The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Fitzgerald) Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2008 of Baltimore School in Ferryland. On Thursday, May 8, I had the pleasure of attending the graduating ceremony along with the graduates, parents and special guests.

The evening started with a mass service followed by the graduates and their families joining for a dinner reception and grand march. The graduating class of Baltimore witnessed forty young men and women take a new bold step in turning a page on one chapter of their lives and opening the page on the next.

The verse chosen to be printed in the evening's program is indeed fitting for the opportunities available in our Province today. It stated: Always have a dream, no matter what comes your way. Remember life is what you choose, not what you hope. Always have a dream, keep pressing towards the prize. Release the past, embrace tomorrow, let your spirits rise.

Mr. Speaker, Baltimore school supports the young people from Kindergarten to Level III from Brigus South to Cappahayden. It has a long tradition of excellence in academic and athletic achievements and the class of 2008, no doubt, has continued to contribute to the school's tradition and no doubt will embrace all tomorrows and let their spirit rise.

It was indeed a pleasure for me as MHA to share with these young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities that await them in the future.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Baltimore graduating class of 2008 for their achievements to date and wish them well in all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Service which was held recently on the campus of Memorial University. It was indeed my very good fortune to be invited to this very moving and emotional event.

The Holocaust Memorial Service is held annually by the local Jewish community as part of a worldwide effort to not only recognize the tragic loss of life but to remind us that the Holocaust took place because individuals, groups and nations, decided to act or, more importantly, not act.

The theme of this year's service was "Children of the Holocaust". The stories of three Jewish children caught up in the Holocaust brought home the horror of those times.

Particularly moving was the story of Felyks Kohn who escaped the concentration camps at age twelve. While highlighting the abuse he suffered, it also showed the compassion of ordinary passers-by who would have been better served to do nothing for this escapee but instead chose to help, at great risk to themselves.

The story was made even more poignant when the narrator, Dr. Barbara Grandy, introduced Mr. Kohn, who was in attendance, to the audience.

This service also made a particular point to acknowledge the less familiar victims of the Nazi regime. Groups such as Gypsies, homosexuals, the developmentally delayed, and the physically challenged were disposed of for no other reason than they could possibly compromise the gene pool of Hitler's "Master Race".

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to the organizers of this very necessary Memorial Service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 512 Air Cadet Squadron of Bishop's Falls on another successful annual review and promoting leadership and goodwill among our youth.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, the squadron held its fifty-ninth Annual Inspection, and the review was conducted by eighty-six–year-old Gordon Lannon of Bishop's Falls, a World War II Veteran.

Throughout the year the cadets participate in community events, improve their physical and intellectual capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the event was also an opportunity for the cadets to perform mobile displays such as their drill team, effective speaking and, of course, the band.

This was followed by the presentation of awards for which the cadets were recognized for annual performances, attendance, and dedication to the cadet movement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the 512 Exploits Squadron on a successful year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform members of this hon. House of an important partnership that our government entered into earlier this morning with two community partners, the Canadian Red Cross and Newfoundland Power, with the objective of enhancing emergency preparedness throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the years, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Red Cross, Newfoundland Power, and a host of other agencies, departments and corporations, have carried out and established strong histories in emergency response. When a disaster strikes, representatives from all these organizations are among the first groups to respond. Although each operates to achieve different objectives during an emergency situation, there was a clear opportunity for partnerships identified which involves maximizing response when a disaster strikes.

Mr. Speaker, when individuals and families are prepared for emergency situations it not only benefits the responders, but also those people who find themselves in situations requiring immediate aid. In choosing to get prepared, individuals help themselves and others by giving emergency personnel the ability to respond to those in most need.

Thus, the Ready.Kit.GO! partnership was developed with the purpose of providing education and awareness to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on how to prepare themselves for the unexpected.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure we can agree, adverse weather and its impacts are a major concern in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Ready.Kit.GO! partners will work together to encourage individuals to take action by being prepared for any potential emergencies including flooding, ice storms, heavy snowfalls, high winds and seas, et cetera.

The partnership objectives include: To maximize emergency preparedness education and awareness in Newfoundland and Labrador; to increase the number of people who are educated about and prepared for potential emergency situations; to increase confidence in an individual's ability to handle an emergency situation; and, to strengthen the ability of emergency personnel to respond in the most effective manner possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the community sponsors that came together and encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do their part as well, because emergency preparedness starts with the individual.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and say it is very encouraging to see such wonderful community individuals, such as the Red Cross and Newfoundland Power, coming together with government to make sure that we are better prepared in this Province for any emergencies that may come our way.

I am all too familiar with what happened last August in my local area, and to see how people came together, the various groups and organizations, the two that we mentioned here and many other community groups, who came together.

I believe, Minister, that many of the residents of our Province, in similar situations throughout our Province, are becoming better prepared themselves. When we see groups coming together to work with government, I guess it makes it all the better.

The only thing I would have to say, I think back to the September 11 issue that struck our Province back a few years ago. I know many of our municipalities were getting prepared for emergency plans. I know some of them have done that, and hopefully that will continue, working with government so that there is a major, massive plan throughout our Province. Hopefully, all that will be documented and we will know where each and every community in our Province is working together with government.

So I want to congratulate the groups on this initiative, and we look forward to others taking part as we prepare for any emergencies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

As we said a few weeks ago, when the minister made a statement during the National Emergency Preparedness Week, everything that we can do in this way is very, very important. The partners that the government is announcing today are two extremely important partners in doing the work of emergency preparedness.

I was very pleased during the Estimates meeting of the minister's department to get an update, both with regard to the commitment to coordination of the emergency preparedness plans that communities are putting in place, and the realization that the Fire and Emergency Services Agency is committed to coordinating those plans.

I also was quite pleased, though, to learn about the emergency relief and the status of emergency relief, which is the other end of the emergency, and the fact that after the storm Gabrielle, of 900 claims after that storm, when the minister reported there are only thirty-five left to be taken care of. I think that is really good and I encourage the minister to keep up that kind of response.

The other thing the minister told us in the Estimates meeting is that the Province is working with the federal government to try to streamline the emergency relief. We have examples of where that streamlining is essential, and I encourage the ministry to continue with that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The Chair at this time would like to recognize a former Member of the House of Assembly, the former Member for Labrador West, and welcome to the House of Assembly, Mr. Perry Canning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government opposite continuously states that it is one of the most open, most transparent and accountable governments in the Province's history. However, its actions say something entirely different.

Yesterday, we received two pieces of legislation related to the Energy Corporation. In our initial review, these proposed amendments will make this corporation one of the most secretive organizational structures within government, above the Access to Information Act, outside of the standard auditing provisions and not subject to the laws that now govern other departments of government.

I ask the Premier: Why would you be bringing forward such draconian legislation in this House of Assembly for debate, especially in the last days of the session?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked proudly about our resources in this Province and how we want to develop them in the best interests of the people of the Province. We have talked about the establishment of our Energy Corporation, who will manage all of our equity and oil and gas and other resource developments here in the Province. The oil and gas, the energy company, Mr. Speaker, is a hybrid. It needs to function in the real world of business but at the same time it has to be accountable to the people of the Province. What we are doing in this legislation is giving the Energy Corporation the tools to be able to do that effectively.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks it is in the best interests of the public to shut them out of their own Energy Corporation and not allow them to be divulged any information whatsoever, well I guess her definition of public interest is much different than mine. Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to debate the legislation and I can guarantee the minister that it will receive full vetting from the Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, if he will give his commitment today that they will not invoke closure before a full and open debate occurs on Bill 35 and 36, and also that there is public consultation held with regard to those pieces of legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would not expect any less from the Opposition. That is their job to question this legislation and make sure that there is a high level of accountability. That is why you have an Opposition, because even though we have a very good government here it is always important to ask questions. We are not going to invoke closure, Mr. Speaker. I have invited members of the Opposition to a technical briefing tomorrow morning. I have offered, or in the process of offering to the media a technical briefing tomorrow morning. We are prepared to discuss the bill. We have delayed having second reading here today to give them time to prepare, and we will stay here as long as it takes, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of what we are trying to achieve here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can tell me if they are prepared to go for public consultation regarding this legislation, as well?.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a full and open debate here in this House of Assembly. We have been very clear, right from the beginning, in terms of our Blue Book, what we were doing in terms of resource development and how we were going to handle government owned equity and government owned resources in this Province. This is the appropriate place for that discussion, Mr. Speaker, and that is where it is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the recent Budget, government added two new drugs to the formula to benefit those who suffer from kidney cancer. One of the drugs, Nexavar, is also being prescribed to patients in the Province who suffer from rare liver cancer. Prescribing of the drug to these patients - I think there are less than ten of them in the Province - was a last ditch effort in terms of treatment. However, the drug costs approximately $6,000 per month and those particular patients are not covered.

I ask the minister: Will you commit today to broaden the coverage so that these people who suffer with other forms of cancer, outside of those that you have prescribed it for with kidney cancer, can also avail of the drugs at an affordable rate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the drug that the member opposite is referring to: Nexavar - I guess is the pronunciation - was included in this year's Budget. It is now being prescribed for people in the Province who are suffering from a form of cancer.

One of the things that I have said in this House before, I described the process for having prescription drugs covered under our Prescription Drug Program, all of these drugs as they enter the market, after they have gone through their experimental phase and approval by Health Canada, they are evaluated by a national panel. These are people who represent all of the jurisdictions across the country, expect Quebec, and participate in a joint process to evaluate drugs before they go on any provincial formulary. That particular joint committee has not yet reviewed this particular medication for liver cancer.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the process of being done now and when that evaluation is concluded, they make recommendations to all jurisdictions in the country and we await their recommendation to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that Nexavar is already funded for primary liver cancer on patient-by-patient cases in certain provinces in Canada already. I say to you, Minister, I understand the process and how a review works but these patients desperately need medications and they need them today.

I have to ask you again, sir: What are you prepared to do, immediately, to ensure that these individuals - some of them will run out of medications within the next three weeks. What will you do to ensure that they will not have to go without this drug that is a lifesaving drug for them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand, individuals in the Province today who may be taking this particular medication were taking it as a part of the experimental process. As I understand it as well, the review itself, the review that I just mentioned earlier is underway as we speak and we await the recommendations of that review. I think it is irresponsible of us to start adding drugs to our formulary without a recommendation that has come from an already well-structured group of experts in the field to do this kind of evaluation. As I said earlier, they do it for every single province in the entire country, with the exception of Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These people need the drugs immediately, minister. I cannot stress that enough. At a cost of $6,000 per month it is not affordable to them and I ask that you look at a rapid review process. Look at what has been done in British Columbia, look at what has been done in Quebec, where patients who suffer from those same diseases in those provinces today have access to the drug.

Will you not do that and ensure that they have the medications, immediately?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the mechanism that we have as a Province to evaluate any drug for its appropriateness and appropriate treatment for any disorder is through a national review process, I say, Mr. Speaker.

In this Province, ourselves, we do not have such a stand-alone committee. We have participated in this process now since - I think it was March, 2007, this program was established to look at all drugs, all prescription drugs that will treat any form of cancer, I say, Mr. Speaker.

This particular committee will make the recommendations to this Province, as they will with other jurisdictions, and when we get that recommendation we will make a decision at that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that provinces do add drugs and expand drug programs without the full review process that is done on a national level. With this drug, it has been already added in British Columbia and in Quebec on a patient-by-patient basis.

Again, minister: Will you not act immediately to ensure that these individuals out there today, who I do not want to name here in the House of Assembly but will tell you are running out of medications and they need to have it immediately, will you not act today to ensure that the program is broadened to accommodate those less than ten patients?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it would be completely irresponsible for me, as a minister, to act independently without having the evidence, without having the recommendations from a group of experts who are commissioned to actually do this evaluation. When they have provided their expert opinion, I will be in a position to make an informed decision. I do not have the capacity as a minister to make that kind of clinical judgement, that clinical decision, and we do not have the capacity in our own Province to take those kinds of evaluations, and that is why we participate in the process. So, when the committee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: When the committee in question makes a recommendation that they provide to others, I will be in a position to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. If that happens in the next few days, I will be in a position to make that. If it does not happen for a couple of weeks, I will not be in a position until that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are currently nearly 300 people on a waitlist in this Province to see a urologist. It takes several months before many of these patients will be seen and the wait-lists themselves are exceeding government's own benchmark standards that they have put in place.

I ask you, minister: What is government doing to ensure that patients in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be seen by a urologist and seen in a timely manner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of urology service in the Province; unfortunately, Eastern Health had a urologist lined up to join the practice here in St. John's in September of this year and the urology practice here would have been happy with that additional individual coming to join their practice. In fact, Eastern Health had made arrangements to provide the additional clinic space, to provide the additional OR time so that individual could practice. Just very recently, in the matter of the last recent days, that individual has advised Eastern Health that he will not be coming in September. In fact, he is going to continue his education for another year.

The original plan, Mr. Speaker, was to have this individual join in September of this year. I think it was next year, another individual was joining. They had two people lined up, one this year, one next year, coming out of the fellowship program. So they had not been aggressively recruiting, I say, Mr. Speaker, because of that. Now with this recent announcement, they have now much more aggressively approached the recruitment and will continue to try to find additional urologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the wait-list continues to grow for patients in this Province who need the treatment of a urologist, I ask the minister: What is government looking at as an interim or immediate solution? Are you looking at referring patients out of the Province? If so, where will they be referred and at what cost will that be to the taxpayer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so I can conclude my earlier comments. Western Health has just recently been able to recruit another urologist as well. So that individual will be arriving in Corner Brook soon, as I understand it.

In the interim, though, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health is trying to make arrangements with other jurisdictions to be able to take patients on an urgent basis who need that kind of intervention by an urologist.

With respect to the cost, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that – we have always approached this in a very simple fashion. If the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need access to health services - like last year, for example, when we needed to have people go out for radiation treatment - we identified the need, we identified the location for those individuals to travel, and we have covered the cost of that. The same thing will happen here, Mr. Speaker. We will identify locations for those individuals to get the service, and when they do that we will cover the cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that there is almost a 60 per cent vacancy rate for urologists in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister talked about one physician being recruited in the Western Health Authority, Mr. Speaker, or possibly being recruited, but I have to say, Minister, you have been aware of these problems going back to October 2006. You have had ample opportunity to deal with it.

I ask you again today: What are you going to do to increase the recruitment drive to ensure that we can attain more urologists in this Province, at least a better percentage than 40 per cent of our workload?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me repeat what I just said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. Eastern Health had been successful, as they thought, in recruiting two new urologists: one to arrive this year, one to arrive next year.

The one that was planning to arrive in September would have made a major difference to the current wait list and would have been a major asset to those who are currently in that practice, I say, Mr. Speaker.

That fell off the rails the last couple of days, so they have now turned their heads to very aggressively trying to recruit another individual. They have engaged some recruiting agencies to give them a hand with that process, I say, Mr. Speaker, but in the interim they are making arrangements with some other jurisdictions to be able to take some patients for us so they will not have to endure that unwieldy wait list that they are referring to, and we will be able to provide timely access to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in other provinces in Atlantic Canada the wait list is less than six weeks to see an urologist. In Newfoundland and Labrador that wait list is extending by a number of months. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has set benchmarks in this Province for wait lists in terms of how long a person should have to wait before they can get treatment.

I ask you, Minister: What is the point in having benchmarks set within our health care system if you are not going to provide the resources to be able to meet those needs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The benchmarks that the member opposite refers to is a series of services that each province in the country has agreed to start monitoring the wait times, establish benchmarks for receiving those services.

I say, Mr. Speaker, within those defined services we are well within the national average with respect to our wait time. There may be services like urology which are not a part of that benchmark process, Mr. Speaker, but they may, in fact, on occasion, like today – there may be some long wait lists for that.

We recognize that, Mr. Speaker, and we are doing two things, as I said a moment ago: firstly, making sure that individuals of this Province have timely access to the service, and we are working with other jurisdictions to be able to help us with that. Secondly is the issue of the recruitment, Mr. Speaker, and we have now engaged some recruiting agencies to give Eastern Health a hand with that recruitment process. Hopefully, they will enjoy some success in the very near future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On February 5, a letter was written on behalf of all the CEOs of the health boards to the Department of Health and Community Services expressing strong and unanimous support to implement legislation to licence midwifery as a self-regulated profession in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister today: Have you responded to that request, and what were your recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: In order for any profession to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador they need to be regulated. One of the things that we do not have in this Province is the necessary legislation to govern midwifery practice.

One of the things that I have said in response to the discussion we had in this House recently with respect to laboratory technologists, another profession who do not have any regulations governing them, I have indicated publicly, as well as in this House, that it is our intention to look at umbrella legislation to cover off a variety of health disciplines and I hope to be in a position to move that agenda forward some time this fall; but, until we have the legislative regime in place, we will not be having midwifery practice here until such a legislative and regulatory framework gets established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that we are one of only two provinces in the country that do not have this legislation in place. He would also know that there is a push for it right across the Province by those who work in the profession and also outside the country. We have proven that it works, because it is provided in the Labrador Region at this present time.

I ask the minister: In bringing forward legislation on this in the fall, will they also be looking at providing for the funding and the addition of the positions within the health care sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: With respect to resourcing, whether it is midwives or whether it is laboratory technologists or physicians and nurses, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do, as we have in the last four and a half, five years, we will continue to resource our four regional health authorities to ensure they have the fiscal capacity to be able to recruit the necessary human resources they need to deliver the programs and services that they have been mandated to do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The financial benefits of midwifes is evident in the lower number of C-Sections required when a woman is cared for by a midwife. This would also fill the service gaps that have been left by the shortage of obstetricians in the Province.

I ask the minister: has your department reviewed the cost benefit analysis of legislating midwifes as health care professionals, and adding them as a mandatory service to our health corporations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The last time there was a review done on that particular issue, it was done by a former colleague of yours when you were in government, Joan Marie Aylward. I think she deferred making that decision until such time as your government was ready to turn your heads to it. We have done just that and recognized that we need to create the legislative framework to have it put in place.

As I said earlier, it is our intention to try to move forward with that kind of umbrella legislation to deal not just with midwifes but a variety of disciplines that are not yet regulated in our Province. It is our intent to provide umbrella legislation to be able to do that. When we have that in place, Mr. Speaker, we will be much faster than the previous administration in providing the necessary resources to be able to hire the necessary human resources that we actually need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Business.

Yesterday, the Minister of Business stated that he would not release any details relating to Prudential Consulting and the government's decision to reject the proposal that would have created 150 jobs in Central Newfoundland. The government of New Brunswick meanwhile recently approved a similar project, and in our conversation with officials there they say Prudential is a well established, credible company in that province and the project is a good investment.

I ask the Minister of Business: why is the deal good for New Brunswick? There is also one in Nova Scotia. Why are they credible enough to deal with Keyin College in this Province, for example, and yet their deal wasn't good enough for the Department of Business to deal with here?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as clearly outlined by the Minister of Business yesterday in regard to releasing sensitive information with regard to business deals in this Province and going forward with the due diligence part of that process, it is incumbent on us to always respect the wishes of the particular investor. Certainly, because of disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements we have to respect that. We are not in a position at this particular time, and neither is the Minister of Business, with releasing any information in regard to anything pertaining to that business deal with Prudential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite evident that the minister is unwilling to provide any pertinent details whatsoever on the file, which potentially saw 150 jobs lost in this Province.

Now, Prudential Consulting Inc. is well known and established worldwide, and it provides a range of services.

I ask the minister: Can you at least tell us what type of service was going to be provided in this Province by Prudential?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, as was asked, I am not able to provide that information at this particular time.

The Minister of Business is out of the Province on business. Certainly, he will have to review that file in regard to those disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements, and pertaining to those, and what was written in those, and agreed by the two parties in question, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the particular business, Prudential, that we are talking about, that has to be reviewed before we can release any information, because we would not want to violate any confidentiality agreements that may be in place with the Department of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Government Services is, no doubt, standing in as the alternate for the Minister of Business, I take it. Therefore, he is aware of his briefing book and what is happening in the department; otherwise, he would not be doing that.

I state for the record that the Minister of Business, in Estimates meetings recently, indicated that he had travelled to India regarding several business files concerning this Province.

I ask the minister: Was one of the files that he dealt with, while he was in India, Prudential Consulting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that under advisement in regard to the confidentiality agreements that are in place, and have to be reviewed, and see if that particular information can be released.

Certainly, the minister did go to India in regard to the pursuit of inward investment in this Province. It was a worthwhile trip, connected to a federal delegation as well, as I understand it, and certainly we will see what happens with that particular trip by the minister.

Certainly, we envision inward investment in this Province from various parts of the world as we grow our economy, and the Department of Business and the minister is certainly aware of that and certainly going to pursue it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Minister of Business is responsible for attracting new business to the Province, and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is responsible for keeping businesses here in the Province, and encouraging those. Both ministers have witnessed, in the past couple of days, a loss of 150 jobs on their watch. As the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development knows, Island Aggregates of Deer Lake just announced 150 layoffs as a result of the company closing.

I ask the minister: Are there any current financial arrangements - loans, investments, whatever - by this company at the present time with the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Island Aggregates have found themselves in some financial difficulty, the details of which I am somewhat familiar with; but, of course, it is a private enterprise and it is up to them to deal with it.

As to the question of whether there is any money in Island Aggregates by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot give you the exact figure - I can get it for the member immediately after Question Period, and the term, and what it was for; I am certain that is something I can provide - but I am aware that we did have a small investment in Island Aggregates going back some years, the details of which I would be more than happy to provide to the member after Question Period.

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 questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, at the Commission of Inquiry over the past couple of months we have heard testimony from the former CEO, the present acting CEO, the former vice-president and the current vice-president, that a major issue they have all faced is trying to deal with the daily running of the authority while dealing at the same time with the job of restructuring.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is this government going to put necessary financial monies into the health care authorities so they can put real effort into the ongoing reorganizing that is clearly an issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how many times I can answer that question in a different way.

We are putting $2.3 billion into health care in this Province. Since we have formed government in 2003 the health budget has increased by some $700 million a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, with that kind of financial investment, each and every year since we have been in government there have been significant increases in our health investment; in the last three in particular close to 10 per cent annually.

Major financial contributions to the four authorities - and those four authorities are the primary benefactors of that money. I think in Estimates you will recall that of the $2.3 billion that is being spent, $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion, I think it is, goes directly to the health authorities to respond to their mandate to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say, Mr. Speaker, with that kind of continual annual increase in the investment we are making in health care, I am not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by simply saying that the transition process that the health authorities are going through is a very natural process; they have been able to manage it quite appropriately in the last two or three years. There are still some outstanding issues, but they will deal with those in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will put it very clearly, what was said by some of the people I have referred to already, that they needed staff who were dedicated to nothing else but reorganizing - not the daily running, but the reorganizing.

The money that the minister is speaking about, there is nothing in that money that is dedicated to allowing teams to be put in place to have dedicated staff working on reorganizing. That is what I am asking the minister is he willing to do.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member opposite were to listen to the transcript of the inquiry more closely she would have gotten the full response, which was - I heard several of them say - in retrospect, in hindsight, had we known today, or knew then what we know today, we may have asked for some additional resources; we may have approached it differently.

Here we are in 2008, three years after we announced the consolidation of the authorities in this Province, and some of them have all but completed the major piece of the transition process that will occur in bringing organizations together. So they are sitting in 2008 reflecting on the last two or three years.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that they said, too, which the member opposite did not say, is that with respect to the ER-PR issue they, too, would have recognized that had they wanted to manage that issue they may have now (inaudible).

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

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

I am speaking in the present. I am not speaking in retrospect. I am speaking out of conversations that I have had with people in administration in the health authorities. I am speaking out of conversations that I have had with those who are offering the services. They say that still things are not organized; still, they need to have things put in place for a clear communication, for a good running of the agencies, so that all the authorities are running under the same policies. There is massive work still to be done.

Will this government recognize the reorganizing work that needs to be done? That is all I am asking.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: All I am telling you is that we have invested heavily in health care in the last three to four years, and we will continue to do that.

These great conversations that the member opposite is having with people in the health authorities – at 10:00 o'clock this morning I spent an hour with the board chair and the CEO of Eastern Health. We spoke for an hour on a variety of things, but not once, not one single word, not one single question around their need for more money to deal with transition issues. They talked about a variety of programming challenges, they talked about their budget for next year, they talked about some of the things they want to do in the long term, and they talked about their vision for the future. All of that, Mr. Speaker, but not once did either one of them say to me, we need more money today to deal with the outstanding issues as a result of transition. Not one comment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to table the 2007 Business and Financial Report for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I further table, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, approximate expenditures on the Lower Churchill Project to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I herewith table in the House of Assembly the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April, 2008.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Pouch Cove, Torbay and area with regards to the Torbay Bypass Road.

I know I have presented several petitions now on behalf of those residents, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that they have major concerns with regards to the starting point of that particular highway, where it will travel through approximately two kilometres of the Town of Torbay, and from all indications, what has been planned is a five-lane highway. The people are asking in that area if government would reconsider the starting point and more or less bypass the town so that they will get away from the residential area and all the people. I think there are 214 residents on that particular two-kilometre stretch and they have major concerns for safety of the children who may have to cross a five-lane highway for their bus transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I know the officials have met with some residents. They have been dealing with that and I am just asking the minister, and through the minister to the government, to take particular notice to the concerns that the people have expressed. We do know that a couple of issues that have arisen are in the area next to the airport where they have considerable problems with diverting the road that way because of the extra costs of the construction and the terrain, and also the watershed area.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition and urge government to reconsider the beginning of that route. Hopefully, that can be addressed to address the concerns of the residents of that particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Also, further to that, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 3, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today being Tuesday, May 27.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Tuesday May 27, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today, being Tuesday, May 27, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

We continue debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 is now open for debate in second reading.

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point - there were a number of questions raised yesterday during debate by the Opposition House Leader. I have the answers to those questions but since the Opposition House Leader - Mr. Speaker, what I will do is I will move to close debate at this point and then in committee I will answer his questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill, Bill 31, has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, number thirteen, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 37)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to speak to Bill 37, which is An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. This will authorize regulations to provide a mandatory exit time for liquor establishments.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members might be aware, that holders of liquor licences are permitted to sell alcoholic beverages from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days a week. With respect to some liquor licence establishments, they can request and receive extended licences which permit the sale of alcoholic beverages from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. from Thursday to Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, under the regulations customers have half an hour - after the sale of liquor is ended, they have a half an hour to finish their beverages, but there is no law that requires patrons or customers to actually vacate the premises. As a result of that, you have the rise of after hour clubs in which the sale of liquor is not extensively allowed and you have people staying on the premises.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as I indicated, is to amend the law. As I said, there is no authority that requires patrons to vacate the premises once sale and consumption ceases and there is no provision that enables regulations to be made for that purpose. Consequently, it is proposed to amend the act to provide authority, and that is what this Bill 37 does. It provides authority to make regulations to require mandatory exiting from liquor licensed establishments after the sale and consumption of liquor has in fact ended.

Mr. Speaker, the government has had a number of consultations. We know that most jurisdictions in Canada have legislative provisions that require liquor establishments to be vacated within a reasonable time after the sale of liquor ceases. This provides liquor inspectors and it provides the police greater ability to enforce liquor laws and the manager exit times are also supported by most lounge owners.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's has approached the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to review options, to assist the city in addressing problems associated with after-hours bars in the downtown core. This bill will provide authority to address those concerns should a formal request come from the council.

Mr. Speaker, government has consulted extensively here. The Department of Finance has consulted with the lounge industry and with enforcement agencies. In particular, there have been consultations with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and there have been consultations with the Beverage Industry Association, the police, both the RNC and the RCMP, obviously the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation and the Department of Justice. There have also been consultations with women's groups and with groups that are concerned with the prevention of violence. The result of those consultations is that we bring forward this legislation to provide for the mandatory exiting after the sale of liquor has been completed.

Mr. Speaker, a legislative review across the country indicates that of the thirteen jurisdictions, of the ten provinces and the territories, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario are the only jurisdictions that don't have mandatory exit requirements. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island require that patrons exit the premises thirty minutes from the close of sale. Quebec is the same. British Columbia, the North West Territories and the Yukon require thirty minutes, but in the Western provinces, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Alberta, the requirement is that patrons must exit the premises sixty minutes after the close of sale.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation will not be panacea. We recognize that government is concerned and people are concerned about the safety of the general public, the safety of patrons of liquor establishment and their staff and police officers.

This amendment will not alter the status quo of the hours of operation of liquor establishments, it merely gives authority for government to make regulations respecting vacating the premises after the sale of liquor has ceased. The amendment is designed to allow for the making of regulations to help enforcement efforts in regard to illegal after-hours activities in establishments. The measure will not have a detrimental impact on liquor establishment operators as no liquor should be generated after-hours in any event.

As I said, there have been heavy consultations. This particular piece of legislation is not a panacea but it will provide an additional tool in dealing with this problem. Government certainly recognizes that there are issues relating to late hours and there are problems relating to violence and drugs after hours, and this is a first step with dealing with this. Government does not have all of the answers at this time but we will continue to review the various options that are available to us. We will continue to consult with the groups like the taxi association and the downtown business association, with the bar owners and restaurant owners, and the police, and hopefully this will be another tool to help government and all stakeholders deal with this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

I guess this is principally aimed, I would think, from the minister's comments, at certain situations downtown here in the St. John's capital city region, particularly George Street. I have been following the media and I guess certain bars, albeit they might come to the end of their hours on a particular night in which to sell liquor, there were no regulations which said when you had to vacate the premises. I guess that has been causing some problems, certainly in the downtown area.

I am just wondering, and maybe the minister can tell us, what level of consultation might have taken place with anybody outside of the St. John's Region. I do not know necessarily if making a bill that is going to address a situation on George Street, St. John's, might have negative impacts on people who live in other smaller rural communities in this Province.

I can think of, for example, at a Fireman's Ball in Ramea, you may well have a liquor licence requirement to stop selling liquor at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, but are we going to have some kind of general, generic regulation passed which says that within sixty minutes of the sale of liquor everybody has to go home? It is not uncommon in these communities that, albeit they abide by the law and stop selling beer at 2:00 o'clock, they linger around in the club for an hour or two after. I, myself, have been a band member who played in a lot of these clubs until 4:00 o'clock or 5:00 o'clock in the morning, but they are not selling liquor there.

I can appreciate that, if you are having a problem down on George Street, you might want to do something to deal with the George Street situation. I just say, with a little bit of caution here, that giving that Province-wide application without any specificity here could have a negative ramification for these communities. I am concerned about that, because you do say it is as a regulation. So, will it be applied to everybody who gets a licence, for example, that you close your bar at 2:00 a.m., some have 3:00 a.m., some have 4:00 a.m., whatever the limitation, and they will all be told that you close and everybody has to be out within sixty minutes? Because I do not think that is necessary. Like they say, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water, and you don't need to squat a fly with a maul.

If there is a problem downtown on George Street, fix it. If there is a problem on George Street, fix it, I would say to the minister, and give the enforcement people the authority to fix it, but I just say, caution. We have to be careful here, that if you just generally say everybody has to be out within sixty minutes, I do not think that is appropriate, I do not think it is called for, I do not think there was any consultation with the bar owners in the rural areas of this Province in that regard, and I do not think everybody deserves or should be treated alike when it comes to that issue.

There are lots of volunteer organizations, and there are lots of very law-abiding clubs and establishments in this Province whereby you cannot be telling people they have to leave automatically. I do not know how that is going to be addressed. I would appreciate some guidance and direction. I am sure the people who run these clubs would appreciate some guidance.

I call it the Liquid Ice bill, myself. I do not think that is the bar in question, but I know there was a club downtown called the Liquid Ice, apparently. In fact, I had the occasion, when I was Minister of Justice, to do an overnight tour with the RNC in the city. I must say, it was an eye-opener; because, albeit St. John's is not a massive huge metropolis, I certainly got educated that evening, accompanying the police officers. In fact, we had a gentleman from NTV at the time, Mr. Cecil Haire, who photographed the thing and was a part of it, too, and it was amazing what the police officers go through and do in the run of a night here in the city. I mean, I witnessed things that night that I never, ever thought existed in a small city such as St. John's.

One of the things that I had the occasion to do, which was public knowledge - it was all filmed and everything else - was a visit to a club called the Liquid Ice. In that particular case it was a club down in the downtown area - I do not think it was on George Street, I think it was on Water Street, actually, but in that vicinity downtown - and all liquor had stopped. They had not sold any liquor. All they were selling, from 2:00 o'clock on - and we were there well after 2:00 o'clock - was ice water. Now, I don't know what he was selling his ice water for - I don't think it was for the regular Wal-Mart-type prices – but, anyway, they were selling only ice water.

Now, somebody might want that activity stopped, but the police indicated to me at the time that there was absolutely no law being broken. Yes, the music was loud – and, as far as I know, that club has coexisted downtown for years and years, albeit some people had their suspicions as to what went on after 2:00 o'clock. You can suspect all you want but if they are quiet and all they are doing and all the patrons are doing is dancing and laughing and carrying on and listening to music, I would not think that we want to pass a law that says, all of a sudden, you are not going to do that anymore, get out. That is kind of intrusive, particularly when we are doing it just because somebody complained.

We have to respect the rights of the bar owners as well. We have to respect the rights of the patrons. We have to respect the rights of the citizens, but where is the balance? We seem to hear - again, we have a reactive type of situation by the government whereby somebody downtown in the George Street area is upset with somebody who made too much noise at a certain hour of the morning and they came to government and said, fix it. Government are reacting again and saying yes, we will fix it. I am just wondering to what extent you are going to fix it. You talk about Big Brother. We have come a long ways from saying now that you are a legitimate bar owner, you can sell your stuff and you can go out but we are going to tell everybody now when you go home. We are back into the days of the wartime, when we are setting curfews here now.

There is a bit of an issue here, I think, as to - as long as they are not breaking any law, the liquor inspectors under the current law have the right to go in at any time and see if there is any illegal activity in these places of establishment. Any time. That could still continue. You do not need a new law for that. If there is any observation that there is a law being breached, liquor is being sold or whatever, or for that matter if anything is happening, if there is any kind of illicit or illegal activity taking place within that establishment, it does not have to be something that is just in violation of the liquor law.

The police might go in, for example, and see somebody smoking a joint in the corner. Now, that is a breach of another law. It has nothing to do with the liquor law, and they deal with it. You do not need to change the liquor law because somebody might be breaking another law. There might be somebody who assaults somebody in the washroom. There are laws to deal with that stuff.

Again, we seem to have a case of big, intrusive government, and I ask these questions because there are no exceptions here it seems. It just says we will make the regulations and we can tell you all when to go home, folks. Thank you very much. We consulted with the bar owners and the taxi operators and the police, vis-à-vis George Street, that is fine. There are a lot more communities in this Province than St. John's, with all due respect, and some pretty well-behaved, law-abiding citizens.

I just think that, in the interest of those people, there should be some guidance and assurance from the minister that we are just not going to fix that problem but we are not going to be intrusive upon other people and their activities either. I can assure you, it is going to be very upsetting to the people of Ramea, in the example that I used, if you tell them when they have to go to bed. If they go out to the firemen's ball and they stop selling liquor at 2:00, which is complying with the law, and then you tell them: Well, thank you very much now, go home and tuck yourself in by 3:00 o'clock. That is an issue. I think that is a valid issue, and I think there has to be some assurance from the government that we will not become that intrusive. We will not be that dictatorial. We will not be that dominating.

I can appreciate the intent of the bill. In fact, I have no problem with the bill itself, but I have these concerns. I am wondering if the minister - because I would not want to be seen as just voting for this, which gives them the tool that they may need in certain places, without raising these legitimate concerns and getting some assurances from the minister that there will be a proper fairness standard applied to various situations so that we just do not have a carte blanche and shut everybody down. I do not see that here.

It just says here, according to what I am reading, it says you are going to repeal paragraph 61(1)(b) and we are going to say the following: That you "prescribe a time by which licensed premises shall be vacated after the close of sale of alcoholic liquor, and the days and hours during which alcoholic liquor may be sold and consumed on a licensed premises." So, you may prescribe. I am wondering: Are you going to prescribe it generally, because generally, regulations are of general application? Are we going to have regulations that are of general application or are we going to be specific? I think we should have some assurance of that.

The other piece, by the way - I say to the minister in all fairness. The second piece of that, I was not aware that we did not have that. I always assumed that the existing liquor law saying the days and hours during which alcoholic liquor may be sold and consumed on licensed premises - I assumed that was always there. I am sort of at a loss as to why we would put it back here again if it is already there because we repealed 61(1)(b). I take it, it is only the (b) subsection (i) that is new to this, not the 2(2), not the ii.

Again, that is my concerns. I appreciate the legitimacy of the bill but I do think it may have consequences for some very law-abiding people. I think you might be called the party-poopers before it is all over if you do not give that some consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

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

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

I am glad to see this bill come to the House. I recognize that the whole issue is a complicated issue, but I do know, as an MHA in St. John's, while my district is not in one of the key areas, the George Street area does not cover it, it certainly is quite close to it and I know the concerns of people who live Downtown.

The fine act that we have to do here is to walk this line between the rights and needs of the businesses and also the rights and needs of people who live close to businesses. That is the major issue, I think. It isn't that people are complaining for the sake of complaining or because they are prudes or whatever. The fact is, that in the Downtown of St. John's, a piece of George Street fronts on George Street and backs onto New Gower Street. Right across the street from these establishments you have housing, and you have quite a number of people who live in that area. They have legitimate complaints when it comes to the very late hours that they have to put with, with street noise and noise from the establishments Downtown.

Now, it is tricky, I know, but I have heard people from Tourism, Newfoundland and Labrador, I have heard bar owners from George Street, I have heard staff from George Street, all of this in the media albeit, but I have heard different individuals who are part of the industry saying that they would welcome something that would allow the establishments to close earlier, that they don't need to be there until four and five o'clock in the morning. That is here in St. John's, I am not going to speak for other parts, but it is a concern.

The minister has said that this is a first step in a complicated problem, and I agree with him that it is a first step, because I am not sure that this, in and of itself, is going to solve the problems that the bill is trying to meet. I think ultimately what might have to happen, here in St. John's in particular because this is where it exists, is that the hour of 3:00 a.m. is too late for being the hour when the sale of liquor ends. That is another piece of the pie here, another piece of the puzzle, another piece that has to be dealt with. This Act deals with one piece and one piece only.

Now, it seems to me that the Act does have flexibility, because the second part of the Act talks about an amendment of section 61. The bill talks about an amendment to section 61 of the Liquor Control Act, and the amendment that this bill is suggesting is that section 61 of the Liquor Control Act have added to it a phrase that says: different times may be prescribed, by which licensed premises shall be vacated after the close of sale of alcoholic liquor; and different days and hours may be prescribed.

So, it seems to me that there is some flexibility being allowed here. We already have flexibility in the Province with regard to the hours that establishments close, and I would suggest that there could be flexibility with regard to the hours when premises need to be vacated, but we do have to bring in something that is going to give the board the authority to help deal with the issue. This is the problem. Right now, the board does not have any authority. The board could change the ruling with regard to 3:00 a.m. end of sale - they could do that - but that is all that they can deal with. I would like to see something encouraging the board to look at that.

You know, I understand the struggle, too, because George Street is an essential part of the tourism industry of St. John's, and that is an issue, I know that, so maybe there are times of year when one would allow later openings, both in terms of the sale of liquor and in terms of the vacation of premises. Maybe the height of the tourism industry is a time when there should be some flexibility, but we do have to come up with something that is going to give the board the authority to help respond to needs in the community, and this is certainly one thing that does it.

I appreciate what has been said by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. I do know one of the communities in his district that I visited over the last couple of summers. I remember going in to one of the establishments there expecting to hear the band, but it was only 11:00 o'clock and the band had not arrived yet. So it is not only on George Street that the bands start playing at midnight, I realize that, and I do understand that in rural areas the gatherings are very much a community event. It is not exactly the same as it is on George Street, so perhaps there has to be flexibility.

As I read the full bill, it seems to me that some of that flexibility is allowed, and I do not know if we need to change or amend the bill. Maybe what needs to happen is that regulations could flow from the bill, and those regulations may be more specific to meet the needs of what we are talking about, and especially the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

I think that the board should be encouraged to look at flexibility in terms of different locations, urban, rural, and even within urban that everything is not the same in all aspects of the urban reality either.

I think the bill is being sought for. I think there are people who are asking for this bill. I agree that I do not think that this bill has all the answers, but the minister recognizes it does not have all the answers either. I will vote for the bill, but I think we have to continue this discussion because I do think that allowing establishments to sell liquor at 3:00 a.m. is a major part of the problem also; it is not just the vacating. Because, if you say an hour after the sale of liquor ends, then you are still talking about people being in the establishment at 4:00 a.m., and if you are talking about an establishment that is also abutting residential areas this is really problematic.

So, we have two issues. This bill is dealing with one, and I think the other issue is the lateness of the sale of liquor in some areas.

I look forward to the minister speaking to this, when he responds, to give us an idea of the thinking that is going on. Are they looking at that second issue, and what are they proposing around that second issue? Are they just saying, well, there is nothing that we can do about that?

I put that out, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister has been listening, and I look forward to what his responses are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

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

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

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is quite right. We are dealing here now with one aspect of the problem, which is having people leave the establishments; and this has originated with respect to the George Street problem. This will deal with one aspect, the after-hours clubs, but there is another issue and that is the hours of operation, and there are conflicting points of view with respect to that particular issue.

The concern is that you have so many people - up to, I think, 6,500 people - exiting clubs at the same time and not enough taxis, with some people being intoxicated, and it causes problems and it causes law enforcement difficulties.

I think the police are of the view that, even if you move the hours earlier, you are still going to have the same problem, just at a different time, and that is why government is not in a position at this point - it does not have all the answers, as I said earlier. They will continue to consult with the taxicab association and the bar owners and the violence groups and hopefully we will be able to come up with a solution.

With respect to the comments made by the hon. Opposition House Leader, I want to assure the people in rural Newfoundland who enjoy the Fireman's Ball as much as I do, in the communities in the district that I have the honour to represent, that while this particular issue came out of the George Street area in St. John's, the hon. Opposition House Leader only referred to one section of the bill; and, of course, there is another section, another part to the bill, subsection 2.

While subsection 1 does give the board the authority to prescribe a time by which liquor premises shall be vacated after the close of the sale of alcoholic liquors, subsection 2 goes on to address that. It says, for the purposes of the first section, different times may be prescribed by which licensed premises shall be vacated after the close of the sale of alcoholic liquor. Different days and hours may be prescribed in respect of different kinds of liquor, different licensed premises and different kinds of licensed premises and different areas of the Province.

The Opposition House Leader mentioned the Fireman's Ball in Ramea. I don't think they are going to have a problem, and there are many areas of the Province that are not going to have a problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that answers the questions that have been posed and I would move second reading of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 37)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Osborne): Order please!

We are now debating Bill 7, An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Yesterday in debate there were a number of questions that got raised in respect to the bill and I want to provide some commentary for the members opposite.

I think the Leader of the Opposition raised a question around the whole issue of the cost of information and what provisions were in the legislation to deal with charges for having access to information. I just want to refer her to section 52 of the bill; 52 of the bill provides for a small fee to be charged for the access to the - I am sorry, 52 not 53. Section 52 talks about the individual's right to access the file. Then there is a provision in the bill for the minister to establish a set of fees associated with printing and the cost of the bills. I refer her to section 52 of the bill, and sections 56 and 57, which deal with the whole issue of access, it deals with the issue of cost for fees and the cost of copying. Ordinarily, these fees would be laid out by the minister. Before the act is proclaimed such fees would be established, and they would be established as being reasonable and not to be such so they would prohibit people having access to their files.

The second piece, I say, Mr. Chairman, there was a question that arose around the whole issue of

accountability. She was asking questions around what mechanisms were in place to hold the custodians accountable. There is a series of sections in the bill that addresses that particular point. I will not read the content of all of it, but just let me walk through them fairly clearly with the member opposite.

Section 13, for example, talks about the custodian must establish information policies and procedures - again, an accountability mechanism.

The second piece, in section 14, where it talks about an oath or affirmation of confidentiality for employees or agents or contractors or volunteers who would work with the custodian.

Section 15, again, deals with the duty to notify an individual in the event of a loss or a theft or other inappropriate disclosure of their personal health information. Also, the amendments will require the notification to the Information and Privacy Commission, as well.

Section 18 deals also with the designation of a contact person within the custodian.

Section 19 deals with written public statements describing information policies, procedures, identifying contact persons and describing a process to access or request the correction for personal health information and how to make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Section 20, again, deals with the duty to inform an individual, or their representative, of the purpose for the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information.

Again, I turn your attention to sections 65 through to 82, all a part of Part VI, where it talks about the review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

In sections 83 to 86 deal with the appeal to the Trial Division, and of course, section 88 then deals with the offence and penalty section and deals with the fines associated with a breach.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the question around what accountability mechanisms are in place, these are laid out fairly clearly in the bill and I just highlighted the sections that have been referenced.

Another question raised yesterday in debate talks about the independence of the review. Part VI of the bill specifically speaks to the review process and the powers and the authority that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will have. Section 65 through to section 74 continues to outline the process of review, including the timelines, which is one of the things that the member opposite raised yesterday.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, that came up yesterday, was the powers that are vested in the Commissioner. Section 78 of the bill provides very explicit obligations and duties on the Information and Privacy Commissioner to not disclose personal health information. One thing we must also remember is that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is also an Officer of this House of Assembly and they have a responsibility. The general rules of confidentiality will apply in terms of how they perform their function. The issues around the use of the information or the access to information and how that person will be bound by the confidentiality provisions in the House of Assembly, no different for this particular bill here and how they access this information as it would in any other.

Mr. Chairman, the other question that arose yesterday was the linkage here to the ethics act. I think the question by the member opposite centered around the circle of care reference. Now, section 24 of the bill identifies a phrase that deals with the circle of care. What basically this means is that the custodian has a continued implied consent of an individual to disclose information to other custodians or persons within that circle of care as they provide a response to the individual health needs of the patients that they are dealing with. Now the circle of care, which is a fundamental question raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, was: The circle of care, does it apply to the research piece? Basically, the circle of care does not extend on health research because those research projects are subject to an ethics review.

You might recall, Mr. Chairman, and the member opposite might remember, when the Health Research Ethics Authority Act was created, it created a mechanism. Anybody who wants to conduct research needs to make an application to a board established under that authority. When they make application and outline the nature of the research, one of the things associated with that application is an outline of all of the issues around confidentiality, issues around consent, protection of the information and how the people doing the research will actually protect the information in question. So, the health records ethics authority act, in and of itself, provides the protection of information for people doing research and using health information in that process.

The other piece, Mr. Chairman, a question was raised in and around the insurance companies, whether or not this act will apply to insurance companies - providing information to insurance companies about your health status.

Mr. Chairman, in introducing the bill in second reading yesterday, I indicated how this legislation was mirrored after the federal legislation PIPEDA, and whether or not this – it is our intent to have this legislation parallel that of the federal government's legislation so that actually, in dealing with companies in Newfoundland and Labrador and with custodians in Newfoundland and Labrador, this act would apply, but the insurance industry, doing business across jurisdictions and sometimes not just in Canada but internationally, they will be covered by the federal legislation. Our legislation is mirroring that, so the information provided by individuals in this Province to insurance companies, in making claims, whether it is disability claims or other forms of claims, where they have to provide some personal health information, that information is protected by that particular federal legislation in the same fashion as this legislation is intended to give a coverage, a protection for the people of this Province as various custodians, as identified, deal with their issues.

Mr. Chairman, I think the couple of other issues that were raised by the Leader of the NDP yesterday when she spoke centered around some of the amendments, or one of the amendments that are going to be made to the legislation. I think the other question that the member opposite raised was with respect to the whole issue of protection of information stored electronically, how it transmits.

I think if we go back to my response to the questions around accountability that were raised by the member of the Liberal Party yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, those same provisions that I listed off from sections 13 down through to and including 88 deal with that whole issue of accountability. The onus becomes on the custodian of the information, and they are held accountable through those various sections of the legislation. They are equally accountable whether it is electronic, paper, or in the case of oral conversations. The protection of the information stored electronically is the same duty to – that obligation on the custodian exists for electronic information.

I think the challenge for each of the custodians here is the mechanisms they have in place for electronic protection. Unlike written records that may be stored in a vault or in a locked room and only one person – you have to physically walk into the room to get it, electronic information, stored electronically, has multiple vehicles and multiple points of access, and it could be very much remote from the actual unit itself.

Having the necessary security precautions, firewalls, and that kind of stuff in place becomes extremely important. Yet, the responsibility to have it in place, and the accountability piece, is built into the legislation regardless of the mechanism for the storing of information.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, I have responded to the questions raised by members opposite in debate, but as we go through each of the clauses I will be only too glad to respond to any subsequent question that they might have.

Yesterday, as well, I indicated in second reading that there were a couple of amendments that would be made. I will probably read into the record now the amendments. One of them comes about as a result of some changes in the federal legislation that came about as a result of the review of the PIPEDA legislation with respect to a breach of data, and the recommendations that any time there is a breach in our original draft we had said that the custodian must advise the individuals whose information was disclosed. The amendment that I will read in a moment will provide an obligation on the part of the custodian to report that breach to the commissioner, and that was a recommendation that came from the commissioner themselves as a result of the changes in the federal legislation.

The second piece deals with – since we have tabled this legislation, this bill, we have enacted the Regional Health Authorities Act. As a result of this bill, the regulations with respect to the regional health authorities will now become redundant, which is section 6.(5) a through d which will now become redundant.

The amendments I am about to read will deal with those two issues, so Mr. Chairman, I will read the following amendments:

1. (1) Clause 15 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after proposed subsection (3) the following:

(3.1) Where a custodian reasonably believes that there has been a material breach as defined in the regulations involving the unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal health information, that custodian shall inform the commissioner of the breach.

(3.2) Notwithstanding a circumstance where, under subsection (5), notification of an individual by a custodian is not required, the commissioner may recommend that the custodian, at the first reasonable opportunity, notify the individual who is the subject of the information.

(2) Subclause 15(5) of the Bill is amended by deleting the phrase "Subsection (3) does not apply" and substituting the phrase "Subsection (3) and subsection 20(3) do not apply".

2. Clause 20 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the following:

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where, following an analysis under subsection 15(5), a custodian reasonably believes that the use or disclosure of personal health information will not have an adverse impact as described in that subsection.

3. Subclause 90(1) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (e) the following:

(e.1) prescribing what constitutes a material breach for the purpose of section 15;

4. The Bill is amended by adding immediately after section 95 the following:

95.1 Section 6 of the Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 18/08, made under the authority of the Regional Health Authority Act, is repealed.

With those amendments, Mr. Chairman, and in response to the questions, I move that those amendments be made to the bill.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information." (Bill 7)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to thank the minister for providing some answers to the questions I raised yesterday in second reading of the bill. Mr. Chairman, most of those particular questions, of course, deal with how people will access certain information, and what the costs will be around that information. I think he did outline that under section 52 or something of the bill, I believe, he referred to, it does speak for a fee to be imposed, but that fee was not yet determined, and that there would also be a cost associated with the copying of documents and so on that would be related to a person obtaining their medical records from a hospital, a health care centre, a pharmacy, or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Chairman, we just want to ensure that while the provision allowed for in the bill is a good one, we also want to ensure that it is going to be nominal fees that will be imposed, because we have heard of cases where people have paid several hundred dollars to access medical records within our own health care corporation, and I do not think that is acceptable. I do not think it would certainly cost that much to make duplicate copies of most of these records, so hopefully it will be in line with what is a reasonable rate to ensure that people can get access to it.

Mr. Chairman, there were also some questions that we raised yesterday around custodian and what the practice of a custodian would be, the abilities that they had, which the minister responded to today, and we also raised some questions around the circle of care in terms of giving consent, and if that would be provided for as well, consent to the Ethics Act.

I did not get to hear your response unfortunately, and I am just wondering if there was a correlation between the two or if different consent would have to be given under two separate pieces of legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, the issue around the consent for the research piece - your question, if I understood it, dealt with the circle of care, whether or not that circle of care included those individuals doing research. Once you have given your consent, for those individuals who are in the provision of services to you, it is implied that that information can be shared with other clinicians who might be involved in providing services and care to you.

The issue that you raised with respect to the whole area of health research: there is a provision in the Health Research Ethics Authorities Act that requires – you may recall that that was passed in the House – that requires any research being done that requires access to personal health information, any of that research, there is an application process. You appear before a board and make representation and application to conduct the research, and you will lay out the nature of your research and the nature of the information you will compile. Within that particular piece of legislation, in and of itself, there are provisions that deal with the whole issue of privacy, issues around consent to use information and issues that bind the individual to protect that information. That legislation and the provisions in that legislation are equally as stringent as the provisions in this particular legislation.

In this legislation here, we use language like custodian. I answered your question earlier about the accountability piece, and all of the provisions I laid out for you in this particular bill we are dealing with today that enforce and ensure that a custodian is responsible to ensure they comply with the legislation in a variety of fashions.

If we were to go to the Health Research Ethics Authority Act we would find similar provisions that bind the people doing the research. They are held to the same standard as we are measuring here for the custodians to be held. It is dealt with when they make their application for the research and it is dealt with under that particular piece of legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, obviously this Act will be presided over by a privacy commissioner, and that commissioner has been given an enormous amount of power under this particular legislation, to be able to carry out their required duties and responsibilities. I understand, Mr. Chairman, from listening to the minister and reading the legislation, that that individual will have the ability to be able to conduct their investigations in much the same manner that we would conduct an inquiry within the Province, whereby they would be able to call witnesses, ask for testimony, do cross-examination and also request, through government, any documentation that would be required to supplement that particular inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly, as I said yesterday, feel the need to have this particular legislation implemented in the Province. It has been in the works and been developed over a process of about seven or eight years and it went through extensive screening, both in the context of what the federal jurisdiction and federal legislation provides, but also screening in terms of what was expected and required within our own health care system as well.

The minister did table some amendments to the bill today. We did not have an opportunity to look at the amendments in more of a sketchier detail than in-depth because we only had an opportunity to be able to read and examine what is there. I do not see anything that is being asked for in the amendments that changes the scope of the legislation or the intent of the legislation, but more so just gives it more accountability measures, I should say, in terms of how things would be reported or brought forward to the privacy commissioner by a custodian in one particular case and how the disclosure of information would take place. So, we do not see anything on the surface at least that would cause us any concern with regard to the amendments that the minister has put forward here.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, that would conclude any concerns or questions that I have with regard to the bill, and I thank the minister for his co-operation.

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

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

Just a couple of things, I thank the minister for his explanation. As he indicated, one of the amendments speaks very specifically to something I had raised, and I am really glad that got taken care of. That had to do with the repealing of the section from the Regional Health Authorities regulations and I am pleased about that. It was a logical thing. It had to go, and we all know that.

I just have a couple of points I would like the minister to speak to again. I guess what I have heard the minister say, and I do not want to assume it, so I will say it and then the minister can say that is indeed the case. When it comes to the prescriptions that are in the sections that he talked about - 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 - I understand that all of that outlines what needs to be put in place. My concern was not that that stuff was not there, but under normal circumstances without a complaint, will there be any mechanism for monitoring to see if things are in place? I think what I have heard the minister say is that is more like an honour system. The act is putting the things out there and people have to abide by them. If a complaint happens then the review section comes in, but that is only in the case of a complaint. Then if there is a complaint, we find out if a certain custodian has actually gone against the act, but that there will be nothing in the normal run where there would be a monitoring to see if, in actual fact, a custodian does have all the things in place that are outlined in the other sections.

I think that is what the minister has said. Maybe that is all that can be done because of the wide nature of who all of these custodians are, but I would be interested in knowing if the OCIO is going to be charged in any way with looking at: Can there be any kind of monitoring to see things are in place? I am thinking about - like with our educational systems, we have boards that are in place that monitor to see if schools are complying by what needs to happen, et cetera. Our health authorities, we have boards. In other places where we have legislation there are ultimately groups that do monitor. Here, the role of the Commissioner is specifically with regard to complaints and complaints only, but maybe this is the only way it can be.

I would like the minister to speak a bit more to that point, about that whole honour system.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Fundamentally, I guess the short answer is that is what it would amount to, but in terms of some comfort you might want to take from the mechanisms that are in place. Number one, in section 19 we talk about the written public statement describing the information. So anytime anyone in the Province goes in to see a physician, a pharmacist or see anybody else who is providing information, or they are providing information to, to help form a chart of some kind or a file of some kind, you should see, in a very public way, in that facility and in that office a notice posted around - their statements around how they are actually doing that. That is one piece that is very obvious. I think everybody will have an obligation to. The second is that they have to designate a person associated with that. The other one which is, again - I suppose to some degree there is a threat here because there is a fine for non-compliance of $10,000. So there is a financial penalty if you do not comply.

The other thing that we have in place is through the regional health authorities, which is - the entire Province has a regional health authority for their respective area. The bulk of the information that will be contained on patients will generally be a part of a health authorities operation. I think the example you used the other day in the debate talked about a - it was either yourself or the Leader of the Opposition made a reference to going in to have an X-ray or blood work done and your family physician calling up your blood work. Historically, when health authorities provided that access to a physician's office, there was no legislation that governed that connection. Now what this does, it puts in place a legislative framework and a regulatory framework to govern that relationship between the health authority and a practicing physician, and the protocols for communication. Now the onus will be on a health authority because they are now identified as the custodian of that information. So, your blood work is done at a hospital somewhere in the Province and they are the custodian of that information. Now if they choose to share that with someone else electronically, a family physician or some other individual involved in your care, the onus is on them now legally to ensure that the person they are sharing it with has the protocols in place.

Now when a physician says: Can I get hooked up to your system electronically because I want to be able to get reports immediately? The first question the authority says: Well, show me your protocols. Show me the process you have in place. Are you compliant with this legislation? Because if they are not the authority will not connect with them. So, it gives you that extra element of protection that does not exist today, because that sharing of information I just referenced is taking place as we speak in the absence of this kind of extra protection by the legislation, because the health authority is covered by ATIPP, which is a public body. The physician who is a private practitioner is not covered by it. This legislation is pertaining to all public and private bodies and all the custodians identified in the legislation that I introduced or referred to yesterday.

So, fundamentally, there is some strengthening of that obligation but you are right in terms of there is no policing of this. There is no group of individuals who will be going around the Province and saying show me your practice, show me your protocols, and how does this work in your setting? That will not happen, but there are some elements of protection that are built in here.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his explanation. Just to point out, with regard to section 19, because that is one of the ones I was looking at, the description on the left-hand side of the section says, "written public statement", and I like the fact that the word public is in there. Then it says, "A custodian shall, in a manner that is practical in the circumstances, make available to those who are or who are likely to be affected by the custodian's activities in a written statement…." Then, there is nowhere that I can see where it says that that written statement is, in actual fact, public. In other words, the implication is that you are going to personally give the written statement to the client who you are dealing with. On the left-hand side the description implied to me that there would be some requirement, that there would be a public nature as the minister indicated. You sort of indicated posting it in an office or whatever, which is what written public statement meant to me, but there is nothing in this section that says that. It is one concern that I have left, if the minister has any thoughts on that one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I gathered the concern that you are raising has to do with whether or not that is a notice of some kind, stuck on a wall or posted somewhere, or if it is in a written pamphlet given to the patient. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that that is a written statement, not something that is tucked away somewhere, but something that is akin to a disclosure statement that you might get if you were investing in some company, that tells a bit about the company and how it practices and how it invests its money. It is akin to that. It is intended to be a written document that you will be able to provide to the patients that you deal with that describes how you do business.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, just for clarification as we go through, there were some amendments. We will not pass the amendments first, we will do that as we go through the clauses. Is that the understanding? Okay.

CLERK: Clause 15.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 15 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, I had proposed an amendment to clause 15, and I will read it into the record again.

Clause 15 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after proposed subsection (3), the following, "Where a custodian reasonably believes that there has been a material breach as defined in the regulations involving the unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal health information, that custodian shall inform the commissioner of the breach." And (3.2) would read, "Notwithstanding a circumstance where, under subsection (5), notification of an individual by a custodian is not required, the commissioner may recommend that the custodian, at the first reasonable opportunity, notify the individual who is the subject of the information.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services – I am sorry, the –

MR. WISEMAN: Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. There is a second amendment to that clause as well. Subclause 15(5) of the bill is amended by deleting the phrase "Subsection (3) does not apply" and substituting the phrase "Subsection (3) and subsection 20(3) do not apply".

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services that clause 15 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 15?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Clause 15, as amended.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 15, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 16 to 19, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 16 to 19, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 16 through 19 carried.

CLERK: Clause 20.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health & Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I had proposed an amendment to clause 20. Clause 20 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the following, "Subsection (3) does not apply where, following an analysis under subsection 15(5), a custodian reasonably believes that the use or disclosure of personal health information will not have an adverse impact as described in that subsection.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services that clause 20 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 20?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 20, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 21 to 89, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 21 to 89, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 21 through 89 carried

CLERK: Clause 90.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: We proposed an amendment to the clause. Subclause 90(1) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (e) the following, "prescribing what constitutes a material breach for the purpose of section 15."

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health and Community Services that clause 90 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 90?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 90, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 90, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 91 to 95 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 91 to 95, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 91 to 95, inclusive, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, I want to make an amendment. Immediately following section 95 will be section 95.1. It says, "Section 6 of the Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 18/08, made under the authority of the Regional Health Authority Act, is repealed."

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to add section 95.1 as read?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, section 95.1 added, as read.

CLERK: Clause 96.

CHAIR: Shall clause 96 carry?

All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 96 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried with amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I ask that the Committee rise and report Bill 7.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bill 7 with amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 7 with some amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 7 with some amendments.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments to Bill 7 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments to Bill 7.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments to Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 7 be read a third time?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I now call from the Order Paper, number 11, second reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act." (Bill 33)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

The proposed amendments to The Child and Youth Advocate Act will first address the recommendations relating to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate identified in the Turner review and investigation; two, provide the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate with expanded investigatory powers substantially in the same form as those afforded to the Office of the Citizens' Representative; three, add the four regional integrated health boards and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to the schedule of the Child and Youth Advocate Act; and four, amend all references to the Young Offenders Act to the Youth Criminal Justice Act as the federal legislation has been rewritten.

Under the new act, Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate will have the same authority as currently held by the Office of the Citizens' Representative to investigate matters, compel individuals to provide verbal and written information under oath or affirmation, and compel the production of documents.

As you were aware, Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate serves a similar function to that of the Citizens' Representative in that both of them are independent of government and report to the House of Assembly. Therefore, it is our view that there should be consistency among the powers given to them in the way the acts read. Under the proposed amendments, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate could contempt proceedings in Supreme Court against any individual who fail to comply. While these powers are broader than those currently held by the Child and Youth Advocate, the mandate of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate will remain the same as under the current legislation.

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are intended to address concerns expressed in recent years by the Child and Youth Advocate and the Turner review and investigation with respect to access to information. This bill will set out clearer rules enhancing the Child and Youth Advocate's ability to access information, while at the same time, making it clear that those persons who in the opinion of the Child and Youth Advocate are able to give information relating to an investigation can and will make this information available when it is required for the Advocate's review.

The problem with the current legislation is that the powers delineated in the Child and Youth Advocate Act are insufficient to support the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate in its role as an investigator. While under the current legislation, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has been delegated some investigative tools similar to those afforded to the Office of the Citizens' Representative. Examples of these, Mr. Speaker, are the right to refuse to investigate in section 18 of the act, the notice of investigation pursuant to section 20 of the act. The right to information is outlined in section 21 of the act. The right of entry is outlined in section 23 of the act, but the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate does not have the key investigate tools - subpoena powers which would enable the Child and Youth Advocate to compel individuals to provide verbal and written information under oath or affirmation, to require written responses to inquires and to compel the production of documents.

While section 21 of the current Child and Youth Advocate Act does authorize that the advocate has the right to information that is in the custody or control of a department or agency of the government and necessary to enable the advocate to perform his or her duties or exercise his or her powers under the Act, the advocate has no power to compel individuals to provide information which, in the opinion of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, is essential to complete a review investigation.

All Canadian provinces, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have various forms of provincial child advocacy legislation. The child advocate in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all have investigatory powers such as the right to summons, to issue a subpoena and the right to take a sworn statement for the purpose of conducting investigations.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are outlined in the Act, and there is one amendment I feel I should refer to. Again, one must remember that the role of the child advocate is to review and investigation matters, as now outlined in the Act, to review and investigate matters affecting the rights and interests of children and youth. Under section 15(1)(a), the Act is repealed and the new section says, "receive, review and investigate a matter relating to a child or youth or a group of them, whether or not a request or complaint is made to the advocate." Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to investigate issues that arise to our most vulnerable members of society in terms of children, and to determine if something went wrong, what went wrong, and how we can fix it and prevent it from happening in the future.

Obviously, the lessons learned from the Turner report are very real, Mr. Speaker, and ones that we are certainly all very cognizant of.

There is one section of the Act that I should point out, Mr. Speaker, and that is in relation to section 15, where we have now added what some may see as a restriction on the powers of the advocate, but I would suggest that they are certainly necessary in terms of what we are doing.

The Act itself, section 15.1, reads that nothing authorizes the advocate to investigate a decision, recommendation, act, order or omission of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor, a committee, et cetera, an order, decision or omission of a court, a judge of a court or master of a court. There are mechanisms in place, Mr. Speaker, especially dealing with orders of court. A matter in respect of which there is under an Act a right of appeal or objection or a right to apply for a review, until after the right of appeal, objection or application has been exercised or until the time limit for the exercise of that right has expired.

Now, what happens next, Mr. Speaker – and this is very important – is that the Minister of Justice must certify in writing to the advocate that the investigation of a matter would be contrary to the public interest under the circumstances, the advocate shall not investigate the matter, or, where the advocate has commenced an investigation he or she shall discontinue the investigation.

One example that comes to my mind on that, Mr. Speaker, is that hypothetically there could be a murder investigation where the Child and Youth Advocate could potentially get involved. Unfortunately, we oftentimes see, Mr. Speaker, that there can be murder investigations or homicide investigations where members of families are involved in very unfortunate circumstances. The police could be conducting an investigation that the Child and Youth Advocate could then decide to investigate herself. That would be inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, because, obviously, the police have to be able to conduct any such investigation unimpeded and without the possibility of someone unknowingly or unwittingly affecting that investigation.

This is an example, Mr. Speaker, that I have outlined here. It is one that could happen. It is a hypothetical situation. What I am trying to illustrate is that there could be a point where the public interest is such - and that public interest has to be given a very broad meaning or definition, Mr. Speaker. The public interest in law, although there is criticism at times as to what is meant by the public interest - one has to balance the competing interests of the rights of the individual against the right of society to determine whether or not a matter, for example, should continue.

The Minister of Justice simply cannot, though, arbitrarily or capriciously make a decision and say, I am going to shut down the Child and Youth Advocate. The purpose of this section, Mr. Speaker, is that where there is an overriding interest, and where the public interest needs to be protected, the minister must certify, but the certification, Mr. Speaker, or the certificate, is given under subsection 1. Subsection 15.2(2) states, "Where a certificate is given under subsection (1), the advocate shall include that fact and a brief description of the circumstances of the matter in his or her next annual report to the House of Assembly." That is very important, Mr. Speaker, because if, for whatever reason, a Minister of Justice determines that he or she is going to insert themselves into this process, then the Minister of Justice is going to have to think twice. The minister will have to ensure that he or she is on safe ground, and that they have reasons for making a decision.

It is not necessarily a question, Mr. Speaker, of whether decisions are right or wrong, it is the ability to articulate the reasons, it is the ability to apply logic and common sense and say, this is why this particular decision was made. Because it is now before the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and it can be raised at some point. The minister or the government can be questioned on the steps taken.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this requirement of a certificate in writing counterbalances the power given to the Minister of Justice and makes sure that accountability is key to this process, so that if the Child and Youth Advocate is conducting an investigation and the minister determines that that is not appropriate at this point, there has to be a written certificate. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is again an example of a balancing of the competing dictates that apply, and one that is satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, section 21(1) is the main issue that we are dealing with here today, or, excuse me, one of the main issues that we are dealing with, and we are dealing with the ability of the advocate to obtain evidence, Mr. Speaker. Traditionally, in a court room, one of the ways one obtains evidence is through the use of the subpoena. The subpoena can be to a witness who would bring whatever documentation he or she has. It is a way of controlling proceedings to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that there is a list of potential witnesses, and the subpoena allows for a certainty to the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Minister speak. I ask members for their cooperation.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the advocate may require a person to give information – it is very quiet here now – to furnish the information to him or her, and to produce paper, document or thing.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the Child and Youth Advocate, in carrying out the mandate, her mandate - and I refer to her at this point, Mr. Speaker, because the Child and Youth Advocate is a female – to carry out her mandate to be able to access the information required.

Then, Mr. Speaker, (1.2), "The advocate may summon before him or her and examine on oath or affirmation a person who in the opinion of the advocate is able to give information relating to a matter being investigated by him or her."

Mr. Speaker, this obviously places an onus upon the advocate to ensure that she is objectively assessing the facts of the case, because the term advocate, Mr. Speaker, is one that normally requires a person to take a position. An advocate is usually someone who argues for a certain position, and in this case, it is clearly the mandate of the Child and Youth Advocate to advocate on behalf of the child or youth.

However, Mr. Speaker, in order for the advocate to properly carry out her work, she needs to be able to investigate, and one of the key investigative tools, Mr. Speaker, is that of the summons or subpoena.

The next section then, Mr. Speaker, outlines the right to information, outlines a couple of exceptions to the rule, and you see there, "information that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a person who has made a report, under section 15 of the Child, Youth And Family Services Act; and information that is not permitted to be made public by section 26 of the Adoption Of Children Act." Now, I do not know specifically what section 15 of the Child, Youth And Family Services Act is off the top of my head, Mr. Speaker, but I am guessing or I am speculating that it would relate to the reporting of the incident. In other words, that an individual has to be able to – there is an obligation on parents, teachers, professionals and members of the public to report incidents of abuse that they are aware of. I am speculating, Mr. Speaker, that this section relates to the protection of the identity of these people, similar to the protection of informants in criminal law.

Mr. Speaker, these are the sections that allow the added powers to the advocate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the restriction on disclosure, section 21.1 again deals with the Minister of Justice certifying that there is certain information that might involve the disclosure of the deliberations of Executive Council, proceedings of the Executive Council, or interfere with or impede the investigation of an offence. Again, Mr. Speaker, the certificate: the advocate shall not require the information or answer to be given but shall report the giving of the certificate to the House of Assembly." Again, Mr. Speaker, there is the importance of the Cabinet secrecy rule and obviously that has become an issue in Canada over the last couple of days, with the goings-on in Ottawa; the importance of Cabinet documents and Cabinet secrecy and ensuring that deliberations that take place are protected to the extent that the law allows them to be protected. Again, the certificate is required.

Mr. Speaker, these are the sections where we are seeking to add amendments.

The last section that I will make reference to is that section 21.3 deals with the use of statements made or evidence obtained in an investigation. The rule that is outlined in 21.3 is similar to the other acts across the country, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that we basically incorporated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the proposed amendments are positive, will strengthen the office of the Child and Youth Advocate overall and will be used when necessary by the Child Advocate but will be used with discretion and objectively applied. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Child and Youth Advocate, in trying to protect the most vulnerable of our society - what we are doing here is giving her another tool to allow her to do her job. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, like the Citizens' Representative, is allow the Child and Youth Advocate to pursue the mandate of the Child and Youth Advocate to its fullest and to ensure that the rights and interests of children and youth in our Province are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that one of the reasons I am introducing this bill today - I have indicated that the Child and Youth Advocate reports to the House of Assembly. Well, the way the Legislature works, someone has to bring in the legislation. In no way, by me bringing in this legislation, are we asserting any interest in what the Child and Youth Advocate does other than, as the Justice Minister, I am concerned for the administration of justice in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is any way of doing this otherwise, unless Your Honour were to get up and introduce the piece of legislation yourself. I do not know if our Government House Leader could help me on that point, Mr. Speaker. In any event, that is why it is important to note that there is an arm's-length independent relationship with the Child and Youth Advocate, but that someone has to bring the legislation before the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these amendments, and I ask the support of all hon. members in passing this bill. I look forward to participation from members on both sides of the House in debate.

Thank you.

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 on Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

First of all, I would say to the Minister of Justice that the proper person, I would suggest, to have introduced this piece of legislation would have been the Government House Leader. In fact, it says right on page 1 of Bill 33 that it is being introduced by the hon. Thomas G. Rideout, Government House Leader. Usually, any business that has to be conducted in this House, on behalf of the House - and the Child and Youth Advocate Office is an office of the House of Assembly - would have to come to this House by way of the Government House Leader.

I can appreciate the circumstance that the current Government House Leader might not be familiar with that particular session, given that she has been in the job for less than a week or so. Of course, we all know the history on what happened to the former Government House Leader, the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale, who is no longer sitting as a member of the government, but that is the process that would normally be followed.

In fact, I found it a bit odd that it would be the Minister of Justice. I can appreciate that he has a legal background, and that might be why he would have introduced this particular piece of legislation, but what disturbed me somewhat about it is that most of this bill concerns powers that are being given to the Minister of Justice.

We try to do things here, I would think – all of these offices that we have committed of the House, and officers of the House, we tried to establish that there is an arm's-length transaction and an arm's-length presence between that person, whether it be the Privacy Commissioner, whether it be the Child and Youth Advocate, whether it be the Auditor General, whether it be the Information Commissioner, whether it be the Chief Electoral Officer, we try at least appearance-wise to show that there is a perception of that distance.

I have to say up front, too, that this bill was being touted - when I first heard about it - the bill was being touted as a piece of legislation that would give the Child and Youth Advocate the right to summons people, the right to subpoena people.

Mr. Speaker, a careful reading of this bill, which is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven pages, counting the cover, would reveal that this piece of legislation is not as benign at first peep as it would appear to be. It does not only just deal with, as we thought in the Opposition, the issue of giving the authority to the Child and Youth Advocate to subpoena people. In fact, that is found on page 5 where it says in 21. (1.2), "The advocate may summon before him or her and examine on oath or affirmation a person who in the opinion of the advocate is able to give information relating to a matter being investigated by him or her." That is one sentence in this document, one clause that deals with that.

The minister alluded to these other issues that are dealt with here; he did talk about what it does and whatever. I would agree that maybe the principal purpose and intent was maybe to give extra powers to the Child and Youth Advocate, but let's not fool ourselves. Let's not anybody think in a country mile that this government is giving powers, other than the subpoena powers by this piece of legislation, to the Child and Youth Advocate - in fact, anything but; in fact, to the contrary. What this bill is doing is tying the hands of the Child Advocate, I would submit, restricting what the Child and Youth Advocate can do, and doing it in a big way.

We have had reference today, once already in this Chamber, about the government and its draconian way of shutting things down when it comes to information. We have had that mentioned in Question Period about the two energy bills that we have coming here in this House, one on the energy corp. and one on the water rights. We will see where that is going to go in the next few days about openness and accountability. We see it here again today in this piece of so-called benign legislation.

I wonder what the opinion is, if she were allowed to speak out, of the Child and Youth Advocate about some things here - freely, openly - about what she feels about the restrictions and the constraints being placed upon her.

I am going to go through some of these in quite a bit of detail. I have fifty-five minutes or so and it might take that long to make the point that this is just not about the right to subpoena. That is an obvious; I will vote for that. I think the Child and Youth Advocate ought to have the right to subpoena witnesses. In order for him or her to do the job properly, they need to be able to subpoena persons, put them under oath, and get the information that they need. It is a very important and necessary power that she needs, and I use she because the current occupant of that position is a woman, but there is a lot of other stuff here, a lot of stuff, and it ties in, I would think, quite well.

For anybody on the outside of this House of Assembly observing this House since it opened at the beginning of this session, there is one constant theme that has been running through from this government, and it is not because of anything that the Opposition did, necessarily, to create it, but the people who watch this - and the most avid watchers, of course, are the media - this open and transparent government, so-called, or the lack thereof, has become so noticeable in the last two months that it is not funny. In fact, it is the fodder of the gossip columns, it is the fodder of phone-in programs in this Province, letters to the editor, constant requests for information here in this House in Question Period, constant requests for information when we do Estimates as part of the budgetary process, and here again today we see another example of this government being open and accountable - open and accountable.

I will start off with page 4, paragraph four; they are going to do an amendment here. They are going to amend paragraph 15(1)(a). They are going to repeal that and they are going to put in the following. They are going to say that the Child and Youth Advocate now will have the power to receive, review and investigate a matter relating to a child or youth or a group of them, whether or not a request or complaint is made to the advocate.

Now, that is fair ball because there was some concern expressed that the Child and Youth Advocate could only investigate and only have the authority to investigate a matter that she received a compliant about. For example, if you use the Zachary Turner inquiry, there was a case that was very tragic, deserved to be investigated, deserved to be reviewed, but no one might have necessarily made a complaint to the Child and Youth Advocate. So the issue was: Who stands up for those people? Who stands up for the Zachary Turners of the world? That was why, and I believe here it is a very good idea on that section to say give the Child and Youth Advocate the right to inquire into those types of situations where the situation and the person involved, the child involved, has no one to speak out for him or her, for example, the Zachary Turner's of the world.

That is why I think that clause is necessary and that is why I am going to be voting in favour of that clause, because I think it is necessary.

Then we go on to section 15, and this is pretty restrictive stuff. The new section 15.1(a) says: "Nothing in this Act authorizes the advocate to investigate (a) a decision, recommendation, act, order or omission of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor, a committee of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Executive Council, or a committee of the Executive Council."

What is the justification for restricting the Child and Youth Advocate from inquiring of either one of those groups, ourselves included, if it is something that impacts a child? What is the logic for that? Why would this government want to put in a clause here saying that sorry - for myself and my own speech, I have no problem as a Member of the House of Assembly having the Child and Youth Advocate inquire into anything I do as a part of this House of Assembly. I would think all forty-eight of us here, what would we have to fear of the Child and Youth Advocate inquiring into something that we did here? I am sure the Speaker has no problem with that. Why would the Speaker want that restriction placed upon the House of Assembly? Where does government get the gall to even place such a restriction upon the House of Assembly? Why would we want to restrict that?

That is what I would like to get some answers to. Why, for example, would the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet - if it is something that impacts a child in this Province, why would we want to stop this independent person - who, by the way, in this case was appointed by this government - stop her from doing whatever she felt was necessary to get to the bottom of the issue and to report upon it? That was the purpose it was brought in. Maybe the government does not like that openness. Maybe the government does not want that transparency.

We did not have any such qualms when we brought in the legislation. We had members who currently sit as a part of this government, who told us, you are not doing anything. You are not doing anything for the children of this Province in the sense of having an advocate for them. That is why we brought it in. The former Administration brought in the Child and Youth Advocate. That is when it came in, but you did not see any restrictions on it such as this. Yet, we get this government again, a government who fears, has a fear, a morbid fear of the light of the truth shining on what they are doing, and they have to cloak everything. Even to the point now where they are putting a cloak, and trying to put a cloak - I know justice is blind, but for God's sake, we do not have to blind the advocate, the Child and Youth Advocate. What is the justification for it?

I can even partially agree with (b) and (c), which talks about a court or a judge. Yes, they have a mandate. They do what they do. They have to follow judicial rules and judicial bounds, and if you do not do it right there are subjects of appeal, there are rights of appeal. If somebody has a problem with what judge so-and-so does downtown, they do not have to go to the Child and Youth Advocate to deal with it, if they do not want to, necessarily. They have a right of appeal. There is a process to deal with that, which is open, which is transparent, but that does not apply to (a).

When we look at (a), that is all government, either elected people or appointed cabinets. There is absolutely no justification for keeping the Child and Youth Advocate in the dark. What circumstance could we possibly imagine that either one of these public groups, elected officials, would justify their keeping something from the eyes of the Child and Youth Advocate? I do not see it any different than the Auditor General. If we do something from a financial point of view that is considered improper or questionable, we all know - we found that out in the last couple of years that the Auditor General has full swing to do what he wants, and so he should. So he should, right? He got to do his job.

Now we go on to 15.2. That is: "Where the Minister of Justice certifies in writing to the advocate that the investigation of a matter would be contrary to the public interest…" Now, my concern here is not that the individual who fills the office of the Minister of Justice would not properly and fairly decide what was in the public interest, the issue again is: Should it be somebody in government who appoints the person who decides what is in the public interest? That is the concern. All you have to do under this legislation is say: that is not in the public interest. We are going to change that. We are not going to investigate that.

It is very questionable when one person, a person who is a part of the government, who I just said in subsection (a) part of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, you cannot question him about. Now the minister decides what is in the public interest. What if the government, for example, decides that it is not politically expedient to reveal the information? How would you ever know? All that is required under subsection (2) is that the minister files a certificate with the House of Assembly saying include the fact and a brief description of the circumstances. It does not say anything there about justification for it. The minister can file a brief statement in the House saying vis-à-vis the matter of such-and-such. I have reviewed the circumstances dealing with whatever, such-and-such a child and such-and-such an incident and I do not deem that it was in the public interest. File the certificate with the House and that is the end of it. The Child and Youth Advocate got no right to speak to it. That is very restrictive again. Why would a person who is a member of the government be given that authority? It is a potential conflict of interest again.

It is like the Cameron inquiry we had. A lot of people, and not only the Opposition, a lot of people in the public - the minister heard from people, the minister heard the media reports, the minister read the letters to the media, letters to the editor. There is a lot of people in this Province who were very concerned about the fact of what the Premier and the minister said vis-à-vis the Cameron inquiry. Now, that is an inquiry of a different nature, agreed, but albeit it is still a judicial inquiry. Some people had some very serious concerns about: Should the Minister of Justice and the Premier be out commenting on what was happening with the Cameron inquiry? A lot of questions got asked about it.

Now, we finally saw the proper process being followed. They applied to the inquiry and said: Would you consider such-and-such? Justice Cameron gave her ruling on Friday past and said: Whoa, no thanks. I am doing what I am doing. I consider it appropriate and away we go. We moved on, but the whole process was faulted from the beginning. It was faulted because before it ever got into the process that should have been used the Premier and the Minister of Justice were out making statements that were trying to influence, albeit not intentionally, caused a lot of people concern, particularly all 300-plus people who were impacted by that situation and that issue, and their families.

We have had instances as recently as the last three weeks where it is questionable about whether government should have any kind of hands-on involvement when it comes to inquiries, whether it is an inquiry judicially or whether it is an inquiry by the Child and Youth Advocate.

That does not give a lot of people in this Province - it does not give me any level of comfort, this new section 15.2, that we are doing the right thing in restricting what the Child and Youth Advocate can do. We have put another ball and chain around our ankle, I would suggest, by putting that one there.

Then we go to section 8 of this act, on page 6, and it is broken out, they are going to put in two new sections: section 21.1 and section 21.2. From my reading of these two, it seems to be that section 21.1 addresses the issue of, again, what the Minister of Justice can certify certain things about certain situations, and in section 21.2 it deals with a circumstance where the public or third parties are involved.

Now, again, the minister did not take much time in dealing with those particular sections, but I think it is worthy that we should have some clarification and further explanation on this new section 21.1 and section 21.2. My reading of section 21.1 says: Where the Minister of Justice certifies that the giving of information or the answering of a question or the production of a document, paper or thing might involve the disclosure of the deliberations of Cabinet or Executive Council, proceedings of the Executive Council or a committee of the Executive Council, relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature, or interfere with or impede the investigation or detection of an offence, the advocate shall not require the information.

That is under that section. In other words, if it is the government, the Cabinet, the Executive Council or any committee that you might want something from, the Child and Youth Advocate is off limits; she shall not ask for the disclosure of those documents.

Again, we are shutting a door in terms of access to information by the Child and Youth Advocate when it comes to government, but we do not give the rest of the public the same benefit. In fact, we turn around in section 21.2 and it says that any rule of law requiring anybody else to not disclose a document does not apply to the general public or to third parties.

In other words, the Child and Youth Advocate, if they want to investigate me from a child advocate point of view - something happened to a child in my custody, or whatever else - I cannot depend upon any rule of law to say I am not going to give you that information. I have to disclose every piece of it. I have no protections whatsoever. If it involves a child, the Child and Youth Advocate, under this law, will have a right to demand it. Or if a third party agency, as I understand it, has information - I would assume that would be someone like social workers, for example - has access to information, and they want it, they can demand it. Yet, that is where it chop-chops. We put a limitation on it. It might be information that is contained in a Social Policy Committee of government that would helpful to the Child and Youth Advocate. It could be something as simple as that. It could be that the advocate might want to know: What is the rationale for government having passed a certain piece of legislation or whatever?

Maybe this has all been vetted through Legislative Council, vetted through the Social Policy Committee of the Executive Council and so on, and yet the Child and Youth Advocate cannot even go to these people and say: Could we find out that information? No, you are not having it.

That is pretty restrictive again, and that is all I am pointing out. Maybe it is well-intentioned, but the people who look at this stuff, and the Child and Youth Advocate - I mean, I do not know what she thinks of this. Has she written a letter to the government, or spoken to the government, and said yes, I have absolutely no problem with this?

Maybe she has. Maybe she said I have no problem. Maybe she said I have absolutely no problem with this; tie my hands and blindfold me and give me all kinds of limits and limitations and constraints and that is okay by me.

Well, if that is the case, I think we have an issue, because there we have an advocate who is limiting herself. Why would you, if you have a mandate to investigate on behalf of children, and anything that might impact upon a child, why would you agree to such limitations? That is concerning, if that would be the case.

Did the Child and Youth Advocate ask for this stuff? Were all of these things that were suggested in here put forward by the Child and Youth Advocate, like: I would like to have this restriction placed on me; I would like not to be able to investigate anything in the House of Assembly; I would like not to investigate in Executive Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; I would like not to have the authority to investigate something; I would like to get these handcuffs put on me?

I would be surprised if anybody who is doing an advocacy role would voluntarily come up and say, please put these restrictions on me – which leads one to believe that if the advocate herself did not request this information, where did it come from? What has happened since we initiated this bill, in the last three or four years? What has happened to cause government, or someone, to want these limitations put in place?

That is the question. Where did it come from? I know where the subpoena piece came from. I know the subpoena piece came through, actually, the Management Committee of the House of Assembly, of which I am a part, and I know that the advocate did have an issue with not being able to access certain information, and the ability to subpoena people and summon people was a question, but as to the rest of it, and all of the content, there is a lot more in here. I was at every board of management meeting that there was, and to my knowledge – maybe I missed something. In fact, I missed a lot if that is the case, because that was my understanding, as a member of the board of management of the House of Assembly, that this piece of legislation was going to involve subpoena powers, and subpoena powers only. Here we find a bill that, when we get it, is far more broad-ranging and wide-ranging than was ever in my contemplation, so it begs the question of, where did it come from?

I do know, as well, back when the Turner inquiry started, the first issue – because no one knew, for example, the extent of the Turner inquiry in terms of how long it was going to take, and nobody knew the cost that was going to be involved. In fact, the former advocate, there was some question, even – not the current advocate, but the former Child and Youth Advocate – might have embarked upon an issue without the authority, and that is why I refer to the section that was being added here, in 15(1)(a), which says that the Child and Youth Advocate can investigate whether there has been a complaint made or not.

I think that is covered off now, but back then there was some concern about whether the former advocate had the right, by himself, to initiate an investigation in the Turner inquiry. Now that is being done, that is covered off.

I know there was also an issue of cost, because nobody in their wildest dreams, I would think, based upon where the Turner inquiry started, and where it went, could anticipate what the costs were.

By the way, I do not mention cost there in the context of, it is too expensive. I think we all know that when it comes to getting to the bottom of it in terms of a child when something happens, particularly in the Turner Inquiry - that proved a point beyond the shadow of a doubt in my view - that money is not an issue when it comes to finding out the truth in such a tragic case. I think we found that out. Everybody involved at the time - I guess nobody knew where it was going to go, nobody knew what the resources were that were going to be needed, what professionals you would need for assistance in doing it or how long it was going to take.

I have no problem in terms of putting reasonable constraints on anybody. We all need reasonable constraints in whatever we do, but that can be talked about by – if it is an Officer of the House, for example, as in this case, and the Child and Youth Advocate wants to do something I would think that the lines of communication would be open enough between that individual and the Board of Management that they could come and say, look, we have an issue, I think I need to do this, I want to do this, I just want to give you a heads up and this is where I am going. To me, that is the way that kind of thing would be fashioned out, but that is not what we have here. We got some pretty strenuous, restrictive covenants being put in here on the actions of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Those are basically my comments in second reading. As I say, when I looked at it I was looking for the summonsing clause - no problem with that piece - but there are some issues here on the other pieces that are very disconcerting. No doubt, when we get into the Committee Stage we will get an opportunity to speak on each and every one of these. I will, no doubt, reserve any further comments that I have until that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, just a comment to the Government House Leader and the minister; the Leader of the NDP, the Third Party, did indicate to me before she had to leave the Chamber that she was hoping to speak in second reading on this matter. I just did not want to sit down and that not be known by the Government House Leader. She did ask. She had to step outside for awhile, but she did ask to be heard on the issue. In fairness to her, I just bring that matter to your attention.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who would like to speak to this particular bill in second reading, I would like to adjourn debate at second reading now and call another order from the Order Paper.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I call Order 12 and we will do second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act." (Bill 34)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any such thing as a simple bill I think this might be one. I guess we will have to wait and see. This is an amendment to the Judicature Act, Mr. Speaker.

On November 28, 2007, the federal government introduced Bill C-31, An Act To Amend The Judges Act. The federal bill would authorize the appointment of several new judges to the superior courts throughout the provinces in the country. On May 14^th, 2008, this bill received second reading in the Senate and has been referred to committee. The purpose of the increase in the number of judges, Mr. Speaker - and I think it is twenty if I remember correctly - is to respond to an urgent need for more judges to handle increasing caseloads and mounting delays in a number of jurisdictions across the country. Again, if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, out of the twenty judges I think six are actually going to be appointed to a residential schools tribunal to deal with claims from residential schools across the country. I think Ontario and B.C. are two of the predominant jurisdictions.

The current plan, Mr. Speaker, is for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to receive one new Superior Court position pursuant to Bill C-31. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, an increase in the number of Supreme Court trial division judges requires an amendment to the Judicature Act, which currently limits the number of judges to twenty. An amendment to section 21(1) of the Judicature Act is required to facilitate the new Supreme Court trial division judge to be appointed by the federal government. The amendment will not be proclaimed until the new federal appointment is confirmed. The actual amendment itself in section 21 reads, "The Trial Division consists of 21 judges, one of whom shall be a chief justice, who shall be called the Chief Justice of the Trial Division, and 20 other judges who shall be called judges of the Trial Division."

So in essence, Mr. Speaker, the Judicature Act has to be amended to allow for the creation of this extra position, which the federal government is going to provide. This particular appointment, Mr. Speaker, is one of five that was sought by our superior court, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division. Under the Liberal government in Ottawa, there was a request, or at least there was a support, for the granting of four positions to Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper is giving us one position, but even that one position, Mr. Speaker, is one that obviously we should take.

I will actually, Mr. Speaker, be appearing before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Legal Issues tomorrow night to discuss issues of judicial appointments and judicial resources, and this is one of the issues that I will be bringing up, that we have another broken - not a broken promise as such because there was not a promise, but there were certainly discussions ongoing and there was a recognition that Newfoundland and Labrador-

AN HON. MEMBER: Lack of commitment.

MR. KENNEDY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Lack of commitment.

MR. KENNEDY: Lack of commitment perhaps, yes.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, has embarked upon this new family justice services program under the guidance of Justice Richard Leblanc out of Corner Brook. It is really quite an interesting approach to family law, one that tries to avoid the court process, that involves mediators, that involves judges getting involved in the front end in family law, so that we see women and children, especially, Mr. Speaker, who are left at the whim of the husband oftentimes for support, that they can get into the process earlier on. Now there are still difficulties and we are still trying to work our way through this process, but the commitment of Justice Richard Leblanc and Chief Justice Derek Green is quite admirable. It is a system, Mr. Speaker, that when it is put in place is going to greatly benefit the administration of justice in this Province.

Family Justice Services Western started as a pilot project with funds from the federal government and Justice Leblanc was in Corner Brook at the time. It has since extended to St. John's, Mr. Speaker, and it adopts what I would refer to as either holistic or global approach to family law. In other words, that there is a mandatory mediation. It is my understanding that there is a mandatory mediation whereby you try to get issues dealt with prior to going to court.

I do not know whether the Opposition House Leader - I did not do any family law myself, Mr. Speaker and I do not know if the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would have done any of it or the Minister of Finance, but essentially family law in this Province is notorious for how long it takes to reconcile matters and we have issues of access and custody that drag on. That is not good for the children, Mr. Speaker. It is not good for the father who is oftentimes denied access to kids. It is not good for the mother, Mr. Speaker, who has to chase - and I hate to use this term - but oftentimes chase deadbeat dads who refuse to accept their responsibilities to their children.

The whole purpose of this Family Justice Services is to make more efficient the family law process just as we are trying to make more efficient the criminal justice system in terms of the provincial courts. The plan was, Mr. Speaker, if four judges had been provided by the federal government, that those four judges would be utilized primarily in family law areas.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, one is better obviously than nothing and in order to accept the one, when that judge is provided, there has to be an amendment to the Judicature Act. However, the amendment will not be proclaimed until the new federal appointment is confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is anticipated to create incidental costs for the Department of Justice, however the federal government, as the Opposition House Leader would certainly be aware, pays the judges' salaries. The Department of Justice will be responsible for administration costs such as furniture, clerical staff, space, et cetera. At the end of the day, hopefully this one judge will be utilized by the Chief Justice as he deems fit, and hopefully the issue relating to family law, especially the creativity and imagination and hard work being shown by Justice LeBlanc, will be supported through the other judicial resources. The location for the new judicial appointment has not yet been determined and again Chief Justice Green of the Trial Division would essentially determine that.

Mr. Speaker, I would seek the support of the Opposition and all members of this House in supporting this bill and the amendment to the Judicature Act. I look forward to hearing from members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act – big name.

All it means is it an Act that governs how we run our justice system when it comes to at least the Supreme Court level in this Province. This change, albeit some comments from the government members that this one might be a simple amendment, I do not know if there is any such thing as a simple amendment any more when I read them.

I can say, off the top, that we in the Opposition certainly will be supportive of the amendment, but I do have a few questions. I am not sure whether I heard the minister correctly when he said it. There was a bit of chatter coming from the government side, I could not hear the minister when he was talking, but I do believe he said it is either passed the Senate and I am not sure if he said it was through the Senate in the federal government or was going through or was at a certain stage of reading. I am not quite certain what he said.

MR. KENNEDY: On page 14, it received second reading in the Senate and has to be referred to the Standing Committee on (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I thank the minister for his clarification. He said it has gone through second reading and is going to committee. I think their system works somewhat like ours. I guess this is a case of you line up your ducks so that you are ready when it happens at the next level. That is fair ball as well. We would not want to be seen at being behind the door, if the feds do something and we are not in a position to take advantage of it until the House opened again.

I say to the minister, let us keep our fingers crossed because I do believe that this piece of legislation at the federal level died on the Order Paper at least twice before. This has been on the go for some time and I agree, like I say, line up our ducks but let's keep our fingers crossed because the federal government, and I believe it was both the Liberal government and the Conservative - two former Liberal governments, I do believe, who let this issue die on the Order Paper. We got that close before. We were in committee before, I do believe. The government fell and we never got there. We may be a bit closer now. I guess it depends on what happens on the federal level with the election and if that comes and when it comes and if it gets through the Senate. Anyone, of course, who has been following at all what is happening in the federal scene, there is absolutely nothing, from what I understand, getting through Parliament and getting through the Senate. That is another cautionary thing, I guess.

We will line up our ducks down here but whether we will ever get the extra judge in the foreseeable future is questionable, unless the federal government - right now, I understand the committee structure on anything is virtually stalemated at a federal level. There is very, very little legislation that is getting done of any kind. In fact, not being partisan here or whatever, but what I am hearing is that it is the Liberal dominated Senate that is holding up a lot of legislation, because they of course do not want to be seen as being co-operative with the federal Conservative minority government so they are blocking a lot of things that the federal Conservatives are trying to get done. They are not being very co-operative. So, God forbid, if we stay that way we might never, ever see this extra judge.

As the minister alluded to, they are called a section 96 judge. In other words, they are appointed by the federal government. They do their work here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are paid for by the federal government, and that raises the issue - and I am hoping the minister can educate me a bit more as we go forward into committee on this. That is, he referred to the family justice services western and Justice LeBlanc. Of course, I have known Judge LeBlanc for many, many years. He practiced originally in Central Newfoundland, was appointed to the Provincial Court, spent many years as a Provincial Court judge in Corner Brook, went on to be a Supreme Court judge in Corner Brook and I do believe now, moves and lives here in the City of St. John's. He is a very knowledgeable person, probably one of the most knowledgeable in this Province when it comes to family law in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no doubt about it.

The question I would ask the minister, I guess, is: My understanding was - I do agree that there were supposed to be four and one of the four were to be designated as a Unified Family Court justice for the Province. The three were going to take up the backlog of the Supreme Court and one of the four was specifically designed to be a Unified Family Court judge here in the Province. For anybody who is not familiar with it, we have a duel system here in Newfoundland right now. For example, if you get a divorce - if you live here on the Avalon and you have a family matter, if you get a divorce, or if you have child access custody, a custody issue, an access issue, a maintenance issue, a support issue, that matter would go in the Northeast Avalon to the Unified Family Court. They do not even have their courthouse, or their courtrooms and so on and their staff on Duckworth Street like the rest of the Supreme Court are located. They have a totally separate infrastructure. They do operate - I am not sure, it is just up from where the Fairmont Hotel is there, but they are totally separate, the Unified Family Court.

I am wondering if the minister can tell us: Is it the intent that this person would become a Unified Family Court judge? Is that the intent, or will that person become more support for, what I understand to be a fairly backlogged or overworked - I do not know about backlogged but certainly overworked trial division system that we currently have. Because the thought was there would be a Unified Family Court go on the West Coast. That was the plan, that you would have one here in St. John's, the existing one, and the new one would become the Unified Family Court judge out in Corner Brook. That, of course, begs to further question, that if the extra judge that we get, pursuant to this, is becoming a Unified Family Court judge, and if that is going to go to Corner Brook, I am assuming that the new facility which is going to be constructed out there - I think there is a new court facility in Corner Brook being constructed. It started out being $17 million. I think it is up now to $20 million. I am just wondering if that facility has been designed in such a manner that it will accommodate the Unified Family Court system if that is where we go, because this thing has been in the works for quite some years, that we would get these extra judges. I am just wondering if the persons who design the new building, I understand it is going to be Provincial Court, Supreme Court and if there is going to be Unified Family Court, I am wondering if that was contemplated in their spacial arrangements even, in their planning, that that would be out there on the West Coast?

We certainly will be speaking in favour of the extra judge. Hopefully, we will get that person, no question about it. As I say, I am wondering if we can get any information as to the Chief Justice, for example, Chief Justice Green, has there been any consideration where this person would fall? A Family Court judge guaranteed, or are we looking at just a backup and extra support for the Trial Division workload? Maybe it is a decision that just has not been made yet. We get the judge and then the decision will be made. I am just wondering, the intent was that it would definitely be a Unified Family Court judge back a few years ago. That has always been on the radar. I take it from the minister's comments to Justice LeBlanc, that that must still be, at least the preference that we would go to if that person is appointed.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the Opposition House Leader, that I do share, to some extent, his concerns about this appointment dying on the Order Paper. We have had a number of occasions in the past, he is right, where this bill was presented and it did not go through. As we have seen in our dealings with the federal government, that we are - we are not going to start building a new courthouse to put this individual in until such time as we have the appointment. However, I think that is the way we will try to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, is by the act will come into force on a day to be proclaimed. I guess that is our way of expressing legislative scepticism as to the promise made, or the promise of the appointment.

In relation to the appointment, I have had some discussions with Chief Justice Green. Essentially, it is my understanding that the Family Justice Services requires a lot of judicial assistance and judicial resources, and it is my understanding that the chief justice is now utilizing other judges at Unified Family Court in trying to fix up the backlog.

What I have essentially said, the chief justice did ask for my input as minister as to where this appointment should go. However, I felt that in all fairness the chief justice is the individual who is best suited to determine how he should use another judge. I have indicated to the chief justice that I thought that decision would be for him. Knowing Justice LeBlanc like I do, and as the Opposition House Leader has pointed out, he also knows Justice LeBlanc, I am sure that he will lobby long and hard for this appointment to go to the Unified Family Court, and specifically to help with Family Justice Services.

If the chief justice were to decide to send this new appointment to Corner Brook, in terms of Family Justice Services, the Department of Justice would certainly have no problem with that. The new courthouse will be built. It will be set up, as I am sure the Opposition House Leader is aware, to accommodate both Provincial and Superior Court judges, and essentially, whether acting as a Unified Family Court judge or as a Superior Court judge, the Unified Family Court – the Superior Court judge could act in both capacities.

Again, by way of more of an anecdotal comment, one of the federal Ministers of Justice did not like the Unified Family Court concept. That is not the present minister; Minister Nicholson has indicated that he is actually supportive of the Unified Family Court.

Essentially, to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, I have left that to the chief justice. Those will be my comments in relation to this amendment, and I guess we will have to adopt a wait-and-see approach.

I would now move to second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 34).

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

When shall Bill 34 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 34)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The continued debate in second reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

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

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

I thank the House Leader and the Opposition House Leader and yourself for suspending the discussions so that I could have a few words to say to this bill.

I think it is an extremely important bill. It is my understanding that this is a bill that certainly has been sought by the Child and Youth Advocate; that the person in that position at the moment has let it be known, I think, in many quarters, that having the powers of subpoena was extremely important to the advocate being able to perform the job that the advocate has to do.

I certainly think that it is most logical, especially when you look at the fact that what she requested - and I think that she did request it - is found in the Citizens' Representative Act, that she is not asking for something that is not in another act, an act that is parallel to the Child and Youth Advocacy Act, in the fact that both are advocates. One is the general citizens' representative and the other is the advocate for children and youth, so it is quite logical that they both would have similar powers.

Also, I understand that other jurisdictions which have independent child advocate offices also have subpoena powers so this is not something that is doing something different or doing something strange. This act will be putting our advocate and the independent child advocate and her office in line with both our own citizens' representative as well as similar offices across the country. From that perspective, I totally support this bill.

I have to say that there were a couple of things under restrictions that had me a bit concerned when I read the bill. Some of them I have resolved for myself, but there is one that I would like to mention and ask the minister to give me some feedback on, and that is section 15.1 (b). This has to do with a restriction on jurisdiction. The first one I can understand, the first one that is there. The first one is that nothing in this act authorizes the advocate to investigate (a) a decision recommendation, act, order or omission of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor, a committee of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Executive Council, or a committee of the Executive Council.

I think I have been able to resolve for myself why that restriction would be there, that while there could be decisions, policy decisions, that one might say is a policy decision that affects children, I am not sure that it is within the purview of the advocate to cover policy issues with regard to government and government-related agencies; however, when I look at (b): Nothing in this act authorizes the advocate to investigate an order, decision or omission of a court, a judge of a court, a master of a court, or a justice of the peace made or given in an action or proceeding in the court, or before the judge, master or justice of the peace…". I have a problem, and it probably can be resolved if we look at how we may interpret the word investigate.

I am aware of cases that have come before the Child and Youth Advocate where part of the problem that she has to look at is maybe a ruling that has happened in court, and an injustice that may be going on that does involve a court decision. I am wondering how we can say that she cannot take that into consideration in investigating the situation that she may be looking at.

If a court ruling has caused an injustice to happen and the advocate, from the outside, sees that there is that potential, she must have some way in which to deal with that, to name it, to bring it up. I know that, as a person not involved in the court case, she would not have the right of appeal, but if it comes in she must have some way to deal with it.

I would be interested in hearing the minister's interpretation, what he says to that, because that is the restriction that has caused me the most problems, and I think it is because of my knowledge of some cases that have gone to the advocate. I am not necessarily talking about the current advocate. In general, I am making this comment. I do have a problem with 15.1(b) and, as I said, I would like the minister to give me his interpretation of that and how he sees it working.

What I find really strong about the bill, which I like, and I would think is probably identical in wording to the Citizens' Representative Act, is section 21 and section 21.1, where both of these sections spell out very carefully the power of the advocate with regard to the subpoena. I am very happy to see it spelled out so carefully and so thoroughly. In actual fact, anybody that she has the right to investigate has to come through with what she is requesting. That is basically what that is about. I am happy with that part of the bill.

As I have said, my main question, the restriction that most bothers me is 15.1(b). I have a concern, too, I had a concern about 15.2 (1) where it reads, "Where the Minister of Justice certifies in writing to the advocate that the investigation of a matter would be contrary to the public interest under the circumstances, the advocate shall not investigate the matter, or, where the advocate has commenced an investigation of the matter, he or she shall discontinue the investigation."

I do have concerns with that. I do understand, though, that it is in the language of legislation that covers these jurisdictions in other areas; it is not just here. I guess the saving thing is that this would be public because the very fact that the advocate is investigating something, or is giving notice of investigation, is public, can be made public. Therefore, if the Minister of Justice has a reason for thinking that the investigation would not for the public interest that can be made public. In actual fact section (2) says, "Where a certificate is given under subsection (1), the advocate shall include the fact and a brief description of the circumstances of the matter in his or her next annual report to the House of Assembly." So the issue would become part of public discussion and would not be hidden, and I think that would be important.

I guess we also have to have faith that there can be a time when something would not be in the public interest and it would, I think, fit under the Minister of Justice to be the one to make that judgment. I do not know where else in government that would rest. It would seem to be that it would have to be with the Justice Ministry.

These are the two issues that I had some concern with, while at the same time overall supporting the bill. I look forward to hearing response from the Minister of Justice on those points.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, Bill 33.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I can say, one thing that has happened since March 10 is that I have obviously gotten a little bit used to the House of Assembly, because the comments that the Opposition House Leader made about our lack of openness and transparency that would have gotten a rise out of me two months ago, I managed to sit there today and not even feel the need to respond. I think that might either be a sign of growth or hardening. I am not sure which it is.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of comments raised that certainly I take very seriously. I will address the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's comment in a second. In terms of the Child and Youth Advocate, we are certainly aware of the issues that the Child and Youth Advocate faces. In relation to this draft bill and amendment to the Act, the deputy minister who was the associate deputy minister at the time, wrote directly to the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, and received an e-mail from her dated May 5, 2008 at 2:58 p.m.: I reviewed the draft bill and I am satisfied that it will enable me to fulfill my mandate. Thanks for your assistance and support in this matter. So these issues were discussed with the Child and Youth Advocate. I will make sure, however, that the draft bill that we are – because sometimes these bills go through different drafts - I will make sure that the draft bill, Mr. Speaker, that was provided to the Child and Youth Advocate is exactly the one that we are talking about here today.

Mr. Speaker, the second issue that is raised, however, is an important issue - and I know there is an answer and I am trying to remember it - the issue raised by the Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi, section 15.1(b). There are two issues that arose in the Turner Review about this, I remember. First, Mr. Speaker, was the issue of the extradition and I do remember that in the final report Dr. Markesteyn indicated that a provincial advocate – Dr. Markesteyn, I am trying to remember now, he was set up as doing a death investigation, if I remember correctly, because the Child And Youth Advocate actually retired in the middle of the investigation. Dr. Markesteyn was appointed and a new Child And Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, was appointed somewhere along the line. So, Dr. Markesteyn was not acting as the Child and Youth Advocate, he was, pursuant to this House, from the direction of the House, doing a child death investigation. Does that sound right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, in the report he identified a number of problems. One was that a provincial child death investigation could not review the decisions of a federal judge in the extradition process. One of the complaints made by the grandparents of Zachary Turner was the fact that the mother should never have been released on bail. I know that that issue was addressed by Dr. Markesteyn, the conclusion being that the provincial investigation could not review decisions of federal judges. I know that issue is in there, Mr. Speaker, but I have to look exactly at what was said.

Then we come to the second issue and this is an issue that I think I am going to need a little bit of time on before we go to committee because it is a very important issue. If I look at the way the amendment reads, "Nothing in this Act authorizes the advocate to investigate an order, decision, or omission of a court, a judge of a court, a master of a court, or a justice of the peace made or given in an action or proceeding in the court, or before the judge, master or justice of the peace." Again, I think that this may be dealt with in the Turner Review and that there may be a principle which prevents a provincial inquiry of this nature to review the order of the court. However, I am not sure that that extends to the proceedings that took place or the evidence that was given before the judge.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the judge's conduct or decision may be immune from review. However, I personally have difficulty with that because if a judge makes a decision that is a wrong decision that leads to a child review, then why shouldn't that decision be reviewed?

If you look at (c) – and I am going to need an opportunity to review this with my officials – if I could ask, Mr. Speaker, if members of the House, especially the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi were to look at subsection (c), "a matter in respect of which there is under an Act a right of appeal or objection or a right of apply….", if you took where it begins, until, if we apply the until to subsection (b) and word it so that the until would become a separate clause, that we obviously do not want the Child and Youth Advocate commenting or revealing an order, a decision of court which is still subject to review. There may be a way of restructuring this phrase if the principles allow.

I know that these issues were looked at in the Turner report. I do know, Mr. Speaker, that there was a recommendation in the Turner report dealing with recognizances. In this case, the recognizance of the mother would have been entered into, I think, before a Justice of the Peace. I do think that there was some discussion and recommendations made as to the way that recognizance and procedure should now be looked at by the Justice of the Peace. It is my further understanding, Mr. Speaker, that changes were made to the way sureties were sworn.

For example, I think in this particular case, in the Turner review, I am not sure if there was a doctor or a psychiatrist who had actually come forward and agreed to act as a surety for the mother, and there was a question as to whether or not that was appropriate. I think that – inappropriate - in the procedure that was recommended that issues of relationships between the parties, especially professional relationships, could be looked at.

I do know that this is a very significant issue that has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I do know that these similar issues were discussed in the Turner review. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I will close debate on this matter in a second and when we come back in Committee I will see what I can do to find out the answers, because, personally, I have difficulty - unless there is a judicial principle or a legal principle which prevents the order of a judge or a Justice of the Peace, I do not see why the Child and Youth Advocate should not be given those powers, if she can legally be given them, to review orders of decisions of judges or courts, especially a decision because a decision is one that is either orally or it is in writing, so we are looking at what the judge has done.

Again, I know that there is sensitivity to all of this. We have the issues of judicial independence. We have the issues of review and how reviews of court orders should take place. This is a fairly complicated issue. By the time we get back to Committee, Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will have some answers for the Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi, but I can assure the members of this House, unless there is a reason or a legal principle that prevents the child advocate from reviewing these decisions, that it is certainly something that, as a government, we are willing to consider.

Our position, Mr. Speaker, is that there has to be – contrary to what the Opposition House Leader indicates – that there has to be openness and transparency but especially accountability in a system, especially where we are dealing with the most vulnerable members of our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would move second reading, is it?

MS BURKE: Move to adjourn debate at second reading.

MR. KENNEDY: I would move to adjourn debate at this point on second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 31, Bill 32, Bill 34 and Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to entertain debate on certain bills, and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise on a point of order for the sake of expediency tomorrow.

Tomorrow is Private Members' Day and we had a motion entered yesterday, as was required under the rules, by the Member for St. John's East, which was going to be debated tomorrow.

We have now had an opportunity to research the motion and check it out, and we would suggest and submit that it has some problems in terms of being proper - not that we want to bring that up tomorrow.

In the interest of expediency, rather than raise it tomorrow, so that government could proceed, or the private member could proceed with that motion, we think it is not in order because it requires an expenditure of government money, which is not acceptable for a private member's motion, and specifically they use the word investigate.

I think that problem can be gotten around simply by an amendment, if we just said, instead of investigate, would consider investigating.

It is only a minor matter, but I say it now rather than raise it tomorrow, so that we could have tomorrow, when it is put on the Order Paper, the proper wording, if the Chair and the Table Officers feel that would be a proper suggestion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will certainly confer with the Table Officers and look at the private member's resolution as put forward by the Member for St. John's East and report back to the House some time later today.

The motion is that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would like to call Order 8, Bill 32.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 32, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act." (Bill 32)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would now like to call Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act." (Bill 34)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would like to call Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would like to call Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments again, as I indicated I would, on Bill 31, the Provincial Court Act.

I would like to reiterate that one of the issues I raised yesterday with the minister was the age of seventy. The reason I was concerned about that was - and I did not recall yesterday exactly when we had passed a piece of legislation whereby we removed the age of sixty-five from other pension legislation in the Province, the Uniformed Pensions Act, the NLTA, the MHA pensions and so on - I thought it was awful contradictory that we might have a situation whereby we are taking out sixty-five and then we made an amendment to the Provincial Court Judges Act whereby we said seventy would be retirement age. That seemed totally inconsistent because, if we took out the sixty-five because it was contrary to the Charter, how could we subsequently turn around and put in seventy again and pass a piece of legislation that was in violation of that very same Charter? Regardless if you are an MHA, or you are a teacher, or you are anybody getting a pension in this Province, we are removing the mandatory restriction on the sixty-five and then we turned around and put in a mandatory restriction on a Provincial Court judge.

Anyway, I went back and rechecked my history to see where I stood on it and how the chronology unfolded. Sure enough, this House dealt with the amendment concerning sixty-five in the spring of 2006. We raised it in the spring of 2006, and we all agreed, I think it was unanimously agreed that sixty-five, in order to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would be removed as a mandatory retirement age in this Province - done here unanimously.

The record will show that in December of 2006, in the very next sitting that we came back in the House that fall, was when the Provincial Court judge bill came up with the seventy in it. I reread my notes - in fact, I reread Hansard from that fall debate of 2006 to figure out what did I say back then. I hope I was going to be consistent between what I said in 2006 and what I said in 2007. Sure enough, the same comments that I made yesterday about seventy, when you go back and reread Hansard from 2006, sure enough, I expressed then why I thought the bill was wrong in principle. In fact, I voted against it.

The reason I voted against it - and I will go on record again. I will be voting against this piece of legislation, not because I disagree with what the minister and the government are trying to accomplish here in terms of having additional retired judges help with the expediency issues, but I firmly, personally disagree that we should have a bill that refers to seventy that is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I said, at the time, we did it in error and we are still in error if we leave the seventy in there.

The minister of the day, the current Minister of Finance said yesterday - because my question yesterday was: Why would we leave seventy in there? His comment across the House yesterday was: We did it because the judges want it. Lo and behold, I will repeat again today the comments that I made back in the fall of 2006 when I said that is bad logic. The reason it is bad logic is because we have had a tribunal system in this Province now to deal with judges, Provincial Court judges for a number of years. It goes back, I think, to maybe the late 1980s, early 1990s.

We had a ten-year history in this Province of tribunals that were done which dealt with judges and what their pay should be, what their pension should be, what their clothing allowance should be. Anything dealing with the Provincial Court judge was dealt with by a tribunal because the rationale was governments should not use a financial handle over judges. They should have their absolute independence. There should be no perception that there is ever any interference with the judges, and that is why we had a tribunal. Unfortunately, successive governments in the 1990s never, ever accepted the reports that were filed by the tribunals, but that is another issue. That does not take away from the fundamental truth and purpose of the tribunal, which was to decide what the benefits would be for the judges.

In other words, and I said this in the fall of 2006, how can a government impose a retirement age of seventy upon judges by way of legislation when we already agree as a government that we cannot decide anything else about them and how independent they are? To tell someone that you must go home if you are a Provincial Court judge, when you are seventy, flies in the face of what the intent of a tribunal is. That is the whole purpose of the tribunal, was so that government appointed someone, the judges appointed someone, between them they appointed a chair and everything concerning judges got dealt with and commented upon.

What I was saying at the time was that as a government it is inappropriate. It is improper because of the tribunal setup to put the age of seventy in there, even if the judges wanted it. The record will show that when that debate took place in the fall of 2006, the then Minister of Justice, the current Minister of Finance, made the comment that it was Chief Judge Reid, who is still the chief judge of the Provincial Court, who had said, we are in favour of this. My comment at the time, which I will repeat today again, is: With all due respect to Chief Judge Reid, it is not his call. It is not his call to tell the then Minister of Justice that we agree with the age of seventy. That decision had to be made by the tribunal. It is not for the chief judge to say that. There is a process, and that was true in the fall of 2006 and it is true now in May of 2008.

So that is not good logic. It was not good reason back then to put in the age of seventy. Number one, because the judges, I would submit, Chief Judge Reid had no right to tell the minister. Number two, the minister should not have accepted that recommendation. The minister of the day should have said put it to the tribunal and let them decide. To my knowledge, I do not know if a tribunal has ever decided that seventy is the acceptable age. I don't know if that ever happened on the tribunal.

In fact, I cannot understand why judges would want seventy. Maybe Chief Justice Reid wanted it for some reason, but I do not think the issue has ever been given any debate and consideration by a tribunal. Again, I would have thought the minister of the day - who was also the minister six months prior to that when we removed the sixty-five from the legislation - would have said to the judges: Why do you want the seventy? We know why we wanted seventy at the time, because in the fall of 2006 we were dealing with a specific problem. There was a certain judge in this Province that we were trying to accommodate. I said at the time that I agreed with solving that judge's problem, but we did not need to solve the problem by moving the retirement age for judges from sixty-five to seventy and create another problem, put the judges in violation of the Charter. All we needed to do was say take out the sixty-five that was in the judges, if you were going to do it at all, and I still think that was improper if you did not go to the tribunal. We created a problem, I am saying.

Why doesn't government do one of two things? That is all I was suggesting then, and I will suggest now. Why don't you delete the reference to the age of seventy that is currently in this bill? I think it is problematic from a lot of reasons. It is contrary to the Charter. You are passing a law that you know to be ultra vires to Charter. You are restricting the pool of judges that you might have available to put onto the panel that you want to deal with these inefficiencies in the system. Why would you do that? It is simply solved by taking out the references - and there are two of them in this bill - to seventy, in two different places. Why wouldn't we do the practical thing? It does not need to be there. Why wouldn't we leave it out? I do not think we can or ought to because of the tribunal system as well. I think in respect to the judges we should not be just putting it in the other one that is already in there, what we did in the fall of 2006. I think that needs to be reconsidered and sent to the tribunal.

I think this is problematic. I say in all sincerity here, I have no problem - I think, in fact, it is a good idea to have this panel that the minister is going to set up here. A great idea! It is headed in the right direction, there are efficiencies, it will serve the people of this Province, it will serve the judges and it will serve the court system. Justice will be enhanced by this panel system, no question about it, but why would we set up a system which, from the very outset, we know we have placed unnecessary restrictions on?

If there is an issue of death, that solves itself, in terms of when the judge stops work. If there is an issue of physical impairment, that he cannot do his job, that fixes it. If he cannot do it physically, that fixes it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. Member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Chair, just to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. PARSONS: So, those are the issues. The issue here, I do not think it is necessary. I think we are going on the right road, but you have already put an obstacle there that is going to come back and haunt the government, and it is improper to have that reference to seventy in this piece of legislation.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, first, in terms of the age of seventy, as pointed out, the former Justice Minister, now Minister of Finance, consulted with the judges and the age of seventy was agreed upon. I, certainly, Mr. Chairman, am not enacting any legislation or trying to bring in any legislation, or this government, that we know to be ultra vires of the Province, but there has to be, Mr. Chairman, a limit on all things in life. This is a bona fide occupational requirement for both the Charter and the Human Rights Code, Mr. Chairman. There has to be some limit. Most provinces have a limit of an age of seventy, whereas with the federal government with their Superior Court Judges it is an age of seventy-five.

Now, the Opposition House Leader brings up an intriguing point that certainly I, as well, plan to address tomorrow; where else in life do you get an appointment that lasts forever, because that is what judges do. If you get appointed a judge at forty, well, if there is no limit, you can go until you are eighty-two. Forty-two years at $180,000 or $220,000 or $250,000 a year, not a bad job, Mr. Chairman, if you can get them.

There have to be limits in life. The judges: one of the issues we have with the appointment process is there is no tenure like in academia. It is not like you get a fifteen year appointment. One of the questions I have, Mr. Chairman, is, in this day and age, as the Opposition House Leader has pointed out, in 2008, why do we allow for judicial appointments to basically go on ad infinitum? Why?

Judicial independence is one thing, but there also has to be judicial accountability. One of the things I am going to be suggesting to the Senate Committee tomorrow is, that we should look at both the new process of judicial appointments in this country and a new way to ensure that the judges remain accountable to the public who they serve. That may, Mr. Chairman, at some point, require looking at setting a finite term as opposed to the issue of going on forever. I do not mean that disrespectfully, I simply say it. Like anything else in life, if you are in a job for twenty-five or thirty years and the only accountability is a council that someone argues does not hold judges accountable, then it is a real issue.

I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, as legislators in this country, that we do not put our heads in the sand and simply say to judges that, like people in the Legislature, everyone has to be accountable in life. So these are issues that have to be looked at. As for now, if I had my way - and I say this with all respect - the age would not be seventy it would be much lower. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, I think they are doing quite well with seventy and that is where we plan to leave it at this point.

While I am speaking, I will raise a couple of issues. I know those comments are contentious and I make them knowing that. A couple of other points that were raised yesterday, Mr. Chairman - in terms of the Opposition House Leader, the issue of why the death of a person would result in the person removed by a panel. I was informed by the deputy minister - this is his note, and I do not know if he is trying to be funny – that deceased judges will obviously not be called to sit, however there has to be mechanism to formally remove their names from the list. I think that is the answer there, Mr. Chairman.

In relation to the pension plus the salary, Mr. Chair, the objective is to ensure that the retired per diem judge will not receive more than a sitting full-time judge, because the combination of pension and salary could actually lead to that. That is the purpose of that. The motive is well-intentioned. What could happen is, if a retired judge could do per diem work and make more than sitting judges we probably would have all retired judges doing per diem work. Obviously, there has to be a way of controlling this.

The 248 days that was also raised by the Opposition House Leader, that is equal to one judicial salary. That, I think, is allowed in the Budget, $177,600 or $177,800, something like that, and that is what we have in the Budget.

In terms of the ten-year term of the chief judge, I can again indicate to the Opposition House Leader that there is a sitting chief judge with a ten-year term. The next chief judge who is appointed, I will certainly if I am sitting in this Chair, be bringing in an amendment that the chief judge appointment should be for five years or less. There is no reason to be making appointments for ten years allowing judges to sit in a chair. At this stage, the ten years is there because we have a sitting chief judge.

The deleted sections that the Opposition House Leader referred to, there are some deleted sections that allow for the appointment of the Associate Chief Judge. The point raised, Mr. Chair, by the Opposition House Leader I certainly have some sympathy for, in terms of the Chief Judge who, if he is sick for more than a year then he is removed as Chief Judge. I certainly have some sympathy for that situation, but that is in the current Act. We took that from the current Act which is the 1991 Act. I do find it is an unusual section but I would hope that – that comes under the current act, Mr. Chair, section 7(3) I think it is. No, current section 7(4): a Chief Judge whose office is vacant under subsection (3) shall be considered to have resigned his or her office as Chief Judge if that vacancy continues for more than one year. That is certainly something, Mr. Chair, that if representations are made to the Department of Justice we will certainly consider, obviously.

The last section, Mr. Chair, is in relation to the tribunal that the Opposition House Leader has referred to. Under the current act, Mr. Chair, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would appoint one of the members as chairperson of the tribunal. The Opposition House Leader is correct in that in the previous section there was an appointment. It was something like a union setting if I remember correctly. There would be one appointed by the judges, one appointed by government and then they would agree on a third. Excuse me, here it is under section 28 of the current Act. One of the members of the tribunal shall be the nominee of the Chief Judge and the other judge of the court. One person appointed under subsection 1, shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to serve as Chairperson. It looked like, to me, Mr. Chair, that the government could appoint or consult on two. We were trying to even this up by saying that by allowing for consultation the judges would be in a better position.

What the current amendment does, Mr. Chair, is it imposes the duty to consult. I am trying to find specifically, Mr. Chair - yes, in the new amendment, that subsection 28 (3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council, after consultation with the chief judge and the president of the judges' association, shall appoint one of the members as the chairperson of the tribunal."

Now, I remember the last tribunal report. There were three individuals who sat on that. I do not know who was nominated by whom, but I think we tabled in the House here, it seems like forever ago, that there was Mr. Day, a Mr. Norris, and the Chairman - I cannot remember who the chairman was - Judge Steele. Judge Steele was the Chairman. Hopefully, that will continue, that someone as eminent as Justice Steele would be appointed as the Chair. What our intention, and what we are trying to do is to ensure that there is a duty to consult. Those were the points that were raised yesterday during the debate, that I made notes from the Opposition House Leader.

I think I have addressed all the points that were raised yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I will not take long. I did not get a chance to speak to this in second reading. I just wanted to, first of all, show my support.

I do have to answer a couple of the questions put forward by the minister when he was speaking. Where else in life does one get a life appointment like the judges? I could not resist saying, in the Vatican. Every cardinal and every pope has that right. That is the company that they are in. If you keep getting elected - Hazel McCallion in Mississauga is still getting elected as mayor and I think she is eighty-five now. So politicians if they get elected, and the cardinals. I could not resist.

Seriously, I do support the bill. I think the concept of the panel is extremely important right now in general. There are other times, hopefully, where it would not be in general, but backlogs are quite common, as we know. Today I just heard of somebody who, yesterday, their trial is set for a year's time because they cannot get four weeks together in order for that person to be tried. That is an injustice. That is a major injustice, and we know that is going on so much. If this decision can help with that kind of thing, I think it is really important, because a person like that, no matter what the person's crime, the person's life, their family's lives, everything is put on hold. I think some of us know whom I am talking about. By the time the trial actually happens, we are talking four years since things first came to light. That is not acceptable. If this bill can help with that, then I am for this bill.

I do understand the question around the age issue in terms of the constitution, but in light of the comments of the minister with regard to the only other option is to be there for life, I think that maybe we should leave it in and get a constitution. If anybody wants to, at some point in time, do a constitutional challenge, they can do it. I would not hold up the bill for the sake of that. I will vote for it. Maybe there is a way to get around the age thing, I am not sure, but at the moment I am willing to go with it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

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

During the debate yesterday, I was talking about the fact - I was making a plea to the House that when somebody applies to be a judge, that person is making the decision to park their politics at the door and that there should not be, from members, criticism of the appointment of that person as a judge because of political reasons, in view of the fact that there is an independent committee that vets and recommends who should be judges.

The hon. Government House Leader has indicated that during my comments yesterday I made the comment that there were people in this House, some still here and some who are no longer here, who had criticized the appointment of Judge Monahan as an appointment just based on patronage.

The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, has indicated to me that he never said anything along those lines and that I may have left the impression that he has, and if that is the case, I would just like to clarify that if he says that he did not make those comments then I accept that. I would just like to clarify that the hon. member has told me that he did not make any negative comments about Judge Monahan's appointment. I just want to make sure that the House is clear on that point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the minister's comments, yes, I just want to clarify. The impression was left that possibly I had said something contrary or negative about the appointment of the late Mr. Monahan. I checked the record to verify. I would have no reason for doing that. He has been a personal friend of mine for many, many years. I had no intentions, never would have done anything, and I did not. Anyway, I appreciate the minister's comments and clarifications in that regard.

I would like to make a couple of responses. The minister admits himself, right up front, that sometimes he says stuff that is controversial. Maybe, to some people in the House - I think he realized after he made a comment here just recently, that the comment he did make is, indeed, very controversial and unnecessary. I am sure there will probably be some questions directed his way from some quarters as to why he might have said it. The comment, and I am coming as close as I can because I wrote it down here when he said it, was that he was referring to certain councils, judicial councils, and he said: A council that does not keep anyone accountable. Now coming from the lips of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that could be perceived in some quarters as a pretty serious comment. Anyway, I just do not know if there is any need to incite situations and put oneself out there, albeit we sometimes like to attract controversy, to make such a comment.

Again, I think it was shown in the Cameron inquiry piece, where comments were made that were unnecessary, that were considered by some to incite situations that need not have arisen. It has nothing to do with this bill here, and I will not dwell on the subject, but I just say again that sometimes we bring unnecessary comments upon ourselves when we do not need to.

To move on, I would like to ask the minister, in regards to this bill, I am just wondering what kind of uptake we have had so far from the Provincial Court judges? I believe the report was released that was done by Chief Judge Reid some time ago. I am just wondering, what kind of consultation has taken place so far? How many retired Provincial Court judges might have expressed an interest in signing onto this piece? Because I think that is crucial. It has been two or three weeks now. In fact, I had a couple of friends of mine who were former Provincial Court judges who called, and some expressed an interest that they thought it was a great idea, some did not think it was a good idea. I am just wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to get any uptake on that particular issue?

The other question I would ask the minister is - I appreciate his clarification on the salary. He says that number of days, 248 days works out to be the equivalency of a Provincial Court judge salary; $177,000 I think the minister said. I am just wondering if - I guess it is a trial and error thing. We have to see as we go. I guess it is just a case of, we put that much money in the pot right now and we will look after it for up to $177,000. In other words, we are going to buy ourselves the services of an extra judge, basically. I am just wondering if the minister has given any thought - like, how was that arrived at, that one extra judge might be sufficient? How does the one judge relate to the backlog that exists in the court system? Will one judge cut it, or how was that determined, for example? Who picked the figure of one extra judge would do it? I am just thinking, what do we do if we find out that within the year that the one salary does not come near it? We have a pretty complicated process to go through in order for the minister to expend any more money. I am wondering, why would we enshrine in legislation the limit of 248 days which he has confirmed today is the case? He has confirmed that all of these judges who work overtime, who are retired, are going to be constricted now to a $177,000 a year pot. Why would government bind its hands so that if we find out, come November, we have not gotten one-tenth of the way through the backlog but we have spent our $177,000, that we cannot finish it until another year? I am just wondering the wisdom of that, if we get six months in and we have had five judges who up-took this program, they have spent the $177,000 and we have reached the 248 days, bang, we are cut. You cannot do any more towards the backlog until another fiscal year starts.

Why would we have dealt with it that way rather than create some situation whereby it was a regulation? Whereby, if extra money became available, and the minister wanted to, and he had a few dollars extra in the pot, he could say, without going through a legislative change, let's spend it.

I think that is short-sightedness in that particular section there, subsection 10 of section 2. I think that severely constricts unnecessarily the minister. He is well-intentioned, but somebody drafted this, I suggest, in such a hurry to get it done in this session that we did not contemplate some of these things. That is the whole purpose of having second readings and having committees, that it is never too late to have an amendment, and I think that ought to be amended in some way so that the minister does not tie his own hands. He has the best of intentions when it comes to the inefficiencies, but let's not tie ourselves so that we have to come back and go through another legislative amendment on it. That is the other thing.

The other thing is the ten years. We come before this House, I would think, and the minister gives us all kinds of reasons why we are amending the Provincial Court Act, Bill 31, here. We know what his personal opinion is, on to how long a chief judge should be a chief judge. Ten years, he is not agreeable to. He is saying it should be five. Why is that not being changed now? It is in the old act. He is leaving it in the act now. We know how the minister feels. He thinks that, for whatever reasons - and we never even got into that - he feels it should be five years, and he did not express any opinion as to why it should be five years. That is his personal opinion, to which he is entitled, no question, but I am just wondering, if that is the case why wouldn't we have had it? He is obviously aware of it. Why wouldn't we have had that five year piece in as part of this package right now?

Mr. Chair, I am not sure if the Government House Leader wants me to adjourn at this point. I understand our intention is to return tonight.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, because of the time, of course, we will adjourn at this point and come back at 7:00 p.m., but I also wanted to move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: My point I was trying to make - I guess I wasn't clear - I would like to finish my comments on this bill and that may take you beyond the 5:30 p.m. piece. I did not want to interfere with any of the members' hour-and-a-half for supper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Until 7:00 o'clock, and I will clue up my remarks at that time?

MS BURKE: No, go ahead.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Anyway, we will continue beyond the 5:30 p.m. time.

That is another comment I would make about the ten years piece: Why isn't that being changed now?

On the tribunal piece, again, I am unclear as to where we sit in terms of how the tribunal chair is appointed. I raised that the last day when we did second reading because it says in the new section: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, after consultation with the chief judge and the president of the judges' association, shall appoint one of the members as the chairperson of the tribunal.

Now, I did not get any clarity or sense of comfort from the minister when he just referred to that as to what the former process was. My understanding is that government appointed one, the judges appointed one, and between the two of them they agreed who the chair was going to be.

What I see this piece of legislation doing is, it is altering that course of appointment. The only requirement on government, on a go-forward basis in the future, is to consult with the chief judge and the president of the judges' association.

Now, anyone who reads this on its clear reading, to consult with someone places no obligations on the government to listen to them. What we have done here, I believe that we have caused another major problem with the tribunal system; because if we take away what is the recognized pattern of appointing a chair for the tribunals - for example, the judicial independence piece again - to now put it back in the hands of government to say who the chair is going to be, that flies in the face of why we had tribunals in the first place.

We are now saying clear, boldfaced, here that the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, will decide who the chair is of a tribunal. Yes, we will consult, thank you very much, we will pick up the phone. It is like the federal Minister of Justice consults now with the provincial Minister of Justice when they appoint a Federal Court judge. You get a call at ten o'clock in the morning that says, we are going to appoint such-and-such to the bench, we just want to give you a heads up. When you hang-up the phone and you go out to your fax machine, there is a press release from the federal minister saying who it is. That is the limit of the consultation. Consultation does not mean that it has any binding effect whatsoever –

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 12, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 12, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 12, inclusive, carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Committee rise and report Bills 31, 32, 34 and 37.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 31, 32, 34 and 37 without amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 31, 32, 34 and 37 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and has directed him to report Bills 31, 32, 34 and 37 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, based on the time being 5:36 p.m., I move that we adjourn until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now in recess.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Earlier today the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order concerning the private member's motion to be debated here in the Chamber tomorrow. It is the House Leader's contention that this motion is out of order and that it binds government to spend money. The wording of the resolution to which the Opposition House Leader objects is as follows:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly investigate, in a timely manner, procedures which will reduce the use of paper for tabled documents to a minimum.

In the opinion of the Chair, this resolution does not bind the House to expend money but merely to carry out a review which can be done without incurring any expense. As a matter of fact, I do believe some work has already been carried out in-house on this particular question of paper reduction. Furthermore, the resolution requires the House, not government, to carry out the investigation or review. Furthermore, the House has no power to expend funds not already appropriated.

In the opinion of the Chair there is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, 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 Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill 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 Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Partnership Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Partnership Act, 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 Partnership Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill, Bill 30, is now 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 Partnership Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, 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 Legal Aid Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," read a third time, order passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 7, An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House, that Bill 7, An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information, 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 Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, 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 House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Orders of the Day I would like to call number 3, Concurrence Motions, and under that, section (a) Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Concurrence Motions of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour for me to get up tonight and say a few words on the Government Services Committee - and I guess what we are doing tonight are debates on concurrence.

I guess I should give a little explanation of exactly what we are doing. All departments in the House of Assembly are divided up into three categories. We have Government Services, which we are debating here tonight - the other two: Resource Committee, as well as the Social Services Committee. I guess this is all part of the Budget Debate and it is a process that we go through. I know we have three hours actually to debate each one of the committees, once we get to concurrence, and I guess this is the final committee we are doing tonight and I guess the final piece of the Budget Debate.

In the Government Services Committee we do a number of government departments. We do the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works; the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; the Department of Labrador Affairs; and of course, Aboriginal Affairs.

I want to start off by thanking all our committee members: the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Topsail; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for Kilbride; the Member for Exploits; and the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you a quick rundown, what actually happens is we meet here in the House of Assembly, or in another room here in the confines of the Legislature, and questions are asked. Usually the committee members ask questions of the ministers, and of course, the minister's staff. There are three hours allotted for each one of these debates, and again, there is three hours for concurrence as well.

Like I said, I would like to start off by thanking all those that were involved. It was certainly an honour for me to chair this committee. Although I have been involved with Estimates since I have been in the House, it was my first time chairing. I have to say, it was an enjoyable process and everybody seemed to play by the rules with little trouble.

Mr. Speaker, to start off the Budget Debate tonight, and I know we are going to go on for quite some time, I thought I would start off by keeping this to the issues tonight. I am hoping that my friends in the Opposition will stick to the issues, will stay away from the personalities, and we debate the issues, and of course that is what this House is here for. The reason I am suggesting that is because after I sit down, after my twenty minutes, I do not get a chance to get up and respond to some of the comments that the Opposition might make. I will say for the people out there watching tonight, let's hope that everybody keeps the decorum in the debate to a high level and we stick to the issues at hand.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the departments we talk about in concurrence is finance. Finance, of course, is one of the departments in the Government Services Committee. As most of the people out in the Province know, there was no secret that our debt was over $11 billion. I am glad to see, this year, we have taken that debt from $11.6 billion down to $10 billion. It is certainly a significant move in lowering the debt. I heard recently, and I am not certain on this, but I believe by reducing that amount of debt it saves $60 million annually to the public treasury, and $60 million annually to the public treasury is money that we have, that we used to use for servicing the debt. Of course, some people out there think it is all about paying down the debt. Well, it is certainly not. Like I have said in this House many times, many of us in this House are what I would class in political terminology, is red Tories. We are not all about recuperating the debt in one budget, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly about many of the social sides of our society. One that I am proud to say that this government as a whole since I have been here, have always, always kept the social sector in mind.

One of the items that come to mind of course is - all you have to look at is a summary of how we spend our money. In the health care sector, 36.7 per cent of our Budget is spent on health care; 20.1 per cent is spent on education. I think there is about 12.8 per cent spent on other social sector departments and areas. So, Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of our annual Budget is spent on social issues in this Province, and I think that is good to see. Obviously, we would always like to have more money to put into various social issues but I am proud to see that we have struck a balance that I think most people in the Province believe in. Of course, it is not a be all to end all but we see that side of the equation. Of course, we could go into our poverty reduction strategies, some of the things we have done for seniors that I will probably touch on now, very shortly, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that we have been able to do, of course, is cut taxes, and tax cuts in itself puts more money in the pockets of individuals so that they have more money to spend. There is no doubt that some people, some of my friends here in the House do not believe in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, I am a fellow that actually believes in tax cuts. We started the ball last year when we lowered personal income tax, and again this year we made another significant jump when we reduced the tax rates across the board by 1 per cent. So, we went from 8.7 per cent to 7.1 per cent, 13.8 per cent to 12.8 per cent and 16.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that certainly gives us a competitive advantage in Atlantic Canada. I believe now we have the lowest tax rate in Atlantic Canada and I think the fourth lowest in the country. So that is certainly significant, especially at a time when we are encouraging people to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador. We have some significant projects in the hopper that we are hoping to be developed in the next number of years. It is certainly good to see that we have done that, so that we are competitive so that the labour force, as we need it, will see it as an advantage to live here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, not only do you look at the taxes, there is always an advantage to living here, as I am sure many of us in this House would agree, that certainly there is no place like Newfoundland and Labrador. That is very evident by all of us, Mr. Speaker. We all love this Province and I am sure there are many living away who would love to be home, and hopefully we are going to create some kind of opportunities to allow them to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you some quick synopsis: on $30,000 a year, people will be saving $640; on $35,000, $840, and on $40,000, almost $1,000. Mr. Speaker, you multiply that out by the population and these are the middle-class people, who I believe to be middle-class people in this Province, and it certainly gives them more disposable cash to deal with their everyday lives and maybe to enjoy some of it that they were paying taxes on previously.

Mr. Speaker, another thing I wanted to talk about is senior's benefits. In this Province we have made a number of steps in the last few years. Actually, we have made quite a few steps. In our previous Blue Book we decided we were going to do something for seniors in this Province. We realize seniors are on fixed incomes and so on, so we decided - there were a number of things that we did to help alleviate some of the stresses on seniors in our society. We started off with a Ministerial Council for seniors. What that council is it is a group of Cabinet ministers who affect senior's lives, I guess, most. I know the Minister of Health is on it. Of course, he would be the lead minister. The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and a number of the ministers. Certainly, a Ministerial Council will bring issues of seniors' right directly to the Cabinet table with a number of them being very well versed in some of the issues that we are facing.

As well as doing the Ministerial Council, we also established an Aging and Seniors Division within the Department of Health. The Minister of Health is responsible for overseeing that division. Again, Mr. Speaker, to highlight some of the things that we are doing for seniors and to bring it to the attention, have it in the forefront of this Province and the decision making in this Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have established the Provincial Advisory Council. The Provincial Advisory Council is a council of a variety of seniors who have come together on a regular basis. I think it is maybe four or five times a year they meet. Of course, their issues are heard. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of attending one of their meetings very recently and hope to be attending another one in June. Of course, at that meeting we discussed a number of issues for seniors across this Province and, again, it is relayed back to the minister who can bring it to Cabinet, who can sit down with government, with our caucus. It keeps it on the forefront, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, there are a number of issues I could go into. The Home Heating Rebate, like we talked about earlier, people on low fixed incomes. That certainly helps the seniors in this Province. Storage tank replacement was another one. Again, these are issues that are broad based, but they affect seniors more than probably anybody else, especially seniors who like to stay in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues. I talked about the tax cuts a few minutes ago. It will certainly benefit seniors. Of course, the insurance tax; again, many seniors like to live in their own homes. Many of them drive their own cars, and this 15 per cent tax reduction on insurance is significant. I know speaking from personal experience, we have two vehicles - I have one, my wife has one - it is going to make a significant difference. I think it is probably in the range of $3,500 in insurance alone just for our vehicles. So, 15 per cent off the top of that is, again, another way that government is putting money back in the pockets of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but certainly back into the pockets of seniors. Of course, like I said, many of them are on fixed incomes and it helps their cause.

I guess there is no better example of government assisting seniors than in the Seniors' Benefit this year. Effective this year, a single senior with a net income of $25,000 to $32,000 will receive a benefit of $776. Many of you might say: How do I get that? I would just like to say that this is something that comes every October, I believe it is, and it comes out with your HST cheque and it is added on to that. This year we did it for the seniors. The year previous we had that $776 for couples, but this year we realized that many senior singles have the same expenses of people living together. Not exactly the same of course, food would probably be somewhat different. The reality of it is they have the same upkeep on their homes - if they have a vehicle. We thought it important, as a government, this year to include single seniors as well to ensure that they can do everything and give them the same benefits as a married couple would have. I was glad to see that this year.

Mr. Speaker, again, another one of the departments that we have in this committee is Transportation. There are many initiatives this year in Transportation, and we talked about them. It has been mentioned here during Budget Debate. There is $182 million this year. Under the Provincial Roads Improvement Program there is $73 million, Mr. Speaker. We have gone from $73 million - just a few short years ago, before we formed the government, I might add, there was $6 million spent on road repairs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all know there is still work to be done. I have to say, we are making a dent in it. Anybody who drives the roads will know that this time of year, of course, after the harsh winters that we get here in Newfoundland, there are quite a few holes and so on but we have made vast improvements in this Province in roadwork. In my area we have made significant commitments to the roadways over the last four or five years and again this year, Mr. Speaker, along with the Minister of Transportation, committed to the CBS Bypass.

Mr. Speaker, that is something that I have been lobbying for since I came into this House in 2002. Sometimes it takes a while for your number to come up, but I was certainly proud this year when the minister agreed to the provincial commitment toward the CBS Bypass. That is going to have to be a cost-shared arrangement between the federal government and the provincial government but, like I said, I am happy to say this year that it was committed to.

Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting story here and I just about, as the fellow says, hove up the other morning when someone told me that on CBC Radio none other than Mr. John Efford was on a CBC panel with a colleague of mine, actually, the Member for Grand Falls, and his whole tone was that he would never do anything, Mr. Speaker, to influence the road money in this Province, and that, you know, it was no big deal on the topic that he was under. You know, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think back to when he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I think it was transportation then; I just forget the exact title of it.

Mr. Speaker, the CBS Bypass - and I tell this story quite regularly - was committed to in 1988 under the Roads for Rail Agreement. There was a significant sum of money given to this Province, but the political will of the day - and I have to say the Official Opposition were the government of the day, and Mr. Efford was the Minister of Transportation - somewhere along the way, within the decision making of the department under the leadership of Mr. Efford - who, by the way, I might add, it is no secret that he must be out campaigning now because I have noticed him lately in the media again, so he must be out campaigning for his role to be the new leader. I say to my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I hope she runs for the leadership of her party; and, be prepared, because no doubt Mr. Efford is knocking on the door and he is getting ready. He is ready to rumble.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I remind the residents of CBS in particular of the way he operated when he was minister of that department.

Somewhere in the jigs and the reels, Mr. Speaker, the money to complete the CBS Bypass was taken out of that, taken out of the pot, even though it was committed to under the Roads for Rail Agreement, and he decided to play politics with it, which he did. It made a significant impact on the residents of CBS, I might add, Mr. Speaker, since he half finished the CBS Bypass but he neglected to do the last part.

Of course, with that today, the road infrastructure in CBS, especially where it is such a booming community, thank God, and it is certainly good to see and we have lots of new people moving into the community, but especially in the west end of CBS, Mr. Speaker, he forgot about them. He wrote them off.

I have heard all kinds of rumours where the money was spent. Some say it was spent here, some say it was spent there. You know what they told me at the time, Mr. Speaker? I will never forget it. They told me the reason the CBS Bypass wasn't completed was because the price of gas went up. The price of fuel went up, so that was their – can you imagine, in today's economy, what he would have said, Mr. Speaker? We would have never gotten an inch of pavement, in today's economy, if we did everything based on the cost of gas. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that was the reasoning, the flimsy, foolish reason that he tried to say to the people of Conception Bay South at the time.

So I say, when you hear people of old coming on, talking about roads programs, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to remember the history and some of the things that they did, in their day, and it is certainly not good for the residents of the area I represented, but I guess they were penalized because they were the wrong political stripe.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same thing happened in Gambo (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, a colleague of mine tells me that the same thing happened to the Gambo Bypass road, so there you go. That was their style. That was their style, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate.

You hear today, Mr. Speaker, you listen to members close to me here, the Official Opposition, every one of them stood up on the Budget and talked about the money they got in their district. Every one of them praised government for getting - think it was $2 million in the Member for Port de Grave's district. I think they all got around $2 million; $2 million, $1.5 million, $1 million. Mr. Speaker, there was millions of dollars spent in Opposition members' districts. The Member for Port de Grave stood in this House and was delighted, delighted with the money, so it is obvious – former Mr. Efford's district, I might add, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, if the shoe was on the other foot the Member for Port de Grave would not be standing today complimenting the roadwork that has been done by this government.

Mr. Speaker, another thing we talked about doing, and we committed to it in our Blue Book, was the reduction – I should say that Government Services, as well, is one of the departments that is part of this committee. One of the things we committed to in our Blue Book was reducing the registration of vehicles, or the licence, from $180 to $140. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that was announced in this Budget. It was significant; again, another avenue to put more money back into the pockets of the people of this Province, and that is what this is all about. It is all about giving people more cash to spend, so I was certainly delighted to see that.

Mr. Speaker, in a little while, I know without doubt, my colleague who sits next to me here will get up and talk at great lengths about her district in Labrador. I think it is very important that we outline, for the people of Labrador, the significant amount of money that we have committed again this year in spending in Labrador, and I guess money that we have committed over the last number of years.

My colleague from Lake Melville recently got up and talked about the Northern Strategic Plan and was heckled and criticized because he talked about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the Member for Lake Melville talk about that. This is a file that he has worked on for quite some time, he and my other colleague from Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker, so the two of them, along with the Member for Labrador West, have brought a great commitment from Labrador to our table, to our caucus table, and it has brought dividends to the people for believing in our government. We believe in Labrador, and there is nothing more evident in this year's Budget and the last couple of Budgets, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, we had $66.5 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway, $45 million that is cost-shared with the federal government for hard surfacing and Phase I one of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, a couple of the big ones, $32 million was allocated for the Trans-Labrador Highway. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, there was $6.7 million in new initiatives as well in this Budget for the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health it would certainly be remiss of me if I did not speak to some of the things that we have done in health care in this Province. When we took the government in 2003, Mr. Speaker, our annual budget for health care in this Province was $1.6 billion. Today, we are looking at $2.3 billion in health care, Mr. Speaker, a significant piece of the provincial Budget.

Yes, there is no doubt - I just went through an incident where I was dealing with hospitals on a daily basis - there are always needs, wants, and there always will be, Mr. Speaker. We have tried the balanced approach to health care. We have tried to do things with it as best as we could and, of course, in this year's Budget nothing was more evident. One of the things that we did was put twelve new digital mammography machines across this Province. That was to the delight of many.

Actually, I had an opportunity to meet with a lady, a former member of this House, actually, who met with me to discuss mammography units, among others things, Mr. Speaker, who is very heavily involved in breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, her actual words were: Oh, I was just thrilled with the new commitment.

She was thrilled with the new commitment that this government made to mammography in this Province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we heard from other people involved with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Registered Nurses, who are absolutely delighted with the increase in the number of nursing seats that we have put into the schools for nursing, the introduction of bursaries, and signing bonuses for graduate nurses. Mr. Speaker, those are just a couple of the things that I will highlight.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we had the CEO of the Community Services Council, who she said she was on cloud nine with the $650,000 we committed to the volunteer sector. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is now also the minister for volunteers and, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the volunteers, with the commitment they make to this Province, we had to find a way to enable the many volunteer fire departments out there, and numerous other sectors of volunteers, that make a difference here in this Province every single day of their lives -

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: I will just clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I know my hon. colleague says I have all night.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: I can certainly stay here all night, if she wishes; I have no problem with that. We are not afraid of a night session around here, Mr. Speaker. We take our lunch bucket when we leave in the morning, Mr. Speaker. A night session does not scare us, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, and just to clue up, it was certainly an honour for me to be Chairman of the Government Services Committee, like I said. I ran through the departments earlier. I could stand here all night, I guess, and list off initiatives and programs that we have done this year, in particular our financial controls under the guidance of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank you for this opportunity and, who knows, maybe I will get the chance to say a few words on the Budget later on before the House closes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and speak on concurrence when it comes to the Government Services Committee, which included the Government Services Department and the Department of Transportation and Works.

Before I was asked to get up next, I was wondering what I was going to talk about; but, as I listened to my hon. colleague from Conception Bay South, how things flood back to your mind, when he said he was going to stick to the issues tonight.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he made it to nine minutes and forty-three seconds when he went off the track and he went on a political rampage.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was not talking about you.

MR. BUTLER: No, he was not talking about me; but, when you think about it, each time I get up, Mr. Speaker – and I think he touched on this – yes, there are wonderful things in this Budget, I have said it before, and I will say it again, when it comes to the reduction in the insurance, the road work, the formula for municipal affairs and the money that has gone into health care and education. Mr. Speaker, that is where it ends because you still have to bring the issues to the floor that the people of your district and throughout the Province – when you are a critic for different departments you have to bring their issues forward, not in a critical way, but in a way that hopefully the ministers in government will listen.

I listened with great interest last week when the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's was up, when he talked about all the information that the members on the committee and the Liberal and the NDP Opposition members were looking for. He was wondering what we are going to do with it. I am wondering what we are going to do with it too, Mr. Speaker, because it will not be tomorrow we will receive it. I think we have heard back from one hon. minister so far with all of the questions that we asked during the Estimates. I think the hon. minister was the minister who was forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, he also congratulated us on winning in the last election, that we survived the blue tsunami, I think he called it. I have to say, no doubt about it, there was a big tsunami. Myself and my other two colleagues worked very hard to hang on that time, but I am going to tell you one thing, there were no coattails there for me to get on to help me get back to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. Not the one! Not a coattail for me to get a hold to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one ride on a coattail.

MR. BUTLER: No, I did not get any rides, Mr. Speaker, in 2001, 2003 or 2007.

You know, politics makes odd bedfellows they say. I cannot believe - everyday the Member for Lake Melville gets up and he is talking about Johnny this and Johnny that and Johnny someone else. I remember the day, Mr. Speaker, when in the Glacier he almost had the lights beat out of her, waving the banners to try and get that man elected as leader of our party.

MS JONES: Who is that?

MR. BUTLER: The Member for Lake Melville.

MS JONES: No!

MR. BUTLER: Oh yes. He was a delegate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville, on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I will say this to the hon. House, that I have made political mistakes in my life and that was one of them, and I apologize to my hon. colleagues (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I guess now he has come to the realization that he should have supported Roger Grimes.

It was good to see. I remember when the plane landed in St. John's and they all piled off and they came around and got their banners and their hats and everything else. I guess it is coming back to him now. He mentions his name every day. I guess when he listened to him the other day on the radio show he figured, if he should come back maybe he will change sides again.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on some of the issues that have been brought to my attention over the past number of weeks since this session of the House started. We bring them forward from time to time in Estimates and through Question Period. I just want to go through them now, as a refresher, seeing that this is probably my last time with regards to speaking on the Budget in particular.

There are several issues we brought forward to the Minister of Education, one with regards to the Newfoundland students who are in the United States. They have lost their student loan that they received down there and they are finding themselves in a very difficult position. The minister did admit in this House that she would check this out and see if anything could be done. Hopefully, they will work with the federal government, because I know they are looking into it as well. We hear talk about the teacher allocations, the concerns that were expressed to us. From time to time, the minister did state that this would be reviewed, and hopefully, at the end of the day - because we see it in the paper each and every day. There were concerns about Kindergarten, about twenty in the morning, twenty in the evening, so the one Kindergarten teacher had forty students. I guess that is a bit much, but hopefully that will be looked at and that issue will be resolved as well.

We hear so much, Mr. Speaker, about safety within our schools. We hope it never comes to anything serious, but we do hear talk of the bullying in the schools and the drugs that are around our schools in the Province. I know this year government has allocated lots of funds for counsellors and various positions within our schools. I cannot help but think back to the report that we saw back some time ago when a survey was done with our teachers in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the results that came back when they were asked some questions. Seventy-two per cent of them stated that they were personally insulted by students in their school; 30.6 per cent had damage done to their personal property; 41.8 per cent were threatened without a weapon; 11.4 per cent were threatened with a weapon; 22.1 per cent were assaulted without a weapon; and 4.3 per cent with a weapon.

Mr. Speaker, why I bring that up, I guess we talked about the safety of our children, but when we know what is happening in the schools, and this is what is being put forward to our teachers, can you imagine what the younger children may be going through from the same people who are assaulting our teachers? I think and hope that something can be done about that, Mr. Speaker.

From time to time we brought up about the quality of the air in the schools, the air quality, and this year we see $2.6 million, but we also know that was eighty-seven schools. Hopefully, that is all of them, Mr. Speaker. We hope that will resolve all of the problems that people encounter in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, we also, from time to time have calls with regard – like I said earlier, the reduction of the registration fees and on the insurance, that is all fine but many of our people call in and I am sure each and every member here gets calls from people with regard to the cost of gas at the pumps and the home heating fuel. Yes, we have a rebate program and that is working. The only thing is people would like see that come out earlier in the year rather than later.

The other day we had a private member's motion put forward by the Member for Lewisporte with regard to the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. We put an amendment in asking for an all-party committee. Mr. Speaker, that was called more or less a silly committee. It was more or less the Opposition were looking for an opportunity to have a trip to Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, this administration, when they took office under their Premier, they did set up an all-party committee but there was a little catch to it. It was all parties, but we were in government at the time and the party itself did not get a phone call from our leader down – I am sorry, that was before they took office and we were in power and they put together an all-party committee, but the government of the day did not get a phone call. There were only two people who got a phone call. I had a personal phone call from the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and today's Premier. I had a personal phone call at home asking me if I wanted to serve on that committee. There was one other person who got a phone call and that was the former Member for Burin-Placentia West when she was here. I can tell you why we got the phone call. I worked with the former Member for Port de Grave and she supported them during the leadership. That is why we got the phone call. Our party did not get a phone call at that time. They believed at that time that all-party committees were good. They did go to Ottawa and hopefully good things came from it.

Back to the retirement package: after they saw the debate here in the House I had a gentleman call me from Port de Grave. He was one of the gentlemen who were affected. He was pleased with the full debate, but like he said he would have liked to have seen an all-party committee. He explained to me what he went through with the buyout, which was only, supposedly, for the groundfish. He had to sign off on every other permit and every other licence that he had when he received that buy-back.

He lost his licences on the crab permit, the capelin, the herring, the mackerel, the squid, the lobster, and the whelk; no compensation for it. Like he said, if he knew what was going to happen and he was going to lose this $40,000, which was done through Revenue Canada, he would have been better off if had sold it all himself, and he would have been in money on it. He had to forfeit his personal fishing licence.

Mr. Speaker, another issue: we talk about health care. We know there are hundreds of thousands of dollars going into health care in this Province, but he find ourselves in a position – I do not blame the government for this, but something has to be done and it has to happen quickly.

I know the other day, the Minister of Health and the Premier announced money for one group of specialists here in the Province, but now each and every day we hear from other groups. We hear from the general practitioners. We know what is happening in Gander. I mean, when it comes down to, regardless of who is in power, people have to put their name in for a draw to see if you are going to be one of the patients of the two new doctors coming to town. I have stood in this hon. House and brought in petitions on behalf of the people in the Conception Bay North area. I thought at that time that was the only area that had any concerns, but lo and behold, finally the councils, the joint mayors' committee, everyone came on stream, the Medical Association, the doctors themselves were speaking out, and now we hear it all over this Province. We hear the same thing with regards to the nurses. We were told, a lot of members here were told, that we are in a crisis situation in this Province when it comes to shortage of nurses.

There was another Private Member's Motion brought in by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. When we put an amendment to that one, that something would be done as soon as possible to help those people, that was defeated. I think we have to look at that. The minister has to reconsider the concerns that those people have.

Another issue that is very close to me – and I am sure it is close the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Trinity-Bay de Verde, Bellevue, and I do not know but Placentia-St. Mary's, when it comes to the long-term care facility that we were looking forward to in that area. I do not blame anyone in particular for losing that. We were number one on the priority list, and today it is not even on the radar. Even though I had been told that it is possibly going to happen, in the Budget this year we hear that they are looking at the possibility of two new personal care homes for St. John's. I have great concerns about that, not because the people in here are getting two new homes but I am wondering if that is going to be the order of the day, that the people in the Conception Bay North area will have to travel to St. John's.

We hear talk about our pensioners who are looking for indexing of their pensions. We have had an opportunity to meet with them, prior to the election and since the election, and when you sit down and listen to the concerns those people have, they find themselves in a very difficult position financially. We look at the Cameron Inquiry each and every day and we hope at the end that a resolution will be found, that this will not happen to any of our people again, Mr. Speaker.

I had a call from a gentleman in my area only last week when he was listening to the Inquiry, how his wife had cancer. They went on a holiday and came back and she had several problems so she went to the doctor and the specialist in here told her, go home, my dear, you are cancer free. Unfortunately, he does not have his wife today.

Mr. Speaker, we have concerns with regard to the audiologists in this Province. We know there are people there to do it but when it comes to the controlled auditory processing test that has been recommended by teachers, people with the school board and so on, the students have a long waiting list. I have one young girl in my district who is in Grade 3 now; she will be in Grade 8 before she gets the testing done. Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable.

Only recently the Urban Municipalities had a meeting in Bonavista. I think 19 out of the 20 municipalities were there. One of the issues brought up was, they do not feel they are getting a bang for their buck when it comes to asphalt. I spoke with the minister. They know there is something wrong, they have done testing and they think that something has to change with regards to the quality of the asphalt we are having.

Another issue that came up at that committee – hopefully, the day will come when the minister will get all his surveys done, the Minister of Government Services. Each and every day we see it in the papers about the – we brought forward the notion of winter tires and each and every council in this Province today are reviewing that. Those nineteen municipalities all agree that something should be done and they are bringing their recommendations forward to the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit down, I guess, without referring to the waste management in our Province. I am to wonder, now, because I usually get up and I use a bad word, they tell me - I use the four-letter word ‘dump'. I do not know, maybe we are going to have a contest. I say, Mr. Speaker, maybe we are going to have a contest but we are going to have to wipe out the word dumpster, I guess, because that is not legal, either. I cannot help but go back to what hopefully will become a waste landfill on the New Harbour Barrens between my district and Trinity–Bay de Verde District. I know the minister herself knows how crucial this. There is funding there to help correct it, and until a decision is made where the other communities on the Trinity Bay shore know if they can bring their waste to another site down the shore –

MS JONES: Another dump.

MR. BUTLER: To another dump - bring their waste to another site, that landfill on the New Harbour Barrens will never be cleaned up, Mr. Speaker, and it has to be cleaned up. I would love to be able to take each and every member to drive by it on their way to Trinity-Bay de Verde and see that particular site, what it is like, the waste disposal site there.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about issues with regard to Transportation and Works, and I just mentioned one of them, some of the concerns that people in municipalities have with regard to the quality of the asphalt.

I bring forward, from time to time, the Torbay Bypass issue. Those people have a legitimate concern. My memory takes me back to the former administration. I know they are always saying there was nothing ever done. You have to go out and travel the very beautiful Veterans' Highway leading from the Trans-Canada all the way to the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace. This is what can be done if you have the will to do it. The former administration – and the Member for Whitbourne knows what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker. That highway was going to be built all the way through the beautiful community of Clarke's Beach, crossing over North River, up by the side of their church and down through the communities. The people got up against it, MHAs got up against it, and the government of the day – and the hon. Members says to me: Where did the money come from? I don't know where the money came from, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't matter.

I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members for their cooperation.

MR. BUTLER: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the same member who the Member from Lake Melville shouted in the Glacier about, he got the route of that road changed, I can assure you, and it went in on the back of every community. That did not go through any communities, Mr. Speaker. It went in on the back of all the communities, a beautiful highway, and no safety issues for the children or traffic congestion or anything else.

The only other comment I want to make – and my time is running out, unfortunately - is the whistleblower legislation. I know it has been put on hold for a while but hopefully that comes forward, so people whether they are in the Civil Service, regardless of what field they are in, if they have an issue they can bring it forward. The same way with the teachers, that they can bring an issue forward, that they will not be told that you are going to be disciplined, you are going to lose your job or what have you.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to say it was an honour and a pleasure not only to serve on this particular Government Services Committee but on the other two committees as well. I guess, when we get into this type of debate again we will have to wait until next year's budget when the committees meet again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I hope the ministers, when they meet, that they will urge government to take some of those issues into consideration. It is not complaining. It is bringing forward concerns of the people we are elected to represent. That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I want to thank you for the opportunity and say I hope that they will consider this; because, regardless, from the time I have been elected in 2001 - they talk about the money my district got – from 2001-2007, I have to say to the hon. members, this is the first year in the six years I have been elected that I got any money for my district. I had $140,000 in the last six years. The only reason I got that, for the roadwork, the only cent I got was from the hon. minister now. I had $140,000 in six years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thirty seconds leave? I will be done then.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I have to say, the only cent I got was $140,000 to fix a road and they had no choice; it was washed out in the beach.

I want to thank the minister for looking at my district this year and putting money forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, it is quite a House you are presiding over here.

Someone with a bit more historical experience than me will probably be able to correct this phrase, but it is said that the wars in Europe were won on the sporting fields of Eden, and talked about how there are parallels between sports and a lot of what we do as we go on in life.

Certainly, I am able to draw a lot of parallels to the different sports that have happened and what we see here in the House. Members on both sides play hard. Members on both sides – and I guess I am more of a hockey person – go into the corner with the objective of coming out with the prize. Everyone knows the rules. Everyone comes up against the rules. Sometimes we go over and that, of course, is your job, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we are brought back into line; but, really, one of the things that has impressed me, as a new MHA, is the level of co-operation that takes place in this House. Government is not always adversarial. I found it really enlightening to see a member of the Opposition go head to head with a minister in what might seem to be the most acrimonious of matters and yet, after the camera is off or after the House is over, they come together to discuss issues in the districts, and again those concerns are met with compassion and concern. So it really is quite a process to watch. Also, I have come to the realization that there are more people who watch this than perhaps I had first imagined.

After I made my maiden speech, in reflection, I had thought it was a fairly balanced speech. I thought I had outlined my political experience, and how I had come to this House with a balanced perspective. At some point, in setting a balanced perspective, I set that up in terms of: when I support the Premier and this government, I want it to be done in the perspective that this was not just automatic cheerleading but rather it was an informed perspective and one that really encouraged me to become part of this government.

I am also very heartened by the gentleman who e-mailed me. He expressed concern for my shoulder, and thought perhaps I had hurt it patting myself on the back. Again, I want to assure the gentleman that my shoulder is just fine.

I have come to the conclusion, in just these eight short months, that I have a few problems with a few flaws I see in the Premier. One flaw is that he cannot be in two places at one time. If you listen to some people, and the way the Premier is supposed to run this place, one would expect he at least had that talent, to be in two places at one time, but apparently not. Apparently he only has twenty-four hours in his day and apparently he needs sleep.

When I started off this small bit, and perhaps even intimated for a second that I might have a problem with the Premier - and this is the funny part about this House - if I were to criticize the Premier I would have instant credibility, because if you say something negative then it is very believable; however, if I stand here in the House and support the Premier, and support the policies, then I am really just not a person of my own thoughts and, in fact, I am just following a party line.

Well, I certainly have more faith in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they have elected people to come into this House who are going to represent their views in an independent manner, in a manner that gets us to where we want to be in the best possible way. To those people who suggest that these hon. members in the House only do what they are told, I can only say: Shame on them, in their lack of faith in the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Estimates Committee has certainly, to my mind, been a very educational experience, and perhaps it is the teacher in me that takes this opportunity as a teachable moment. I think many people who might be watching do not realize what the process of Estimates is all about. A number of speakers have already alluded to the point already, so I will not belabour it, but I would like to present the opportunity of viewing the Estimates Committee through the lens of a new MHA.

The Estimates Committee is a chance for all of us to see various departments we may not otherwise have a chance to interact with on a broad scale, different ways to see the department up close. It gives us a chance to meet the officials in the department. Oftentimes we might only meet one person, because of a specific issue, but when you sit here in committee, with the minister and his officials, you get to realize just how much goes on in government. Government affects every part of our life, and when you go to interact with government you see only a small part of it. You might have a good experience, you might have a bad experience, but you only see a very, very narrow part of government, and how it affects us in our everyday life.

From this position, as an MHA, and having interacted with many departments, I have come to realize just how much is accomplished here, and how much is done. The Estimates Committee provides you with an opportunity to learn more about the departments, meet the officials, and even more so it gives you a greater appreciation of the ministers who run the departments.

I am constantly amazed at how much these people deal with: the number of files they have on their plates, the number of programs they have to deal with, the number of issues they have to balance in the run of a day. To be able to come here and respond to questions - very, very knowledgeable about the portfolios that they have been tasked with - is truly, to my mind, impressive.

I do not say this in a partisan way, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure in previous Administrations that those ministers also dealt with a lot of issues and were very committed to bringing forward their department and champion their departments in these Estimates Committees.

So, to all ministers, and in particular the ministers who I dealt with in the Estimates Committee, I would like to say, a job well done, and also to their officials, certainly you have acquitted yourselves well and demonstrated that you do know what you are doing, and you do it so easily that it really restores great faith in the public service.

One of the things that also this brings into focus is the role of the Opposition. This is a chance for the Opposition – and, my initial meeting, I had thought that this was a bit of a free pass; this was a chance for the Opposition to dig, to pry, to perhaps catch ministers up, to garner new material that they could bring into the House of Assembly, and really do it in a forum where there were not a whole lot of rules.

When I brought this point forward, I was reminded by the Leader of the Opposition that there is a process in place, and just wait and see how it unfolds. She could have been very snarky, but she was very respectful of the fact that I was a new MHA and just gave me a wait and see. Well, Mr. Speaker, wait and see was certainly the strategy to take.

In this, I had a greater appreciation of the role of the Opposition, the role that they play in terms of accountability. I believe the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned today that the Opposition has a very strong role to play, to ask questions, to keep the government accountable, to perhaps expose flaws in thinking – if they exist – and then to make them reconsider and come back with better and more informed opinions on what should be done.

I would also assume that any questions they had that were not able to be answered in the Estimates Committee were answered, and I would also assume that if those questions had not been answered then we would have heard about it by now.

I would assume that as I attend more Estimates Committees through the years I will have fewer and fewer epiphanies, fewer and fewer ah-has as to what is going on, but I certainly hope, I certainly hope that I maintain this view: that the Estimates Committees are very valuable, they are a good use of time, and in fact they are a very efficient use of the House's time in terms of getting to the task of dealing with the Budget.

One of the things that really impressed me, though, and you have to put this in perspective, in September I was trying to convince Grade 8s that changing fractions to decimals was a good thing for what they were going to in the future – in my former role. A number of months later, six months later, as I was asked to vote on a $1.9 billion Interim Supply bill, and then to go into a budget process and realize that $1.9 billion is only a fraction of what we deal with, it really brings home the importance of not only the amount of money we spend, not only the stewardship that we have over the money we spend, but also the responsibility we have to maintain the stream of money. The buzzword is sustainability and, Mr. Speaker, it is true in a household, it is true in a government, we have to plan for the future. We can't just do it all today.

The question becomes, how do you sustain this money? The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in her private member's motion of May 14, referred to economics as rules of the House, and economics is probably a good place to start. I will come back to the member's analogy perhaps a little later.

From a more academic point of view, economics is actually the study of the choices that people make with limited resources, and the one critical assumption in this is that resources are limited. Choices have to be made, and what you see in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, is hard choices. Hard choices imply that there is conflict, that it was not easy and that it is not just a simple, oh, why not do this? You had to choose one and exclude another; and, believe me, with all the things in this Province – and, God knows, we would all love to do everything - choices have to be made. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I think that this government has made choices that are very wise and certainly in the best interests of this Province, not only for today but down the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you for the break.

The question is: How does government allocate or choose how you spend your money? Do we pay down the debt? Yes. Do we maintain what we have or do we tear it down and rebuild? In some cases we do both. Do we focus only on short-term goals? Do we focus only on long-term goals? Mr. Speaker, I think this Budget does reflect both. Do we have contingencies planned in? - Because any financial planning has contingencies.

The one thing, a bit of advice I would give to all students who are going out into the workforce, is to have a minimum of three months' salary poked away somewhere, just in case. We have already seen just in case. We have seen the hurricanes, we have seen floods, we have seen fires, we have seen bridges that have all of a sudden become unsafe, things that you do not plan on and you cannot plan on so you need contingencies to make sure that you can deal with these things.

Do we invest for long term, or do we do everything on a one-off? Do we incur short-term pain for long-term gain?

Mr. Speaker, a range of options has just been presented and I submit to you that it is all about balance. It is about having a holistic view of who we are, where we want to be, and how we can get there. It is about avoiding duplication.

Probably my favourite word, and this is a bit strange coming from a math teacher, is synergy. The simple explanation of synergy is that 1 + 1 = 3. It means that when we do things in concert, when we do things in an organized way, we achieve efficiencies and we create a result that is more than the inputs that go into it. We have to play to our strengths, and obviously, energy right now is it. This government, and I believe the legislation that will appear in the next few days, even though it may cause some controversy, I think is has to be considered in the light of the realities of business. The realities of business have to override everything that we do.

Past governments have had massive debts and they have had to make choices based on that. The Member for Baie Verte-Springdale talked the other day about how they had to make choices of do you run up debt or do you buy dentures and glasses? Well, any caring government would choose to take on debt rather than to lose these basic services. You just play the hand you are dealt. Our hand, right now, is stronger. We did not come in with a great hand, we played the hand that was there, but as the better fortune came by, I believe we have managed it in a very responsible and a very dignified way that speaks to the value that we place on the future of this Province and also to perhaps take some of that short-term pain for the rewards that we know wait for us down at the end of the road.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a happy intersection in our history. I have no doubt that every Premier who came to this Province had a vision, a vision of what this Province could be. When we look at our resources, we look at our people, we look at our ability to sometimes make something out of nothing and move forward with that. I suggested even though those leaders did have a vision, they were saddled with the yoke of great debt. We are fortunate right now to not only have a leader with vision, but perhaps for the first time in our history, the capacity to make that vision a reality.

Any men or women who follow in the Premier's footsteps should, if our planning is right, and I think it is, the men and women who follow the Premier in his role and those who follow as MHAs to take care of the business of this Province will find that the capacity to realize their vision will be there.

If I could return for a second to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's use of a household to illustrate her point on economics. She suggested that our policies were somewhat akin to a household with a twenty-five year mortgage, arbitrarily out of the blue deciding seven years, that is when we want to get rid of this mortgage. Seven years is enough, let's be free of it. Then she went on to itemize a number of - well, for lack of a better word - disasters that would befall a household if you chose to go down this road. Things like, which of the children get to eat? Who gets dental care? Which one gets an education? How do you decide which child is going to come on the short end, and which one is going to receive services?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that her analogy and the dire predictions that she went along with, were probably right. If you are so foolish as to take a twenty-five year mortgage and try to pay it off in seven. Her analogy was very simplistic, and I think maybe an injection of fiscal reality might help at this point.

When you get a twenty-five year mortgage, it is based on time-honoured, calculated decisions that talk and speak to your ability to pay off a mortgage and still live your life, but to arbitrarily switch to a seven-year mortgage would make no sense at all, unless you have extreme financial conditions that would make it feasible for you to accomplish your goals and, at the same time, live a life that is worth living. Live a life that is universally fair, live a life that brings everybody in the family - or in our case, the Province - forward as one, equal, being treated equally, and not only that, but people feeling that they are being treated equally.

Does an increase in income just mean that you recklessly fire off all kinds of financial decisions that will lead you down the path of destruction? No, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you take the road that this government has taken. You realistically assess what you have. You seek out the best information that you can. You decide that if you do not possess this best information, you go find it, and if required, you pay for it. Then you take that information and you make a plan, and inside that plan you project where you want to be. You set benchmarks that tell you if you are succeeding; benchmarks that if you have not met, tell you that you have to change your plan. Either you become less aggressive because you cannot get there, or you become more aggressive because you have the capacity to do it. You build in contingencies, you set realistic goals, and sometimes you just have to say, damn the torpedoes.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched, from outside the House and inside the House, the criticism that this government has taken in the last four years, the criticism that we have taken in the last eight months, and to be honest, it is easy to criticize. It is very easy to criticize and I would submit that perhaps it is time for people to stop taking the easy route of criticism and perhaps say I disagree but here is what I might do different, here is what I would suggest. If you cannot get it on the Open Line there is a very effective Opposition in place who are more than happy to hear your ideas. They have lots of them themselves but I am sure they can hear some new ones, maybe even some better ones, and take this to the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying it was a real honour and a real education to be on these Estimates Committees. It was a real pleasure to see the civil service in action, a real pleasure to see the level of competence that oftentimes they are not credited with because someone has a disagreement with the way they do business. Let me assure you, that this Province is in good hands, from its MHAs, from the Premier, Cabinet, Opposition and the civil service.

I thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly wanted to speak and have a few words on this committee. I think that I probably have an hour to debate it.

Actually, before my colleague, the member for Bay Roberts sat down, he – actually, I think he was speaking on leave and he did not have enough time to finish some of the points that he was trying to make. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on one of those points because it is related to the Public Tender Act. The act was tabled in the House of Assembly today.

Mr. Speaker, members here will know that we, ourselves, govern everything we do within our offices right now through the Public Tender Act. That was the rules in which we had to live by as MHAs. In fact, the Member for Port de Grave, my colleague, actually had a few experiences recently in terms of this new act and how we govern ourselves. One of the things that he had to do was when he went to purchase a ceremonial wreath and there was only one place that he could actually buy it but he had to go outside to all different businesses to look for quotes and probably had to burn a tank of gas to get to St. John's, at the end of the day, to pick up the wreath in order to go back to his district and do it.

Mr. Speaker, as silly as that may sound, there were a couple of other incidents; one was when he attempted to purchase some sympathy cards to send out to his district. He went to three dollar stores to get three quotes and they were all a dollar each at each store. As a result of it, he was then told you can purchase at either one of those stores because they are all the same price. I think it was a Buck or Two, the Dollar Store and there was another one I think, Dollarama. So he had three quotes from three different stores.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he needed to get a cartridge. He needed to get a cartridge for his printer and of course the only place he could find one - and you know the business we are in, if you cannot print something off your computer you are absolutely lost. Despite the fact that my colleague here and good friend brought in a motion to try and cut down on the paper here, we are all guilty. We are all guilty of sitting at our computers and constantly printing e-mails and printing information so that we have backup copies in case we need it. Anyway, he ran out of ink, he needed a cartridge. He went over to Staples, and it must have took him about two and a half months to get it cleared up within the House of Assembly so that he could get reimbursed for that cartridge.

Anyway, I looked at the Public Tender Act today and none of these items, Mr. Speaker, would have exceeded any more than probably $50 but I looked at the Public Tender Act today to see that in the Department of Justice they were able to go out and buy horse feed for over $11,000 without going to public tender. That is exactly what they did. Now, I have a problem when a member has to go to three dollar stores to get a quote to buy a sympathy card or a graduation card or some other kind of card but yet the Department of Justice can go out and buy over $11,000 worth of horse feed without going to public tender.

So, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat alarmed today as I read through the Public Tender Act. Another one in here that really puzzled me as well - and maybe the stables were out of feed just like my colleague was out of ink. Maybe they needed to go immediately and get the feed, I do not know. In here it says that this horse feed - in here, Mr. Speaker, the only rationale given for the Department of Justice - and I am waiting to hear the minister's explanation. I cannot wait to hear the minister's explanation. In here it says the Department of Justice rationalized the $11,000 worth of horse feed without going to public tender by saying it was the only available source of this quality. So, I guess there are certain brands or certain qualities, and because that was the only quality source that was available they were able to apply and get an exemption.

Mr. Speaker, there is another one here as well, and I really do not understand this one. I am hoping the Minister of Natural Resources is going to explain this one to me. This one was her department, without going to public tender, went out and spent $11,000 to buy an Evinrude Outboard Motor. Now, what business is the minister conducting in this Province that on an emergency basis she needed an Evinrude Outboard Motor? Mr. Speaker, I am sure she has a very good explanation for this and she is prepared to provide it, so we will have to wait and see. It says that the urgency was because the other motor was not working. So, we know that the other motor was not working and therefore, urgently the Minister of Natural Resources had to go out, circumvent the Public Tender Act, and get an outboard motor immediately and have it put on a boat, I am assuming.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this and I know that it sounds somewhat funny, but seriously, I have to say it is a serious issue. Yesterday I was here in the House of Assembly and my staff came down because we had a fax machine that was programmed with probably 100, or a couple of hundred phone numbers, fax numbers in it, and the toner cartridge or the drum gave out in the fax machine. We needed to have that fax machine operational within the hour and we could not get permission to go out and buy a new drum for the fax machine. I had to come into the House of Assembly yesterday, call the Clerk of the House outside to ask him about getting a new drum for a fax machine in our office. That is how strict the regulations have become. I think that is taking it a little bit too far. It is somewhat excessive, Mr. Speaker. I think that oftentimes if this merchandise is not going to be carried in storage, well then, there should be some kind of protocol put in place that when you need it on a moment's notice that you can actually get it; that you do not have to go through three or four different offices, three or four different people to get approvals, besides running halfway around the Province to get quotes, because these are things that we require to do our work. We were not talking about buying a new fax machine or some kind of a high tech piece of equipment. All we needed was a drum to go in the one that we had so that we could carry on with our business.

So it is an important issue and a point that I wanted to make this evening because in this Legislature, and under the laws of the Province, we do allow for exemptions, even in cases where you need horse feed, Mr. Speaker, or outboard motors, but oftentimes in our own offices we do not have the opportunity to be able to have that kind of exemption, even when we need a toner cartridge or we need to have something else on a moment's notice.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak about a couple of the departments that were outlined in this committee, and one of those departments, or two of them, was Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I did the Estimates for both of those departments, Mr. Speaker, and let me say I was somewhat surprised, somewhat surprised, to find out how little responsibility those two departments actually have within government.

I was not only surprised; I was shocked, I must say. I had thought, Mr. Speaker, for some strange reason, that these two departments had important, and not just important but broad-ranging, mandates in terms of the portfolios that they represented. In fact, I thought, Mr. Speaker, until the Estimates Committee a few days ago, they were representing the bulk of all issues and championing those issues in terms of program delivery, service, consultation, and everything else as it related to everything to do with Aboriginal issues in this Province, and everything to do with Labrador Affairs. Well, I was surprised to find out that is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, let me just tell you now, let me just tell you how the Estimates break down in these two departments, because for people out there who do not follow the Budget and do not follow the Estimates of departments, and what responsibilities ministers have, they will be surprised as well when I outline for them the step-by-step of how this is done; but, Mr. Speaker, let me just say first of all: in the Estimates book it is broken down in terms of what the ministerial budgets are in each of these departments. Then it talks about what the executive support is within the two departments - I understand it is jointly shared - and then it has the Estimates for Aboriginal Affairs and the Estimates for Labrador Affairs.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you want to break it down, we will look at it this way: in the ministerial offices, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs – two separate offices – they get approximately $265,000 each to run their ministerial portions of their office. That includes everything like their salary, their transportation, and I guess their executive assistants or communications directors and so on and so forth. Then we have the Executive Support of the departments, and the Estimates of over $700,000. If you break it down, it works out to about $360,000 for each minister in terms of executive supports. They are the deputy ministers, the ADMs, the directors, their transportation, their communications, their purchased services, their professional services; that is how that is broken down.

Then you get into the program part. On the program side, in Labrador Affairs, we are looking at about $730,000 in Salaries, in Transportation and Communications, in Purchased Services, in Professional Services, and Grants and Subsidies of $1.7 million, or $758,000.

Mr. Speaker, that is the breakdown of numbers. So let me just tell you, if you add it all up and you add up the ministerial piece in salary and travel and all of that, the Executive Support piece, which, as I said, was $360,000, plus the people who administer the couple of programs that are in the department, which is another $730,000, you add it together and you find out that it is costing more than $1.3 million to administer a budget of Grants and Subsidies of $1.7 million.

Now, tell me what is wrong with that picture. Tell me what is wrong with that picture, because $1.3 million is being spent to administer less than $2 million. In addition to that, it causes you to question what the responsibilities are. If you look at the $1.7 million, that is not even a fixed number in terms of annual carry-over Estimates for programs in that department. In fact, one-third of that $1.7 million is one-time expenditure money, one-time money that Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs will spend this year, not necessarily part of their bottom line next year. If you were to take out that amount of money, you would find out that the administration of that department is costing more than the actual programs that they are delivering. Now, what is wrong with that picture? I am going to let you people be the judge of that. I am just pointing out right here that –

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville, on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I sit here and I listen to the tripe from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I have no trouble with her standing up here in her hon. place and going on with her tripe here tonight, but if she is going to do it then she is going to do it accurately. There is more going on in the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, I say to the hon. member –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: - than what she is telling here tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: If you are going to get up and talk about it, then you need to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order is not a place to engage in debate.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would appreciate it if the minister, because he is not making any points of order, would not take my time but use his own twenty minutes after I am finished to say whatever he needs to say.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, what I am saying here are the facts. They come right out of the Estimates book. Every single breakdown of every single expenditure in here is correct, right to the dollar, I say to the minister. He does not want to hear it. He does not like to hear it, and I do not blame him. He is getting paid a nice cushy salary, Mr. Speaker, with no responsibilities. I would not want anybody getting up and pointing that out to the public either, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me continue on because it is important - I will not be gagged by the minister. Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, as far as I can find out - and the minister can tell me differently - as far as I can find out, and I have been doing some checking on this, there is not one piece of legislation in which the minister in that department is responsible for. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not one legislative document ever tabled in this House of Assembly, not one single piece in this Province that that department and that minister would be responsible for.

How many people knew that? Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe as a minister he is often asked to sign off on Cabinet papers; I have no idea. From what I can understand that is not even the case, that does not even happen any more, so it leaves one to question what the responsibilities are and what the purpose is.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say: What is the job of that department? If you look at what the job is of that department, it says it is to develop and implement government policy and programs which impact on the Labrador Region. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are two programs right now being administered and implemented by that department. One is the trail grooming program which, as you know, trails are only groomed for part of the year. You have to have snow on the ground to groom trails, Mr. Speaker. One of the responsibilities is trail grooming. The other responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is for the Air Foodlift Subsidy. The airlift subsidy is provided to one community in Labrador - one community, Mr. Speaker - and the Foodlift Subsidy is provided to all communities on the North and South Coast of Labrador; but, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Foodlift Subsidy is only applied and administered on a seasonal basis. It kicks in in the fall of the year. The program ends in the spring of the year.

Mr. Speaker, what happens after people start having to fly their freight in under subsidy? What happens when the snow melts and the grooming program ends? Then, what are the responsibilities of the Minister of Labrador Affairs? From what I can see, Mr. Speaker, there are no other responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I know that they are over there, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and the Member for Lake Melville, and they are getting a little carried away over there this evening, but every time you stand in this House and speak something that they do not like, this is the way they react. I will tell the Member for Lake Melville that I have a lot more to say and I am going to finish it in the next forty-two minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when the snow goes and the trail grooming ends, and when the Air Foodlift Subsidy comes off, what are the responsibilities of the Minister of Labrador Affairs then? There is a very good question; because, under the Freedom of Information Act, I submitted a request and got briefing notes from his briefing book, from his ministerial briefing book, both for him and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In fact, I know every briefing note that was in their briefing book, because I got it through FOI.

Mr. Speaker, the minister can say what he likes in terms of what he is responsible for; I know what you are responsible for. There was nothing in your book. There was only a briefing note that pertained to a couple of departments. That was the end of it, Mr. Speaker. That was the end of it. He knows it, and the rest of them know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: The minister has no responsibilities, and that is the bottom line. First of all, you have to look at –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS JONES: First of all, what you have to look at here is the fact that this department is costing the taxpayers of this Province $1.3 million to administer a budget of $1.7 million. That should be a concern to a lot of people. If you are going to have a Department of Labrador Affairs, give it some responsibility. Give it some responsibility, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

What happened to the major files in Labrador that were supposed to be a part of this department? They just do not exist, Mr. Speaker. They do not exist, Mr. Speaker. They do not exist. If you are going to have a Department of Labrador Affairs, you need to have some responsibility to go with it. For some reason, this government has chosen to give that department, under this particular minister, no responsibility whatsoever, and that is a huge question mark, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell you about Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you about this department, because it does get a little bit worse. In the Department of Aboriginal Affairs you have, as I said, a ministerial support base of $265,000 a year. That is what the minister gets to run her office, to travel, to hire EAs or communications directors or whatever. She also gets $360,000 in Executive Support. That is for a deputy minister, an ADM, directors and so on, and their travel budgets. In additional to that, Mr. Speaker, in the Aboriginal Affairs side, under the piece which talks about government policy and respecting Aboriginal people, looking at that, there is also another staff of Salaries, Transportation and Communications, Professional Services, all within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, totalling another $635,000.

Mr. Speaker, you add it all up and what you have is a department that is costing $1.6 million in administration, to administer the grant and subsidy of $635,000. The administration, the ministerial office, the executive support and the other administration within that department, is costing $1 million more than the programs that the department administers. That is the breakdown within the Estimates, Mr. Speaker. In fact, if you want to look on pages fifty-seven and fifty-eight in the Estimates book, you will see every one of these numbers.

Mr. Speaker, on the Aboriginal Affairs side, I can see how it warrants – definitely warrants - having the executive support and people to oversee the interests of Aboriginal peoples. I can see that, Mr. Speaker, because we are going through land claim transitions in this Province, we are going through issues with negotiations with Aboriginal people, and therefore there needs to be a level of bureaucracy within government that deals with those particular issues, so I can see that, and I can see how that would work; however, I do not see how the minister has any responsibility in this department, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I see none whatsoever. In fact, in the House of Assembly and in the Estimates Committee, when I questioned the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on issues relative to Aboriginal people, I was told to direct my questions to other departments, or other departments actually responded.

When I was asking questions, Mr. Speaker, both in Estimates and in some cases in the House, on things like the Mealy Mountain Park, I was told it was the responsibility of the Department of Tourism and the Department of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, when we talked about teacher cuts in Aboriginal schools in the Province, I was told it was the responsibility of Education.

When I talked about the shortage of social workers in Aboriginal communities, Mr. Speaker, I was told that that was the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

When I was talking about foster children in the Innu communities that were being placed in custody, I was told again, Mr. Speaker, that that was an issue of the Department of Health.

When I was talking about the Lower Churchill Project and the claims for the Innu, I was told that that was the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources.

So at what point, Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs take some responsibility for what is supposed to be the mandate of the department, and that is presiding over the interests of Aboriginal people in this Province? In fact, I have never seen it, I have never heard it. I do not see what that responsibility is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the responsibilities of the Minister of Labrador Affairs, because as I said, there isn't any responsibility outside of two programs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, a joint department, was established in this Province, it was established to implement and oversee the policies and programs in Labrador communities. For some reason the government has moved away from that, moved away in that the Minister of Labrador Affairs now has no autonomy on major files that affect Labrador and Labrador communities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about things like the Lower Churchill Project, there is not one person in that minister's office who oversees the interests of Labradorians as it relates to the Lower Churchill Project. In fact, in questioning in the Estimates I asked him to give me the positions of every single person in his department and none of them were responsible for anything to do with the Lower Churchill development project.

MR. HICKEY: Not true.

MS JONES: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister may say tonight it is not true. I can get a copy, for the record, of the questions that were asked and the answers that were given. I was specifically told what the full fifteen positions were, what the titles were, and since then I have had an opportunity to sit down and put the names of each employee to each one of those positions. I can tell you that when it comes to things like the Lower Churchill development project, there is no person at that table who is from Labrador representing the interests of Labrador and Aboriginal affairs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely doubt if the minister even knows in the Department of Labrador Affairs what has been happening on the Lower Churchill file. I would suggest he probably learned more here in the House of Assembly in the last two weeks than he was ever briefed on by the Department of Natural Resources or anyone inside of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there is a great mandate for that department, if government would allow it to happen. There is a responsibility that can accrue to that department and there is an opportunity for Labradorians to be able to use it to foster wealth for themselves but as long as it is going to be restricted, as long as the only thing that the minister will have to do is some piddly programs that could be delivered through any department of government, then it is not going to have any substance.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had proposed to government, going back prior to the election, that of the royalties on Voisey's Bay that there would be $10 million taken on an annual basis and put into an investment fund for Labradorians, that could have been administered by that department. Ten million dollars over ten years would have been $100 million that could have been administered by the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. It would have come directly off the royalty base in Voisey's Bay and the government still would have stood to gain $240 million in profit for their own revenues. You would not have even missed the $10 million gone. At least you would have given the minister who is being paid to do something, some responsibility. He would have at least had a budget that he could work with in investment capital to try and do some things in Labrador, because what have you seen this department do on things like 5 Wing Goose Bay, who only two days ago laid off another twenty-three employees on the base in Goose Bay? What is the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs doing about it, Mr. Speaker? What is the minister doing to spearhead the file to try and bring investments and opportunity to the base in Goose Bay? Nothing, only just shouting from the sidewalks at someone else because they are not doing their job. Well, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is poor leadership. That is poor leadership and a poor way to be responsible as a minister.

This would have been an opportunity for that department to have some clear mandate, to have an opportunity to have a budget, to have investment capital, to go out and invest in Labrador communities, to do things like they could with 5 Wing Goose Bay so we would not have Serco today having to hand out more slips of paper to people up there, twenty-three more people sent home without a job. What about in the tourism industry? What have we seen done in the tourism industry in Labrador lately?

We have one tourism development officer in all of Labrador, and that individual is in Labrador West, but yet we have two ministers with no responsibility. We have a Premier's office up there with an employee in it. I have no idea what their job is. I do not know what it is costing the taxpayers to keep them there and I do not know what they do. I have never seen them in my district - maybe they have been there, but I have never seen them. I have no idea what function the Premier's office in Goose Bay has. I have no idea whatsoever. I have never seen him have a function other than one time the Premier flew into Goose Bay and the individual who worked in that office did pick him up at the airport and take him to some meetings, but I do not think he has even been there since the election, so I guess there was not much opportunity to pick him up since that time. I do not know what the role, the job, or the mandate is.

It is really great to go out and say we are putting this office here or that office there, but if you do not give them any responsibility, you do not give them any mandate, you do not know what they are supposed to do, how are they going to be effective in serving people? My point is that what you have happening now is ineffective and you need to do something to strengthen it. You need to do something to give it some responsibility is what I say.

I am not advocating that you take it out, that is your words, not mine. If you do not see that it has any responsibility or merit, you go take it out yourself. What I am saying is that do not say it for the sake of adding window dressing for the people of Labrador, do it because you want to make a real commitment to them. If you want to give them that kind of a responsibility and ensure that they have that kind of input in the legislation, give them something to do. Do not just pay a couple of ministers to sit in the seats and occupy them under the titles so that it appeases people, that does not serve anyone, least of all the people that it was intended to serve. Anyway, while we go without tourism development officers, there are still lots of questions around what the Premier's office does.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise this in the House tonight because I think it is important for the public to know and to understand that things are not always as they seem within government, and that sometimes if they sit down and they read the fine print, or they look through the numbers in the Estimate books that they will find out that there are departments that have no responsibility and really, in any other society, would probably not be a department, would probably be a secretariat of some sort. If you want to have the departments and you want to keep those departments, well at least give them something to do, give them some responsibilities and service to the people, and don't just leave it as it is now. When you look at the ratio of what it is costing to administer programs in these departments it is outrageous. When you look at Aboriginal Affairs and see that you are spending $1 million to administer $635,000, there is something wrong with that. When you look at the fact that you are spending $1.3 million in Labrador Affairs to oversee a $1.3 million or $1.4 million budget on an annual basis, there is something wrong with that. If you want to put it there, try and justify it by giving them some responsibility and some opportunity to have some real input into what is going on in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get on to talking about some more issues because there are a numbers of issues. Actually, I am down to twenty-seven minutes, so I have to try and get some of this in in as short a time as possible.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the two pieces of legislation that were tabled in the House of Assembly late yesterday. I had an opportunity last night to have a look through the legislation. I am talking about Bill 35 and Bill 36. Mr. Speaker, these two particular pieces of legislation are very important pieces of legislation that will govern –

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just had to stand because I would like to hear my colleague, who is entitled to an hour to speak, but the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and others from the other side, it is impossible to hear yourself think here, given the noise that is coming from the other side. Maybe they should just be respectful of each other and let the Leader of the Opposition finish her speech undisturbed.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think everyone realizes here that I am straining my voice to be able to talk. In fact, in all the years I have been here it has only been in the last few sessions of this House that I have actually had to yell, on my feet, into the microphone to be heard. To be honest with you, I cannot even hear myself on some occasions. While I talk right now, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has not stifled for one second, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and there must be some rules that govern this House that can certainly bring some silence here when people are on their feet discussing legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get back to Bill 35 and Bill 36, because while the members opposite, some of them, like the Member for The Straits & White Bay North may not have any clue what I am talking about, I have a tremendous insight into what I am talking about here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair has called order a number of times this evening. Some level of banter back and forth is expected and accepted, but the Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the member who is speaking, as well. I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House to respect the individual who is speaking.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, every member in this House has an opportunity to speak. They can stand whenever they like and I do not think there is any need that they have to be shouting all the time when someone is on their feet. If you have something to say or add to the debate, I would certainly encourage you to get up and do so, and I have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. That is your right.

Anyway, I wanted to speak about, first of all, Bill 35. This is the bill that will amend the Energy Corporation. I had an opportunity to have a look through the bill last night and this morning, as I was saying, and while I did so I found it very unusual that a lot of the protocols in this that call for security measures and for secrecy within the Energy Corporation is unprecedented in any other legislation that I have seen in the time that I have been in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it does override a lot of the acts that are already in place in this House, like the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, which is supposed to entitle us to access information. It talks about the Auditor General's Act and how it circumvents that particular act, and it does so in that the Auditor General shall ensure that any information they present as a part of an audit within the new Energy Corporation, that it first be vented through the CEO and if the CEO of the Corporation does not like what they see, they can ask the Auditor General to have it removed from the report.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the reporting mechanism is to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, not to the public. We have just been through, in this House of Assembly in the last couple of years, extreme protocols and measures being put in place around openness, around accountability, around transparency and, in particular, around obligations under the Auditor General's Act. We have all been through that and we have all reviewed it. In fact, as we speak, the Management Commission meeting as we speak –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have no choice but to name members if the level of conversation in the House continues at the level that it is and the Chair is unable to hear the member that is recognized.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer if you just escorted him out, because he has been entirely disrespectful, in my opinion, for the whole evening. I have never seen professional people conduct themselves in such a disrespectful manner in all of my life, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that I am as guilty as most, most times, for heckling in this House, but I certainly do not border on the point of being rude, obnoxious and arrogant, as I have seen displayed by the members opposite tonight.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, because it is important that I have an opportunity to make those comments, this particular bill is unlike most legislation that I have seen. In fact, when you look at the Auditor General's responsibilities in here, it is very different than the accountability of the Auditor General under that act in any other piece that governs either this Legislature or other legislation in the Province.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are in the process right now - the Management Commission, of which I am a member - of reviewing the Auditor General Act, and we have already told him to bring forward any changes, any amendments that he would like to make within that act and we will certainly have an opportunity to look at them and see how it can be changed to reflect something that is more workable for him in his work.

Mr. Speaker, the changes that this is asking for, in my opinion, should have been submitted to the Auditor General himself, for amendments within his own act, that we do not have to bring in legislation that circumvents what is already enacted in law. In a number of cases it does that, both with the Citizens' Representative Act and with the Public Tender Act. I just talked about public tendering. We can't get a pencil in this House unless we go to public tender, but we are going to give the Energy Corporation money to go out and give contracts to whoever they want to give contracts out to, without going through any public tendering process.

These concerns are the ones that we will raise in much more detail, Mr. Speaker. We want to have some in-depth debate around this because we think it is important enough to be able to do that, without a doubt.

The other piece of legislation that was tabled at the late hours and near the end of the session, Mr. Speaker, was the one that dealt with enabling the issuance of water rights to the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador for the Lower Churchill River.

Of course, our concern with this is in terms of extinguishing rights to other groups, especially Aboriginal groups. I know that there are some provisions for Aboriginal groups that have treaty rights under the Government of Canada. We are not sure how that applies to other Aboriginal groups that may not have treaty rights or agreements at this particular stage, and this legislation does not speak to that or cover it.

We will be bringing forward, Mr. Speaker, in more detailed ways, debate and discussion around those particular bills, and I think the minister anticipates that. I could tell today, actually, from her comments, that she is anticipating that will be the case, because she was off the mark fairly quickly to provide a defence for the way in which the legislation was prepared, the draconian nature in which it was structured, so it is quite obvious that they are aware that there are going to be particular issues around this.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue I wanted to talk about is one with regard to urologists. Mr. Speaker, I raised this in the House of Assembly today because it is an issue in the Province. Right now, the wait list for an urologist is climbing in this Province. I think we are almost up to nearly 300 people on the wait list right now. What the urologists are telling us, at least in the St. John's area, is that they feel that the wait times are going to be extended to a longer period of time. Right now we are looking at probably about a two month wait list, to be able to get an appointment, and that is much too long. In fact, we have been told that in places like Halifax right now the wait list is about four to five weeks, whereas in our Province it is extending between eight and ten weeks, so it is practically double the amount of time that it takes to get to see an urologist.

As you know, cancer and kidney problems are a very common disease in this Province for many people, and it is very important that they have the opportunity to get the services wherever they need them.

Some of the issues that urologists are facing are around recruitment and retention. Right now, they have about a 40 per cent occupancy rate in the profession in the Province, and they are looking to try and recruit more urologists, but it is very difficult in face of the competition that they have throughout the country. I think we have just been through that with pathologists and oncologists as well, and it was a very similar situation for them.

Mr. Speaker, they have talked to us about what some of the issues are. One of them is definitely related to clinical space, and the amount of space in which they have to work; they are very restricted. Also, the time that they have for day surgeries, they need more time in the OR, they need more access to ORs, which is very, very important.

That is one of the things that we have been noticing, especially at Eastern Health, in the last few months, that a lot of surgeries have been cancelled or postponed for people, and oftentimes it is because of access to the OR, booking time in the OR, or having an availability of beds in the ICU, and all of these have contributed to problems.

These are some of the issues that the urologists are outlining right now, as well as the fee schedule. They do not have parity with the rest of Canada. In fact, they do not have parity even within Atlantic Canada, so they are paid lower than their Atlantic Canadian counterparts and that makes their job of trying to recruit much more difficult than it would normally take.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and one that has been on the radar of government going back to October, I think, of 2006. In fact, they raised the issue again with government in 2007, and most recently in January and February of this year they met with government again to be able to put their issues on the radar to have them dealt with, and so far they have not been dealt with. In fact, I think they were hopeful that when there was some agreement settled with pathologists and oncologists in the Province that the urologists would have been included as well, and maybe they could have been looked at in light of that particular package and agreement that was being designed. Because, as you know, the shortage for these individuals is every bit as great, probably on a ratio basis as great, in terms of the number of patients that they deal with, the kind of cancers they deal with, and the amount of people they have available to provide that service. So it was probably every bit as equivalently significant as what it was for pathologists and oncologists as well.

Mr. Speaker, these were some of the issues, and I wanted to raise it again this evening in debate because we did not get clear answers from the minister today in terms of how they would deal with this. In fact, the only response that we did receive was, they said they would look at increasing their recruitment efforts, and that they have been through the particular boards in the Province, but we were also given some statistics by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association which told us that there are only thirty people graduating in Canada this year within this specialty area, which is urology. There was no reason, they felt, for them to come and work here in our system unless we could provide some incentive for them to do so. In fact, they did outline to us that the caseload of urologists in this Province is far greater than it is of those in any other province in Canada. They did actually tell us the exact numbers of cases that they would deal with. I do not have those numbers with me, but I think it was something like probably a caseload of about 30 per cent to 40 per cent greater than what their other counterparts would have to deal with.

The other issue that I raised today, I was actually a little bit taken aback that the minister did not respond in a different way, because he really took the opinion that there was nothing that he could do about this particular issue. I certainly feel that there is something that he can do if the will is there to do it, and that was as it related to a drug called Nexavar. This is a drug that government added to their formula in the last Budget. It was added, actually, in conjunction with another drug - two drugs - that would be provided to patients in the Province who suffer from kidney cancer. The reason that these drugs were added to the formula is because they were found to be very good treatment, probably one of the highest levels of treatment now that they can provide to kidney cancer patients in the Province, and also, Mr. Speaker, because of the cost of accessing the drug. It is not affordable to most people. The drug itself costs about $6,000 per month.

Mr. Speaker, we were contacted by a gentleman and this individual was also a patient who suffered from a rare form of liver cancer. That liver cancer that he suffered from, he was told on a number of occasions by doctors that he had a very short period of time to live, and that this disease would eventually take over his system.

Mr. Speaker, in a last-ditch effort, one of these doctors prescribed to him Nexavar. After he started taking the drug, he suddenly realized that he was seeing lots of improvement in his disease and he was managing the disease better, he was more able to cope on a day-to-day basis with the disease, and therefore felt that this drug was contributing to his health and well-being; but, Mr. Speaker, the restriction for him came with the fact that he could not afford the medication. While he was hospitalized, the medication was being provided for him. In fact, there were some pharmacies, as I understand it, through doctors, who provided for him to have some samples of the medication. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he has a supply now that will run out in three weeks. This is the reason that he has contacted us, because he needed someone to help him be able to access the medication under the program. He had been through the Department of Health and Community Services and had been turned down for access to the drug.

First of all, you need to understand that the disease that this individual suffers from, which is a rare disease, a rare form of liver cancer, there are less than ten people in this Province who suffer from this kind of cancer, less than ten. In order for these ten people to be able to access the drug Nexavar, they want to be covered under the same program that kidney cancer patients are covered under.

That is not an automatic process, Mr. Speaker. You have to still apply and be recommended by your physician and do the necessary paperwork and so on, in order to access the drug. That is still the standard rule. All they are saying is that, because I have liver cancer and not kidney cancer, and because this drug is helping me improve my quality of life, and helping me live a longer life, then I want to have access to it; but, because I cannot afford it, I will have to go without it and therefore the result is a very dismal one.

We asked the minister today if he would add Nexavar, or add these patients to the list, those less than ten people in the Province who need the medication, that they could access it as well under the subsidized program. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I thought that bringing this to the attention of the minister would at least derive a result that would say that he would look into it, he would check it out, he would talk to the people in his department, he would at least take some action instead of just standing and providing me with an answer that says no, I cannot do it. Because no, I cannot do it, is unacceptable in certain cases. This is a case where it is unacceptable.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that in other provinces in the country, even though the Joint Oncology Drug Review that the minister talks about - and we understand that this is a review that is done on all medications in Canada, and once it meets that standard within the country then it is recommended to be added to formulas for different provinces. Most provinces take the opinion that they will be guided by the work of this Joint Oncology Drug Review process and they will only add medications once it goes through that process. I remember dealing with this with Alzheimer's drugs, with MS drugs and other medications as well. Now I guess we are back to dealing with it on this particular level.

In other provinces, Mr. Speaker, like British Columbia and like Quebec, they did not wait for the Joint Oncology Drug Review to be done. They did not wait for that to be done because they realized there was a need within their province to administer this drug to these patients immediately. I am just talking about patients here who suffer from liver cancer, now, this rare form of liver cancer, of which I think there are only about 300 people in the whole country, or something, who actually suffer from it. They did not wait for the Joint Oncology Drug Review to be completed in Canada. In fact, what they did was, they took on themselves a rapid review process in which they went out, consulted with physicians who were experienced and knowledgeable in using these drugs and prescribing these drugs to people with kidney cancer or liver cancer. They took it upon themselves to seek their advice, to launch a rapid review process within their province, and to then extend the drug - because they found the result was a positive one - to the people who needed it, both in British Columbia and in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, why we cannot do that in Newfoundland and Labrador is the part I am having trouble with, because I do think that it can be done and I do think it needs to be done. After all, we are dealing with a very defined group of people. When you are talking about less than ten people in the Province who would need this medication or drug, it is very small numbers. If you are prepared to already add it to the formula for the couple of hundred kidney cancer patients we have, what would be the problem of expanding the program to include just not people who suffer from kidney cancer but also those who suffer from liver cancer? I think it makes perfectly good sense to be able to do that. I guess we will just have to continue to lobby the minister and his department, both inside the House and outside the House of Assembly, on behalf of these individuals, because it is an affordable drug for government. It is just not affordable for an individual. There is no coverage at all as it relates to this drug. It is $6,000 a month. Most of these people are low income to start with, and therefore do not have the resources to be able to access medications that are within that range.

These are some of the cases that actually fall into that particular category. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I said that I thought it was only 500 or 600 cases of liver cancer in Canada but, in fact, in my note here it says the primary site for liver cancer is 1,580 cases in the country, and for kidney cancer it is something like 4,400 cases, so the numbers were actually much higher than I had projected.

We are hoping that the minister, tonight, will have an opportunity to hopefully have listened to the story that was on the news, the gentleman who talked about the importance of this medication to him, and to be able to provide for some longevity in his life as well as some quality of life for him. Hopefully the minister had an opportunity to see that tonight, to be able to look further into this situation and realize that government can do this without having an Oncology Drug Review that provides for the entire country. He can do it without that. In fact, they can do it by looking at a rapid review themselves and taking the program that is already in place, such as that which provides for Nexavar for patients who suffer from kidney cancer, and just expanding the program to include these other individuals as well.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues in the health care sector and many of them, I guess, you can spend half the night talking about. Any member in this House could, because I am sure they all get calls and they all have concerns voiced to them as we do, but there is only one other issue that I am going to touch on before I conclude this evening and that is with regard to nurses in the Province.

It seems like there has not been a real acknowledgement by government to date that there is a nursing shortage in this Province. Oftentimes you will hear things like the ratio of nurses in Nova Scotia per patient is far greater than it is in Newfoundland and Labrador, or in Newfoundland and Labrador the number of patients per nurse is far lower than it is in the rest of the country.

Well, Mr. Speaker, not all provinces in Canada have to deal with the geographic challenges that we do in proving health care services, and the government opposite should know that better than anyone because they know they have often had to bring in supplementary programs like travel benefits for patients. They have often had to go out and make exceptions under legislation to provide for health needs in different regions of the Province. They know very well that our challenges are very different, so you cannot really compare the ratio of patients per nurse in Newfoundland and Labrador and apply that with a formula all across Canada, simply because our geography is different and our demands are very different.

At some point I think government needs to seriously acknowledge that the nursing profession is facing a critical time in this Province. They have been able to own up to that with pathologists and oncologists. We are hoping that they will take the opportunity to meet with urologists and understand where they are coming from.

Well, nurses are a vital component of our health care system as well. Every day we get calls from regions of this Province, from nurses who this summer are having trouble getting vacation time to spend with their families, or having trouble getting a few days off from their workplace. Many of them tell us that they are overworked and that they are pulling double shifts and are often left on call for extended periods of time.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not just an issue where another group in the health care sector is out in the media trying to build a legitimate claim. It is legitimate, and what they are trying to do is educate the people as to the real legitimacy of it, and how it affects them, before they happen to walk into a door in a health care centre and all of a sudden it is there hitting them in the face.

We know, Mr. Speaker, because all year we have dealt with things like beds being closed in hospitals because there were not enough nurses to open them, dealing with programs being shut down, like we heard with the diabetic program, the pump program for adults being suspended until the fall because there was no nurse available to run the clinic here in the St. John's Region that did that.

We hear, every day, stories about shortages in places like Bonavista, in places like St. Anthony, in places like Clarenville, in places like Gander, where there is a tremendous shortage of nurses – and places here in the city, while the shortage has climbed to hundreds of vacancies within the Health Care Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, those would be the comments that I would like to make this evening, and on that note I will certainly conclude my comments on debate here on this particular Resource Committee.

I certainly look forward, in anticipation, Mr. Speaker, to hear the responses from my colleagues.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a pleasure to stand in this hon. House to represent to the people of Lake Melville, and indeed the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as we get into these debates back and forth and I listen to the commentary, I find it interesting when the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, gets up and she gives her little bit of what she sees.

Well, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There is a history here, and I am going to do a little bit of history tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not pretty.

MR. HICKEY: It ain't pretty is right. It's not pretty.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 when this government took office – and I am going to talk about it from the Labrador perspective, and I am going to talk about from my experience, as a former mayor and town councillor for the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I dealt with them all, Mr. Speaker. I dealt with them all, watched it all over the years, and lived pretty well all of my life in Labrador, so I know the story.

Let me say this to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I have to say, she should be ashamed of herself tonight to stand in her place in this hon. House to say to the people of the Province of Newfoundland, and in particular to her fellow Labradorians - you should be ashamed, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair - to talk about getting rid of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Shame on you, I say to the member, particularly in light of your history in the former Liberal government in Labrador. Shame on you! For once in our lives the people of Labrador have two voices in the Cabinet of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: For once in our lives we have a voice inside a government, with a Premier and a Cabinet and a caucus that is prepared to support the initiatives that we are (inaudible) for Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: So, when I hear the hon. member get up on her feet and talk to the people of this Province, she should be ashamed of herself to want to see the people of Labrador left with no voice, as they were when the Grimes and Tobin Administrations were there.

Mr. Speaker, we were pillaged, we were raped, plundered, you name it; we were up in Labrador when the hon. crowd on the other side were in - on all counts. The Trans-Labrador Highway, what a joke. What a joke when you were there. For you to stand in your place and say get rid of the minister, and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, I say, shame on you. You just showed what you are and what you represent for the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador, during this Administration, since 2003, we have done some great things in Labrador. Let me say this about the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs: We have put investment into that department. We hired a new deputy minister - not political cronies, as they had when they were there, somebody's buddy who was, you know, drinking beer on a Friday night and then we will make him an assistant deputy minister. No, we do not operate like that over here, Mr. Speaker. We do not operate like that. What we do here is, we bring our issues forward.

Let me say this to the people of the Province, when we talk about Labrador and the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, there is not a Cabinet paper, not one Cabinet paper, that goes through this system that does not go before the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs so that a Labrador, an Aboriginal, lens can be put on those particular papers before they go to the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Not one!

For her to sit there in her place tonight and strut her stuff, and talk about oh, the department of this and that and something else, it is absolutely, totally, disgraceful.

Never once has she mentioned the Northern Strategic Plan, Mr. Speaker, for Labrador, some $300 million invested in infrastructure through the Northern Strategic Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Even in her own district, she could not do it. She yapped about it, she talked about it, but she did not do it.

A new school going in the small Town of L'Anse au Loup, and do you know what, Mr. Speaker? While she was the member, while she was in government, oh, no, can't go down to L'Anse au Loup. She did not have much time for the people down in L'Anse au Loup, she wanted it somewhere else, so it did not go anywhere.

We changed that, Mr. Speaker. The school is now being built in L'Anse au Loup.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, another town in her district, Port Hope Simpson was another community. It is going to be the regional centre for that whole particular coast there. Again, Mr. Speaker, they needed a new school. She did not do it. She yapped about it, but she did not do it. It was this government, under this Premier and this Cabinet, that gave the new school, because there was a need there and we answered it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: In the same community, Mr. Speaker, again in her district, Port Hope Simpson, there was a call for a regional airport.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I became the Minister of Transportation and Works, of course, I looked at – yes, I make no bones about it, Labrador was certainly a priority for me as a Labrador minister and a Labrador member, and always will be. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: When we started digging deep, when we started digging into the department, we found out that the airport in Port Hope Simpson, she had that buried that far down in the Department of Transportation and Works it took two days for officials to get the information back up to the minister's office – again, putting one community against another. She did not want it there. She wanted it somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, that is what happened down there on that coast. Let me tell you, we answered the need. We answered the needs. You take the little town in Norman's Bay and Black Tickle and those, they had a little ferry service there that was going back and forth with the Challenger and they were being charged almost three times, Mr. Speaker, what they should have been charged for those fares. They were gouged, Mr. Speaker. She was the member, she was a minister in a government that allowed it to happen, Mr. Speaker. Shameful! Absolutely shameful!

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair - I mean, the facts are the facts. She may be standing over there in her place now as a stand in until Mr. Efford and Danny Dumaresque and those people decide whether she will stay or go. I think the information I am getting is she is going.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it or leave it.

MR. HICKEY: Take it or leave it, John is coming back.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing great things in Labrador. This government is doing great things in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do good things. Let me say this, Labrador over the years - and I have lived there pretty well all of my life - I can tell you, we have made more gains under Premier Williams and this government than Labrador has ever seen in its history, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, that is just not me saying it, the people of Labrador are saying it. They spoke loud and clear in the last election, Mr. Speaker, when they elected three Tories to this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can tell you I am so proud as a Labradorian to sit here in this hon. House and have the first Aboriginal woman here as a Cabinet colleague sitting representing the Torngat Mountains district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I am also proud that the hon. Member for Labrador West and a colleague is working hard for the people of Labrador West, I say, Mr. Speaker. There is great work being done in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, the future of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador lies in Labrador. We will continue to do great things in Labrador.

When she talks about the Aboriginal, you know she made some comments earlier regarding the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, we have made more gains with Aboriginal people in Labrador since 2003 than they did the whole entire time the Liberals were in power over there, Mr. Speaker. I can remember the days, Mr. Speaker, when then Premier Tobin took Mr. Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, and went up to Churchill Falls, going to do the big deal with the sealskin fur on and everything. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? They forget to talk to one very important group, and that was the Innu. They never even as much as consulted with them, never called them. Oh, no! They ran roughshod over them. Well I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that did not work.

Let us go back to Premier Grimes. She was a part of that particular clan. When they came to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, they got everybody in the room at the Aurora Hotel and put the big push – the big pressure cooker was on: we have to get a deal on the Lower Churchill. We have this crowd in here now, get them to give it the heave-ho and then we are done.

Well it did not happen, Mr. Speaker. The people of Labrador rejected it, because we were not prepared to see the Province of Quebec build a transmission line, supply all the labour and supply all the equipment. What would we have been left with, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing. There are no more giveaways in this Province under this Premier and this Cabinet and this government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of important files that are going on in Labrador, and I want to make this comment here publicly tonight. The men and women who work with the Departments of Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs work hard every day for the people in the communities of Labrador, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to support these communities to answer their needs. There are still many up there. We still have a lot of challenges, but we are facing them.

There is another important file that I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, and that is 5 Wing Goose Bay. 5 Wing Goose Bay was not even on their radar screen. I remember, as the mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, sending an e-mail to the then deputy-minister. At the time, then Premier Grimes was going to Germany on a junket, over across. I wrote the deputy minister a note and said, would you send a note to the Premier asking him to go in and visit the German government and thank them for the 100,000 troops that came through Goose Bay since 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MS JONES: What did he do?

MR. HICKEY: He did nothing. He did not even go and say as much as a thank you to the German government and to the German Parliament who had supported the expenditures at 5 Wing Goose Bay. It was not even on their radar screen, Mr. Speaker. The first provincial government that ever supported 5Wing Goose Bay was under this administration, under Premier Williams, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can say this, Mr. Speaker, having been involved in this particular file with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs no later than yesterday in a teleconference with union officials in Ottawa, that our base in Goose Bay, I am sad to say, is in jeopardy under the Conservative Government in Ottawa. The regional minister, Minister Hearn, should be ashamed. He should be ashamed! Never has he set foot on Labrador soil, Mr. Speaker, since he has been a regional minister. Never set foot on Labrador soil, Mr. Speaker! The disdain that we are seeing on behalf of the federal government toward this Province is absolutely ridiculous, disgusting, I say, Mr. Speaker. The promises that we were made about the 650 troops, the UAV squadron, all gone out the window, just like the Atlantic Accord; another unkept promise by the Harper government. I can say to the people of this Province, that anybody who wants to support Stephen Harper and the Conservative government, they need to really take a serious check. Because I can tell you what, this federal government has done nothing for our bases in this Province. It has done nothing for the issues that surround us here in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I have to say, the hon. Loyola Hearn, in my view, is less than honourable by the fact that he has yet to step foot on Labrador soil.

Mr. Speaker, 5 Wing Goose Bay used to be one of the most strategic bases in the country. Here we are at times in which sovereignty in the north is a huge issue and, Mr. Speaker, we get diddly squat from the federal government. It is not good news, Mr. Speaker. Just two days ago, we learned from union representatives that we are going to see twenty-four layoffs, twenty-four lost jobs at 5 Wing Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, it is definitely not good news for our base and for our Province.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, while I listened to the tripe from the member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, I could not believe she was bringing up the horse feed that we are trying to feed those three horses that are with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I will starve them out, get rid of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, fire the ministers, starve the horses. My God, Mr. Speaker, where would we be?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: We are not going to eat the horses, no, Mr. Speaker. I say, there is a lot of hay to be made over there. I could not believe it, she was talking about the horse feed we are feeding three horses.

MS JONES: What a load of horse feed.

MR. HICKEY: What a load of horse feed is right, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is doing some great things. Do you know what problem the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has? She cannot stand the success of this government, she cannot stand the success of this Premier and she cannot stand the success of this minister, I say to her. She cannot stand it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I just want to say in a few concluding remarks, as we move forward, this session has been unique for me because I heard stuff in here, and I thought I had heard it all the last time, but now some new stuff. If we want to kill the horses and starve them out then I think we have really gone too far. I really think she has gone too far.

The only thing I can say, if John Efford is listening out there tonight: John, yes, as much as I hate to say it, maybe you should come back, and save the horses, save the seals. I can tell you, Danny Dumaresque - because during the last election she was going through Goose Bay like a wild wind of fire. Who can we get to run against Danny Dumaresque up on the North Coast of Labrador? We have to find someone to run against Danny Dumaresque up on North Coast of Labrador. We found Patty Pottle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, these are good times for Labrador, although we do have our challenges. These are good times for Labrador and for the people of Labrador, for the communities of Labrador.

I want to thank every one of my colleagues here tonight for the support that they have given to me, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and to my colleague for Labrador West. This is truly a team that has put the move on Labrador and I can tell you, there are a lot of great things coming out of Labrador in the next number of years. The resources that are in Labrador are yet to be found, Mr. Speaker, in the mining sector, forestry, hydro development, the development of the Trans-Labrador Highway and tourism.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador is on the move and I am glad that we are part of a government that is making it happen.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always knew it did not take a lot to impress him and tonight I have been given assurance of that.

I have a point of order that I want to raise. I did not want to interrupt the member when he was giving such an eloquent speech over there, Mr. Speaker, about horses and some other issues that were not all that important.

Mr. Speaker, when he started his commentary he said that I had said to get rid of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Those were the words he used.

Mr. Speaker, I want him to check Hansard because I did not say that this evening in the speech that I gave in the House of Assembly, although I was quoted as saying that. I ask that the member check Hansard. It is misleading and I ask that he apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Two issues here: The point of order we will take under advisement and report back later; and I would suggest to the hon. member that the word misleading is unparliamentarily and she should withdraw it.

MS JONES: I will certainly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in concurrence debate on this committee.

It seems like the mood is shifting from one moment to another. I was pleased to see, actually, the Minister of Labrador Affairs smile towards the end of his discourse. I happened to be outside and someone said, maybe the minister needs on anger management course, in the first ten or twelve minutes of his speech, but I was pleased to see that he did quiet down after, he got into a good mood and he was actually very jovial and entertaining. That was good to see.

There used to be an old saying – it is amazing what you learn in here sometimes. I always heard of the two Ronnies but tonight I know now there are two Johnnies. The Member for Port de Grave brought up the issue of - because the Minister of Labrador Affairs is always the first one to be saying: oh, you did this and you did that and you did something else and you old Liberal. He gets in the House and he quotes John Efford: oh, go see Johnny boy. Well, I guess I found out tonight that it is not only certain people on this side of the House who have seen Johnny in the past.

In fact, I recall myself - now that the Member for Port de Grave raised it - being at the Glacier that day when the current Member for Lake Melville, sure enough, going around with his toque on, going around with his scarf on, with his banner, vote Johnny, vote Johnny. So, I guess he has a short memory, or should we say a selective memory. I am glad the Member for Port de Grave – who, by the way, knows that to be the truth because he was the campaign manager for Mr. Efford. The Member for Port de Grave knows quite well who the delegates were and who they were voting for and what plane they came in on and where they stayed and all of that stuff. Anyway, that is nice to see. I do not think we will hear - we might not hear as much now from the Member for Lake Melville when it comes to what Johnny is doing any more.

Anyway, my first comment on the Estimates committee would be, I agree. I believe it was the Member for St. John's East who made the comment earlier in his comments tonight; he thought it was a very worthwhile exercise. I would concur that it is. Now I must say as well, in fairness to some ministers as opposed to others, some were not as forthcoming, and I do not mind saying that.

For example, I was at the Estimates Committee for the Department of Finance and the minister and his staff, particularly the staff was very educational. I have never understood, because I was never involved before, the full ramifications of the Department of Finance and how it works when you talk about Sinking Funds and everything else, but it was very educational, very informative and it gives you an opportunity to get at the facts that you want.

I must say the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his staff as well, at the Estimates, there was not a question that we asked that he either had the answer to or he undertook to get the answer. In fact, he is probably, I think, the only minister of whom I requested any information who has, since the Estimates, provided that information to me. So, I thank him for that, but I cannot say the same thing for all of them.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, again, had a big staff with him. It was very informative. If he did not know the answers himself, he had no problem. The rest of the staff were free to give the information, and that was educational and informative.

I cannot say the same for the Minister of Business. In all fairness, he was confrontational - and maybe it is because it is his first time doing it, but that is not the purpose of the Estimates Committees, to be confrontational. Anybody who was there, even the government members, if you look back, and you all sat on Estimates Committees, if you were to judge them from the demeanour of the ministers that was the only case that I am familiar with where there was an unnecessary confrontational type of attitude by the minister. My job, when I attend these Estimates meetings, is to get information out, to get educated, to get explanations. We may disagree on something but there is no need of being defensive about it and the manner that he was. I just want to state that for the record. I thank the ministers who I named, the other ones, Finance, Justice, IGA. Not a problem. If they did not know, they found out or undertook to find out, and that is the way the system should work.

I also think that the Estimates Committee should be televised. We have made an official request to the Speaker that that be arranged for next year's sitting of the Estimates Committees, because the general public ought to be able to watch these Estimates Committees the same way that they watch the House of Assembly proceedings. Openness and accountability, taken to its proper extent, would include televising the proceedings of the Estimates Committees. That is the true nature of openness and accountability. It is very informative, very instructive and very inquisitive. The ministers just cannot squirm out of a question like they would in Question Period. They have to give an answer of some sort. So, I think we need to certainly televise it.

On the issue of the Business Department; again, very disconcerting when you see things like the Minister of Business yesterday and today, his alternate, the Minister of Government Services, answering questions on the Prudential piece, Prudential Consulting. All you got from either one of the ministers was: We cannot disclose sensitive information. We cannot tell you that. We cannot tell you anything about that, who we are dealing with, what they did. Now surely, God, everything that you do with a company that comes in here is not commercially sensitive information. We did not ask how much money they were looking for. We did not ask what the books of Prudential said. We did not ask how many meetings you had and what was discussed at those meetings. We just asked, was there any particular reason that they did not meet a due diligence test? That is all. You can give an answer to that question without necessarily divulging any commercially sensitive information, but we did not get that. We just got, again, put up the cloak, pull the curtains down and do not tell them anything. That is what happened on this Prudential piece, because why would not a reasonable person wonder, if this company, for example, which has a national credibility - in fact, I believe the CEO of the company sits on the Asia Pacific Board. Very reputable institution. They operate in Nova Scotia. They operate in New Brunswick, as we found out – 150 jobs just got approved through the New Brunswick government. I believe it was around $800,000 New Brunswick put into them. ACOA put in $1 million. They are in Nova Scotia, and they are already here in Newfoundland, by the way.

I came across a little press release. It is a press release and it is dated, by the way, February 21, 2008. It deals about a Keyin College partnership with none other than Prudential Consulting Inc. - the same company that the Minister of Business had a problem with. They obviously did not pass the smell test with the Department of Business - is doing business in this Province with another reputable company in this Province, Keyin College. Anyone, of course, who knows Keyin College is aware that – I believe the current Minister of Labour was a twenty-year employee of Keying College, was the operator. I am not sure if he owned it or not but he was certainly the operator, educator and administrator there. That is a very viable, very efficient, well run, respected company in this Province; good enough for them, good enough for the Minister of Labour when he was in the practice, his company that he worked with and for, to have a contract with but yet we cannot find any information out from this Minister of Business.

Anyway, it is only a short time yet. There is a long road, they say, that has no turns in it, as far as getting information. I have to go back and talk about departments again.

The Minister of Labrador started his comments about how proud he was of himself and the role that he plays as the Minister of Labrador, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but I am looking forward, in the next couple of days actually, to the debate on Bill 35 and 36. One, of course, deals with the Energy Corp. Directly tied into, no doubt, what is going to happen on the Lower Churchill is going to be a big piece of that. Particularly, Bill 36 dealing with the water rights in Labrador, how is has impacted or does not impact Aboriginal rights in the Province of Labrador. I would think we are going to see the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Labrador Affairs up in the next few days telling us why these pieces of legislation ought to be passed. I am looking forward to that because surely the two members from the big land are going to stand in defence of the government's bills on those. So I look forward to that.

The final issue I would like to deal with, in the ten minutes I have remaining, Mr. Speaker - and I am not sure if there are any members in the Chamber now who currently sit on the board of management. I believe there are a couple of members present who sit on the board of management. It is an issue that happened today, and it is really disconcerting, and that is dealing with Bill 33. We passed a bill in this House today. I think, in fact, the Government House Leader took it to third reading. We have gone through second, committee, third, done. Other than final assent, that bill is done, but there is a big problem, and the big problem was pointed out today.

That Bill 33 deals with some changes that are going to be made to the Child and Youth Advocate Act. Now, we have a board of management meeting in the morning: slated, public notice has been given, to take place tomorrow morning in this Province under the broadcast system, here in this House, at 8 o'clock, or 8:30. One of the items on the agenda tomorrow on the board of management is amendments to the Child and Youth Advocate. That is on the agenda for this House tomorrow. Now, I think we have a problem, because the Child and Youth Advocate is an officer of the House of Assembly and here we are today, we have put through a Bill 33 which has not even been dealt with yet by the board of management of the House of Assembly.

Now, I think we have gotten ourselves into a problem. That was pointed out today. It was pointed out from a couple of angles because, number one, if you check – and it will become public knowledge tomorrow. All the information on the board of management is public knowledge. When you see the agenda tomorrow and you hear the facts and the figures, there is reference in that documentation and background documentation to legislation being brought forward that would deal with the issue of subpoena powers to the Child and Youth Advocate and a few minor issues.

Anybody who read section 33 today, Bill 33 - I think I went through it in a lot of detail - we had, basically, the Child and Youth Advocate stripped of a lot of her authority. I went through section 15 amendments, talking about what the Minister of Justice could or could not do; what she could or could not do. There were actually five pages, and I pointed out, there is only one sentence in that legislation that dealt with subpoenas, one sentence. Yet, the government plowed ahead and passed that Bill 33 before the board of management, which must deal with it – I submit, it should not have even been on the floor of this House until the board of management has dealt with it. It certainly should not have been passed until it is passed by the board of management and yet that happened. What do we do now? When Chief Justice Green himself is after saying, if you are going to deal with issues concerning the House or officers of the House, you deal with it openly in board meetings; you do it in front of the public. Once it is dealt with in the public, under that process through the board of management, you take it to the House of Assembly and then you vote on it.

The piece that is bothersome here is a lot of people, including the Government House Leader – by the way, no offence to the current Government House Leader, but she has not been, up to now, a member of the board of management. That position was held by the former Member for Baie Verte, who, as the Government House Leader, was on the board of management. So he has had all the background knowledge of this Bill 33 and what was going to happen.

You cannot blame anything on the Government House Leader and say you did something, improper process, but it was pointed out here today. How could we have, if this is supposed to be dealt with by the board of management and the only thing to be dealt with was subpoena powers, yet we dealt with here today about fourteen or fifteen other issues tacked on, very substantive, restricting the activities of the advocate, and yet, it did not come from the board of management, it came from the government. That is not proper. We explained before, there is a system whereby there is a judicial branch, there is a legislative branch and there is an executive branch. What we have is the executive branch has drafted a bill, Bill 33, about the Child and Youth Advocate and brought it here and had it passed and it did not go through the proper chain. It has to go through the board of management.

Now we have had lots of time in this session. Nobody here wants to go home, nobody rushing to get back to their districts. We are here, we have a book of work to do, including the Budget, and the government decides the agenda, in terms of a legislative piece, what they want to do. Yet, when we point out these things, as an Opposition, and say there is something wrong with the process, or you are bulldozing this thing too quickly, we are causing ourselves problems, we do not get the due consideration of somebody saying: Whoa, okay maybe they are making some sense over there; maybe what they are saying is problematic. That is where, I would submit, the government is going to find itself into some trouble unnecessarily. There is no reason to bulldoze some of this stuff through. They are not doing it to get over the Opposition. There is a process to be followed.

It is like I pointed out to the Justice Minister today, under the Provincial Court Act, there are at least five amendments that should be made to the Provincial Court Act, but they give an excuse and a reason, very frivolous reasons in some cases, why it is okay. Thank you very much, now sit down and shut up, you have your due, and you are expected to let it fly. Well some things you cannot let fly because we got in a lot of trouble in this House with Auditor Generals and everybody else because we did not deal with these things openly. That is why they need to be dealt with openly.

Anyway, I want to put it on the record before we go there tomorrow morning, that this is a problem. We know when we have this public meeting the public is going to know about it then anyway, as they ought to, but it is a problem, and how do we rewind the wheel now? Maybe we can rewind the wheel.

It is a serious issue. The Minister of Natural Resources is looking at me quizzically as if I have said something that is improper, but I have been explaining for ten minutes why we made a mistake today with Bill 33, a big mistake. I am just wondering now, as they say, how do you put the toothpaste back in the tub once it is out? We have a serious problem caused by what here today in the process with Chief Justice Green and the process that was followed to pass Bill 33.

Now, if there is a way to fix it – it has to be fixed, there is no question, whether it is by the Clerk's suggestions or the Speaker's suggestion or somebody's suggestion. We are going to have a problem because it was not done right.

I just point it out because we are not here to delay things. I think sometimes if the Opposition makes credible suggestions, do not take it that we are making them because we think we are smart or we want to get one up on the government. This was a case here today where sixteen or seventeen items were dealt with, when only one was intended to be dealt with. That is pretty serious stuff.

Anyway, that is where I will end off my comments. I had a few minutes left.

In regard to the Estimates Committees I would say that it was a very worthwhile process and the ministers I dealt with were certainly informed. I appreciate the fact that they were so candid in their answers. If they did not have the information, they undertook and provided it. Other than, as I said, the exception of the Minister of Business who I thought was a bit abrupt sometimes and confrontational - and that was probably due to it being his first time - the ministers who I dealt with were certainly forthcoming in their information. It was very valuable. We still have a bunch of information that is going to come through undertakings that various ministers gave and we appreciate the fact, as Opposition members, that ministers and their staff were so forthcoming and took the time to provide us the information that we requested.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to be here this evening to speak on the Estimates. This has been a great learning experience for me being involved in the Estimates process and being involved with this government during this session of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I hear a few words about three horses. Well, Mr. Speaker, if this government continued the way it was going, up to four years ago by the previous government, there would not be three horses in this Province, we would be down to a one-horse town. There would be nothing left, Mr. Speaker. Because when the Progressive Conservative government took over four years ago, there was a deficit, as we all know, that was approaching $1 billion; a deficit, not a debt but a deficit. You are adding to your debt every year by $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this government did an exceptional job last year, when they brought down Budget 2007. Well, Budget 2008 is a continuation of the marvellous work that was done with Budget 2007, and I am so proud.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Budget 2007 and Budget 2008 are documents that a government put together; the ministers, the Premier, and the caucus. To be a government, to run a Province, to do the job that they are doing, requires vision and leadership, and there is no doubt in my mind that this Province in the last four to five years has had the strongest leadership in this Province's history, bar none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: The people recognized it on October 9. That is why we are here. In the history of this Province, the current Finance Minister, the Member for Humber East, has done an exceptional job; the best budgets in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I am so proud of my hon. colleague from Humber East. I have gotten to know him a lot in the last twelve months, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for him. My mother, who has been a long-time party supporter, told me that if there is anyone in government that I should try and emulate and learn from it would be the hon. Tom Marshall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: As a matter of fact, my mother was proud of his father and the contribution that he made to Western Newfoundland as an MP and as a Senator, Senator Jack Marshall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I am so proud to be a part of this team, because I believe that finally the Province is on the right course. It is on the right course to a prosperous future. There is no doubt about that in my mind. To do that required some very strong decision making.

Leadership is what it is all about, and I think that is what is being demonstrated by this government today; no doubt about it. We are on the right track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Leadership, well, where has leadership gotten us to at this point? When the Budget came down we learned about GDP, a 7.9 per cent increase in the GDP. It might not mean a lot to a lot of people. What does it mean? GDP is the Gross Domestic Product of your Province in one year. When you see a number like that increase by 7.9 per cent, that is an 8 per cent increase, almost, in the total value of all goods and services produced in your economy in a given year, that is an outstanding achievement.

The unemployment rate fell to 13.6 per cent. That by itself is still high. Some areas of the Province are doing better than others, which has always been the historic case, but in this case the 13.6 per cent unemployment rate is the lowest rate that this Province has had in twenty-six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Albert Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. When you think of it, where does knowledge come from? Knowledge comes from strong imaginations. This government has knowledge and this government has imagination, no doubt about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: In my area, before I got involved in provincial politics, I was a town councillor in Deer Lake, and for the last two years prior to entering provincial politics I was Mayor of Deer Lake. As Mayor of Deer Lake, I was so proud of seeing the achievements that were taking place to growth in the entire Humber region. The Town of Deer Lake, for example, was averaging, on an annual basis, new home constructions approximately thirty homes a year, which was quite significant. Then, when the Budget came down, we learned that last year there were 2,652 new homes constructed in this Province. We also learned that people are coming back. It is not out-migration; it is in-migration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: What an achievement! What a government!

A surplus of $1.4 billion, the largest surplus in the Province's history; the Auditor General talked about our debt, talked about the legacy that was left for this government to deal with, which they are dealing with. There is an opportunity cost of not dealing with the debt. If that debt continued to grow, imagine the cost, the opportunity cost, for social programs, health services, education services, and all the infrastructure services, all of the things that government provides in this Province. We are doing the right thing, pay down the debt, and that is what we are doing. Next year, in 2008-2009, the government is forecasting the fourth consecutive surplus, and net investments will continue.

I think the Budget had some significant good news in the area of taxation, a further decrease in the provincial tax rate, a further reduction of 1 per cent that puts $75 million back into the pockets of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is no small task, quite significant. Right now our tax situation in this Province is improving significantly. We no longer have the highest – as a matter of fact, there are four provinces that have a worse tax rate than we do. We are now the lowest, I think, in Atlantic Canada, which is indeed quite significant.

Retail sales tax on insurance - when I went back to my district, a number of people said to me they could not believe that the 15 per cent tax was gone. How much that meant to ordinary families. Can you imagine, ordinary working families, the reduction of 1 per cent on personal income taxes and the reduction of 15 per cent on insurance costs, just those two examples put significant dollars in the pockets of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I dropped into the town council office in Deer Lake, and they were elated about the payroll tax, the fact that the government was increasing the threshold in which people would pay payroll taxes, which was a significant cost savings to them.

Another significant cost savings to them, of course, was the insurance tax. The insurance tax by itself put another $94 million back into our economy.

Motor vehicle registration fees - ordinary families, ordinary Newfoundlanders - the fee was $180. This government put it back to $140; this government, led by Premier Danny Williams, and also the Finance Minister who went around this Province and listened as he went.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Chair hates to interrupt the hon. member when he is in full flight, but this is twice now that he has raised the issue of referring to members by their names. I ask the hon. member for his consideration, and to refer to them by their title.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: My sincere apologies, Sir, my sincere apologies. I am in flight.

Another significant thing, when the Finance Minister was going around the Province, he had a debt clock, you know, a clock. Of course, he was trying to educate the public in terms of what the impact of the deficit was - the debt was - in terms of program spending. There was a big difference, when you think of it, because what the previous government had was not a debt clock but a ticking time bomb.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: On the road to no return.

AN HON. MEMBER: A deficit clock.

MR. KELLY: A deficit clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: The roads were good last year.

MR. KELLY: Roads? No worry. The wonderful minister we have now, of Municipal Affairs, brought down the most significant change to municipalities in terms of funding in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Talk about problems with infrastructure. Talk about horses. The way this government was being led by the previous Administration, we would have all gone back to horse and buggy, because the road would not be fit to drive over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: That is the way we were heading.

What a government!

Education - I know a few things about education. As a matter of fact, I spent thirty years as a school administrator, a principal, a vice-principal, over thirty years, and during that time I saw some significant changes, most of which, by the way, were in the last few years I might add. I think the government, by the fact that they did away with school fees and made textbooks free for all Grade 9, Grade 10, Grade 11 and Grade 12 students in this Province is very significant and shows a government with a social conscience, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Only a few years ago, prior to the investment in infrastructure, in school infrastructure, I can remember, as principal of – in fact, the Elwood School Complex in Deer Lake is able to handle about 1,000 students, and the principal in the elementary school, and I was principal in the high school, we used to spend a fair amount of time going around with buckets, to put under the leaks that were in the roof. No more, Mr. Speaker. The problem is fixed, thanks to the leadership of this government and more money put into schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Another issue: When I was first a school administrator, I had thirty-eight students in my class. I taught all day, taught all subjects, and, of course, the administration was left until the end of the day. On one day in particular, Mr. Speaker, in 1980, I can remember being in that school in the afternoon and I could hear a noise, a sound, coming down the hallway, the wooden floor. When I looked up there were two people at the door and one of them said: good day, my name is Terry Fox, this is my friend Doug Alward, and we are running across Canada to raise money for cancer research. We dropped into the school today to see if we could have a shower. I said: well, I have some bad news for you. They said: what do you mean? I said: well, there is no shower, but you can come home with me. I have bad news for you too, there is no shower there either but there is a bathtub. So Terry Fox and Doug Alward came to my place. We had supper and he had a bath and he spoke to his mother on the phone.

It was just this past weekend that I was down to the harbour front, Mile Zero, when the van that was used in 1980 was being restored and it is going to go across Canada again. That young man, Terry Fox, of course, at that point in time, was surprised that I was a school principal because I was only a couple of years older than him in 1980. His aim, his vision, was to raise $1 million for cancer. So far, that young man's vision has put $400 million into cancer research in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: What an achievement! I was so pleased to meet the family again.

Times have changed in the last number of years in education and this Budget and this Minister of Education; I think the most significant changes that I have seen in education in my career. They are coming and they are continuing to come. I was a school principal. My wife was a school teacher, a special education teacher, and I have two children who are teachers; and I am so proud of them all. The money spent by this government to support education is second to none. You are doing an outstanding job. I am so pleased with this government, so pleased with the leadership of Premier Danny Williams and I am so proud to be a part of this team.

Thank you for the opportunity of serving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This particular debate on the Budget is now concluded with the seventy-five hours allotted for Budget debate being used.

My understanding is that the Minister of Finance is to be recognized now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

With the conclusion of the debate, I wish to advise the House that I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I read the letter from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I would ask that the concurrence debate for Government Services be concurred in.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Government Services has been concurred in.

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

Message letter dated the 20^th of May, 2008. I ask all members to rise.

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 the 31^st of March, 2009. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of section 54(90) of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ____________________________

John Crosbie, Lieutenant-Governor

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the message be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating resolution and supply, Bill 25.

CLERK: Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 the sum of $4,031,867,500.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 inclusive, carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 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'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 25 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $4,031,867,500. for the 2008-2009 fiscal year be carried.

I further move that the Committee report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $4,031,867,500. for the 2008-2009 fiscal year be carried, and that the Committee report they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $4,031,867,500., contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

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.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 the sum of $4,031,867,500.

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

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

It is the pleasure of the House of adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the Supply resolution.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce the Supply bill, Bill 25, and I further move that the said bill be now 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 Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service - Bill 25, the Supply bill - and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supply bill, Bill 25, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 25)

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply bill be now read a second time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of Bill 25.

On motion, Bill 25 read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Supply bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: Third reading of Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25 is now 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 Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 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 25)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, obviously it has been a long day here at the House of Assembly and we certainly got a lot of work completed, but I do move a motion at this time that the House do now adjourn.

I also remind the hon. members who are members of the Management Commission that we will be meeting at 8:00 a.m.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, being Wednesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.