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 Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, and the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Juliette Dupre. Juliette, a Level II student at St. Lawrence Academy, has won the Lester B. Pearson Canadian Student Scholarship. She is the only Newfoundlander ever to receive this award.

This scholarship will allow Juliette to attend Canada's only national pre-university college, which has Grades 12 and 13, and is located in Victoria, B.C. Each year, the college offers approximately twenty-five full two-year scholarships to students across Canada. These scholarships are solely based on merit. As the college is a living memorial to Lester B. Pearson, who earned the Nobel Peace Prize and established Canada as a world leader in peacekeeping, they are looking for students who represent Canada's highest potential for civic leadership on a global scale.

The Canadian students, who come to this college, join students from nearly ninety different countries around the world. They live together in residence and experience the purest form of international education. They go to the top universities in North America and Europe and commonly earn merit scholarships to these universities. This two-year scholarship has a monetary value of approximately $66,000.

Juliette, the daughter of Rosalie and Guy Dupre, has received numerous awards and achievements through Allied Youth, Sea Cadets, education, leadership conferences, public speaking, along with a number of prestigious awards such as the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award, the first titleholder of Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, appointed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Miss Teen Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador, appointed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Advisory Committee along with her most recent - awarded the Lester B. Pearson School of the Pacific Scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Juliette Dupre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 21 the Conception Bay South Girl Guides held their annual dinner and presentation of awards. During the evening a number of Guiders received awards to recognize their contribution to the Girl Guide movement in the Conception Bay South and surrounding areas.

Lisa Hepditch and Andrea Martin each received a Gold Thanks pin in recognition of good service. Elizabeth Bishop received the Chief Commissioners Gold Award and Kay Penney received a Gold Merit Award for exceptional service.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in order for an organization to achieve success, it requires commitment and dedication on the part of many individuals. This organization is no exception. The highlight of the evening was the recognition of seven women, who combined has devoted 255 years to the Girl Guide movement in the Conception Bay South area. These women are: Alice Batten for ten years of service, Florence Petten for twenty years of service, Emily Greenslade for thirty years, Shirley Batten for forty years, Lillian Taylor for forty-five years and, Mr. Speaker, Ella Greenslade and Vera Baird have each contributed fifty-five years of service to the Girl Guide movement in the Conception Bay South area.

Also, during the evening, Mr. Speaker, Sandra Murphy completed her five year term as Conception Bay South Area Commissioner, and Kay Penney, Deputy Area Commissioner assumed her new position as the CBS Area Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these women for their leadership and dedication to the Girl Guide movement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to Ascension Collegiate student, Peggy Wakeham who has been awarded the 2006-2007 Newfoundland and Labrador's Female Student Athlete of the Year Award.

Peggy's participation at Ascension Collegiate during the past three years has consistently displayed numerous exceptional traits both in the classroom and on the playing field. Peggy has been an A student for the past three years and is currently maintaining a ninety average.

Mr. Speaker, as a Level I student at Ascension Collegiate, Peggy's involvement were most impressive. She was a member of the school's ice hockey team, ball hockey team, soccer team, badminton team, volleyball junior team, and a member of the track and field team.

As a Level II student, Peggy's involvement became even more prominent. The school's basketball team, of which Peggy was a member, won the silver medal in the provincials. At the badminton provincials, she won a bronze medal and the Sportsmanship Award. As co-captain of the ball hockey team, she helped win a gold medal at the high school provincials. Peggy was captain of the girl's ice hockey team which won the gold medal at the provincial competition.

This year, as a Level III student, Peggy was named captain of the Newfoundland and Labrador female ice hockey team which represented our Province at the Canada Winter Games. As captain, and leading scorer, Peggy helped lead her team to a fifth place finish - the best we have seen in this Province to date. At the Atlantic Challenge Cup in Moncton, Peggy captained her team to a silver medal and was awarded the Hard Hat Award for her team.

Mr. Speaker, this year, Peggy will be attending the University of Vermont where she has been awarded a four-year hockey scholarship and a four-year president's award academic scholarship. This is a most prestigious accomplishment. I hear the value is approximately $140,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Peggy Wakeham of Ascension Collegiate who has captured the 2006-2007 Newfoundland and Labrador Female Student Athlete of the Year Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to compliment the members of the Trinity North Seniors and 50 Plus Club - a relatively new and refreshing group in the District of Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, formed by a small number of people in December 2005, this club has had rapid success and membership has ballooned to sixty-one in just a year-and-a-half.

According to Ray Little, the club's president, the group prides itself on providing something for everyone and offers a wide-range of activities including square dancing, computer training, crafts, educational programs, socials and even a choir. The main goal of the club is to keep members active and to have fun.

To say that the club has been successful in achieving its goal is an understatement, Mr. Speaker. Originally started to benefit residents in Catalina, Port Union and Melrose, the club has now expanded to include people from Little Catalina and Bonavista. The response and support from the community has also been tremendous.

The club is open almost every day of the week and the activities allow members to exercise their minds as well as their bodies, and all while enjoying the company and fellowship of peers.

Mr. Speaker, the Trinity North Seniors and 50 Plus Club deserves to be commended for what it has achieved thus far, and I ask all hon. members in join with me in wishing this group continued success in the future.

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 in this House today to extend congratulations to Sandra Carey from Grand Falls-Windsor, who has been elected as the new President of The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities during a special board meeting held recently in Ottawa.

This national voluntary association, established in 1995, is made up of provincial and territorial pharmacy regulatory bodies, as well as the Canadian Forces Pharmacy Services, with a mandate to protect the public. The association members regulate the practice of pharmacy and the operation of pharmacies across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Sandra Carey is a graduate of Memorial University School of Pharmacy. She is a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board and of the Pharmacist Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. She has lectured all over the country on drug abuse issues, and currently practices in Grand Falls-Windsor. Prior to this recent election, Sandra served as a member of the Regulatory Authorities Executive Committee, and as Vice-President in 2006-2007.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to Sandra Carey, the newly elected President of the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that tribute is paid to a group that no longer exists or functions, but this is the case today as I stand in this hon. House.

Approximately two years ago, the Kilbride Lions Club ceased to operate. This group had been reduced to a small number of long serving members who had done their share of volunteering. Nobody noticed they were gone. There were no farewell parties, no letters of thanks. This group merely faded into the sunset without any recognition of the many contributions and accomplishments the Kilbride Lions Club had made to the community of Kilbride.

No one thanked them for the many thousands of dollars they had raised over the years for various charities. No one thanked them for the many donations they made to the schools and Kilbride recreation programs. No one thanked them for the many times they offered their premises - the Kilbride Lions Club Centre - for children's parties, dances, card games, seniors' gatherings, Christmas parties and public meetings.

When Kilbride was being rampaged by robberies and break-ins back three or four years ago, the Kilbride Lions Club never hesitated to offer its building, free of charge, for a series of public meetings and seminars.

Kilbride Lions Club will be missed. The monies its members raised for charities and schools will be missed. Their Christmas parties for the disabled and seniors will be missed.

Today, the City of St. John's has taken over the Kilbride Lions Club Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in paying tribute and thanking the Kilbride Lions Club for the many years of dedicated service to the community of Kilbride.

We wish all the former members the very best in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from May 28 to June 1, St. John's will host the Annual Congress of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. The Society addresses a broad range of national and international meteorological and oceanographic concerns including weather and weather extremes, global warming, ozone depletion and surface air quality, and their effects on all aspects of life including forestry, agriculture and fisheries.

The 2007 Congress is unique in that members of the American Meteorological Society and the Canadian Geophysical Union will also attend the Congress. This is the first time that all three organizations have come together, and it offers each participant an exceptional opportunity to network, exchange ideas and to interact with the national and international scientific communities. The organizing committee estimates that approximately 1,000 people will attend this event.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that this event is taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador. Work being done in the areas of weather forecasting, ocean observing and forecasting, and climate change is vital to our Province.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is involved in a number of initiatives that supports work in these fields. In our recent Budget, we announced the development of a Research and Development Strategy and the establishment of a Premier's Advisory Committee on Science and Research. This year we also announced funding to establish a new School of Ocean Technology at the Marine Institute which will draw together experts in ocean technology. These experts will share research, incubate new technologies, and provide a training ground for students. Newfoundland and Labrador is carrying our cutting edge work in the ocean technology sector, and is at the forefront of developing ocean observing capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was pleased to provide $30,000 to support this Congress, and we welcome all participants to our Province and wish them success in their work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

It is interesting to see that this group is meeting here in Newfoundland and Labrador where, of course, if you don't like the weather, you wait ten minutes and you can be sure that it will change. The other saying, of course, is that you can experience four seasons here in one day.

One of the things that I find really interesting about this is that, of course, some of their concerns have to do with weather and weather extremes and how it affects the way of life. One of the issues here, I think, a real challenge and a real test for this group, will be to look at the ice conditions that are confronting our fishermen now up on the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. Of course, the issue here is that these people are having to go without a livelihood because they are faced now with conditions that are so extreme and there does not seem to be any help coming to help them through this, and, obviously, we have a federal government here who is not paying much attention to this, other than lip service. We have people living in very difficult circumstances. It might be a challenge for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to bring this situation to the attention of the more than 1,000 people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave have been granted.

MS FOOTE: He might want to bring it to the attention of the people who are here for this particular organization and for this particular time and give it to them as a challenge so that they might want to try and solve for us.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am very glad to see money going into such an effort. I think the work that this organization is doing and the members are doing is extremely important. I note that the minister notices that one of the things they are dealing with is climate change, and I refer back to the announcement on March 30 from the government with regard to the $23 million in funding from the federal government to work on climate change and other issues.

I just remind the minister and his colleagues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would remind the minister to maybe speak to his colleague, the Minister of Environment, and remind him that one of the things the $23 million is going to be spent on is climate change innovations funding to support energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas production, but we are still waiting for details on what that program is going to be. On this side of the House, I am looking forward to seeing what the government has in mind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for Culture, it was my great pleasure this past Saturday evening to attend the annual celebration of the creative excellence of Newfoundland and Labrador artists. Celebrated author, Kevin Major, Chairperson of the Arts and Letters Committee, joined with me in presenting the 2007 Arts and Letters Awards. The presentation ceremony was at The Rooms. It dispersed with readings, a visual presentation and performances by some of this year's winners.

For fifty-five years, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Arts and Letters Awards have helped to set the foundation for the creative community of Newfoundland and Labrador, honouring many of this Province's talented artists. Thousands of this Province's professional and amateur artists have expressed themselves creatively through participation in this program. The continued success of the Arts and Letters Awards is a clear indication that the arts community in Newfoundland and Labrador is a vibrant, cultural force.

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the vital contribution of our artists, and for that reason, in Budget 2007 we continue to invest significantly in culture as part of our cultural plan Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture.

I am pleased to note that we have doubled the prize money in the Arts and Letters Awards this year to $46,000. This has translated into increased awards and an increase in cash prizes. In total, seventy awards were handed out at Saturday evening's ceremony. Cash prizes in the senior division have increased to $1,000 from $750, and in the junior division they have increased from $200 to $250. The evening's top cash prize, the Percy Janes First Novel Award, was increased to $1,500 from $1,000. This prestigious award, Mr. Speaker, was presented to Degan Davis for his manuscript The Forgetting Room.

Mr. Speaker, along with extending congratulations to all the recipients of this year's awards, I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to the Arts and Letters Committee who volunteer their time and effort in making this program a success: Kevin Major was our committee chairperson. Members: Anita Best, Marlene Creates, Don Lane, Bernice Morgan, Calvin Patey, Kjellrun Hesteken and Di Dabinett were members of that committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance of his statement.

Minister, indeed you must have felt proud to be in the presence of so many artists from across the Province. When it comes down to events like this, then, as I have said before, Newfoundland and Labrador takes a back step from no one. We have some of the greatest artists of all sorts.

Minister, we too want to thank the volunteers for organizing such an event. An event like this would never happen unless we have good volunteers. Again, our Province is blessed with the best.

I notice that there were over 1,000 entries. Looking at the winners, I notice there was one winner from Labrador. I would encourage the people from Labrador to become more involved.

Minister, we not only congratulate the winners, but all the participants who took part, and wish them well and hope that next year will be just as successful as ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I, too, congratulate all the artists who received awards on Saturday night. We know that we have a tremendous group of talented people in this Province and everything that we can do to help them live as they create would be very, very good.

It is good to see that the prizes have gone up somewhat. I would continue to encourage the minister, as I use every opportunity to do, to look at also giving more money to the arts council for ongoing grants, not just the people who can win the prizes but to all the artists who are trying to do their work out there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Before the Speaker moves to Oral Questions, we would like to welcome some visitors to the Speaker's gallery. From the Combined Council of Labrador we have Waylon Williams, Stan Oliver, Jim Farrell and Alton Rumbolt.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government is prepared now to sign off on a deal that will see the sale of all of FPI's assets. This sale will also see shareholders like John Risley and the Icelanders make millions of dollars in profits while those for whom FPI was originally established make, or get, a measly $3 million in a wage subsidy for one year.

I ask the Premier, as a business person: Does this sound like a good deal to you, especially in light of the fact that you voted against FPI's Income Trust because there were so many loopholes in it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, are very, very proud of this transaction, to be quite frank with you. We put a lot of work into this, as we put a lot of work into the Income Trust before to try and get that to be the very best transaction that we could put together for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which includes the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In this particular transaction, with has actually cost the government no money, we have shored up the communities. Regions like the Burin Peninsula, for example, I am sure the members will agree, have been shored up. We have given security to Marystown, security to Burin, a whole new approach and a whole new outlook now for Fortune, increased product in St. Lawrence as well; but, as well, all of the other communities that have been affected by the OCI company and the FPI company have been given a guarantee now. We have five-year commitments for it, so we are very, very pleased with it.

From a transaction perspective, I am also proud of the fact that myself and the minister were involved, on the instruction of Cabinet, to get some money for the workers. In fact, there have been scenarios over the years in previous FPI transactions where there had been significant golden handshakes given to senior executives in that company and the workers received nothing. So, we were in contact with the FFAW, with Mr. McCurdy, and spoke about us getting some money in order to get the workers back to work, to get a collective agreement in place with FPI and OCI. So, we are very pleased with it and we consider it to be a very good transaction for (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Premier who advised FPI workers last fall to take a $2 an hour cut in pay.

He talked about the Income Trust. I say, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself talked about all of the work they put in the Income Trust. He voted against it himself because he said there were too many loopholes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Premier who talks a lot about loopholes and driving Mack trucks through deals. Well, let's talk about the deal that this government is about to do with this group of companies that is going to see the end of FPI as we know it.

The Minister of Fisheries has stated on numerous occasions that no sale of FPI assets would take place unless this government had unfettered ownership of FPI's quotas. Well, it is obvious from today's announcement that this deal provides no ownership, let alone unfettered ownership, of these quotas.

I ask the Premier: Why the change in position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to use the Leader of the Opposition's own words, I guess he is still just as much in the dark today as he was yesterday, because he obviously does not understand the transaction.

The federal Minister of Fisheries has even indicated that, in fact, this is a stronger transaction than if we had outright ownership of the quotas. What we have achieved now is a nine year term for the quotas, which is unheard of, which is, in fact, nine times longer than the term was before. We have achieved a very unique condition and concession, which is the actual landing and the processing of the product tied to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We also have an ownership of the quotas, which is a 49 per cent ownership, which will convert to 100 per cent ownership if there is any default. So, in fact, we have even improved on the previous situation - the Member for Bellevue, I am sure, would understand - in Arnold's Cove, whereby we had the quotas secured there and we purchased the quotas; however, that was only for a one year period.

So we have, in fact, negotiated a much stronger transaction, a much cleaner transaction, a much more binding transaction, a much more secure transaction, which protects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have said, we are very proud of it, but obviously the hon. member opposite just does not understand it. He should read the details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, I understand it quite well. The problem is, you do not understand it because you do not have unfettered ownership of FPI's quotas. You do not even come close to it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we see a lot of commitments to keep FPI plants open on historic levels of employment, and there are penalties if these commitments are not made or if they are broken.

I ask the Premier: Isn't it true that the penalty associated with closing Bonavista, for example, is less than the cost of constructing a new facility, something we all know is going to be required within a year or so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this particular deal provides a unique and new opportunity for Bonavista. What OCI is committed to here is ensuring that more raw product, in the form of crab, gets processed. A million pounds more, I believe, is dedicated now to Bonavista than any other dedication in the past. That is what Bonavista is interested in. That is what the workers in Bonavista are arrested in. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of security that we are working on, and have been working on now for months, to deliver to the people of Bonavista, and we are extremely proud of that commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

OCI will own three crab plants in the Province. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries will get up and explain to us where they are getting an additional million pounds of crab to put into Bonavista this year.

Mr. Speaker, OCI is committed to maintaining historical employment levels at all of these FPI plants. I ask the Premier: What penalties are in place should OCI not employ the historical number of employees committed to in this agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think it was made abundantly clear where OCI intends to get the additional crab to process in Bonavista and St. Lawrence.

The plant that they process historically about 2 million pounds of crab in Carbonear is to be turned into a year-round seal processing facility and create permanent year-round jobs for a number of people in the Carbonear area. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, the crab that company purchased and was historically processed in Carbonear will now be - a million pounds of it - processed in Bonavista, which will create additional security of employment in Bonavista, and an additional million pounds will be processed in St. Lawrence, which will be welcomed news, I am sure, by the people of Bonavista and St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, according to a briefing that was given to us this morning by an official in the Department of Fisheries provincially, employment levels at all of these plants depend upon two things: quotas and price fluctuations. The previous Minister of Fisheries, the minister of industry, is on record as saying that there is no money in groundfish and that is the reason he allowed them to close Harbour Breton.

I ask the Premier: If the price of groundfish drops in the marketplace, can OCI drop employment levels?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could be flippant and say, if you cannot process fish, they will have to try processing turnip or chicken or something or other; but the fact of the matter is, any fish plant is dependent on raw material to keep it running. If, God forbid - I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is not wishing this, but if, God forbid - the ocean should dry up and there is no fish, well, then, you know, that is the situation and the reality that we will have to change, but we are not anticipating that. We are people who are optimistic. We are optimists on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We believe that there is a future in the fishery. OCI and Ches Penney and the Sullivans believe that there is a future in the fishery, and they believe, as do the communities where they are planning to operate the facilities that they have had previously, and the FPI facilities now, they believe that there is a future, and we believe, Mr. Speaker, that there will be fish in the ocean hopefully for decades and generations yet to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he was optimistic when he told the people in Stephenville that their plant would not close. He was optimistic when they told them they were going to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people in Harbour Breton, and we saw what happened there.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Maybe he will feel the same way about the employees on O'Leary Avenue, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently roughly 120 employees at FPI's office on O'Leary Avenue. Now, it is obvious that High Liner, with their offices in Nova Scotia, will not need that facility nor its employees. It is also clear that OCI has their own administrative staff.

I ask the minister: What have you put in place for the 120 employees who work for FPI on O'Leary Avenue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this government has, in fact, stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of Harbour Breton. We have invested in the aquaculture industry so that the people of Harbour Breton and the South Coast can have a future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We have done things in the aquaculture industry to bring jobs and employment and stability to the Harbour Breton and Connaigre Peninsula of this Province that no other government ever dreamed of doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: In terms of the people on O'Leary Avenue, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, the people on O'Leary Avenue are very employable people. Many of them will end up working with OCI on the fish side of things and in the market side of things, some with High Liner. There are some, obviously, in the IT and administrative fields, who probably will not have a job as a result of this, but they will have access, Mr. Speaker, to very, very good severance benefits and they are very employable people. I believe, as do many of them, that they have a future, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what a joke when he says he is committed to Harbour Breton. When this government took power there were 350 people employed in the plant in Harbour Breton pretty well year-round. Today, there are some forty-five people who are getting less than thirty hours of work a week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: If you call that commitment, I do not want your commitment.

Mr. Speaker, government has stated that they have a long-term commitment to the communities in which FPI plants operate. In actual fact, there are no concrete guarantees that employment levels at these plants will remain the same and there aren't even guarantees that these plants will remain open.

I ask the Premier: Isn't it true that there are no guarantees or commitments regarding these plants or employees after the fifth year of this contract?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about commitments, here are commitments. Who was the Minister of Fisheries in 2001 when FPI was starting to close out operations in Newfoundland? Who was the Minister of Fisheries?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Fisheries wrote the then Minister of Fisheries asking that quota be transferred to the Province. Here is the answer that he got from then Minister Dhaliwal, quote, "...while he agrees that FPI's quotas should be harvested and processed for the benefit of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who harvests the company quotas and where they are landed is a business decision that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not influence." End of quote, and end of efforts by that hon. crowd, Mr. Speaker, to get the quotas landed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: So much for commitment, I say, Mr. Speaker. We stand on our commitments and we stand on our achievements, and we are proud of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister can rant and tear all he likes. The fact of the matter is, FPI never closed a fish plant under my watch and FPI did not lay off any of its employees under my watch. You cannot say the same!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: In fact, you have been a dismissal failure when it came to this file; you and your predecessor, and the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: There are thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today who find themselves without an income on the Northeast Coast and Labrador because of severe ice conditions. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Minister of Fisheries was in Ottawa and met face-to-face with his federal counterpart two weeks ago and never raised the issue.

Premier, you were in Ottawa last week, did you talk to the Federal Fisheries Minister or the Minister Responsible for E.I., or the Prime Minister, or anybody else about this most serious issue that is facing the people of the Northeast Coast and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am not and never will be a peekaboo minister. I will not stick my head up when there is something positive to talk about and hide under the carpet when there is nothing positive to talk about. We face the issues in this Province in the fishery head on. Our record and my record will stand with the hon. members any day, and let me say this, this is not a government of one person who does everything. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has been on top of this file with his federal counterparts. My parliamentary secretary has been on top of this file in terms of the Northeast Coast and employment opportunities and employment extension benefits with his counterparts. We are all a team over here, Mr. Speaker. We work as a team!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: We work as a team and we achieve great things for Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to achieve great things for Newfoundland and Labrador as a team, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious issue. A lot of people who are involved in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador today really do not know where to turn and they are looking for answers.

I am going the ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - in the briefing that we were given this morning it says that the plant in Fortune would be transferred to Cooke Aquaculture, so I am asking you: Is it a transfer or a sale? If it is a sale, have the details been worked out so that the people in Fortune can rest assure that this is a done deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for her question.

The people in Fortune can be assured that this is a done deal. As a matter of fact - I know it was not last week, it was probably the week before - I met with some representatives of the union down there and assured them the same thing. The fact of the matter is, it is a sale. A sale price has been agreed between OCI and Cooke Aquaculture. The amount - I do not think I will make public at the moment - is a reasonable amount and some equipment that Cooke do not want will be utilized elsewhere by OCI. FPI, as a condition of our approving all the rest of the matters that we are talking about here in terms of the OCI, High Liner agreement, have agreed to expedite the sale of Fortune to OCI and we are not anticipating any difficulty with that. As a matter of fact, the agreements between OCI and Cooke Aquaculture have been agreed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: According to the briefing we were given this morning, as well, the secondary processing plant in Burin, High Liner has committed to spend $3 million in capital and research and development in the Province. What is missing there, and what is troubling, is that there is no given date when that $3 million has to be spent. The penalty, should High Liner decide to close the plant, is $2.5 million.

I ask the Minister: Since there is no date given for when High Liner has to spend this $3 million, what is to keep High Liner from closing the plant, taking the $2 million penalty, which is a penalty that they would incur for closing a facility, and walk away from this $3 million investment for a savings of $500,000?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose all of that assumes that High Liner is not acting in good faith. It assumes that they are meanspirited. It assumes that they are just out to hoodwink all of us.

Let me say this in terms of Burin, there are commitments in this deal for Burin that are far and above an enhancement on what they are facing now. For example, FPI planned to produce less than 11 million pounds of product in Burin this year. There would be a significant reduction in the workforce in Burin if it were to stay with FPI. OCI has committed to 17.5 million pounds of production in every year, starting this year, in the first twelve months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, also, besides the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: High Liner, I mean, yes. Look, everybody knows what I mean. I am as stunned as you know what, but that is all I can do about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Anyway, the other part of the hon. member's question is this - and that is ‘backupable' I say to the Leader of the Opposition, as it relates to penalties. In addition to the penalty per worker that would be imposed if High Liner is hoodwinking us all, for the want of a better word, there is also a penalty per pound of production because where - it is different in Burin. The throughput is what will create the jobs in Burin, and they are committed to put through 17.5 million pounds of product. In other plants - you can land millions of pounds of mackerel and get no employment out of it, or very little employment out of it. The key to Burin is the throughput and that is where the real penalties are for High Liner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Minister, a strike at Voisey's Bay on the North Coast of Labrador has now reached a crisis situation, with the safety and morale of workers seriously compromised. I ask the minister what his government is doing to help bring an end to the strike so workers can go back to work.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The officials in my department have been in touch with all parties concerned. The companies involved, the employers, the union, have been in touch as recently as last week, and there will be meetings again this week on the matter. We are trying to find a common ground in trying to bring both parties to a reasonable conclusion that both can live with; and, as I said, those meetings are ongoing and will continue throughout this week.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, one of the contractors on strike at Voisey's Bay, Torngait Services, we are told, has sixty-two workers, of which sixty people are from Labrador. To see such a high percentage of workers from Labrador speaks well for the IBAs the company has signed with the people in Labrador.

Minister, a large number of these workers are Aboriginals from the North Coast communities who have waited a lifetime for good paying jobs. I ask the minister if his government is willing to bring in anti-scab legislation and, if so, when?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, there are, as has been indicated, a number of Aboriginal people who are employed in the site up there, and that is as a result of the benefits agreements that have been negotiated. We hope that those benefits and those kinds of employment numbers will continue into the future.

In terms of the second half of his question, with regard to the replacement worker legislation, I have indicated that the Labour Relations Agency, through its Strategic Partnership Initiative, is undertaking a review of all of the labour legislation in the Province. That will look at whatever the union representatives on that committee and the employer representatives on that committee wish to bring to the table for discussion. Once that review is complete, we will be in a better position at that time to look at the kinds of things will need to be updated in the legislation.

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 Natural Resources.

According to the IBAs that were signed with Voisey's Bay Nickel, a percentage of the employees at the site are to be Aboriginal. We know that 98 per cent of the striking workers with TSI , and a percentage of those with (inaudible) are Aboriginal and are now being replaced by non-Aboriginal workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister and her government: What is being done to ensure that the Aboriginal content of this contract is being upheld by the company during this strike?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Natural Resources is not directly involved in this labour dispute. There is not an appropriate role for us there. This is being handled through the Labour Relations Board of HRLE. I will undertake to find out that information and report back to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I will direct my next question to the Minister of Labour.

These workers have been on strike for over forty days. There are serious incidents of conflict at the mining site in recent days. I am sure he is aware of it. We also know that there are more than twenty security officers who have been brought in from outside the Province to protect these replacement workers on site. It is a very serious situation.

I ask the minister: Outside of a conciliator, which has been engaged, I think, through his department, what else is being done by government to achieve a resolution to this as soon as possible?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite knows, our role as a government is to be involved in the conciliation and mediation process. We do have people on staff within the Department of Labour who are fulfilling that role as conciliators and mediators in this dispute. We have been involved for some time now during the strike. We will be involved, as I indicated, in meetings this week. We feel that we are making some progress in that area, and that we are bringing the sides closer together.

That is our role and we are fulfilling that role, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is also for the Minister of Labour.

I was surprised to learn in his comment today that the only review of anti-scab legislation being looked at by the government is what is being looked at in the context of a full review of legislation in his department. It is my understanding from comments in the media made by the Minister Responsible for Labrador over the weekend that this is something you are looking at seriously and could be implementing soon.

My question today to the minister is: Are you prepared to move up the agenda on anti-scab legislation and have it brought to the House of Assembly so that we do not have situations like we have at Voisey's Bay in the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in my earlier remarks, we do have a strategic partnership between our Labour Relations Agency, the unions and the employers representative groups in this Province. We have a process in place that all parties have agreed to follow, and we will be following that process to do a thorough review and to make sure that any and all issues that are important to the people of this Province, be they employers or be they employees, will be reviewed and will be brought forward for consideration by the government.

We have undertaken that commitment, we will fulfil that commitment, and once we know what the results of that are we will decide then what actions can be taken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and it relates to the sale of FPI.

We now know that the two companies, OCI and High Liner, will face penalties if they close the plant before or at five years, or there will be penalties if they do not maintain historical levels of employment, but there seems to be nothing in place for what happens when those five years are up.

I have two questions, actually, in one: What assurances has government come up with for the plants in the long term if things end after five years? What will ensure that the survival of these plants remains a priority after the five-year period?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, and it is a very good question.

Five years in business is a long time, and it is impossible to project out forever where quotas are going to be, and all that kind of thing. The best you can do is to put your best efforts into this and put your best foot forward.

We have sought advice from the FFAW in what they think the requirements ought to be. It is their view, as it is ours, that the company had come forward, I believe, in the initial stages with a three-year commitment and we are able to negotiate that out to five.

There are also other commitments, of course, particularly in terms of Marystown and the quota. We have a situation negotiated with the Government of Canada that will see, if there happens to be defaults by OCI, the quota revert to a company that will be controlled by the Province. Now, that would not make much sense if you did not have - what are you going to do with that quota? Where do you put it?

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the agreement there is also a clause which says that in that kind of situation, if Marystown were to close, then the Province would have a right of first refusal of Marystown.

So, we try to marry the two together as best we can, try to anticipate every possible scenario, realizing that we are human. We can only put our best foot forward and hope for the best in the long term, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand what the government has been dealing with in doing these negotiations, but in normal agreements when things are negotiated, there is usually a time frame and then there is something set up to allow for renegotiations. I am just wondering, in the discussions, was there any consideration of what happens around the fourth-year mark?

My concern is that we could have things come to a close around the five-year mark and then have workers hang around waiting while a plant is closed again, like workers have done in Marystown, and be waiting for a new agreement to be put in place either with OCI, High Liner, or another company. Was this notion of renegotiating, getting together around the fourth-year mark to assess things, was that discussed at all?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the opening position of the companies was that they wanted to enter into three-year arrangements. We were able to, through the process of negotiation, arrive at five years. Obviously, this issue will be revisited if there is any indication that the companies are going to cease operations. Those companies are investing heavily. They are committed to the long term and we have every reason to believe that their future - and they see their future here in Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term, and we believe that to be the case, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question for the Minister of Labour, and that is that we have a minister today for Labrador Affairs out saying that government is looking at bringing in anti-scab legislation, I guess, but we also have another minister telling us that this is all under review. So I will make my question very straightforward to you, minister: Are you prepared to bring in laws to prevent the hiring of replacement workers in the cases of strikes like we now see in Voisey's Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, this government has already indicated its commitment to updating the labour relations legislation in this Province. We have the partners at the table to help us do that. The labour unions - the employers in this Province have agreed to assist us with that. We are embarking upon that process and we are prepared to, once we know what the results of that review is, bring forward whatever legislation we feel is necessary to make sure that we have a positive labour relations climate in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. (Bill 28)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting the Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation. (Bill 27)

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Sustainable Development Of Natural Resources In The Province. (Bill 25)

Also, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I move that this House tomorrow, May 29, not adjourn at 5:30 or adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move the following Private Member's Motion:

WHEREAS the current government, on June 23, 2006, released its new Poverty Reduction Strategy entitled "Reducing Poverty: An Action Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador" following through on the Blueprint commitment to transform Newfoundland and Labrador over a ten-year period from a Province with the most poverty to a Province with the least poverty; and

WHEREAS this Poverty Reduction Strategy is an unprecedented action plan combining the efforts of the Premier and his Cabinet colleagues - I say to the hon. member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - and officials in Human Resources, Labour and Employment; Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Education; the Women's Policy Office; Finance; Health and Community Services; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; and the Rural Secretariat; and

WHEREAS the government began to implement this new strategy with a financial commitment in the 2006 Budget of over $60 million annually to support expanded eligibility for the prescription drug program, the elimination of school fees, increases to income support programs, and enhanced Adult Basic Education offerings in a focused effort to ensure that poverty reduction occurs and that the strategy's important objectives are met over the long term; and

WHEREAS in the 2007 Budget, the government significantly enhanced its commitment to poverty reduction with a total investment this year of $91 million; and

WHEREAS the government also significantly enhanced the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program to cap annual out-of-pocket drug costs based on net family income;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House express its support for the Poverty Reduction Strategy initiatives of the 2006 and 2007 budgets and the Strategy's objective of transforming Newfoundland and Labrador over a ten-year period from a Province with the most poverty to a Province with the least poverty.

Mr. Speaker, that has been seconded by my colleague from Topsail, the hon. Beth Marshall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne and the Minister of Tourism presented by the residents of Whitbourne, Markland and St. Mary's Bay North area.

The minister and myself met with municipal officials from those communities about a month ago and they presented us with a petition. I will not read the prayer of it, but basically it is to deal with gravel road from Whitbourne to Colinet. This is a road that is used by residents of St. Mary's Bay North, Colinet and the Cape Shore to drive to Whitbourne and to access the Trans-Canada and to avail of medical services, recreation and so on, in Whitbourne. It is a gravel road. The petition calls that the road be upgraded and paved.

Mr. Speaker, this area will be in the jurisdiction of Placentia & St. Mary's, and I look forward to representing the people of Whitbourne and Markland in the next election. Also, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting into the Whitbourne and Markland area in the summer and meeting as many people there as I can, as well as the areas of Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights.

I present this petition today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf the residents of Whitbourne, Markland and St. Mary's Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district, in the Labrador Straits region, who are requesting that the hunting season for ptarmigan would be changed this year.

I would like to ask the Member for The Straits & White Bay North to just give me some time, Mr. Speaker, to present this on behalf of the 425 residents in my district who have raised this as a concern. As soon as I am finished, I can certainly grant him all the time he wishes to get up and speak.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Labrador Straits have raised this as an important issue. In fact, they have written a letter to Minister Jackman, who is the Minister of Environment and Conservation, and they have also written letters to the minister for Labrador and the Minister of Natural Resources as it relates to this particular issue.

What they are asking is that the season would be delayed opening each year and that, in fact, the hunting season would start on December 1, because they feel that, in the interest of conservation, right now the season opens much too early for ptarmigan hunting and they want to see it delayed opening until December 1 and they also want it to continue to be open until April 30.

I do not see a huge problem with that, because right now members of the Labrador Inuit Association and members of the Labrador Metis Nation have the opportunity to hunt until April 30, and it is only the non-Aboriginal people who are being asked to cease their hunting prior to that date, so I certainly have no problem with this petition.

I would encourage the government to look at this seriously and to change the hunting dates for ptarmigan in the Labrador Straits region. As you can certainly appreciate, hunting is very much a part of the traditional culture of the people of this particular area, and many of them not only hunt for sport but certainly hunt for food as well. They want to see complete protection, from an environmental perspective, of this particular reserve of ptarmigan in that area, but at the same time they want the privilege to be able to hunt and be able to get a meal for the table at a reasonable period of time during that season.

So, to make the request to government at this time to delay the opening of the season to December 1, and also extend it to April 30, is a reasonable request. I cannot see the department having any problems with it, but I will certainly await a response from the minister and from his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank Mr. Eric Bridle of Red Bay, who was one of the people who spearheaded this petition in the Labrador Straits area and took it upon himself, on behalf of all of the hunters and the residents of that area, to go out and have these petitions prepared, to have them signed, and to submit them to the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge his contribution and I certainly hope that government will listen to the wishes of these over 400 people in the Labrador Straits area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, Monday, May 28, at 5:30 o'clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 6, as well, that this House not adjourn today, May 28, at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, Monday, May 28, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move now to Order 10, which is seconding reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 13)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to be here today to speak on the amendment to the Student Financial Assistance Act.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of student debt, and what can be done in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been a question that has been around for quite some time. The students feel, as they go through their education here in Newfoundland and Labrador and enter the workforce, that they are at a disadvantage by all of the money that they owe and they are trying to pay back, Mr. Speaker, so we decided that we needed to look at this very serious issue that was affecting our young people in the Province.

On March 7 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I hosted a roundtable on student debt in Corner Brook. At that roundtable we had representatives from the Canadian Federation of Students, we had representation from the Council of the Student Union, both the St. John's campus as well as Grenfell in Corner Brook. We also had representation, Mr. Speaker, from the Marine Institute and, as well, we had representation from the College of the North Atlantic, from various campuses, and we also had representation from students at the private colleges. As well, Mr. Speaker, we had some officials from the Department of Education and certainly from the Student Loan Corporation as we dealt with some of the issues that were addressed by the students.

We had a whole host of suggestions and ideas of what we may or may not be able to do to address the issue of student debt, and we had shared our ideas with the students prior to our meeting so that they would come and they would be well prepared to have an informed discussion about what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the students were very well informed, and as we went through the various options the students clearly indicated support for two ways that we could address student debt. One was support for up-front grants and for changes in the interest rates for students in repayment of their student loans.

I forgot to add, as I talked about who was at the roundtable, we also had representation of people who had graduated from the university system and were out and were currently repaying their loan.

It was suggested at that time that we should have up-front needs based grants. Mr. Speaker, we announced that this year in our Budget, and it is something that we will move forward with. In addition to that, we also indicated that we would reduce the interest rates on student loans from prime plus two-and-a-half to prime. That means that it would go from 6 per cent, with the 2.5 per cent, which was 8.5 per cent, down to 6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, when we do that - that is what the whole amendment of this legislation is about, reducing that interest rate - we will actually have the lowest interest rate on student loans in Canada, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: What is equally important, Mr. Speaker, is to recognize that when we do this amendment, when we do this change, this will not just apply to current students who are using student loans, but this will apply actually to 46,000 people right now who are currently repaying their loans in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In some of the calculations that we looked at - and this was certainly verified by the person who represented people in repayment at our roundtable, and it was Mr. Mercer who first gave us these numbers and we looked at them and they were indeed accurate - for people who came through the university system in the 1990s, in the mid-1990s, the whole grant system was removed and those students had to borrow every cent from the provincial government for the provincial portion of their loan as opposed to getting the grant. So, it was the students who went in the mid-1990s who were most impacted by some of the changes that happened at that time. By reducing the interest rate for people who graduated with a maximum student loan, they will save approximately $3,500 in interest rates in their repayment.

This one person pointed out that he had a full student loan for the years that he went through, as did his wife. With this amendment that we are passing today, this legislation, that couple alone will save $7,000 in interest payments in the life of repaying their student loan.

Mr. Speaker, the change that we are talking about today through the legislation will actually come into effect on August 1, which will be in time for the school year of 2007-2008, and it will certainly provide support to those who are struggling to meet their debt obligations.

So, it is not just that we are reducing the interest rate, which will affect the 47,000, but, Mr. Speaker, bringing back the upfront needs-based grants means that the provincial portion of the student loan right now, for people who borrow the maximum - because I usually focus on the maximum when I am speaking - right now they are entitled to borrow up to $140 a week, but we will have that capped at $70 a week. Anybody who is eligible for a full, maximum student loan, right now they will borrow $70 but the additional $70 will be in a non-repayable grant for the provincial portion of their loan. Then anyone who gets any portion of it above $70 will get the grant. So, that is how this new system will work, Mr. Speaker. This is something that the students really wanted. They were really upset in the mid-1990s, that this system of grants had been eliminated by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment also supports government's poverty reduction initiatives because not always are we trying to reduce poverty from people who are in the lowest income levels, but there are certain times we try to remove the stigma that poverty causes and separates people into certain classes and certain groups.

Mr. Speaker, one important initiative we introduced last year was the elimination of school fees. At that point in time, it was very important that - I felt, as the Minister of Education, and certainly the former Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment - when small children go into the school that first day and they are handed a note which they have to bring home that night, when they open their book bags, the first note that comes out is saying they have to bring in $40, $50, $60, even $70. Then the discussion that happens at the dinner table that night where the parents look at it and say: Well, we just cannot afford it. I do not know when I can send it in. I do not think you are going to be able to have it. I cannot believe this notice being sent home. I cannot believe I spent all that money getting things ready for school. I did not realize this was coming in behind. That little person, Mr. Speaker, whether they are five, six or seven-years-old has to go back to school that next day - now, they had heard that conversation the night before. Then they have to walk into that classroom and they have to look as other children are bringing up their payments, and they have to wonder: well, what is wrong? Why am I different? How am I going to hide the fact that I cannot pay this money? What little lie am I going to tell here to say why I forgot it this morning?

Mr. Speaker, the whole face of poverty, we do not need that in our school children. They do not need to learn very early in life that maybe they do not have the same amount of money as the family or the person sitting next to them. So, we eliminated school fees. That was part of our poverty reduction initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, for this coming September, we will ensure that textbooks from Grades 9 to 12 are of no charge to the families of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous investment of over $12 million this year. We were the only Province in Canada that actually charged for high school books. Again, it goes back to say, this is not just going to help low-income families, it will help everyone but it will also even the playing field for people who are in our K to 12 system.

Mr. Speaker, students do not need to know, as they are going through school, that they have to pick their courses because they have books available or somebody in their family did the course. They certainly need to work to their potential and achieve their best. Again, bringing in the payment of the textbooks is almost like the same idea as the school fees, we evened the playing field.

Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond the K to12 system into post-secondary, because what we stand for as a government is affordable and accessible post-secondary education. We need to make education a priority so that everyone feels if they have the potential to go to university or post-secondary, that they can afford to go and they can afford to work and live in this Province afterwards. Mr. Speaker, again, we are levelling the playing field to help everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One thing we have also done is with our White Paper we have committed to $90 million in our post-secondary system and we have moved even beyond the White Paper with some other initiatives. We are investing millions in infrastructure in the new residences.

Mr. Speaker, we have also held a tuition freeze, which cost government about $25 million, but we were committed to a tuition freeze and we carried on, certainly, with that commitment. We now have the lowest tuition anywhere in Canada, outside Quebec, and that is thanks primarily to our tuition freeze.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly, the key to our future is education and we need to make sure that our students can move forward with their lives, becoming full productive citizens in their communities.

I just want to highlight some of our Budget 2007 initiatives that we have outlined in education, specifically for post-secondary. We allocated $14.4 million, and this is for upfront grants and reduction in loan interest payments. That came directly from our round table and our discussion with the students and what they felt would be the best way for us to address student debt.

We also made a five-year, $62 million commitment for residence construction for both MUN and Grenfell. We have committed $8.8 million for a new academic building at Grenfell; $2 million for the College of the North Atlantic facility improvements and equipment upgrades; $600,000 to improve disability access at the Burin campus of the College of the North Atlantic; $800,000 for a marketing campaign for MUN; $200,000 to recruit international students; $500,000 for distance education at MUN; and $3.5 million in skilled trades and technology at the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, there are other initiatives within government that also support our students. One is the new career information resource centres and ten new HRLE career information officers. We have also committed over $1 million to expand the Graduate Retention Program to accommodate an additional 100 graduates. We also committed $1 million for the creation of the School of Ocean Technology. Budget 2007 invested $6.7 million in the area of skilled trades. This speaks to a total of $22.1 million additional funding for MUN and an additional $8.2 million for the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, we are spending $14,000 per student at the post-secondary levels. The total expenditures have increased by 52 per cent since 2003, and the total expenditure for post-secondary education this fiscal year is nearly $377 million. These are government-wide initiatives but we certainly have direct assistance to students as well, and the interest-free loans will provide interest breaks for people who are in their repayment. It will affect 46,000 people right now and it will reduce their interest rates, as I said, Mr. Speaker, to the lowest interest rates that any students will be repaying in Canada. I think that is commendable, and I certainly want to thank the students for being part of those discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this amendment that we are bringing in today will allow us to be able to adjust the interest rates on student loans from prime plus 2.5 per cent to prime.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all colleagues in the House certainly see the merit to that, they have respect for the people who sat at the round table that we held in March and have listened to the issues and the solutions that were put forward. Not only did we have the round table, not only did we heard the solutions and listen, Mr. Speaker, today this is action that we are taking on what we heard.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand and respond to the Minister of Education on her bill, Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. I always say, if we can do anything to improve the lives of students and their families in this Province, it is generally a good thing.

I am delighted, too, that the government has paid attention to the Opposition. I am delighted that the government has paid attention to the debate in the House of Assembly that ensued after the Budget was brought down.

One of the most important things today that the minister mentioned was the fact that government is now going to increase the ceiling on parental income. That means that students can now borrow more money, or they will be able to qualify for grants easier. That was always a hindrance here of recent times because even through two working parents are making beyond $65,000, it was always a hindrance because it limited the amount that a student could actually borrow towards the cost of their education and it also, most recently, limited the ability of a student to qualify for the non-repayment grants.

Being a former Minister of Post-Secondary Education I understand quite well the dilemma that students and parents faced in trying to get an education here in this Province. I was glad that we had, during my term of office, a complete overhaul of the student loan package and it made huge improvements, but this is always a plan in the works because you never do get it all done and there is always something coming up from day to day that would hinder students from getting a good education when they have to consider the cost of the education. It is a moving document and it is a moving department, and it needs to be revamped almost on an annual basis.

I have to refer back to the minister. She said it was a great improvement, having free textbooks for K-12. I would say it would be also a great improvement to have free textbooks for university students because, when you look at the cost of textbooks for university students, it is astronomical. Any of them will tell you the cost involved, and the parents, I think, get a big shock when the students bring home the list of textbooks and material they will need to do different courses at university.

Of course, ideally, free education, no doubt, is a goal for students in this Province. Free education, that was the way it was first when it started out. You know, there are actually Members in this House of Assembly who went to university and benefitted from free education. Now, there are older Members in this House of Assembly who had that advantage, and from time to time during debate they will stand up and they will tell what a great benefit it was to have free tuition when they attended university.

You know, it is quite likely that will happen in the future - there is no reason why it would not - but, when you think of ways to get young people to get a good education in this Province and stay here, I believe that government needs to go back to the drawing board and they need to look at the first bill that they cancelled here in this House.

The first bill this new government cancelled in this House, when they had their first session in 2004, was a bill that I actually brought to the House, and it was to give students an income tax reduction when they paid on their Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan, if they would stay in the Province and work. That was an enticement for our young people to stay in the Province and work. While there are factors today that will help them in paying off their student loan, all too often, as soon as our young people get educated, they head west and they head all over the world, in fact.

When you look at the fact that our previous government had a piece of legislation - for every dollar paid on their student loan, which was the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan, they were going to get a break on their income tax. That was the first order of business when this new government was formed, their first order of business in the House of Assembly in the spring of 2004. I think they actually need to go back and have a look at that because, in a week's time now, the Premier will be having the job fair around our Province saying they are going to be hiring 1,000 civil servants. Now, we do not know what categories they are going to be in and so on, but I am sure if he could add that to the package: Look, stay and work in Newfoundland and Labrador and when you start to pay off your student loan at prime interest rate we will do something more than that; we will give you a break on your income tax.

You know, government should never be too big that they would not go back and have a second look at that. They have an opportunity now. They have reduced the interest rate on the student loan. That was always a detriment, the high interest rate, particularly in times when interest rates were really high.

Judging the way the Canadian dollar is today, at ninety-three cents, it is quite likely that interest rates will escalate as well in the very near future. Economists are predicting that within two to three years our Canadian dollar will be on par with the U.S. dollar, so that is going to be a huge challenge for businesses that depend on exporting.

You take, for instance, where I come from, my district, the pulp and paper industry are going to be facing a huge challenge. Even today, the government's approval of the sale of Fishery Products, when you look at the exporting of fish from our Province, the effect of the Canadian dollar is going to cause a lot of challenges for those types of industries and manufacturing in general.

When you also look at the fact that interest rates are quite likely to rise now in the near future, I think you have to look at, what does it take, firstly, to educate a young person in our Province and, once they are educated, what does it take to keep them here, to get them contributing to the economy?

I was really surprised when the former minister, who is now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, announced their White Paper study on education in our Province. I thought for sure they would look at the possibilities of expanding the two-year university program at the College of the North Atlantic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The College of the North Atlantic, the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor and the previous government, had spent a lot of money doing a report, hiring consultants, doing a report and finding out what the need was for post-secondary in Central Newfoundland. It was very unfortunate that, when that White Paper study was completed, there was no mention of our two-year university program in Central Newfoundland. That is unfortunate, because right now the College of the North Atlantic basically offers business programs, and they have been really successful. In fact, there has always been a full program for every program that is being offered there. In fact, they are bursting at the seams.

So, it is unfortunate that the current Administration - I know that Dr. Axel Meisen was very keen, when I was the minister, in looking at the campus in Grand Falls-Windsor as a centre of excellence in some category. We were at the very early stages of finding out which one would fit best with the population that would be attending there, and also the potential population. That was more or less shelved with the changeover in government, but I was disappointed that there was no mention in the White Paper study, although there was clear evidence that is a growing concern, being able to accommodate a lot of our students; because, as most people know, in Western and Central Newfoundland, a lot of our students go to mainland universities, which is unfortunate. It is not like the people living right here in St. John's. They always look at the fact that if you have to pay for your son and daughter to attend university, a lot of them think that it is no more expensive to go to, say, Acadia or St. Francis Xavier or some of those universities in Atlantic Canada, because it is probably the same cost as sending a young person to St. John's.

Government needs to look at these factors again, and have a look at the fact that there is a lot of our population coming from Central Newfoundland. When you think of how successful our first and second year studies have been at MUN, and the number of students who naturally go on to MUN in St. John's after attending classes in Grand Falls-Windsor, it is something that would cut down on the cost for the family if students were able to continue on with a degree-granting program in Grand Falls-Windsor, and it would certainly cut down the cost of those coming from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, so that is an area that government could certainly turn their attention to.

One of the recent issues that came up over the winter, and I dealt with several constituents in my district, was the fact that MUN had made a decision to change the student housing on campus without giving full consultation time to the students and their parents, so a lot of people were left up in arms wondering how they were going to handle this, but after a lot of intervention by a lot of people - I know MHAs all over the Province, myself included, and parents and students - this issue has now been settled. It goes to show that sometimes decisions are made at the top, without any consultation, and as a result of that a lot of people are affected.

I was glad to finally hear that this government has acknowledged - and it was refreshing to hear - that we in this Province have the lowest tuition rate of any university across the country, with the exception of Quebec, and that used to be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: It is too bad Loyola Sullivan is not here today, because he and I would spend hours debating that very fact. Even through this government has not decreased tuition rates - it is the same as when we were the government - he and I would argue back and forth across the floor. I would tell him: Yes, we have the lowest tuition rate across the country, with the exception of Quebec, who give an advantage to their residents, and he would argue black and blue that we did not have the lowest rate. Now that they are the government, there has been no change in tuition and now they have the lowest rate.

That is an indication of how people spin things during communications. Whatever works at the time, and if you say it long enough, people will believe it is true.

I am glad we continue to have the lowest tuition rate across the country.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I would like to tell the Member for Mount Pearl, who may not be up to date on this, there has been no reduction in tuition since you assumed government. It is the same as when we were there. We reduced it by 25 per cent. It is still the lowest tuition rate across the country, and I am glad to hear that this government has finally mentioned that.

There has been a big push on, to increase our student population, and I do believe that is a good thing. Right now, there are about 17,500 students attending MUN, and about 3,000 of those are international students. I read in the paper over the weekend that the President, Axel Meisen, is putting on a push to grow the student population in our Province. Of course, he is only one of many universities across our country trying to attract international students. We all know that international students pay more. They pay more to get the opportunity to attend university in our Province. Naturally, it is an enticement to attract in those young people, get their ideas, and hope that many of them will want to stay here and take up residency in our Province. That is always a good thing, but there is a lot of competition for international students. Anyone will tell you that all universities have put a lot of money into marketing of international students. It has become a way of life in order for universities to survive across Canada, to keep up their student population; because, as the minister already mentioned, there is a lot of money going into Memorial University this year for upgrades and so on to the infrastructure throughout the university system.

In order to maintain a campus of any university, you must have students. That is the number one thing you must have. If you cannot find them from your own sources, which are here right in our Province, naturally you are going to look outside our Province and see if you can lure students in.

Let's face it, we have quite an expansive program across MUN, right here in St. John's and in Corner Brook and other locations, for first and second year. If that student population were to dry up, we would have a huge problem on our hands, not having enough students to actually make up the courses that are offered, and we would not be able to attract research and development money from across the world. Generally, for every dollar you put into research and development at Memorial University we generally get $5 back. So, if we did not have a student population, we would not attract the faculty to run the operation and we would not attract also these research and development dollars. So, having a student population that meets or exceeds our present infrastructure is crucial.

We have right now in our Province money - I will not say money to burn, but for the first time in our history we have money in our Province that we can allocate to education. We can do even more than we are doing today. We can look at the fact that how can - there is a missing link here when you talk about putting money into education. What is happening now is the student interest rate is going to be lowered to prime rate, that is a good thing. The ceiling of parental income is going to be increased. That means if someone is making over $100,000 a year, a mother and a father or whatever the arrangement might be in a parental situation, the student now has more of an opportunity to borrow more money or receive a grant on his or her own. So, that is a good thing. However, we need to look at, what can we do to even improve on that situation? You know, the ultimate goal is free education, but are we providing a free education so that our children can leave our Province and be a benefit to some other province or some other part of the world? That is the key thing.

Last week, in this House, I stood and debated with the Minister of Finance the issue of being able to extend retirement age beyond sixty-five. I thought to myself when I was here speaking, you know, we need to be able to hold on to people now that are over sixty-five. Never before in our history has the need been greater for us as a Province then to have to hang on to the people now that are over sixty-five. Number one, they do not have to actually pay student loans back at that age, or not very many of them will be. They are already settled here in this Province. They are already contributing members of our society and will be, without very little cost to government.

The biggest cost to government by keeping people in the system after sixty-five will probably be health care. You will probably notice that when the health care program that is currently just for civil servants alone with Desjardins, when that comes up for renewal again, by having people in the workforce over sixty-five will no doubt mean an increase in premiums for any civil servant to pay who works for government, because it is only natural. I am not discriminating against older people because, naturally, I am heading for that category myself, as all of us here are, but it is only normal to assume that once you reach sixty-five you will be needing the medical system a whole lot more than when you were thirty-five. That will mean an increase in premiums and it will probably mean a lot of other things with regard to defining and making up a program that will suit individuals in that category. But, we need people over sixty-five who have the talent, have the experience, have the wisdom and are able to do good work in this Province.

Private enterprise; I know private enterprise often hire people beyond age sixty-five even before this regulation was put into effect, because lots of times they cannot find people to work in their establishments. If you go somewhere in the U.S., for instance, and you go into a place like Wal-Mart or Walgreens, or any retail establishment, you will be greeted by someone beyond sixty-five years of age. They will be smiling at you and handing you a shopping cart. No matter where you go into any kind of a business place, you will find people beyond the age of sixty-five. A lot of times it is financial, more times it is for people who actually do not want to stay home and vegetate. They want to be challenged and so on. That is one of the areas now that government has to turn their attention to. Once you create a possibility of young people getting a good education and being able to pay less for their education, now you want to turn your attention to finding something in this Province for them to work at.

It was interesting, I heard on VOCM news when Vic Young got inducted last week, he said - I am trying to recall his exact quote. He said: Out-migration is enemy number one for this Province. That is what Vic Young said, who was former manager of FPI. He said out-migration is enemy number one. Any government that comes to power in our Province has to find a way to create jobs so that our young people, once they graduate from post-secondary education, they find a reason to stay here and work here and contribute to our economy. That is really a major problem right now here in this Province.

If you look at the polling that the Premier had done a while ago, and every issue that was thought to be relevant to people in our Province, you would think it would have been health care, but at that particular time, when the polling was done, the issue that now is surrounding Eastern Health on breast cancer screening and also the testing in Burin, that was not on the radar screen at that particular time. So the polling that was done by the Premier about a month ago had jobs as the number one issue in this Province. This has been a problem for this government since they took over in 2003. They have not been able to create the jobs that are necessary to hold our young people. Even though they had lots of money to work with, they have not been able to come up with the jobs that would entice young people to live and work here, and pay off their student loans, start a family and contribute to our economy.

While I appreciate - and I am sure students will and their families - amendments to this student loan act, part and parcel of it will have to be: What happens beyond university? What happens beyond post-secondary education? It has to be more than a ticket on WestJet or Air Canada. It has to be more than that. When you see children being interviewed on television, particularly around rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and an interviewer says to them: What are you going to do when you finish school? They should not be saying: I am going to Alberta to get a job. That is hard when you hear that. When you sit down in your livingroom and you are sitting back with a cup of tea and somebody from CBC or NTV will go to a classroom somewhere in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and they will interview students. It could be a science fair, it could be a graduation, it could be a closing of a school or it could be an opening of a school, and at random the interviewer will say: What are you going to do when you finish school? I bet you any money, and I have seen it time and time again, the majority of those children will say: I am going to go out West to get a job. I am leaving Newfoundland and Labrador. It is rare to find someone who is staying here, who is going to start their own business and contribute to the economy. I do not know if I ever hear that, but we need to get back to the basics. We can do all we want to enhance the student loans, and that is a good thing, but you also have to go the next step, and that is look at where the jobs are going to come from.

What can government do? Government has a surplus now, after everything has been said and done. Government has a surplus of $261 million and, with all the people who are sitting there in suits every day on the other side of the House, they have not been able to come up with a way to create jobs so that young people in our Province will not have to leave. Now, I find that a bit hard to swallow, having the money and not being able to create the jobs so our young people will not have to leave.

What we are doing with student loans today is a good thing. Of course, it is a moving document and we will have to look at this again next spring, but for now it is a good thing and more needs to be done.

With that, Mr Speaker, I will sit down and I will listen to other debate on this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

Obviously, I was very glad with the information that was in the Budget for 2007, that indicated that our students would not be burdened with as high an interest rate on loans as they now have. Obviously, this piece of legislation is being put in place which allows government to set lower interest rates as a regular thing. I think it is very important that the legislation does that, and that government recognizes the need to keep adjusting the interest rates downward, because we are not saying that it has the right to set higher interest rates. We are recognizing that we need the interest rates to be lower, and the Budget this year did take that step and I hope that it is going to be a step that is going to continue. Seeing this piece of legislation now being put in place, it encourages me to believe that, in actual fact, we will continue to lower the interest rates.

I think my own goal would be, as long as loans are there, to have the interest rates almost at zero. I can understand that maybe there might be some administrative costs, that the government might want to have a small interest rate on the loans in order to cover some administrative costs, but I think the movement downward to as far as we can get to no interest rate would be very, very good. Anything that we can do to help our students has to be of benefit to the Province.

I think that every time we take a step like this, every time we take a step to help those who are trying to do post-secondary education, whatever way they are doing it, every time we take a step to those who are trying to make themselves be better prepared to work for the good of the Province, that we are investing in our economy. It is a social investment, and in that sense it is creating social capital. Doing that can only be good for our Province. The more students we have, the more young people we have, who are prepared, through their education, to add to the benefit of the Province, the better it is going to be for all of us.

As I have said before in this House, and will continue to say, the more that we can have the financial burden taken off the shoulders of our students, either by interest free loans, when loans happen, by no tuition fees, these are the things that will benefit our students.

I think we have to do more for the post-secondary students than just deal with the financial. I think the financial is important, but there is another side to that financial that I think we have to do as well. That is, we have to give them the assurance that, after putting the energy into getting their degrees and their certificates, et cetera, that there are also jobs available for them here in the Province. So I think we need to link more the needs in our Province, like the needs in the health care system, for example, the needs in education, with the education and training of our young people. I think that it would be a tremendous investment by government if we looked at some very creative ways around developing our social capital by developing the investment in our young people, if we were to set a goal for a certain number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be trained as pathologists, for example, set a goal for a certain number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be trained as radiologists, set a goal to deal with the deficit here when it comes to professional people.

We have heard in the House, from ministers and from others, and we read it in the papers, and we know from our own research, that we have a gap in specialists in the health care field right across the country. Well, just imagine what an investment it would be if we were to try to take care of the gap here in Newfoundland and Labrador by educating and training Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the areas where there are gaps, so that we do not have to be going outside of the Province looking for people in these areas, especially when we are looking for places where there are no people. That is the issue.

We could also combine that with - because obviously it is good to go outside the Province to have other blood brought in, there is no doubt about that, it helps with our own creativity - also look at the immigration system and see how the immigration system can assist us, and bring people in deliberately, knowing that they may have to do more training when they come into our Province, but bring in people in the health care field with a program set up, not just leave it to the individuals who come in, but actually have a program, knowing that they will have to do further training in order to get accredited in Canada, but do that as a program.

I really believe that if we take this approach, which is a more holistic approach of looking at the economy and the social together, we could come up with so much more than what we have in the Province already. It takes planning, it takes putting all the pieces together, but it makes such sense to me. It makes such sense to me that we can be training specialists in the educational system, we can be training specialists in the health care system, and all aspects of the health care system, and these can be people who are from our own Province. These can be young women and men from our own Province who are assisted in getting their education and training. Most of it can be gotten here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in our own institutions. Some of it may have to happen when they go into the sub-speciality areas. Some of it may have to happen outside of the Province, but if we were to build up our own bank of qualified people in a whole lot of new areas in this Province, in areas were we have gaps, in areas where, when people leave a position is not filled right away, and sometimes the position is not filled right away simply because of the fact that there are not people at our fingertips ready to be hired in those positions, either in our own Province or in our own country, or maybe even in North America. We do have various professions - nursing, for example, is one - where there have been historic moments where there have been tremendous gaps in terms of people available in that career.

I think we need to become very creative here in the Province with regard to getting new blood into the various careers and professions in the Province; getting new people trained, our own people from Newfoundland and Labrador, putting programs in place to assure that they want to do it, number one, that the remuneration is going to be enticing enough that they see the benefit of co-operating with government, being trained to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador; not being trained to stay here and miss out because they have stayed here, but being willing to be trained to stay here knowing that they will still get equal remuneration as if they went somewhere else.

All the pieces have to be together, but I think it can be done. I believe that the various associations of professionals in the Province will be delighted to work with government to develop a program like that for all their relevant areas, a program whereby we could have young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians trained in all the various professional areas where we have gaps in this Province, but it also means that government has to assure that it keeps up the hiring in our public institutions, whether we are talking about the health care institutions or the educational institutions. In those two areas in particular, where we have so many opportunities in the public sector for employment, where making sure that we have adequate people working in those areas is going to help both the social needs of the Province and also the economic needs of the Province, because the more people that we have working in our Province, the more people that we have earning good salaries, the better it is for the Province. A large proportion of that money goes to the Province in the form of income tax. A large proportion of that money goes to the Province in the terms of retail tax. So, it is never lost money when we create a job in the public sector. Creating jobs in the public sector so that young people can get trained and educated in Newfoundland and Labrador in professions so that they can stay here is probably one of the best investments that we can make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: It is hard to keep my train of thought, Mr. Speaker. I will try to do it. Thank you very much.

I really did lose my train of thought, sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The point I was making with regard to the training I think is a very important one, I mean it very seriously. I really think it is something for us to pursue. Again, and this is where I was going - so I have my thought back, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lose it again.

MS MICHAEL: No, I will try not to, with your help.

I think another thing, because of the pieces of legislation that we passed last week - and, for various reasons, I did not speak on the issue with regard to the changes in the age of retirement and removing the forced age of retirement. I do understand the need to have changed that and I think I was in agreement with it, but I also think we have to be careful now that we have done it. Now that we no longer have an age for forced retirement and we are going to have older workers staying in the workplace - and it will not just be in the private sector, it is going to be in the public sector, too. If we do not balance that with adequate positions for new entries into the workplace, we could end up with a problem in ten years time. We could end up with a very top heavy workforce with more people staying on at the older age, and if those larger numbers staying on at the older age are not balanced by enough younger people coming in at the entrance level, then we could end up with a much older workforce than we now have, and we currently already do have an older workforce.

So, I think that government is going to have to be very careful, especially in the public sector. Government is going to have to be very careful about making sure that enough new positions at the entry level are there, whether it is in education, whether it is in health, whether it is in the public sector, working within the government agencies. If we do not balance this out, we are going to be in trouble. I think having the older workers stay on is good, because the older workers have wisdom and experience that can be shared with younger workers, but if we do not at the same time maintain a healthy number of younger workers coming in, the older workers who are staying on are not going to have anybody to mentor, are not going to have anybody to share their experience and knowledge with. So, I really think that government could put a plan in place that would have a lot of pieces - several of the pieces that I am talking about now have all those pieces there. If we were to do that, we could have a workforce of wonderfully trained Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in areas where maybe not enough of them are thinking about being trained and educated at the moment. We could have younger workers being mentored by older workers. We could have more people employed, if you put in place what it is that I am talking about; if we make sure that we have enough people in place to do the work.

We have the proof that we do not have enough people working in the health field. We do not have enough people working in education. Over the years we have cut back too much in all of these areas, that we do not have adequate people in positions; not because the people are not there to get hired. They are not being hired because the positions are not there, because the positions have been cut. I really do think, to use an old term, we are cutting off our noses despite our faces when we are doing that. We may think that we are saving money when positions are being cut, when in actual fact we are creating an awful lot of problems in the Province. I really think that if we are going to support our students in being educated in the post-secondary institutions, then we have to come up with a creative plan that is going to keep them in this Province. We also have to come up with a plan that is going to make sure these students are going in areas that would be good for the Province as well and not going elsewhere to do their programs.

Those are some of my concerns with regard to post-secondary students and our post-secondary institutions and education, that government just should not say our only responsibility is putting money into these areas but our responsibility is to create an environment where people will be trained and will want to stay here in the areas that they are being trained in, and there are all kinds of ways in which that happen. Agreements can be made with students that if so much money is put into their education they will stay in Newfoundland for so many years. The thing is, whether you are from here or not from here, if you are making adequate money for the work that you are doing and if your expertise is being recognized, staying here is something people want to do because the lifestyle is so good. The lifestyle in Newfoundland and Labrador is a wonderful lifestyle. So if people are getting adequately remunerated for the work that they are doing, whether they are original to Newfoundland and Labrador or not, they will want to stay here.

The other thing that I want to talk about is the younger students. I know government is doing good things. I was very, very happy again - I know this is not a Budget discussion, but some of the issues that we are talking about are contained in the Budget - yes, I am glad that we have the free books for everybody in the school system now up to Grade 12. I would ask government to consider, you know, as it goes on, and thinking about the directions it is going in, that this was a wonderful step but we also have a whole area of programs that are not core curriculum, and very often the programs that are not core curriculum, it is really good to have a course that you want to do just because you are interested in the course, not because you have to do it but because you are interested.

I feel a little danger with the fact that it is only core curriculum books that are free, because we could have in the Province a division happening between children who can afford to do courses that are purely for pleasure because they can afford to buy the textbooks in the courses that are not core curriculum, and have students who cannot afford to pay for books not choose programs that are not core curriculum because they cannot afford the books. I think it would be really bad if we actually got a class distinction happening between people doing programs for pleasure and core curriculum.

I think government has to realize that we need to have more than just core curriculum books free. If we are going to make sure that everything is equal in the educational system then the children who cannot afford the textbooks, or can only afford to have them if they can find second-hand ones or have them passed down, that those children should still have the freedom to choose curricula that are not part of the core subjects. It is something that I urge government to think about and, as we move on in the future, I think we have to make sure that children can access all books, not just the core curriculum books.

I also think that we have to make sure that the needs of all students are met in this Province, too, and I am particularly thinking about the school lunch program and the Kids Eat Smart program. Not every community has the resources to put a group of volunteers in place to work on this program, and I really think that government, if it is going to be concerned about our young people, if it is going to be concerned about education, and how our children are being educated, and if it is going to be concerned about children being healthy in school, then I think we have to look at government's responsibility for assuring that every school is part of this program, that every student is able to be part of Kids Eat Smart, that it should not depend totally on the ability of the community to partner.

To me, it is part of the need for healthy nutrition in the schools, and again it is part of making sure that we do not have distinctions, that everybody is being treated the same, because in our public system everybody should be treated the same and children should not have better opportunities because they are living in St. John's rather than in a rural area or in Corner Brook and not on the Coast of Labrador, that the opportunities should be the same for all of our students.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I will close there. I think I am close to using my twenty minutes. I will be happy to add to what I have to say when we meet in Committee.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Education speaks now she will close the debate at second reading of Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, it has been a great experience to be able to speak in this debate today and be able to introduce amendments to the Student Financial Assistance Act which will indeed see the lowering of interest rates and will effect 46,000 people right now who are in the process of repaying their student loans.

Mr. Speaker, to come up with the suggestion to reduce the interest rates and to also bring in the other initiative that is not part of this legislation but to bring in the up-front needs based grants came from a roundtable, as I had indicated, that we had with various student leaders and some people who had graduated and were in the repayment process.

We looked at a number of different issues that we could have addressed, including up-front transportation grants, up-front needs based grants, up-front low income grants, reducing parental contributions, reducing interest rates, expanding the debt reduction grants, introducing skill shortage grants or introducing tax rebates and, Mr. Speaker, the students had those suggestions. They came very well informed, and they came up with two suggestions. They were the up-front needs based grants and the reduction in interest rates, and that is exactly what we delivered by this government, in this Budget, and exactly what we are debating here today, the interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, just before I close this debate, I just want to acknowledge that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are certainly seen as leaders right now in being progressive in addressing the issues of student debt. It was just last week that the Premier had the opportunity to address the Canadian Federation of Students in Ottawa at their annual general meeting. He received thunderous applause, according to a Maclean's magazine article, and certainly received a standing ovation from the students before he started the speech, applause throughout the speech, and certainly another standing ovation after. That just goes to show that the initiatives that we are taking in Newfoundland and Labrador, in this government, to address student issues are something that are recognized by all students throughout Canada.

I would like to certainly thank my hon. colleagues for their contribution to the debate here today. With this, Mr. Speaker, I will close debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the pleasure of the House that Bill 13 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 Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

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. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 13)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill 20)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this bill for second reading on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who has some public business he has to attend to.

Bill 20 comes out of the Budget, of course, that was delivered in the House a number of weeks ago, and it is very straightforward. Bill 20 reduces the sales tax payable on the private or public sale - it does not matter whether the sale occurs privately or through a dealership - of used vehicles, from 15 per cent to 14 per cent. That was effective as of the date of the Budget on April 27, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, we all know, I believe, that the retail sales tax, or GST as we know it, I suppose, was reduced by a percentage point, I believe it was, by the Government of Canada some months ago. This has the effect, then, of bringing our GST rate, although it is a retail sales tax, in line with that, not keeping it out of sync just for the sake of a few more dollars. This makes the rate applicable on the sale of all vehicles in this Province the same, whether the sale takes place at a dealership or whether it takes place as a private sale. The net effect of this, Mr. Speaker, will be to put $300,000 annually back into the pockets of individual Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The effect on the Treasury is giving up $300,000 of what would otherwise be income if we were to leave this tax at 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, that is a budget measure flowing out of the Budget, I gave notice of in the Budget, effective, of course, as all taxes are, generally speaking, on the date of the Budget. This bill gives effect to that budgetary measure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I am pleased to move second reading.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to respond to the Government House Leader who just stood on his feet and introduced Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

I doubt very much, if Loyola Sullivan was here in this House, we would be talking about this bill today. I do not ever think that this would be to the House of Assembly for approval by now, because he had an opportunity to change that when Stephen Harper brought in his 1 per cent GST reduction. He would not change that because he knew it was money that was going into the public treasury and he wanted to hang on to it. I have a feeling that, now with the change of Finance Ministers, this is what drove this to changing it today. It should have been changed. It should have been changed from the moment the federal government changed their 1 per cent reduction in the GST. As we know, the four Atlantic provinces have HST, a combination of provincial sales tax and GST. Ours was really out of sync, 15 per cent when it should have been 14 per cent for every other purchase in the Province. This should be done. It should have been done months ago. I am glad that government is finally taking the initiative to do it today. However, I want to suggest to government, do not stop here.

Look at what you are doing with insurance taxes. I had a call from one of my constituents about two months ago, she had purchased travel insurance for her parents. Her parents were going somewhere south and, of course, with older people it is a risk to go somewhere south, or even for younger people if they do not have a health plan, but she had to take out health insurance for her parents. She was surprised when she paid for the health insurance that there was HST added on to the health insurance. She was shocked, because she figured anyone buying travel insurance, that HST should not be added to travel insurance. What it was, it was really medical insurance for her parents who were elderly. They had no choice, in order to travel they had to have medical insurance. In order for her parents to travel, she agreed to buy them travel insurance. As a result of that, she never thought for one minute that she would have to pay HST. She phoned the travel agency where she had purchased the travel insurance and she was told there was nothing they could do about it. The travel agency suggested that she phone government. That was her next step. So, she phoned the government and they said: Well, no, there was nothing they could do about it, that would take a policy change within the government. So, government was not prepared to make any changes in that policy. As a result of that, there was nothing she could do about the medical insurance that she had bought for her mother and father. Government should really take a look at that. Lots of times people are not going just for vacation. Lots of times they are travelling out of the country for reasons to see their family or medical reasons or whatever. Travel insurance is pretty expensive at any time, but then to have to pay HST on travel insurance. It is beyond reason to ask people for HST on medical insurance.

Then, of course, look at the taxes on a funeral today. To get any kind of a funeral today you are looking at the bear minimum probably of about $6,000 to get a modest funeral. Now, if you have to pay 14 per cent on that, that is a lot of money. Of course, a lot of people pay it out in advance; go into preplanning and pay for their funeral. There must be something that we can do for our seniors without having to charge them on the last bill they will have to pay, which is a funeral. Certainly, goodness, for a Province that is now enjoying the luxury of a $261 million surplus, they can do something for our seniors and eliminate, or even start by reducing, and just leave the GST portion on the funeral expense. I mean there are lots of things that government can turn their attention to, to help out on taxes.

If you look at the fact - on the other hand, we are going to be receiving less money in sales and income tax unless we grow our population here in this Province. The biggest, single issue that is facing this government is how to sustain the economy we have today. They have been fortunate, sort of like a flash in the pan, they have inherited the revenues from offshore development. Right now, offshore development is at a standstill. There has been nothing happening new for the past two years. So that affects a lot of industries indirectly here in St. John's and all around our Province. Although government, right now at this moment, are flourishing with lots of money to spend, this government cannot look to the future. They cannot look down the road two years and how they are going to sustain what they are doing today. In their own economy book, they have forecasted what is going to happen in the next short term.

I spoke earlier, when I got up today, because government in their own economy book are predicting a downturn in paper exports from our Province. Now with the high Canadian dollar, as I speak, there is going to be a further decline in exports in paper from our Province. It is going to affect a lot of the manufacturing business in our Province.

There was a great show on this weekend that I never got a chance to see because I was in my district, but Manufactured Right Here had a show here in St. John's and they were able to showcase all the manufacturing that is being done currently in our Province, not all of it, but a great portion of it. It was interesting to see what initiatives people are taking on, but most of it cannot be consumed here in our Province. We do not have the ability to actually manufacture goods and sell them locally and sustain profit because we do not have the population base to do that. Most of the manufacturing that is done in our Province is exported outside our Province.

Government has a lot of control over what taxation form they charge corporations, what taxation they charge individuals, what income tax they charge to employees and so on.

When you look at the fact that we have a shrinking population in our Province, that presents a lot of difficulties to business, labour and government. A while ago there was a skills report done in this Province outlining that we have a massive shortage of skilled tradespeople. Anyone who is trained and ready to go, they have already been in the lineup on Kenmount Road or at the Glacier.

I do not know what kind of skill trades are going to be offered as jobs when the government has their job fair next week. It will be interesting to see that, and whether there will be the same lineup for government jobs as there was for private enterprise in the past, both on Kenmount Road and also at the Glacier.

When you look at the overall problems of running a government in this Province, there are a lot of things that are going to come to light in the next twenty-four months. Unless we do something about creating a new industry and attracting some of our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back home, we are not going to have the base here for any industry to start up here for us, for instance. If there is an industry that wants to start up here now in Newfoundland and Labrador, people who had trained in our Province and are now currently working outside, they have their roots in other provinces and around the world. For a lot of them, it will be difficult to come back. The longer that we are from creating huge industry in this Province, the longer we are from creating another offshore oil development, our skill trades are going to dry up. They are already dried up. That will not influence large corporations to come here and set up.

Even when you look at the on-line help phones and call centres around our Province, it is very difficult right now to find enough people to actually work in those establishments. It is difficult to find enough people to sit down to a telephone and do the on-line work that is required, because most of these people there are working for a little bit better than the minimum wage and, of course, sometimes it is a second job in a household. For a young person who is just starting out and looking for experience, sometimes they will take a job in a call centre but as soon as something better comes up they are gone. Those days of encouraging in call centres, like they did in New Brunswick around fifteen years ago, you know, that is going to come to a grinding halt pretty soon because we do not have, right now in our Province, enough young people who want to work in these call centres, and we do not have that second income situation where probably a spouse will want to go out and work part-time.

What is happening today is that, for people who have been without work and their place of employment has closed down or whatever, generally the bread winner in that family is looking west for employment. After a stint of coming back and forth to Newfoundland, they are now looking at taking their family with them. So, as a result, that second wage earner is not there any longer.

Within two years we are going to have some serious problems in our Province. Everything might look fairly rosy at this particular point in our history because it looks like, for once since 1949, we have money in our Province. Of course, when you have money you are able to spend it in all directions, but the problem that this government will face is how to sustain, how to sustain that level of government; because, how do you keep looking after infrastructure around our Province when you have communities that cannot pay their fair share?

I know of two communities within my district - and my district is urban and rural - I have a couple of communities that would not even consider applying for capital works to do upgrades to their streets and so on because they do not have the ability to pay their portion, because it is just not there.

That is indicative of communities, I would think, all around our Province, communities that cannot repair their roads, cannot repair their water and sewer, cannot maintain their schools because they do not have enough young people to stay in their schools and keep their schools open. So, while things are looking fairly rosy at this particular time, government are saying in their own predictions that they cannot sustain the economy as we know it today.

The challenge for this government - well, it is the right step today for government to reduce the HST by 1 per cent on second-hand vehicles, because it was not right to keep in that 1 per cent higher rate when the federal government had reduced their rate on GST. In addition to that, government now needs to turn their attention to what other taxes are a detriment to the growth of our economy in this Province. What other taxes are out there that government really does not need to collect? Would it make a difference by government being able to reduce those taxes, or eliminate them? Because you do not see tax on insurance anywhere else in Canada. We all know that tax on insurance is huge slice. All of us are paying probably $1,000 a year to put insurance on our vehicles, and 14 per cent tax on that is $140. All of us, if taxes were reduced or eliminated on vehicle insurance, can you imagine how much more disposable income would roll back into the economy? People would not put it in their bank account. Anyone with disposable income generally spends it. You do not see too many people who are saving it.

If you look at the benefits of having disposable income, and how many people would it employ directly, government would not be doing a bad thing by taking insurance taxes - or eliminating them all together.

This is a necessary thing that needed to be done. I would say, for the former Finance Minister, wherever he is today, Loyola Sullivan, the government has now made a move to eliminate that extra money on used car sales and I think it is a good thing.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now he will close debate on second reading of Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her contribution, her thoughtful contribution, as always, to the debate.

I have no idea where His Excellency is, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that His Excellency would begrudgingly give up the coppers - the 300,000 coppers - 300 x 100, what is that?

MS THISTLE: Three hundred thousand.

MR. RIDEOUT: There are 100 cents in a dollar. It is $300,000. Is that three million coppers?

No trouble to know, I will never make Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, he would have that answer just like that. I know that he will begrudgingly regret the fact that he is not here to allow those 300,000 coppers from going back to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that in a jocular fashion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20 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 Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

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. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 20)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Order 4, Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2." (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I am pleased to be able to introduce Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bunch of technical amendments, and I am sure my colleague, the critic for Finance and Treasury Board on the opposite side, understands this better than I do. What we are doing here is, we are seeking approval to amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, to address certain legislative housekeeping matters.

The Provincial Income Tax Act is administered, of course, by the federal government on behalf of the Province, and the proposed technical amendments that are embodied in this bill serve to clarify the intent of the legislation that was passed in a previous bill in various areas.

In 2005, Mr. Speaker, the government introduced an adoption tax credit of up to $10,000 of expenditure. A technical amendment is required regarding the ordering of credits to ensure that this credit is taken before unused education and tuition amounts. So, I mean, that can tell you how technical those amendments are. They are not policy in nature. They are substantively and technically changing the legislation to make sure that this particular adoption tax credit falls in a particular order and is taken before the education and the tuition amounts.

This preserves, Mr. Speaker, the ability to carry forward the unused education and tuition amounts. If you did not do that, as everybody knows, I think, who has or had children in university or in a post-secondary institution, you can carry forward certain of those credits, and if we did not make this amendment to allow the adoption tax credit to fit in here then you would not be able to carry forward those credits.

Mr. Speaker, a change to the federal income tax treatment of dividend income in 2006 would have resulted in a non-intended increase of provincial income tax on dividends in the absence of an amendment to the provincial act. The amendment that is contained in clause 2 of this particular bill ensures that taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador are not inadvertently taxed at a higher level because of federal changes. Again, it is a technical amendment making the Act in sync as a result of changes made at the federal level.

In 2006, Mr. Speaker, new federal Universal Child Care Benefits, referred to as UCCB, were introduced. The Universal Child Care Benefit is taxable and without intervention would operate to reduce the provincial low income tax reduction. Obviously it wouldn't be to the advantage of those negatively affected to allow that to happen, so this measure ensures that the value of the low income tax reduction, Mr. Speaker, is preserved.

There is a change, as well, to re-order provincial tax credits so that they appear in the same order as the federal tax credits on which they are based, which is necessitated by the higher degree of interrelationship between federal and provincial income tax systems.

Mr. Speaker, an amendment is made to the Scientific Research and Development Tax Credit to give legislative effect to a technical administrative policy respecting the treatment of government assistance and contract payments on expenditures made in relation to research and development activities. The amendment will ensure that corporations cannot claim multiple credits for the same expenditure. I think it is rather simple. In others words, it is not required. You can only claim the credit once, you cannot claim it a second or more times.

There are technical changes to the foreign tax credit as well, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the intent of the legislation and achieve greater consistency with the equivalent federal provision.

There is also a housekeeping change to correct a legislative error in a section relating to competent authority, essentially a section which authorizes the Province to permit the Minister of National Revenue to negotiate settlement agreements where a person or corporation is subject to double taxation in the Province and in another province or territory. The wording of the Statute has to be modified to make that authority clear.

Mr. Speaker, none of the changes I have referred to here will have material financial impacts because the legislative amendments being proposed generally involve legislative clarifications to existing policies. Those things are being done anyway, the policies are in place anyway, but the legislative changes to give legal effect to them is what this particular piece of legislation is about.

The amendments will improve efficiency in the Province's tax system, saving administrative costs to government and making the system more responsive in the circumstances for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am pleased, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to move second reading of Bill 10, amendments to the Income Tax Act, 2000.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I start, I want to say congratulations to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who is in the Speaker's Chair for the very first time today. Congratulations, and I will not give you too hard of a time. How is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MS THISTLE: I said congratulations to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who is in the Speaker's Chair for the very first time today. Of course, being in the Speaker's Chair for the first time is not like trying to control Question Period, which is pretty dicey some days. It is hectic, I am sure, but I am sure you will enjoy this one. You can sit back and relax.

I, too, am glad to respond to Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2. Every year after the Budget there are always amendments and changes to the Income Tax Act. Sometimes this can happen as much as three or four times a year. It depends what has come down, generally, from the federal government. All provinces across Canada will have to adjust their legislation currently on the books to reflect the changes made by the federal government. Of course, if any province in Canada wants to change their particular policy regarding income tax they have to give the federal government adequate notice to make those changes.

There is a new measure in place now where you can never get away with owing money to either a provincial government or a federal government. There is always a way to get you. No matter where you go, you cannot escape federal or provincial tax collectors. If somebody owes money, the federal government always has the opportunity to hold back on an income tax refund, that is going to be the last thing. I think a lot of people were disappointed and surprised last year when the federal government gave notice that they were holding back income tax refunds because individuals in our Province had not paid their school tax. So, there is always that last measure the federal government has to hold back on any kind of monies that would be due a taxpayer in the form of a child tax benefit or an income tax refund, or whatever. If you owe money, the federal government can always get you if there is revenue to go back to you from the federal government.

Of course, in our Province we have a way to collect right to the last minute as well. That is, if a person wants to actually renew their drivers licence, they cannot renew a drivers licence if they owe money to our provincial government without reaching a settlement. Of course, that is a reciprocal agreement that is in place, particularly when it comes to alimony and child care for those running away from their commitments to families. There is a reciprocal agreement in place where you can run but you cannot hide. There is always a way for those who do not pay their taxes to actually be brought to task and have to pay them.

There are a lot of changes happening this year through the federal government's budget that they brought down on March 19. One of the things that taxpayers are going to see this year, for the first time, is income splitting. There is going to be an opportunity for spouses and their partners to look at their income and see what their best advantage would be for paying income tax through the measure of income splitting. That is going to be a new feature that we are going to see in our income tax returns in the spring of 2008.

Also, this provincial government and our federal government just do not come up with these ideas on their own to help taxpayers across the country. The federal government, in particular, have different groups that advocate to government on how to improve the life of residents of our country. One of the ones that is out front all the time is the Canadian association of seniors. They represent public servants right across the country. They are really in the know on what effect different levels of taxation are having on our seniors right across the country. You also see another group called the Canadian Snowbird Association. There are probably upwards to 500,000 people who are non-resident from Canada for four to six months of the year. So, naturally, that group is pretty vocal.

I heard recently that the Canadian Snowbird Association will be holding a conference in our Province this fall. So you are going to hear about things that they are going to bring to this Province's attention. They have representatives from all over Canada who see issues in their own provinces, and collectively, they and other groups for seniors all across this country give to the federal government ideas and issues to improve the lives of residents of our country.

One of the ones that was brought down in the federal government budget this past March was increasing the age of having to take out an RSP and turn it into a RRIF from sixty-nine years to seventy-one years. On the heels of legislation across the country, and even in our Province, as of May 26, on Saturday past, people are now able to work beyond sixty-five years. So, that will affect those contributing to RSPs. The federal government has made a change that those contributing to RSPs can now contribute until age seventy-one. They have until seventy-one before they can start to withdraw them in the form of a RRIF, an annual payment that will be part of their retirement. When you look at the changes that we are looking at here today, that did not happen because somebody wanted it to change, provincial or federal government, it happened because a lot of people lobbied for those changes.

It is interesting, too, that clause 5 of the bill is going to reflect the situation of those who adopt. Section 5 of the bill would amend, "...by adding a reference to the adoption tax credit to ensure that the adoption tax credit will not be prorated on the basis of income earned in the province with the result that residents of the province will continue to receive the entire amount of the adoption tax credit." I do not know if that is in effect or not yet for Quebec, but the Quebec government always had a plan, an incentive, to give those people who wanted to have children a lump sum of money for every new child born in the Province. We are getting to that stage ourselves in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are going to have to look at some way to encourage people to have children here in our Province, whether it be in the form of immigrants coming here - the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, about a month ago launched a new package of information and a plan to entice immigrants here to this Province. I would say to the minister, in adopting that policy of bringing immigrants to this Province, I would encourage him to look at the age levels of the immigrants. That is not from a discriminatory point of view, because we need to grow the population of our Province. If we are looking at an immigrant package with no age barrier, no limitations, we might be attracting people who are in their senior years, who have a pocketful of money and they are ready to start a business, but we also have to look at the age group of child-bearing immigrants who will be having children in our Province and adding to our school population and our overall economy. That is the section, that is the part of this, that I wondered about when I was thinking about the immigration policy.

Another part of it is giving the federal minister the authority to be able to "...negotiate and accept a settlement to relieve the effect of multiple taxation and, for the purposes of this section, multiple taxation occurs where..." - well, a lot of people are moving. They are transient people today, and they are moving from province to province. We have a situation right here now where we have people who are working in Alberta and they are paying no tax in Alberta but they are paying income tax in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are paying property tax here, and they are under our medicare plan and so on. So, when you look at the fact that the federal minister has the last piece of responsibility, that person can always settle whether there is a disagreement from province to province regarding the payment of income tax of a particular resident.

I always think that a lot of the legislation you see on the books today gives the minister too much power. No matter what legislation is brought to this House, it always seems that the minister has the final say if there is an issue at hand. I do not know why. I do not know if this was the British system or what it was, but it always gives the minister the final say. I do believe that should be taken out of the hands of the minister and it should be done through a regular committee, a tribunal or whatever, rather than the minister having the final say.

All of the clauses in this particular bill, Bill 10, pertain to the changes that were made by the Government of Canada and, as a result of that, this Province and every other province in the country will have to make amendments to their particular legislation to coincide and be invisible with what the federal government has done. Many of the changes you are seeing today, amendments will be continued on; because, for sure, in legislation, there will always be errors. Even when amendments are made in this House of Assembly, from time to time when policy actually gets written into regulations, errors occur, and I would not be the least bit surprised that when the House opens in the fall there will be amendments to what we are passing today. That is pretty routine business.

As the Government House Leader just said, this is basically a housekeeping bill. It will have effects on all taxpayers, pretty much, throughout the country, but we are obliged to make those changes as part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, I agree with the changes that are outlined in Bill 10 and now I will take my seat.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her remarks on Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act.

As I indicated, and she has indicated in her remarks as well, these are, for all intents and purposes, technical amendments to bring the Income Tax Act in line with income tax changes made either at the federal level or here at the provincial level since the Legislature last met.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

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'.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

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. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move second reading of - which is Order 7 on today's Order Paper - An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities." (Bill 12)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities.

The Uniform Securities Transfer Act is a harmonized act to be implemented in all Canadian jurisdictions to provide for uniform laws for the transfer of all securities and to facilitate electronic transfer of securities.

The Act provides for the electronic transfer of securities which has actually been taking place for many years. Legislation is now catching up with the current industry practice. The consequential amendments to the Personal Property Security Act, the Corporations Act, The Credit Union Act, and the Judgement Enforcement Act are purely technical in nature with no policy implications and no impact on the effectiveness of these acts.

Although this is not directly linked to the implementation of the passport system, I think it is worthwhile to mention what we are doing with it since there is a lot of work underway dealing with the security regulations in Canada. All provinces and territories, except Ontario, have signed on to the passport system. Under the passport system market participants will only have to deal with one principal regulator and comply with the laws of that regulator. Right now, market participants have to deal with thirteen regulators and thirteen sets of laws, and at the same time jurisdictions are harmonizing their laws as much as possible which is part of what these amendments will accomplish. There will be further harmonization amendments required in the next few years.

When fully implemented the passport system will provide for a much improved system of security regulations in Canada with enhanced investor protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will be very brief in speaking to this bill at second reading. We will be, of course, voting for the bill.

From time to time, of course, as technologies change, particularly in Canada where you have so many different provinces and territories, one needs to have some uniformity in the legislation. Anything, of course, that advances that we would certainly be in favour of. This Province shouldn't be behind the door any more than any other province. We certainly will be supportive of this piece of legislation.

I have nothing further to add at this point.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, just to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to, of course, support this bill as well.

One of the areas where I think we do owe the people in the country a sense of safety and security is in the area of how their money and how their assets are moved around. I think it is extremely important that we have good legislation in place in this country. Certainly, having harmonized legislation is absolutely essential.

I have nothing else to add, but I am glad we have taken the step to make sure that we are in sync with the rest of the country.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their participation in this bill and I also want to say that this provides consistent rules across the country.

I now move second reading of this bill.

Thank you.

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 Respecting The Transfer of Securities. (Bill 12)

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. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer of Securities," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call second reading of Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 19)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this particular act is to do a number of things. There are a number of amendments within the particular act and we do not believe that these amendments would be controversial. The amendments simply address housekeeping issues and incorporate the best practices from other Canadian jurisdictions. In general, Mr. Speaker, these amendments would enhance the legal processes already in place to address public complaints against officers, remove existing impediments in the legislation which preclude a timely resolution to matters that come before the complaints commission. As well, not involve any significant financial considerations for the Province.

Under the Explanatory Notes of the act, Mr. Speaker, the policies or procedures of the constabulary governing the manner in which a police officer discharges his or her duties would be the subject of a public complaint. It would clarify who may file a public complaint. Essentially, any member of the general public, not including an officer or an employee of the RNC, unless the complaint involved was not involving the duties of their job but an issue outside of their direct employment. It would extend the limitation period for filing a public complaint from three to six months.

As well, the commissioner may decline to investigate or to act on a complaint if the matter of the complaint is outside the scope of section 22 of the act. It would also allow the chief or duty chief, where it is in the public interest, to direct a complaint directly to the commissioner without initial investigation. It would also clarify actions which may be taken by the chief following consideration of a public complaint. As well, when a commissioner following an investigation of a complaint, may decline to act further on the complaint if it is determined that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious.

Consistency of language, as well, within the act is going to be cleaned up to ensure that there is consistency regarding costs ordered by an adjudicator. Also, amendments to provide that minor or technical procedures, or errors, may not be appealed to the trail division within the act, as well.

I welcome input by members of the Opposition and the NDP on this particular piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992.

Again, as time moves on, of course, new circumstances become known. You encounter different situations that require amendments from time to time for the legislation that you have. This is one such case where we have had public complaints involving the RNC and the RCMP in this Province for many, many years. It is when you run into a particular circumstance that you realize the rules and regulations you have did not fit that particular situation. So you come back here to the House, of course, to try to amend that particular body of law and legislation to take into consideration this new circumstance you have. I guess we call it housecleaning, in a lot of cases.

A couple of questions - this is only second reading at this point, which is, shall we say, the general discussion of the principles of the particular bill and we get into the details later as we go through in Committee stage. I will have a couple of questions and comments for the minister. I am wondering if he might give me his feedback when we get to that stage. One would be the issue of extending the limitation period of a public complaint from three months to six months. I am wondering where that came from and who had input into that because I certainly agree that three months is too short. Quite often you have a situation where - and we have to appreciate here what is happening. A public complaint, what we are having here is somebody in the public is complaining against the actions or activities of a police officer. A lot of times, three months is a pretty short period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Sure, when I finish, not a problem, or whenever you wish.

What happens, a lot of times it is a traumatic situation, particularly when they are serious. If somebody wants to make a public complaint, they often have to think about it. Sometimes they go seek legal counsel. There might have even been injuries involved and they are not in a position to come back and make their complaint. So, I certainly agree that three months is too short. The question is whether six months is time enough.

To my knowledge, in the Province right now we have limitation periods associated with a lot of activities and a lot of offences. I am only aware of one other limitation period in the Province that is six months. That is in the case of, I understand, where there has been a death, a fatality and someone wants to sue on behalf of an estate. That is limited to six months that the estate has to take action. That one has caused numerous problems for the people in this Province, simply because it has been too short. It has been put forward that it should be even more than six months. There is an upside and a downside to this, I guess. People say: Well, if you put it out to twelve months, which is a pretty standard period, it is going to be an old file; people will have forgotten about it; people's memories have faded and so on. They say that is a downside to do it that way, to have it so long, but you cannot overlook the fact either that it takes time. It takes time for people to get their heads together.

Sometimes, because you put a limitation period on it, you actually entice people to make a complaint where they might not normally. If you limit it to six months, someone might say: Well, I got to file my complaint now because I only got six months. Whereas if you had your limitation period of twelve months, someone sits back - and after eight or nine months they have had time to reflect upon it - and says: Well, now that I have thought about it, I do not want to file a complaint. There is no downside into giving that twelve-month period. To me, it is all upsides. You look after the public interest, which this is all about. You do not negative any actions by the police. The files are the files. All you have done by putting a limitation period on it is restrict the public's period of time. I always thought three months was too little. We never got around to changing it. I believe six months is probably too little as well. Again, it is over a course of time. If you try six months, I guess, and you find that we are still getting complaints, come back and houseclean again, but I would predict that is going to be one of the issues that we are going to have.

This is very important by the way, because there is a process. When somebody feels that they have been wronged by the RNC, whether it is in how an officer did his or her duty or whether it is some policy that the police had and that they applied against someone in the public, it is nice to know that no one is above the law, even police officers; albeit there have been circumstances, of course. That is why we ended up with this complaints committee, because there have been circumstances where certain police officers felt they were above the law. They felt that just because they enforced the law, that they were the law. There is a big difference between enforcing the law and taking the law into your own hands. Even police officers sometimes overstep the bounds of what they are allowed to do. That is why, like many things in our democratic society, we have public complaints commissions in place, so that the public are protected from any inappropriate actions by police forces. This is a very necessary law to start with, and it is very necessary that we keep it up to date.

Some concern here as well: I just noticed, in looking at clause 4 in the bill - and maybe the minister can get to that as well - it is clause 4 of the bill but it is amending clause 25 of the Act. It adds the following section. It says: Where the complaint is a complaint as to the policies or procedures of the Constabulary, the Chief, or the Deputy Chief as directed by the Chief, may take whatever action is considered appropriate if any. I am just wondering how this amendment fits into the overall scheme here again. Someone makes a complaint - will this amendment be giving the Chief carte blanche in the first instance to decide whether something is or is not necessary to be done? If that is the case - I suspect it is not - but if that is the case, we seem to have preempted the whole system of public complaints, where someone outside a commissioner gets to decide.

Are we, by inserting this here, allowing the Chief or the Deputy Chief to have the first crack at this and decide whether there have been any improprieties. If it is, we sort of circumvent the whole system by putting this in. The system was to allow ultimately a public's complaint to get to a commissioner. I can see if a commissioner decides that it is frivolous or a commissioner decides there is not sufficient evidence, that he can dismiss it summarily or whatever. I can see that. I hope that this amendment here to section 25 is not going to give the Chief and the Deputy Chief the first decisions, and they can say, you know, we have no problem with the actions here, and dismiss it. That would be totally contrary to what the intention of the Act is in the first place when it comes to public complaints.

I have no problem with the house cleaning, it is necessary, but just those couple of questions. I am sure, for example, associations like the John Howard Society, people like the Human Rights Commission, I would think they ought to have had some input into what they feel is a legitimate and proper and appropriate limitation period - or did this just pop out of the air, or where it came from. I look forward to the minister's explanations in due course.

We will be speaking in favour, in voting for the bill, of course, but we would like to have those explanations before we do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Just a couple of points. Obviously, speaking in favour of this bill, I think it is extremely important that we have good legislation in place when it comes to the relationship between the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the community. Anybody who is an officer with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is in a position of authority in the community, and that position of authority carries major responsibilities.

Anybody who is in a position of authority always has to be aware of the dangers that are there in the exercise of authority, in particular when it comes to the policing of a community, because the issues that the police are dealing with are very serious issues. People do look up to police. There are some people who do not, but a lot of people look up to police and they feel intimidated by the authority that police hold, and can feel intimidated by the authority that police hold.

I think it is extremely important that we have good legislation in place that protects the community from any officer who might step over the bounds of his or her authority. Everybody is human, and we all can make mistakes, and that includes police officers.

I, too, would ask the minister, and we can talk more about it in Committee, to look at the issue that was raised by my colleague, the Opposition Leader for the House, and that has to do with the change from the three months to six months of the limitation period. I, too, questioned that when I read it, and wondered: Why only six months?

I am thinking now out of the context of working in the anti-violence movement, or knowing a lot of the principles in the anti-violence movement, and I know that somebody who has been wronged by somebody in authority, no matter what it is, whether it is of a sexual nature or another nature, it does not matter; the intimidation by the person in authority can hold a person back from bringing the conduct out to somebody else to have it dealt with, especially if it is a small community, or a smaller community, and the person in authority is still working in the community and interacting with people in the community. Somebody can fear reporting what has happened and, depending upon the traumatic nature of what the person has to report, and depending on how often they have to interact with the person they have to report on, it could take them time before being able to bring forward their complaint.

I think we need to talk a little bit more about that length in time. I understand that some jurisdictions have six months only. I am wondering if there are jurisdictions who have up to a year, and I would like for us to get more information on that. I will certainly try to get more information on it so that, when we speak in Committee, we can find that out. I just think, knowing what I do know from other experiences, that six months is not a long time if the experience has been traumatic and if the person fears the ongoing relationship with the person that he or she has to report.

There was one other point, Minister, that I wanted to question also in terms of getting, I guess, a clearer understanding, and that is section 22.1 where it talks about the commissioner, and the commissioner making the decision about whether a public complaint is frivolous or vexatious, and this ties in with this six month thing as well.

I am wondering, and maybe it is in here - I have read this quickly, so maybe it is in here and I have not picked up on it - it is quite possible that the commissioner might make this judgement but that the person on whom the judgement is being made does not feel it is correct, so who does that person go to? Is there another level that they can go to?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MS MICHAEL: There is? Okay. I just needed clarification on that, because we cannot possibly leave this in the hand just of the commissioner. I know of situations where people have made complaints and you get one person maybe judging it frivolous or vexatious for all kinds of biased reasons when, in actual fact, the complaint is a valid complaint. We always have to make sure that protection is there for the person who is complaining.

With those two things, I really do think we need to talk about the six months, and knowing that the person has another level to go to and will have protection, with those two things being discussed a bit further so I am absolutely clear, I will be happy to support this piece of legislation and I look forward to the further discussion in Committee.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

To the points raised by the Opposition and the NDP, if the commissioner does make a ruling as to whether a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, and the complainant does not agree with that particular ruling, they can appeal it further so that the commissioner does not have the final word. They have the final word in that process, but that decision is able to be appealed further. To the questions raised by the Opposition House Leader, we are moving from three months to six months, which is consistent with other jurisdictions in the country. Many of the other jurisdictions do have a six month period and, as you quite correctly stated, if after some time it is determined that we are getting complaints still, that a six-month period to file a complaint is not enough, we can always come back and do further housecleaning within the House. There are some pros and cons to having a twelve month period, just as there are to having a three month period. Having a six month period to file a complaint is consistent with other jurisdictions, and it does seem to be working in other jurisdictions as well.

The section that was raised as well by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, 4.Subsection 25.(1), "...where the complaint is a complaint as to the policies or procedures of the constabulary, the chief or the deputy chief as directed by the chief, may take whatever action is considered appropriate...", that would simply allow the chief or the deputy chief, where they believe it is in the public interest, they could either investigate it prior to sending it to the commissioner or, where they felt it was in the public interest to do so, they could send it directly to the public commissioner without being handcuffed, pardon the pun, to carrying out an investigation first.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 19)

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. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations." (Bill 17)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill 17, the Trust And Loan Corporations Licensing Act amendments. These amendments are a part of government's Red Tape Reduction Initiative which looks at ways to eliminate the duplication of regulations. Deposit-taking trust and loan companies currently are required to have a provincial licence and to be insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which means they also need a federal licence. This is a duplication of licensing.

They also have to register with our Registry of Companies. Deposit-taking trust and loan companies will now only have to register with out Registry of Companies and be federally regulated with the CDIC insurance. Consumers' deposits will be protected by the CDIC insurance, the same as they are now, therefore there will be no impact on consumer protection. Regulation of these companies will continue to be done by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the federal, as is the case now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our comments, again, will be very brief. We have had an opportunity to read Bill 17. We have no difficulty and will be supportive of this legislation.

Over time, of course, you run into a lot of duplication. Provinces makes laws, the federal government make laws, and you find out, after a while, that you have duplication and you do not need them. So, anything to make business easier.

The minister referred to the Red Tape Initiative. Anything that makes it easier for business to do business without excessive cost and bureaucracy, we are certainly in favour of and we will be voting in favour of this.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his participation, and I now move second reading of this bill.

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 Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17).

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. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like now to move to Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, be read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill 18.

This amendment essentially eliminates the requirement for individual security guards to be licensed. Government has made a concrete effort to reduce the red tape through the Red Tape Reduction Initiative. These amendments are very much in that spirit, in that licensing individual security guards, as well as the companies they work for, is unnecessary red tape and an unnecessary cost to these individuals.

The security guard companies that we license will be responsible for the activities of the individuals they hire. The department will do periodic compliance examinations on these companies to ensure the individuals they hire meet all the requirements. There will be no loss of public protection. Our resources will be better spent on doing compliance checks on security guard companies rather than processing papers of individuals entering and leaving the security guard industry. Security guards often receive low wages and the $30 per year licensing fee is an unnecessary expense for them.

The department made similar amendments in the past to the Direct Sellers Act, the Collections Act and the Automobile Dealers Act, whereby we discontinued licensing individuals and only licensed the companies. This has proven to be successful. The industry has been consulted and supports the change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): Further speakers on Bill 18.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have had an opportunity to look at bill 18; again, housecleaning legislation. Some change is required, of course, as time goes on. We will be voting in favour of bill 18 which deals with the Private Investigation And Security Services Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services. If she speaks now she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his participation. Again, this is something that I think the security companies will certainly welcome.

On that note, I move second reading of this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, 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.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 18)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills, specifically Bill 10, Bill 12, Bill 19, Bill 13, Bill 17 and Bill 18.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Committee on Bill 13, which is Order 10, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 13)

CLERK (MacKenzie): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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 Student Financial Assistance 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 13, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 13 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee on Order 13, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

CHAIR: Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill 20)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 Retail Sales Tax 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 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 20 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee on Order 4, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

CHAIR: Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2." (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 9 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 9 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 Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

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 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 10 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee consideration of Order 7, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

CHAIR: Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities." (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 112 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 112 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 112 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through112 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 Respecting The Transfer Of Securities.

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 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 12 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Committee on Order 11, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

CHAIR: Bill 17, An Act Respecting Trust and Loan Corporations.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations." (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 7 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 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 Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations.

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 17, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, carried without amendment?

All those in favour,‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 17 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 12, Committee on, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

CHAIR: Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act." ( Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 10 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 10 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 10 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 Private Investigation And Security Services 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 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 18 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 13, Bill 20, Bill 10, Bill 12, Bill 17 and Bill 18 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 13, Bill 20, Bill10, Bill 12, Bill 17 and Bill 18 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

The Chair acknowledges that leave has been granted.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 13 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 To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance 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 Student Financial Assistance Act, " read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Third reading of Order 13, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 20 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 To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax 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 Retail Sales Tax Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Third reading, order 4, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 10 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 Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, 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 Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, " read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Third reading, order 7, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 12 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 Respecting The Transfer Of Securities. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12, An Act Respecting The Transfer Of Securities, 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 Respecting The Transfer Of Securities," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order paper. (Bill 12)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, be now read a third time?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 17 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 Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations, has now been read a third time and it ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 12, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 18 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 Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the Bill do pass and its title be as on Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 3. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 6)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. Edward Roberts dated 26 April, 2007, reads as follows:

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2007, by the way of supplementary supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: __________________________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor, ONL, Q.C.

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

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

I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to the Committee on Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this message, together with the amount, be referred to the Committee of Supply and I do now leave the Chair.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 6, 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 ready to hear debate on Bill 6 and the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

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

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

Bill 6, the title to which the Chair just read, seeks Supplementary Supply for the fiscal year 2006-2007, which ended on March 31, 2007. The amount is $2,368,500.

The bill makes reference in the Schedule at the back of the bill, the Heads of Expenditure, for the Legislature, $338,500 and for the Department of Justice, $2,030,000. These expenditures are with respect to expenditures that had to be incurred before the year end, March 31, 2007.

Special Warrants had to be issued, Mr. Chair. There were two warrants after the approval of the warrants by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. When the House of Assembly met again these warrants were tabled by me in the House on May 10, 2007. The Special Warrants were tabled in the House by me on May 10, 2007 pertained to these. The first one, $338,500 was a Special Warrant that had to be issued because the House of Assembly did not have the funding to meet its requirements. So, the Special Warrant was issued and it was tabled here in this House. This money provided $49,000 for a by-election in the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: It provided $82,800 for a by-election in the District of Port au Port; $80,000 for a by-election in the District of Humber Valley, and there was $93,000 for a by-election in the District of Labrador West. Also, there was $33,700 for pre-enumeration work. However, the need for this funding had not been anticipated back at the time that the main supply bill was presented and passed in this House for the year 2006-2007.

As the House was not in session at the time the funds had to be spent, a Special Warrant was urgently required. It has been the practice to table these special warrants in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, and then when the House gets back in session, after the warrants have been tabled, to seek formal ratification -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - with the House of Assembly approving what is known as supplementary supply bills. This is one here today.

Also, there was $2,030,000 from the Department of Justice. This was issued on February 5, 2007 to provide additional funds to conclude a matter of compensation. I would defer to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, if there any questions relating to this matter.

With that, I will conclude my opening comments, Mr. Chair, on the specific supplementary supply bill that gives legislative authority to the Special Warrants that were tabled here in the House on May 10, 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where this is a money bill, for those who are watching on television, whenever there is a money bill addressed in the House of Assembly you can speak on any topic that you so desire, and as a result I take this opportunity to address a problem that they are encountering in the island community of Ramea on the South Coast.

As you all know, Ramea has had a fish plant and a fish processing facility in that town, I guess, certainly longer than any of us can remember. That was the reason that Ramea came about because of the fishery and the processing sector in Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, when we were in government we always had a special policy for island communities in our Province as well as for the Coast of Labrador. This changed in 2003 when they elected the Tory government. These special circumstances were sort of omitted and as a result, because Ramea was not operating the plant at the time, they cancelled its groundfish licence. One of the reasons why the licence was rescinded was that FPI used to own that fish processing facility. When FPI pulled out of there in the 1990s during the moratorium, the plant fell into a state of disrepair, and as a result a portion of it fell into the harbour. Luckily enough, it was not the portion that contained the freezing. We would have had an environmental disaster down there because we would have had Freon lose into the waters in the surrounding areas.

Because the plant was in a state of disrepair and nobody was willing to go in there at the time, the Province, this government, cancelled the groundfish licence that was attached to that plant, even though while we were in power we still left that licence there. In fact, we gave them a crab license and that remained there for quite some time, and I think this government also cancelled that crab processing license.

Mr. Chair, what happened in recent years is that there was a committee formed in the Town of Ramea and they set up what is called the Ramea Co-op. It was headed up, I think, by one Mr. Reg MacDonald, who worked for FPI as a trawler man, I think, at one period of time. This committee took it upon themselves to refurbish the fish plant. I had the opportunity last summer to go there and visit that facility and they have a beautiful plant made out of what was a derelict facility that was left behind by FPI. They have put a lot of time and effort and money, I say, Mr. Chair, into refurbishing and renovating that fish plant with the hope that this government would give them back their groundfish license. It was learned just recently that the government, through their new licensing board, the one they said was supposed to be independent and arm's-length from government when they established it under the previous minister, the member who is now the Minister of Industry and Trade - it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the government has decided to do that, because they put a lot of time, effort and money into refurbishing this plant, and now they can't do groundfish.

If you want to think about it, if you look at the location of Ramea on the map and consider how far that is and that there is a couple of million pounds of groundfish that is landed in Ramea every year from fishermen and fisherwomen who live in the Town of Ramea - what the government is saying right now is that they cannot sell their fish to their own co-op, that they have to take that fish and have it taken, first of all, on a ferry from Ramea to Burgeo and then trucked up the Burgeo highway to other processing facilities in the Province. Mr. Chair, I don't see how anybody can justify that happening, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, is that they have said to the Town of Ramea, forget ever getting a job in that fish plant again, when it comes to groundfish and crab and any other species, I suppose. I think that is a sad scenario, because they have written off Ramea. Basically they are telling the people down there to move out. After they have spent their money and put the effort into refurbishing the plant, they are saying, no, you are not getting the groundfish license. That is one reason they should rethink this decision, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

Another is that we have all talked about quality of product here in the Province and how we want to keep the quality of our fish products high so that we will get better prices on the world market for that. Just think about what is going to happen now. When the fish harvesters in Ramea bring their bit of fish ashore - and there are no large quantities that are coming ashore at any given time - they are going to have to put that into a vat now, throw a bit of ice on it and it is probably going to stand on the wharf for a day or so. Then they are going to put that aboard a truck, take it aboard a ferry, take it over to Burgeo and they are going to then haul that up the Burgeo highway and go as far as Hermitage, I think. Some of it will go to Hermitage. So, they will have to travel across the Island, go down the Connaigre Peninsula, all the way down to Hermitage. You can imagine the quality of fish that is going to be left by the time that poor fish - by the time it comes out of the water off the coast in Ramea and is trucked up the Burgeo highway, across the Province and down the Connaigre Peninsula to another fish processing facility. We are not talking about a lot of cod, Mr. Chairman.

What the people of Ramea would like for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to do is reconsider that decision because he has the power and the authority to overrule the licensing board and issue that licence. They are calling upon him to do that. I know that the Minister of Fisheries is going to get up in a few minutes, or later on today or tomorrow, and make the argument of why I am asking for that licence. It has nothing to do with the proponent, the individual who is looking to go in and open that fish plant, if indeed the licence is granted, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I mean that in all sincerity. I think that the people of Ramea have, and they need an opportunity to be able to stay where they are and to be able to process fish in a facility that they own personally, the community, the members in the community own, the ones who have put their time, their effort and their money into refurbishing that plant.

It is also my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the licensing committee, this so-called - and I said when they established it that it would not be independent and arm's-length of government because the minister always had the opportunity and the right to overrule the licensing board in whatever decision that they made.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding - it appeared anyway - that the licensing board were going to rule in favour of granting that groundfish licence to Ramea; the licence that this government took from them, which they had for, I suppose, 100 years. As long there are licences on the books, Ramea has had a groundfish licence. I do not know when the first one was put on the books but this government certainly saw fit to take it off. It is my understanding that in the original - when the licensing board looked at this originally, they were really and truly considering issuing that licence but they had to go back and talk to the minister. It is my understanding that he set parameters in such a way that this board could not issue the licence. As a result, today they do not have a licence. What I am doing is asking the minister to revert to the policy that we had when we were in government - and he probably had, too, I say to those opposite, when he was Minister of Fisheries in the late 1980s - because if we are not going to look after our Island communities and our extremely isolated communities in this Province, I do not know who is.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk at length. I would just like to ask the minister if he would reconsider and issue a groundfish licence to a community that desperately needs that groundfish licence? It is my understanding that all they are going to do is some salted cod. Now, that cod as it comes out of the boat and is shipped halfway around the Province is going to be of no quality and of no benefit to anybody by the time it reaches its final destination. Whereas at least if these individuals who live in the town of Ramea can process their own fish into salt cod, they will benefit more because the processor will be able to pay more for the cod because it will be of a higher quality and these individuals will be left with a bit of work in the community.

So, I ask the minister if he would, please, reconsider his decision to disallow that groundfish licence in going back into Ramea? Do the right thing and issue the licence. Allow these fishermen to catch their own cod and process it in the facility that most of them own, because it is a co-op now, so that they can employ a few people in that town and have some hope for the future, if nothing else, and let them operate.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and somebody else can have an opportunity to speak on whatever topic they so desire.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I, too, have an issue that I would like speak on. As Leader of my party, and being the only person in the House, I naturally get calls on issues that are far beyond my own constituency. I have been receiving calls in my office with regard to the plight of fishing people who are being affected by the ice. My recent call was from White Bay. As we know, with the rules in the federal government, these people are not eligible for E.I.

I know questions have been asked in the House and some answers have been given and some have not been given when the Opposition Party has asked about this, but I feel compelled today to add to what the Official Opposition Party has been saying because of the fact I am getting phone calls. People are really in dire straights. People in White Bay and on the Northeast Coast who are being affected by the ice are really in dire straights because they cannot fish and because they cannot receive E.I. It seems to me that the time has come for the provincial government to look at being able to give emergency assistance to the people who are in this situation. It may not be everybody, and I can understand it if the provincial government does not want to make a blanket statement about it, but I think each case is going to have to be considered. I do not know how we can justify people who cannot fish. It is absolutely impossible for them to do their work and they are being punished because of it.

I think there are probably two things that the government could do. One is, and maybe it is happening but I do not have any sense that it is, the government could be talking to the federal government about its rule, and if the federal government is not ready to budge then I think our provincial government does have a responsibility to these people. You know, they cannot help the fact that their industry and their workplace is affected by the elements. That is the reality of the work that they are doing and I think there has to be emergency assistance. Some of them are in desperate straits. In some cases the people that they owe money to are coming to them demanding money that they do not have. They are trying to pay mortgages without any income coming in. I know they are making complaints. They are talking about it publicly. As I said, questions have been asked by my colleagues here in the House and there does not seem to be anybody budging on it. I do not know how we cannot do that.

We know what it is to be in situations where regulations have to change, rules have to be moved. The very fact that we are here having the discussion we are having today is acknowledging that there always have to be exceptions. Here in this House we have to recognize that we cannot live by budgets sometimes. There has to be an exception and we approve more money so that something can be dealt with. Well, these families are in a situation where they are desperate, where we have to bend rules for them. The rule we have to bend here is they cannot wait sixty days to get social assistance. They need that money now. It is not a normal circumstance, and because it is not a normal circumstance I think that we do have to consider bending the rule and looking at emergency assistance for people who are being affected by the ice.

I would like to bring up another issue which is related to it. It is the effect of the federal government rule on people who live on the North Coast of Labrador. Again, I have been spoken to about this and I am happy to bring it to the floor on behalf of people who live on the north coast. The federal government rule around E.I. makes absolutely no sense to people who live in Nain, for example, where the water they fish in is frozen sometimes until late May. It is not frozen because ice moves in or ice moves out and that is the reason they cannot fish. They cannot fish because the water where they fish is frozen solid, because that is the nature of the north coast.

So, in talking to my colleagues across the way with regard to the needs of people in the Northeast right now, of the Island, I would ask you to consider making representation to the federal government about the absolute insufficiency of the regulation that they have with regard to EI right now as it is affecting our people. We cannot have the same rule for all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. How the fishery affects people up in the Northeast Coast is different than how it affects people in other parts of the Island. It is different from how it affects people up in the North Coast of Labrador.

So, I guess I am sort of begging the government, on behalf of people who are calling me, to please look at emergency assistance for the people who are not able to receive EI at the moment and who cannot get out fishing.

I do not now how we can sit here and talk about all of the things we talk about and not seriously look at their need to have money in their hands right now to take care of their families, and I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will make a couple of brief remarks on Bill 6, the Supplementary Supply bill.

As was indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, this bill is to give effect to some additional spending that the government saw fit to embark on after the last Budget. There were two instances where the government saw fit to issue special warrants and, of course, under the Financial Administration Act, those warrants have to be tabled in the House within a certain period of time and then a bill brought in to give effect to the spending.

Those two warrants had to do with a by-election, because there was no enough money in the vote to cover it. The other had to do with a settlement with a citizen who had an outstanding court case or suit against the Province. So, that is what this bill was about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what I said.

There were a couple of other matters raised by members in speaking to the bill that I think I ought to take a minute or so to respond to. First of all, in terms of Ramea and the recommendation by the Fish Processing Licensing Board that a groundfish licence not be approved for Ramea, I simply want to say this: When that bill was brought to the House the first year or so of our Administration, I guess, Mr. Chairman, the fear of the Official Opposition - and it was articulated, I believe, by the Leader of the Opposition - was that the government, the minister of the day, would just disregard the recommendations of the board and, in fact, the board would become nothing; its recommendations would be agreed on by the minister when the minister liked it, when the government liked the recommendation, or it would not be agreed to when the minister and the government did not like it.

Well, we made a commitment, we made an undertaking. My colleague, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, gave an undertaking to the House that we would live with the recommendations of that board.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say today that the two ministers that we have had in that department since the legislation was introduced into the House - the previous minister, the current Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and myself - we have accepted the recommendation of the board on every single occasion. Not once have we overturned the board. We have the right to do it, there is no question about that. The minister has the right to do it. As a matter of fact, I am strongly and seriously considering bringing in amendments to the act to make the decisions of the board final and binding. That is how strongly we feel about the independence of that Fish Processing Licensing Board. We do not always like their recommendation. Sometimes life would be easier for me, as minister, if they recommended another recommendation, but we have made a commitment to accept their recommendations and to defend the board because they cannot defend themselves.

I have done that in terms of Ramea, when the co-op was looking for a groundfish licence. I have done it. While there has been no - I have not had an opportunity to defend this present decision, but I will and I shall, if I have to, because there were objections from present licence holders, present processors down in that area, that there is no room for any further processing capacity and therefore it would be negative public policy - no doubt good for Ramea, yes, I am not disputing that, but in the overall context it would be negative public policy - to issue a new licence; and that is what you would have to do, issue a new licence. The licence is defunct, it is dead, it no longer exists under present policy, so you would have to create a new category of licence or issue a new licence. The board's recommendation in that regard was to the negative and we have accepted it.

My friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentions the dire straits facing those in my part of the Province and in Northern Labrador, those who are concerned because of ice conditions. Mr. Chairman, look, anybody who had an eye in their head, or a modicum of sense, knows, for a month or six weeks or so now - I am not referring to the hon. member; I am referring to the Government of Canada - knows, and have known for the last several weeks, ever since the sealing industry, really, since the days of the sealing matter, that we have faced perhaps the most severe ice conditions that we have seen along the Northeast Coast certainly in decades. The Government of Canada have had ample time to respond to that. It is their constitutional responsibility to respond to it.

I mean, we can run off, yes, and do something in an emergency and take the federal government off the hook. You know, that does not solve the problem. The Government of Canada have known about this. The minister, I have heard him say only on the broadcast on Friday evening that he is ready to respond; they have a program. I assume that within days or hours he will announce what it is. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Labour, has made representation to the Government of Canada, to his counterparts. I know that my Parliamentary Secretary has done the same. The government has been supportive of getting money into the hands of those people who are affected without any undue delay. We would hope that the Government of Canada, whether it is a special program, whether it is an extension of EI, none of us worries about that.

It is like I heard you, Mr. Chairman, say, I believe, in news over the weekend, nobody cares about whose name is on the front of the cheque as long as a fisherperson or a processor's name is on the back of it, and that is really the bottom line of what this is all about. We support that, and we encourage the Government of Canada to get on with issuing the cheques so that those who have not had income for the last several weeks will have some income.

That is the answer, from our perspective, to the two issues raised by my colleagues opposite.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

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 6)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 of Bill 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule 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: 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.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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.

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 6 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 6 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

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

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'.

The motion is carried.

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 $2,368,500.

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'.

The motion is carried.

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 $2,368,500.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the 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 6)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bill 6?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is 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 6)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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 6)

On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that bill 6 be now read a second time?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 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 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 6)

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 second time. (Bill 6)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Supplementary Supply bill now be read a third time?

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, 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 this bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 6, 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 third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank members for their cooperation this afternoon. In view of the progress that we have made I now move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 29 at 1:30 in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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