Now, all of a sudden, you have two agencies involved.

I think, when you are looking at individuals who find themselves in a difficult set of circumstances, what we need to be doing is removing barriers. You used this phrase earlier in some of your comments, in streamlining, removing some barriers. I think that is what I am suggesting here. I am just wondering, Minister, has your department given some thought in this evaluation process to whether or not it is more appropriate, given your new focus and your emphasis on employment here - and I commend your department for some of these initiatives under the employment side - but on this other piece, this safety net that we are talking about for people who find themselves in difficult circumstance, on those three areas in particular I ask you, when you considered whether or not it is more appropriate or should be more appropriate to have those services as part of the Health and Community Services mandate, what conclusion did you reach and what was your department's assessment when you looked at those areas for more appropriate movement over to Health and Community Services?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It was only last week, actually, that my officials met with Health and Community Services, looking at ways that we can better co-ordinate the job that we do and the job that Health and Community Services does on certain issues. What I should tell the House and the people of the Province, of course, Mr. Chairman, is that we are in the process now - we have started up a pilot program on the West Coast which is a computerized program with all the relevant information that we would need in processing an application. That program is also linked to Health and Community Services so that both departments will be aware of what is actually happening with a particular client. We would have at our fingertips all of the required information on that particular client. That is all part of the whole program that we are initiating now in terms of better service delivery, to have all the information collected from an applicant while the client service officer is actually working with clients, helping them if they need a skills assessment, if they need some training, that kind of thing, helping them get back into the workforce. That is the whole scope of what we plan to do and how we hope to deliver the program in the future. As I said, there are a number of ways in which they can do it, by telephone, walk-in, or however they chose to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your comments. I am glad to see your department is starting to recognize that there is a need for the coordination, and I thank you for that comment.

In the spirit of - because it has become a major problem, I believe - in the spirit of your last meeting, or your most recent meeting with Health and Community Services, I think that needs to be an ongoing process, because further streamlining, I think, becomes extremely important.

To the point that you just mentioned, which is one of the other points that I wanted to raise with you, in the first part of the legislation, section 2, where it describes the act, in section 2(o) in particular, where you talk about personal information, and in section 2(o)(iv) where you talk about how personal information could include, "information about the individual's health care status or history, including a physical, developmental or mental health disability...", a complete profile - your comment a moment ago made reference to the application process being online, an automated process using computer technology, I assume, and having that information accessible immediately on line by other agencies and departments.

It raises the question, Minister, with respect to section 52 of the legislation, of the bill, where it talks about, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations. In section 52.(1)(a), it says, "prescribing those individuals or entities with whom or with which the minister may exchange information under subsection..." One of the things, Minister, in the first section that I have read, it is describing some very sensitive information that you are talking about, and it is appropriate, I believe. As your client-service officers get an application from a client, you have a complete profile, and you need that complete profile to be able to determine eligibility for benefits. How do you protect that information, how do you secure it, who has access to it, how should you share it, who should you share it with, what authorization do you have to share it with other agencies, what regulatory regime do you have in place to ensure that we have adequately protected the confidential nature of that information and who defines - I know, in section 52 you have said the Lieutenant-Governor has an Order-in-Council. What regulations are currently in place to protect the privacy of the constituents and clients you have as they share that very personal information, particularly with respect to their health status?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

All of this information, of course, is protected under the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. So, all of what we do is keeping with the Privacy Act. As I said, nobody has any unauthorized access to this information, so the information is protected. It is only under very controlled circumstance, again, in keeping with the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, under which any information is exchanged.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Minister.

If I am not mistaken - and I stand to be corrected on this - but I understood the Freedom Of Information very specifically excludes health information from being accessible. I guess, under the other provisions of the Hospitals Act and the Health And Community Services Act there are some very specific provisions for the exchange of that information. I am not certain that it includes Human Resources and Employment.

Given your earlier comment about online application process and online sharing of information, I am curious to know about the Privacy Act that you refer to. I am familiar with the Freedom Of Information Act, but the Privacy Act that you are referring to, I wonder if you could provide me with some additional information with respect to that particular piece of legislation and how it applies to your department and that of Health and Community Services and, more particularly, the Health and Community Services boards that exist in the Province?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did not stand up the last couple of times because I assumed that the member and the minister were having an exchange back and forth. My own exchange was sidetracked slightly after the minister talked about his own experience on social assistance. I do know if we need to personalize this at all. It is not something that we do need to personalize. I would have expected, in fact, a minister with that experience, to have a piece of legislation that perhaps was more expansive and less limiting than the one we have before us.

My own life experience did not include growing up on social assistance, Mr. Chairman, but I would say that we had a degree of lack of material resources that would have probably placed us - many months, we would have been better off in terms of financial amounts of money available to our family, a large family, if we had been in receipt of social assistance benefits. So nobody has a monopoly on understanding what it is like to have an experience of not having enough money to meet the basic needs that you have. I do not want to get into that, as to who has a better experience than anyone else. I will say this, that all members of this House have direct experience of people, on an ongoing daily basis, who are required to live on social assistance. When they receive the calls and actually look into the amounts of money that people are receiving and what they are expected to be able to pay for out of that, then it is pretty obvious to most members here that the amounts are inadequate.

The second thing that needs to be said, Mr. Chairman, is that the experience people have, and the experience of looking at what happens in other provinces, is not something, as the minister says, that lacks vision. If we compare what is going on it this Province and what is going on in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI, when it comes to welfare incomes, it lacks vision, that this is somehow or other wrong. Well, I would say to hon. members and to the minister, certainly, that a person who lives in Prince Edward Island and receives $1,000 or $2,000 more on social assistance in Prince Edward Island then a couple with two children in Newfoundland and Labrador, that $2,000 is worth a heck of a lot to the people in Prince Edward Island who receive that, and would be just as valuable and just as useful to the people in this Province regardless of the number of roads. I do not know what that has to do with the experience of a person on social assistance in Newfoundland, the fact that there are more roads they might be able to drive on if they had a car.

We are talking here about whether or not people have enough food to eat, whether they can provide for their families, whether it is enough to provide adequate shelter, whether there is an opportunity for them to ensure that their kids live in what this act calls, up front - it talks about dignity, respecting the dignity and privacy of the individual, to be equitable, to be accessible. These are the things that are up front in the preamble to the act. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the minister says that we should not be comparable with Nova Scotia and P.E.I. and New Brunswick because we are bigger than them, because Newfoundland and Labrador is bigger than P.E.I. and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick put together. So what? What does that have to do with the experience of a person on social assistance who is receiving 55 per cent - a person with disability receiving 55 percent of the poverty line in this Province while in other provinces they are doing better than that? The reality is that people have to live with what they are given, and that is what causes them the problem, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to dwell on that. I think I made that point adequately and I want to just talk briefly about some of the things. I have a couple of amendments to present on the legislation. One of them has to do with how this act, legislation, treats an individual on social assistance who is cohabiting with another individual. Let me first of all refer to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you can hear me but I am having trouble hearing myself with the noise around the room. I wonder if you could ask members to carry on their conversations elsewhere.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand why the Chair could not hear my concerns, Mr. Chairman, but thank you for asking for order.

It starts off, Mr. Chairman, with the eligibility requirements in Section 13 of the act. It basically says that 13.(1) "Prior to making an application for income support and as a condition of eligibility..." - and this is very important, as a condition of eligibility for income support, "...a person shall pursue all other financial resources available to him or her or his or her spouse or cohabiting partner."

In other words, before a person is eligible for social assistance, all the assets and all the income of a person or his or her spouse or cohabiting partner must be considered. Now, what that means, Mr. Chairman, is pretty obvious in one case: If a couple are married, that the assets of the husband are available to the wife and the income of the husband is available to the wife, and that is something that is an obligation of marriage, is recognized in the Family Law Act. It is a recognized societal circumstance that spouses are interdependent financially and that is why the divorce act, the Family Law Act, across the country recognized that as a basic function and a basic attribute of the marriage state, but what this act goes further and adds is that the assets of a cohabiting partner must be considered and taken into account in determining whether or not a person is eligible for social assistance.

Now, we have had some debate at second reading here. I know a number of members, certainly on this side of the House, have talked about the spouse in the house rule, it is called, and it has come to be called that across the country because social assistance departments across the country have instituted rules which say: if there is a man living in your house, he must be your spouse. He must be your spouse and you must be financially dependent on him because that is the way it is expected to be. Therefore, we have all sorts of scenarios and the minister is going to get up in a minute and object to some of the examples I am using, but members on this side certainly have no difficulty describing experiences that they have come across as members, and I certainly have and my office has, on numerous occasions, come across circumstances where - and quite often it is the result of a complaint. It is a report, an allegation, and sometimes it is a former spouse or a former boyfriend who wants to get back at the fact that this social assistance recipient has dumped him or her and is no longer willing to continue a relationship and wants to, somehow, get back at this person. Sometimes it comes about as a result of perhaps a jealous neighbour or some busybody who wants to report a circumstance to social services or to the Department of Human Resources and Employment, as it is now called. As a result of this - and the minister denies that this happens but we have had examples of it. I haven't had one in the last couple of months so I cannot say it still happens, examples of where, based on a report and pending an investigation as to whether or not there is another person living in the house, a person gets cut off social assistance. This has happened. We have spies going around, the welfare spies going around, lurking around, seeing whether cars leave or come at night or day, trying to find out whether or not persons are living in other people's houses and what the relationship is.

So what we have is a situation where the privacy of an individual and the dignity of an individual on social assistance - and let's face it here, Mr. Chairman, we are talking here primarily, if not entirely, of women on social assistance, and often sole support mothers who are living on social assistance, and their only support for themselves and their children is the cheque that they receive monthly from Human Resources and Employment, or bimonthly rather, as the case usually is. That is the only support they have. They are put in a category now, as a result of policies and regulations of the department, and now written into the act -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

If the minister wants to speak, (inaudible) time.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If it is necessary to have an intervening speaker, we can arrange for that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like for him to finish the statement. He says that he has a possible amendment, so I am interested in hearing, for the record, what he proposes to put forth.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, we have a situation where the government takes it upon itself to determine whether or not there is another cohabiting spouse. Now, we have seen various governments across the country take on different definitions of this, and many have been suspected, or challenged, on various grounds, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The most recent one to have come to court is in Ontario, and I will get to that in a minute, but before I do that, the amendment that I have is related to the definition of cohabiting partner in subsection (f) of section 2. It says, "2.(f) "cohabiting partner" means either of 2 persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage." That means, in a conjugal relationship -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wonders what that means. It normally means a sexual relationship. That is what it means, Mr. Chairman, a cohabiting couple involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the definition. That definition is proposed to be used in this legislation, to suggest that anybody who is involved in that kind of situation, in that sort of relationship - the assumption behind the legislation is that, that person is in a position where they are required to support the other party. Now, that does not occur for anybody else except people who are on social assistance. It does not occur for people who are living together in so-called common law relationships. It does not occur until after two years. Under the Family Law Act, there is no obligation for support until after people have been living together for two years, no obligation for a partner to support another partner until people have been living together for two years. In fact, the law recognizes - some people say: Well, what is the law on common law relationships? Well there is no specific law, but various statues have different provisions. I will give you an example.

The Pension Benefits Act, and the various pensions acts that we have, would allow a common law spouse to collect survivor's benefits from the death of a spouse after one year. So, if a couple is living together in a conjugal or sexual relationship for a continuous period of one year, a surviving spouse would be entitled to receive the spousal benefits for a deceased person. So, if a person is in receipt of a pension and dies, that person's spouse, whether it be a common law spouse or a legally married spouse, is entitled to receive the survivor's benefits.

Under Workers' Compensation legislation, spousal benefits are to be received by a person living in a common law relationship, or cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, for a period of one year. So one year for pension benefits and pensions, one year for workers' compensation, but there is no legal obligation to actually support the other party for two years.

Now this Minister, in this legislation - and I do not want to personalize the minister, but the minister has put forth the legislation. This legislation calls for an assumption that there is support and that there is going to be support. In fact, if the support is not forthcoming, the person is cut off social assistance, as a result of the definition in this act. The definition is wrong and, in my view, is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it discriminates against people who are in receipt of social assistance. The definition in this case law that is available now in the Supreme Court - it is (inaudible) in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the Court of Appeal in Ontario, in a case called Falkiner, decided last spring that their definition is not the same as ours, but that their definition of spouse, or creating spouse like benefits, or spouse like obligations, was contrary to the Charter of Rights because it discriminated against people on the basis of martial status, for one, and secondly, on the basis of being on social assistance. That was considered to be a discriminating factor and the court so found. Now it is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Well, it is not under appeal yet, leave is being sought to appeal. Whether leave will be granted I do not know. I suspect it might be. This is a very high court in the country which has recognized that we cannot discriminate between spousal arrangements and non-spousal arrangements which are different.

We have a situation here where we can have - and the Court of Appeal in Ontario recognized full well that there was a distinction between somebody who is in a committed long-term relationship and someone who is involved in what might be called a try on relationship. This happens all the time. Young people do it all the time. Young people today get together, they live together, they do not necessarily make any financial commitments. They may share some expenses. That is a different issue. They may share rent, they may share some expenses, they may do certain things together, but there is no obligation to support and there is no recognition in law that there is any commitment or any obligation to support one or the other.

The social assistance legislation has to treat people on social assistance with the same respect, dignity and rights to privacy as everyone else. This legislation does not do that, Mr. Chairman.

I have an amendment, and I circulated one version of it around. I have changed it slightly. The amendment that I am proposing - and I will speak to it once I have moved it - is that "sub-clause 2(f) of the bill be amended by removing all the words after the words "who are cohabiting" and substituting the following, "and have cohabited in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage for not less than two years or such lesser period where the cohabiting persons have undertaken support obligations to one another."

Mr. Chairman, we have made a copy of that amendment available to the Table and copies are available. The minister had an earlier version of it. Perhaps one of the Pages can pass the minister a copy of that amendment.

Mr. Chair, there has to be something more than what is in the legislation itself. The legislation that we have here just says that (f) "cohabiting partner means either of two persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage." That means, Mr. Chair, for one day. That means for one week. That means for one month, for three weeks, for one month. Once that relationship is there, once cohabiting parties are in a sexual relationship, then the minister is entitled to disentitle that person from social assistance if the person not on social assistance has assets or has an income. It is assumed that because there is a relationship, that person is expected to pay for that relationship by supporting the spouse and by supporting the children which may or may not be his children. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. That is wrong. It is wrong that that be the case, and the minister is putting forth legislation that provides for immediate obligations and immediate circumstances that are put forth to an individual when that person is on social assistance and is subject to a law like this which disentitles them from support if their boyfriend, who happens to be cohabiting, without any financial contribution to that persons, support for them - now, if that person is sharing expenses in terms of rent or in terms of food, well that may affect the need and that may subject the person to a reassessment based on need, but not based on the income or assets of a person who is involved in what may be considered to be a casual relationship without any obligations.

One of the things that this does - and the Ontario court recognized this, Mr. Chair - one of the things that this does is it treats the people on social assistance as another class, another category of citizen, other than those who are not on social assistance. One of the examples that was used in terms of talking about relationships was the uncertainty that we have here. Now, the minister is going to say, we are not going to bother someone after a week, we are not going to bother someone after three weeks, we not bother them after month. It is only based on complaints.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak again when the time comes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to respond to the Member for Trinity North, who raised the issue of confidentiality which I did not actually respond to. The only information that is released is released with the written consent of the client. There is nothing released without the written consent of the client.

The other thing referred to, the hon member made comments about what I had said about myself, personally, and I am kind of glad that he got the point in terms of nobody has the monopoly on poverty or the issues or the understanding or the grasp on what it is like to be on poverty. So, he got my message.

What he talked about in terms of the roads, I pointed out the financial challenges. It had nothing to do with me being personally on income support. It had to do with the challenges that the government faces in the amount of roads we have in this Province, compared to P.E.I. I just want to clarify that for the record.

The amendment that the hon. member has put forward, of course, we do not support it on this side of the House. It is kind of interesting that, when he talked about a conjugal relationship, he said it referred to a sexual relationship. That is a term that is used right across this country. We here in the Department of Human Resources refer to it as a marriage-like situation, so we had a broader definition of what we are talking about here.

The hon. member talks about, we go in immediately, when somebody phones up and says that somebody is living with somebody else, and they are cut off. That is not true. That is not true. There is a thorough investigation done. There is a procedure that is followed. In fact, I can tell you that, from my own information in the department, some 1,800 referrals were made last year to the department, besides 500 people who were cohabiting, were looked into. Of all of these people, there were thirty-two appeals to the Appeals Board, which is a quasi-judicial independent board that views appeals. Out of the thirty-two appeals, twenty-six were upheld. There were six that were turned down, they were not living in a relationship.

Mr. Chairman, we realize the situation and I realize, as minister, that once there is a report that comes in and somebody says, well, we have a complaint that somebody is living with you, I can understand that it would cause a client some stress, but we have an obligation, too, keeping in mind that what we are doing here is an income support needs program that we are trying to administer in looking at the needs and the resources that the recipient has in order to determine the eligibility.

I believe that where this is more appropriately looked at is actually in the regulations, how we can do this in a way that does not impact any more than it has to on an individual, but also to define more clearly what is considered to be a cohabiting situation. We recognize that and we recognize the fallout that comes from it sometimes, that MHAs get calls that they investigate.

Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we are looking at how we can better define this relationship in regulations, always taking into consideration the client. I just want to leave it at that for now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will adjourn debate until we get together again at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairperson, we will do our normal thing and recess until 7:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak a little bit more to the amendment that I proposed to section 2 of the act that would have the effect of making the definition of cohabiting partners in section 2 of the act more in keeping with the intention just recently expressed by the minister and also in keeping with the court decisions on interpretation of the Charter of Rights.

The minister, in his previous speech, said that what the legislation was trying to capture was what he called marriage-like relationships. I agree that may be the intent, but the difficulty I have is the same difficulty that the Court of Appeal of Ontario had in determining that the legislation and regulations in Ontario were unconstitutional and contrary to Charter because they, in fact, captured relationships that were not marriage-like relationships and they were - to use the term that they used - over inclusive. The terminology that the act uses here and that the government has chosen to use in this bill is, in fact, over inclusive. It includes relationships that are not marriage-like relationships, that are not relationships that attract the same kind of expectations, whether legal or otherwise, that are the same as marriage.

I know the minister knows, and hon. members know, that marriage is more than the definition that we have here. The definition that is proposed in the legislation for cohabiting partners is: ""cohabiting partner" means either of 2 persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage."

I am sure the minister does not really mean to equate any two people who are living under the same roof, in a sexual relationship, the same as marriage. It does not have the same long-term intention. It does not have the same support obligations. It does not have the same commitment to a long-term relationship. It does not have the same transfer of interdependency, financial dependency. It is merely living under the same roof and involved in a sexual relationship. The difficultly with this legislation is that it equates that situation with that of marriage to disentitle a person from the receipt of social assistance. I believe that is wrong. I believe that it is also contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think the minister was upfront in acknowledging that what they were trying to do was to capture marriage-like relationships. If that was what the legislation, in fact, did, than I think that it could be supported. In fact, that is clearly what my amendment is proposing to do. What I have proposed is that in addition to the requirements of cohabitation and a conjugal relationship, there must be either the same support obligations that are currently existing under the Family Law Act for common-law partners, which is that it must be two years. It must be a cohabitation for a period of two years; for that period of time. That is what provides the basis for support obligations under the Family Law Act. The alternative I have here: Or such a lesser period than two years where the cohabiting persons have undertaken support obligations to one another. That could be by holding oneself out as spouses, for example; that could be the equivalent of undertaking support obligations, or it could be by entering into a cohabitation agreement or some other way. Nevertheless, the situation under the current legislation is, I believe, unsupportable.

Let me quote from the Court of Appeal of Ontario in talking about the Falkiner case and about some of the problems of over-inclusiveness. The difficulty was that the definition there, according to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, would include many relationships that lack the meaningful financial interdependence characteristic of a spousal relationship. That is a quote from the Court of Appeal of Ontario. It said: It will include a try on relationship, like Ms Falkiners, where her co-resident contributed to rent and a few other expenses; or a boyfriend and girlfriend who have decided to cohabit and share expenses equally, or potentially even a casual cohabitation arrangement where the couple fair share expenses but each maintains financial independence. The definition will thus capture relationships lacking in the permanence, the commitment, the legal obligation to support, the legal right to claim support, even the meaningful, actual support that characterizes spousal or marriage-like relationships.

That is what is said by the Ontario Court of Appeal in saying that their definition was wrong, was over inclusive, did not capture only marriage-like relationships and was therefore ultimately unconstitutional in violation of the Charter.

That, Mr. Chairman, is a very important point. I am glad the minister acknowledged that, even though we are talking about spouses in one word and cohabiting partners in the other, the intention is that both of them be considered the same, equally, as marriage-like relationships, that the conjugal partners are considered to be in marriage-like relationships. The difficulty is that his definition, in section 2, is one that includes relationships that are not marriage-like relationships.

I think that it will fail a test under The Charter of Rights, as it should. I do not think that it is fair to impose this definition on people in this Province as a result of that. I think that the government has an obligation to try and avoid that very type of situation where it is pretty clear from certainly the highest court that had opportunity to deal with this, that this would be, in fact, unconstitutional.

It is also, in another way, a problem too because what it does is create family units out of situations where they are not. Another quote from this case here, the definition of a spouse is overly broad in that particular case because - and they were talking about a regulation. The court said, in Ontario, the lower court, supported by the Court of Appeal of Ontario: the regulation captures, as part of a couple, individuals who have not formed relationships of such relative permanence as to be comparable to marriage, whether formal or common law.

It makes couples or family units out of individuals like the respondents who have made no commitment to each other, with accompanying voluntary assumption of economic independence. There is all the difference in the world between a person with her own money sharing accommodation in the hope that an inchoate relationship may flourish, versus a person whose financial support is largely in the hands of a cohabitant who has no legal obligations towards her and her children.

What this is doing, Mr. Chairman, is saying that because a person is living under the same roof and is sharing the same bed, that automatically requires that person to support, financially, the woman he is sharing the bed with, and her children, and there is something fundamentally, basically wrong with that - something fundamentally, basically wrong with that - if the relationship is not one of that nature, and I do not think that this government and this Province should be exploring into that, should be treating people that way. There are all sorts of examples of how this has wreaked tremendous havoc and invasion of privacy on individuals, plus financial insecurity.

There is another approach, another quote, from this particular case which I think is quite useful to the understanding of what happens and what this particular type of regulation interferes with, in terms of people who are on social assistance: that it interferes literally with their ability to form their relationships. We would hope, Mr. Chairman, that people who are living on social assistance, who are in a situation like that, would have the same opportunity as everybody else to form new relationships, to ultimately form new family units and be able to move, perhaps, from a situation of social assistance to one where they are in a family unit where that is no longer a part of the reality of their lives. To allow them to do that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope I will have another opportunity to finish my remarks.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want, this evening, to enter into a legal argument with my colleague opposite but I have pointed out that we have talked about the word conjugal, a conjugal relationship. Of course, in law, it is well known that the legal meaning of conjugal includes other facts that suggests: a marriage-like relationship, holding onself out to the community as part of a couple, permanence, commitment, meaningful, actual support, et cetera.

I also notice that the member pointed out earlier, of course, about the Family Law Act, about Canada Pension, about workers' compensation, but what he did not point out - what Falkiner actually said in its decision was this: In respect to imposing an arbitrary time frame it is necessary to note that the Ontario Court of Appeals has recognized that different legislation with different purposes may require different approaches to this issue. So, basically, what they said was: Yes, workers' compensation, the Canada Pension, these kinds of things, certainly need some time frames. But, nowhere did they say that income support would need time frames attached to determine whether people were cohabiting. Now, as I also said, we are committed to finding in regulations the criteria to establish cohabitation. It will certainly ensure (inaudible) process and that clients are informed and aware of the requirements. The criteria we use will be clear so that a distinction can be drawn between those relationship-like marriages and those that are not.

As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, income support is a need-tested program. The information we receive as a department comes directly from the applicant. We understand the difficulties with these kinds of approaches that the hon. member says but in an investigation process, when the information is received at the district office a referral for information is completed, which captures all of the alleged information. The client service officer reviews the information provided on a referral and may add additional comments. The referral is then forwarded to a district office supervisor who will review the information found in the referral. The supervisor will then decide either to accept the referral or assign it to a client service officer in investigative services, or determine the referral does not warrant further investigation.

If referred for investigation, the client service officer will complete a thorough investigation. Once the investigation is completed an investigative report is written and provided to the client service officer. But, written client consent, the investigative report may include information gathered from the following information sources: the Credit Bureau, financial institutions, landlords, Motor Vehicle Registration, Student Aid Division, Registry of Deeds, utility companies, and other provinces. If the investigative report documents that a family unit relationship exists, the CSO advises the client of this and then must either suspend or reduce social assistance payments. Clients are advised of the reasons they are no longer eligible and advised of their right to appeal. While clients have a right to appeal decisions for non-approval or suspension of social assistance payments ceased immediately upon determination where a client is no longer eligible for assistance.

Now, the hon. member may point out, when he rises again, that the Credit Bureau, financial institutions, landlords, Motor Vehicle Registration - these things in themselves do not constitute a cohabitation but when you take into consideration all of the factors, which is family-like

behaviour, being in a community as a couple and these kinds of things, these things are not done lightly.

We talk about being treated equally and fairly. I believe we are doing that, in a sense. Those who say: Yes, I am living in a relationship. That is told to the client service officer and the client service officer takes that into consideration when making the necessary application and determination of what their eligibility amounts are. For an individual who does not provide that kind of information, it usually evolves then from a complaint. As you said, and I am saying as minister, that frivolous complaints are made. Yes, we agree. Investigations are conducted, yes, but many are dismissed for the simple fact that the investigation concludes that it is not warranted, that they are not living together. They are not in a supportive situation of each other and that kind of thing. Yes, I suppose, it does happen that probably some overzealous individual may inadvertently cut somebody off, but these things usually come out and special attention is paid to a situation where somebody has been done an injustice. Under the system that we have I think it is fair and I think we try and administer it as fairly as we possibly can, looking at the constraints that we have, and a fairness to people who say to us: Yes, we are in a relationship. People who are legally married and that kind of thing, there is no problem. It is only those who say that they are not in a relationship and evidence surfaces otherwise, that is when the problems arise.

So, I have committed - and I want to say, by the way, that there is only one province in the country that has it in legislation. All the rest of the provinces do not. We know that representation has been made to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are certainly following that happening and to see what unfolds there. We do not see it as being against the Charter of Rights in a sense that this also covers people in a same-sex relationship. We are just trying to provide the best possible service that we can based on the information that we are provided.

Like I said, we will take every precaution in regulations to ensure that cohabiting partner is defined.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad the minister brought up this issue of the time limits. He purported to talk about what the case of Falkiner said in terms of time limits being potentially arbitrary. That was raised by the Government of Ontario as a defence because what they had done in Ontario, there had been, from 1987 to 1995, a requirement that a couple be cohabiting for a period of three years prior to being considered a spouse under the legislation. The 1995 legislation - which is the one that was challenged under this case - took away that and put in other aspects of people with financial agreements with one another and that sort of thing.

What the court actually said - I am going to read you the actual words, it is only one paragraph. They did not quite say what the minister said. The court said as follows: The government submits however that the 1995 definition is at least an improvement on its predecessor which mirrored the three-year rule in the Family Law Act definition of spouse. In Ontario the Family Law Act requires three years cohabitation before there are any spousal benefits. Our act only provides two.

Here is what the court said: The government points out that any time period will be arbitrary and that requiring a three-year cohabitation period to be a spouse gives unmarried couples a grace period unrelated to the actual circumstances of the relationship. Thus, the government says that the former definition created inequities between married and unmarried couples. That may be so, but while the three-year period was perhaps arbitrary - it says perhaps - at least there was a bright line test that was easy to administer and generally accepted. This is what he says: I do not suggest that the Family Law Act model is the only solution to the government's drafting problem. I recognize that the purposes of the Family Law Act regime and the social assistance regime are different. These difference purposes may argue for a different definition of a spousal relationship. I simply say that the current definition of spouse in section 1.(1)(d) of the regulation under the Family Benefits Act is too broad to capture only spousal or marriage-like relationships.

That challenge still stands the definition under section 2 of the act, that it is too broad to capture only spousal or marriage-like relationships. These are the very same words the minister used. To have that definition here is to have a category that disqualifies a person from receiving social assistance - not even eligible, cannot even qualify to apply - if the assets of the so-called cohabiting spouse, or whether or not they are able to qualify at all, if the cohabiting spouse has assets greater than would be required, or an income greater than the criteria provides.

So there is a serious problem with the legislation, Mr. Chairman. One of the other reasons - my colleague from Labrador West will speak on this in a little while - one of the difficulties is that - two things - number one, it is very difficult for marriages which have broken up to actually come back together. It is very difficult for them to come back together. Some of the regulations and problems have caused that, and there has been criticism of that. As the Court of Appeal of Ontario pointed out, it is also a very chilling effect on the formation of relationships because of the forced financial dependence that comes about as a result of this type of law.

Here is a quote from the Ontario Social Assistance Review Board that was quoted with approval by the Ontario Superior Court and also by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. It says: The board is satisfied that the uncertainty imbedded in the definition of spouse and in its application by social assistance authorities, combined with the drastic effect on the availability of assistance if one is found to fall within the definition, would have a chilling effect on a sole support parent's attempt to build a new family through a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. She is not free to choose how to live her personal life nor to pursue, in the manner of her choice, an intimate relationship with a man without the fear of putting her own and her children's survival at risk.

Those are very strong words, Mr. Chairman, that she is unable to pursue, in the manner of her choice, an intimate relationship with a man without the fear of putting her own and her children's survival at risk. Because what happens, as soon as that relationship is formed, according to this act, as soon as there is a conjugal relationship outside of marriage, there is, by definition, a relationship that requires financial dependence, whether it exists or not, that requires financial support, whether it exists or not, and the only choice faced by the woman in this circumstance is either to get rid of this man altogether and risk not having a relationship at all, or to put herself in a financially dependent situation, in a very short period of time, thus risking and fearing her own and her children's economic survival.

This is simply wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is simply wrong. It does not happen in society in general. It is only happening to people who are on social assistance and it is something that we, in this Legislature, have an opportunity to avoid by adopting the definition that I propose, which suggests that there must be a relationship of this conjugal nature that goes on for either a period of two years, which would meet the definition for requirement of support under the Family Law Act, or such lesser period where the cohabiting persons have undertaken support obligations to one another. The regulations certainly deal with the nature of those support obligations and how that might happen but, with a definition like this, which is over-inclusive, there is an injustice being done to women who are on social assistance, who are fearful.

The examples are legion, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister says we do not cut people off except potentially inadvertently. That is not the case. We have had at least six cases in our office over the last couple of years. All six of them were cut off pending an investigation. Cut off first, investigate, and then we will see what happens. Go to the social assistance review board and let them hear the case, and only after proving your innocence - only after proving not your innocence but proving that this person whom they say is actually living with you is not, because he is living somewhere else - were people restored.

The minister has not said that they are not trying to attack relationships that are not marriage-like. He said that the intention is to go after marriage-like relationships, but when he gave examples, and when he talked about the facts, he is just talking about whether or not, factually, someone is living there or not.

That is the difficulty that I have, Mr. Chairman, and that is the difficulty that I think people on social assistance will have, and it is the difficulty in applying the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights so that people on social assistance are treated equally and not discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they are women, by virtue of their martial status, or lack thereof, by virtue of the fact that they are on social assistance.

The Court of Appeal of Ontario went through the analysis and determined that this was indeed, as well, discrimination on the basis of sex; because, even though there were men who were affected by this, in the same position, predominantly it was women who were affected and therefore it was held to be discrimination on the basis of sex as well.

We have a very serious problem here in this legislation, Mr. Chairman, a problem of law as well as a problem of justice. I think that speaks to the amendment that we have. I do not know if the amendment has been properly moved, Mr. Chairman. Has it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It has been moved and accepted as a valid amendment before the House. I hope that the Committee will consider it seriously.

I know there are other members who want to speak to this legislation, but I think I have had an opportunity to put forth, fairly, the reasons for the amendment, the reasons in justice and in law, and the fact that while we do want to ensure that there is dignity and respect and privacy for all people on social assistance, we cannot just automatically assume that because there is a sexual relationship, because people are living under the same roof, that there is an obligation of support in a spousal-like, or marriage-like relationship.

Now, that doesn't mean, Mr. Chairman - and I know the minister wouldn't want this to be confused - that if two persons are sharing expenses, well that clearly means that the cost of rent, perhaps, is less or the cost of food may be less because of that. That is a matter for reassessment. That is not a matter for taking into account all of the assets, all of the income, of a person who happens to be cohabiting with a person on social assistance, if that isn't the type of relationship they have. So, there has to be an opportunity to develop those relationships, there has to be an opportunity for people on social assistance to be treated fairly and equally under the law, which is the requirement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to have a few words now on Bill 23.

This afternoon we discussed Bill 30, which was the jurisdictional support orders. I know that part of that bill could not be the problem I am about to bring up now, but I wouldn't mind seeing it certainly addressed in the regulations that the minister is going to bring forward pertaining to Bill 23.

Many times we see the custodial spouse, and in most instances that spouse is a woman, and there has been a court order that there would be child support payments made. Now, the mother is on social assistance, so, of course, the amount of support that her ex-husband or her spouse or the children's father has been deemed to pay is factored into the amount of income support, and that is fine. However, he doesn't necessarily pay regularly. Therefore, she gets her cheque and her cheque is based on the child support that she would receive. So, each time that she receives her social assistance or her income support cheque it is minus the amount of child support that she is supposed to get. If the father of the children hasn't made his support payments, she finds herself down that much money. Income support isn't that high in any case, and then, when it is minus the amount of child support she is supposed to receive, it makes it that much less.

I would ask that the minister have a look at that particular issue when the regulations are being drawn up, custodial parents, in most cases who are women, who find themselves in unnecessary hardship and with bare cupboards and bare refrigerators, I say to the minister, because they haven't received the amount of money that they should be receiving.

I would like to deal with the spousal portion of this bill. I am not sure, but I thought I heard the minister say earlier today that no people were cut off before an investigation was carried out. I would like to relate a couple of incidents. These incidents were brought to the regional managers and staff before they were ever solved. In the meantime, the people who were involved went through an undue amount of hardship.

One was the case of a woman living in rural Newfoundland who was seven months pregnant. It was in the middle of winter. It was reported to some employee at human resources that she was cohabitating, when in fact she wasn't. Before any investigations or before this woman had a chance to make her side of the case, she was cut off from income support. She was given an eviction notice and here she was seven months pregnant. The landlady did all she could to keep her for as long as she could without paying her rent, realizing the circumstances that she was in. Then she had to give her an eviction notice, because, after all, the landlady did have to collect the rent.

This person called in to my office and I proceeded to work on it for her. Now, she has been cut off from income support for about a month or a month-and-a-half. She kept saying that, no, she wasn't living with anybody, but, in fact, she was treated as though she was living with someone and she did not have a chance to appeal her case. I made some calls in the community that she was living, and, in fact, I called the Department of Health and Community Services, to see if I could get some information on the person, because it was a rural community and an isolated rural community. The employee at Health and Community Services said, no, in fact this young lady didn't have anybody living with her and maybe the Department of Human Resources and Employment should have checked with one of their employees in the community to see before they put this woman through undue hardship. Anyway, several calls to regional managers and things, we finally got her case resolved, but not without a lot of hardship to that woman.

I had another case in my own district, and this was as well brought to department officials. We didn't bring them to the House of Assembly first, they were brought to department officials. There was a woman who was divorced from her husband who had an eighteen or nineteen-year-old son who lived with her. This woman was quite ill. She was on a lot of heart medication and things. A report went in to the Department of Human Resources and Employment that this person had her ex-husband living with her. Immediately her income support was cut and, worse than that, her drug card was cut, which meant that she couldn't purchase drugs that were essential for her to live, heart medications and things that were very costly.

I began to check on the case. I made some calls on it: No, she was cut off because this report had gone in. Once again, she hadn't had a chance to make her case before she was cut off. Ironically, there was a home support person in place in that woman's house that nobody from the Department of Human Resources and Employment had even bothered to check with. This is a home support person being paid by another department of the government, the Department of Health and Community Services. Nobody had ever bothered to check with that home support person to see if there was actually a spouse living in the house. So I called the home support person myself and I said: Does this woman have her husband living with her? This home support person, who is employed by the Department of Health and Community Services, said: Mrs. Osborne, if this woman has a man living with her, I would like to have a man just like it. There is never a coffee stain on the countertop. There is never a dirty coffee mug in the sink and there is never a pair of dirty socks under the bed. She said: If she has a man living here in the house, he is invisible and I want one just like it. So, it just goes to show the level of investigation that is done before a person is cut off.

What I would like to say to the minister, when the regulations come in, I would like to see it addressed that no person is put through undue hardship because it is presumed that they have a spouse living with them before it has been determined and before that person has a chance to make their case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the issue that we are discussing, and following from comments made by my colleague, the Member for St. John's West, I think that we do have to be very careful. We have to make sure that we support those people in the community who need support. We have to make sure that when we have people who actually need the support, that we are there as a society to make sure they are supported. Likewise, we have to make sure that when people do not need the support of the general society that we do not offer support where it is not needed.

What we say to the minister is, and again, we all can relate cases where - as the minister himself said a few moments ago - there may be overzealous workers who sometimes do not take the time, and I would like to say that they are very few in number. The instances that we are referring to here of cases where people have been cutoff without due process are very, very rare.

I would say to the minister, and credit to the officials I have ever dealt with - I deal with a fair number of them routinely, and as a critic I handle a fair number - there is a willingness to listen to the other side and to let the person have the benefit of the doubt. However, that is not to say we should not be more sensitive; and not to say that the idea that the department sometimes operates on anonymous calls. We know the unreliability of anonymous calls. It very often is a vindictive former spouse. It could be a vindictive neighbour or somebody who thinks they know something when they actually do not have the right information. This causes great frustration. Just the other day I had a call from a constituent of mine who had been called and told, they had a report that somebody was living with her, a new boyfriend.

Let me make sure that we understand, we should be out there encouraging people to establish new relationships. Just because somebody is separated or divorced doesn't mean that they should not be encouraged to establish new relationships with whomever they wish. However, we have to be careful that, in doing so, we don't jump to conclusions and we make sure there is an investigation done, that when we have anonymous information that that information is dealt with in a very selective manner and we don't end up causing families great frustration.

Just the other day, as I mentioned a few moments ago, I got a call from a constituent. She had gotten a call saying there was a complaint, and that she was going to be cut off in terms of her assistance. She had an apartment that she and her twelve-year-old daughter were sharing. As it turned out, there was no basis for the complaint. However, because she was going to university and writing her exams, all of this happened at a very, very poor time for her. There was a great deal of anxiety. It did get straightened out, and I do want to thank the officials in the department who were able to address the issue very, very quickly. I am sure that family, in particular, is appreciative of the intercessions that were made.

I want to say, as well, that when we do the regulations on this matter, Mr. Minister, we need to be more direct, more precise, so that we don't have these examples of overzealous people making the quick decision without having the situation adequately researched. We should be careful that we protect those who need protection and offer assistance to those who need assistance. Likewise, if they don't, we shouldn't be offering it. The criteria should be very clear, should be very thorough. The employees should know all about it. We should not be going on hearsay, shouldn't be operating on the basis of anonymous information. We should make sure that we don't take action until the investigation is thorough and complete, and we make sure that we don't cause any anxiety to our clientele that is totally unwarranted.

Again I say, we should be encouraging our clientele to establish new relationships. That should be part of what we should be doing. However, we should be careful that, in doing so, we are fair to everybody, including all the family members, especially the children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say a few more words on the amendment. The amendment seeks to bring the definition of cohabiting partner in line with the need for it to be equivalent to a spousal-like relationship or a marriage-like relationship. The definition that is there now is totally inadequate for that purpose and really ought to be changed. It ought to be changed because it is against the highest court that has had a chance to consider this issue in determining whether or not it conforms to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which governs law.

Now, we had a case recently where there has been some argument made saying that the court should not be interfering with the assemblies. They would not be interfering with the assemblies, Mr. Chairman, if the assemblies were more cognizant of the Charter of Rights and the rights of people when they are passing legislation. Legislation of this nature is designed to provide assistance to people. There is a broad preamble which recognizes there is supposed to be equity, there is supposed to be accessability, there is supposed to be respect for people's dignity and privacy, and this legislation, this particular part of the legislation, does not account for that and will, in fact, discriminate against women who are on social assistance, either because they are women or because they are recipients of social assistance, and it is simply wrong.

This spouse in the house, so-called rule, has been infamous across the country as being contrary to the rights of women, and has been raised by advocacy groups on an ongoing basis for the last ten or twenty years. It has been something that has been a thorn in the side of people. I do not think it is right for us to put this legislation in place and force somebody, some situation, after whatever period of hardship and struggle, to actually go to court and challenge this legislation when we have it within our means here this evening to ensure that this legislation meets the requirements of the law, does not discriminate against people, and gives people a chance on social assistance to be treated the same as everybody else when it comes to forming relationships.

If there is an economic relationship, if there is economic financial support, well my amendment covers that, Mr. Chairman, and gives an opportunity for anybody who is in that situation to be treated fairly on the basis that there are support obligations that are there, there is an opportunity for the minister to pass regulations to provide for the criteria to make up that, but if we are just looking at cohabitation, the criteria is already there. It means cohabitation, it means a conjugal relationship. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, there is not very much the regulations would be able to say about it that would define that and limit that any further.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the legislation ought to be amended. This amendment is a good positive amendment that changes the legislation so that it conforms to the Charter of Rights and avoids unfairness and discrimination against women.

It is a bit surprising, Mr. Chairman, when we hear all the time how rights are advancing over time and yet, when a matter like this is raised, it attracts very little attention to members in this House when it is clearly a case which has already been before the Ontario Court of Appeal, ruled in a particular manner, as I pointed out by my quotations from the case, which shows a very severe discrimination against women under this legislation. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is incumbent on us to support this legislation and pass this amendment.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

Now is the appropriate time to introduce the amendment to clause 2(j).

AN HON. MEMBER: Was clause 2 carried?

CHAIR: No, it has not been carried.

The amendment to clause 2(f), as submitted by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 2(j) carry?

For clarity, clause 2(j) are the amendments which have been submitted by the minister.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

There are two proposed amendments.

Shall the amendment to clause 3(3)(a) carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to speak to clause 3 generally. I do not have a proposed amendment but I do say, Mr. Chairman, that the provision here is very narrow. Clause 3, the purpose clause, says, "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons." It says, in 3.(2), "Income support programs and services include programs and services designed to (a) provide financial assistance to persons determined to be in need in order to assist in meeting daily living expenses, shelter, transportation to medical services and specials needs...".

Mr. Chairman, I would have expected that we would have seen in this legislation, particularly in the preamble and in the purpose clause, something that would provide some measure of a guarantee that the basic needs of persons would be met. You know, we had debate earlier today, during Question Period, about the needs of people on social assistance to be able to afford a nutritious diet. Well, it is pretty clear from the report of the nutritionists, and the amount of money it actually costs to afford a nutritious diet in this Province, that the social assistance regulations, in terms of the amounts being provided, do not do that. In fact, it does not even say in this legislation that people should expect that the social assistance regulations and the income support levels should meet the basic needs. What it says here is that it shall facilitate the provision of income support, and income support is designed to assist in meeting daily living expenses, shelter, transportation to medical services and special needs. It does not even suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is some obligation or that the government is undertaking some obligation to even try to meet the basic needs of people on social assistance. It is mean-spirited, it is narrow, it is unimaginative, and it lacks vision. It does not provide the confidence that it should provide to people who have no other recourse but to survive on social assistance. The wording is inadequate and unsatisfactory, and I think it is a part of the problem with this bill as a whole. While it attempts to suggest that the whole new philosophy of, in fact, putting in a department called Human Resources and Employment, the assumption is that most people are on social assistance as a temporary measure and all we need to do is to get them into an employment related program and we are going to have great success as a transitory provision.

We have a very serious problem in this Province, Mr. Chairman, with people who are in need of social assistance. The fact of the matter is, that more than 70 per cent of the people who are on social assistance haven't finished high school, they don't have a high school education. This is not something that is easily fixed. This is not something that we can say: Okay, on a temporary basis we will look after you a little bit, we will assist you whatever way we can, to use the minister's phrase, instead of guaranteeing some basic level of needs to people.

The legislation is written in such a way as to suggest that the philosophy is that people are just passing through here. Well, that may be true for some people, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that people who are on social assistance are able to rise to the challenge and take advantage of whatever programs may be available. I think, Mr. Chairman, the reality is that many people who are on social assistance, if not most people who are on social assistance, are there for very long periods of time. We might as well face that fact and make sure that our legislation, and the principles that are involved, addresses the fundamental basic dignity of people, recognizes that people who are on social assistance, who are in need of social assistance, are entitled to a basic standard of living that is not 50 per cent of the poverty line, or 20 per cent of the poverty line, as we have in some cases in this Province, but one that recognizes that they have to have the basic needs for food and shelter and, basically, living needs met; not some legislation like this which is mean-spirited in having a very limited suggestion as to what the purpose of this legislation is.

Mr. Chairman, I think people on social assistance would expect that we would do more, and certainly the people in this Province who believe that we have an obligation to support our fellow men and women in their hour and time of need, who expect that our legislation would be much broader and much more meaningful in terms of providing some comfort to people, that they can expect government to meet their basic needs, rather than to just suggest, as this legislation does, that they might assist in meeting daily living expenses rather than guaranteeing people a basic standard of living by guaranteeing them some freedom from want and hunger, Mr. Chairman, which our legislation clearly doesn't do.

It is pretty clear from the overabundance of food banks in this Province, and the over attendance by people on social assistance, that the basic needs of people on social assistance are not being met, and this attitude and this philosophy is only contributing to the kind of complacency that we see today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clause 3, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 4 through 12 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 13 talks about eligibility, and the side note there refers to conditions of eligibility. Clause 13.(1) says, "Prior to making an application for income support and as a condition of eligibility for income support, a person shall..." and here is the phrase "...pursue all other financial resources available to him or her or his or her spouse or cohabiting partner."

The next subsection there eliminates from that the requirement to seek support under the Family Law Act from one of those pursuits of all financial resources. Mr. Chairman, I have a serious problem with this particular provision. Aside from the cohabiting partner provision, which has already been defeated in an amendment here tonight, which I think is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it will come back to haunt the members of this House, and the minister in particular and his government, but apart from that, this is another provision that is far too broad and all encompassing.

What does it mean, Mr. Chairman? That a person, before they are even eligible for social assistance, must pursue all other financial resources available to him or her, or to his or her spouse, or cohabiting partner? What does it mean? Does it mean that they have to borrow money from relatives? Does it mean that the first question the social worker, or the chief financial officer, or the FAO will ask is: Have you got any brothers who have money? Would they lend you money? We are talking about adults here now. Have you borrowed whatever money you can from your relatives? Because that, it seems to me, would be pursue all other financial resources that are available to you. Is that what we are going to be asking now when you come to apply for social assistance? Have you really, really pursued all other financial opportunities? Have you borrowed money? How much money do you owe to your relatives? Has your mother or father got any money that they might be prepared to lend you? Have you got any brothers or sisters who are well off and can provide resources? Have you gone and - I won't say: Have you gone and begged in the streets? I don't suppose that would be required. What are we talking about here? Are we talking about all other financial resources?

It is a very, very broad provision, Mr. Chairman. I think it is overly broad and ought to be narrowed down, especially when it deals with not only the spouse but a cohabiting partner, for the same reasons that I have provided earlier. In fact, you know, it may be extended to all sorts of things because it is clearly intended to include any legal rights you might have to sue people because to achieve support under the Family Law Act you have to make an application to the court. If somebody owes you money and you have not sued them, if you have a debt out there that you have not sued people for - does anybody owe you money? Have you collected that? Have you sued them for it? Have you pursued all other financial resources available to the person?

Mr. Chairman, clearly this provision is far too broad. When we look at people applying for social assistance - it is fair to ask people who are applying for social assistance whether they have any assets; whether they have any money in the bank; whether they have any financial assets; even whether they have any RSPs or anything like that available to them. It is fair to ask whether they have any sources of income. They may have income from employment. They may have income from a pension. They may have income from an annuity. They may have income from an inheritance. They may have income from other activity that they are involved in. They may have income on an ongoing basis from someone who is providing them with a regular income. But, to go so far as to say - as this act does - that before they are even eligible, not only do these things have to be taken in consideration, but they must actually pursue them. They must pursue all other financial resources available to him or her.

Mr. Chairman, I think that provision is far too broad. I would propose the following amendment to clause 13, to amend the clause by deleting the words "pursue all other financial resources" in subclause 13.(1) and substituting the words "exhaust all other income sources and, subject to the limits set forth in the regulations, all financial assets". Similarly, that clause 13.(2) be amended by deleting the words "pursue all other financial resources" in subclause 13.(2) and substituting the words "exhaust all other income sources" subject to the limits set forth in the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) there is an error there. That should end with: substituting the words "exhaust all other income sources". That amendment - leaving out the last portion of what I passed up to the Speaker. Clause 13.(2) would remove "pursue all other financial resources" and substitute the words "exhaust all other income sources".

The bill then is amended to make a little bit more narrower and deal with sources of income and financial assets, not pursue all other financial resources available to him or her. That seems to be so broad, Mr. Chair, as to create hardships for people; as to be, again, over-inclusive and include things that we would never expect people to pursue by saying that before they are eligible for social assistance they must go around and beg from relatives; they must go and beg from friends or any other idea that somebody might have as to what might be a financial resource that could be potentially available to them that they have not pursued.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, that is the proposed amendment. I think the Chair has copies of that amendment.

CHAIR: Shall the proposed amendment to clause 13.(1) carry?

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 13(2) carry?

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 13 through 64 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill, with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 17, An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association, Bill 33.

A bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association." (Bill 33)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just rise to have a few comments with reference to this particular bill. More telling is not just what is in the bill, Mr. Chairman. More telling is the rationale or the reason behind this bill and why it had to come to this House of Assembly.

Why this bill is here is because, when government and the Medical Association tried to negotiate an agreement and had to agree to arbitration, the doctors did not trust this government that they would accept -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, the doctors did not trust government, that they would accept the final offer in a binding arbitration. They didn't trust it. They wanted it enshrined in legislation here in this House of Assembly. That is a pretty telling tale, Madam Chairperson. It is a very telling tale! It is a sense of a lack of trust, by medial professionals in our Province, with this government.

I can see many reasons why, Madam Chairperson.

MR. BARRETT: You usually want to rollback the wages, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could keep quiet, I will give some reasons why -

MR. BARRETT: I will do my best.

MR. SULLIVAN: - doctors in this Province should doubt government and not trust them. Even the Premier of the Province, on a nurses' strike, the current Premier of the Province, a former minister, taunted nurses as they sat in the gallery during labour unrest in our Province. How do you expect to build up trust?

MR. SWEENEY: Don't be so foolish.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will. I won't take a response from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace: Don't be so foolish. People sat here in this House and watched it. We watched him taunt nurses in the gallery, taunted them so that they had to be kicked out of the gallery. That is what the current Premier did to people in our Province. That is why there is a sense of mistrust, a lack of trust, by people in our Province, because they haven't been upfront -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - they haven't been honest with the people of the Province.

If you want a glaring example of trust, I will give you another one, why bills like this are before this House. Who remembers the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund? I do. I remember it quite well. I rose in my place in this House and supported this. Every single person in this House, back when it was assented to in the fall of 1997, stood and supported taking the pot of money we got from the federal government, $340 million - it grew to $347.6 million by the time we received it, and a few other dollars got it up to $349. We agreed in this House that that money be put into a separate fund for Labrador transportation initiatives, and it was put into the fund. I have statements and quotes here from the people today in this House, ministers and the Premier, and people hailed it as a great step for Labrador, so the fund could be set aside to give a Trans-Labrador Highway. That is what happened, as a great initiative.

One of the most telling parts in that was the trust that is put in clause 8 of that bill. Clause 8 of the bill said, the board may authorize that money be paid out of that fund provided the payout is for the purpose of - here is how it should be paid out of that fund - marine freight and passenger services and the maintenance of lands, wharves and related facilities transferred to the Province under the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty The Queen, and so on, made on March 28, 1997. The construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway was (b); (c) other Labrador initiatives related to transportation, which the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve. That is the Cabinet, basically. They are the three reasons.

What did this government do? Back in March, and in The Telegram, I raised the issue here to the minister. I asked the minister: Is it true that they are going to raid - I asked in Question Period here in this House, on March 12; the House opened on March 11 - are they going to take, I heard, up to $100 million, out of that fund? The minister would not say. The quote here, the response in The Telegram, the minister would not say whether any money for the fund meant to cover the operation of marine services and so on would be taken out of that. She would not confirm that.

To bring legislation in, they pounded their desks as a great moment for Labrador, and now they do not have the intestinal fortitude to debate the bill. They took it and spent it and do not have the intestinal fortitude to debate that bill in the House this fall!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not even debate it. They are breaking the laws.

I consider bills that are enshrined in law here, the law of the Province. When you take money without getting legislative authority, you break the law. You can call it circumventing the act. You can call it what you like - contravening the act - to me, it is breaking the law. This government took that money, used a lot of it this year, and they do not have the intestinal fortitude to debate it in the House. It has been on the Order Paper since last spring, I believe. They do not have the will to do it because they know they broke the trust of the people of Labrador. They know they broke the trust of the people, of doctors in this Province, and that is why they are saying: We don't trust you. Give us legislation.

I say to the doctors, even with legislation, how can you trust them? They did not do it on the Labrador Transportation Initiative. Yes, and the very Premier who smiles taunted nurses during a strike - I will say to him again - here in his place across the House, when they sat in the gallery. How do you expect people in this Province to trust this government when they have broken it so often?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would say the Premier who cried wolf. He did it so often, people do not even believe him any more. That is why, even if you are sincere in this legislation, how can they believe you? How can you believe them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and it is not only me, I might tell you, who has great concerns with this bill.

Furthermore, I had asked numerous questions on the issue long before it became a big issue. Back in the House of Assembly in 1996, even before the agreement was ever reached, I asked questions here in the House on many occasions over that year. The current Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs stood, and here is what he said in the House on November 19, he said: As well, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is committed to a vision of a paved Trans-Labrador Highway becoming a reality within ten years. Well, you have less than four more years to pave the Labrador highway. We do not even have a completed gravel highway in Labrador. From Goose Bay down to Cartwright, it is not even started. It is not even finished. They are still working on the phase in Southern Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it hurts over there, I can tell you. It is very sensitive to them over there because they know they have not lived up to their commitment. They have broken the trust and that is why we have a bill before this House today dealing with doctors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister went on to say that day, in 1996: In the weeks and months to come -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, it is very difficult to hear with those sensitive people from Labrador shouting comments across this House because they know they are guilty as charged, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Guilty as charged, is what they are, and it hurts. Madam Chair, it hurts to go back on your word and break that trust. They must feel guilty, if not they would be applauding rather than shouting and jumping up and down and saying words across this House.

The minister went on, in 1996, to say: In the weeks and months to come the government will continue to show its commitment to Labrador through action not words. It was words in 1996. In 1997 the bill came in, and where is the action? The action is take the fund, raid the fund, take all the money out of the fund and forget a dedicated fund for the people in Labrador. That is the type of commitment this government has put forward. If that is the type of commitment people can expect from this government, I can tell you they do not want anymore of your commitments because they mean nothing. They are hollow commitments.

I went on to ask, on numerous occasions, and I could not get any straight answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On December 11, I asked the minister in this House: How much money are you looking at to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway? Are you looking for $400 million, $600 million, $700 million? How much are you looking for? The minister could not tell me what they were looking for. I remember saying: How do you know how much is needed if you do not know what you are looking for? How do you know what you should ask for? How are you going to ask for an amount if you do not know what is needed? It wasn't that they did not know, it is that they did not want to tell the people of the Province. They want to hide the facts from the people of the Province and that is all about trust, and the same as this bill. It is all about trust.

I said to the minister, I do not consider it top secret, that the department cannot tell how much it is going to cost to build a road from point A to point B. They did not know or they would not tell us. If they did not know I do not call that a lack of trust, but they knew because they had estimates done. It is a lack of trust when you know something and will not tell the people of the Province.

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Madam Chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? Well, I will be back again. When in Committee stage of the bill I will make my points, Madam Chairperson, if it takes me all night to do it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few words because I believe the hon. the Finance critic from the other side is probably in need of some direction or clarification or reminding as to what it is, in fact, we are debating. We are debating, as I understand it, Bill 33, An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association; but he seems to have forgotten the bill that we are debating and he has certainly strayed into complete irrelevance in terms of the debate that he is putting forward. We are not, I say to the hon. member, debating the Trans-Labrador fund or any Labrador fund in this bill. We are debating a different bill altogether.

Madam Chair, what I want to say to this particular bill is that, in fact, what the Opposition Finance critic alleges, that this bill is here because the Medical Association does not trust government, the exact opposite is true. The fact of the matter is that the Medical Association had sufficient trust and faith in this government that they were willing and prepared to enter into a binding arbitration process so that the issues they wanted resolved, and we wanted resolved, could be done in a formalized manner that we hope will result in an outcome which will be good for both sides.

So, I say to the hon. Finance critic, the reason why this bill is here is because there is trust, is because there is belief in, is because there is faith in this government. Our intent and our intentions with respect to this organization and the reason why we brought the bill here, Madam Chair, is simply this, that we want to ensure that the commitment we have given verbally we are also prepared to put our legislative signature to, as it were, by ensuring that what we have said to them verbally, the commitment we gave them verbally, the commitment that they accepted in good faith, because they trust us - we have brought this bill forward to ensure that we, ourselves, are seen to be what, in fact, we are, reputable, honest people on this side of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - who will do what it is we have committed to do with the Medical Association. This is not a complicated piece of legislation. It is simply ensuring, in law, that what we have made a commitment to around the bargaining table will happen and that we will respect it.

The Medical Association respect us, the Medical Association trusts government, the Medical Association has gone into this binding arbitration process in good faith and we, on this side of the House, on behalf of government, Madam Chair, want to demonstrate our commitment and our good faith by putting, as I said earlier, our legislative signature to the commitment we have given. I would ask that the hon. the Finance critic on the other side recognize this bill for what it is. I would ask all members to recognize this bill for what it is and to allow it to proceed to passage so that we can, in fact, get on with the resolution of the issues on behalf of the medical community in general, but the doctors in particular, that has a significant interest in the outcome of what this arbitration will yield up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have to rise and comment again, because I do have some unfinished comments on this bill. I think this bill is too important and too significant to let it pass here in a few minutes. I certainly want to get my two cents worth in.

What the minister is saying is a pile of nonsense, Madam Chair. It is an utter pile of nonsense! I ask the people outside if they trust this government - that is why we are here - if it was a handshake, a written agreement. They want legislation. They want to come here in front of the public of our Province where laws are made. They want it enshrined in legislation. That is a sense of a lack of trust, the same lack of trust that this government put in the Trans-Labrador Highway in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund.

Here is what their cousin in Ottawa, the federal Member for Labrador, said. Here is what he said about their sense of trust. The heading of the news release said, "Highway Robbery. Province Has Broken Labrador's Trust." That is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that, the MP?

MR. SULLIVAN: The MP for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, said he condemned them for raiding the Labrador Transportation Fund in order to reduce the provincial deficit. That is what he said. March 26, that is when he said it. Here is what he said, "There is no word for this. It's beneath despicable and disgraceful." It is beneath that, he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is coming from an expert.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said, "One more time, the province is looking to a Labrador resource to bail itself out."

I can tell you, Lawrence O'Brien is a strong advocate for the people of Labrador. It is nothing to laugh at, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. He has been a good member for the people of Labrador. They have sent him back in no uncertain fashion there. He speaks for the people of Labrador. I respect that, and I happen to believe the same basic terminology. What can that side of the House say any different? When you bring in a law and then rip it up, and then spend it as if the law was never there, you call that a sense of trust? That is a sense of breaking the law. It is not circumventing the act. It is not contravening the act. It is breaking the law. That is what it is, no two ways about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He went on and said, "This time the resource is cold, hard cash that we had to fight like dogs to get in the first place. Labrador has contributed very greatly to provincial coffers...".

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible) over a year ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might say to the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, it is not over a year ago - it is March 26 - but your government has never called the bill here in this House to have it debated.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am wondering, Madam Chair, again if the hon. the Finance critic is really aware of the bill we are discussing. We are discussing Bill 33, in case he does not know. I tried to clarify this for him when I rose in my place and spoke a few minutes ago. We are debating Bill 33. I will read the title to him again, just to ensure that he gets to understand the bill we are debating. It is An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association. He either has an awful tendency to stray into areas of non-relevancy, in which case I understand why he is talking about the Trans-Labrador Initiative Fund bill, or otherwise he forgets, he does not understand, he does not know the bill we are on. Madam Chair, I would ask you to either rule or else direct or remind the speaker regarding the issue of relevancy in the debate that we are currently holding in Committee stage on Bill 33, so that he does not again wander off into an area of legislation which we are not debating, a bill which is on the Order Paper and which he will get a chance to discuss if and when it is called, but at this point we are on Bill 33 and I would appreciate the relevancy of his comments being in that direction.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

It was a veiled attempt to hide the mistrust that government has shown, and it has earned that mistrust, I can tell you, with the people in Labrador, and the people in the Medical Association, and people in other associations, I might add. He is only trying to waste time, take up time here, delay this bill. He is trying to delay us on this bill because I have some things I want to say, Madam Chairperson, on the bill and I am getting on with it. I am getting on with it without interruptions.

The member for Labrador went on to say this is cold hard cash that we fought like dogs to get in the first place. He said, "Labrador has contributed very greatly to provincial coffers over the years, and we still do. We get very little in return from provincial revenues, and what we do get is always contingent on federal cost-sharing, even for things the province pays for entirely on the island."

He said, "This is the biggest Labrador sellout since the days of Joey Smallwood. Fifteen years ago we were shut out of the Roads for Rails deal..." - that is what Lawrence O'Brien said - "...despite provincial promises that they wouldn't give up the railway without getting a Trans-Labrador Highway in return. I worked with my federal and provincial colleagues six years ago to make up for that rip-off, and we got a separate transportation deal for Labrador...".

The former Premier of this Province - the former, former Premier - in 1997, struck a deal here which they took, Madam Chairperson, $340 million dollars that the federal government passed over in an agreement and had garnered interest by the time it went into the fund of over $9 million, and that was put into a fund with a promise. The promise, according to Lawrence O'Brien, was that it would be used wisely and the highway was to be completed.

I might add, Madam Chairperson, the wise use of that, as I cited in clause 8 of that bill, was to be used for Labrador transportation initiatives and for no others. Basically, it would be good to have another roads agreement here. Our roads agreement is running out after fifteen years. We do not have one. All we get is a little power point presentation. It was a laugh, Lawrence O'Brien basically said, a little power point presentation to the minister on the eve of an agreement running out. Where was he last year or the year before? No wonder, when the roads in our Province are in a sad state of affairs. Only for John Crosbie's $750 million or $800 million negotiation, that agreement, there would be very little put in the roads because the roads program in this Province went down immensely over the number of years. It went down less than half of what was going into provincial roads in the past.

I do not want to get too carried away with the program here, but this bill is about a trust. It is about a trust that was betrayed on the people of this Province, betrayed on the medical professionals. That is why people cannot trust to stay here and hope something will be done. People are starting to move already. I have read of doctors who are going to leave. We warned this government before. Even in one area at one time when I was critic, there were three medical oncologists and every single one left this Province and went on to greener pastures because this government would not negotiate, would not correct the problems.

They did it with nurses when they had to drive them to the streets. They had to settle after the fact. It takes less effort to do it in the beginning and look at a reasonable wage for people of our Province so that we can be competitive with people across Atlantic Canada. We are not asking for the ceiling. We have never asked, and I have never asked, for parity with the United States, or parity with richer parts of this country. I have never asked for it. All I have ever said, in reaching agreements, is: a comparable wage that would allow them to have a form of equity with Atlantic Canada. Is that too much to ask? Small, little Prince Edward Island, to be able to compete with them, or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia? That was all that was asked for, and this government procrastinated and procrastinated and spend more money on recruitment, advertising in papers down through the United States and elsewhere, advertising across the country, spending our precious resources, trying to get people back who they turned out because they would not deal with the problem.

That is half the problem we have, a government that cannot respond, a government that cannot even plan. There are no plans. The plans are gone. This government is a government without direction, floating aimlessly, like a boat without an engine out on the ocean. Whatever way the wind and tide takes it, that is where it is going, that is what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is it, Madam Chairperson, and the tide happens to be going away from the shore at this time. It happens to be going in an opposite direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We should never have to be here in this House debating this bill. We should never have a bill on the Order Paper to rip up the legislation on the Labrador transportation initiatives. We shouldn't have to be here. In fact, they are not even going to call it. They don't want to call it. They don't want to raise the issue again. They have stayed away from it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Order Paper is from last spring. They couldn't get out of this House fast enough in May to announce an Inco deal, so that we couldn't ask questions on it. They shut the House down. The first opportunity the Leader had to ask questions on this bill was here this fall, and the Upper Churchill dominated the first weeks. He is asking questions on Inco and you don't like it, because what is in your agreement was not in the Statement of Principles. There are differences there. You didn't honour the basic Statement of Principles. That is what has happened there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is trust! Is that trust? That is a lack of trust. If it was for lack of trust, I can tell you, this government would get an A, they would get the highest possible rating.

No wonder Lawrence O'Brien is peeved about it all. He said: It is a big rip-off. He said: The money and the $65 million interest that it earned was a Labrador resort. They gave promises about what they would do with the money. Millions were spent on projects that would be funded under general programs on the Island. They made sacred vows to keep the money separate and use it for a separate purpose, ferry and highway transportation needs. Both of these promises have been broken. Another broken promise on the Labrador transportation initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Broken promises! Broken promises!

A government that tore up collective agreements, rolled them back. That government rolled back collective agreements after negotiating them in good faith.

No wonder the people in Labrador, no wonder the doctors, no wonder the nurses, no wonder anybody in this Province, can sit down and negotiate in good faith, put it in legislation, and then they turn around and don't even honour the legislation they passed. They set the rules, they dictate the rules, they legislate it and then they don't even keep it. I mean, does that make sense?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What is the purpose of standing here in this House hour after hour when they might turn around next week and decide - the Premier might wake up in the morning and say: It is a rainy morning out there. It is not very nice. I think we will do something bad again today. We will go change another law in the books of the Province. We will ignore it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Or the Finance Minister or any minister, that is basically what is happening. That is factual. It is there for all to see. Why would you pass a bill for a separate fund and then, when you are in a budget crunch, you give people false numbers in the public? You rob a fund and stick it in there to make you look $97 million better than you were; but you don't hide on the Auditor General, and we will probably find that out tomorrow. We will probably find out then, and we will not hide on the Public Accounts that the minister tabled here in this House, $473.6 million deficit last year that we added to the debts of this Province.

In the last three years we put $1 billion to the debt of this Province. You do not hide on those actual accounts because once a year this government has to come to this House, and the Finance Minister stands in her place and has to table the true financial position of the Province, confirmed by the Comptroller General, an employee here of government, and confirmed by the Auditor General, which is the chief officer who does audits and reports on the accountability of this government; and the accountability of this government has not been very good, I can assure you.

You can always afford to build up a sense of trust. You do not need dollars for trust. All you need is a commitment to your word for trust.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You need to have the honesty and integrity of convictions when you are negotiating, whatever the situation may be, whether it is millions or nothing. Trust is trust. Lots of people do not have any money. Lots of people have lots of money, but trust is something that does not come with a price tag, I say to the Premier. That is not something that has a price tag.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. Trust is honoring your commitment. It is establishing a record that at least people know. It is like a referee in a hockey game. When you go on the ice you know that referee is going to be consistent. You know what to expect from that person. You know how to set the standards. But, if he referees every game differently, you cannot build up any confidence or any trust to know what the limits are in that game, and that is the same with this government. They are jumping all over the map from one point to the next.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I finally have to agree with the Minister of Mines and Energy when he stood here tonight, a few moments ago, and said this bill, Bill 33, is about trust. I have to concur with him. This is about trust, as the minister said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is the operative word. He finally confirmed for us.

What I have to question is how the minister could stand here and have the audacity to tell this House and the people of this Province that the Medical Association trusted this government so much that they concurred with and agreed to go to binding arbitration? The only reason they are in binding arbitration is because they could not settle an agreement. They could not negotiate an agreement under the conditions that were created by this government, a condition of antagonistic relationships, personal daily attacks on physicians, daily attacks on the contribution they were making to their patients, daily attacks on the contributions they were making to the people of this entire Province. They could not negotiate an agreement in that kind of an environment. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, that is why they were forced into binding arbitration, not why they agreed to binding arbitration.

I will also suggest to the minister that the reason we have this bill - and I will adhere to his suggestion earlier to stay focused very much on the intent of the bill. Just so that we are all clear, this is a bill that says: An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association. The explanatory notes, I think, are pretty telling when it says, "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 and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is final and binding on these parties."

I say to the minister, and I say to this government, if there was such an element of trust by the Medical Association, why would they insist on such legislation? Why would they insist on having, as the minister says, their legislative signature on a commitment to binding arbitration? The RNC did not ask for such legislation. The correctional officers did not ask for such legislation. I suggest to the minister the reason that they did not ask is because when they were negotiating their agreements, I have to acknowledge, they were not under attack. This government saw fit to negotiate in a sensible, logical and natural fashion but for some reason, Madam Chair, when this government was negotiating with physicians in this Province they chose a very different tactic. They chose to go on a very personal attack on physicians in this Province.

When I stood in this House a couple of weeks ago and asked the Minister of Health and Community Services why we had such an excessive waiting list for cardiac surgery - we are, in this particular Province today, only doing about thirteen-point-something cases per week, when in 2001 this government committed to be up to twenty cases per week. We are now, as we speak, adding more cases to our wait list for cardiac surgery than we are able to do in any one given week. Now, when the health care corp responds as to some of the reasons for that, do you know one of the reasons they cite? They suggest that we do not have enough anaesthetists at the hospitals, a desperately needed speciality. I wonder why?

If you were an anaesthetist out in Alberta today and you were listening to the national media and all you heard was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador out there attacking your colleagues, attacking your profession, not prepared to pay you a reasonable salary, a reasonable compensation package to be able to attract you, and the next morning you get a call from some recruiter in Newfoundland asking you to consider coming here, why would anybody want to give that kind of an offer any consideration? I suggest to the minister, that is why we are here today. That is why we are debating this legislation, but we have to acknowledge this is a pretty simple piece of legislation. It is very simply written, one pager, but what is fundamental about this particular bill? Because this is a sad commentary on where we have reached as a Province. This is a sad commentary about how we respect the human resources that we have providing services to the people of this Province, a very valuable medical service.

Last week, Madam Chair, we saw a situation in Deer Lake where physicians were saying: We are no longer in a position to do call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Our task has become so onerous. We are short-staffed. We cannot work under those conditions. We have to change our commitment to the people of the Deer Lake area.

That is what this is about. Physicians have lost faith in this government. Physicians no longer trust this government. They can no longer say, we are prepared to sit down and negotiate an agreement and agree to appoint an arbitration panel to render a decision. In the ordinary course of collective bargaining, and in every other bargaining unit in this Province that has ever gone and accepted binding arbitration, this is a first. This is a first, Madam Chair. This kind of legislation is a first for this Province. The kind of strike we had by physicians was the first for this country. The longest physicians strike in the history of this country, we had it here in Newfoundland. This is what it comes down to: We do not trust this government so we want you to use the minister's own phrase. We want you to put your legislative signature on the word you just gave us because we are frightened to death. We are afraid you will not be prepared to honour that commitment. We have seen you not honour commitments before. We have seen you make statements in public. We have seen you deliver budgets where you are going to have a $93 million deficit, only to find out twelve months later that it is close to $500 million.

That is the kind of thing that they have witnessed. That is the kind of thing that they have witnessed from this government, commitments to balance budgets, but what happens? Five hundred million dollars, Madam Chair, that is the kind of stuff that we see. That is the kind of stuff that we are seeing.

Inasmuch as our leader very quickly, on the announcement that there would be an arbitration panel put in place to deal with this dispute, said in a public statement that our party would, in fact, endorse such legislation, our party would, in fact, when elected as a government, honour any commitments and any kind of agreement as laid out by an arbitrator, inasmuch as our party was very quick to make that statement, it is unfortunate that we even have to be debating this. That is the basic fundamental issue here. We should be standing in this House today debating Bill 33 with black arm bands on, because I think this is a sad commentary on where we are in collective bargaining in this Province.

What message are we sending to our public sector unions? What message are we sending to our other employee groups? When is the next time we are going to have to deal with a bill such as this? Why don't we just amend this bill, I say to the Premier? Why don't we just amend this bill and say we will comply with all binding arbitration awards? Are we going to single this group out and say we are going to agree to this one and maybe not agree to others? Why is it that we need to have such legislation in the first place? Why is it? That is the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves here, not whether or not we should pass this bill tonight. You should be asking yourselves: Why, in fact, are we standing here today having this discussion? Why, in fact, do we waste the paper to print Bill 33?

Fundamentally, I say, Madam Chair, it is a question of trust. It is a question of trust or a lack of trust, a lack of trust by what is considered to be one of the most committed group of professionals in our Province, a group of people who - what have we talked about in this House in this past sitting? How many times has the issue of health care come up? What is the issue that has dominated the media in the last month? It is health care.

One of the cornerstones of the minister's strategic health plan -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Could I have leave to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I will let my colleague from Ferryland have a few words and I will conclude after him.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Can he have a minute and I won't get up, just to finish up? (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I say, Madam Chair, that is a prime example of good negotiation by the Member for Ferryland. He saw an opportunity to settle a dispute and offered a suggestion that was reasonable, because he trusted them, and we have now taken you on your word to give me a few minutes to conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Chair, this will be my final comment. I will honour the commitment made by my colleague from Ferryland.

I was about to say, one of the cornerstones for the minister's strategic health plan was primary health care reform. We have had already in this Province an opportunity to establish a model for primary care in this Province, and that was a process that was started about three or four years ago in Clarenville, where a group of physicians in Clarenville, together with the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation and the provincial Department of Health and Community Services, spent two or three years coming up with a model for primary health care and, as a result of those two or three years of discussions, came pretty close, Madam Chair, to having in place a model for the Province, but it fell apart at the last minute. It fell apart at the last minute for one fundamental reason: The physicians who were involved in that process ran into a problem with government. They did not honour the commitment that they had made in the early stages of the discussion and comply with the established principles for such a model, and agree to conclude a satisfactory arrangement in and around what they had agreed upon already would be a structure for such a primary health care model. Again, it is a good example of where we had that happen in the past.

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the House for the opportunity and the leave to continue my comments. Again I suggest that, as we pass Bill 33 this evening, we reflect on the real reason that we are debating this, not the content.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association." (Bill 33)

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Madam Chair: To Move that the House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Certain Mining and Mineral Rights Taxes, Bill 21.

A bill, "An Act To Impose Taxes On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." (Bill 21)

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are several points in this bill that I need to address. Normally, in second reading of a bill, we get about an hour to make the points. We have it, if needed. There are numerous points I have to make on this bill. I feel it is going to be necessary to take some time to do that, if it is done intermittently, in succession, or whatever the case might be. There are a lot of concerns out there. My biggest concern is that Members of this House of Assembly are not fully aware of the implications of this particular bill, and getting the full truth on this bill.

Madam Chairperson, I am going to take it step by step. I am not going to divert from my points until I make a particular point and I will move on to the next point. I want to say at the onset, Madam Chairperson, many of the things that are being said in public on this bill by the Premier and by the minister are absolutely, totally false.

Number one, this government is giving the people the impression out in this Province that by taxing the royalty holders we are getting more dollars for health care. That is absolutely false. This bill is shifting the taxation from the operator to the royalty holder, to a certain amount. There are no new taxes. In fact, if this bill goes through, with the damper it would have on exploration in this Province, there would be less taxation come into the coffers of this Province and it will have a very negative affect. That is the number one point that is being spread there. I will make that point. We did not have an opportunity. The government has spread releases. They have gone to Open Lines, the Premier and the minister, on that. This is our chance here in the House to make a few points.

The other night I had, I think, twenty minutes, twenty or twenty-five minutes, interrupted many times by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and again tonight. I want to get an opportunity to make the points and, however long it takes to make them, I will make them.

The number one point here in this House, and I will take them step by step, I asked the minister in this House, when opening debate on this, the last day, why this is not referred to a legislative review committee, because I feel the people in this Province, the public, want an opportunity to be able to make presentations to get their points of view out to this Province. The minister said, and I will quote her words: There was extreme consultation - and she would table it. I think she said she would table that. I would love to see copies of these, because I have been informed by the Chamber of Mineral Resources, by explorationists and numerous others. In fact, Madam Chairperson, on October 22, Katherine Howley from the Office of the Premier wrote the Chamber of Mineral Resources, the Executive Director, and said, "Regrettably, given the extraordinary demands on the Premier's schedule I am unable to accommodate your request for a meeting with him. The Premier has recommended, however, that a meeting proceed with the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Joan Marie Aylward and the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Honourable Lloyd Matthews. In this regard, I have forwarded your letter to the Ministers' offices and conveyed the Premier's recommendation."

Madam Chairperson, no such meeting occurred. There was no availability and no opportunity by this Chamber to put their view on this very detrimental bill that is coming here before this House of Assembly. In writing, this is a letter right from the Premier's, I think, Director of Administration, in the Premier's Office.

On October 10, a letter was written to the Premier by the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources. This was the letter that requested - I will not read it, it is a two page letter, but the response that I read was dated October 21. Prior to that, in the last paragraph, it said: Simply put, this is a bad tax that has been applied in situations for which it was not intended. The Camber requests a meeting with you and your officials to discuss ways to remedy the situation.

I have gone through their particular points here in great detail, and many others, dozens and dozens of submissions by people from e-mails representing explorationists. That meeting never occurred. They did not have consultation and they did not even think over the number of years that tax applied to them, as the minister indicated in public.

There have been many untruths that have gone out in this public over the last few days. I sincerely believe a member of this House, a member of the government side, had requested an explanation and he got a letter in writing - and I have a copy of that letter, too, I might add - explaining these particular points.

People want to know, but they are being shielded from the actual facts and they are not getting the truth on this particular thing, and there is going to be a net revenue loss to our Province and it is going to seriously damage our ability to become a viable mining Province in this particular country.

This government has talked -

MR. REID: That is not why you were asking (inaudible). Talking about the tax break to millionaires (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Madam Chairperson, is continuously interrupting and trying to use my time because he is afraid to stand up and face the truth in this bill. He is hiding behind it. I will debate him in public on any point of this bill if he has the willingness to do it. He does not know what he is talking about, and that is why he is shouting and trying to prevent me from making my points.

Madam Chairperson, on October 29, a mining company in this Province asked for an opportunity to meet. Denied. Peter Dimmell, the Chairperson - This government is not prepared to listen and they are trying to put a view in public that is absolutely false. There is no new revenue, less dollars for health care, and they are trying to spin something out there because the only argument they have - and I know, in my mind, that they realize now that they have made a mistake and they will not haul in their horns because they gave a commitment to Inco, to shift the responsibility from Inco to explorationists here in our Province, and that is what they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have heard there are dozens of submissions by people that have gone into the Mines and Energy Department, and they are not getting heard. People were brought in. The minister said: Three parties in this. She said there are three parties. She said: There are the exploration people, there is the Province, and there is Inco. I can tell you, explorationists will be worse off, the Province will be worse off, and the only people who will benefit out of these three parties is Inco in the final deal. Inco is guaranteed a rate somewhere between -

MR. REID: (Inaudible). He blew it. The union leader took off out through the door like a scald cat. He scuttled out of here as fast as he could go, because he blew it (inaudible), looking for a tax break for multi-millionaires.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, it is kind of difficult to proceed with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture getting on with that boisterous spray across the House.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is grossly unfair to try to shut down proceedings here on debate on a bill that is very important in this Province. I deserve an opportunity to be heard in this House, Madam Chairperson, on this particular bill because there are some very important points that they are hiding from the people, on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, he won't shout me down on this issue.

The minister said, there are three parties to this deal, and only one of these out of three is going to benefit from this deal, and that is Inco. Inco will pay a rate anywhere from 34.9 per cent to 39 per cent. It is the average of all Canadian provinces, when explorationists in this Province will be taxed at a rate of 57.34 per cent. Yes, Madam Chairperson -

PREMIER GRIMES: That is not true and he knows it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know it is true.

PREMIER GRIMES: You know it is not true. That is why you are so embarrassed to be up saying it, you know it is not true.

PREMIER GRIMES: Madam Chairperson, the Premier will have an opportunity to get up again, and he will have an opportunity to carry the government line on open lines and elsewhere as he is doing. I am trying to correct untruths that have gone out to the public. He knows as well as I know, that the people are not getting the goods on this one, because Inco has put too much money in the coffers of people outside the House to be able to turn back now, and they have commitments to keep. That is what they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They have given Inco a commitment. I would ask him to table all contributions by Inco.

Now, Madam Chairperson -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is Archean paying you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Nothing. I can tell you that there is nothing, absolutely that.

Inco, Madam Chairperson, is getting a sweetheart deal. Here is what the chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources said. He said: We believe this government did not consult with the industry prior to introducing this bill. It does not understand the negative implications for the future of our mining and mineral exploration industry. We insist that the necessary consultation with the industry be carried out before it attempts to enact the repugnant elements of this bill. The Chamber is always available for constructive input and is very disappointed in the manner in which government has proceeded.

Madam Chairperson, the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources has been available for discussions with this government, but they have not been available, they have not been open. They know that the big winners in this field is Inco, when they are getting almost 20 per cent less. Not another jurisdiction in this country, not another jurisdiction in the world, collects a tax on the holders of that royalty. Not only that, Madam Chairperson, the act also states that they can writeoff the 3 per cent as a deduction. Not another jurisdiction does that.

I might add, the Premier and the minister have indicated many times: Inco is going to pay hundreds of times what the royalty holders are going to pay. Of course, the royalty holders own 3 per cent. Inco, 97 per cent. Wouldn't you expect them to pay many times more? The rate that the multinational, multibillion dollar giant Inco pays is close to 20 per cent less than Newfoundland and Labrador exploration companies are going to pay. The balance has shifted alright. It has shifted for the multibillion dollar companies and they put them on to someone who is lucky enough to get a find in our Province. Regardless of that, if you did not tax the royalty holders, Inco would have to pay the tax anyway on it and that would be the same revenue to our Province. They would have to pay it anyway. I would like to hear the minister stand up and refute that particular point.

Basically, we are saying there is going to be no new revenue. Anybody who has looked at it, from a tax point of view -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: When you take taxes from Peter to pay Paul, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the generosity of Paul. You can so, and that is basically what is happening.

Another association - consultation you say - The Newfoundland and Labrador Exploration Association. Here is what they said, "I am writing you..." Premier Grimes and Minister Matthews, "...as the new President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Explorationists -

MR. BARRETT: Who is that, John Lundrigan?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, this is written from Michael Regular, a geologist, Exploits Valley Economy Development Corporation - is the address here - President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Explorationists. I do not know the individual, but if anybody is familiar with Michael Regular, the geologist, I understand he is a reputable individual.

There is another reference here. I think he is the geologist. He is a mining (inaudible) officer out in Central Newfoundland. He said:

"I am writing you as the new President of Newfoundland and Labrdaor Explorationists (NALE) who's membership has some real concerns over the proposed Net Smelter Return (NRS) tax or mineral royalty tax.

"What concerns us is the bulldozer method that this current government is taking in order to place this tax. The powers that be do not seem to be listening to the people that are both involved with this industry and have the most to lose, namely the prospectors, geoscientists and exploration companies. These parties work hard in exploring our Province for mineral wealth, knowing it can create employment and increase our GDP, but all to often they end up with nothing, which is the nature of a very high-risk business. Their only compensation is the possibility of an NSR should a property be developed into a functioning mine, an NSR that should not be taxed.

"I have been active in this Province's mineral industry for ten years, and this tax, should it be passed, will likely affect the way I, and others in the industry, do our business. It may prove too much of a disincentive for our mineral industry and drive away good exploration partners.

"This Province is already a difficult location to raise capital for exploration and is sometimes viewed as being politically unfriendly, let's not compound this problem any further. You have heard it all before I am sure, this tax is not seen in other provinces or territories. Because it is a BAD tax. This government does not tax other royalties on fish, oil, electricity, forest resources and the like, so why is it targeting the mineral industry? The word gouging comes to mind.

"As a dedicated mineral explorationist and an economic developer in this Province, I implore you not to proceed with this tax idea. Allow people in the mineral industry to remain active with the hope of some future compensation. Our out-migration is bad enough; please don't exacerbate the Province's problems any further.

"Thank you for listening and regards, Keep Mining in Newfoundland & Labrador.

Michael Regular, Geologist."

Also, he sent a letter to numerous people, members here in this House of Assembly. I looked through it.

As a newly elected president, I represent a large number of active provincial prospectors and geo-scientists who have a strong opposition to government's plan to introduce this new Bill 21, the proposed mining tax regime.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Madam Chairperson?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? Okay, the minister withdraws leave.

Thank you.

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

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

In this committee procedure, people get an opportunity to get up and speak for ten minutes back and forth. I say to the critic, I am sure he will have ample opportunity. Nobody would ever hope to stymie your time to make your points.

I take this opportunity to make some points. First of all, opening comments about how this is not for health care: I beg to differ, and I think the people of the Province would see the difference. Our taxes go into general revenue, and of the taxes 50 per cent almost goes strictly to health care. That doesn't include education and social services. So, I say to the members opposite: Where is the money going if it is not going to health care and other programs? Why would it be spent on any other program, any other service? It just makes good sense.

Now, whether or not you agree with that, I say to members opposite, it is there for all to see. Almost 50 per cent of every dollar goes to health care, and then we have education and social services on top of that. It doesn't take any amount of calculation to figure out that those tax dollars would go into the general revenue for health, education and social services.

Now, in terms of this bill, members opposite would try to leave the impression that this is a new piece of legislation. While there are new components to it, the 20 per cent royalty tax is not new. In fact, members opposite and people listening will know, Archean did not like the tax and took it to court in 1998. What happened in the courts? The courts upheld government's decision to apply the 20 per cent royalty tax. They still did not like it. Still there are more options. What happened next? Then Archean went to the Court of Appeal. What happened in the Court of Appeal? It unanimously upheld government's decision that the 20 per cent tax was appropriately applied as it was meant to be on royalties. There is still an option of going to the Supreme Court, and I am sure that they may avail of that. It is certainly their right to do it. They are open to do it. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

Further, I have to say - and I think this is a very important part - why would you expect the PCs, the party opposite, to support a bill to do with anything with Voisey's Bay when they are against Voisey's Bay? They all voted against it, except for one member because the people in his district are getting mega benefits from this and we are so proud of that in Argentia. Why would you expect them to think anything else of this piece of legislation? Why would you expect them to support it? They are against Voisey's Bay. In fact, if they had their way there would be no Voisey's Bay. There would be no royalties for the people of the Province. Why would anyone be shocked to expect anything else? It is just the way it is.

In fact, every single day in this House we get questions. They are hoping and praying, not only that this will not go through, but the deal will fail. This would be the ultimate day, the day that the sky really did fall and Voisey's Bay would be a dismal failure. That would make them the happiest of all, but we have a good deal. We have the legislation. We have the legal documents and we are still waiting for the loopholes that they are talking about to drive the Mack trucks through. They can't even get a dinky through it let alone a Mack truck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I do not know what kind of loopholes they have.

They talk about taxation and they try to lump it all together, but, unfortunately, it does not work like that. Everybody who is in the business sector will pay a corporate income tax. It does not matter if you are associated with the mining industry or otherwise. If you are in business you pay a corporate income tax. If you are in business and you also get a royalty, then on top of that you will pay a royalty tax. What is a royalty tax? A royalty tax is our share of our resource. We make no apologies for collecting our share of our resource for our people of the Province.

I know that the position has changed because everyday in this House we are hearing members of the Opposition standing up and saying: Let's give the people who are making millions and millions of dollars from this project, more millions and millions so that the people of the Province will get less. I say that we are standing firm here in fighting for the people of the Province so that we will have more money for them, for us, to put into health, education and social services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Who owns the nonrenewable resource? Does Archean Resources own it? No. The people of this Province own it, and there are components associated with it that I think we need to repeat one more time. Everybody is saying: Well, why don't you just take all the money from Inco, big bad Inco? I am saying, what we have done as a government, is that we have shared it. We have shared the taxation.

We have also looked at the risk, and anybody out there can see who is carrying the risk. Inco has put in a $3 billion component to this project, a $3 billion risk, and it is not just the cash. In fact, they will spend $1 billion before they even hope to get any revenue out of this Province. That is risk.

In addition to that, they have all the risk associated with the cost of nickel in the world, production. Are our interests protected? Absolutely. Are there loopholes? We have not heard any yet. We are still waiting for them, but we have not heard them. We are very protected. We continue to say that, and the legal wording is there for that.

Look at the risk. What is the risk for the royalty recipient? The only risk is that the mine will not work and they will not get their royalty. I suppose that is some risk, but the biggest portion of risk is to the mine operator: a $3 billion risk. What about the risk about exploration? How much did Archean Resources pay out of their own pockets for doing the exploration work? Members opposite know: very little, if any. I have not heard of any. I would be happy to hear it. My understanding is, Diamond Field Resources funded the whole exploration. That is my understanding. I am waiting to hear any different. Where is the risk here? Where is the risk for the two individuals we are very proud of and who have made a fabulous discovery, and who should pay - all of us, the people of the Province - our fair share of the revenue.

I say to the people listening and I say to people opposite that I do not quite understand why members opposite would be arguing for people who have done very well, become millionaires many times over - and we are proud of them, we are happy for them - but what is wrong with giving a share back to the people who own the resource? I do not understand it. It is not like we are going to put it in our pockets over here and say we are going to have a happy day.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is just Tory policy.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Maybe it is Tory policy, I do not know, but it is a bit frightening if it is, I say to my colleagues here.

I say that the money we are getting is not for our own pockets. It is for the people of the Province, to help pay for the resources.

Whether you like it or not, let's look at the taxes that will be paid over the life of the agreement by the mine operator and by the group that is receiving the royalty. Millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars will be paid by Inco over the life of the agreement. You might not agree with it, but they are the facts. Not only are they paying the risk but they are also paying a very large, substantial amount of taxation over the life of the agreement.

What about Archean Resources? Well, they also will pay taxes but they will pay significantly less. That is about the risk, that is about the 3 per cent royalty taxation. Not 3 per cent, rather, the 3 per cent net smelter royalty of which there is a 20 per cent taxation on that.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would permit a question?

I agree with her on the royalty tax that Archean is paying, but I wonder if the minister could tell us, on the $4.3 billion sale from Diamond Field Resources to Inco, what taxes did the government collect on that sale, on the value of that resource? Would the minister tell us - we know that Archean has a 3 per cent net smelter royalty - what royalties will the Province collect on the Inco find, not taxes but royalties?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will clarify all the points, but I will answer the questions.

First of all, Archean paid no taxes on the original sale. That was a tax-free cash exchange, and I will verify that for the member opposite just to be sure.

In terms of -

MR. SULLIVAN: Diamond Fields.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Diamond Fields Resources, yes. There was no taxation paid to the Province in that cash transaction, when Diamond Fields paid Archean -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when Inco paid Diamond Fields.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: When Inco paid Diamond Fields? No, not at that piece of it as well. We will collect through corporate income tax, anything that is over and above the $2 million a year for the ten-year holiday once the production starts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, it is for ten years, the first ten years.

With respect to the Inco piece, I will check for you. All that information is available. If it is of a confidential nature, I will ballpark it for the member opposite.

As I was saying, because I understand I still have some time left to discuss this, because I think it is very important, the basis of the bill is very much to improve the existing mineral and mining taxes, as we have in the Province. We have made a number of changes in this bill. I want to say again, because I think it is very important, this 20 per cent tax has been in place and there were royalties paid out under this tax since 1975. Members the other day asked the question, if, in fact, there were any paid out, and there were.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

I will be happy to finish that, because it was a question that was asked by the Opposition last time in committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

First of all, I want to correct something. I never said taxation doesn't go to health care. I said there are no new taxes as a result of this bill, therefore, there are no new dollars for health care. That is what I said. Besides, we are not paying close to 50 per cent in health care. The minister knows full well we are not paying close to 50 per cent.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Every time I stand up, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets in another seat and yells out, from the front row, so I can't be heard. We gave the minister the courtesy to be heard and I would like the courtesy to be heard too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was there a Cabinet shuffle? There was a Cabinet shuffle, was there?

MR. J. BYRNE: There should be.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is not accurate when she is saying 50 per cent to health care.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Almost.

MR. SULLIVAN: Almost. She is not accurate because they distorted the figures by dumping what used to be in health care - the percent has gone up. They dumped child protection and family rehabilitative services. Youth corrections used to be in the old Social Services Department. Now it is just the Department of Health. We are talking about tens and hundreds of millions of dollars over the years that has gone in, and that distorts the true picture. So, let's talk apples and apples, not distorting the picture, number one.

She has indicated that government never collected this tax. This was brought in, in 1975, I believe, and nothing was ever collected to the 1990s. I saw, on television yesterday, never a cent was collected under this 20 per cent until Archean asked for clarification and felt it did not apply to them. Then government moved to collect from Nugget Pond and the minister said it was coincidental, she told the media.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem listening to the member opposite when he is giving facts and he is giving it as it is accurately put. I have already said, unequivocally, from the Department of Finance, that there were royalties collected. I was in the process of saying it when I was sat down; he would not give me leave to finish it. If he is going to get up and speak, he may as well speak the truth as it relates to this piece of information, because I have said it before. We have collected the royalty from IOCC, Wabush Mines, Buchans, Hope Brook. Yes, I say to the member, you might know all that is in my department but you are not there, and I can tell you that this is accurate information.

Now, Hope Brook and Nugget Pond were after 1997; however, to get up and say there was nothing received is inaccurate, it is false, it is not true. Now, however you want to put that in a box, it is inaccurate information.

Further to the point of order, I am only too happy to listen to the member when he gives the facts, and he will get up again now and say it is not true. I will say to you that there were royalties collected on IOCC, Wabush Mines and Buchans, and that includes ASARCO, and I would say it is accurate, it is factual. It is from the documents of the Department of Finance, and I would ask the member to respect the bureaucrats and the officials and the documentation that we received on taxes and royalties received. At least do that, I say to the member.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I waited in my seat for ten minutes and did not interrupt. I stood up and made the corrections when I got up. She likes to take it out of my time because it is a deliberate strategy for this government to prevent the truth from getting out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a deliberate strategy. There is a difference in interpretation.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The truth is a strategy. The truth is a strategy (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now she will not let me speak. I listened to her carefully, Mr. Chairperson, to make sure I heard exactly what she said.

There is a difference between IOCC and Wabush and those who also held the right to mine. If the royalty holder has the right to mine, the taxation -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: But aren't they paying a royalty tax?

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty per cent, when? If you eliminate it, the tax on royalties, in the case of Voisey's Bay, Inco would have to pay the basic per cent. Basically, Inco would then pay. By taxing them, Inco doesn't get a deduction so you are transferring it from Inco to the new Archean, or whoever the royalty holder happens to be. That is a word game the minister is playing. I see through it, and I know the difference. It is difficult when people have not done the research on it, to follow it, but that is what she is trying to do.

I am not arguing in here for millionaires, Mr. Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am arguing, and I have said from day one, for every explorationist out in this Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am arguing for Vulcan Minerals, for Altius, and the people who will spend $500,000 and more by people out in the field working and exploring. The people all over this Province; the people in Labrador. The reason exploration in Labrador has gone down, it is costly, it is expensive, it is hard to get financing, travel is very expensive. On the Island, yes. The reason it is active on the Island.

This tax, Mr. Chair, will ensure that future Voisey's Bays will be delayed for long periods of time because the greater the intensity in exploration the more likely we are to get a mine. If we take away the incentive - what happens to Atlantic Lotto when you increase the jackpot to several million as opposed to a million? You have a lot more people invest and take that big chance. When you increase the find -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I am hearing this from explorationists representing numerous companies who have been in the field. This government has not been willing, not even to listen to these people to hear their arguments.

I downloaded seven e-mails today that were copied, some of them, to other members. There is one copied here - Mr. Chair, there was one of these sent to you, giving you an explanation that you requested; even on one of these particular legislation, how there were no new taxes. I have a copy of that, and other members.

People want to stand in this House and spread the word: We want to give millionaires a break. Explorationists, Archean and any other company in this Province should pay their fair share, Mr. Chair. Archean should not have to pay 20 per cent more than Inco. That, to me, is unfair. They should pay a fair price. This is not about Archeans and Incos, this is about the future of the exploration industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I predict that these people, in their lack of wisdom, will be back in this House in the spring, if they are still around, to bring an amendment to this bill, to correct the inequity when Inco gets their sweetheart deal.

This minister cannot stand in this House today and tell us what tax Inco is going to pay because it is not decided. Under the act now it is 34.9 per cent. The Canadian average is 39.8 per cent. They are guaranteed - regardless of what happens to the taxation in our Province - in the Inco contract, that they will not pay higher than the Canadian average, which is 39.8 per cent. And it changes too, Inco is getting a tax concession.

The minister will stand and give the impression that there is no tax holiday on the books now, and rightly so. Inco has been told from day one that there is no tax holiday, but the legislation they are bringing in to amend that is telling Inco we are going to exempt you $2 million a year, $20 million on a tax holiday, and to me, that is a major tax holiday. Twenty million would go a long way in a doctor's dispute. We would not have doctors out on the streets today. That is on an annual basis. Minister, we are not getting the full truth. We are getting twisted convolutions of what is going on out there today; and that is why.

Most people in the public today do not buy into the figures on taxes. This government talks about one thing: health care, millionaires, because the public can tune into it. You are not fooling the people, minister, because you have to talk numbers. You have to talk numbers and you have to see the impact. The impact will not be felt this spring. The impact will be felt over the next number of years by the negative aspect of this particular tax here.

There are no new taxes. George Bush, I think, said that. No new taxes. There is no new tax revenue coming into this Province with this bill and there is going to be less taxation from explorationists, from secondary spinoffs from exploration, in the Baie Verte's, the Springdale's, the Buchans', the Labrador's and areas that have depended primarily on mining in this Province.

I spent hours and hours getting to understand - and talking to people - the tax law. I have gone through the Price Waterhouse Coopers comparison of taxation in every province in this country and around the world; other areas of the world. Russia and other countries of the world have more favourable progressive taxation on that. We have the highest, 57.34 per cent. Telling a young Newfoundlander who is out in the bush, and across this Province right now today, that you find something. They have to go to Toronto; New York. I spoke with one person from New York who was down trying to tap into money to invest. They will gravitate to areas where there is more favourable taxation. To tell them they are going to get a find -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Take a breather and do a bit of reading, you may understand this whole amendment more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member might be in here fighting for explorationists in our Province, but the people on this side of the House are fighting for all the citizens of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We are making an effort to ensure that we get a proper return on our resources. The people of the Province, this party, and I, personally, have been fighting for that for years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - prior to the hon. member being elected even.

The hon. member does not understand the taxation system in this country. He does not understand the equalization system. Last night when we were debating this issue the Opposition party was arguing against taxation of resources for the benefit of the people of our Province. Now, tonight, he is trying to change his story. He is trying to say that he is against it because there will not be any net revenues as a result, because it is all going to be clawed back as a result of the equalization formula. But, what the hon. member does not realize -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland, to a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson.

The minister just attributed a statement to me that is absolutely false. I never made reference to equalization and clawback whatsoever in any of my discussions on this bill. I want him to stand and apologize for impugning motives and statements that I never made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) as a result of this legislation. Why don't he explain what he means by that? The next time he gets up, Mr. Chairman, he can explain that. The fact of the matter is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: That is all right. This is a long night, there will be no cutting into time tonight.

What he doesn't understand is that the equalization formula is based on the capacity to tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: I never talked about that.

MR. NOEL: No, but that is what was implicit in what you said. That was your only reason for saying there would be no new taxes as a result of this legislation. You were trying to say there would be no new revenue to the Province, and implicitly, because of the equalization clawback. The reality is that the equalization formula is based on the ability to tax, not the actual tax that you impose. If we fail to impose this tax, we would still suffer the clawback under equalization. That is what the hon. member doesn't understand.

Mr. Chairman, the party on this side of the House is committed to ensure that our Province and the people of our Province get a fair return on the exploitation of our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We are doing that, Mr. Chairman, in all areas of the economy of our Province. We are trying to get the best return and we are doing a very good job of achieving that, as we demonstrated last year, Mr. Chairman, with the Voisey's Bay deal, which is going to be a very lucrative deal for this Province. We wouldn't have signed it if it was otherwise, as we will also demonstrate if we get the kind of deal that we want for the Gull Island development. We will sign no deal that doesn't provide the proper benefits, proper maximum benefits, for the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, some of us have been fighting for that for a long time, and we intend to fight for it a long time into the future.

The people on the other side of the House are trying to appease some of their political friends by trying to defeat this amendment that we are proposing to this bill. Well, they are not going to succeed, Mr. Chairman, because we have the full support of this side of the House to pass this amendment. We intend to do more than this to get the kind of returns our people deserve on the resources that are being exploited in this Province. We have to do it on all resources, Mr. Chairman.

Some members may remember, a few years ago I proposed a tax on our fish resource. That is one major resource in this Province that is not taxed today, that doesn't have a royalty tax, and it should have a royalty tax because it is a resource like all other resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: That is something that I hope this government will look into in the not too distant future.

Where the hon. member was also wrong, in speaking earlier tonight, was when the Member for St. John's East, I believe it was, said that we got no taxation on the sale from Diamond Fields to Inco, when that sale was made. We didn't get a lot of taxation but we got our share of the capital gains tax that was made on that, if Diamond Fields was registered as a Canadian company at the time. There is no basis for the Province to get any other sort of taxation out of that kind of transaction. That was a sales transaction and we would only benefit to the extent there was a capital gain which would be taxed by the federal government and have an amount attributed to our Province. We may well have gotten some tax out of that, Mr. Chairman.

What the people on the other side have to realize is that this government is committed to ensure we maximize the benefits from our resources for the people of our Province, and we will do that with whatever kind of legislation we can bring to this House. We intend to bring more legislation to make sure we achieve that. We intend to ensure we do that when we get the agreement that we intend to get to develop the Lower Churchill agreement.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member earlier quoted from some of the e-mails he has been receiving. We have also received those e-mails and I have taken a note of a few of the points that have been made in them. They all seem to insist on the belief that the amendment we are bringing in here today is a new tax, whereas everybody knows it is a tax that has applied in this Province for the past twenty-five years at least. We are merely clarifying the tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I note that another gentleman sending out e-mails in the past few days has indicated that we are bringing in a disincentive tax against out prospering mineral exploration industry. That is a quote from the explorationist, that this is a prospering mineral exploration business industry in our Province.

The reality is that Voisey's Bay was discovered under that regime. That regime was in place when those people went prospecting for and found Voisey's Bay. We had a lot of prospecting in our Province over the past ten years under that regime. Obviously, that regime is not causing people not to explore in our Province. The reality is that exploration throughout the country has declined in recent years and that is why it has declined here as well. The people who own Archean Resources are trying to make like they are going to be taxed more highly than any other company in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, how many people are supposed to be speaking at one time in this House?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing what is being said.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, the explorationists are trying to make a case that we should not have a royalty tax in this Province. In other words, the people who find and exploit the resources are the only people who should benefit from them. The people who own the resources - because these resources are a common wealth, commonly owned by the all the people of our Province, all the people of our Province deserve a share of the resource from people who exploit it.

That is all we are trying to achieve through this particular amendment. That is a commitment the people of our Province have made clear many times, that they want, from the government of this Province, to make sure that we see to it that our resources are exploited in a way that provides maximum benefit for the people of the Province.

The people like Archean Resources should not consider the 20 per cent royalty a tax. They should consider it a cost of doing business, because it is the amount that they have to pay to the owners of that resource, that they have been able to make a fortune from, that they have been able to make millions of dollars from, because they have been given the privilege to go out and explore our Province and exploit this resource. They are going to do well. We wish them well and we want people doing that, but we also want to make sure that all the people of our Province who own these resources share properly in their exploitation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to rise and have a few comments and contribute toward the debate that is taking place here tonight on the 20 per cent tax on royalties. I would like to begin by saying that I have great difficulty in believing that we are actually here tonight arguing about whether people who have made millions off our resources should be taxed 20 per cent when the people who work for these resources are taxed at a much higher rate.

The other thing I would like to touch on, Mr. Chair, if I could, is talk about the 57 per cent tax that is taxed to exploration. That is wrong. It is not 57 per cent taxed on exploration. As a matter of fact, according to Archean's own figures that they have published in the paper here, out of the thirteen jurisdictions in this country there are eight jurisdictions with a higher tax on exploration than this Province. There are four lower, including the Province of Quebec which has, in my opinion, a ridiculously low rate of 6.7 per cent. Mr. Chair, I do not think that, in the scheme of exploration in this Province, having eight higher jurisdictions than ours, anybody can point their finger at us and call us unfair.

MR. SULLIVAN: Randy, that is mining tax. You are in the wrong province.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. On the exploration, we are 7.2. New Brunswick -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but they do not collect it.

MR. COLLINS: That is a problem for the people in New Brunswick, isn't it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: That is a problem, I say, for the people in New Brunswick. If I had a government representing me that could charge 16 per cent royalty tax and were not doing it, then I would certainly ask them questions when they increased my tax.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I also do not buy the argument that this 20 per cent tax will force people to gravitate to where a lower tax is in place. I do not believe that for a minute, Mr. Chair, because people will gravitate towards where the opportunity is greatest to make the biggest find. That is where people are going to go. People are not going to go to P.E.I. and look for minerals to the same degree and with the same fervor as they will in Labrador interior, because the opportunity of striking it big or discovering something that is worth a fair amount of money is not the same. People are going to go where the opportunity to discover something is the greatest.

The royalties that we are talking about here tonight, I think people should be aware as well, this 20 per cent tax does not come into play until a discovery is made and a development takes place and the ore is sold. It does not apply until then.

We got caught in a situation in this Province before, where the royalty companies were raking in money for discovering a deposit. Now that is fine, and they should receive income and they should be well paid for doing that, taking the initiative to go out and discover these ore bodies, but it is not unfair either for the people of the Province to expect them to pay a reasonable rate of tax on the royalties that they receive. Anybody who works for a living, Mr. Chairman, certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) under contract (inaudible)..

MR. COLLINS: That is a good point raised as well. They were doing it under contract as a job, the same as if I decided to go to work as a mechanic or as an engineer some place. That is my job. This is what some of the exploration people - the contract they have in place is a job for them, where they go out and explore but they also draw a salary as a means to support themselves and their families.

When we talk about the comparison between Inco and the royalties companies, I can tell you, having worked in the mining industry all my life, the people who run mines certainly have a greater risk than the people who discover mines. There is no question out that. The people who develop mines are the people who create the high-paying jobs associated with the mining industry.

The other thing that happens as well is that the mining industry, no matter what metal you are talking about, operates on an up-and-down basis. It is (inaudible) by nature. I can you that there are some years, in the mining industry, that are very lean indeed, and some years where they lose money, but they keep the operation going after a lot of discussions and a lot of planning. They get the opportunity to make money in the years to follow. All the time, through the good and bad, people are working and have the ability to provide for their families.

Somebody just mentioned that they wouldn't have the opportunity to mine if it weren't for some of the exploring. Well, that is true, Mr. Chairman. There is nobody going to argue that. The point that people will argue is that once you do explore, once you do find something, and once you sell that, then the money you receive in return, you certainly should not be tax exempt on that royalty and you should pay your fair share. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that 20 per cent tax on millions of dollars is unfair. I do not believe people in this Province would consider a 20 per cent tax on royalties, on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to flow, as unfair to the people who are being taxed.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman: All members of this House, regardless of which side we sit on, have argued for years that we are not getting enough from our resources. Well, this is a start, to get something from our resources. This is a start.

MR. SHELLEY: We are not going to get it from Inco either.

MR. COLLINS: We may not get it from Inco, I say to the Member for Baie Verte, but I guarantee you one thing we will get jobs from Inco and people will be working and people will be getting a paycheque.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: The people who will be working for Inco, I say to the member, will pay a higher percent tax that Archean Resources is going to pay on their royalties. I say that to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I can assure you, I, for one - and I may disagree with my colleagues - do not apologize to anyone for saying that people who make millions off our resources are going to be taxed at a rate of 20 per cent. I don't apologize to anyone for that, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: As a matter of fact, with all the problems that we have in this Province, I am very much surprised with all the debate that is taking place on this in the House tonight, because there are many other deals in this Province that could warrant a better use of our time than arguing that people who make millions of dollars a year shouldn't be taxed 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: If I go to work for these companies and make $60,000 or $70,000 a year, guess what, Mr. Chair? I would be very proud if I could stand here tonight and say that I was only paying 20 per cent income tax on my wages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: The people we are talking about here - I just want to put this in perspective because every find that is going to be discovered in this Province, every single discovery in this Province, is obviously not going to be a Voisey's Bay, not near the magnitude, but let me just put it in perspective. People who are exploring - and that is what they choose to do in life; that is what they like to do and they all hope to hit it big - even if they do not hit it big, Mr. Chair, even if their royalties are not anywhere near the magnitude of those that are going to be derived from discovering Voisey's Bay, if they are $200,000, the first $100,000 is exempt each year. Where else can a person choose any career and go to work and have the first $100,000 they make tax exempt? Nowhere else in this country, and in this Province, can people expect that on their first $100,000.

We talk about risk. There is not much risk to raking in royalties, not much at all. Talk about the small business person who invested their life savings to start a business and have to struggle the first five or six years, not knowing if they are going to make it or lose everything they ever worked for. Mr. Chair, that is risk, but they pay taxes. They pay taxes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, again, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I do not apologize to anyone - no one in this Province will I apologize to - for stating that people who make hundreds of thousands, millions or hundreds of millions, will pay a 20 per cent royalty tax if that money is coming from royalties. I do not apologize to anyone for that, and I am certain that the people on the streets of this Province agree wholeheartedly with that position.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I just want to say, at the outset, that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I just want to say, at the outset, that since I came to this House I have raised and fought for better health care in this Province as much as anybody, since I came into this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to correct a few statements made by the previous speakers.

The Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Member for Virginia Waters, stood in his place and indicated that I said there is no new taxation because of clawbacks in equalization. I never made reference to equalization. I never made reference to it because, when it was mentioned to me a week ago, I said, that is not an argument. I said, there are thirty-three areas of taxation under equalization and we are taxed on the capacity to tax, not on the actual tax. I have never said it. It is not in the record of Hansard. I never referenced it. He must be reading his e-mails or letters and attributing it to me.

The number one point: I have never said it and used that as an argument because I consider it to be unfounded. Whether the taxation is on the holder of the royalties or on the person with the right to operate the mine, it is irrelevant. I have never said it. It is not in the record. I do not know how the minister can sit in his place and hear me, standing up, talking about things I did not say.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said I will explain it, and I will do that in a second if the minister is patient.

I also said, I never said there is no taxation to him, and you will not find it in any record whatsoever, on the sale of that. Somebody else might have said it. You are attributing it to the wrong person if you did. Hansard or a tape would bear me out. Number one, I never said it. The two points in which he shot down what I said, I have never said and never adhered to those points at all. That is it.

Where is there no new taxation? I will tell the minister now why I say there is no new taxation. If you did not pass tax the royalty holder, you would be taxing the mine operator. What you are taxing the operator is being deducted now. The only jurisdiction in the world that can deduct net smelter returns, 3 per cent, from their income as a deduction; so, if you do not tax the royalty holders, Inco pays it. Therefore -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: For twenty-seven years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I finish.

He asked me why there is no new taxation. There is no new taxation because now it is being taken from Inco and put to the holders of the royalty. I will talk about numbers and explain.

The Member for Labrador West was wrong when he used the numbers there. I am referring to PricewaterhouseCoopers, Canadian Mining Taxation, 2002 Edition. He read the wrong column and gave the wrong impression.

Here are the figures confirmed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the most reputable accounting firms in mining in the entire world today. That is where the figures are coming from. I think it is only fair that we should try to hear what is being said and try to understand and try to put an argument, not based on sentiment, not based on telling people we are going to take money out of health care. I would be the last one in this Province who would want to see money taken out of health care because I fought too hard over the last ten-and-a-half years to see money put into health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Labrador West said: We are in the middle of the taxation regime in tax on royalties. We are not. There is not a country in the world, that we are aware of - there is only one other province in Canada that taxes royalties. New Brunswick is on the books, 16 per cent, and they never collect because it is not applicable. I have been told - not in writing, confirmed - that it is not relevant. They do not collect on it and they are looking at possibly removing it from the books altogether. We are the only jurisdiction.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, here is where I see we are going to get less taxation, not just even, in this regard. Not only are we shifting the tax burden from Inco now, which would pay somewhere between 34.9 right now and 39.8, which is the Canadian average. It will be somewhere in between, more likely in the 36.5, 36.7 or 36.8 area. That seems to be - when you factor in the $20 million tax break they are getting, $2 million a year - in the mid-30s. Archean, for example, or any other royalty holder, will pay 26.84 federal, 10.5 provincial, 20 per cent royalty, for 57.34 per cent.

The very same ore that is down in the ground in Labrador, one company who (inaudible) discovered it are going to end up paying 57.34 per cent. Inco, the company that is mining it, is going to pay around 36 per cent or 37 per cent. I am saying that Archean should pay their fair share and should not get a break on taxation from this Province; neither should Inco get a tax break from this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I am a believer in fair taxation. Here is where we are going to get less, I will add this point. I will tell the Minister of Government Services and Lands how we are going to be worse off.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bay of Islands should try to keep the noise down so I could make this point to the minister.

The minister asked a question. He wanted to know how we were going to get less. I am in the process of that. Point number one, I mentioned, if it is not on the royalties it is on the operator, the same level. Do you know what the difference is? At 20 per cent tax to Archean or any royalty holder is equivalent to 0.48 per cent to Inco. That is the equivalent tax. If you had 0.48 per cent, it would equate in similar taxation.

Now, I want to tell how we are going to be further damaged in our Province by less taxation as a result of it. Mr. Chairman, people who are out in the Province today are going to the market to get money to invest. It is expensive investing in exploration in Labrador. The minister is a little shallow in her thinking if she thinks the only thing that attracts people to discover is the geography and geology. There is another very important factor. It is accessing capital and the money to invest, accessing that on the market in a very high-risk industry; one of the highest risk industries in the world today. If you cannot tap into international dollars that come from areas that want to invest to get that big find, it dries up the investment dollars. It dries up investment in exploration in Labrador because it is expensive. You will get a limited amount in local areas where it is easier to explore on the Island and, eventually, it will put a damper on dollars because there are only so many dollars out there to invest in mining exploration.

Quebec has more enticing - no royalty tax, no other Province has, people will grab it there to Ontario and Quebec and other areas where they will benefit from a lower level of taxation.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) better off tax-wise if they move to Quebec?

MR. SULLIVAN: Because they are looking at total tax, I would assume. You have to look at the Quebec provincial tax rate, the federal tax rate, and you have to look at a royalty tax versus - and the basic credits. You have to look at the bottom line.

MR. WALSH: How much do Archean have in their pockets? $100 billion?

MR. SULLIVAN: Welcome back from the sunny south, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. Welcome back from the sunny south. I have not heard him in two weeks.

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

It is unusual to sit here in the House and when a member cannot win his argument by dealing with facts, he tends to attack an individual. I have been here for two weeks, except for last week, and I make no apologies to anybody in this House of Assembly or in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for attending my son's wedding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: I make no apologies. You, my friend, is the one who should make an apology. You cannot make an argument so you attack the individual. My wife and myself were delighted to attend our son's wedding. No apologies to anyone. None! Not to you or anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I congratulate him, but it does not give him the right to come in here, not sitting in his seat, and interrupt me when I am speaking on a particular bill. That is the point I would like to make.

Mr. Chairman, there are statements made - and I know the Member for Labrador West probably missed the point I made. I just want to mention that the transfer of taxation - and he could read it in Hansard, I will not repeat that particular point, but I do want to get on to other points I want to make. I hope I have answered the minister's question of why we are not going to get any more taxation and we could get less as a result of this. Number one, it is the same dollars being transferred from Inco to the royalty holders and less in exploration. That is a negative aspect, less money for health care in this particular Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to stand and debate this bill this evening. I tell you, I sit in my seat today and I sat in my seat last Thursday, and I could not believe the debate that has taken place in this House. I listened to the member opposite when he stood to his feet and said he would clarify the minister's question on whether there would be more taxes or less taxes. Well, what I say to the member, from what I have heard from you there would be no taxes if you had it your way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: And there would certainly be no royalties.

I can honestly say that this bill has been in place for twenty-seven years in this Province. Companies like Archean Resources, when they went to Northern Labrador to explore, knew the legislation that was on the books. They knew what the law of the land was, Mr. Chairman, and as a result of it, they ended up making a major find and, God, are we ever happy that they made a major find in Labrador. We are very happy. We are thrilled for Archean Resources, but I really do believe that any company, not just Archean, who makes a major find, who is willing and able and has the ability to benefit from the resources of this Province, they should pay a royalty on that resource. It has been espoused in this Province for decade after decade after decade, and this is no different. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have always wanted to have a royalty on their resources, not just Voisey's Bay, but on other resources as well. What Archean is doing - and very fortunately doing - is they are making a huge amount of money on a resource that is in Newfoundland and Labrador, belongs to the people of our Province, and therefore they should have to pay.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at the fact that in this Province we have the geology that will dictate exploration - places like Prince Edward Island, maybe they do not have to bring in royalties but they do not have the geology that we do in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not bring in legislation that will deter exploration. We are fine-tuning a bill that is already on the books of the House of Assembly. What we are doing is not discouraging these companies but rather we are allowing them the same opportunities that we have always allowed them. We are allowing other graces under this legislation which exploration companies already know about. This will not be a deterrent for them because they know that geology alone will dictate where they go. They know the resources are there, the minerals are there. They will pursue them, Mr. Chairman, and they will make the finds. You cannot make the comparisons in Newfoundland and Labrador to that of other provinces.

I want to ask the member - because when you look at IOC and when you look at Wabush Mines - what is the difference with Voisey's Bay? Archean Resources owns a lease in Voisey's Bay. They are being asked to pay a royalty, the same as the iron ore fund had to pay a royalty on IOC. What is the difference, Mr. Chairman? There is no difference, absolutely not. What is good for one is good for the other.

I think we have to put this piece of legislation in perspective because what the opposite member has been espousing this evening is certainly one that they do not want any royalty, they do not want any taxes on these companies, regardless of the amount of revenue they earn, regardless of the amount of profit that they earn. I think we have to be clear, that any prospector who goes out there and starts exploring, there is no tax, there is no royalty, until there is a find. That is a very legitimate point. There is no royalty and no tax unless there is a major find. We have to clarify that because anytime you see a company that is going to earn over $400 million in profits on any particular resource in this Province we, as a government, have a responsibility, and that is to collect the taxes that are owed to the people of the Province to ensure that they get a return.

What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is ensuring that there is a fair royalty and that there is a fair return. What I have heard in the last two days in this particular debate I somehow cannot believe because the very same people - and where they get the face, I have absolutely no idea - who can stand in their place and talk about health care, talk about child poverty, talk about food banks, talk about paving roads, upgrading roads, upgrading health care services, and at the same time stand in their place and say they do not want a royalty regime for a large corporation in this Province that is going to earn major returns from our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, I can honestly tell you that the people I represent in this Legislature believe there should be royalties on resources, they believe their should be taxes on corporations, they believe that those who earn the most should pay the most, and that is the kind of logic that we use in decision making. That is what we are asking. We are asking for a fair return and a fair royalty for the people of this Province.

To be able to stand in this House and say that, we are not going to support a piece of legislation that allows that, but each and every day rise to their feet and ask for more money, ask for extra dollars, and ask for more investment into all the public services of this Province - Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: There is only one way, and that is either you tax people to pay for these services or you don't, Mr. Chairman.

I can tell you, the Member for Ferryland, I have never seen a member more paranoid on his feet in all my life. Every single time this evening that a member on this side of the House blinked, moved, laughed, spoke or uttered a word, the member thought they were referring to every comment that he made. I have never seen such foolishness in all my life, that you cannot sit in this House and make a comment without being identified in the middle of a speech. I think the member earlier had it exactly right, and my colleague for Bell Island, when he said: If you can't win an argument, you obviously diverted to another subject area. That is exactly what the member has been doing all evening.

Mr. Chairman, the reality of this particular bill is this: It is a bill that has been in this Legislature for some time, it is a bill that taxes corporations that earn major profits and major revenues from the resources of the people of this Province, so that we, as a government, Mr. Chairman, are able to invest in the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: You know, Mr. Chairman, I live in a district that has cried out for investment for years. I live in a district in which this government has responded to the needs of the people by building schools, by building seniors' homes, by enhancing hospital services, by being able to allocate Labrador benefits and special benefits to the public service and the people who work in those communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, we cannot do that unless we collect the royalties from the resources that we foster.

I have, all my life, grown up in communities where people have believed that we should earn a royalty on the resources that we have, as every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province believes. I cannot believe that we have an Opposition that consistently asks for health care money, for road money, who can stand in their places and say no to taxation of major corporations.

I don't care how you cut it, Mr. Chairman, I don't care how you look at it, there is one plain, basic, simple piece to all of this: We don't want to tax Archean, we don't want to tax the people who are earning the millions of dollars in profit. I think that is where you draw the line between who they are on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, and who we are on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We believe in what we are doing. We believe in investing in people and in investing in the communities in this Province, and if it means we have to tax corporations that are earning millions of dollars in profit and revenue from our resources, then, Mr. Chairman, we have no shame in doing it, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We can hold our head high and go out there. We can hold our head high and, at the same time, we are taxing the Incos of the world as well. They are not walking away. We are taxing the Incos of the world as well, and they will pay more in royalties than Archean will pay over the life of this project.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, they are the people who are making the investment. They are the people who are taking the risk. They are going to employ the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the next thirty, forty, fifty years, and hopefully longer than that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was a pleasure to speak in this debate this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that 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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report that they have passed Bills 30, 31 and 33 without amendment, and Bill 23 with amendment, and have reported considerable progress on Bill 21, and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to just have a few brief comments on this particular bill that certainly falls in my critic area. It is to enact, basically, an indexing of pensions for public service pensioners. This came from a collective agreement that was negotiated between the public service and their representatives and government, and it allows an inflation to set in.

Over the years, right up until 1989, public service pensioners had been given increases by governments up until that time, I guess, in lieu - when public service employees negotiated their contracts, there were amounts given to retired pensioners. Since 1989, up until the present day, for the last thirteen to fourteen years, public service pensioners out there have not had an increase, and you can look at the dollar value, the erosion of that, since that particular time. I know many of these people out there have expressed concerns to me and to government also because of this particular concern.

Now, this is not going to solve the problem for these people, but at least it will enable people now, who fall within this specific agreement here, to be able to go forward and at least receive 60 per cent of the Consumer Price Index, to a maximum - basically 2 per cent would be the maximum that would be counted on the Consumer Price Index, and 60 per cent of that would give them 1.2 per cent. At least if they got 1.2 per cent for ten years, compounded, we are looking at in the vicinity of 13 per cent. Overall, if somebody was making $20,000 a year and you have 13 per cent, that is $22,600. At least it gives them an income and helps combat inflation.

When people retire from the public service at the age of fifty-five, until sixty-five, they have gone through and experienced a lot of difficulty. Many people are on very small, very meager, pensions in the Province. People who are retiring today are retiring with somewhat larger pensions, but it is no big bonanza. Public service pensions had not been stacked as opposed to - teacher pensions were stacked, I think, up to 1998. So the new agreement for teachers allows them to get this inflationary increase in their agreement. Prior to that, where they were stacked, they were not affected, but the public service, prior to this agreement, are left out, and there has been no particular recourse for these people.

We do support this legislation here because it is putting an element of fair play, I think, into it. The union representatives and employees, through their respective unions, have indicated, and the unions have negotiated, a particular amount of money that should be set aside to increase, basically, to keep the liabilities from increasing further by government and employees contributing roughly 1 per cent into this particular pension plan, over and above what they normally contributed. This is to be taken from year two of the agreement and this will allow public service employees, then, when they reach sixty-five - there was effort put forward, and discussions, to try to have something worked out at age sixty, but it was not successful. I guess, at age sixty, the price they would pay to get that would be at a higher price.

I will not unduly delay this, Mr. Speaker. I just want to indicate that we support it. It was a negotiated agreement between public sector unions here and government. I am not sure if any other of my colleagues want to speak on it, but I will conclude my comments on it so we can move forward in case anybody else wants to speak on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act." (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Loan Act, 1978." (Bill 19)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2." (Bill 20)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 7, Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 27.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a few words in third reading on Bill 27. I know it is probably too late now, but I was approached by the integrated sawmillers' association and they were quite concerned that they did not have a chance to present an amendment to some of my colleagues here in the House to have it tabled.

I just want to speak on the concerns of some of the stakeholders with respect to Bill 27. It shows that, even though we did not have a proper consolation process in place before the licences ran out, or before this act has been implemented, to combine a common expiration date for the thirty-eight licenses that Abitibi-Consolidated hold, that will run out in the year 2010, some of the stakeholders were quite concerned that the policies that are in place now, in the past, with respect to sawlogs, that the companies, both Abitibi-Consolidated and Kruger in Corner Brook, were co-operating under a policy of log exchange, that they would separate the sawlogs in the woods and have these sawlogs taken to some of the integrated sawmills. Of course, then the sawmills would guarantee the same amount in chips, or more, back to the paper companies.

Some of the operators are concerned that, under this new act, Bill 27, if a time comes when the paper companies are strapped for wood, then they may want to not uphold the policy, that they may want to keep every log they cut because of a shortage of fibre on the Island portion. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, then these valuable sawlogs, which produce probably 500 per cent more value with respect to lumber, some of these integrated sawmills who have been forced to combine and be integrated - forced over the years, because of the shortage of timber and the number of people in the logging industry, they were forced to combine with one mill and utilize the licences that they have - now they are concerned that if Abitibi or Kruger are strapped for wood and fibre, that the sawlogs will not get to them as sawmill operators.

They did have an amendment done up that they wanted someone to present in the House. I guess it is appropriate that I would, at least for the record, read the amendment that was proposed. I understand that we cannot present the amendment in third reading, but I would like to read into the record the amendment that was proposed by these integrated sawmill operators. This was to Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Notwithstanding subsection (1), clause 1, the continuance of the timber licence referred to in that subsection is subject to Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada continuing its current practices of making sawlogs available to integrated sawmills through a combination of sawlog sales and the transfer of timber cutting rights to the Crown for the purpose of the Crown's allocation of timber cutting rights to integrated sawmills.

Mr. Speaker, clause 5 would read: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may review or revoke one or more of the licences referred to in subsection (1) in the event that Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada fails to maintain its current practice of making saw logs available to integrated sawmills during the period the licences are enforced at substantially the same levels as saw logs were made available at the average annual level in the preceding three years.

Mr. Speaker, even though we are a bit late on addressing this issue in committee, I just want to make this point to the minister and to the government, that a lot of stakeholders in the forestry industry have not been listened to. A lot of these stakeholders are concerned about their futures. If we are going to take this very valuable resource seriously then we are going to have to consider all the stakeholders. We are going to have to consider the Stephenville mill, Mr. Speaker. People in this House are not taking it seriously enough about the importance of keeping the Stephenville mill going and finding fibre. A commitment was made by the government for 410,000 cubic meters for the Stephenville mill. Today that mill is depending on 51 per cent of the fibre coming from Quebec. If Quebec decides not to ship chips to the Stephenville mill, then I guess the Stephenville mill either has to find that fibre somewhere else or close its doors.

Now, this year coming, we are going to find the Stephenville mill having a shut-down period, for the first time ever. I think that is an issue we should be very concerned about. We must lobby and work faster towards availing of the Labrador resources in wood. Mr. Speaker, I think both companies, Kruger and Abitibi Consolidated, should be comfortable in knowing that their mills and paper machines are going to continue running; that we are going to continue providing jobs for the people, not only in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, Central area, and Corner Brook area, but the Stephenville area, too.

I have been getting a lot of calls from the Bay St. George area, from people over in that area, who are very concerned about that situation over there. I have been getting a lot of calls from people in Central Newfoundland who are very concerned about the situation with the Grand Falls-Windsor mill, relating to number 7 and number 3 paper machine. People still do not believe that this act is going to be secure enough to keep the number 7 machine working. I think a lot of people I have talked to over the weekend agree, and I agree, that this is a step that is necessary to take to have some level of comfort to the workers in there. I think a lot of the workers at the mill today realize that this is not a bill that is going to guarantee man-hours, that is going to guarantee jobs. It is a bill that just guarantees a substantial level of production, if nothing seriously happens in the mill with respect to the machine, the markets or the wood-fibre supply.

I do not know if any of my colleagues would like to have anything to say on this in third reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make those points.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today as well to pass a few comments in third reading. Just after the committee stage of this bill the Integrated Forest Products Group came in and met with a delegation from our caucus and raised some concerns that they have with seeing this piece of legislation pass through the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in the past we have seen wood products, products that could easily be provided for sawlogs and make building materials, going into our paper mills and being chipped to make newsprint. Then all of a sudden, through their wisdom, which was a good move, the government decided that this wasn't the right thing to be done, that we could make a better product from our forest products. There was an exchange of cutting rights and an exchange of timber that took place, whereby sawlogs or the rights to cut sawlogs on Crown land was transferred to integrated sawmill operators and, in return, chips from the integrated sawmill operation was provided to one of the two paper companies in the Province. When we saw a downturn in the newsprint industry or we saw the fears that the number 7 machine in Grand Falls might be closed down, the minister, in his wisdom, decided to bring in a piece of legislation in order to protect the jobs in Grand Falls and in order to give some comfort to the people who worked in that particular industry. I am talking about the newsprint industry and I am talking about the two paper mills.

Mr. Speaker, there is another group of people out there, known as the Integrated Forest Products Group which operates eight sawmills in this Province, now fear for their well-being. Their fear is with this piece of legislation, where the minister has now put into law that Abitibi Price and Kruger must continue to operate their papermaking machines at substantially the same level as they have over the past three years. The integrated sawmill operators who are there today, who have survived the bad times, have spent their own money and have taken their chances and have survived, in spite of many government policies and in spite of the shortage of timber in this Province, are now saying: Mr. Minister, how about us? How about if this particular industry - if the newspaper industry is supposed to continue to operate their paper machines at substantially the same level as they have over the past three years; and how about if there is a further shortage of fibre to go into those paper mills or if, for some reason, there is a supply cutoff that comes in from outside the Province, or that cost of material is too costly, is it going to be a situation, in those two paper mills, where they will now relinquish on the deal that they have with the integrated sawmill operators? Is that what might happen here?

Mr. Speaker, they have great fears about continuing to have their operations viable. They see this as their only way of survival, and their fear is real. I asked one of the sawmill operators how many people were employed in the integrated sawmilling process. They were quick to answer between 800 and 1,000 people. Between 800 and 1,000 people are employed directly with the integrated sawmill operators in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague read the two amendments that the Integrated Forest Products Group brought forward, so I will not read that again, but I ask the minister if there are any safeguards in this legislation or if he took into consideration the integrated sawmill operators.

I understand that he met with this group of people just a few days before they met with us, and I know that he is aware of this problem. I ask him if the integrated sawmill operators' concerns are real. Is it a possibility that they will now lose their supply of sawlogs because it may happen that these two paper companies may cancel the transfer of sawlogs to the integrated sawmill operators and now use sawlogs as they have done in the past to make newsprint?

If that is what might happen here, then, Mr. Speaker, I fear that those operations might be put in jeopardy. I also fear that there could be 800 to 1,000 jobs put on the line. I know everybody will not close down, I know everybody will not get laid off, but it is a viable operation. Those people have put their money forward, they have taken their chances, they have survived in both good time and bad times.

I have two sawmilling operations in my district, two of the biggest in the Province: Jamestown Lumber and Bloomfield Lumber. Mr. Speaker, one of those operators was at this particular meeting and I can tell you that they have a great concern for what might happen.

I would ask the minister if he can give us some degree of comfort here tonight that we can pass on to this group of people, to guarantee them that this piece of legislation will not shore up jobs in Grand Falls and put people on the streets in other parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 brief words at third reading on Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Normally, third reading is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker, because people have said what they have to say, but in this particular case, after second reading, after we had moved and had accepted an amendment providing for consultation, it became clear from other representations made to hon. members that the very reason why we asked for the consultation process became very apparent, because there were other groups, in this case the integrated sawmillers who came to town, eight or nine strong, in fact, to make representations to all sides of the House on their concerns about these long-term timber leases. Of course, it was too late at that point to make any changes to the act. They are only one of a number of groups who probably would want to see their particular interest reflected in the new forestry bill, in a new regime for timber leases for the ones that are about to expire over the next twenty years, starting last month.

It is surprising, in fact, Mr. Speaker, to hear these individuals say that they thought they had been in consultations and negotiations with the government for the past year or so and expected their concerns to be reflected. I suppose that is the difference between a public consultation where everybody knows where you stand and what your interests are, and the kind of consultations going on behind closes doors with the minister or his officials over the years, when what is presented to the public at the end of the day is what is already done, and it is presented as, as the Leader of the Opposition would say, a fait accompli. It is already done, a done deal in the vernacular, where what is presented is the final result of whatever consultations and decision the minister or his officials have made.

There may be some formal public consultation that goes on for thirty days or so, but all the work has been done, all the decisions have been made, and there is really no room for consideration of what the alternatives are. That is really why a long lead time for a full consultation on what is going to happen with these leases is very, very important.

I know the individuals who are at the integrated sawmills were very disappointed that their particular interests were not going to be protected in this legislation. I suppose what it does speak to, it speaks to this group and any other group that has an interest, a long-term interest, in what is going to happen with this forest resource once it comes up for renewal again, or up for consideration again, in seven or eight years, to make sure they are on the ball early, that they are out there in the public, that they have their issues up front and centre, that they know who they are talking to and they know their issues are out there.

I have been told that these sawmillers alone have some 800 employees at work in various parts of the Province. That is a very considerable number of people who are dependent upon those particular sawmills. They are not the only integrated sawmills that we have in the Province. They are a group which represents most, I think, but not all of the integrated sawmills. There are other sawmills out there that are not in the same category, who are dependent upon a wood supply and looking for wood. There are other people who are members of the Lumber Producers Association who may not be in the integrated sawmill category but certainly have an interest in the use of our forests. There are people involved in the Protected Areas Association who see an interest in ensuring that this might be an opportunity to protect a portion of this particular area for a long-term plan of having protected areas and preserved wilderness areas in our Province.

There are many interests who want to have a say in the future of these forests. Mr. Speaker, I know the integrated sawmillers have a particular relationship with the paper companies, and it is not one in which they are in charge. The reality is that one of the issues of having these long-term timber leases was that the people in the driver's seat from the beginning to the end were Abitibi-Consolidated. They had the right to cut the wood, but they also had control over it. If they were not going to cut it themselves, who would? And what price were they going to pay for the right to do that, and all the other things that go with that in terms of control?

One of the big issues for the integrated sawmillers is that they do not really have any security of supply. There are other issues, I am sure, that many others in the forest industry would take issue with in terms of how the integrated sawmillers actually get access to their wood, and what price they pay, and whether they cut it themselves or not, and all of the issues associated with that. There are many interests at stake here. While we could not accommodate the integrated sawmillers because the act was passed, before that, there was some question even whether or not it would be appropriate to do so, given the fact there were also many other interests at work here without a full consultation process and without a chance for all of the interests to be heard.

I spoke to the minister about this before, in terms of: What kind of a lead time are you going to have? We said a year in the legislation, in the amendment that was accepted. It says at least a year, and I would expect that, before too long, the minister of the day is going to have a request for a longer lead time for more involved public consultations, for more access to resources to participate fully in those consultations, for a much more elaborate process than we have had before in dealing with forestry issues in the Province.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that amendments at third reading are normally procedural in nature. They are not necessarily related to the substance of the bill. I think we all want to see this legislation passed because of the effect that it would have on the stability of the mills right now, but we all, I think, in passing the amendment, want to see a full public consultation before any significant changes are made down the road so that the lead time leading up to the leases expiring will be one where everybody who has an interest in the forest, whether they be direct stakeholders in terms of the integrated forest millers, the sawmillers, the loggers, or other people who want to develop a community forest, or other people who are just ordinary citizens who want to have a say about how forestry is managed in this Province, about the interests of future generations in terms of preserving part of that forest, about forest methods in general, because there is a very large body of knowledge out there about how forests can be managed. There are some suggestions that we can manage our forests far better than we have been doing in the past.

I think there are a lot of people out there in the public who, while they might not have a direct interest, or might not make their living from the forests, are very concerned about how we manage our environment, how we manage the ecosystems that are related to that, and they want to make sure that government is carrying out a proper stewardship of our environment and our ecology.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, there are the integrated sawmillers, there are ordinary sawmillers who are not part of that group, there are integrated sawmillers who are not part of that group who have proposed the amendment. To try to change it at this late date would not be possible, but the fact that they are here on our doorstep, or they came here on our doorstep after second reading, is really indicative that there was not a proper consultation process done even in the lead up to this legislation itself, that there was not enough time, there was not enough knowledge, there was not enough involvement before that decision was made. That is a criticism that I had the day the minister made his statement here in the House, and it is criticism I still have. The fact that these people went away unsatisfied from this House of Assembly is indicative that process did now work now. We hope, with the amendment in place, that it will be able to work in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a short couple of minutes to talk about this bill, but related to the Stephenville mill, the Abitibi mill, which is foremost in my mind and foremost in the mind of the member and Minister of Health, the Member for Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of work being done in securing the future of the Abitibi mill in Stephenville. It just celebrated its twentieth year last year, its twentieth year of operations. It has done a great contribution to the Bay St. George area, and we fully expect that it will achieve another twenty years. That also means that the company itself has to work together with the stakeholders.

For the last twenty years, that mill has always had to get supplied from somewhere else off Island for a portion of their wood supply, and that is going to continue in the future. There is no change in that. I want to make the point that the wood supply that they are now receiving on the Island of this Province here is maxed out to the extent that it can be provided to them as a supply of wood, so the solutions are to look for alternative sources.

Also, one of those opportunities - and I met with the mill manager on Friday morning in Stephenville - the new mill manager is looking at a de-inking possibility for the Stephenville mill. They are now seriously looking at that and they have indicated that they are doing a study right now to look at de-inking, which would help replace the need for fibre. That would be a long-term solution for the mill, and they are working on it, and we are having discussions in the next week with forestry officials, the Member for Port au Port and the Minister of Health, and we will continue to work on that issue.

The other issue that they are wrestling with is power for the mill, and the power cost for that mill. They are now proposing, or are going to be proposing, a cogen power project in the very near future. That discussion has been going on all fall and we are very optimistic that we can facilitate a potential power contract that would see the power costs for that mill drop considerably in the future.

Those two are the big problems that the mill faces but they are challenges that can be overcome. They have been for the last number of years. That mill is one of the best producing mills that the company has in their whole mill grouping, and we are looking forward to the longevity of that mill in Stephenville for the long term.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to some of the comments made by all members in the House on this particular bill.

I did meet, yes, with this Integrated Forest Products Group last week, in fact. I think it was Thursday. They had some concerns, as do a lot of other people in the timber industry in the Province, in the forestry industry in the Province, and those who are just associated with it, not involved directly. At this time, I explained to them, this is a trade-off. This is not an extension of licences. This is not issuing new licences or permits. If I had to let the licence lapse on Friday, they could have very easily issued a licence on Monday morning, this morning, today, for an annual permit to anybody in the Province, under a timber sales agreement, annual permit. I could just as easily do that for year after year after year to Abitibi. So, we had a choice. Go this route with the extension of the licences and recapturing the eleven years, and leave it like that; in other words, an extension of a licence. If we had to go the other route, we would have had to go to public hearings, and public hearings, especially with twenty-year FMAs, that is where everybody would have a say.

If we did what that group asked me the other day, integrated their feelings and what they consider a guarantee then, that the logs would go to them, then we would have to give everybody in the Province a chance. You cannot do it for one and not do it for the other. This group represents 35 per cent of all the integrated sawmills in the Province.

Even if you talk about the sawmills themselves, we had no representation from anybody else, not another sawmiller, not another person in domestic cutting, not another person anywhere, other than people from the area of the hon. Member for Springdale, looking for extra quota, and the Member for Grand Falls and so on around the Province.

It has nothing to do with Kruger, absolutely nothing to do with Kruger whatsoever. It is just Abitibi, and it is on the sawlogs going in for the mills that the hon. members mentioned.

It is true, they have concerns, but I said to them, and even they said: If government said publicly that they would support logs going to a sawmill first - well, Mr. Speaker, I can go on the record tonight, I have said it here many times in the past and I will say it again tonight, that this minister, I will guarantee you one thing, is after telling those two paper companies that there is not a sawmill in this Province that will be without logs. I will guarantee you that.

Now, I know with Kruger it is a bit tougher because they have a make whole program; you must make whole. In order to make whole, we have to do it with Crown Lands, but with Abitibi last year, only for the integrated sawmillers in Central Newfoundland, Abitibi would not be able to operate. It is about 150,000 total with Crown Land, and there are limits in Grand Falls, cubic metres going into the Grand Falls mill.

The chips are the cheapest fibre they have. They will grab every chip they can get. Even the wood that is coming out of Labrador, that is no good for anything else, it is going through the hon. member's district, Bloomfield; over 40,000 cubic metres a year just going through that mill, chipped and going right into the Grand Falls mill.

The Member for Baie Verte, last year ran we into problems with Kruger, a phone call and we had it rectified. We made sure that the logs go into the Baie Verte mill, the Cormack mill, and other integrated systems around the Province.

I say to the integrated forest workers tonight, and the mill workers, as far as I am concerned they will not be out of logs. We cannot put it in here because, if we do, we have to give everybody the right for public consultations. The two paper mills in the Province know full well - full well! - that this government means business when it comes to utilizing the resource for the benefit of Newfoundlanders, especially when it comes to value-added as it does going through the integrated systems.

Yes, it is a big industry and, yes, money-wise, volume-wise, value-added, with the employees who are involved in the industry, it is very, very important, especially to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other thing we have to take into consideration - and it is one of the things I mentioned to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - is the softwood lumber dispute. When we look at the new land tenure system, whatever we go with, that is going to require very, very serious consideration. We were exempt this year under the Atlantic part of it, especially Newfoundland, because of our land tenure system and the significance of how they look at our licensing system with regard to the two companies that are considered private.

I took their concerns, I understand their concerns, and I know where they are coming from. We will continue to instill in Abitibi and Kruger to make sure - the other thing I said to them is that this piece of legislation says: At substantially the same levels as the last three years. So, there won't be any more. We would love to, yes. Sure, we all would. More jobs, more production: We would love it. If they want to bring it in from offshore, good enough, let them do it, but they are not getting any more AAC. There won't be any more of an AAC whether it is for the company, whether it is for an integrated sawmiller or anybody else; domestic use. So, it is substantially the same levels as the last three years and it is pertaining to Abitibi and Abitibi only.

I think there should be some comfort in that for the millers. When the licenses do come up and we have public consultations, that is the one of the big things, as far as I am concerned, that should be in the new licensing system, that the logs should go through the sawmillers first.

Once again, I thank all hon. members for their comments, Mr. Speaker. This will give some security to the mill itself in Grand Falls and, as far as I am concerned, to all the integrated millers in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance, Bill 12.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their participation. It has been a long day.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:00 p.m.