MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ascension Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Team of Bay Roberts who won Gold when the Newfoundland and Labrador Volleyball Association hosted VolleyFest in St. John's recently.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Volleyball Association is the governing body for the sport in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The association was incorporated in 1986 as a nonprofit organization and is managed by an elected seven member executive committee.

Members of the Ascension Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Gold Medal Team include: Samantha Mercer, Emily Dawe, Ally Fewer, Jana Dawe, Maggie Cole, Vanessa Hayes, Samantha March, Maura Hayes, Alyson Wheeler, April Petten, Nikki Ezekiel, Courtney Norman, Erin Simms and they were accompanied by their coach, Derrick March and assistant coach, Glen Lane.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ascension Collegiate Senior Girls' Volleyball Team on winning Gold at the recent VolleyFest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Nathan McDonald of Bishop's Falls. Nathan is twelve years old and a super champ.

Mr. Speaker, a super champ is a person with multiple amputees.

In August of this year, Nathan travelled to Ottawa to participate in a war amp sponsored seminar. This particular event placed emphasis on children missing three or more limbs.

Mr. Speaker, Nathan is a member of Jumpstart, a program that is committed to making sure that super champs have access to educational software and its long-term objective is employment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, Nathan has faced many challenges and knows that being a multiple amputee is not a barrier to living independently. In the past, this young man has conducted seminars in schools and other organized community events. This year Nathan enrolled in the 512 Air Cadet Squadron and is presently trying out for the junior basketball.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Nathan McDonald on his achievements and being a real super champ.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate eleven Legionnaires with the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 12 in Grand Falls-Windsor, who were recently honoured with receiving the United Kingdom Veterans Badges.

Mr. Speaker, the badge was first launched in May, 2004 by the British Parliament in recognition of the many heroic acts and scarifies that veterans have made. The intention was that it would be made available to all First and Second World War veterans who, under the Heroes Return scheme, would travel back to the battlefronts where they had fought. Due to its popularity, eligibility was quickly extended to include all Second World War veterans and those who had served any time up to December 31, 1959.

The eleven members of Branch 12, Grand Falls-Windsor, who were honoured with the United Kingdom Veterans Badges were: Frank Baker, Reverend Ray Cole, Jim Day, Eric Dwyer, Ken House, Ed Hudson, Fred Ivany, Mac Locke, Harvey Matthews, Ray Rendell, and Bob Rideout.

In addition, service medals were presented to Reverend Ray Cole, Eric Dwyer, Ray Rendell and Bob Rideout for sixty years service, and to Frank Baker and Lewis Mulrooney for fifty years service with Branch 12.

Also, Legion Meritorious Service Medals were presented Jim Day and Sterling Thomas and the Past President medal was presented to Ed Fewer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 12 members in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the achievement of the Phoenix Academy Raiders Volleyball Team. This very talented boys squad from Carmanville recently claimed top spot at the Newfoundland and Labrador's Volleyball Association's Volleyfest 2006.

The boys were the defending gold medal champions heading into this year's tournament and in true championship form, they went undefeated en route to capturing their second straight Senior A title. The competition featured fifteen teams and provided some exceptional sporting entertainment as the best squads from across the Province faced off in this annual event.

The Raiders are also the defending 4A high school boys volleyball champions and will look to retain that title later in the season. The recent accomplishments of the team are made all the more impressive, considering they started their winning streak without a home court to call their own.

A devastating fire that razed the Carmanville School Complex in 2004 resulted in the Raiders beginning their championship march while attending Riverwood Academy at Wings Point. They have now returned to their home court and they have done so in style - with another gold medal performance. I am sure this exceptional group will continue to adorn their new facility with many championship banners in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Phoenix Academy Raiders on their recent gold medal result.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the Electoral District Scholarships Awards for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

The Electoral District Scholarships have a value of $1,000 each and are awarded to some of the best and brightest students across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, John Prosser, son of Gertie and Richard Prosser, received the award for high academic achievement at St. James Regional High, Port aux Basques. Gina Billard, daughter of Melvin and Joyce Billard, received the award for high academic achievement at Burgeo Academy, Burgeo. Christopher Hardy, son of Terry and Doreen Hardy, and Emily-Ann Munden, daughter of Brian and Dianne Munden, received the award for high academic achievement at Grandy's River Collegiate, Burnt Islands.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating John Prosser, Gina Billard, Christopher Hardy and Emily-Ann Munden upon receiving their Electoral Scholarship Awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, each November, I have the pleasure of attending the annual general meeting of the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society, which is an organization dedicated to the conservation and protection of the Manuels River system.

Mr. Speaker, the Manuels River runs through the Town of Conception Bay South. In 1989, the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society was established to preserve and interpret the natural, cultural and geological history of the river. Since then, the Manuels River Linear Park has been established and it has become a recreational area for the Town of Conception Bay South and a major tourist attraction for this region of the Province.

Worthy of note are the internationally recognized geological formations and fossils, which many geology students of Memorial University, past and present, including myself, have had the benefit of studying. Six kilometres of walking trails on the north and south side of the Manuels River are also enjoyed by residents and tourists alike.

Mr. Speaker, the Manuels River Linear Park is a world-class park and is recognized as a major tourist attraction in the Town of Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Gary Gallagher and his new board of directors, and all former directors of the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society, for their contribution to the conservation and protection of the Manuels River system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been asked to make this statement on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to provide an update to hon. members on the final phase of planned reductions to the Municipal Operating Grants of fourteen of our largest cities and towns. An official announcement was made earlier today.

When we formed the government three years ago, we had to make some difficult decisions. Included in those hard choices was the decision to reduce Municipal Operating Grants to the larger municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, despite the need to get our fiscal house in order, we recognized that we could not apply reductions to Municipal Operating Grants across the board. Due to demographic challenges, many small and rural towns did not have the capacity to withstand a reduction to their operating grants.

There were, however, fourteen municipalities that were experiencing growth in their tax bases. Assessment data showed there was an increase in assessed property values in these municipalities which demonstrated potential for increase in taxation revenue, and less need for reliance on financial support from government to provide municipal services.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend sincere thanks and appreciation to the cities and towns that have worked with us these past two years and who have done their part to help the Province turn the corner on its fiscal challenges. While these municipalities continue to show levels of growth, government is cognizant of the cost of municipal services.

While we still have a way to go, the Province's fiscal house is in much better shape. This improvement in our fiscal capacity allows me to announce that we are eliminating the planned final phase of reductions to the Municipal Operating Grants to those fourteen cities and towns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this announcement means that those municipalities will have an extra $1.4 million in their fiscal framework for next year to provide services to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, it is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. the minister, and I ask members for their co-operation. The minister is making a Ministerial Statement, and I ask him if he would continue.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government recognizes that municipalities have a critical role in the provision of front line services in this Province. We remain committed to providing major funding supports to all municipalities through our various capital works programs, through our Municipal Operating Grants, and through our active pursuit of federal funding supports.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the announcement.

Normally, I try to be as positive as I can when announcements are made, but in this particular case there needs to be something said.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister announced some time ago that they were going to decrease the amounts of money given to the larger municipalities in the Province. Today, the government has announced that they are not going to take the final quarter from the larger towns.

What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government do, is to take the amount that has been saved on the larger municipalities - if they have been able to survive - and give it to the smaller communities. The smaller rural communities in this Province are really, Mr. Speaker, reeling.

Today, before I got the statement, I happened to pick up a paper and I saw a particular example of what I am talking about, in the Town of Bird Cove. This is what is says: The person, Mr. May, who joined the council last year to make a quota, now he is by himself and he says he feels like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike.

They are in a situation in Bird Cove which is no different from any other municipality. They do not have the money. They have particular households here that need $440,000 to hook up forty-four homes. The most that they can get, according to the member here, is 30 per cent.

I know, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, many times, not only for people on this side but on the other side as well, we financed as much as 95 per cent of that particular infrastructure need so that the communities could afford it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. LANGDON: These municipalities do need it.

You know, the fact is that the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl might be able to withstand this particular amount of money that was taken from them, but as a gesture - I am serious when I say that - these small municipalities across the Province, hundreds of them, should be given extra funding so that they do not find themselves in the situation that Bird Cove does and many of the communities around, where they will not be able to maintain the infrastructure that they have, much less of trying to give the basic needs of water and sewer to people who do not already have it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy. I, too, join with my colleague in stating that I am sure the large municipalities are very pleased with getting this break, but I am not aware of anything publicly being said by them to government saying that they needed this break, so I wonder why government decided to do this. If the small municipalities and rural towns did not have the capacity when this decision was made to make the cuts to have a reduction themselves, I am sure they have even less capacity now than they had then because they are losing their tax base at a much faster rate than anybody else. The large municipalities, as far as I can see, are not losing a major tax base but the smaller communities are, and their condition now is much worse than it was when the original decision was made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Just to add, I hope the government is going to have as much compassion for the smaller rural communities as it seems to be having for the larger municipalities who do not need compassion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform this hon. House about a new partnership to promote literacy in our Province.

The Department of Education has provided the Rotary Club with $10,000 to expand the hugely successful Rotary-Read-Along beyond the Northeast Avalon to other areas of the Province. Since its inception in 2003, the program has seen volunteer Rotarians and community leaders read to more than 5,000 children. It has also provided $60,000 worth of books to school libraries - books that feature provincial content, and local authors and illustrators.

Mr. Speaker, literacy promotion requires the dedication of government, business and community partnerships. Programs must reach those most in need and much respond to individual challenges.

The funding for the Rotary-Read-Along builds on significant investments this government is already making in literacy. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that there is $1.3 million more being spent on literacy grants and programs today than when we first formed government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: As a result, literacy programming, including Adult Basic Education, is available in a greater number of locations and therefore to a greater number of people.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, government is working to develop and nurture an environment which promotes literacy for all people. Working with partners like the Rotary Club, we can cultivate a culture of learning which is critical for our self-reliance and economic growth. We can help create a generation of readers with ideas, talent and determination for success.

It is unfortunate that the federal government has decided to reduce funding to local literacy projects, and I have been actively lobbying both the minister responsible for literacy and our provincial MPs to reinstate the funding that has been cut, and I will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared for the federal government to walk away from their responsibilities.

We will remain unwavering in our support of literacy promotion, Mr. Speaker, because there should be no barriers to learning.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess Mr. Russell Wangersky must be very proud today, after his article in the paper on Friday talking about the polling periods, after this announcement.

Mr. Speaker, I would say thank God for people like the Rotary Club, to know that they are involved in this Rotary-Read-Along for quite a period of time and investing money into it.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, it does not say much for the leadership of this government when it comes to literacy. Just think back to what they did when they took office. There was a good program, Read and Succeed, and they cancelled that program. They cancelled it, and by cancelling that program they destroyed 19,000 T-shirts and literature that was paid for by the federal government with regards to illiteracy. Mr. Speaker, it was done for no other reason, only political reasons. I say to the minister, she is talking about keeping the federal government's feet to the fire on illiteracy, I say to her, she should put more money into the program and to help -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: Just a few seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I say she should put their feet to the fire. They were always talking about our cousins in Ottawa, I would say her cousins in Ottawa have been a total failure and they should put more money into such programs, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, thanks to the minister for the advanced copy. I, too, am pleased, sure, to see money going to the Rotary Club. I know this is a good project, I know it is a good program, but I, too, am concerned that the lobbying may be going on - and I am glad to hear that it is and I hope that it is as active as the minister is saying - but what if the lobbying does not work? I think government already has to be putting a second plan in place. They have to look at picking up what has been lost because of the federal cuts, because those are community-based programs that are doing exceptional work and they have to stay. They are not replacing the adult basic education that goes on in the institutions. They are in the community and run by the communities and government has to come up with the money to replace them.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised questions regarding the cost associated with the Premiers' conference that was held in our Province during the summer. During questioning I referenced excessive expenditures, like $8,000 for sealskin fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife, $105,000 worth of gifts to the premiers and their guests, $100,000 on sightseeing tours that provided beverages of various sorts to the premiers and their guests, but I forgot to mention, what I found out later, that our taxpayers spent $200,000 on one night at the St. John's Convention Centre to provide a meal, free booze and entertainment to the premiers and their guests.

I ask the Premier: Do you feel that $200,000 is excessive, considering much of that money was spent on booze and entertainment, and were there any other issues or needs out there that could have been better addressed by this investment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: First of all, Mr. Speaker - and the Premier alluded to it last week - corporate sponsorships and corporate sponsors donated approximately $500,000 to the total cost. We had the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, that contributed approximately $125,000. The total expenditure to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was between $450,000 and $500,000. That included, Mr. Speaker, some 350, between 300 and 400 delegates, who spent several days here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Council of the Confederation meeting is held in each Province once, Mr. Speaker, every ten years, and our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, is the Chair of the Council of the Confederation. Mr. Speaker, he was proud, and as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we were proud that we could welcome so many distinguished guests to our shores during the summer of 2006.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister referenced the fact that these people were in the Province for four or five days. The Premier, last week, talked about the spinoffs associated with the fact that they were in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we paid for their travel once they were in the Province, and from Corner Brook to St. John's. We paid for their accommodations. We paid for their entertainment. We paid for their food. We paid for their booze. We even went as far as giving them gifts to take home so that they did not have to go out and purchase anything.

What I would like to ask is: What else could we have given these people that you may have forgotten?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks as if this is something new. In this country it is a tradition. Many years ago there were Premiers' Conferences that were held each and every year. During the last number of years, the Council of the Federation were formed. There were meetings in Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario. There were meetings in Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island. There was a meeting in Banff, in Alberta. This year it was in the capital of our Province, in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing unusual about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, in St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible) Corner Brook as well. The Humber Valley Resort was also a venue and, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we were proud to welcome these distinguished people to our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to laugh, because we welcome these individuals here as well, and we are only too happy to have them. The problem I have is when we try to outdo rich Alberta by spending more on them when they got here than they actually spent.

Mr. Speaker, to change gears a little here, last week the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Premier both stated that the university would save millions as a result of this new fibre optic line, this new fibre optic deal. We then learned, later in the week, that they will save nothing because the federal government picks up MUN's cost for Internet access.

I ask the Premier: If the federal government is going to save millions from this fibre optic line, why are they refusing to invest in this project? What is their reason for not investing in this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is selective in the information that is provided to him, selective in his retention.

The fact of the matter is, the federal government pays for the advanced research network that Memorial University participates in, the Canarie network as it is referred to. Memorial University can only afford, as a result or that, or the Canarie network can only afford, to provide Memorial University with a less than optimum connection to the advanced research network. As a result, Mr. Speaker, in order for us to enable Memorial University to access the CA*net 4 or CA*net 5 levels of the Canarie network, there would be an additional cost to Memorial and/or the Province in order to be able to access that.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while the federal government contributes to the cost of the Canarie network, the fact of the matter is, that is only one aspect of Memorial University's connect to Internet and fibre optics, Mr. Speaker. There is an equivalent, if not greater, amount of cost associated with Memorial University's additional fibre optic connection -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister pretends that he is the fountain of all knowledge, but he still did not answer the question: Why didn't the federal government contribute to this project?

Mr. Speaker, in our briefing this morning with officials from the minister's department, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, we were told that there were other companies out there who could have bid on this fibre optic deal or project. We were also told that it was the companies themselves, Persona and Rogers, who told this government that they were the only ones who could bid; therefore, there was no need for a Request For Proposals.

I ask the Premier: Why didn't you issue a tender or a Request For Proposals to ensure every company had equal opportunity to bid? Why did you rely simply on Persona and Rogers as the only option?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not participate because - and, first of all, I have to correct his inaccuracies before I get around to answering his question. If Question Period was long enough, I could actually answer him.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the federal government did not participate because the Industry Canada fund that funded fibre optic connections throughout Canada was exhausted, Mr. Speaker. The only other option was the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund and that, Mr. Speaker, had $11 million left in the pot, which we can very easily use on roads, municipal infrastructure and what have you.

Mr. Speaker, there is never enough money going to come from the federal government to fund all of the strategic infrastructure that we want to spend money on in Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it did not have anything to do with Rogers or Persona saying who might come in or who might not come in.

The fact of the matter is, EWA did an assessment of this proposal. They came back in black and white, which was provided to them, provided to the House, provided to the public, provided to the media, provided to everybody who wanted to see it, Mr. Speaker, provided -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I just ask this: If you are going to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister has about ten seconds to complete his answer.

The Chair recognizes the minister, to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, EWA said that there were only a limited number of operations that could participate in this. They said the consortium, Aliant, the federal government or the provincial government were the only viable participants in this fibre optic connection, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I suggest again, as I did last week, that he go back and brief his officials in the department, because his officials told us this morning there were other groups out there who could have bid on this contract.

Mr. Speaker, many questions continue to exist related to this fibre optic deal. In a speech delivered to the St. John's Board of Trade in April, 1995, our current Premier, when he was owner of Cable Atlantic, expressed his dislike for Newfoundland Telephone and Bell Canada. In his speech, the Premier states, and I quote, "...the Information Highway in Newfoundland and Labrador will become the highway to BELL or the highway to HELL. There is no difference."

It is obvious that he had a great deal of dislike for this company at this time.

I ask the Premier: By using taxpayers' money to subsidize your business associates to compete with Aliant, is this your way of finally getting even?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say this to the Leader of the Opposition: That may well have been the way that they conducted business when they were in government, Mr. Speaker, but it is absolutely not the way that we pursue business when we are in government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, we have made a $15 million investment into a fibre optic link between us and the rest of the world, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, we have an asset, Mr. Speaker. We have fibre optic strands, or we will have fibre optic strands when this is completed. It will enable us to have a connection with the outside world. It will enable further business development in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will allow for the advancement of research, Mr. Speaker. It will allow for the advancement of business attraction in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will enable us to build on our health care, Mr. Speaker. It will allow our educational facilities to participate like every other educational facility in North America, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is the fact of the matter, and they do not want to hear it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Web site for the Department of Business clearly states that government will not assist companies that compete and take business away from existing companies. The infusion of $15 million of taxpayers' money into a consortium that will obviously be competing against another telecommunications company in the Province is contrary to government policy.

I ask the Minister of Business: Why is government breaking its own guidelines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to correct the hon. member, that we are not putting any money in other companies. We are actually buying two fibre optic lines, two fibres, which will put us in a great spot in regards to addressing government services and addressing the cost to government.

Also, this deal, from the perspective of the Department of Business, opens up a whole array of business opportunities in regards to attraction to this Province. That is exactly what it does. To reiterate what my hon. colleague said, it opens up a total array - as was referenced in regards to the REM, we were told, we were screened out, absolutely screened out, because we only had one provider. That is all we were, one provider, one provider only. When it comes to the shopping list from businesses that may very well come into this - they have a shopping list. They might have concerns in health, they might concerns in regards to education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is scarce and the Chair always operates under the assumption that there are always more questions than there is time to give the answers. I ask members on both sides to be co-operative, then we can get in as many questions as we can.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister has no idea what he is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: On an Open Line show recently, the Minister of Business could not answer the question regarding the amount of savings the government will realize from this investment of $15 million. He said he would have to check with the Department of Finance.

I ask the Minister of Business: Did you check with the Department of Finance, and could you tell us where the savings will come from and just how much the government will save?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the cost savings associated with this project have been -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues will know that it is the right of the members who sit opposite to ask a question, it is also the right of the government to decide who answers the question. Therefore, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I ask all members for their co-operation.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the office of the Chief Information Officer and the office of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development have been thoroughly engaged in assessing the cost associated with the fibre optic connection to Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, in the present and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, our offices have done a thorough assessment of this. As well, we have contracted outside interests, like EWA, like PriMetrica and others who have done an assessment of the cost in other jurisdictions and how they have changed when competition has arisen. We are confident, based on the outside analysis and the internal analysis, that there will be substantial savings in the order of 50 per cent associated with this investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last week we had the Premier pinch-hitting for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and now we have the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development pinch-hitting for the Minister of Business.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said the business advisory board had input into the decision to give this contract to Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. Dean McDonald, CEO of Persona, and Paul Hatcher, CEO of Persona, both were appointed to the board by the Premier.

Minister, don't you see the conflict here? On the one hand you are taking advice from these two men and on the other hand you are giving them $15 million.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I can find it here, if I am not mistaken, the involvement of the business advisory board in this venture is the same as Industry Canada's involvement, the same as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's involvement, the same as the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition are going to ask questions, I respectfully ask you to quieten them down while I am trying to give the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a federal-provincial report here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period cannot continue if there is going to be constant shouting back and forth.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was a federal-provincial study done back in 2004-2005 by Industry Canada. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, called, setting the context for a federal-provincial broadband strategy.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to read it, it is on the government Web site. It has been released. I have referenced it previously. If they want to find it, they can go on the government Web site and access it themselves. It tells them in there everything about government broadband. It tells them why we should do this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

A year ago, the previous Minister of Transportation and Works along with the current minister, who is the Member for Lake Melville, announced in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with tremendous fanfare I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Province would ante up $50 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway and go after the feds for matching dollars. In fact, the then minister, Mr. Speaker, predicted an agreement by June, in his own words, and it did not happen or materialize. In August, the current minister told myself and others in Port Hope Simpson that he would have the roads deal signed off come December, he said. Well, Minister, we are four days away and through questions by the federal Member of Parliament for Labrador in the House of Commons over the weekend, the feds claim that they have not even received a submission from you.

Why have you not submitted the business case to solidify the federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for her question.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been engaged with our federal counterparts. This is a number one priority, the Trans-Labrador Highway, for the Department of Transportation and Works and for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am happy to report here today, Mr. Speaker, that we are in discussions with the federal government. We have had a number of meetings, and I can say with all confidence today, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day here, we will see the hard surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway start as early as next June. I am very pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: The same speech as last year, Mr. Speaker, different minister.

Well, let me say this, the government has a political commitment from Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Why are you, Minister, settling for one third of the highway chip seal required - or, as you used to call it when you were the mayor, cheap seal - when you could be going for the full amount of money to finish this highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works; Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, she is not on this file. She has no idea what is going on, neither her nor the Member of Parliament, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently with the federal government on a number of initiatives here in this Province. I will tell you, we are making great progress and we will inform the member, not before we make the announcement. She will be invited after we do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. minister, if I were on the file it would be done now, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, they would not be up in Ottawa waiting for me to put my name to a piece of paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I ask her to put her question immediately.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to say they would not be up in Ottawa waiting for a proposal from me now. I would be up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, who claims to be the great negotiator, has a political written commitment from the Prime Minister to offer up funds to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. In the meantime, why is he negotiating down on this deal, leaving the whole section of highway from Goose Bay to Red Bay with no future commitment of funds to tackle the gravel roads?

Mr. Minister, I ask: Why are you not holding the feds accountable on this one?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we saw the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair when she was on her files. We saw what she was like when she was on her files. Nothing got done, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, nothing got done while she was on the files. That is why this government, and indeed the Department of Transportation and Works, are working diligently. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the progress we are making on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Where she is going for this one-third cost, she has absolutely no idea, Mr. Speaker, what she is talking about, and that is not the first time we have seen the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair not know what she is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but smile. I cannot help but sit here with the biggest grin on my face, because I know for a fact the minister has no idea - no idea - what is going on with the federal government's commitment to this road money.

Let me ask him this - maybe he will know the answer to this one - in the 2006 Budget Estimates, $7.5 million was budgeted under Transportation and Works for the Trans-Labrador Highway as a federal government contribution. I ask the minister today: Where is the $7.5 million? Did you receive it? What did you spend it on, or did it even exist?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: To listen to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair even ask that question is humourous, Mr. Speaker, particularly when she was part of a crowd that took $90 million out of the Transportation Initiative Fund and put it in general revenue, while her and the Member for Torngat and the Member for Lake Melville saw it happen, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is what we saw from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time for one final question.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Government is shrugging its responsibility to pharmacists, forcing deficit managing health boards to add to their accumulating debt in order to retain health care professionals in our hospitals. We now have one board in Labrador offering up to $20,000 in additional benefits to pharmacists, and the St. John's Health Care Corporation offering $12,000 in additional salary.

Why is it that the minister is not taking the problem seriously, and offering up a standard one-off benefit package for all publicly-employed pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker -

MS JONES: John, you just lied and you know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it after Question Period.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot. Someone across the House called someone a liar. I think that is something that cannot be left, Mr. Speaker. It is unparliamentary, and I ask her to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will deal with the point of order following Question Period.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There is time for a very brief answer, because we must go to the New Democratic Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the four regional health authorities in this Province are doing very well with their budgets, I may add to the member across the floor, this year; and, in fact, at least three out of four of the health authorities should be on budget this year, hopefully all four.

Mr. Speaker, the issue to which she refers, there was a collective agreement agreed to, ratified and signed this year. In fact, it was signed only in August; therefore, it is difficult to break open a collective agreement to deal with it again.

The health authorities have the mandate to deliver services in the Province. The bonuses that she was referring to in Labrador-Grenfell were given to the pharmacists in Labrador-Grenfell long before the collective agreement was even signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, too, is for the Minister of Health.

On November 20, the minister said in this House that recruitment to deal with the serious shortage of hospital pharmacists in the Province is going well because the Eastern Health Authority hired three pharmacists in the past twelve months; however, there are currently twelve vacancies in the eastern region and twenty-one in the Province as pharmacists leave for better wages in other parts of Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada.

I am asking the Minister of Health if he will recognize the crisis that we are in, and find a way for this government to get around what has happened in August and deal with this crisis and ensure that all pharmacists, number one, are treated equally?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will correct a statement that the member opposite just said. I did not say that recruitment was going well. I was correcting a statement from the member opposite who said that recruitment was impossible. There were six recruited over the past six or eight months.

To answer further the member's question: There are nineteen vacancies at the present time, yes. Six of those are because of maternity leave. So, in fact, there are actually thirteen vacancies.

As a result of the announcement just recently by Eastern Health, I understand that they are getting further inquiries to fill some of the vacancies that they have, and hopefully, as a result of that announcement for additional retention packages for Eastern Health, they will, in fact, recruit the positions that are currently vacant there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The staff shortages are causing problems with services. This is a crisis. Pharmacists have been moved out of clinical pharmacy into dispensing to keep up with the demand and, even so, there are now delays in chemotherapy drug dispensing.

What are government's plans for filling this gap - I do not hear plans- and making sure that our services are not substandard compared to the rest of Canada?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, along with the retention bonuses that were just recently announced by Eastern Health, Eastern Health have also announced a number of initiatives to improve recruitment as well.

We understand that there have been problems with recruitment and retention; nobody is denying that fact. We understand that there were some problems with work environment; nobody is denying that. We do understand, as well, that there were some concerns through Eastern Health in particular with the delivery of chemo drugs, and Eastern Health - and, in fact, all of the health authorities - have done something that should have been done a long time ago. There is no delay in people getting their chemo treatments now, but they are staggered over the day instead of having all patients come in at one time for an appointment and having excessive waits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

MS JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to say that in referencing the minister's comments I did use the word lied. I know it is unparliamentary and I would withdraw the use of that word. However, I do want to make a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, when -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is standing on a point of order. The Chair did not direct the member to withdraw the comment, but she has withdrawn it voluntarily. The Chair recognizes the member who was going to make, I do believe, a point of order. So, we will hear the member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the members opposite were actually listening, they would have known that I was actually rising to speak to a point of order and would have certainly refrained their comments.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: In questioning the Minister of Transportation and Works today and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, he indicated in his response to one of my questions that the government, us members opposite when we were in government, had taken $90 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund.

Mr. Speaker, that information was misleading and is not true. The Minister of Finance, currently can stand in his place today and verify that. He has the records and the books of the government. He has all the documentation that is required. The minister in his own department has a report for three consecutive years running, since they have been in government, called the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which indicates, Mr. Speaker, that no money, not one dollar, was ever taken out of that fund to be used to pay down any debt of the government.

Mr. Speaker, today the minister stood and misled the House, when he has the reports on his desk in his office, as a minister. The Minister of Finance has the reports as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if she could conclude her point of order very quickly. We must not use points of order to extend Question Period.

The hon. the member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude my point of order by saying the documentation does exist to solidify that the remarks made by the Minister of Transportation and Works today were unjust, misleading and untrue. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to do the honourable thing in this House of Assembly and stand and withdraw those remarks.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comments today is an exchange between two hon. members in that it does not constitute, according to our parliamentary procedure, a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no authority written which determines that as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and that is Beauchesne, Marleau and Montpetit. There is no reference to such a comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Two points the Chair would wish to make. First of all, we should be very careful in extending Question Period by using points of order, and we should certainly refrain from that. The second thing is that it is impossible for the Chair, who has no knowledge of these particular matters, to determine the validity of statements made. In this particular case, there is a disagreement between two hon. members and that does not constitute a valid point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is very disconcerting the language that has been used today. I have the greatest of respect for the Chair in this House and I would not have it any other way, and every member here should. It is very disconcerting when we hear comments coming from the Chair that I believe were somewhat demeaning. To suggest that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was trying to extend Question Period by making a point of order, I think is not proper and I think it demeans the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that during Question Period today there was a reference by yourself - you interceded when the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stood up and made a comment to the effect that it is for us to ask the questions and for government to answer the questions. That is the first time in my -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me. The minister of industry and trade did not say it, the Chair said it. Maybe the minister of industry and trade should listen and he would know about the point I am trying to make.

The point I am making here, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister - it was up to the government side to make that comment, and I do not think it is for the Chair to intercede during Question Period either and defend the government as to who should answer their questions. That is two incidents this afternoon that we have seen, and I think in fairness to everybody here - we all work under the same rules, and when it comes to the stopwatch I have no problem with that. Sometimes the stopwatch is over or under, but that all balances out. There has to be a sense of total, utmost, fair play here coming from both sides of this House.

I would also say in the same breath, since it concerns the same issue, the Government House Leader who is supposed to know the rules here, he is the man, he has been Opposition House Leader before and now he is Government House Leader, and he - it is a well known parliamentary point and fact that you do not jump up during Question Period on points of order, and the Government House Leader did that. Again, if we are going to have proper decorum in here and everybody following the rules, maybe some people should go back and learn some of the rules and stop trying to debate and delay or expire time in Question Period by getting on with these shenanigans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A couple of points the Chair will make. When members have issues that concern the Chair, it is a well established practice that these matters should be discussed in the Speaker's Chambers and that if there is an issue - this afternoon in Question Period, the Chair will only comment to the extent that there seemed to be some protest. Maybe the Chair misinterpreted the protest from the Opposition members. When the question was asked of one minister and then someone else responded, the Chair may have misinterpreted the process that was made. If that is the case, then the Chair certainly apologizes for that. The Chair tries to be as fair as possible, to look on both sides, but when members are shouting back and forth it is sometimes difficult for the Chair to be able to understand exactly what is being said. My only comment was: While it is established practice that the members who are not in the executive have every right to ask questions, members who sit on the government side and who are not in the executive also have a right to ask questions. It is not up to those who ask the questions for them to determine who answers.

We always say, when I direct a question to the Premier, to a minister, but all questions are, according to Beauchesne and other authorities, directed to the government. I sense there was a protest when the minister to whom the question was addressed, another minister replied. If I misunderstood the protest, then that is what would have happened. The Chair tries to be as fair and reasonable as one can be under these circumstances.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of order from my question to the Minister of Transportation and Works in the Legislature today. He is a minister of the Crown. He should be providing information in this Legislature that is accurate and that is a full reflection of what, in fact, transpired. That did not happen today.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the way that we work in this House, in the spirit of being politicians who are honourable and hon. members in this House, I ask the minister, once again, to stand and withdraw the comments that he made, knowing they were false, inaccurate and misleading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on this particular point of order. It is impossible for the Chair to rule any other way than to say there is no point of order.

The Chair cannot interpret or cannot say whether one point of view is more valid than the other, that is not the role of the Chair. The Chair cannot rule on anything other than to say that there is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just out of a point of order, or a point of clarification, we would like to put the Chair on notice, or the House on notice, I guess, the government members, that, in view of what happened last Thursday when we had a point of order raised here by the Government House Leader when we were dealing with members' statements, we had a situation where, after the Member for Bay of Islands gave a member's statement concerning the Canadian Diabetes Association and a non-political function that was held, the minister rose to say he did not think it was an appropriate use of members' statements.

Anyway, I addressed that point at that time and, that same day, the Minister of Transportation and Works had given a member's statement as well dealing with what we thought was absolutely in breach of the intent of members' statements. It was a policy statement of the government - which we pointed out the conflict.

Just so we do not have a reoccurrence of that any more, Standing Order 25 deals with the issue of members' statements. So we do not have to go through those shenanigans any more, we, over on this side of the House, are letting the government ministers know that, in future, there will be no leave given for ministers to make members' statements unless the Opposition sees the intended statement in advance and approves same before we come into this House.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we heard the statement by the Member for Bay of Islands, I did think it fell outside it. In looking at the statement from my colleague after - I did not hear what he said, to be honest with you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I said I read it after - after it was raised.

While I do agree that it did not qualify - the same as the Member for Bay of Islands did not qualify - I am in full agreement. I raised the issue with the Speaker and he was informed that normally members' statements go to the Speaker and they are screened. The Speaker, in the House that day, when it was raised, did say he partially accepted responsibility, or he accepted responsibility for that, because they are supposed to be vetted with the Speaker and provided to the Speaker in advance.

I accept that, whatever side it comes from. I am not in favour of going outside the rules, because they were put there - and I sat on the committee that brought reform in, and the bylaws of this House. I was vice-chair of that committee. I want to see the proper procedures followed. It does not matter what side of the House it occurs on. We should follow proper procedures, whether it suits us or whether it does not.

That is the point, and I understood, and I will let my hon. colleagues know across the House, that the Speaker did indicate that he will certainly ensure that they are all read in the future and that he will make sure that nothing would come that would not coincide and not follow with the rules that we brought here in the House.

We do not have any problem, if a minister is asking leave to give a statement here and he is going to give a members' statement, that the Opposition - we will provide it to the Speaker. If it happens to be a minister, I would ask the Speaker if he could provide it to the Opposition or we could send one along. We do not have a problem with that. We want to follow the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair thanks hon. members for their guidance to the Chair and to the House. I thank both the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader for their clarifications, and hopefully we can proceed with members' statements within the Standing Orders and also within the protocols that we follow here by tradition.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the report of the tribunal appointed under section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, to report on salaries and benefits for Provincial Court judges.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services." ( Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act No 2." (Bill 51)

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Tuesday, and I further give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate another opportunity. I have gotten another petition from the people of Ramea dealing with the issue of the non-existent restroom, waiting area, for the ferry service between Burgeo and Ramea.

Someone put it to me last Friday, when I was back in the district, jokingly they said: Are you looking for a one-holer or a two-holer? Well, Mr. Speaker, albeit they were trying to be funny, no doubt, and humourous, this is not a humourous situation. It is a very serious situation indeed.

The Minister of Transportation and Works undertook, last week in the House, mentioned to me, that he would have something done about this immediately. Well, I don't know what immediate is, but immediate to me implies within a reasonable period of time - for example, twenty-four hours, forty-eight hours, seventy-two hours, maybe - but we are stretching into a week now and nobody, to my knowledge, has contacted anybody from the Department of Transportation and Works to look into this situation. Now, I don't know what is meant to be immediate - and, please, if you are not going to do something immediately, don't say your going to do it.

The weather is getting colder. The problem has existed. It is unhealthy. It is unsafe when women, children, seniors, injured people, sick people, have to get out and crawl amongst the rocks and hide behind somebody's shed down the landwash in Burgeo and Ramea to use the facility because they are waiting for the ferry.

As harsh as that might sound, that is the reality they live in. Now, maybe we can buy fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife. Maybe we can spend $100,000 in sightseeing and booze, but I think we need something done on that situation.

This is my fourth time standing up here, and I say to the minister: Never mind getting up and telling me that you are going to have someone look into it. If you are going to do it, do it. We do not need to be here - and I insist, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will be up every day on my feet with this issue until somebody calls me and says: Yes, we got a call from the minister. Because, if you are not going to do it, don't say you are going to do it. You are better off telling the people: We are not going to look at it. We are not going to touch it. Again, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how badly this is needed. So, please - and I say to the minister: Never mind what somebody did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Noah built the ark one time, too, but we are further advanced than that right now, I say to the minister. We can go back into history. Never mind shirking your responsibility, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Spend you time actually, Mr. Minister, spend your time sending someone down to look at it instead of telling the people of Burgeo and Ramea that you are going to have somebody there and do nothing about it. We are tired of your non-do attitude.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask, with leave, to do first reading on two particular bills, if I could, so we could get them circulated.

I call first reading, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services," carried. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services be now read a first time?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also move first reading of Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 51).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 51 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A Bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2 has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 o'clock, Monday, November 27.

Are members ready for the question?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, it is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11 the House not adjourn today, Monday, November 27 at 10:00 p.m.

Ready for the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call, Order 5, second reading of Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is just one basic, short amendment to this, and that is to allow the President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who is from this Province, allow him to be able to - who is appointed President - participate in our provincial pension plan, retroactive to the period of September 1, 2005. That would be in clause 2 of the bill.

It is very straightforward. Anybody who has represented various associations are under our public service pensions plans, who participates on a national level. It is to allow some consistency and fairness there, that they would not have a period of time in which they would not be able to participate in the pension plan. I think it is a very straightforward one there and I am not going to elaborate any further because that is all that is to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have before us today Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. This is a bill that, no doubt, we can support because we have an opportunity now that we have one of our own, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, who is going to be President of the Canadian Teacher's Federation and that particular person wants to participate in the pension plan during his term of office. Well, it would stand to reason that this would be a very important consideration for anyone accepting a position on a national board like this particular one. I cannot see where that should be a problem but this is certainly a bill that is talking about money, and of course during a debate on a money bill we have an opportunity as an Opposition to ask any questions concerning money issues.

It was interesting today, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of Health give his response when questioned by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair regarding the pharmacists' situation, and he seemed to put all the blame or close the issue as of the negotiation that had taken place in August which resulted in a contract. Now, in my chat with the pharmacists they were, more or less, held with a gun to their head during those negotiations in August. They could not negotiate or talk to the government negotiator on the issue of raises at all. That was an issue that the government negotiator would not entertain whatsoever. That particular negotiator said that this issue would be settled after the contract was signed, and we are seeing today that it is not settled.

We have a lot of issues out there in the Province, especially now the disparity when you see the Eastern Health Care Board come up with a creative way to look after the pharmacists who are working for the Eastern Health Care Board; creative in a sense that the board has to come up with $1 million, and they said they can do that. They have to come up with $1 million in order to provide raises for their pharmacists. When you look at the fact now, that is another step in alienating rural Newfoundland and Labrador because you can come up with a creative solution for the Eastern Health Care Board but you cannot come up with a solution for everywhere else in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is no good for the Minister of Health to stand up in his place and stick with the line that we signed a contract in August and a contract is a contract, because there will always be situations in this Province, particularly as it pertains to health care, that sometimes you might have to do a one-off deal. It is no good for you to tell a cancer patient in Grand Falls-Windsor or Gander that you do not have a pharmacist to fill the chemotherapy drug for that day for the treatment that they are going to have. How can you tell a patient who is waiting anywhere outside of the Eastern Health Care Board that they will not have a pharmacist mixing their medication? We already are into problems. The Minister of Health cannot put his head in the sand and forget about the pharmacists.

When you consider the fact that, out of the thirty-two graduates last year from the MUN School of Pharmacy in 2006 - actually, it was this year -only nine of them stayed in our Province, we are educating at a great cost and running a School of Pharmacy for people who are going to get their education and leave our Province. Doesn't the government have sense enough to recognize that we are putting a lot of money into that School of Pharmacy and we are not getting the outcome that we should? When less than one-third of the people who graduated for the School of Pharmacy this year are staying in our Province to work, you know there is an issue here. There is an issue here that must be addressed.

There is a bigger issue, too, because I know cancer patients who, while they are in hospital, their medication is taken care of. As soon as they are out of hospital and they go home and they have to have medication, whether it be cancer or heart problems or whatever, those drugs are not taken care of once they leave the hospital and they are discharged.

You know, there are people in this Province today who, once they are discharged from hospital, they cannot afford to have the proper medication to help them overcome their illnesses and, as a result, they are deciding between heat and medication or food and medication.

So, Mr. Speaker, although we are probably living in the best times economically right now since Confederation, we have not addressed the social ills in this Province. The glaring one right before us today is the pharmacists, and we have to find a way - this government has to find a way - to make sure that this situation does not stay like it is today.

In the information that has been supplied by the pharmacists in this Province, we are learning now that there will be less than twenty graduates from the School of Pharmacy who will actually stay in this Province to work over the next two years.

Now, the Minister of Health stands on his feet and says: You know, there is not that big a problem with recruitment and retention. We have managed to hire six over the past eight months.

Well, now, that is not a very good record, only managed to hire six over the past eight months, when there is at lease a shortage of pharmacists in this Province of over thirty pharmacists.

So, we have an issue here that government does not see the urgency. They have a bit of time now because the Eastern Health Care Board has managed to come up with $1 million to pay their pharmacists extra money to keep them.

Now, if the Eastern Health Care Board came up with $1 million, they just did not pick it off the budget sheet. That means that there is going to be probably $1 million in cuts to the Eastern Health Care Board that some - you just do not find a surplus in a health care board. In fact, most of them are running deficits even though they are not supposed to do it. You do not find $1 million under a box of tissues in someone's hospital room. A million dollars means that there are going to be cuts throughout this board and they are not yet realized.

Currently, there are twelve vacancies at the Eastern Health. There are six at Central.

MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I just wanted to clarify. The member opposite just said that there are thirty vacancies across the Province. There are, in fact, nineteen vacancies at present, Mr. Speaker.

She was talking about the health boards running deficits. In fact, at least three of the four health boards, we understand, this year, Mr. Speaker, should be coming in on budgetary targets; hopefully all four of them, Mr. Speaker.

Another point that I wish to clarify is, she said that I said there wasn't a problem with recruitment and retention. I did not, and I would invite her to go back and read Hansard. What I did say, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the health critic, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, having said just a couple of weeks ago that recruitment is impossible and that there have not been any pharmacists recruited, I said that statement was incorrect and that, in fact, there were six pharmacists recruited over the past several months.

There is still a problem with recruitment and retention, and I have never said that there was not. In fact, I have said there is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The minister has used a point of order to engage in debate.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting that the minister is listening attentively when the Opposition is pointing out disparities in the system. I wonder if he would turn that energy into providing some kind of a creative solution so pharmacists will not be out there on edge and applying for jobs all over Canada when they know that the money should be given to them to satisfy their situation right now so that the whole Province will not be in a crisis.

It is pretty clear from the information that I have received, and the whole Province has received, and I know from past experience of being in government, that a lot of money is injected into our health care system and most of the boards in the Province have great difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget. That has been the case over, I would say, many, many years, as many as we can remember, there is always a situation that comes up that boards are not prepared for, and this is the one on pharmacists, although they knew in August that they had a situation.

I recall, when we were the government, we had a situation when we were losing oncologists, and oncologists are so important in cancer treatment. We had to find a creative way to be able to pay our oncologists more and get them to stay here in the Province. They are very rare, that particular profession, across Canada, and sometimes you have to do things out of the ordinary in order to meet health and safety needs.

We also had a situation, when we were government, of the lab and X-ray strike. What do you do? Do you leave people on the street? Sometimes you are forced to go to whatever means possible to ensure the life and safety of our people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has known about this situation for months, and when you consider there are up to 1,000 medications a day prepared at the Health Sciences Complex in St. John's, and 100 chemotherapy orders every day - Mr. Speaker, there are at least 100 chemotherapy orders in at the Health Sciences Complex every day. We have the facilities in Grand Falls-Windsor now for treating cancer patients - improved ones, I am happy to say, and our patients are going to be a whole lot more content sitting down in good surroundings - but, if we were to lose our pharmacists in Grand Falls-Windsor, we would be into an awful situation. There is chemotherapy treatment being done every day, and that is the problem. If you do not have an adequate number of pharmacists to look after preparing medications for the patients in the hospitals, you are going to have a backlog of people, and this treatment has to be done on a daily basis. It is no good to wait a week or so.

I am glad to heard that the Eastern Health Care Board have been creative in finding a solution for their pharmacists. I doubt very much if Central and Western Health would be able to come up with that kind of money. They are running on a very tight budget and they do not have the means, probably, that Eastern Health does.

MR. REID: They are losing their pharmacists and (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Absolutely.

I hear the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague, saying that it is quite possible that our pharmacists in Central Newfoundland and also Western Newfoundland might end up applying for jobs out here, and in Labrador, too. So, every pharmacist outside of the Eastern Health care region are looking at their own particular situation, and that is not going to last. If you have a solution for one group, you are going to have a lot of discontent with the other group.

Some sites have had a critical shortage and pharmacists have often worked as many as thirteen days in a row. The pharmacists themselves have been looking at recruitment and retention, despite what the Minister of Health says. The average time to fill a vacancy for pharmacists in our Province is some seventy months. That is a long time. That is a long time to look for a pharmacist and actually put one in a job. I see private business out there looking for pharmacists all the time and they have great difficulty trying to lure a pharmacist to private enterprise.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are opportunities, I know, under other bills to discuss those issues. They are completely, entirely unrelated in second reading. You talk on the principles of the bill so that we have the President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation of this Province so there can be a continuation of the pension during those years. That is all that is in this bill. There is opportunity to debate those issues the member feels strongly on, but it is totally out of order under second reading of a bill dealing with a completely different matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is aware of the wide-ranging nature. The Chair is well aware that we are doing second reading on a very precise bill. While the member has been speaking we have been having some research done. The tradition of our House is that on supply bills and on taxation bills, the debate can be very wide-ranging. I should say to the member that research is being done now to see if the practice of our House has been relative to whether or not a matter that is now in discussion, which is very narrow and focused, can be used to extend a debate that is very wide-ranging. The practice that I am familiar with in this House is that when it comes to supply bills, when it comes to taxation bills, in these matters you can have a wide-ranging debate. I would ask the member if she could constrain her comments now perhaps to the principles of the bill that we are discussing.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no trouble to find the relevancy in this bill, when I look at Bill 47. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have uncovered a nerve here because during the debate on the Teachers' Pension Act I already had two interruptions, one from the Minister of Health who must have thought it was relevant, and now from the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board. We have definitely hit a nerve, but I will contain my remarks particularly to this bill as it is set out.

We have another issue when it comes to the teachers' pension fund. I am glad that the teachers' pension fund is in a much better financial position than it was two years ago, and I am sure that the teachers in this Province are glad that it is in a better financial position. Most of the $2 billion of the Atlantic Accord money went into the teachers' pension plan and, as a result, it is a much healthier plan today. Now, I do not know, there was never any debate on whether or not the Atlantic Accord money could be used for other issues facing our Province, and I wish that we would have had that opportunity in the House of Assembly. I wish we would have had that opportunity in the House of Assembly so that everybody who sits here in this House and has constituents all over our Province might have been able to give their view on how the $2 billion could have been spent. I understand Florence Delaney gave her view on how it could have been spent and she ended up being fired. However, the Teachers' Pensions Act, this is going to be a new extension of the Teachers' Pensions Act so that teachers who sit on national boards, particularly the Canadian Teachers Federation, are now going to be able to have their pension extended during their term of office, which is a good thing.

We have a multi-province arrangement across our country that we have several pensions throughout the country, both provincially and federally, where there is a multi-lateral arrangement that these pensions can be transferred from one jurisdiction to the other. It makes a great deal of sense because when you think about putting yourself up for a federal appointment - I had a situation recently in my constituency where there was a person interested in serving on a national board but the particular institution where this person was employed would not let this person off one day a month to go to a meeting on a federal board. Now, most employers around the Province would encourage an employee to expand their knowledge and do community work outside of their community and outside of their province, because we have lots of talent in this Province and there is no reason why we cannot see our people sit on national boards.

This particular constituent of mine is now facing an appeal process because he is not permitted, through his institution, to sit on a national board, even though he can make an arrangement to replace him while he is going to be gone for one day a month on a national board. There must be criteria developed within government and within our public institutions which allows for that kind of involvement by professionals here in our Province, because you really stymie enthusiasm when a person who has been in a job for a long time, who is working with government and has the qualifications and the expertise to sit on a national board, but yet would be compromised. They would either have to give up their job or not be able to take part in a pension plan.

I am glad that government has seen an inadequacy here in the teachers' pension fund and are going to correct that, but the situation that I now have in my District of Grand Falls-Buchans about one other individual - I have written a letter of support for that person over the past week. I do hope, through debate like this, that maybe that particular institution may be listening today and they can see the importance of our people being able to sit on national boards, and maybe they will have a reconsideration on this particular individual's request.

When you are talking about the Teachers' Pensions Act, the commitment that was made during the previous government to put in a certain dollar amount every year to try to bring the teachers' pension fund into a situation where it was 100 per cent funded - it looked so bleak at the time because teachers, first when they started out, were paying very little into their pension fund, and naturally over the years a good number of them retired. As a result, the fund was always underfunded. There were never enough contributions going into that particular fund to fund the number of teachers that are retiring. There was always a threat around that pension fund saying that the fund would be completely exhausted, I think it was somewhere around 2015 or 2020. I do not recall the exact number of years but it was pretty close, probably ten or fifteen years time.

When you look at the fact that we do not have the same number of teachers working in our system now in the Province that we did, say, ten years ago - we do not have the same number of students. In fact, in about seven years time we will be down to about 60,000 children in our schools. As a result of that, government will probably be making some tough decisions over the next few years. They are already making them now. Will rural Newfoundland be left like we know it today? I doubt very much.

With that comes the fact that there will be less teachers. There will be less teachers paying into the pension fund. Without this big injection of money that was made last year, we would have had a great number of teachers out with not the pension fund that they thought they were going to have.

There are some tough decisions to be made in the future around rural Newfoundland and Labrador and also the number of teachers that we will want in our schools and need in our schools. The hard part about all of that is that people choose to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the school is always the nucleus of what goes on in the community. To take a school out, you are taking the lifeline out of the community. Everything happens in the school.

I faced that myself when I was first elected ten years ago. There was a situation where the school was going to be closed in Badger. I know that situation was one of the hardest things that I had to deal with first when I got elected. In fact, the people of Badger were so frustrated that they were not even going to allow the school bus to leave their community with the children on it to go to Grand Falls-Windsor. I had threats that I, myself, was going to be actually chained to the school bus. People were so engaged about their school, their school bus and their children, the nucleus of the community.

It was several years ago that we, as a government, insisted, and put into writing and put into law, that there would be necessarily existent schools in our Province so that parents and children would never have to worry again. Younger children and elementary children would not have to leave their homes, get on a school bus and drive for hours. They would have primary and elementary schools in their communities. That is a big relief when people hear that.

I hope that this government will never overturn that legislation. I know that is probably on the drawing board right now where this particular government might overturn that necessarily existent schools legislation. I tell you, that would be a bad thing to do because it would really be tearing the heart and soul out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you see, in your mailbox, a booklet from Alberta with over thirty companies enticing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to work out west, that is the hard part. That is the hard part, that companies out west now have seen a mecca here in our Province of well-trained professionals and well-trained tradespeople who cannot find jobs in their own Province and they are going to be heading out west, and companies out west have put it together into a coloured booklet trying to capitalize on our situation in our Province and lure people out west.

This is a problem we are going to have with the teachers in the future. In fact, we already saw it with our pharmacists. They are being lured out, too, with the thoughts of making more money. When you look at the Teachers' Pensions Act, it is deeper than just this one amendment that is added to it today. This takes care of this particular situation, but there are going to be lots of situations come up in the future that we have to look at as our teachers - you know, all our public servants, now, the average age of our public servants is close to fifty years old.

When I was in the position on the other side of the House, the average age of our public servants was forty-seven, and that was only three years ago. The average age of our public servants, because we have not done many hirings of young people in the public service, is almost fifty years old. So, we will be facing all of these problems associated with succession in a few years' time and we will have well-trained people who are leaving this system and we will not have young people to fill the gaps. What will that do for government? Will government be operating with a smaller government? What will happen to the face of rural Newfoundland as we know it today?

These are the many questions that will be facing government as they try to govern properly, and it is our job as an Opposition to point out all these difficulties ahead and offer solutions. It is not only our job to criticize; it is also our job to offer solutions.

I do not think that you can skimp on education. You cannot bring education to such a level that our young people in small communities feel that they are not getting an adequate education, and our young people cannot be glued to a TV screen or monitor trying to get an education on some of the subjects or specialities that they cannot get in their schools.

I know in Buchans there are several subjects now, advanced math and others, that need to be taught through a computer screen, and that is very difficult, to try to get your credits dealing through a computer monitor. It is not like having a teacher in your classroom and being able to ask that teacher questions. These are things that we have to consider for the future.

The Member for Mount Pearl, who was a teacher - and I suppose he is still a teacher by profession - weren't you a school principal as well?

MR. DENINE: No.

MS THISTLE: No? Okay, he wasn't a school principal, but he was a teacher. I know he has experience in urban settings. You have experience in urban settings as a teacher. He has experience in urban settings like Mount Pearl. I do not know if he ever taught in St. John's or not, but I can tell you what: It is clear to me, and it is clear to everybody watching, that you have not taught in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DENINE: How do you know?

MS THISTLE: Because you have not been up on your feet to correct me, for one thing, because all you talk about is what happens in here.

I can tell you, I am the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans -

MR. JOYCE: He is always talking about big cities.

MS THISTLE: You are always talking about big city issues, but there are lots of issues out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that you should get apprised of. You might get in Cabinet that way, you know, if you got familiar with rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the meantime, there are issues out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we cannot sweep under the rug. I mean, we had the Opposition House Leader today talk about the very basics, a bathroom for somebody getting the ferry from Ramea to Burgeo. My gosh, and here we are with $2 billion, and 80 per cent of it went into the teachers' pension fund, and we cannot spend $1,000 to put a small room there, or a waiting area - probably $5,000 to put a waiting area and a washroom.

During the Premiers' Conference here there were mugs and jugs and sweaters and booze and entertainment and you name it, nothing was spared. If you had to add up the price of the ticket for that one-night stand when everything was free, it would have cost the taxpayers about $700 a head, but we cannot find small money to provide the basic necessary comfort for someone to use the washroom on the ferry going between Burgeo and Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Mount Pearl talks about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the teachers' pension fund - now, I remember when the teachers paid very little into the teachers' pension fund, but that was in the past, and the teachers were one of the groups in our Province who had the Cadillac plan. They did not have to lose any clawback when they became sixty-five. Now, there are a lot of teachers here sitting in this House today who were part of that Cadillac plan. They are not going to have any money clawed back when they turn sixty-five. The ones today who are in the teaching profession, they are not getting that luxury. They came in at a different era and they are not going to be party to having no clawbacks. They have to pay a higher contribution and when they turn sixty-five there is going to be a clawback when they get their Canada Pension. Like everything else, you cannot condemn teachers for what they have today with the no clawbacks, the Cadillac plan, because that was part of the negotiation at that particular time.

When teachers negotiated for their contract many years ago that was one of the things they got as being part of their plan. They probably got that in lieu of a raise because it was so far extended out into the future. Government hit on hard times at that particular time when the teachers' pension fund and other pension funds were used to put asphalt on roads and beds in hospitals. One way to satisfy contract negotiators at that time was say: Okay, teachers, we have a plan for you. What we will do is that when you turn sixty-five you will not have to get any of your pension clawed back from Canada Pension. We will let you have the works. We will let you have your teachers pension, your old age pension and your Canada Pension, the works. We are not going to touch you, except for old age pension. That is what we did for teachers years ago but that plan does not exist today. New teachers coming on stream have to pay higher contributions and they do not have that same luxury.

You know, you cannot criticize for what happened ten, twenty or thirty years ago. People who were sitting in government or sitting at a negotiating table at that time, they made the best decisions they could based on the information that they had and the money that they had and what they could work with. I mean, there are lots of decisions which have been made in the past three years that are not decisions that everybody agrees with. I am sure history - when you look back over the past three years and the next year coming up, there will be lots of people who will say: Well, you know, this government, the Williams' government, did not make a good decision here. There will be people who will dispute how the $2 billion could have been invested. There will always be that kind of discussion and that is what makes it good, because as a democracy of this Province we are able to stand on our feet and we are able to question. We are able to observe, we are able to question.

Generally, what happens is that when somebody makes an observation, or poses a different point of view, governments generally sit back and examine their own decisions. We have seen lots of cases in the past several months where governments have rethought their decisions on different issues and have made changes. Although governments do not admit it, they do rely on public opinion polls. Public opinion polls can be found on open line talk shows, they can be found in the media and, of course, this government has been doing enormous polling. Every situation or every issue that comes up, this particular government does enormous polling to see whether or not it is going to be accepted by the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my talk on the teachers' pension fund right now because there are several bills coming up over the course of the next day or so, and I am going to have a lot of opportunity to talk about situations where people's lives are comprised in this Province. I will leave my further discussion for those bills.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly not going to take twenty minutes - at least I have no intention to - to speak to Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

I think what it states, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill would amend section 3 of the Teachers' Pensions Act to allow a member of a teachers' pension plan, who is appointed to the position of President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, to continue to participate in the pension plan during his or her term of office as President.

What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that - I guess it was three years ago an individual by the name of Mr. Wins Carter was elected as the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. He served his two-year term, but as a result of what a great job he did, his colleagues across the country actually elected him as the President of the Canadian Teachers' Association, and as a result he has been carrying out those duties for I think - a year, is it, Minister, or two?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, I think his term will clue up later on in the next year, Mr. Speaker, next August or next September. All the minister is asking to do here is that while he is fulfilling those duties, that it would be still going towards his pension. We have done that because people have been in the Province - if you become the President of the Teachers' Association in the Province you would still count it as pensionable service. We do the same thing for nurses who also become presidents. We also do the same thing for NAPE employees. All we are doing here is because he is now the Canadian President of the Teachers' Association, is that while he is off for that year or two years on that job, that he can still accrue pension benefits.

I have to say, I know Mr. Carter personally, and for most of his life, if not all of it, he has taught in the Bonavista North area and he has done a tremendous job in the Carmanville area. He is the principal of the school down there, or was the principal until he assumed these duties. He will probably go back there after he is finished this term, but because of the job that he did as a teacher and a principal, I guess the people of the Province or the teachers of the Province recognized that and elected him as the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. He made such an impression on those from away in the other provinces, that they indeed decided that they were going to elect him as the Canadian President of the Teachers' Association.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, you were an educator yourself, but I think that this is probably the first time -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. REID: No, it is not; not the first time that a Newfoundlander or Labradorian became the President of the Canadian Teachers' Association? I am not aware of others, but apparently there are some. Maybe you can mention those in closing, Mr. Speaker, but I am just -

AN HON. MEMBER: Len Williams.

MR. REID: Mr. Len Williams, you are right. Another great educator, Mr. Len Williams. I forgot him. Actually, I did know that, Mr. Speaker.

All I would like to say is that we have no problem with allowing Mr. Carter, in light of the fact that he was a great educator in this Province and continues to be, to accrue some pension benefits while he is acting as the President of the Canadian Teachers' Association.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move second reading of Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 47)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquires. That is Bill 40. It is in second reading already, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 40 has had some debate on it, and I believe the Opposition House Leader had several minutes left of his first presentation.

Further speakers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that I can speak for an hour on this one, but I do not think I will today. It is An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

The reason I am rising to speak to this one today is because our side of the House has been asking for a public inquiry pertaining to this fibre optic cable thing that has been happening and ongoing in our Province now for the past, I think, four weeks. We have been asking a lot of questions and there is almost like a public inquiry. There is certainly a public debate going on, out in the general public about this, but even though there is lots of debate going on, we are getting few answers from government. That is the reason that we asked for a public inquiry, because it is only a public inquiry who would have the rights and the privileges of being able to call witnesses, to subpoena witnesses, and to view Cabinet documents and all correspondence written or orally to find out exactly what happened in this. It is only a public inquiry that gives us the tools to be able to complete that job, and that is the reason I asked for it.

Last week, the government agreed to allow the Auditor General to come in and investigate this. We have not heard if the Auditor General is, in fact, going to do that. I know I spoke to him on Thursday morning and at that time he hadn't been asked, but he did tell me that he is quite busy at the time, for obvious reasons. He is doing an investigation into the House of Assembly and the MHAs, and that is going to take him quite some time. He said that if, indeed, he were asked by the government to conduct this investigation, the first thing he would need to do is to have a substantially larger budget because he would have to be able to go out and hire the experts who would be required in order to do a true investigation to see if this deal, as the Premier says, is squeaky clean and above board.

If it is so squeaky clean, and I keep going back to that point - in fact, I just did an interview with the media here in the Province and I just made the point that if it is so squeaky clean and it is so above board, then why not let somebody have a look at it? Why not let the Public Accounts Committee hold an investigation into it? The answer keeps coming back: No, it is not necessary.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is my upbringing, but when someone tells me something, even as a kid, that you are not allowed to do something, you want to find out why. You want to find out why. I have always had an inquisitive mind, and usually when somebody tells you, no, you cannot do this, you have to find out why; but, more importantly - maybe I am that type of person - when I am told, no, you cannot have a look at that, you have a sense that something is being hidden.

Now, I am not saying it is in this case, but it certainly gives an impression, when someone says you cannot look at something, that there is something actually being hidden. What I am talking about is this cable proposal.

A few weeks ago, we had an information outage - not a power outage - in the St. John's area, and that affected a lot of the other parts of the Province, where our telephone and telecommunications systems went down. It was on a Friday night, and I remember it well because we were left not only without hard line telephones and computer access but we were also left without cellphones. As well, Mr. Speaker, if you use a debit card and a credit card, like I do all the time, you could not even use one of those. That is how reliant we are today on computer technology.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I say reliant, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, not Aliant.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of how reliant we are on computer technologies and information technologies today. Yesterday afternoon, I had the occasion of going into a store and picked up a pair of pants, bought a pair of pants. I got up to the wicket and that little scanner that they have there, they scanned it over the price and it didn't work. I asked the young man, who was the cashier there: Why don't you just tap in the amount? The amount is right there on the pants. In fact, they're reduced; that is the reason I bought them. They were on sale. He said: No, I can't tap in the price. Then he said: I am going to have to call my supervisor.

Of course, as I am doing this, slowing down the line, the line is getting longer and I am getting a little embarrassed. So, he called his supervisor over the PA system and I stepped back and said: Here you go, folks, you can go ahead because this may take awhile.

So, we got halfway through, then, when the supervisor came up and she looked around and said: Well, I'll go down and get another pair similar to those and bring them up. She went down and brought two more pairs, so there were three pairs of pants. Now I was pushing into the line again because they told me to come up - and they scanned in those and they couldn't work. They couldn't get the scanner in the computer to work to show the price on the machine so I could give them my money. She said: Well, I'll have to go and get my supervisor. I said: Hold on, here, now; maybe I will wait and come back at a different time because there are a lot of people wanting to get served. They said: No, no, this will only take a few minutes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the story, the third supervisor came down and said: Listen, put in this number and the price. Sure enough, after a lengthy wait, I finally purchased the pants. After all of that, I got them home and they were too big for me. I said to my wife: I'm not bringing them back. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is how reliant we are on computer technology.

A few weeks ago, that happened in St. John's and surrounding areas, and other parts of the Province. As a result of that, we were led to believe, by a number of very prominent individuals in the St. John's area, that this could be solved if we had another fibre optic line leading right across this Province, across the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on to the mainland, because then we would not be reliant upon the one company that provides this service - and that is Aliant - to the Province.

We were led to believe that and, in fact, the Mayor of St. John's came out and said, over that weekend or early on Monday morning, that this is not acceptable; we need competition. We need another fibre optic line across the Province hooking us on to the mainland so that we are not left in the dire straits that we were on Friday night when we had the 911 service down and we could have had all kinds of catastrophic events happen in the Province and we would not be able to react to it.

In fact, as a result of that, Randy Simms on Open Line called me on Monday. If you remember, that Monday was a holiday. We were not working that day, and I got called at home. He called me and asked me what I thought of that. I said: Well, it is obvious, we need another fibre optic cable - based on what the mayor had said. I think, as well, the President of the Board of Trade, a Mr. Dillon, came out and said similar things. He works, I found out later, with Rogers, of course, but led us to believe that if we had a second what they call redundant line, that this would not have happened again.

Anyway, I went out and said, yes, we need another company to come in and establish another cable, or build another cable line across the Gulf on to the mainland, but I found out shortly after that - thanks to a couple of editorials in the paper and a few letters to the editor - indeed there was a second line. Aliant has two fibre optic cables that run sort of parallel in the Province from St. John's right across the Island and on to the mainland. The word we were hearing from Aliant, and those who had previously worked with Aliant, is that even if we had two more lines provided by another company, or six more lines, there is still a possibility that what happened on Allandale Road would happen again and we would still be left without that information technology.

That began to make me wonder why we were doing it. Why are we out investing $15 million into what is called a redundant line when we already have one? That led to more questions being asked.

Finally, I might add, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development comes out and says that while he was working on this for the last eighteen months, or government, all of a sudden he is down in Florida to a conference on another topic all together, other than telecommunications, and he gets a call to come home and announce, on a Thursday, that the provincial taxpayers are going to put $15 million into a consortium made up of Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream, and that this was required.

Again, we wonder what is going on here; and, knowing the connection between the Premier and some of the proponents in these two companies, we started to ask more questions. For example, Mr. Dean McDonald, the fellow that the Premier touts as being one of the most intelligent people in the Province, every time we turn on an Open Line show or listen to the TV or radio we have the Premier talking about how bright this young fellow is - he knows everything, and how much he trusts him, and how he mentored him. He hired him, himself, when he owned Cable Atlantic, and he mentored him. As a result, he knows everything there is to know.

I do not know the man, so I cannot comment on his intelligence or his credentials. Anyway, I am sort of diverging here, but when we looked at the three companies involved we found out that two of them had connections with the Premier through other companies that they were involved with prior to the Premier becoming Premier. We found that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Hatcher and Mr. Marshall, all three worked for Cable Atlantic when the Premier owned the company, and now these three individuals are being employed by two of the proponents, Rogers and Persona, to do this deal across the Province. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it makes you ask more questions when you find out things like that.

That is what we have been doing for the past three or three-and-a-half weeks; we have been asking questions. Every time, for some reason, especially with regard to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development who sits opposite, every time that I ask him a question, he jumps up on his feet and says how stunned I am, and I cannot read and I cannot write and I cannot listen, and I get everything tangled up. Every single time that he does that, not only do I not get the answer to the question I asked him but it raises five or six other questions in my mind.

Shortly after this happened and the minister made the decision that he was going to give $15 million to these three companies, one of the first things he talked about was that - someone asked him why we were investing in it - well, he said, if we do this, for example, the university will get their Internet access for some ten to a hundred times cheaper than they are currently paying. We have all heard him say that. The Premier went on the line and said the exact thing I think, didn't he? He said it publicly as well, that Memorial University is paying anywhere from ten to a hundred times more for their Internet access than their counterparts on the mainland.

When they make statements like that, you have to check it out. You just cannot take it for face value, simply because the minister said it was so, it is so. I mean, he certainly would not do it if I were saying it. So, we went in to a briefing the other morning that he provided with his officials. By the way, he had the media briefing. He has his officials go out and brief the media and tell the media how great this deal was, and give them all the details. We had to ask for our meeting. They were not going to brief us. They would rather keep us in the dark because they were afraid, I guess, that we might ask some pertinent questions.

Anyway, we got our briefing meeting, and the Leader of the NDP Party was with us. We got our briefing meeting, and when we were in there we were allowed to ask questions and guess what? Guess what? The officials in the department often answer your questions. Now, the minister will stand on his feet and accuse and abuse me of all kinds of things but he never answers my questions, but the officials will. One of the questions that I asked in that meeting, keeping in mind what the Premier and what the minister said about the savings to the university, I asked the official from the department: Who pays? How much is Memorial University paying for cable, or for fibre optic cable, or for the Internet access? The answer was: Don't exactly know right now. Well, I said, give us a ballpark figure. Is it thousands or millions? He said: Can't exactly tell you. I said: Why? Who pays it? Do we give the money to the university and the university pays it, or are we billed directly as a government?

Finally, he did give me the answer. The reason he could not tell me what they were paying is because, do you know what? They are not paying anything. They are not paying anything for their access. Now, if they are not paying anything for their access, how can they save ten to a hundred times what they are paying by going with this new company rather than Aliant?

What I found out is that there is a company called Canarie. I do not know if it is a company or an organization called Canarie - it is an organization - and what do you call that when it is owned and operated by the federal government? It is a federal government agency. Canarie is a federal government agency which buys the service from Aliant and gives it to Memorial University. So, in essence, it is the federal Crown corporation or agency that is paying for the service and not Memorial University, so Memorial University does not pay for that service.

So, if they are out there talking about all of the money the university is going to save as one of the reasons that we should do this deal, and if they are out talking about we need an extra line in the Province because we do not already have one, then we later find out from Aliant that Aliant has two instead of one, you can understand what begins to happen. If you have an inquisitive mind at all - if you were told, first of all, there was only one line going across the Province and you found out there were two, that is fine, that twigs your curiosity. That makes you wonder why this deal is going ahead. That is the first thing: we need an extra line, even though we have two.

Then you hear that the university is going to save a bundle of money off this deal. Then you find out from officials in the department that: Oh, no, sure how is the university going to save money when the university does not even pay for the service? The federal government pays for the service.

When you get two going like that, it sort of perks up your curiosity even more. I don't know, maybe our government is trying to save the federal government agency some money. I doubt that very much, not with the way Mr. Harper and our Premier get along these days. Okay, there are two inconsistencies.

We have all heard out there in the general population that the only people who could do this, the only people who wanted to do this contract, to provide the two extra lines across the Province, were the companies that are now doing it, and they are: Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. That is what we were led to believe. We asked the question three or four times and we were told that everyone who could possibly bid on this could have bid on it, even though we did not go out for a bid. What did we find out from the officials this morning? We found out from the officials in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development that there were other companies out there who could have bid on this contract. There were other companies out there that could have bid on this contract, but guess what? When asked, then, why weren't they asked if they would want to bid and see if they could come in cheaper? Do you know what the answer was from the official? Because the people at Rogers and Persona said: No, they are not interested.

Just imagine. Just imagine if there was a government contract ready to go out, Mr. Speaker, and if I said to the government: You don't have to public tender that because no one else wants it. Just imagine. Just imagine the mess.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to tell you is that we hear so many inconsistencies and so many wrong answers every day that the further we delve into this the more we think that it smells. It is as simple as that. I cannot say it much simpler. We think it smells, even though the Premier thinks that it is squeaky clean and all above board.

The Premier did admit, when the whole episode broke there two weeks ago, that even he had a problem with it when it started, because of the smell factor. He said it himself, that when this proposal came forward from these companies he had a problem with it because there was a perception problem. He knew that the individuals involved with this proposal were previous employees of his - and close friends of his, by the way, very close friends. He knew that if he tried to sell that to the public there were going to be questions asked. So he said: We will send it back. We have to send it back. We will send it through a scrubber to try and get some of the smell off it. Now, he did that twice. It was sent back twice. I do not know what he washed it in to try and get the smell off it, but even with that and putting a bit of deodorant on it, the smell still was not reduced sufficiently that we could not smell something, as well, when he did fire it through.

I think that we still would not have heard about this project or this proposal had we not had a fire at Aliant. Pretty coincidental, that four or five days after the fire at Aliant on Allandale Road, all of a sudden this proposal is on the table after being reviewed for eighteen months and smelled too much for the Premier to bring forward. You get the fire at Aliant on Allandale Road, the minister is down in Florida, he is called back: get back here and announce this project right away and the fact that we are giving $15 million into it. The ironic and the strangest thing about it is: Guess who was absent from the press conference when the minister came back from Florida to do the quick announcement that we are giving $15 million to Persona and Rogers? The Premier was not here. That is another telling thing, too, Mr. Speaker, another inconsistency and a very telling thing.

Every time there is a very positive announcement in this Province, guess who makes it? The Premier makes it. In this particular case you would think to save money and for expedience, that the Premier, if he thought this deal was so great, would have gone out and announced it himself and would have had, by the way, the President and CEO of Persona, Mr. MacDonald, sitting next to him on one side, and Mr. Hatcher or Mr. Marshall sitting on the other side. He did not. None of these principles, as I call them, the bigwigs in these companies were sitting there that day when they did the press conference. Who did they hang out there by himself? It was Mr. Minister himself, called back from Florida.

If this was such a great deal, and for the purposes solely of saving the provincial government some money, why didn't he leave the minister of industry down in Florida and why didn't the Premier fill in for him and make the announcement? What happened? Why didn't the Minister of Business, the new Minister of Business, fill in for him? Why did the Premier leave the Province the day that the announcement was being made? These are all questions that we are raising because of all of the coincidences that we have experienced in asking questions for the past three or three-and-a-half weeks on this deal, every time we ask questions, every time we seek information, we are left with more questions.

For example, as late as 8:30 this morning we were in a briefing with the officials and we found out that there were, indeed, other companies out there who could have bid on this contract had the government gone out with a request or a tender package or request for proposals, but none of these companies were forthcoming with their bid or with their proposal because they were never asked. As a result, they thought it was a done deal, and it was a done deal. It was the companies Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream who got the contract.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning, and I think the general population might want to know about, is that everyone in the Province, I think, or the spin that was put on this by government, is that once this new line goes on we are all going to pay a lot less money than we have been paying for services like Internet access to households or cable hookups or telephones, long distance charges. That is not true. That is not going to affect you or I and the householders of this Province to save any money. That is certainly out there in the general population, that once the competition comes in all of a sudden we are going to have cheaper rates on all of that; your Internet service, your cellphone service, your telephone service, your long distance service. That is not true. That was never said.

It has also been given the impression that once this $52 million is done, we are going to have inter-connectivity, they say, to all communities in the Province. We are going to connect every rural community on the Island portion of the Province to this broadband cable that is going across the Province and hooking us up to the mainland. That is not true. The $52 million is only going to get us a line leaving St. John's and going across the Province, one along the Trans-Canada Highway and one along the South Coast, which most of it is underwater. So we are not going to be hooking up to this. In fact, the government is proposing, after we spend this $15 million or $52 million - $15 million of which is the taxpayers - that in order to hook up all of these rural communities in the Province, we are going to have to spend another $200 million of taxpayers' money to hook up the towns like Herring Neck and Tizzards Harbour in my district, or hook up communities on the Northern Peninsula.

The question then you have to ask yourself: Is the government, after they invest this money into this fibre optic cable going across the Province, going to invest $200 million in broadband services and Internet services to rural communities in the Province? My bet, in looking at their record, what they have done for rural communities in the past three years, if I were a betting man, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly put my salary on the table that they are not going to be spending $200 million in the next few years to hook up Gunners Cove and Bird Cove and Chance Cove to the Internet. They are out there now and they are downgrading all of the services, rather than trying to upgrade them. They are closing court houses, social services offices, schools, raising fees on ferries and everything else, closing highways depots for six months of the year. All of this they are doing in rural Newfoundland. All of a sudden now they expect us to believe: Oh, do not mind that boys, we are gutting her out there. Listen, if this deal goes through we are going to spend an additional $200 million hooking you up to the Internet out there, in all of these communities they are trying to close down. Now, if you buy into that, I tell you, I have some piece of land for you. I have some piece of land I can sell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: A wharf in Buchans.

MR. REID: Yes, a wharf in Buchans, my colleague says.

Mr. Speaker, I think I can rant and tear and explain this for about two hours, but the group opposite are not listening. They have already made up their minds. They know all about this. The minister or the Premier has briefed them on all of that. I just hope that they know more than the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Minister of Business, because we have asked the Minister of Business now for three or four days running a bunch of questions and he has not been able to answer one yet, which leads me to believe that he knows very little about this particular deal. We ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development a lot of questions on this and all we get are insults about our intelligence, but every time he does that it leads to another question. So I thank him for continuing to do that, rather than answer our questions.

It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, because we want to know why this government is spending $15 million to bring a line across the Province when we have two already. We want to know why this government is spending $15 million because they say that they can reduce the cost of Internet access to the university when the university does not pay for it. There are a host of other questions and we will get into those as the days and weeks continue because we have not finished yet. We have not finished with asking the questions because we believe that $15 million might be better spent. I am not saying that this is a rotten deal; it is just that we do not know enough about it to call it rotten or if it is a great deal. The thing that bothers me is that if you are investing $15 million in a company then at least we should have our answers. We should know and feel confident that the government is doing the right thing. I think that the taxpayers out there need to know the answers to these questions and feel very confident that this is a good deal.

I tell you, there are a lot of very concerned people out there. I will tell you one group who are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, and that is the workers at Aliant. I know individuals - in fact, my neighbour just up the road works with Aliant and he is concerned, along with others, because if the government is putting money into a company that is going to compete with Aliant then they are concerned that their jobs may not be secure in this Province; because those opposite talk about all the employment that this is going to generate, all the employment that this is going to generate once this line is across. Well, I happen to think, along with the people at Aliant, that every job that is created at Persona and Rogers dealing with this project is going to be a job that is being taken or lost at Aliant. If I were an Aliant employee, I would be very concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker, we will have another opportunity to talk about this deal tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow. Simply because the minister of industry stood in front of the cameras out there this afternoon and said that the only people who seem to be even remotely interested in this are Gerry Reid and the Opposition, not to mention a couple of other people - that is all he is saying, that nobody else seems to have an interest in this - well, I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker.

If you listen to the Open Line shows, and the comments on a poll that VOCM did the other day, you would find that there is far more than the Gerry Reid's and the Liberals of this Province who are concerned and have questions that need to be answered. If you look at the editorials in the newspapers and you listen to opinions by radio people on CBC in the morning you will find that there are a lot of people who have very interesting questions and have a very interesting perspective.

I liked the one by Russell Wangersky in The Telegram on Saturday, particularly, because he was asking similar questions as to what we have been asking in the House for the past three weeks, and he could not get the answers. He did not get the answers, because every time there was a question raised and an answer given, they conflicted. He asked and answered a bunch of them. At the end of the day, he said, if you cannot prove to the people of this Province that this is a good deal and it can stand on its own two feet, and if there is nothing wrong with it, then what is wrong with the public investigation? But, he said, if you ask all the right questions and you still do not know it is a good deal, then it only can go back to the - he called it - interconnectivity of those involved.

That is where we started. It might have had more to do with who is involved in these companies that we are giving the $15 million to rather than the worth of the project itself, and what benefits we are going to receive from that project.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I think I will clue up and say that if we could get an independent inquiry into this we could stop asking the questions, at least up until the inquiry was finished. If we could have gotten the Public Accounts Committee to hold hearings, we could have sat back and waited; but, Mr. Speaker, we have not been getting the answers and, as a result, we are going to have to continue. If we continue to get answers like the ones we have been getting in the past three weeks, we will have to continue to ask the questions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough today and I will sit down and give somebody else an opportunity to have a few words as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I move second reading of Bill 40.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Order 4, second reading of Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 46)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Explanatory Note to this particular piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, sets out the purpose of the bill. The main purpose of the bill - maybe I will give a bit of a background so that those who are watching the debate can have an understanding where this particular piece of legislation fits.

Mr. Speaker, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Constitution of our country, people who are charged with an offence have the right to have a hearing before an independent tribunal. That raises the question and raises the principle of judicial independence, judicial independence for judges. Judges must be independent from the executive of government, namely the Cabinet, and they must remain independent from the Legislature, such as this House of Assembly. As I like to say to some of the chief justices, that means we are also independent of them.

Mr. Speaker, judicial independence has - namely, there are three aspects to it as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Number one is: Judges have security of tenure. Once a judge is appointed, the judge cannot be removed from office except under our Provincial Court by the provincial judicial council, and I believe that federal judges in Ottawa can only be removed by a joint address of the House of Commons and Senate.

A second aspect of judicial independence is the fact that, although it is government that provides the courthouses and the government provides the people who work in the courts, and the government provides the equipment, or sometimes you hear some of the chief justices and the court administrators sometimes talk about the resources government does not provide, in reality government provides those resources, but, once you get in the courtroom, it is the judge who has complete control over what happens in that particular courtroom. That is the second aspect. That is called administrative independence, and it means that the judge has complete control over those items which directly and immediately affect what is called the exercise of the judicial function.

The third aspect of judicial independence is the salary and the benefits that judges receive. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that it would be inappropriate for government, such as any government, any provincial government, to negotiate directly with the judges because of the fact that it is the government that is the largest litigator in the courts of this Province. As hon. members know, we have a large civil division in the Department of Justice. We also have the Crown prosecutors who have offices throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and who prosecute criminal cases, so it would be inappropriate for government to directly set the salaries and the benefits of Provincial Court Judges because it can raise the perception that if the judges did not render a decision that was favourable to government, government might do something untoward, such as reduce a salary or take away a benefit, to punish the judge for those decisions.

Accordingly, it was recommended that when governments and judges negotiate, it can only be done through an independent buffer, through an independent tribunal. Government makes representations to this tribunal, the judges make representations to the tribunal, and the tribunal then sends to the Minister of Justice - and this is all set out in the Provincial Court Act. The tribunal sends it report to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Justice must table this report in the House of Assembly within fifteen days of the House sitting, if the House was not sitting at the time the report was tabled. Then within thirty days after tabling, there is a requirement that the government move a resolution and that the House consider a resolution to either pass, to reject or to vary the recommendations of the independent tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal process is set out in the Provincial Court Act of 1991, and, as I mentioned, is constitutionally required to protect judicial independence. The act requires that the tribunal make recommendations to the Minister of Justice every four years on judges' salaries and benefits.

This year's tribunal, which was appointed on the October 17, 2005, consisted of three people. The judges nominated Mr. David Day, Q.C., an eminent counsel in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government nominee was Mr. David Norris, who was a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Secretary of Treasury Board, and the Chair was Mr. Jeffrey Steele, Q.C. Mr. Steele is a former judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. The tribunal was required to report on what the salary and benefit of judges should be for a period of five fiscal years, from 2004-2005 up to and including 2008-2009.

Now, in December, 2005, hon. members may recall that the Act was amended to extend the required reporting of the tribunal from September, 2005, to April 1 of this year. The tribunal was required by our legislation to table its report or to give the report to the Minister of Justice by April 1, 2006. There were submissions by the Judges' Association, submissions by government, and the tribunal held a hearing in March, 2006. Prior to April 1 the tribunal advised the department that it was unable to meet the deadline, the reporting date of April 1.

The tribunal did finish most of its report with the exception of one piece relating to judicial indemnity, and this was filed with the department on May 26, 2006, subsequent to the April 1 date. This report made recommendations on judges' salaries, allowances, pensions, long-term disability benefits, vacation, car allowances, and paid parking. As I indicated, a separate tribunal report will follow on the issue of judicial indemnity.

The Provincial Court Act of 1991, as I said, required tabling of the May 26^th report within fifteen days of the fall House opening and the House consideration of the report within thirty days of tabling. As hon. members will note, the report was tabled by me today, which means we will have to deal with that report within thirty days, and that will be done by way of resolution.

Government is pleased to say that it will implement the recommendations of the Benefits Tribunal, but the Act, of course, has to be amended to accommodate the fact that the tribunal did not report by April 1. We intend to keep the April 1 date as the base date for the next report and that will create certainty of report timing and will permit this House consideration during the 2010 spring session, following the filing of the next report. This will ensure that consideration of future proposals respecting the benefits and salaries of judges is not delayed.

I thank you for the opportunity to introduce this amendment to the Provincial Court Act, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments about this particular Bill 46 to amend the Provincial Court Act.

As the minister said, it is indeed pretty straightforward. The tribunal was struck last October. Obviously, it did not have a chance to get all the necessary work done in time to have it done by April and they had a little overrun into May before the thing was finalized. It is unusual, of course, that you try to meet deadlines and things happen and sometimes you just do not meet them. We have no problem here. We will be supportive of this particular bill. It is a matter of housecleaning, basically saying, albeit the tribunal was late reporting, we will accept it and it will be retroactive now to May, so that their report that they filed a bit late will, for all intents and purposes, constitute still a legally binding report and so on, and government will be in a position to act upon it and make its resolution.

I am very pleased to see that this administration is also supportive of the recommendations that the report makes. The minister filed it here today. I have had an opportunity to look at the summary pages, at least, at this point. It seems to be very reasonable and straightforward. I am pleased to see that government will, in fact, be moving a resolution to adopt the recommendations of that report.

We have had years and years and years, all of the 90's virtually, fighting over this issue of judicial independence, government trying to set salaries for judges, for their benefits and so on, and what their vacation would be, if they had any annual leave what it would be, and it got to be a cantankerous problem for about a decade. We had governments who said, no, because of our financial constraints we do not think that an independent tribunal should make these decisions and the judges should be dealt with like everybody else. Of course, the principle of judicial independence throughout Canada has been well tested in the courts over the last fifteen years. Finally, the former administration, of which I was a part and a minister, received a resolution, a similar type of report, back from a tribunal, I believe it was in 1992 and 1993, and had it done and dealt with here and supported the recommendations at that time, as well. That one was a bit more complicated because it was the first one where we had an all-comprehensive matter dealing with pensions. For example, you had so many judges who had pensions accumulated under provincial court judges, you had persons who were judges but years ago they were social workers or teachers, and how did you integrate all of their pension benefits and so on.

It is good to see now that it is on track and we will certainly be supportive of this piece of housekeeping. I look forward to - we have about fourteen days or so left, I guess, in the sittings of the House between now and Christmas, and we will certainly be looking forward to seeing that resolution. I can assure the Government House Leader and the Minister of Justice that this side will be supportive of the resolution being brought forward which I understand will be accepting of the recommendations made in the tribunal's report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now, he will close debate at second reading on Bill 46.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister.

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

I appreciate the fact that the Opposition, as well, will support this initiative. I can confirm for the Government House Leader that government will introduce a resolution to accept all of the recommendations of the tribunal.

Now, I thought this was the first time that a government had ever agreed to support all of the recommendations in a tribunal, so I appreciate that the Opposition House Leader brought to my attention the fact that in 1992 - was it? - that was the case as well. It was always my impression that you could never have an agreement. I am pleased that there is not only willingness on government's part to accept all of the recommendations, but, in fact, that all members of the House of Assembly, or at least on the Liberal side, support this. I see the Leader of the New Democratic Party is nodding her head in assent, and I thank her for that.

Accordingly, I move second reading of Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 46)

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House to consider a number of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider a number of bills.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I call Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 47 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 46)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 46 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

CHAIR: Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries." (Bill 40)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 31.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 31 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 31 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 31 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 40 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I call motion 1, Bill 45.

CHAIR: Motion 1, Bill 45, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The Committee is now ready to hear debate on Bill 45 and the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I have some comments on Bill 45 I would like to speak to. I would like to start off by saying that before we formed the government, in our Blue Book we had made some commitments with regard to Supplementary Supply and also, Mr. Chair, with regard to Special Warrants. I have had the opportunity to go through all the background material on Supplementary Supply that was tabled here in the House and I would like to talk a little bit about why we need Supplementary Supply and also what the process is and how I feel that we are doing an excellent job as a government with regard to Supplementary Supply and Special Warrants.

Supplementary Supply, Mr. Chairperson, this means additional money, money that is additional to the Budget. Everybody knows that we brought down the Budget earlier this year in March and April month. At this point in time, things happened throughout the year whereby we need some additional money, money that was not provided for in the Budget, something has come up. There is special provision in the Financial Administration Act that allows the government to do this. Really what this is, this is money that the government has spent. It is an additional to main supply, and I see that all of this money has come forward in the form of Special Warrants to be spent by the government.

Mr. Chair, the previous governments used Special Warrants quite extensively and quite often it did not meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act, and we, before we formed the government, made a commitment that we would not abuse the use of Special Warrants when we formed the government.

Just going back over the past couple of years, Mr. Chairperson, I noticed that when the previous government was in power there was quite a bit of criticism directed toward the previous government with regard to how they were using Special Warrants. I took the opportunity yesterday to go back and see what sort of commentary was made on the use of Special Warrants by the present government and I couldn't find any criticism. Now, that is not to say there will not be any forthcoming, but I could not find any. So, that is an indication that this government is doing an excellent job of following the Financial Administration Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: - how we are using Special Warrants and also how we are using Supplementary Supply.

Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a topic that I have not heard very many people speak about in the House of Assembly, and that is reducing poverty.

I know that the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment did produce a report earlier this year; it is a strategy for reducing poverty. I do know that there have been a number of publications put forward by that department. I know that the former minister, who is now Minister of Education, had also released a publication there earlier this year.

I think, as Members of the House of Assembly, that it is very incumbent - I know a lot of times we get up in this House and we talk about things of a financial nature, financial implications, where we are going to spend money, things of that nature, but I think that, as Members of the House of Assembly, we should be very conscious of the fact that there is poverty in Canada, there is poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador, not just poverty in general but also child poverty. I think that it is very important that we tune into this issue of poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the first things that I discovered when I looked at the issue of poverty is that really it depends on how you define poverty. If you talk to two different people, what you are going to get is, you are going to get two different definitions of poverty.

Regardless of that, I think that one of the things that we should be very conscious of is that the issue of poverty has a human cost. People who live in poverty are usually ill more than people who do not live in poverty. They use the health care system more, so there is a cost to poverty. There is a lower job participation rate for people who live in poverty. Also, there is more violence against women for people who live in poverty.

We should be aware that poverty is a real issue for this Province, that not only do people live in poverty and all of the circumstances surrounding that, but that people who live in poverty have other issues to deal with that probably are not so common in other areas.

A couple of things in our publication, a couple of questions they ask, was kind of stimulation for discussion. First of all, what is poverty? Define poverty. Who ends up poor? How can we reduce poverty?

Of course, I think one of the things we have to be aware of, Mr. Chair, is that poverty, what causes poverty, is really multi-faceted, so the solution also has to be multi-faceted. You just cannot take one solution, direct it at poverty, and think that poverty is going to be reduced or eliminated. That really is a bigger problem than that.

I have been following some of the publications on poverty, Mr. Chairperson. There are a lot of think-tanks in this world, or a lot of organizations that look at poverty and decide which countries have the greatest rate of poverty, which provinces have the greatest rate of poverty, which provinces have the greatest rate of child poverty. When you start looking at these organizations, what you find, Mr. Chairman, is that many of these organizations do not agree.

I know the Fraser Institute, which is a think-tank situated in Western Canada, released a report earlier this year and what they are saying is - and I can remember the headlines in their press releases - that poverty in Canada hits new lows.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that a number of organizations have come out and have disagreed with that, and I know that a little while ago there was a report, the 2006 Report Card on Child Poverty in Canada, that does not exactly agree with what the Fraser Institute is saying. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that in looking at poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador we have to be in tune to it. There is no one way to categorize it, no one way to define it, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that this government has done a number of things to try to reduce poverty in this Province and I would like to go through a few of them because, as I said, the problem is multi-faceted so the solutions also have to be multi-faceted. I would like to go through some of the good things that this government has done.

The first thing they have done is, they have reduced school fees, or really eliminated them, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that is a good idea. That has helped. I have had a number of families, lower-income families, who have said to me, that has really taken a big burden away from their family. The tuition freeze is another thing that has helped people - an increase in student financial assistance. I know that the first year this government was in power we reduced personal income taxes for low-income earners and I understand now - I heard the Minister of Finance speak the other day - we are looking at our tax structure in Newfoundland and Labrador and that there is a possibility that there will be further relief from income tax and other taxes.

There was also additional funding for children's dental health. I think that was really a big plus for this government. I think there was just over $4 million in the original budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: The budget was effectively doubled to $8 million.

I can remember, Mr. Chair, when I was a school teacher. I can remember children coming to school who had very serious dental problems and their families just simply could not afford to have dental work done for them. I think that one of the things we forget sometimes as a community is that - you know, we talk about health care all of the time, and what people need for good health. Well, we also have to remember that good dental health is also an aspect of health care.

Another thing that this government has done is increase the income support rates for people who are on social assistance. I know, I was Deputy Minister of the Department of Social Services back in the 1980s and there were a number of years, Mr. Chair, when the rates were not increased at all. The rates continued to be the same year after year after year. I think that sometimes people see people who require financial assistance as a group. When I was Deputy Minister of Social Services, Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to meet with families who were on financial assistance, or needed financial assistance to make ends meet, and people who are on financial assistance don't have a lot of money to spare. In fact, they don't have any money to spare. So, I think the increase in the social assistance rate was a good thing.

Also, Mr. Chair, the drug prescription program for this Province, it was announced in the budget that that program would be expanded so that it would provide assistance to an additional 97,000 people in this Province. I have had a lot of people call me very interested in that program. Some people are saying to me that the cost of their drugs now - in fact, I was speaking to a lady on Friday - is so expensive that they have to make the decision as to whether they are going to buy their drugs or whether they are going to buy, for example, their Christmas gifts, certain types of food and things like that. To expand the drug program is quite a positive thing, and I think that it is directed towards reducing poverty in the Province.

One of the other things that we did on the drug program - as a government, we have done quite a few things with the drug prescription program. We have also added additional drugs to the formulary. I had understand that the program, when we took government, really had not expanded in twenty-six years, and that really we were the poorest drug program in the country. We are making attempts now, Mr. Chair, to change that and try to be a leader in that area.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Okay, Mr. Chair. I would like to make just one brief comment and then I will sit down.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I will just briefly mention the Province's vessel replacement strategy. I have spoken on this in the House before. I just want to mention that the BMT report has been released and it is on the government website, and I look forward to having the opportunity to talk about that report, because I think that is something that was a long time in coming. I am very proud to say now that we have it, I am very pleased to see it, and I can see that we are making great strides in that direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to have a few minutes to talk on Bill 45, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money.

It is interesting that most of the items contained in this $12 million bill would come under the heading of Special Warrants, and it is interesting that the former Auditor General, the Member for Topsail, just spoke to this issue and she said that she felt that all of these items in this bill were urgent and necessary. One of the criteria, or the main criteria for approving Special Warrants, is that the item in question be urgent and it be necessary. Now, I can understand some of the money here was to look after the floods on the Northeast Coast in Stephenville and it was also for make-work for people who did not get enough work in the fish plants on the South Coast to get their Employment Insurance. All of these things are necessary. But $550,000 to put out a new brand, a new logo for the Province, is that urgent and necessary? I would certainly question that one. That is something that could have waited until next year's budget. We did not have anybody who would have been without food, water or shelter because we did not approve a Special Warrant for $550,000 so the government could go out and get a public relations company do a branding project so we could put out our picture plant. I do not think that was urgent and necessary. We could have kept it until next year, until we had the money. This is what this discussion is about. It is all about Special Warrants.

I have not had an opportunity yet in Question Period to ask questions on the proposed fibre optic deal, so I will use this time - since this is a money bill - to relay my thoughts on the fibre optic deal. When I first heard of it I was a bit shocked, to say the least, a bit shocked because the consortium, as we know it today, is three different companies, Rogers, Persona and MTS Allstream. I was a little shocked that government was actually investing $15 million into a project that had so many unanswered questions without the due diligence being done. Of course, the purpose of the project is to build two fibre optic lines that will connect the Island with mainland, Canada, and a late announcement by government, they realized that there is no connection for Labrador and now they are scrambling to make sure that Labrador is included in this project. That is a clear indication that the homework was not done. Of course, when you are in politics perception is reality. If you are a politician and there is a perceived conflict, it is almost reality. All of us politicians have to take extra precautions to make sure that perception of conflict does not become a reality.

I was a little surprised, when I look at the Premier's background, how he could see himself involved in this project. He should have made great strides to make sure that it was never perceived that he was involved in this project. As we all know, his good friends, Dean MacDonald and Ken Marshall, these are individuals who were working with him before. These are also individuals who had been appointed by this government on various provincial boards.

Another issue that has turned up in this deal is that the Premier likes to compare the Cooke Aquaculture deal on the South Coast to the fibre optic deal. He said that there was never any question when government injected $10 million into the aquaculture industry. I think what is completely opposite in the aquaculture deal is that Glenn Cooke was never a business partner of our Premier and Glenn Cooke of Cooke Aquaculture does not sit on any provincial boards. Immediately, there are two different situations there completely.

The Premier said that the deal is squeaky clean. If he wants to prove that the deal is squeaky clean I would suggest to the Premier, he needs to do a couple of things. He said, initially, that there was no point in going for a Request for Proposals because there was nobody else out there in the industry who had any interest or expertise, or would even be bothered putting in a Request for Proposal. Well, do you know something? That is up to businesspeople to decide that, not the Premier. He still should have put out a Request for Proposals. Even before he ever got to that issue, I wonder why government is investing money and doing all of this anyway. Why don't the private companies go and build their line and then ask government if they want to have part of that?

You have to examine what is going on here. We do not, as an Opposition, see any business case outlined for this particular project. We are not the only ones who do not see a business case. I heard on Open Line on Friday as I was driving to Grand Falls-Windsor, the talk show host, Randy Simms, ask the Premier: Could he really show the people of this Province that there was a profitability factor for government if they got involved in this project and what would be the real savings to government if this project went ahead? Randy Simms said to the Premier: I would like to see this on a spreadsheet somewhere so we could really see the strong, hard evidence. The Premier's reply was, at that time: Well, maybe what I can do is have Wade Locke generate this information.

I mean, this is after the fact. This is after the fact. Why couldn't that information have already been generated when government agreed to this in Cabinet, that they were going to invest $15 million of the taxpayers' money without the slightest bit of information of whether or not this deal was profitable, what it was going to do, and where are the connections to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? What is that going to cost, and is government going to have to spend their own money or the taxpayer's money to make sure this goes ahead? When you look at - none of this information is available. It was not even available for - what was the name of that company that did that independent appraisal? Canadian Warfare Associates or something like that?

Anyway, there was a hurried inquiry and analysis done by a consulting company. They had about a couple of weeks to do their due diligence on this project and, as a result, there was no evidence given by this company that it was going to be profitable and whether or not government would be making a good choice by getting involved in the company.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's the name of the company there.

MS THISTLE: The name of the company was - oh, I thought it was Canadian Warfare Associates, it is called Electronic Warfare Associates Canada Limited. They did a hurried analysis in a couple of weeks. They were left with many questions and they could not make a final comment on their report of whether or not it was a good idea for government to be involved.

You know, there is a perception of a conflict of interest. The Premier stated in the media and in many public situations that it was not illegal for government to get involved and exempt themselves of going through the Public Tender Act because it was for economic development reasons. That is what the Premier is saying, but do you know something? That defies government's own policy. The policy of the Department of Business is that the government of this Province, the Williams' government, would never get involved in any kind of a business proposition or invest any of the taxpayers' money if it was going to be a direct competition for an existing business. Government has already broken its own rules right there.

The Premier has already said that government will get back their share of the money, the taxpayers' share in a short period of time. What is a short period of time? He has not stated what that time frame will be or he has not demonstrated any evidence to back up whether or not these calculations are correct.

Now, this is the same Premier who stated that you could drive a Mack truck through the Inco deal, and I have not see any Mack trucks being driven through the Inco deal and we are darn glad that we had the Inco project up and running because it is certainly contributing to the revenues of the Province that we see here today. You know, this whole project is going to cost $52 million, as we understand it today. I do not know if those figures were taken from thin air because there is no business proposal out there for the general public to actually look and see if this is a good deal or a bad deal.

This government wants to invest $15 million of the taxpayers' money. You know, this is almost one-third of the project. There is a bit of a contradiction about this whole issue. First when this came out, the direction from Cabinet was that this project for $52 million was approved by Cabinet. Of course, if you are approving money or a paper from Cabinet, you are pre-approving the money that will be spent for the project. Initially, when this project was announced, the Finance Minister was offside. The Finance Minister did not seem too happy with the deal because in the media -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, for a couple of minutes?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I just want to conclude my thoughts on this particular matter. It is an ongoing one and I know we will not solve it today nor will we say everything that is on our minds.

I was saying how the fibre optic deal had been approved by Cabinet, and in doing that you are pre-committing the funds of the taxpayers' money that will be spent for the project. However, I did hear in the media that the Finance Minister said: Not a penney will be spent until it goes through the Budget. That is the Budget that will be approved next spring. That led me to think: I wonder is the Finance Minister happy with this deal? Did he do the due diligence on the whole project? Did he have his bureaucrats look it over. Is he happy with it? The MC, Minute in Counsel, said that our Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said on the Open Line talk show that it was pre-committed to $10 million and $5 million for a total of $15 million.

I am going to conclude my remarks because I have used up my time, but there are many questions to be asked and many to be answered. We are not getting the answers we need and that is our job as the Opposition, to get the answers for the people of this Province.

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to rise again to speak to Bill 45. I think the spirit of this bill is something we need to learn from, and that is having to deal with the present, having to deal with what is going on in the present, in this case expenditures that have come up and have to be dealt with. I think this notion of realizing there are expenditures that have to be made and then making those expenditures is one that the government needs to think about and learn from when it comes to the long-term planning of government, when it comes to the budgetary decision-making of government.

One of the things that we need to do, when talking about budget and talking about our fiscal planning, is look at the needs of the people in this Province and look at their needs now, not look at their needs in five years time or ten years time.

I fear that with government at the moment, government thinks about priorities in a different way than I would. When I hear the Minister of Finance speaking, I hear the minister saying we need to take care of our debt, we need to make sure we do not have a deficit in our budget, and thirdly, we need to make sure that we will have good social programming for people, and by taking care of our debt we are going to have a better way of taking care of people in the future.

I look at things differently. I think we have to look at the situation of the people in this Province in the present. We have to look at the reality of people here and now, and then we make the rest of our fiscal plans based on those needs. For example, right now in our Province we have the highest poverty ranking in the country, 17.6 per cent of our people live in what is defined as poverty. We have the highest level of poverty ranking for unattached individuals, 53.1 per cent. That is a terrifically high percentage. We have the highest ranking in the country for poor families, 14.8 per cent of our families are living in poverty. We have one of the lowest minimum wages. As of June our minimum wage is $6.75 an hour. We know that goes up in January. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country and the highest employment rate among youth.

The rural areas in Newfoundland and Labrador have the highest percent of individuals living below the poverty line or the low income cut off line, as it is called, for all provinces. We also have the highest rate of minimum wage workers with approximately 8.5 per cent of all employed persons earning the minimum wage. Anybody earning the minimum wage in Newfoundland and Labrador is living below the low income cut off. That means we have 8.5 per cent of all employed persons in the Province working hard, working full-time jobs and still they are living below the low income cut off point.

That is something that I am asking government to think about. We have to start looking at the needs of our people in this Province. We need to look at the needs of the people living in poverty. We need to look at the needs of single mothers, for example, who are trying to get on their feet, trying to get trained, trying to get well paying jobs, but cannot do it because they do not have access to universal childcare. We need to look at the needs of the people who require drugs in our Province, special drugs, regular drugs, people with diabetes who do not have the choices that they need to have about what they are choosing to deal with their disease.

We need to look at the whole gamut of the needs in our Province. We need to look at keeping professionals in our Province by paying them at least what they would earn if they lived elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. I will not go to the rest of Canada I will say Atlantic Canada. We need to look at these needs and we need to do our fiscal planning based on those needs. We need budgets that look at the needs, decide in year one and year two and year three and year four of a budget how much money can go into those needs and then decide how much money we use to pay down on the debt.

We do not have paying down on the debt coming first and make decisions on that in a vacuum because we feel like putting $1.9 billion, for example, into the Teachers' Pension Fund. We decide what is reasonable and what is responsible in dealing with the debt. What is reasonable and what is responsible means looking at the present, and what needs to be done for people in this Province in the present, not just ten years down the road, which is what I fear government is looking at.

I do not have a goal for having the debt taken care of in ten years' time. It is impossible anyway; it will not happen. We cannot wipe out the debt in ten or twenty years, so that should not be a goal. What should be a goal is having a manageable debt, dealing responsibly with our debt, while at the same time improving the lives of our people.

I was interested in hearing my hon. colleague from Topsail talk about poverty. This is an area that I have worked in all my life. What makes for different definitions of poverty, and what makes for different attitudes of dealing with poverty, is the different principles on which an organization or an individual bases their thinking.

For me, it is very simple to define poverty. Poverty means living without adequate resources. It means not having the money to feed oneself, to house oneself, to deal with the basics of life, to house oneself with adequate heat. Not having the resources, not having the money, that is poverty. It is very simple to define poverty. Think-tanks like the Fraser Institute are not the places to go to get a definition around poverty, because they do not judge poverty from the eyes of the people who live in poverty. They have their own philosophy around how to build budgets, around how to do fiscal planning, and then they define poverty and how to deal with poverty coming out of that.

For me, dealing with poverty means dealing with the real reality of people's lives. It is not hard to define poverty. If you cannot feed yourself, you are poor. If you cannot house yourself, you are poor. If you cannot take care of your family because you do not have the resources, you are poor. If you are poor, there is a reason for it, and very often the reason for people being poor is because they are not getting adequate money for the work that they do. They are not making adequate money for the work that we need in our society.

If somebody is cleaning the floors in a building, for example, clean floors in a building are absolutely essential. We should not think, oh, that person only needs $6 an hour, or $6.50 an hour to clean floors, or $6.75 an hour to clean floors. If having clean floors is essential for our health in our workplaces, then the people who do that work deserve to have a living wage. They deserve to make enough money so that they are not living in poverty.

It is really, really simple. We have to put real money into the hands of people. They have to get real money for the work that they do, not wages that keep them below the poverty line. That is not what it is about. So, defining poverty is a really, really simple thing to do.

If we are really concerned about the people in our Province, we also have to make sure they have real money in their hands, that they are making adequate money. We have to make sure that people get paid also according to the work that they have put into educating themselves, the work that they have put into becoming professionals. That is legitimate as well.

I am not just concerned about people at the lower end of the scale being paid adequately. We also have to make sure that those who have put tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars into their training, or into their education, that they, too, get reimbursed adequately.

So, while I am talking about the needs of low-income single mothers, I am also talking about the needs of the pharmacists. It all fits in a balanced society. We have to make sure, as social and economic planning goes on, that all of that is balanced together. That is what it is all about.

I want to come back to the teachers' fund for a minute, because this has been a bugbear of mine. Taking almost all the $2 billion that came from the federal government, signing an agreement -

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: That is fine.

I will reserve what I have to say, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to rise and have a few words with regard to this bill, because there are a lot of very important issues that are going on in the Province today that certainly need the attention of government in order to get resolved. I do not think anyone out there expects any less than government's full engagement, full involvement, in trying to sort through some of those issues.

I guess we have seen first-hand from the pharmacists alone that this is not necessarily the case when it comes to this government. The pharmacists in this Province have been undergoing some very dramatic change within their occupational field. Many of them have had to leave the Province in search of employment that paid them a higher wage. Others who are left to work in our hospitals have had to incur the additional responsibilities and duties that come with operating with a short staff.

Only a week ago, when this issue was becoming very pressing for health boards right across the Province, we had nineteen vacancies in pharmacists in the Province. I asked the minister a question in the House of Assembly that day and he got up and said: We do not have a problem with recruitment and retention; we just recruited six pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't mind listening to debate, and I apologize for having to interrupt, but I will ask the member to clarify, because I did not say there was no problem with recruitment or retention.

MR. JOYCE: You did.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the Member for Bay of Islands, as well, to go back and read Hansard.

What I did say, Madam Chair, is that there were six people recruited. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair had been in the media and had been saying that it was impossible to recruit. I simply said that was not the case; there were six people recruited. In fact, there were seven recruited, to be honest.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Madam Chair, the minister is quick to jump to his feet today to offer some clarification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: The fact of the matter remains that he was irresponsible in dealing with the issues around pharmacists in this Province at a time when there were nineteen vacancies, I say to the minister. Just because a female pharmacist is on maternity leave from a job for a one-year period, that does mean that the position is vacant, Madam Chair. There is no one else there doing that job; so, in fact, there were nineteen vacancies, and the minister, in Question Period last week, was so proud and so quick to jump to his feet to talk about six pharmacists who had been recruited, trying to leave the impression that there is not a recruitment problem in the Province when we all know the difference.

Madam Chair, there is a bigger problem. There is a retention problem with a lot of our health care professions, and the pharmacists are just one of them.

Let me offer up this information, because it is a sad event when you have to have the health boards in this Province going out there breaking their budgets, running deficits, trying to keep health care professionals in the hospitals because the government and the minister and the Minister of Finance refuse to deal with it. I think that is unfortunate.

What we have seen up in Labrador was, we have seen a health board that was at a risk of having almost no one left to provide pharmacy care, that had to go out and find $15,000 in their budget per pharmacist this year, money they don't have - because you don't have to go far, Madam Chair, to see that the Labrador Health Board consistently, year after year, have not had enough money to carry out the work that they do in Labrador. Even this year they have had to add $15,000 more to their deficit in order to be able to go out and hire this pharmacist and keep a pharmacist in Labrador.

Madam Chair, what did we see in St. John's? We saw in St. John's, on Thursday - George Tilley came in here to this building on Thursday afternoon -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is George Tilley?

MS JONES: George Tilley is the CEO of the Health Care Corporation in St. John's. He came in here to Confederation Building on Thursday afternoon, Madam Chair, and I say he came to meet with the Minister of Health simply because he knew that in his board he was not going to be able to carry forward with a health care services pharmacy in these hospitals if anymore pharmacists were to resign.

We knew, Madam Chair, as late as Wednesday afternoon last week that there could be even more than three more pharmacists who would resign by the end of the week. Mr. Tilley, in carrying out his responsibilities as the CEO of the St. John's Health Care Corporation, had no other choice but go out and find $1 million somewhere within the health care budget to be able to pay for these pharmacists.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MS JONES: One million dollars, Madam Chair; $1 million the St. John's Health Care Corporation had to find. Where did they find it? If the Minister of Finance feels that they shouldn't have gotten any money, the Minister of Health didn't want to give them any money, the CEO of the Health Care Corporation, who had no other choice only have hospitals void of pharmacists and no one to provide important clinical services to patients and chemotherapy treatments and all the rest of it, was forced to find $1 million in his budget.

Now, we would like to know where he is going to find that money. We know that out in Carbonear this year they closed the Harbour Manor, I believe it was.

MR. REID: Harbour Lodge.

MS JONES: Harbour Lodge, a protective care unit; closed twenty-three beds in that facility. That is what the members opposite did. That is what the Minister of Health did through the Health Care Corporation, closed twenty-three beds for protective long-term care in Carbonear. Is that where they are finding the $1 million to pay the pharmacists, when the government refused to deal with the problem? Maybe they are going to find it somewhere else. Perhaps next week or the week after we may learn where the St. John's Health Care Corporation is going to come up with this $1 million. Will they have to cut another service? Will they have to close more beds, because I tell you they can't close any beds in the Health Science Centre. It was only a week ago one of my colleagues was in emergency over there, when they had stretchers out in the corridor in emergency, people waiting to get rooms. I believe they had six people at one point that night trying to find a room for them somewhere in the hospital, ill people, patients who needed that kind of care. So, where are they going to find the $1 million? They are not going to be able to cut that out. I want to point out that this is completely irresponsible on behalf of the government.

Now, of course, you have out there - you have the Labrador health board with one tier of salary for pharmacists, with $15,000 more. You have the St. John's Health Care Corporation now with another tier of salary for pharmacists paying $12,000 a year more. Out in Central Newfoundland, those pharmacists - there are five vacancies today in Central Newfoundland in pharmacy, and now the ones who are left there have the option to apply for a job in St. John's to make $12,000 a year more. Now, why would they not want to take that opportunity? Why should the pharmacists in Western Newfoundland, where we have several vacancies as well, in Central Newfoundland where there are up to five vacancies today, why would the people who are working in those hospitals, those pharmacists not want to take a job in St. John's, one of the dozen or so vacancies on the Avalon Peninsula, and fill one of those jobs for $12,000 a year more? That is pretty decent.

What is it doing, Madam Chair? I will tell you what it is doing. Government's inaction on this issue, government forcing these boards to run deficits and cut services to pay for these pharmacists is only going to see a depletion of more services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what is going to happen because Western and Central are going to have a hard time competing with the kind of dollars that is being put up here without some government assistance.

Yet, we have seen the kind of expenditures that the government can justify. We have seen those expenditures, $75,000 on bands to play for one hour for a private party; $200,000 on food and drinks for friends of the Premier who are coming to visit Newfoundland and Labrador. We see where their priorities in spending are. It is unfortunate today that they can stand in their places and justify that kind of spending at the same time when pharmacists out there are not getting paid on an equal salary and parity with the other Atlantic provinces and at a time when those health boards have no other choice, they do not have a choice - those health boards have to find the money to retain those pharmacists or, in fact, they will end up losing the medical staff that they have.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just sitting there and I was thinking how this all works, of course, and how the House of Assembly works, and I thought about the fact that one side of the House is negative about things and the other side of the House is positive about things and it never ceases to amaze me how you can put two spins on things. Well, I am not here today to put a spin on anything. I am not here to put a spin on anything. The fact of the matter is, I am here to talk about the facts and the facts cannot change. The facts are very simple. The facts are that this government has done a tremendous job, and I say tremendous job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: In the short time that this government has been elected it has done a tremendous job in a number of areas. The hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair so eloquently tried to talk about the fact that everything is all bad in health care and there is this that is negative and there is that that is negative. It is so amazing that I listen to these things, all the things that we have not done. It is kind of like the little analogy that is used of the glass either half full or half empty. I want to tell you that on this side of the House - and I think one of the reasons why we are the government today is because our attitude was that the glass is half full, not that the glass is half empty. I think the reason -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: And I realize that members opposite are getting upset now, and I understand that.

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I ask for -

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your protection again.

I just find it ironic that time after time I hear so many negative things and I cannot help it - I cannot help it that this side of the House is a positive side. I cannot help that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: In fact, I remember way, way back when we looked at the election and we were looking at becoming the government, and we were pretty confident we would become the government. People told us about the negative attitude on the other side, and they were tired of that. The people of the Province - and my colleague from St. John's North kind of chuckles whenever I use the word hope because he thinks I talk about hope too much, but the fact is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador actually ran out of hope because of the members on the other side. I can only state the facts. You say: Well, Paul, how can that be factual? How can that actually be factual? Well, I will tell you how it can be factual. It can be factual because on October 23, 2003, people said: Do you know what? We had enough of that. We need to hear some good things. We want to see some good news for the Province. We want to see a plan. Again, I hear people talk about the fact that they are very pleased that this government has a plan. Then I hear so many negative comments from across the way with the Premier this and the Premier that. It is a funny thing about it, I must live in a different Newfoundland and Labrador than the crowd across the way because wherever I go in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: - and I can tell you, I travel a fair bit in this Province, I really do, and I talk to a number of people. I can tell you this - and I am not going to give you anything that is not true. I am telling you the truth, that whenever I go out and talk to people, whether they be from a different background in terms of politics than I am, they all say: Tell the Premier to keep up what he is doing, he is doing a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Do you know what? I cannot help the facts. I say to the hon. members across the way, I can say that with a straight face because it is absolutely true.

I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he is saying that the people from Fogo would not say that. Well, I am going to tell you something now. I have spoken to people from Fogo and guess what? Now this is going to be a shocker. Guess what? They said, tell the Premier to keep doing what he is doing, he is doing the right thing! And that is a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Now, let me tell you. I can also say this, I am not silly enough to - having said that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: Thank you.

Having said that, I am not silly enough to believe that everybody thinks that everything this side of the House is doing is absolutely perfect and we are correct in everything. I am not silly enough to say that because it does not matter, you cannot please everyone, and I realize that. I can tell you this, that we know by the polls, which nobody wants to talk about - it is a funny thing about it, if the polls were kind of tipped to the other side, we would be hearing all about how the polls are so good, they are right on. The polls are perfect, but because the polls show us at such a high level -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

It is becoming increasingly difficult to hear the member. I ask members for their silence, please. It seems to me there is a blatant disregard for the decorum in this House and also for the authority of the Chair. I would not like to have to resort to other means, but I certainly will if I have to.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for your protection.

As I was saying, it seems that because the polls are good on this side the opposite side are talking about the fact: Well, you can't pay any attention to the polls. The fact is that people in Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased with what is happening with this government, and we are seeing that through the polls. Do you know what? It is a hard pill to swallow if you are not sitting on this side of the House. I can tell you, if I was not sitting on this side of the House it would be a hard pill to swallow, but I can tell you that good things are happening.

I can go on and on and talk about that, and go on and on about the politics and so on and so forth, but I want to talk about some good things that are happening in health care, because there are some really good things happening in health care, more specifically in my part of the Province.

First of all, I want to talk about the $2.9 million that was given to renovate the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander. I remember a few years ago, you know, it was good that the previous government had decided they would do this project. That was all good and we were happy about that. The fact is, after a short time they decided: Do you know what? We are not going to do that now. We are going to slow that down now; so much so that I am told by the Member for Gander, who is a good member and knows what happens in Gander, that I think the mayor of the community had to say that he was going to chain himself on to the steel because he was afraid they were actually going to remove the steel, after building it.

I can tell you that I am very, very pleased today that we have committed the $2.9 million. I go to the hospital regularly to visit individuals. Thank God, I have not had to use the services of that hospital, but you never know when I will. The fact is, what a beautiful facility we have in there today. It serves the people very well from my district and from a number of districts in the area.

We opened the Province's second MRI machine in Corner Brook. I guess I could tell a little story about that as well, about the MRI machines. A relative of mine was diagnosed as having MS and she needed to get an MRI done. You know, she waited for months. In fact, I will tell you how long she had to wait - this was back several years ago - sixteen months is what she had to wait to get an MRI. What did this government do? This government now has committed to opening a second MRI in Corner Brook. That is good news, that is positive news, and it gives the people hope in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I always hear things about seniors, and how this government is supporting the seniors of the Province. Let me tell you today that - I am sure that people have heard this, and this is all good news, but it needs to be repeated. People need to hear about the good news, because the negative news is always coming out. Thirty million to proceed with a new long-term care facility in Corner Brook, that is good news; $1.5 million to initiate planning for a new health care centre in Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I can tell you, just a few weeks ago, a few months ago, actually, I was in Labrador West, and I can tell you that is needed desperately.

Members from the opposite side were in government for a number of years and this did not get done. It did not get on the priority list, but I can tell you, as a result, as a direct result, of our Member for Labrador, our minister from Labrador, as a direct result of his passion for the area, we saw this come to fruition. In fact, I have to give the credit as well to the Member for Labrador West, because there is no question about it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: - the Member for Labrador West worked very hard on this as well, and we are seeing this become a reality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ORAM: Absolutely.

Also, $2.4 million to improve cancer services in the Central region. We opened two cancer clinics, again in my general area. First of all, of course, we opened a new centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, which was great. Thanks to the Member for Windsor-Springdale for his work that he did on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: When it seemed that we could not actually move forward with that project, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was on top of that. He pushed, and I can tell you from caucus - I know what happens in caucus. From the caucus meetings, I can assure you that the Member for Windsor-Springdale was out there, out front, in our face, saying: This is important. We need to see it - for that hospital in Grand Falls, and it was done, and it was as a result of that kind of work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: Those are just some small examples of the things that we are doing in health care, and I am very pleased.

Of course, I cannot help but mention the fact that we have the cancer clinic in Gander. That was a serious issue in Gander. The Member for Gander certainly knows this. Again, we have a cancer clinic in Gander right now that is second to none, and it is second to none because of the work that the Member for Gander did, the work that the Member for Bonavista North did, and certainly myself. We all worked hard to make sure this was a reality, and today it is a reality. You can go in there and see our people being cared for with dignity. It is with dignity that people are being cared for, with a terrible disease that affects almost every family in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, more good news.

We also invested in making St. Anthony an anchor location for a new Selfcare/Telecare Nurse Contact Center.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Terra Nova that his speaking time has expired.

MR. ORAM: Could I just have one minute to clue up on this point?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. ORAM: My wife is actually a nurse and she will get call after call, day after day, asking her for advice and this kind of thing, and it is happening all over. Today, our government has committed to a program where people, where the public, where individuals of Newfoundland and Labrador, can access a nurse and find out what is happening with their health, and actually we can improve health care because of that.

Again, I could go on and on talking about all the good things that this government is doing, but because of the time I will not. I am sure I will have another opportunity to speak more on this later on as this sitting goes through.

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Madam Chair, I know now why they called into Open Line and wanted VOCM to put that segment back on, A Little Good News Today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Because, I can guarantee you, the Member for Terra Nova was ready to burst. He wanted to get it all out this evening. I am going to tell you, he is obviously not travelling in the same areas of the Province that I am travelling in; because, I can guarantee you, I was down in Fogo Island, I say to the hon. member, I went to a dinner down in Fogo Island, and I went to another function besides that as well, and I never heard one person on Fogo Island tell me that they were so proud that Danny Williams jacked up their ferry rates - not one - by 26 per cent. I never heard it, Madam Chair. I have to say that to the hon. member.

I was up on the Northern Peninsula, I remember one day in Anchor Point, 110 people showed up in a meeting and I can guarantee you there was not one soul in that room who got up and said: Tell the Premier to keep it up, he is doing a great job. Not once did I hear it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I am just telling you, one meeting, one room.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I am just saying that I am not travelling, obviously, in the same Province that you are in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind hon. members to my left that I having trouble hearing the speaker, and I ask for your silence.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

They do not want to hear the reality of what is going on. That is the problem here. They are trying to shut you down. That is what they are at, trying to shut you down.

I was out in Stephenville last weekend, where I was told the number of businesses of people who have moved out of the area, the number of businesses that have closed, the houses that are on the market for sale. In the boardrooms that I sat in, in Stephenville, I can say to the hon. member, not one of them said to me: Go back and tell Danny Williams to keep up the great work.

Let me just point that out to him, because I was down in Fortune - the whole caucus was down in Fortune, actually, and Grand Bank and in Marystown. We met with several hundred people when we were down there. We met in a lot of different rooms, and we talked about a lot of different issues. There was not one person, I want to tell the hon. Member for Terra Nova, because I would like to find them, who said to me: Tell the Premier to keep up the great work. We want him to keep going.

Right after that was when he came out and told them they should take a $3 an hour rollback in wages, I think. So, I can guarantee you, they were not too pleased.

Anyway, I am distracting from my important speech that I want to give here this afternoon. Before I do that, he mentioned the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and he said what a great job he did in lobbying for the cancer clinic. I want to remind the member that this government committed the money for the cancer clinic in Grand Falls when we were there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It was your government, when they came into power, that cancelled that project in Grand Falls, and it took you two years to realize how important it really was.

I have to say, I heard the Member for Windsor-Springdale on the Open Line show last night talking about how hard MHAs work. It took me five minutes to get his voice; I didn't know who he was. I am telling you the truth; I was listening to see who this member was, who was calling into the Open Line show. Let me say to you, any lobbying he did for the cancer clinic he did not do it in here or on the public airways, because I could not even get his voice last night on the Open Line show.

Madam Chair, I want to raise an issue with regard to transportation in Labrador. I was absolutely astounded this weekend when I heard the news in the media that the Minister for Transportation and Works had not even submitted a proposal to the federal government looking for funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. Madam Chair, I was very taken back by that because this is a government opposite who - in 2002, the Premier repeatedly stood in this House of Assembly and criticized the Minister of Transportation and Works who was in the government of that time for not submitting a comprehensive proposal to the government for funding when indeed they had submitted a proposal, had made a trip to Ottawa to present it, and such was the case.

Madam Chair, in questioning in the House of Commons this week we learned that since November, 2005, when the government first put out a release on this issue that they were committing $50 million to the Trans-Labrador Highway and they were asking the federal government to match that money - that was in November of 2005. After that there was a press conference in Goose Bay in which there was a big announcement with a lot of fanfare where the Member for Lake Melville at the time was tapping on the table next to the current minister, the previous Minister of Transportation and Works.

Then, Madam Chair, they were told in June they would see the agreement signed off. It never happened. Now we are finding out, here it is November, one year later, and what do they have from the provincial Department of Transportation and Works requesting this? They have the minister going up there for a meeting, making a verbal request with some mayors, they have a letter from the previous minister asking for the information, but no comprehensive detailed proposal. This is what the parliamentary secretary for Transport Canada said in the House of Commons: We are awaiting, at this stage, a business case from the Province in order to ensure that the project will provide results for Canadians and accountability for Canadians. Just a couple of days ago this was. A year later and there is still nothing comprehensive to make a business case for the money for that highway.

Madam Chair, what begs the bigger question is this: The Prime Minister of Canada today made a commitment to the Premier in January of 2004 saying to him that we will provide the money to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway -

MR. HICKEY: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to say what the Parliamentary Secretary for Federal Transport said then she should read it all, not half of it, not misleading the public. I want to say, Madam Chair, to clear the air here at this point, the Parliamentary Secretary also said and I quote: That is why I am pleased that the Conservative government intends to honour its commitment to contribute $50 million for the surfacing of the Trans Labrador Highway. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said. That is what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair should be saying. That is what the Member -

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MS JONES: Madam Chair, I am going to say this and I am going to say it once and I am gonna make it quite clear, the hon. Member for Lake Melville will not, despite his many attempts, shut me up in this House of Assembly like he did the Member for Humber Valley on a conference call. I will tell you that, Madam Chair, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Madam Chair, there was more than the minister on that conference call and I have it on very good authority from the people who sat in that meeting that he twice told the member to shut up. Well I just want to make it quite clear for the record in this Legislature that despite his bully tactics, despite the number of times he intervenes on a point of order-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - despite the number of times he is prepared to get up and shoot off at me, he will never shut me down or shut me up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I will let the member know that right now.

Madam Chair, lets get back to the information at hand now, because the real issue here is that the minister failed to follow through on his responsibilities to provide a comprehensive study on the Trans-Labrador Highway to the federal government for funding. He knows it, Madam Chair, and he is trying to cover it up.

Listen to this, lets go a little bit further, it was in January of 2006 when the now Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, made a commitment to the provincial government and he said this: Yes, a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. I have to ask: When you have a commitment from a Prime Minister to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway through Labrador, why is it that the minister and the government is only asking for one third of the money that is required? They are asking for a mere $50 million to do a job which they know, in partnering with the federal government, they would be looking for about $200 million to do. I would like to know the answer to that. I did not get the answer today in Question Period but I would like to know the answer to that.

The other thing I would like to know the answer to, and, Madam Chair, I ask the minister today: In his budget there was $7.5 million budgeted that was supposed to come from the federal government to be spent in his department. Obviously, he did not know anything about it, he did not know the answer to it, because do you know what he did? He got up and he said in the House today, which was a blatant untruth -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: A few minutes to clue up.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair, because I was interrupted on a point of order during my speech.

What I want to say is this. When the minister was questioned today about estimates in his own department, he obviously did not know the answer to the question because instead he provided untrue and inaccurate information in the House by saying that the previous government took $90 million out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. That is a complete untrue, complete false - and do you know what is even more bewildering, is that the same minister puts out a report in his own department called the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, a report in his own department, which says that all of the money stayed in that fund, that not one dime was ever taken out of it. Either the minister cannot read or refuses, Madam Chair, to provide the proper information in this Legislature, and I think that is absolutely shameful.

I thank you for the time to conclude my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

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

We have had a speaker standing, and normal procedure would be alternating. We did allow three consecutive on that side before we stood, because we allowed the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to speak. Our member was standing and he stood earlier. I know you did not see him.

MADAM CHAIR: I apologize. I did not see the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have no intention of getting involved in the debate on the other side. I am trying to close off this part of the debate by trying to talk about something sensible -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: - and something that is real, something that is real in my district, not perceived, and something that is very near and dear to the people in my district.

Madam Chairperson, when I was campaigning in the by-election back in February, every door that I went to in my district raised the issue of roads; every door. All my colleagues on this side of the House who campaigned with me, I am sure, found the same thing. I would imagine several of the colleagues on the other side of the House who campaigned for their candidate found the same thing as they went door to door.

Roads, Madam Chair, was a big issue in my district and today I want to speak for a few moments on this bill with respect to the $300 million on infrastructure this year and the $2 billion over six years. Madam Chairperson, people in my district told me, we do not expect you to build medical clinics in our district. We do not expect you to build supermarkets. We do not expect you to build hospitals but we do expect a good road to drive over. We expect - they told us, we can drive to outside areas for health services, for shopping, for our medical services and so on, but we need a road to drive on. That is all we ask. Bus drivers said we need a road to bring students to our schools so we do not beat up the springs in our school buses. Ambulance drivers told us, we need a road to take patients over; taxi drivers, everybody told us the same thing.

I want to speak, Madam Chairperson, for a few minutes on the $2 billion that this government is putting into infrastructure strategy over the next six years to help alleviate the problems that my constituents mentioned to me door to door; a real problem, not a perceived one, and not an unreasonable one.

Madam Chairperson, this government, in one recent year, I am told, put $6 million into roads in this Province in one year. Madam Chairperson, I need that much money alone this year in my district to even catch up with some of the needs. I doubt very much if the hon. minister is going to give me that much, but I certainly could use it. This past year, in the limited time that I have been here, this government has helped us in this district put in a significant amount of road work in St. Mary's Bay. What a difference it has made. What a difference it has made to the optimism and the hope.

The hon. member for Gambo earlier mentioned the hope and optimism that this government has provided. A little bit of pavement goes a long way, Madam Chairperson, to create that hope and optimism. That has been evident in my district this year. It is such a pleasant experience now to drive from St. John's to the left side of St. Mary's Bay over a road that was not fit to walk on six months ago.

Madam Chairperson, pavement and roads uplifts everyone. It gives a sense of optimism in communities. It is so good to see nice, clean, black pavement with a nice painted line down the middle and lines along the side that people should have such pleasure driving over.

MR. TAYLOR: It's the first time we ever ran out of that.

MR. F. COLLINS: Fresh black - ran out of asphalt, and ran out in my district I might add, yes. It gave me a scare for a while, but we were able to get it.

People in North Harbour do not mind putting their kids on the buses anymore going to the school in St. Catherine's. Before they would get sick on the school bus because the road was so bad. Parents were out protesting to try and get road improvements so their kids could get on a school bus and drive over them.

For years, Madam Chairperson, all the highways people were able to do out there was patch the patches. That was all they could do, patch the patches because no maintenance had been done on the road for fifteen to twenty years. What a difference it has made, just this year alone, to put in approximately twelve kilometres of road resurfacing in St. Mary's Bay. People are saying to us, what a pleasant surprise to see it when we waited for so long. The optimism comes now in knowing, with the $2 billion over the next six years, that we are going to get more this year and more the following year and we are going to get a three or four year plan. They are going to bring our roads up to scratch in Placentia and St. Mary's which people have been looking for, for so long. That is the part of the government spending that makes so much sense in my district. It is the biggest need, the most crying need. There are others, there are lots of needs, but that is the key one right now. That is the one we can address over the next three or four years and that will make a significant difference.

Now, one other thing. In Placentia-St. Mary's, from the Irish Loop, in the hon. the Minister of Finance's district, the Irish Loop down through St. Mary's Bay, into Salmonier Line, out to Cape St. Mary's and into historic Placentia will be one of the most sought after tourist destinations in this Province in the next ten years.

MR. TAYLOR: Boy, now you're going somewhere.

MR. F. COLLINS: Now, we are going somewhere. Exactly, and I am impressed with what the local tourism groups are doing to enhance that. You have the Irish Loop; you have the Rocky River Park; you have the Cataracts Park; you have Father Duffy's Well; you have Cape St. Mary's; you have five archeological digs in Placentia; you have three ferry loads of traffic coming into Argentia every week with tourists. That is going to be the destination. St. John's is working with those groups to get people out in that area. That is going to be the most sought after tourist destination in this Province in ten years time. Roads play a big part in that.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: My colleague does not agree. He probably thinks St. Anthony is going to improve -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: No, not in the least. Not in the least.

You are talking about one of the gateways of this Province, Placentia and Argentia. The gateways of this Province, and you are talking about the needs for transportation and the needs for tourists. Roads play a key part in that.

Madam Chairperson, I will clue up because the hour grows late, but I want to say this: Roads make the big difference in tourism in my district. I am happy to say that this government is going to address the needs for roads in my district and the next five years are going to make a tremendous difference. I thank the government, and the people are happy with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, we do not need to stop the clock at 5:30 because I have already moved the motion that it not adjourn at 5:30, but I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stood in her place to have some comments on it.

I spoke with the Opposition House Leader about concluding at this point but I guess if that is fine with the Opposition House Leader - it is any member's prerogative to stand and speak. That is something I cannot control, Madam Chair, and that is their right. At the conclusion of her comments, if it is agreed, that we would move then and finish that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Has the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's concluded?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am really pleased to be able to do this because I think what I have to say follows so directly on what the hon. Member for Terra Nova was talking about. I just could not leave here today without speaking to it.

When the hon. member talked about a difference in people and what they are talking about and the glass half full and the glass half empty and that we are being negative. Well, I am afraid what I am talking about in this House is the reality of people's lives in this Province, and if that is perceived by the hon. member as negativity then that is his problem, not mine, because it is reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: I was elected on November 1 to represent the people in my district, and I have people in my district who are homeless. I have people in my district who cannot pay for their drugs or pay for their food at the same time and are trying to figure out how to do it. I have people in my district, women who are living in violence because they do not have the money to get out of the violent situations that they are living in. This is the reality of what I see in my district. It is the reality of what I see in this Province, also. I do not know where the hon. member goes in this Province but I know where I go. This is the reality of the people.

I know that, when I went around my district, I had people in my district say to me - and not people who are living in poverty, not people who are homeless, but fairly affluent people - Lorraine, I am going to vote for you because we need your voice in the House of Assembly, because you will bring the reality of the people, because you speak for the people who do not have a voice, and we need that voice in the House. Well, that is the voice that I am bringing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: That is reality. It is not negativity. That is the reality that I have lived with all my career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: That is the reality I have worked with all my career. In the seven years before I came into this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the seven years before I came into this House, I worked with women in resource development, an organization devoted to getting women into trades and technology. Women who, for the most part - not all, but for the most part - were single parents, the large majority of them, who had no opportunity, because of early pregnancies and other things in their lives, to get the training they needed to get well-paying jobs.

I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I can tell you that is starting to happen, but it is only starting to happen with a lot of work. I remember women who came into the program who were on social assistance or earning minimum wage. These are now women with children who are earning $60,000 and $70,000 a year. That is the reality that I am talking about. I am not making this up. I am not making up the fact that a woman I know out in Stephenville, after she did the program, had a job opportunity up in Ontario but could not go for the interview because she could not get money from social services to have her children taken care of while she went up for the interview. That is the reality that I am talking about.

I am talking about people who are living in housing that is substandard and who cannot get moved out of that housing. That is the reality that I am talking about, and I will not accept somebody calling that negativity. That is reality, and that is what we have to deal with.

When I say that we have to look at prioritizing our spending, and we have to look at prioritizing how much money goes to the debt and how much money goes to social programs, I will not have that called negativity either. That is reality, and we make choices. What I am asking of this House is that the choices we make are the choices for the people in this Province.

We have more food banks in this Province - we have 500 food banks in this Province. That is a disgrace. People should not have to be going to beg for food. They should be making enough money, either through their work or, if they have to be on social assistance, through their social assistance money, they should have enough money to pay for their food and pay for their heating and pay for the roof over their heads, and pay for their children's clothing, but we have 500 permanent food banks.

I remember, and I am sure many of you remember, when food banks first started to come into this Province. They were supposed to be stop-gap. Well, now they are not stop-gap. Government systems actually depend on the food banks. Government systems depend on the clothing banks. We have social workers in social assistance who send women off to the women's centre to get their clothing and to get food, and this in a Province who has more revenue than we have ever had before.

I know we cannot solve it all overnight - I am not asking for that - but I am asking for long-term planning that shows us -

AN HON. MEMBER: We have that.

MS MICHAEL: You do not have it.

- that shows us that we see a government moving towards taking care of those needs.

The steps have to be taken now, not by paying down the debt but by starting to put more money into the social programming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: I will not stay quiet in this House, and I will not stand up and pretend that these are not realities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: These are realities, and it is not my point of view because I am negative. I have always been a realist, and I will continue to be a realist, and the people in my district and the people in this Province who vote for my party, that is what they are expecting from me and that is what I am going to say and that is what I am going to do.

I would hope that everybody in the House, that all the hon. members, would stop and let themselves be affected by that reality. You know, if you have not experienced it, I would be happy to take you through my district. I will walk you all the way from Water Street up to Newfoundland Drive. I will let you see the people I am talking about, if you have not met those people, because that is the reality.

So, is the glass half full or half empty? That is immaterial to me. That is an image that does not speak reality. That is not reality. The reality is, you know, when we look at our society, who are the people at the lowest end of the economic line? How are they living? What are they going through? That is what we have to look at. You know, those who up at the top can take care of themselves and they are doing well, but how are we making the system work for both sides of that spectrum?

I respectfully tell you, it is not working for a large group of our people. It is not working for the 150 young people living on the street, who had to be turned away from the one shelter here in St. John's since June. It is not working for them. These are kids who are on the street for all kinds of reasons: because of violence in their home, very often, because of poverty, because of all kinds of reasons. I agree that the reasons are multiple, but the reality is the same. The reality of poverty, the reality of homelessness, the reality of living in violence, they are the same. I do not care what the cause is, if somebody is in them. That is the reality, and we cannot run away from that reality in this House. We have to face it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Well, I am afraid we are running away from it. When I get told that what I am saying is a negative attitude, then I think that is running away from reality and I will not put up with that. I will always speak for the reality of the people in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

With, I guess, debate concluded on this now, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) revert to Committee (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The matter having been referred and the Committee having risen, the Chair will seek unanimous consent of the House and I do believe that has been granted.

We will revert to Committee so that the appropriate procedure can be followed.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, the sum of $12,572,600.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2007, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report that Bill 45 is carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 45 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (H. Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

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

The Committee of the Whole and of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 47, 46 and 40 passed without amendment, and the resolution of Bill 45 has been recommended to be passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole has reported that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred, have directed her to report that Bills 40, 46 and 47 have been passed without amendment and that a resolution has been adopted relative to Bill 45.

When shall these reports be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move, with leave, third reading of Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 40 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move third reading of Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave.

Leave as been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 46 be now read a third time?

All those in favour,‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, with leave, third reading of Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 47 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 47).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,"read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 47).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move on Bill 45, to have the three stages read on Bill 45, the Supplementary Supply bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend a bill to give effect to the same, Bill 45.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: That is it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 the sum of $12, 572, 600.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: That is it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 the sum of $12, 572, 600.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill 45, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the hon. Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 45)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, " An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45 be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 45 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 45)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill 45 be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 45 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 45)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I move that Supplementary Supply Bill 45 be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 28, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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