The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome Mr. Jim Hibbs, Principal of Botwood Collegiate. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of April Dwyer of Bishop's Falls. April is sixteen years old and a Level II student at Leo Burke Academy, but of significant importance, April is a foster child.

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, April was placed with various foster families. In her own words, there were many times she was so depressed she felt useless and wanted to hide. However, at age ten, Sheila and David Brace of Bishop's Falls was asked to take April for one night and now six years later April is still very much a part of their family.

Mr. Speaker, one educator wished he could have a school filled with Aprils and encouraged her to compete in an essay contest sponsored by Foster Families Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. This competition was also open to all students and not limited to youth in foster care. You will find her story in the Foster Families Association newsletter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating April Dwyer for overcoming many challenges and placing second in a Province-wide essay competition.

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.

Baseball is alive and well in Upper Island Cove. The Upper Island Cove Bulldogs wrapped up a great season earlier this fall at the Newfoundland Amateur Baseball Association meetings in Gander.

At the awards reception, Tiffany Janes of Bryant's Cove was awarded the Stephanie Bavis Memorial Award for provincial Female Player of the Year for 2008.

Bulldogs President, Scott Adams, received the Les Noseworthy Memorial Award for outstanding contribution to the growth and development of baseball in Newfoundland and Labrador. Scott Mercer, the Vice-President of the Bulldogs, was re-elected to the NABA Executive as Eastern Director, while Scott Adams was elected as the NABA Treasurer.

In 2009, several championships will be hosted at Upper Island Cove. In addition, the Bantam Girls Team will travel to the 2009 National Bantam Baseball Championships later on.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order to all three individuals and I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing them every success in 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, and my hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to congratulate Pat Williams of the Town of Triton on 2008's Citizen of the Year.

Pat is a hardworking part of the community and is involved in the fire department as well as the recreation department, just to mention a few. It appears wherever there is volunteer work to be done, Pat is there.

Pat was honoured at the annual Volunteer Christmas Dinner along with some of his colleagues. Lifelong Service Award went to Don Budgell; the Most Dedicated went to Blake Rice; and Fireman of the Year went to Stedman Rideout and Darren Roberts.

Volunteerism is the oldest form of kindness, and in these times when all are busy and have families, jobs, et cetera, it does the heart good to see there still are acts of kindness amidst these fast paced times.

I would like all hon. members to join with me to say congratulations and many thanks to all the volunteers in the Town of Triton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the longevity and success of a sporting organization that has just completed its twenty-ninth year of operation in the Goulds, Kilbride and Petty Harbour area.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Goulds Recreational Men's Slow Pitch Softball League that provides summer recreation for 112 men from a wide range of ages.

This league started nearly thirty years ago thanks to the leadership and organizational skills of three fine gentlemen – Ron Doyle, John Quinlan and Mike Crotty.

In the beginning, it was called the West End Slow Pitch Softball League and it provided a game of ball for those who did not want to compete in the fast pitch leagues operating in Kilbride, Goulds, Petty Harbour, Mount Pearl and St. John's at the time.

In the first year, games were played on a tiny, then substandard softball field at the Kilbride Lions Club Centre. There were four teams and the interest was great.

Thanks to the efforts of Bob Aylward, the former MHA and Cabinet Minister from Kilbride, an employment grant was obtained from the government and three people were hired to construct a fence and clubhouse on the St. Kevin's Field, thus making it capable of accommodating league games.

The league moved to St. Kevin's and was able to expand to a six-team organization.

League operations continued from St. Kevin's until 2002, when the field was shifted to a new site behind the former Goulds Town Hall by the players themselves. The league operates there today and has eight teams. Interest is still great.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the Goulds Men's Softball League for so many years of great service to our area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 9, marks the closing deadline for submissions by youth to an exciting contest our department launched as part of our latest addictions awareness campaign, Get Up On It.

The campaign this year targets marijuana use, was launched on November 17, the beginning of Addictions Awareness Week. As students enter high school, they face some challenging decisions and often hear mixed and incorrect messages, especially when it comes to substance use. By giving young people the facts, they learn to make their own informed decisions. We are encouraging them to draw their own conclusions. That is an important part of growing up and learning to deal with the pressures and difficult choices they will encounter, not just in school, but throughout their lives.

This campaign features a series of posters, banner ads on sites popular with youth, including Facebook, MSN, Empire Theatres. Three key facts about marijuana were highlighted: its effect on ambition and interest, its effect on driving and reaction time, and the harmful and unknown toxins and addictive additives generally found in marijuana.

In the past three weeks since we launched the campaign we have had over 13,000 hits on our campaign site, getuponit.ca, showing that we are reaching youth. We are also giving students an opportunity to design their own clothing line as part of a unique contest to help promote anti-addiction messages.

Students can submit T-shirt designs at getuponit.ca and the winner, who will be decided by on-line voting, will receive 100 T-shirts and ten hoodies printed with his or her design. As well, the winner's school will receive a set of Get Up On It soccer balls. The contest closes tomorrow, so students still have a window of opportunity to get their designs in.

I encourage everyone to visit this Web site to view the incredible creativity of our youth, as their entries literally demonstrate how they have drawn their own conclusions and have chosen to promote anti-addition messages through their designs.

Reaching youth in our Province is key to helping prevent problematic substance use in our society and to protect the health and well-being of our young people. That is why we introduced the campaign Get Up On It, to encourage youth to stay real, follow their dreams, and not let addictions get in the way of what they want to accomplish in their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting campaign, I am sure, for many youth across the Province. There is nothing nicer than having your peers be able to be mentors and, I guess, examples for other youth in our society in terms of how to counteract substance use, abuse, and addictions amongst young people.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess, over the years we have seen lots of cases where we have had to deal with high rates of youth addictions in our society, and it is still continuing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, statistics will show that in the last number of years we have sent a number of children outside the Province for addiction treatment. Most of these kids were placed into treatment programs that extended three months and beyond. Mr. Speaker, most of them were sent because they had multiple issues of substance abuse and were using different kinds of drugs and a combination of alcohol and drugs.

Mr. Speaker, what is really interesting to note is that we are one of the few provinces in Canada that do not have an addictions treatment centre for young people. We do have restrictive treatment for adults, which is now being used at Humberwood. Mr. Speaker, the statistics at Humberwood will show that in 2006 and 2007, 40 per cent of the people going into that program were between the ages of eighteen and thirty. Again, last year, 36 per cent of people in the program were in that age range as well, so I think anything that we can do as a Province to try and reach these people before they become adults, to help them deal with the addictions and substance abuse that they have, we need to be able to do that and take an active role in ensuring that we can, as a community and as a society, provide for them.

Before I close, I just want to recognize the work that was being done by Turnings, and Ron Fitzpatrick. Over the years they have done a tremendous amount of work in counteracting addictions, helping people find treatments and proper programs to help them, and I understand that their funding may be at risk, that they normally would –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that they would normally get from the federal government. I ask that the minister certainly be aware of that, keep in mind the work that they have done in the Province in the past, and hopefully the Province will continue to fund them and support them in the future.

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I do congratulate the department on this campaign, which certainly looks like it has been very successful. We need these kinds of campaigns over and over, I would suggest to the minister.

We also need to look at the serious need for more access to counsellors for youth who either already are using drugs or who are on the verge of using drugs but need somebody to talk to. We need these counsellors both inside the school system as well as out in the community.

Obviously, as my colleague has just said, the need for a treatment centre for those youths who are addicted is a very serious need. I really encourage the minister to put real effort into getting a centre here in this Province for youth.

We also need opportunities in the school system for youth to be able to speak openly and safely about drugs. So, while we may have a campaign like this, I would very much like to see it backed up by a program of openness and open discussions in the school system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and congratulate Mr. Stan Cook Jr. on being named Chair of the Board of Directors for the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, also known as TIAC.

Mr. Cook was elected to serve a two-year term for the organization during Canada's Tourism Leadership Summit, held last month in Gatineau, Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant appointment in so many ways. First, it must be noted that Mr. Cook is the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to ever serve as TIAC's Chair. He is clearly suited to the task, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who knows Mr. Cook can attest to his boundless energy and enthusiasm and to his knowledge of the tourism industry as a whole; but, Mr. Speaker, I believe this appointment also speaks to the increased recognition of Newfoundland and Labrador as a key player within the Canadian tourism industry, and to the growing respect this Province is receiving on the national scene.

As you may recall, last year, Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism marketing campaign won TIAC's Marketing Campaign of the Year Award. That achievement focused the national industry's attention on Newfoundland and Labrador and what we have achieved.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are regarded as leaders and innovators in the Canadian tourism industry. Other jurisdictions seek our advice and follow our example. We have clearly arrived.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that Mr. Stan Cook Jr. is in the gallery today, along with some family and friends, and some staff from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation who, I know, have worked very closely with him.

Mr. Speaker, I invite colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Stan Cook Jr., President of Stan Cook Sea Kayak Adventures, and the new Chair of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister having provided us with an advance copy of his statement.

We, too, in the Official Opposition, would also stand with the minister in congratulating Mr. Cook for his achievement. He has been involved in the tourism industry in this Province for quite some time, not only in his own right as a business person, of course, but also in other groups and organizations in this Province. I believe he was also the President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador at one point, so he has shown his dedication not only to his business but also to organizations which advance and promote tourism, culture and recreation in this Province for quite some years now.

It is another example of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who not only is good within their own right in this Province but can stand on the national stage and provide leadership indeed on a national and international basis. We do not only do it in military avenues and business but we also do in this type of involvement here through our leadership as well.

We hope he does have some good advice for our government as well in the future, because albeit we may be on some economic times and we need the advice of everybody we can get on a go-forward basis in every industry. God knows, the tourism industry is important to this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland. It is important all over, of course, but in rural Newfoundland it creates a lot of jobs and provides a lot of dollars in people's pockets.

We certainly hope he continues in the role that he is. Congratulations! Hats off to him! I am sure he is going to have lots of good creative advice for the mainlanders as he takes his role as Chair.

Thank you.

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 thank the minister also for the advance copy of his statement, and I am very pleased to stand today, with my colleagues, to congratulate Mr. Cook.

Besides this recent honour, becoming the first Chair for Newfoundland and Labrador of TIAC, Mr. Cook, as my colleague has just said, has many good things to his credit in the industry within which he has been working for a long time. He was the founding President of the Adventure Tourism Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, he chairs the Brand Experiences committee with the Canadian Tourism Commission, and is currently the Chair of the Gros Morne Institute for Sustainable Tourism. He is a past co-Chair of the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership, and is past-Chair of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador: well, well ready to be in the new position that he is in.

I was quite pleased earlier this year at Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador's Lookout! Summit when I had ample opportunity to speak with Mr. Cook who is always very enthusiastic, as we all know, about the tourism industry in our Province. There were some really exciting discussions at that conference this year, and I know that Mr. Cook will bring much knowledge and new ideas to TIAC.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week we had devastating news in this Province, especially for the people in Wabush and Grand Falls-Windsor, as hundreds of workers now face layoffs with uncertainty.

Government indicated that a taskforce had been established to look at options in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I would like to ask the minister today: Who will serve on that taskforce, what are the objects of the taskforce, and are there any plans to develop a similar strategy, I guess, to kind of aid or help the people in Western Labrador as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This taskforce has been up and operational for the last three months. It is chaired by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. On that taskforce we also have representation from the Department of Education. I will sit on that taskforce. The Minister of HRLE is there, the Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Transportation and Works.

We have already received a number of proposals from interested parties in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, especially in the area of information technology where they already have a strong foundation.

I will also bring a strong perspective around the forestry industry, Mr. Speaker, to see where we can have opportunities for diversification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to ask the minister if she could clarify: Is there any local involvement in the taskforce at all, any groups, organizations, sectorial representatives that have been invited to share on the taskforce as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. I am travelling to Grand Falls tomorrow, hopefully accompanied by the ministers from INTRD, as well as HRLE , to engage with the union and with the taskforce. We already have Rob Kinden appointed from within government to be the CEO of this taskforce and then we will work with the community to shape our response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last week when I questioned the minister with regard to Grand Falls-Windsor she said at that time that she herself and government had been working on this file for about one year.

I ask the minister today: Does government now have any kind of mitigation plans or an economic stimulus plan that they can present to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor at this stage, or is that going to be developed by this taskforce that is in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our efforts during the last two to three years has been to keep this pulp and paper industry alive and well in this Province as it faced the global challenges that played a role, certainly, in taking down AbititiBowater in Grand Falls. That is where all of our effort has been focused. There are a number of strategies that work within this government to diversify the economy. Those are always at work, Mr. Speaker, and we see some evidence of that, as I just referred to in my previous answer, in terms of the technology industry that we are supporting in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Abititi has hydro and timber rights, as we are all aware of, and a mill that is considered to be a huge asset within the Province. The minister did state at one point that expropriation may be an option. They were reviewing that possibility.

Maybe you can tell me today if you have had any success with finding a new operator for the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor over the course of that time and what the findings of your review was that you talked about back in May?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are still reviewing all our options, particularly now that the mill has closed. This Province having control of its own natural resources is extremely important to this government. That is one of the reasons we engaged in the whole discussion with AbitibiBowater about repatriation of their Charter of Rights, which would have given them an opportunity to not only maintain the rights and privileges they have around that fibre in the Province while they are operational here, would give them an opportunity to find significant investment for the mill, but would give the people of the Province control again over the particular lands that are contained within that Charter.

We review all our options. Whatever we can do to maintain resources here in the Province and create an opportunity for somebody else to come and operate that mill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to consider everything and do all we can to make that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, back in May when the minister was talking in the media she said that she had asked the Justice department to look at the Province's legal rights regarding the hydro facilities in particular and she expected to have a report soon.

I would like to ask her today if there was a report prepared, if she has received it yet, and maybe she could table it in the House or at least have it available so that the public can see it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are getting the best advice that we have available to us to formulate a go forward position with regard to the industry in Grand Falls-Windsor. Our main objective always is to see that whatever the infrastructure there is, whatever natural resources we have available to us that we can continue to use them for the well-being of people in Central Newfoundland. We do not know what we may have to do. We do not know what road we are on.

AbitibiBowater has asked for an opportunity to come and speak to us about those resources. We are more than open to that, but we are certainly not going to make legal opinions available to the general public at this point in time and weaken our position, Mr. Speaker. Certainly not going to consider it at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, did the minister have any discussions with Abitibi related to the actual mill asset themselves and what their plan is around that particular asset to date? I do not know if that was premature at this stage or not, I am just wondering?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last week I had a – I would consider a very curt and brief conversation with Mr. Paterson. Myself and the minister, and Cabinet and government found out in The Globe and Mail that this mill was going to be closed down. So when I spoke with him I expressed my displeasure to him at that particular time as to the manner in which this message was conveyed to the people of Grand Falls particularly and surrounding areas, and the communities, the wood and mill workers and everybody involved, and of course, the government on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the same breath, I indicated to him that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would be prepared to fight for those assets, the timber assets and the power assets, to the full extent of our ability and to the full extent of the law. The ideal situation would be that this company did the right thing and basically transferred over those timber assets and those water assets to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that in September, Premier, you made some statements in the media that you would look at court action if it was necessary in order to keep the assets associated with this mill operation.

I am just wondering what the status of that is, is that something that your government has looked into already or something that you will look at pursuing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can quite honestly say that this government has looked at the legal issues surrounding that mill for a considerable period of time - over several years since we have actually been in office - with regard to demands that Abitibi were making, based on previous agreements and previous rights that they assumed that we have. So we have been constantly reviewing this from a legal perspective and made sure that we protected the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

From our own perspective, on an ongoing basis, we obviously are obtaining legal opinions. I think it is in the best interests of everybody involved that we not share those legal opinions because, obviously, we have a preferred advantage there and some leverage with the company and that is something that we would prefer to continue on with.

The first option is the best option. The company does the right thing, does the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly Grand Falls and surrounding areas, after 100 years is that they pass these assets back over. That would be the timber assets - which actually, a month ago, we were actually prepared to pay for on the basis that we wanted that x number of dollars to go back into the mill and allow the mill to have some longevity, which is what the workers indicated.

The other remedy would be a court action, the other remedy would be an expropriation, and the other remedy would be an act of this Legislature which deals with the entire problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is another group of workers, obviously, that are affected by all of this, and that is the loggers and the forestry workers.

I would like to ask you, Minister, today: Will they be included, as well, in any assistance plans that may be developed by this task force? Also, will they be considered for inclusion in the task force process, the same as the direct union employees of Grand Falls-Windsor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those workers have been included in all our discussions from the very first day, Mr. Speaker, and will be included in every initiative that we take care of. Those workers, the loggers, find themselves in a very particular circumstance because many of them are not eligible for a severance package, Mr. Speaker, and I committed today on their behalf to support them in a plea to Abitibi to please do something for these workers along with the regular workforce at the mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final question to the minister.

In light of what we seen happen in the pulp and paper industry in the Province over the last few years, I suppose – nationally, for that matter, but particularly in Stephenville and in Grand Falls-Windsor - I would like to ask the minister if she is having ongoing discussions with Kruger and if everything is running as it should be in Corner Brook, or are there some plans by Kruger to downscale as well in this difficult economic time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have regular contact with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and to their credit they continue to invest in the mill in Corner Brook. They have not indicated to me at this point in time that they foresee any difficulties in the short term. In fact, the reduction of the cost of oil and the low Canadian dollar are working very well for them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, you released this morning the report on correctional facilities. I notice in particular that recommendation twenty-three on page seventy-five makes reference to establishing a committee comprised of representatives at all levels to look at issues of organizational behaviour and rebuilding trust and so on. I am wondering if you could advise us if that committee has indeed been struck, and who the members of that committee might be.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, government had the opportunity today to release an independent review headed by Simmone Poirier, Gregory Brown, joined by Dr. Terry Carlson, the former executive of the John Howard Society here.

It is very all-encompassing and a very thorough report. There are a number of recommendations. I will have to get more information on whether that specific committee has been struck, but I can tell you that Dr. Carlson has agreed to remain with government for the purposes of chairing the analysis and implementation committee and I have every confidence that, with his dedication and concern over the years for the rights of inmates and correctional officers, that the recommendations will bring us on the road to a major step in reforming, in a responsible and effective way, the corrections system in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We appreciate that the minister finally released the report, after some prompting and questions in the House, and that we did in fact get it today.

I ask the minister: Was it premature, given that very recommendation talks about the establishment of this committee to deal with organizational issues and so on, and building trust back in, was it premature that if you do not have that committee established – you, in fact, fired the superintendent and the deputy superintendent - without having gone through the recommendation process of getting a committee to help you out with that issue? Did you not put the cart before the horse here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would be totally inappropriate for me to talk about personal employment rights of employees of government and I will not do so. I have never done it in the past and I do not intend to do it now or in the future.

What I am pleased to say is that, under the leadership of the Acting Superintendent of Prisons, Graham Rogerson, and the Acting Assistant Superintendent of HMP, that a number of initiatives have in fact been commenced at HMP, including the cleaning of the facility and the painting of the facility by inmates, and we look forward to continued responsible action to address the concerns and to implement the recommendations of the independent review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I do not wish you or require or ask you to get involved in any privacy issues concerning anyone. Maybe the decision to fire the superintendent and the assistant superintendent may well have been justified. That is not the question.

The question is, if you solicited this report, initiated it - you got it, as I understand it, on a Sunday, the former minister did, and within forty-eight hours he fired those two people - all I am saying is: Is it prudent to expect that you are going to fire someone and you have not even followed the recommendations of the committee which said, go out and strike a committee to help you decide where you want to go with these issues.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the reading of the report that there comes a time when any institution, any large organization, requires leadership renewal, and I think the recommendations of the report indicate that this would be an appropriate time for a new direction as a result of the review of the correction facilities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, Minister, tied in with that recommendation twenty-three, and also with number one which recommends that we change the system from its current quasi-military, paramilitary set-up to have one what they call a dynamic security arrangement whereby there is more involvement between the management and the inmates and the staff and the inmates, I am just wondering: Was it premature again? This is not commenting on the individuals you put there, but within forty-eight hours we get rid of the people who were there, we put in two people who only, as I understand it, have a paramilitary background, to implement a report that says we should get away from a paramilitary set-up. You did all of that without ever having that committee struck. Minister, was that prudent? What is the point of having a report if you are not going to follow it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, corrections - what happens in a lot of our correctional institutions throughout this Province - have not really played a major role and had the attention of the people of this Province. I believe what this report will do is have people aware of corrections across Newfoundland and Labrador, make it part of public debate, make it part of public discourse.

I think that this report will do for corrections of Newfoundland and Labrador what the Lamer report, and the recommendations of that report, did for policing, for legal aid, and for the judicial system in this Province. We look forward to the implementation of the recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, it is quite obvious that the report dealt with all of the correctional facilities in the Province, not just Her Majesty's Penitentiary, of course, but my next question is focused on that.

Given the fact that HMP is a Victorian institution, I believe, opened in 1859, actually, parts of it, and given the recommendations that we have here, which pointed out a lot of deficiencies and so on, do you feel that it is even possible to try to do some of the program changes and new changes of organization that the report recommends with the HMP as we currently have it as a physical structure? Is it even possible to do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Given the state of HMP there would obviously be challenges in implementing more programming at HMP, and that is why we have to continue to engage with the federal government in order to share with us, under a joint sharing arrangement, the construction of a new penitentiary in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that my predecessor wrote a very compelling letter to Minister Day outlining the reasons why this should happen, and since I was reappointed to that position I have had communications with the President of Treasury Board for Canada and the Minister of Justice, as well as the Minister of Public Safety. We have re-engaged to try to get the federal government to come on side with us in building this new and much-needed facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that leads to my final question.

Minister, we are all aware in the Province of the request of the government to hopefully have the feds come on board and provide some financing for a new penitentiary. I understand the figures being tossed around were a $100 million institution, and we had hoped the feds to cover off to the tune of 70 per cent, which would have been $70 million federal, $30 million provincial.

I am just curious, and hopefully they will put the whole 100 per cent involved, but how is your department trying to justify requesting 70 per cent of the cost of a new institution when the feds only have 20 per cent of the inmate population here?

AN HON. MEMBER: The 1949 Terms of Union (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How are you trying to justify it, Mr. Minister, if they have 20 per cent of the population yet we are asking for 70 per cent of the facility? What is your rationale?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I thank the hon. member for his question.

We do have an exchange of services agreement with the federal government. We are the only Province in the country to have that, I believe, and under that, even inmates who are sentenced to federal time, we have the right to determine their placement – whether it is in a federal penitentiary or whether we keep them in Newfoundland in our facility. Of course, we do charge the federal government for that, and there is a benefit to the Province in terms of the revenue received, and there is also a benefit to the federal government, because the cost of housing an inmate in our facilities is, I understand, lower than the costs that they are incurring by having those same inmates in federal institutions.

So, there is a good reason to justify the federal government for joining with us. Otherwise, I believe they would have to live up to their previous promises to build a federal institution –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think it is important that –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I would be very happy to.

I want to thank the Premier and the Minister of Finance for their help in answering (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It took three of them, and I think I still got half of an answer out of it.

Anyway, Minister, I wonder if you could confirm: Did the former Administration federally confirm – and that ties in again with their percentage of responsibility; they had 20 per cent, roughly, of the inmate population here, federally - did the former federal Administration confirm and agree that they would, in fact, put a $10 million to $12 million federal facility here but that did not fly? Is that correct?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Which former Administration, the federal?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, I am not aware of that. I do not recall that. Most of my discussions with the former federal minister had to deal with legal aid, but since the other Administration came in the priority has become the prison.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 22 the people of Barachois Brook awoke to the realization that contaminated soil was being transported to their community from Stephenville for remediation. The local service council of that community had no knowledge of this permit to operate being granted.

I ask the minister: What are your department's standards and procedures for approving soil remediation facilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is an approved soil treatment facility, no different than there are ten or eleven other such treatment facilities in the Province. This facility meets all the requirements under the Department of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the issue is concerned here, as I said, they are meeting all requirements and there is not an issue that the department sees at this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, when the people of Barachois Brook witnessed uncovered trucks coming into their town with dark, oily, soil they were terrified. Knowing nothing about the establishment of the remediation site in their community, the people immediately reacted and blockaded the site.

I ask the minister: How was the company able to receive approval from the Department of Environment for this site without the knowledge of the local residents?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the people of Barachois Brook and the people of the Province that this particular site does not accept toxic material. The material that comes into this particular site is treated and then it is transported to landfill sites. The company that came in here applied through an application process, having met all the conditions, the permits were awarded, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Town of Kippens had previously rejected this same operation because of environmental and health concerns. Approval for the Barachois Brook site was given by the Town of Stephenville Crossing, yet it was not communicated to the people of Barachois Brook, which is a local service district.

I ask the minister: Are you prepared to change your policies and ensure the Department of Environment consults with all affected stakeholders before such permits are issued?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that every effort is made to include and inform all parties involved here, but I will say that this particular site has been approved, met all standards, its lined solid base under that, and from a department perspective, Mr. Speaker, this is a site, as I said, that meets the standard and is certainly up to scratch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today this House will be asked to repeal the midwifery act. Now we know the act is not up to date and does not represent the work that is actually being done by midwives in the Province right now. For example, we have midwives working in the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health Authority for whom the act would be relevant. However, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, why is this government repealing the midwifery act without a new act in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised several times in the House, the time that they need to have a bill in advance so they can prepare themselves for debate in the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would have read the bill as circulated, would have fully understood the rationale for repealing this bill. The bill is no longer applicable.

This bill was intended, as I will comment on later this afternoon or some time during this session, that this bill was intended to regulate untrained midwives. This is a totally separate discussion that we will be having later today about midwives of today and the role that midwives have today and how they are regulated and the nature of their practice versus what it might have been thirty or forty years ago in Newfoundland and Labrador when many people evolved into that role, I say, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there are many of us in this House who can talk about their grandmothers or great-grandmothers who were probably midwives in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were untrained individuals who acquired skills over a period of time, and this legislation we are repealing now was meant to regulate that particular group and not anything to do with those who practice anywhere in the country today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we got rid of some bills or acts this week that were on the books for an awful long time after new ones came in, so I do not know why this one is being gotten rid of so quickly.

Mr. Speaker, there was a midwife legislation implementation committee that finished its work in 2001 and successive governments have let the work of that committee slide. Mr. Speaker, with the shortage of family doctors, we know that having midwives would certainly help to ease the strain on family doctors and obstetricians working in rural areas as well as elsewhere.

I ask the minister: What is happening with regard to the introduction of new legislation that would fully recognize midwifery as a profession in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite stands and asks the question as if to advocate for midwives and she has just given them a grave insult, because she has talked about it in the context of them not having an adequate supply of physicians.

The role of midwives is a role that is well-established, whether you have a lot of physicians or very few physicians. It is a discipline in and of itself. So to stand in this House all righteous and asking questions as if we are doing something wrong and she has the right idea, she just insulted a group of people who we are going to bring in legislation later this year to regulate. We are committed to do it, I say, Mr. Speaker, and I will have an opportunity in this House as we debate the bill a little later on, to provide some elaboration on exactly what our plans are. I have been clear, on the public record, to indicate our government plans to introduce legislation to regulate the role, the discipline, the profession of midwives in this Province, and it will be done with or without a group of physicians, or the fact that we have some or no physicians –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again the minister just twists around my language. He knows that I am not insulting the midwives and the midwives - the representatives in the august House today, who are here, also know I am not insulting them. I am glad to know it is coming in. I hope that the minister – or, I will ask the minister, so I will put a question: Are you going to consult with the Association of Midwives around the new legislation, because you certainly did not consult with them around repealing the current act?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of documents.

Notices of motion.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2008. Further, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, being Monday.

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is for tomorrow, I say to the hon. Government House Leader, not today?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 65 dealing with Private Members' Motions, it is Private Members' Day this coming Wednesday for the Official Opposition.

I would like to read, if I could, at this time, the Private Member's Motion for debate this Wednesday.

The Private Member's Motion moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair:

WHEREAS the serious economic problems being experienced globally will have implications for the economy of this Province; and

WHEREAS during times of such economic turmoil it is important that party leaders put aside their partisan differences and work co-operatively to address the serious problems which exist;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the government to establish an all-party summit on the economy, chaired by the Premier, to bring together union leaders, business leaders, municipal leaders, and members of this House to promote dialogue towards a shared vision and to develop a plan to address the economic challenges facing our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

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, again, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Conception Bay North and Trinity Bay area with regard to the long-term care facility for that area.

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that this government has suggested that there should be a new long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. There were two areas in the Province, Corner Brook and Conception Bay North, that were high on the priority list. Since that time there have been three or four other facilities built, Mr. Speaker.

The residents of the area are saying that where those facilities are in a dilapidated state and the professionals in the area are also recommending that there would be a new facility for that area, I call upon the hon. members for that area, three members who are members of the Cabinet and a couple of the local MHAs who are not in the Cabinet at this time – I am calling upon the Premier now, a good, compassionate individual. The Premier always listens to the concerns of the people of this Province and places them first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Premier that he would reconsider for this coming year for the budget, that they would give reconsideration to the proposal that a long-term care facility would be recommended for the Conception Bay North 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, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday, December 8, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday, December 8, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: A further motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2. (Bill 65)

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 Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2., (Bill 65), and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce Bill 65, 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2.," carried. (Bill 65)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 65 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants. (Bill 69)

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 Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants, (Bill 69), and that Bill 69 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 69, 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants," carried. (Bill 69)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 69 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 69 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, Second Reading Bills, number 16, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 49)

Mr. Speaker, that was the debate that, on Thursday when we met last, was adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think when we last spoke on this bill in second reading last Thursday I adjourned the debate at 5:30 p.m., as was required under the House rules, and according to the clock I have about twenty-five minutes or so left today - almost twenty-six minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at the time on Thursday - this deals with the Securities Act - I posed some questions to the minister at that time who had brought this bill here into the House. I do believe it is the Minister of Government Services who is responsible for its carriage here, and I raised questions at that time.

I have since come across an article that was put out last year when they talked about this passport stance, and why we are here dealing with the Securities Act but the Province of Ontario, which has the Toronto Stock Exchange, which has regulators, are not a part of the package dealing with securities regulations in Canada, albeit the other provinces got together. I raised the question at the time as to why Ontario, who is the big boy on the block here, and the Bay Street people who deal with a lot of these securities, why they are not a part of this committee that talks about amalgamating and co-operating when it comes to securities.

I have been trying to find an answer to the question because it seems kind of foolhardy if nine out of ten provinces, at least, get together and the big boy, Bay Street, is refusing to become a part of that, shall we say, united front that is going to look after securities options.

I came across an article written by a Janet McFarland last year in The Globe and Mail, dated May 29, 2007. She talked about why Ontario would not be a part of the passport system and would not be a part of the group. In it, she spoke to a person, in fact, who was the head, a guy by the name of Mr. Doug Hyndman, who was chair of the British Columbia Securities Commission. He actually went to Toronto when this was all being talked about and he appeared at a meeting in Toronto - a public meeting, actually - and said: I am very disappointed to see that Ontario will not buy in to this group.

What Ontario were saying at the time was: Until you work out a formula that we are going to know how it works on a go-forward basis, we are not prepared to join the group. In fact, I believe Ontario was suggesting a group whereby all ten provinces would have one vote each, when it came to a national securities registry, and Ontario was saying that is what we want. We want everybody to have one vote but until you get it all worked out as to how it is going to work and the procedure worked out, we are not going to be a part of anything.

Now B.C. flicked that around and said, that sounds like a bit of control to us. You do not want to get on board and at least start the process in designing how the procedure should work until such time as you know that the rules are going to suit your purposes and what the voting procedures are going to be and who says what when. So, I guess that is part of the answer why Ontario again felt that they did not want to buy into a system that they did not know or could not control. God knows, we need to know who is controlling the security issues in this Province or in this country because we have ourselves in such a mess now, in the country economically, that we certainly need to know and we need all the help that we can get to get out, which led me of course to make the other comments that I did when I was speaking about the economy here in the Province.

Contrary to what the Premier had to say last week about, he is afraid that we are going boil over, the economy was so hot that we did not want to overheat the economy. Well, I thought last week we had some bits of news that certainly put a damper, shall we say, on some of his overheating of the economy. I referred to a couple of those incidents and I will just, for brevity, refer to them again.

We had such businesses as Jeans Experts, which closed in the Province. We had LA Weight Loss Centres, which closed in the Province. We had IOC deciding that their $800 million expansion in Labrador City was delayed indefinitely. We had Wabush Mines where there were layoffs to the tune of 35 per cent of their workforce. There was also going to be a 40 per cent production cut. We know that the Placentia refinery venture that was supposed to happen is not going to happen. Apparently the company is embroiled in some legal issues now and bankruptcy issues. We know that the Come By Chance Refinery had planned a big $2 billion expansion, that is not going to go ahead. Of course, we know what happened in Grand Falls-Windsor and the surrounding communities with the closure of AbitibiBowater. We had 400 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs that were impacted. No doubt, the people of that area are still today trying to deal with the shock and dismay of the company having made that decision.

Then of course we had Vale Inco who operates the Voisey's Bay mine in Voisey's Bay, who said that they are going to shut down next July for a period of time and not going to be doing any production for a one-month period at least, at this time. They employ, as I understand it, about 450 people up there. Since they started I do not think they have had any shutdowns of any nature, other than a labour relations issue, I do believe they had last year.

So, when it comes to overheating, I do not think we are at a point right now where we have to worry about overheating the economy. Surely, if those things that have happened in the last two weeks here in this Province are not enough to make someone be concerned, I do not know what it takes, because we have had just about every major area of our Province – we had Wabush, we had Labrador City in Labrador impacted, we had Grand Falls-Windsor, and about fifty or sixty surrounding communities in Central Newfoundland that are impacted. We have the situation in Voisey's Bay which is impacted.

I noticed, too, there was an article, a media report a couple of weeks ago by the gentleman, I believe, Mr. Hynes, who runs Oceanex. He indicated and he talked about the level of freight being down in this Province. Of course, freight comes into Newfoundland two ways basically. One of them would be through Marine Atlantic, through the roll-on, roll-off service through Port aux Basques. The other way, of course, is by sea, and Oceanex is a principle, if not the principle provider of those freight services. From what I saw in the CBC report that he did, it is quite obvious that the amount of freight that comes into this Province just suddenly disappeared. It was not even a gradual type thing that anybody could – it could happen before you realized it, and there was a slow decline. Apparently it happened very quickly, over a matter of two or three weeks, the amount of goods and services coming into this Province declined. That ought to tell us something too, because eventually, if you are not bringing in the goods and services and places like Wal-Mart, for example, are not bringing in the goods, they are obviously not bringing them in for a reason. They are not bringing them in because they obviously do not have the sales for them. Then you ask yourself: well, why don't they have the sales? It is obvious, people do not have the money to buy, and that is all part of this economy. If people do not buy, they do not spend their money. If they do not circulate the money in the economy things dry up very quickly. If they do not spend their money, the government does not get the taxes that it is supposed to get.

So, we have a lot of telltale signs in this Province – not telltale even, outright smack you in the mouth signs, in the last ten days, as to why our Province has no fear of overheating right now, I would suggest. That leads one to question: well, where are you going to go from here? Now, there is a sit and wait and see attitude, and some accuse the United States Government of taking that stance. At the eleventh hour it was deemed that that wasn't the appropriate position to take. We saw that the American government at the time had to step in with $700 hundred billion dollars to try to salvage the financial industry down there before everything fell asunder; don't know yet if it was successful or not.

We fortunately don't have a lot of those concerns in Canada when it come to the financial sector, because we had put some precautions and regulations in place which prevented that from happening here as it did in the United States when it came to the subprime lending debacle. There was a cash crunch here. In fact, the federal government encouraged, and the Bank of Canada has reduced borrowing rates. I think today or this week it is anticipated that there is going to be another reduction by the Bank of Canada of its principal borrowing rate, which will put it down to something we haven't seen in forty-five years. That is pretty drastic, when the Bank of Canada has to use its monetary policies to reduce the interest rates to, I think, 1.50 per cent which was unheard of in our time or in the time of anybody here when it comes to borrowing.

I would suggest we have had lots of signs that we are in for a hard time in the economy. We are going to get more as time goes on, no doubt, because I don't think we have seen – it is like the iceberg, as they say – I don't think we have even seen the full tip of the iceberg yet, let alone what the ramifications of this are going to be.

By the way, there is no suggestion that these events here are the fault of anybody in this Province. Anybody who has a business has no doubt tried their best to manage the business. The government says it is trying its best to encourage the establishment of the businesses, and no doubt to see that these businesses continue. They would be the first ones to say, look, it is not our fault. It is national, it is international, and it is global, so please don't blame us for what is happening.

It is not about blame. It is like I always said when the government took credit for everything. You shouldn't take credit either; if you are getting $150 a barrel for oil and the project was never yours to have started in the first place. Yet you go out and say, oh, we are doing great and the coffers are full of money. The coffers are full of money not because you developed White Rose or Hibernia. That was developed by someone else. You just happened to be the beneficiary of some industrial projects that took place years ago. Hibernia started back in 1991. You shouldn't crow when something good happens if you had nothing to do with it, and it is global or national or international standards. Nor, I suggest, should you take the full blame if something goes wrong that you can't control.

You couldn't control the fact that a barrel of oil went up to $47 a barrel. You didn't control it, but you benefited from it. Of course, you also benefit not only because of the price of a barrel of oil but because of the taxes. When gasoline was costing so much, I believe it was something like 26 per cent of every litre of gas was in taxes that were going into the provincial coffers, twenty-three or twenty-six cents, which bloated the coffers last year, as we saw from the surplus that we had, and what was anticipated in the surplus this year.

I guess that surplus, no doubt, may be in jeopardy. I believe there was a report on Friday from Merrill Lynch saying that the price of a barrel of oil is expected to go to $25 a barrel. I am sure it was quite a few years ago that we had a barrel of oil down to $25, and we know just how far off that is of the Minister of Finance, or the former Minister of Finance, expectations as to what it would be when he did this year's budget. In fact, he used the figure of $87 a barrel when he did the budget, and he confirmed that when I spoke here on Thursday, that was the figures he used.

I do not know, in 2008, the last time a barrel of oil was above $87 a barrel. I know from the first of April up to mid-August or so we were certainly okay, but I think after the middle of August, and certainly for the past couple of months, we have been nowhere in the vicinity of $87 a barrel.

Now, what that is going to translate into if it goes down further – it hit just slightly over $40 a barrel on Friday, and Merrill Lynch are saying it is going to go to $25. If that happens in the quick term, short term, the question is going to be, come the end of March, where are we going to be in terms of our anticipated surplus and, God forbid, if it happens on a go-forward basis into the next year? Because I believe the Merrill Lynch statistics and prediction was that $25 to $40-a-barrel of oil could be on the horizon and could be a reality for up to a year to eighteen months.

If that is the case, we are going to be seriously impacted in terms of our money in the coffers when it comes to the next year, let alone having a surplus for this year. Then we have some serious issues, because not only do we have a dampened economy - we are in Canada now in a recession - we are going to be in a recession here, no doubt, the same as we were probably in the rest of Canada, but we also have no money in our coffers. If you had great money coming in, of course, you could try to fight these recessionary type issues by putting more money back into the economy, infrastructure projects and so on, without having to worry, even, about a deficit position. We do not know, and all that is pretty loosey-goosey. That is up in the air for us right now. That is something that the government has to grapple with.

The other piece that government, I believe, should grapple with but they are not grappling with, they are not even paying any attention to, is: Who has some of the answers? I posed the question to the Premier last week. I said: Why wouldn't you have an economic summit? Why wouldn't you bring together some of the business leaders, or all of the business leaders, in this Province? Why wouldn't you bring together the unions?

Because you have to remember here, folks, the Premier himself has alluded to, in Question Period and in comments in the media, several times in the last two weeks about what the unions, the public sector unions, should do vis-à-vis the government offers - like the nurses' union, NAPE and so on, who have not yet accepted the government package. The Premier said where he thinks they should go in terms of the offer that has been put on the table of the eight, four, four and four. He said that as recently as last Thursday again, so we know the union plays a big role in our economy, the membership of those unions, and the leadership. We know that the business communities certainly play a big role, and I am not just referring to the leaders of the ExxonMobils of the world, or the Chevrons and so on that are in this Province who, no doubt, might be able to shed some light on where we are going and give some advice to this government, but the Premier's reaction was: I don't need a summit. I have all of the advice I need, me and my Cabinet. That was the Premier's comment when I asked that question.

With all due respect to the Premier and the members of Cabinet, I do not think it is a case of saying I know it all. I think in a case where you have tough times, even if you think you know it all, you consult with as many people as you can, and at the end of the day you keep your own counsel. Nobody is saying that the unions or the business leadership in this Province, and the community leadership in this Province, municipal leadership, have to drive the government agenda. That is not what is being suggested. What was suggested was that you at least consult.

We have some people in this business community besides, as I say, the leadership of Chevron and ExxonMobil. We have some people like Mr. Steele. I do believe there is a gentleman named Harry Steele who worked wonders in this Province as a business person, an entrepreneur. I do believe that we had a person in this Province who is still quite active in business, by the name of Mr. Ches Penney. These gentlemen have been through the wars and back when it comes to the economy. I think Mr. Penney was a millionaire four or five times over, lost it all, started over again and succeeded again. He knows what it is like to be in the trenches, to have everything lost and get it all back again. You do not do that on a whim. You do that because you have some abilities. You understand the risk, you understand the opportunities.

That is what was suggested. People like, as I say, Mr. Steele, Mr. Penney, Sid Hynes, who is involved in the transportation industry in this Province. Yet, the Premier says: No, we do not need to talk to them. I have myself and my Cabinet. He does not need to have a summit and get any advice from any of those people. We can do it on our own.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the wrong approach, definitely the wrong approach. That is not to say that these gentlemen know it all. There are people out here – there is a lady who has the McDonald's franchises all in St. John's, a very smart lady who is Chair of the Board of Trade here, who definitely has a lot to offer. Ms Bennett, I do believe her name is.

If you are going to do this, it does not have to be done in secret. The old saying is, two heads are better than one, and sometimes four heads are better than two. We do not need to talk to anybody – well, I would suggest that is not the right approach. First we are told: Steady as she goes. Well, I hope she does not keep going this steady that we have Voisey's Bay down the tubes, we have IOC going, we have Wabush going, and the members all say: Steady as she goes, business as usual. Let me know when the ship has sunk and we will see what we can do about plugging the holes. We will wait until she is on the bottom and then we will plug the holes.

The only thing being suggested, Mr. Speaker, is: Why wouldn't you consult? It is not going to take a great deal of time. It is not going to take a great deal of organizational ability. The government would be totally, as it says – in fact, we put a motion on the floor today that the economic summit would be chaired by the Premier. He would chair it. He is the appropriate one to chair it. He is the Premier of the Province. He ultimately, when it comes to government, has to make decisions about what directions we should go. That is why he should be the person who chairs it. He should. There is nothing wrong - we can do it on the fisheries, we did it on FPI years ago - what is wrong with getting different opinions? At the end of the day, you might sit down and say: We did not accomplish much out of that - but you never even get to that position if you do not do it. It is too late to sit back in the middle of 2009 and say: My God, why didn't you tell me that then, or why didn't I think about that then? There might be some little inkling of advice that somebody might be able to give to this government that would help them to go in a certain direction that might be beneficial to this Province. That is all that is being suggested.

Nobody is trying to slight anybody. Nobody is trying to be political. As I said, the Premier should absolutely chair it. He should decide the parameters of it. He should decide even who is on the guest list. He should decide who is invited in. What is wrong with picking up the phone and calling the Chair of Hospitality Newfoundland, the Chair of the Provincial Chamber of Commerce, the Chair of the St. John's Board of Trade, the chair of the different unions in this Province, recognized and accepted business people in this Province who have been successful? What is wrong with calling the leadership in the fishing industry, the Penneys and the Sullivans and the Barrys, who, by the way, are going through a tough time as well? Let's not kid ourselves.

The same as over in Nova Scotia on the lobsters, folks: I believe the crowd over in Nova Scotia only last week came in and tied up their boats, because what is the good to catch lobster if number one, you do not get any price for it, and number two, if you do sell it, there is nobody down in the States that has the money to buy it? As far as a lot of other species, like crab and shrimp, I would like to know what the figure is as to what is stored, right now, in cold storage in this Province that cannot be sold.

Now, just flash forward for a second to when the fishing season gets underway again in the spring. The recession has not even set in in the States yet, to the extent that it is going to, and here we are with our cold storages blocked, blocked because we cannot sell it right now, for a number of reasons – the exchange on the dollar hitting down in the seventies. That is number one. Number two, there is nobody down there to buy it. Now, just flash forward five months from now, six months from now when the shrimp and the crab fishery gets underway again. What is the point of going out to catch more if you do not have the markets to sell it and you cannot even sell what you have in cold storage? Now, do the math on that. You want to talk about Abitibi being a tough situation in Grand Falls with 1,400 people. Just extrapolate for a minute how many people are involved in the crab industry and the shrimp industry in this Province, as fisherpersons, as processors in plants, and talk about what kind of community enhancement program we are going to need next year.

I know in my own district, in Burgeo &LaPoile, I had problem enough when the plant closed there last year, the government came in with a taskforce, thank God, to try to help some people get retrained and educated so they could go for other employment. Some of them, I am pleased to say, took the opportunity and ended up with jobs in Alberta. We do not have that anymore. Even the ones who were fortunate enough to do it are coming back home now, a lot of them, because Alberta is shut down and they cannot do it. So let's not be so smug in ourselves that we cannot ask anyone else. Let's not be so smug. We have enough hints out there now, not hints, we have enough facts on the table now to show that we are headed for a tough time.

I am sure the member for Labrador City knows it. He goes home on the weekends. He sees these people who are impacted. The ones who have a job are fortunate they have it, but there are a lot of people who wanted a good, prosperous future there. It is just questionable now, that is all. It makes people uneasy. It makes people concerned. All we are saying is if you are going to help people through the crunch, a lot of times it is not always seen because you come in with a program or you give them EI or you give them a community enhancement program, a lot of times people get comfort when they see that yes, everybody is on the same page and trying to work our way out of this.

Now I understand and we are going to get soon, the Premier told us two weeks ago in a forth night we are going to get this economic statement. The minister keeps telling us that it is going to come some time. Well, surely it should be ready fairly soon. I mean the people of the Province now, every other jurisdiction in Canada and the federal government gave its economic statement. We are the only one, as I understand it, which is not given it. Now I do not know if that was a case again of, let's wait and see what everybody else does and then we will see how we should react. Surely, they have had the figures for the last number of months, I would think, as to where we were headed in terms of revenue projections. That was probably in hand or a good case before the former minister even left there, that they had a good idea where we were going with those figures. Now, obviously, it does not take a lot of rocket science to plug in the new figures as we go forward on a day-to-day basis.

I will be interested to see as well, we know he is not going to consult. The Premier said: no, we do not need to listen to anybody; I got myself and the Cabinet. I do not need to consult with anybody. We are not going to have an economic summit; do not need it, waste of time. We are not going to do that. So let's see tomorrow now, is this just going to be an update on here is where we stand based on the current figures or is there going to be actually some hints of some stimuli that the government might be prepared to consider to help out here, or are we again going to say: Oh, here is our projections as to where we think we are going to end up with our budget for this year but we have not had time yet to consider where we are going to go when it comes to the future? We have to wait a further number or period of months?

Anyway, I am down to my thirty-four seconds, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity and I say to the minister again, I would appreciate your comments in either cluing up second reading or in committee as to those issues I raised about the effectiveness of the securities group without the Province of Ontario there and what you feel about it, and is it even worth being a part of that group that obviously is not even of a national scope. And, maybe some update from yourself when the opportunity arises.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I know the minister is really anxious to respond to the question that was put to him by the previous speaker, and I thank him for letting me have a few moments to speak here before he gets to do that.

This bill, which is an amendment to the Securities Act, is an important bill. The amendments are important. The harmonizing that is going on is extremely important because what the amendments do is harmonize our Securities Act with other provinces, and what is happening in other provinces. It really assures, or ensures, that our system of regulations, securities and regulations covering stockbrokers, are subject to the highest standards that we can have. It is important that we do so.

We are seeing, right now, a global economic crisis, and a lot of it because of the fact that a major country like the United States of America had stopped regulating the financial world. What we are finding out now is that we have to have regulations. There has to be a regulatory system that makes sure that anything that is done in the financial world, especially in the area of investment, is done for the good of everybody, not just for the good of the individuals who are involved in the investments themselves, and especially not just for the good of those who are making money off the investments.

Having regulations in this area is the sign of a responsible community, the sign of a responsible country. I think, in spite of the fact that we are in Canada, and in this Province, feeling the effects of the economic crisis that is going on, on a global level, not just in our country, we also know that because of the highly regulated nature of our financial systems in Canada, and therefore in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are more protected than some other areas of the world, so having a piece of legislation that is going to increase that protection is really important.

It is also important that we have these regulations and this protection so that investors will be encouraged to look widely in terms of where they want to invest their money. Knowing that Newfoundland and Labrador is on board with the harmonization of the whole area around securities, knowing that we, too, offer protection, knowing that we, too, care that things are done to the highest standards, investors will be willing to look at Newfoundland and Labrador, will be willing to look here as a place where they want to put their money, where they want to invest.

This bill, in particular the amendments that it is suggesting to the Securities Act, ties in very much with the various programs in this Province that are in place for investing in business, especially small business, in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that it speaks particularly, for example, to the Venture Capital Fund that we now have in this Province and that was set up in 2005. A lot of people probably do not even know about the Venture Capital Fund even though, when it was set up in 2005, it was given publicity and it was talked about in the public media, but people do not always see what is happening in the public media - their lives are very busy - so I think it is important for people to know that in Newfoundland and Labrador we do have a Venture Capital Fund and that this Venture Capital Fund is a fund that the provincial government put in place in partnership with the labour sponsored fund for small- and medium-sized business. This was a brainchild of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Venture Capital Fund, and is part of a whole system of venture capital funding in Atlantic Canada.

The company that has oversight over the Atlantic Venture Capital Fund is called GrowthWorks, and it was GrowthWorks that worked with the government here in Newfoundland and Labrador to set up this capital fund in order to ensure that we would have, here in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular but also in Atlantic Canada, a fund from which people doing small businesses - individuals, organizations who are getting into small business - would have a fund that they could go to, to be able to start businesses. So, it is extremely important that we have this piece of legislation that will protect something like our Venture Capital Fund.

We have a number of financial programs in Newfoundland and Labrador that are there for businesses. We have them under different departments. We have some under ITRD, for example. There are some that are under ACOA, which is, of course, the federal agency. Most of them are under ITRD, and it is important that that money is there, but I wonder right now the degree to which this government is looking at all these different funds and looking at a co-ordination, and looking at them in the light of a plan – a plan for economic community development that is needed badly in this Province.

I know that the architects of the amendments to the Securities Act are concerned about rural economics and rural economy and diversifying the rural economy. I know they believe that the changes that are being proposed to the Securities Act are going to help rural economy because of having building up a fund that will have adequate money in it when the money is sought by people in rural areas as they want to set up business.

I do not think that it should be left to chance. I do not think it should be, we will build up the fund, we will make sure that we make investment easier, but yet well-protected. I do not think it is enough that we say there is all kinds of money there and we will advertise that it is there. I think there needs to be a plan. I think there needs to be a plan where government is involved with communities, where government are involved with organizations like the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives. There is no doubt that government does have a good relationship with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives.

It was just in June last year, 2007, that the government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives. The whole purpose of that MOU was to work together to develop new businesses. So the government would work with the Federation of Co-operatives to set up new businesses, and it is extremely important that the government has done that. It is a five-year memorandum; we are one-and-a-half years into it now. Once again, even the memorandum is not adequate. We need government more involved in showing how its involvement with the Federation of Co-operatives, how it is setting up the venture capital fund, how these ventures are going to increase business in rural Newfoundland and help with the diversification of the economies.

I do know that earlier this fall a new director was put in place for the rural secretariat, and the rural secretariat has an important role. Its mandate: to promote a coordinated approach to regional development, to act as a focal point for government, to work with local and regional partners to build regions and communities. It is a tremendous mandate that the rural secretariat has, and it has been in place now for a few years. So, we are all, I would imagine – I certainly am – looking forward to seeing a plan come from the rural secretariat; a plan that is going to show how all of the things that government is involved in, all the things it seems to be touching, are coordinated. How the efforts that are going on in various sectors and under various hats, as it were, how all of these are part of a plan that really is a plan for community economic development, a plan that has a vision.

Like, do we have a vision for our fishery? Do we have a vision for secondary processing in our fishery, for example? Do we have a vision that can get promoted in communities? That communities can know that if they go in that direction there is going to be money there for them, whether they do it as an individual entrepreneur or if they do it in a co-operative way, where a community itself would be the co-operative, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. Which is a way that some communities have gone outside of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as inside Newfoundland and Labrador, forming co-operatives that are there for the good of the whole community, not just for the good of a group of, say, for example, just a group of the workers who are inside of the co-operative but ventures that benefit the community.

Where is the vision of this government? That is what I have a problem with, Mr. Speaker. I see something like this bill and the amendments, which are important. I see the government getting involved in things like the venture capital fund. I see it entering into the MOU with the Federation of Co-operatives, but I am still not sure what the vision of this government is. What is it that it wants to see in place in ten year's time in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular? What is it that it wants to see in twenty year's time on a community level, with regard to the community economies? With regard to keeping people in the communities, whether those communities are communities of some hundreds of people, like the people on Long Island, for example, or whether the community is a community of thousands of people, like in Grand Falls-Windsor, or whether the community is one of our cities? What is the government's vision? I keep asking that question. I have been almost two years asking that question now. Well, it has been two years, actually – and I keep waiting for an answer.

The government has to become more proactive in putting out its vision. It has to become more proactive in working, not just with the business community but with all aspects of our communities, knowing that the economy of a community is the economy of the people in the community. If we are going to have growth in this Province, if we are going to have growth that is sustainable in this Province, not just growth that comes at a given moment because of big resources coming in from oil and gas or large resources coming in from mining, but if we are going to have sustainable development, that means in ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years time, we are still going to be an area where people can live wherever they want in this Province, where they can live there and make a living there and have the services that are required, then we have to have a plan in place that shows that we have a vision and we know how to get there.

I am happy to have had the time, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this Act. While it may look like a dry piece of work dealing with securities and dealing with investments, in actual fact it is extremely important because it is at the basis of work that we need to do in this Province, it is at the basis of dealing with our economic needs.

Last week I asked the Premier what the government was doing with regard to stimulating the economy in this time of great need right now, where we have an economic crisis going on, on a global level, and the Premier gave me an answer that included long-term plans like the development of the Lower Churchill, and I think he talked about Hebron and he talked about – which I didn't think was an appropriate answer at all to my question – he talked about what he was offering workers in this Province.

He didn't at all talk about putting an influx of money into small community-based business. He himself didn't talk about, for example; well, we have an MOU with the Federation of Co-operatives. Maybe we can put more money into the formation of co-operatives. Maybe that is something that would help stimulate the economy.

Today, in this House, an individual from the community was recognized because of his work as an entrepreneur in the tourism industry, but there are all kinds of communities out there doing things in the tourism industry. Wouldn't an influx of money into environmentally beneficial tourism be a way to go that could help with stimulating the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because, Mr. Speaker, we did not need the economic crisis worldwide to say that we needed stimulation of the economy in this Province. We do not have to stimulate the economy when it comes to the large-scale economy, the money that we are getting from oil and gas, the money that we are getting from mining, from these resources in particular. If we are talking about living on the northeastern section of the Avalon Peninsula things are pretty good, but when we are talking about the small communities that are out there, when we are talking about the communities on the Bonavista Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula, the Baie Verte Peninsula, the Burin Peninsula, the Port au Port Peninsula, when we look around this Province there is an awful lot of stimulation needed in the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would really hope that having this discussion today, having this bill on the table today, will encourage this government to think about what real stimulation of the economy is. Real stimulation of the economy is putting money into solid community-based employment, and that is not something we are doing, Mr. Speaker, not when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and I look forward to hearing if the minister can make a connection between passing this bill, that will happen here in the House over the next week or so, with the need for economic growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to just highlight some of the things that I said in my opening remarks with regard to this bill, a very important bill in regard to amending the Securities Act.

First off, these requirements are updated and harmonized and will benefit investors in a number of ways which I referenced in regard to what I said in my opening remarks. We also are reducing red tape and we are providing investors with the right to take legal action against companies who (inaudible) securities. It also enhances the ability of consumers to obtain information. They need to become an informed investor, which is very, very important in regard to any market, especially today's markets.

Also, as well, it has to be noted in regard to some of the comments of the Opposition House Leader, in some of the questions that he had, which I will certainly answer in Committee, is that the harmonization and these amendments in regard to the Securities Act is required regardless of which structure will be presented in Canada in the future, be it the passport system or be it a single regulator. We still have to go through this process in regard to harmonizing and amending our current Securities Act as it sits today.

I want to put that out there. Regardless of what happens in the future in regard to Canada and securities, and the suggested one regulator by the federal government, we still have to go through this process. Rather than delay this, we certainly do, at this particular time, as we did in the past, we support the passport system. The passport system will certainly be a single regulator, too, the way the mechanism works, in that not having just one single regulator in Ontario or some other province, the passport system recognizes, under the passport system, all jurisdictions recognize the regulations under securities in the jurisdiction that there is a transaction being enacted. Then, in turn, that one single regulator would actually transact and regulate that. So it is actually a single regulator, but through a different system that the passport system identifies.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit again and then when this bill goes to Committee I will certainly answer any and all questions from my hon. colleagues across the House. I look forward to any other comments that they may have.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 49)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 49)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 22, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act". (Bill 56)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to be able to speak to the issue of raising Bill 56, and there have been some questions raised in the House of Assembly. Today, for example, during Question Period there were some questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition around the midwifery bill, Bill 56, and why we were repealing it before we introduced new legislation. There were some questions around the practice of midwifery.

The practice of midwifery and discussions around the regulation of it has been a topic of some discussion for quite some time in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and some of it dates back to probably the mid-nineties, when there was fairly intense campaign to lobby the government of the day to enact legislation to govern midwifery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to make some comments, Mr. Speaker, around midwifery and the practice of midwifery, but I really want to put this bill into some context so there is not a misunderstanding of what it is we are trying to do here.

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 56 is an act to repeal the midwifery act as it now exists. So, in understanding why we are introducing this bill here to repeal an act, you need to understand the act that currently sits on the books in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the current legislation in this Province, the act as it sits today, referred to as the Midwifery Act, was an act that was created back in the early 1950s, and in the early 1950s in Newfoundland and Labrador there really was not a discipline of midwifery. That was not a profession that was established with a basic training for it, a structure in terms of how it functioned, where it functioned, but midwives evolved in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If you go throughout rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, you will hear stories of someone's mother or someone's grandmother who was a midwife. If fact, the other day - two or three weeks ago - I was driving and I stopped into a service station on the highway. It was one of those that had a book stand in the middle of the convenience store, and it was a book stand of a lot of books by Newfoundland authors, and one of them, actually – and I just forget who wrote the book – but one of them profiled midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you pick up the book and scan through it, you will see references to aunt so-and-so, or some lady who lived out in some remote part of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is a story about her.

In fact, there were several names in there and I went looking for them, to see if they were in the book, because these are people that I knew from my part of the Province who were noted to be midwives and delivered many, many children. In fact, my youngest sister was delivered by a midwife in our family home.

There were some of these names that I would have recognized, and I think members of this House could tell similar stories about midwives in this Province, so they evolved over time.

The legislation that currently is on the books was a piece of legislation to regulate that group of individuals. It was not a piece of legislation that acknowledged it as a discipline, acknowledged it as a profession standing alone by itself. At that time, back in the 1950s, there was no such thing as any special training for these individuals. Most of them acquired the knowledge from their mothers and grandmothers, knowledge that had been passed on from one generation to the other. The legislation that is currently on the books does not do anything at all, I say, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a part of the legislation that is in existence now calls for the creation of a board and that board has not been in existence for over thirty years.

Repealing the legislation as it sits today is not an affront to midwifery, it is not an affront to those who have chosen this as a profession, nor is it a reflection at all of our government's commitment, our government's intent and our desire, to create legislation to govern the profession of midwifery in this Province. Just to the contrary, I say, Mr. Speaker. We need to understand the manner in which midwifery has evolved over time here.

Now, the other thing I think is really important to understand here, Mr. Speaker, as we start talking about the practice of midwifery and what it is our government is intending to do - we have been fairly clear, Mr. Speaker, in our commitment to look at creating legislation to govern midwives in this Province as a part of a larger piece of legislation dealing with a variety of health disciplines.

It is our intent to create an umbrella piece of legislation that will cover off a range of disciplines. This is not intended to be an all-encompassing list, but to give you, Mr. Speaker, some sense, and to give members of this House some sense, of others who may be governed by this particular piece of legislation. In this Province today, lab technologists are not a regulated discipline. Speech-language pathologists are not. Midwives are not. There are a number of disciplines in the Province that we want to move towards a process of creating a legislative framework for which the practice – I think that becomes extremely important, I say, Mr. Speaker, and it is our intent to have midwives included in that particular piece.

In fact, I said earlier that the activity around midwives and the discussion around midwives and the regulation of them in this Province goes back to the mid-1990s. It evolved to a point where, back in I think early 2000 or 2001 sometime, there was a committee that was put in place to make some recommendations to the then minister. I believe it was a former administration in 2001 or 2002, around that time. The minister of that day decided that the creation of legislation to regulate the practice of midwifery was appropriately done through a piece of umbrella legislation like I am suggesting here, like I am proposing that our government would do. In fact, the minister of that day, the minister back in 2001-2002, deferred the stand-alone regulation around it, or deferred the decision around creating a separate piece of legislation for midwifery, deferred it to a point in time when this umbrella legislation should, in fact, be fully developed and fully flushed out. Nothing else went on beyond that. That particular activity, or the notion that we would move towards that as a Province, died.

Then, in 2003 our government came to power and that is where we are today, fundamentally evolving to that point where we too would recognize that this umbrella legislation is necessary.

One of the things that is different, I say, Mr. Speaker, the difference between now and 2001-2002, is that now, in my role and my capacity today as the Minister of Health and Community Services, I have directed my officials in my department some time ago to start a process in drafting the legislation, do the necessary research that was required, and start putting in place a policy framework, an appropriate legislative framework, that would be necessary for us to bring this legislation to the Legislature sometime in 2009. That is our commitment, Mr. Speaker, and that is the kind of timeframe that we are talking about.

There is another thing that came up this afternoon in Question Period that I think is important noting; that the practice of midwifery, and the notion that we should bring forward legislation to create a legislative and a regulatory framework so they could practice in this Province, the notion that you would do this in response to a shortage of physicians I think it is an inappropriate characterization, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We need to be very careful as we talk about the need for midwives, the role that they play and how they actually are a part of a team. As I say, Mr. Speaker, our objective, our motivation here if you will, our motivation here in wanting to create legislation to govern midwives, has nothing to do with the supply and demand of physicians, nothing to do with the supply and demand of nurses in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker. They are separate and apart from that. The practice of midwifery in this country is autonomous from nursing and autonomous from physician practice. I say, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally we need to look at midwives as an autonomous body. They have their own educational program in a variety of universities throughout Canada, they have a four or five year degree program that they will complete and they will be a part of a team.

Jurisdictions such as ours, and other jurisdictions around the country, inasmuch as midwives will be involved in the delivery, low-risk delivery, of babies in this Province, you do not put them in place in response to a shortage of nurses or a shortage of physicians.

The other question that has risen around the practice of midwifery in this Province is: well, we are doing it in Labrador, so why don't we just do it again on the Island portion of the Province? I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in Labrador we have a very different arrangement. In Labrador there are about ten individuals who are practicing as midwives there now, but these individuals are practicing as an extension of their licence as a nurse. These individuals are registered with the ARNN. They have a licence to practice nursing in this Province and they are governed by that legislation. In order for them to practice as midwives in Labrador they first had to be a nurse. That had to be registered, eligible for registration and become registered with the ARNN which gives them a licence to practice nursing in the Province. They can go anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador to practice their chosen profession of being a nurse.

However, through a special arrangement with the ARNN, as I understand it - I was not around when this happened but as I understand it there was an arrangement between the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Association of Registered Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they came to an understanding of how nurses who held this special licence and would have these credentials and advanced training would be able to practice midwifery within a geographic location as defined in Labrador. The midwives in Labrador are different again from the conversation we are having here and they are again different from what will be the subject of the new legislation.

We envisage under the new legislation midwifery being an autonomous profession, separate and apart from nursing. In other words, in the future midwives in this Province will not have to first make an application to the ARNN to become a part of that association and hold a licence to practice nursing in this Province, but rather through this special legislation they will make application to become registered as a midwife in this Province, an autonomous profession practicing with a set of guidelines that will define their scope of practice and define through regulation how they will be a part of a health care team; how they will use technology, for example, the kind of criteria that may require them to bring other individuals into the process in the event of a high risk pregnancy or some complication that may arise that may require a different skill set than they may bring. There will be a set of regulations like that, Mr. Speaker, but fundamentally they will be an autonomous body. They will not be nurses first and midwives second. They will not be midwives as an add-on to being a nurse like we had the circumstance in Labrador.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is really important to create these distinctions because we have debated some other bills in this Legislature in the last week or two where we have been repealing legislation that is no longer valid. Members opposite have taken advantage of the opportunity because somewhere or other in the title there is a belief that it means something. A spin – I do not like to use the word but I will use the word - a spin has been put on what we have been attempting to do here to create some impression that we are trying to undermine something or that we are not being straightforward in telling people exactly what we are trying to do.

I am taking some great pains, Mr. Speaker, in introducing what is, in the normal course of events, repealing a piece of legislation that has been on the books since the early 1950s that has no relevance, does not apply to anybody now, does not regulate anybody now, does not influence the practice of midwifery, does not apply to a single soul who is existing in this Province today. Despite all of that, I find it necessary to take great pains in providing a detailed explanation of this this afternoon because this is an important topic, as we have seen in Question Period today, lends itself to some significant manipulation of what government's intent is, some significant manipulation of what we are trying to do in the repealing of this legislation and bringing into question our long-term interest, our long-term commitment to making sure the midwives are regulated to practice in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Leader of the Official Opposition for her press release back in May of 2008 in response to questions in the House here. The Leader of the Opposition indicates – this is the heading: Opposition pleads midwifery legislation being developed by government. It goes on to talk about the comments that I had been making in the public domain that it was clearly our intent to introduce legislation to regulate midwives in this Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to make abundantly clear that no one in this House, members opposite or people in the general public, or any individual who have been actively involved in this discussion in recent years to somehow or other connect our repealing of a piece of legislation today that happens to be called the midwifery act, connecting that in any fashion and suggesting in any fashion that that means that this government is less committed to establishing legislation to govern midwives or that it is not our intent to follow through on a commitment that I had made earlier or that we, in some way, do not understand or do not agree with or not committed to introducing midwives in this Province as being a part of our team to provide quality safe patient care to individuals who want to have a choice.

If you look at the practice of midwifery, it is about having choices. It is about the role they play in, not only in the delivery piece because we tend to talk about midwives primarily. This might be a throwback in this Province to what I was describing of fifty or sixty years ago: midwives showed up to deliver. Midwives of today are very actively involved in the education, they are actively involved in family planning, involved in the education process throughout the pregnancy, working with the individual, the mother-to-be, the lady who is pregnant, but also very closely with the family and understanding what is about to take place in the birth, the introduction of a new person into that home, and will work clearly with the family after the baby is born, which are very critical components of the entire continuum of care to be provided.

An interesting statistic I read the other day with respect to the impact that midwives have, and we were talking about – the topic of conversation was not about midwives, it was about breastfeeding, but in the course of that conversation the point was made that those individuals who had the support of a midwife throughout their pregnancy and through the delivery were more apt to breastfeed than those who were not.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, there are well-recognized and well-documented benefits to having midwives practice in the – as part of a team, providing services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The birth rates in this Province – this question has arisen as well, because birth rates in the Province have dropped in recent years. I think last year we had some 4,300, a little over 4,300 deliveries in Newfoundland and Labrador. The previous year we had just a little over 4,400, and if you go back ten, fifteen, twenty years, the numbers were even greater still.

So we are witnessing a decline in the birth rates in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some have raised the question: Well, why would you want to bring midwives into the picture now when you have a declining birth rate? That is a fair question, I say, Mr. Speaker, but it goes back to an answer I provided and a comment I made a few moments ago in the introduction of midwives into the Newfoundland scene. It is not a question of whether or not we have enough doctors or do not have enough doctors, whether or not we have enough nurses or do not have enough nurses, and whether or not we have enough deliveries or do not have enough deliveries. This is a part of giving women a choice, giving families a choice, because I think one of the things we recognize, and it is well-documented, is that midwives do provide a valuable service. They have been – research has clearly demonstrated that in areas where they have been well utilized, there has been positive response from the family members, positive outcomes and it starts a process, I say, Mr. Speaker, it starts a process in the early development of the child.

One of the things as the Minister of Health and Community Services, I also have a responsibility for early learning and child care. One of the things that researchers have clearly told us is that the period of time from age 0 to age 6 is a critical time in the development of a young mind, so it becomes really important if you think about that. Mr. Speaker, just think about that statement for a moment. As much as many of us may not have thought about it very much, fundamentally when a woman is going through her pregnancy, the development of that child mentally and psychologically is starting to evolve. The support that mother gets, the support that family gets during that pregnancy is critical to the development of that child. Research has clearly indicated that to us. In the early years, after the child is born, the early beginnings have become critical.

That is why, through the last couple of budgets in this House, the Minister of Finance has introduced initiatives and commented on initiatives undertaken by the Department of Health and Community Services through our four regional health authorities, to assist young mothers to focus on nutritional supplements during pregnancy, all with a view to ensuring children get a positive start in their lives in this Province. The introduction of midwives as part of a team of individuals providing supports through that pregnancy, through the delivery, and the period that follows, the whole process of evolvement of midwives in the provision of services is not just about the actual delivery, Mr. Speaker. Much time has actually passed by the time the delivery has occurred, much time has passed where the midwife has already been actively involved with the mother to be and with the family. After delivery is over again the midwife is there for the continued support.

One of the other things too, Mr. Speaker, we tend to think about midwives - I think it is probably because of our history and how midwifes have evolved in Newfoundland and Labrador - we tend to think about midwives as going to the home and delivering. We have midwives throughout Canada practicing in a variety of settings. Yes, they may visit the homes, but some of them are working in clinics and some of them are working in hospitals. They have become very much a part of a team approach providing pre and post-natal care, I say, Mr. Speaker. They will become, and are becoming, a critical part of the health care team in providing supports and services.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, which as I said a moment ago, in the normal course of events is somewhat routine, I am extremely sensitive to the term because the term suggests that we are repealing the midwifery act. If you leave that statement hanging in isolation and leave it to those who may question our attention with midwives, if you left that statement in isolation, it might sound, on the surface, that we no longer support midwives in the Province and that we have no intentions of bringing in legislation. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth.

A very direct question by the Leader of the NDP this afternoon in Question Period: Why would you introduce a bill to repeal an act before you have a new one ready to go? The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker: This particular act that sits on the books today, known as the Midwifery Act, has no application today. It was intended and it was developed and passed in this Legislature to govern midwives who had no training, because midwifery had evolved, but in the early 1950s it was deemed appropriate to create a legislative framework to give them some element of protection, but midwives have evolved over time and no longer exist in the Province, Mr. Speaker, so the legislation has no effect, has no teeth. In fact, the board that should have been put in place to actually enforce this act and to govern the discipline of that time has not been appointed for over thirty years.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are repealing this act today because it has absolutely zero value, it applies to no one in this Province, and no one at all is being disadvantaged because we are repealing it.

What is important to recognize, Mr. Speaker, what is really important to recognize with respect to midwives in this Province, is that we have made a commitment as a government, I have given an undertaking in this House, as a minister, to engage my staff in our department to develop the necessary legislation and the policy framework that will allow us to come back into this House next year and we will introduce a bill – whether it will be called the Midwifery Act or it will be called something else, it will have another title – but clearly, Mr. Speaker, what it will do, it will regulate midwives and their practice in this Province. It will recognize them as an autonomous profession. It will recognize them for their independence or practice. It will recognize them because of the level of education that they have. It will recognize them as a part of a health care team. It will recognize them as an integral part of post and prenatal care in this Province, and it will recognize, I think, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledge our government's commitment to introduce midwives as a self-governing and autonomous profession within Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look forward, or some of my colleagues may stand in this House next year, maybe around this time, and instead of repealing legislation that has no teeth at all we will be introducing some groundbreaking legislation for this Province as we introduce a new umbrella piece of legislation dealing with a variety of health disciplines – one of which, Mr. Speaker, will be the practice of midwifery. We look forward to working with the provincial association in consultation as we develop this particular piece of legislation and I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I took a half-hour of the public's time here today to talk about this significant initiative of government that we are undertaking without acknowledging the contribution already made by this Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Midwives, in their efforts dating back to the early 1990s to raise the awareness, to create a better public understanding of the role and practice of midwifery and to talk to not only our government but to have lobbied previous governments and previous Administrations in moving this agenda forward.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I do want to take advantage of this opportunity today to thank them for their efforts and the work that they have done and look forward to, in the next coming months, having some further discussions with them as we refine our legislation, refine our regulations with respect to the practice of midwifery in the Province.

Without any further comment, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to members opposite raising any points or issues, and at the close of debate I will get an opportunity to no doubt clarify for them some issues that they may raise, and put into perspective for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly what we are intending to do as a government with respect to the practice of midwifery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for his introduction of Bill 56, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we had hoped that at this stage we would be here speaking to a new act to govern midwifery practices in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a process that has taken a long time, going back to the 1990s, and certainly legislation that people who are in the practice of midwifery and want to be practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see implemented. More so than that, Mr. Speaker, it is something that women in this Province want to see implemented.

It is really unfortunate that it has taken so long to see new legislation coming to light to govern this practice in our Province. So, while I will take some time today, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the generalities of midwifery and the importance of it to the Province, I wish that I was speaking to new legislation and not the act that we have here, which is to repeal past legislation that had been used in the Province.

I understand the reason acts are often repealed. Obviously, the scope of the practice has changed. The professionalization and the credentials around the practice have changed over the years, and there is a need for new legislation that deals with things like licensing and practice and benefits and so on, Mr. Speaker, and how it will be incorporated into the medical profession within the Province. We certainly look forward to the day that we can see all that, but at the present time we are obviously not there and I am not getting a sense from the minister in his opening remarks as to when we will be there.

Mr. Speaker, it is really ironic, if you were to look at the turn of the last century, to realize that in Newfoundland and Labrador we were probably one of the fewer provinces in Canada that was using midwifery as a scope of medical practice that we were in relation to the rest of the country. At the turn of the century, the minister talked about how you often hear people say my baby was born by a midwife, or I was born by a midwife, or my son, my daughter, or whatever the case may be. Mr. Speaker, that was pretty normal going back to the early nineteenth century and the turn of the twentieth century in particular, when you look at when Sir Wilfred Grenfell came to work in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it was in 1892 when he came here and he set up his first practice. It happened to be in Labrador, in the district that I represent today. One of the first things he did after he built the hospital in Battle Harbour was, he started bringing in midwives from the U.K. They came to practice a scope of work along the Coast of Labrador which later, Mr. Speaker, when he built his hospital in St. Anthony, became one of the main pieces of practice that was being delivered through the medical facilities out of St. Anthony that would serve the entire Northern Peninsula. It was at the turn of the last century in which we saw this particular practice take off in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we saw a great deal of people in rural communities benefit from it, especially communities where there were not always doctors, or people could not always get to a hospital. There were always the services of midwives.

Even, Mr. Speaker, local people, as the minister alluded to, were often trained in communities to become midwives, but that was all incorporated. If you go back, Mr. Speaker, in the 1920s when there was legislation first introduced in this Province with regard to midwifery, at that time, Mr. Speaker, there was legislation and things that were looked at. It was looked at, Mr. Speaker, simply because they knew they needed to have the outreach services, and this was a way that they could do it. In addition to that, it was a way in which women were comfortable with it. They were comfortable with it because they felt they had confidence in this particular practice. It allowed them to be able to have their children, to have healthy children, and to certainly be able to care for themselves through their pregnancy but after their pregnancy as well.

Mr. Speaker, after we joined Confederation in 1949 there was no recognition in Canada for the practice of midwifery. As a result of it, our legislation was no longer valid. Being a part of the union with Canada in a country that did not recognize it, although we were a Province that was practicing it, there were some changes that took place. One of those changes was that the legislation was no longer recognized in the way that it had been. It was only some time after that in the 1960s when midwives were no longer permitted to be licensed in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think in 1963 was the last midwife that was actually issued a licence in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we went through a period where midwifery services became the crust of our health care services in Newfoundland and Labrador in response to the need that was there in providing for this service throughout the Province to a period after Confederation where Canada did not recognize it. So we were no longer honouring the practice or certainly not upholding the legislation in the way and recognizing it in a way that we always had. So we went through that period.

Then we come to the period in the 1990s. It was in a workshop that was held at the time in Makkovik in Labrador. It was in that workshop in 1990, which would have been mostly Aboriginal women from remote and isolated communities, who said that they needed to bring back the practice of midwifery to their communities. These were women of generations of women who had had the practices of midwifery, not to the scale that we have today, but they certainly had the practices of them. They knew what the benefit of it was. It was in that small community in Makkovik, amongst the women in the Inuit community in 1990, that they first started to make the call again to bring back that scope of practice to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the provincial prenatal advisory committee reported on the conference and recommended that they legislate midwifery and that there were many incentives for doing it. One was with regard to the practice itself and the scale of health care services that could be provided in that manner, but there was also the fact that it reduced the financial burden that was being placed on the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, because of that advisory committee report in 1990, the government then decided, two years later, to set up this particular inquiry into the midwives practice and that began. That took several years, and through that process the people in our Province who practiced this and the women who required the service, they were patient. They were patient through that period of time. They participated in the report of the committee and the inquiry. The final report, which was done in 1994, stated unequivocally that midwifery was safe, it was cost effective and it was acceptable to patients as a means of providing quality care in our Province, to both women and to their families.

Mr. Speaker, it was after that report and those recommendations in 1999 - so we have had the call for the report. We had the report completed in 1999. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was a midwifery implementation committee set up to advise the department on the legislation that would be needed. What the scope of the legislation would be, what the standards for midwifery practices in Newfoundland and Labrador would be, what kind of educational requirements they would be required to have, how they would register, how they could get a licence, and what kind of board structure would be set up; all very important components of any professional service to be offered in the Province. That happened in 1999, when that implementation committee was formed.

It was in 2002, or late in the fall in 2001, that the legislation was drafted. It was done in consultation with the people who worked in the field, or had an interest in the field at the time in this Province. Then in 2002, the legislation was suspended again. I am trying to recall why that was. I think at the time there was some overlapping with disciplines and I think probably with physicians in the Province, in terms of people having to change other acts to incorporate the services of midwifery. I think it was delayed, or at least put on hold for a short time at that time.

That was in 2002, this is in 2008. So, if you look at that whole process going back to 1990, this is eighteen years in this Province that there has been efforts being made to put midwifery services, a professional service in this Province, into legislation, and that is not good enough. It is not good enough by the actions of the government today, nor was it good enough by the actions of the government in the past, because once the legislation was drafted and done and all the steps have been gone through in 2002, the act should have been, at that time, put forward in the House of Assembly. So, unless there was very good reason – and I am not recalling very good reasons, unless it was that there was opposition to it from the physician community at the time, and I am not even sure that that constitutes a very good reason, but there may have been some overlaps in the legislation and it may have required being written in such a way so that it did coincide and fall in line with the acts for other professional services within the health care sector.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

The level of side conversations is starting to exceed that of the recognized speaker. I would ask all members of the House for their co-operation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems like this happens everyday in the Legislature that there is always more noise and the tenor of the House rises but it is important legislation here that we are talking about. It is important that the people's voices be heard.

Mr. Speaker, why the act was not proclaimed or not initiated at the time I certainly cannot speak for but I do not think there is any excuse why, from the period of 2003 up until today, 2008, that this legislation could not have been enacted in the House of Assembly. There has been extensive research done with regard to midwifery in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has shown already that there is cost savings by implementing the profession and licensing it and regulating it in a professional manner. It shows that it is a preferred method of child birth for more women in our Province. Mr. Speaker, it does take, regardless of what the minister had to say about general practitioners and the shortage of it not being related to midwifery, it does take some of the pressure off the physicians in our Province and our general practitioners, and there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt about that, because lots of general practitioners today do not want to provide for paternal services in some cases. They would prefer if they had the services of a midwife to be able to take on that responsibility.

So, Mr. Speaker, all the arguments are there and they exist for it. What I would like to know from the minister is why the current legislation is not being introduced in the House of Assembly? I am getting the understanding, Mr. Speaker, and he can confirm this when he stands to speak in his closing remarks, but I am certainly getting the understanding from individuals that the Department of Health and Community Services may be undergoing another review to look at what legislation is appropriate. If that is the case, I think it is absolutely ridiculous at this stage, that in the last five years when all the work had been done, when legislation had already been drafted, that the department could not have taken that and done the cross references across Canada or across s Europe; because, Mr. Speaker, we are one of only three provinces left in this country that does not have midwifery legislation. In almost every province it is paid for as part of a government service.

I know in Alberta and I think in Saskatchewan maybe that is not the case, but in most provinces across Canada it is being paid for by governments and there is no reason why in Newfoundland and Labrador that we certainly cannot be introducing this legislation and why it should not have been introduced prior to this.

Mr. Speaker, outside of ourselves and P.E.I. and one other province, every other province in Canada has this. If I am understanding now that five years into this the Department of Health and Community Services is going to take another year to go out and evaluate legislation - or another year-and-a-half - of other provinces in the country, that should have been done a long time ago. Now I am hearing that they may go out and evaluate legislation that is being offered in the U.K. and across certain parts of Europe. Again, that should have been done a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important. Midwifery is today very different than what it was back in 1892 when Sir Wilfred Grenfell started introducing it in the hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very different. Today, Mr. Speaker, midwives complete a four-year university degree program and they have to qualify for registration within Canada, within any province that they are going to operate in, or territory. It is as professional a service as any other service that can be offered in our health corporations. Yet, we are not encouraging it, knowing that the results for women are very positive, knowing it is the preferred method for most women in both prenatal and postnatal pregnancy cases of delivery. Yet, we are not introducing the legislation here to be able to allow for that.

We also know that it is a situation which provides for some financial relief within the health care services sector, and we know that it takes some of the pressure off the general practitioners. In most of the studies that I have looked at, it certainly provides for very safe care, and I think all the research that we have had done in our office and that which was supplied to us by the Midwifery Association of Newfoundland and Labrador shows that midwives provide safe care with very excellent outcomes, the same as we have seen with physicians, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes it is fewer interventions.

Mr. Speaker, very few women across Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador, have normal births. We all know that. More than one in four women deliver their children by Cesarean section. Mr. Speaker, we also know, from the research we were given, that women who are cared for my midwives, the rate of Cesarean section is only around 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, these are very important facts and very important information. I understand from the government and from the minister that it is not that they do not want to enact this legislation, but in fact they are doing a great deal of work around that. I am glad to hear that. I am glad to see that they are in the line of thinking that this legislation needs to be implemented in the Province so that when someone applies for a licence, after four years of completing a midwifery program, and they apply for a licence in Newfoundland and Labrador, they know that they are applying under a legislative body and that licence will be guaranteed. That is not the case that we have today. We need to ensure that the act is changed so that this is a culture of professional services that can continue to be delivered in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in a far greater fashion than we have seen it in the last thirty or forty years.

Mr. Speaker, I guess my thing would be to encourage the minister to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible. In the last sitting of the House of Assembly, back in the spring, he did commit that they would do legislation and that they would bring it forward. We were hoping that we would see it in the fall session, in this session, and that did not happen. I hope that we can get a commitment on some timelines as to when the legislation will be introduced in Newfoundland and Labrador, because it hardly makes sense to be repealing an act around midwifery when we have nothing that we can bring in to replace it.

I would also like to ensure that midwives in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and their association are consulted with regard to new legislation. I know that they have been consulted in the past when it came to the studies that were done, the inquiry that was completed, the legislation that was originally drafted. I knew all of that was done with their input; however, they did inform us that they were not consulted with the repealing of this act. I do understand from the minister that this does not impact upon any midwifery practices that might be going on in the Province today because those that are in practice are there as a licensed nurse in Newfoundland and Labrador and they would fall under that legislation.

I am understanding that there isn't an impact, but maybe if we could get it narrowed down to some timelines in terms of which we would know when we could see some legislation coming forward so that these individuals at least would know that they can get a licence to practice here.

We have heard from one midwife who, after completing four years of schooling and had worked in the practice, was trying to work in Newfoundland and Labrador and had to leave the Province. They could not get a licence, for one thing, but secondly they could not financially stay here because it was not generating, as a professional service, the kind of revenues that they could be making in other provinces, because the full scope of work as it integrated into our health care system was not very clearly defined.

As I said, in most other provinces the service is provided by the government. There are some provinces that have legislation, and while it is legislated it is still a fee-for-service, or you pay for the service that you get, the same as you pay for certain other services in their health care system. It is certainly my hope that midwifery, while it is implemented and comes forward in the legislative manner, that it is more than that – that midwifery is incorporated into the health care sector in Newfoundland and Labrador so that women who are having children have the option to choose a midwife to be able to attend to them through their pregnancy and after their pregnancy, Mr. Speaker.

I think that is very important, and it is going to be a key component to all of this; because, unless it is being provided for as part of our health care services, many of the women out there who would choose to have their deliveries through midwives would not be able to access the service if they have to pay for it, and therefore it would not be affordable or available to all of those who need to have it.

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the repealing of the act would have been followed by new legislation. Having said that, I take the minister's word that the legislation is coming and he is committed to do that. We will not vote against a repealing of the act, because I do not see the purpose in doing that. This legislation will not have any impact on what is going on in the Province today, nor will it affect what we want to achieve in the future, but I certainly say to the minister that we have your commitment and we will stay in touch with your department to ensure that this legislation comes sooner, rather than later, and that finally, after eighteen years in this Province, that people who want to practice midwifery can do so with a full licensed practice, knowing the full scope of their responsibilities and their duties, and do so in a professional manner, like other services that we have in the health care profession.

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 am very pleased to be able to stand today and speak to the bill that is before us, the bill to repeal the Midwifery Act.

I want to say upfront - and I will certainly be explaining my position - that I will not be voting for this bill, not because I think the Act that is being repealed is in and of itself the act that we need, not because it is up-to-date, not because it is an excellent piece of legislation, but because at least we have an act that recognizes the profession of midwifery. We have an Act that is call the Midwifery Act. What we are being told by the minister is that, yes, there is going to be legislation brought in after this Act is repealed, maybe within a year, but that the legislation that is being brought in is not going to be a midwifery act, it is going to be a canopy act or an umbrella act covering various health professionals among whom will be midwives.

In spite of the fact that this Act may be old, the Act that we currently still have that we have not voted down yet, in spite of the fact it may not be up-to-date, in spite of the fact several governments have chosen to ignore this Act, in spite of all of that, we still have an Act that recognizes midwives. With the Act that the minister has been speaking to, a canopy act recognizing a number of health professionals, it will not focus on particular needs of midwives. It is an insult to midwives. It is an insult to the midwives who have been part of the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an insult to midwives in this country where some provinces did a canopy act and have reversed from it, where we now see other provinces recognizing that one really should have a particular act devoted to midwives. Taking away an act that has the name Midwifery Act is an insult to the profession.

It is an insult to midwives in other parts of the world where midwifery is such a recognized profession that they are light years ahead of us when it comes to the number of children who are born by midwives, when it comes to the number of pregnant women and women postpartum who are serviced by midwives and taken care of by midwives. This is an insult to the profession that we will no longer have after this Act is repealed, an Act that is devoted to midwives. I am not satisfied with what the minister is planning on doing and I will be voting against the repealing of the Act.

You know, I asked a question of the minister in the House today with regard to, will he be consulting with the professionals in the Province right now around midwives, will he, for example, consult with the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he said, yes. It was the shortest and sweetest answer I have ever gotten from this minister, Mr. Speaker, I have to say. I would like him to answer me much more often with the shortness that he answered me today on that question. I am really glad he did.

What I would like to point out to the minister is that, if he is going to be consulting and if he remembers consultations that have happened over the last couple of years, the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want a canopy piece of legislation. They do not want an umbrella piece of legislation. They believe that there should be an act called midwifery act. What is happening here today is, as I have said already, an insult to the midwives and to the Association of Midwives in this Province.

I would like the minister, when he does stand up and respond to us, to explain why he is doing something that goes against what the Association of Midwives is looking for. I have to say, I am really shocked that he can say he believes in consultation and then do something that the association of the professionals is asking him not to do, and to do something that is going against the wisdom of people elsewhere in this country, doing something that is going against the wisdom of other governments, of other associations of professionals, of other people who have been involved for many years in the issue of midwifery. Why is he going in a direction that in actual fact other provinces have rejected, that other provinces took and said, no. They found that it was not the right way to go.

Now, every province in this country has midwifery legislation except Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. When this Act goes, the canopy act is not a midwifery act. That is a question I look forward to the minister answering.

When the minister says that he is going to consult, I am wondering how in-depth that consultation would be. One thing has struck me: knowing that we had two committees that looked at midwifery, knowing that the second one of those two was the midwifery implementation committee and came up with what, in 2001, was a very good report with suggestions for what needs to be in legislation, knowing all that, I am going to ask the minister: Would he consider putting together another implementation committee? I understand that he does have a person with expertise either hired or soon to be hired to work on this. Would he put together a new midwifery implementation committee to work with that person in full consultation and would that implementation committee, for example, include the Association of Midwives in Newfoundland and Labrador?

It could include aboriginal women who are involved in midwifery in Labrador. It should obviously include participation of at least one of the midwives who is working as a nurse-midwife under the Labrador Grenfell Health Authority. It should also include a representative from the Women's Policy Office.

I put this to the minister, Mr. Speaker; that if the minister really wants to have a full consultation process, then he will put a structure in place to allow that consultation to happen, and he will also put a structure in place which will be more than consultation, that will be a group of professionals involved in the issue, who, with the person that the ministry either has or is going to hire, will put together what is needed for the new piece of legislation.

I think the minister would find that if he puts a body like that together, that body will not be satisfied with the canopy legislation that the minister is talking about. It is not an acceptable piece of legislation, for the very reason that minister himself has given, both in responding to my questions earlier today and speaking in the House earlier to the bill.

There is a very particular role for midwives in the general health practice of a community. It is something that becomes part of every family who is fortunate enough to have children. The midwife is an essential part of the team, and I do understand the role of the midwife, and I understand the profession. I will not belabour it any more to prove to the minister that I do, but I understand the role of that person on the community team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I would like to say to the minister that the role of the midwife on the team is absolutely essential and needs to be recognized as much as the doctors in the community on the team, as much as the nurses in the community on the team, as much as the licensed nurse practitioners in the community on the team, as much as the surgeons in the community on a team. The midwives play an essential role in the general health and well-being of the community, and because they do they take part in a very special part of the life and death cycle in our lives, in the lives of the family and in the lives of the community. They have particular expertise in that area. To say that they can be part of just an umbrella bill, or an umbrella act, an umbrella piece of legislation, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable.

For that reason I would like – because I have not heard it – a fuller explanation from the minister of why he is so anxious to get rid of this act. Well, he has given it. The answer is because he is not going to have a midwifery act. He might as well get rid of this now because he is not going to have one. That means he already has his mind made up. He has a person hired, or soon to be hired - as I said, I am not sure about my fact on that one, whether or not the person is in place, and the minister can tell us that when he stands - but he is going to have somebody with expertise working on this, he is going to consult with people with expertise, and yet he has already decided what the new piece of legislation is going to look like. I have to ask the minister: What is consultation all about if he makes his decision ahead of time?

He is making his decision ahead of time, and he is going to tell the people he is consulting with: Here is what I am doing; now you tell me how to get there - but, that is not how it happens. You consult with the people who have the expertise even in making the decision about what it is you are going to do, not: This is what I am going to do; now you tell me how to do it. That is the worst kind of "consultation". That is not consultation. Consultation means sitting with the people with the direct knowledge, listening to them, and making the decision in concert with them.

I have to say, I am disappointed that the minister has indicated here in this House that he has the decision made. I am asking the minister to rethink that one, to stand up in this House and to tell us in this House today that maybe that is not the right way to go. Maybe I do need to rethink. Maybe I do have to really consult. Maybe I have to listen. Maybe I can even change my mind.

That would be novel, to have somebody in government change their minds, but I would love to see it happen and I would like to think that the minister could do that. If the minister is as open as he wants us to believe, and if he is as serious about this as he wants us to believe, then we need a piece of legislation called the Midwifery Act. I do not want this, for example, a decision for a canopy piece of legislation, put under the guise of anything like, for example, the red tape cutting, that we have too much red tape. This cannot be used in that way, for the reasons that I have already said.

I could go on and on, but I am not going to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Yes, hear, hear! I do not speak just for the sake of speaking. If I have all my points made, I will sit down. I just want to make sure that I have said everything that I want to say.

One more thing I want to say, which is another sign of the minister says he consults, yet a very small, minor thing on one level was not done that would have shown the seriousness about consultation. This bill to repeal the act came to us, and one of the things that struck me and struck us in our office was, we wondered what the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador think about this bill, so we called them. Lo and behold, what did we find out? That the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador did not even know that the act was going to be repealed. Now, that is the kind of consultation that has gone on, and the friends of midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador did not know that the act was going to be repealed.

If I sound like I am a bit dubious about the consultation that the minister talks about, that is the reason I am dubious. How can the minister say he is serious about consultation when he made a decision with regard to the repealing of the act and did not talk to the people who supposedly have been part of consultation over the years with this government and I assume with other governments?

I am asking the minister to show that he is serious about consultation. I am asking that he will give serious consideration to my proposal to set up a new implementation committee, that he will involve all concerned parties directly in all discussions and in decision making, and that he will do what I think would be the outcome of that, which is change his mind with regard to the kind of legislation we need, and make sure that we have in this Province a piece of legislation that covers midwifery as a profession, that covers the individuals who are in that profession, and that facilitates our getting midwives professionally recognized in this Province, being able to act everywhere in this Province as midwives, as part of our health care system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank members opposite for their comments. As I indicated at the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act. You cannot go, in having discussions about a bill such as this - or an act, or a bill that would change an existing act - without having a fair dialogue, a fair discussion, and a number of comments made around the subject matter of the act itself, which is midwifery. That is what we have heard a lot of today.

The substance of the bill itself is one of intent of government to repeal a piece of legislation that has no merit and effect today. There have been some comments made around the use of the word, the phrase - I think one of the things that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, for example, in terms of the timelines, and the amount of time this has been a topic of public discussion. I would, too, acknowledge, as I said in my opening comments, the discussion around this has gone back to the early 1990s. I remind the member opposite that it was in her Administration's mandate back in 2002 that there was a decision made at that time to defer the enactment of legislation pertaining to midwives at that particular point in time. The legislation was not, in fact, drafted but there was a deferral of any further development of it until such time as a larger substantive piece of legislation could have been enacted, which is what I am referring to here as well, which is that umbrella piece of legislation.

So, the notion of umbrella legislation, as much as I am using in the House today, is not a new term, is not a new phrase. The previous Administration, back in 2002, deferred any further action on midwives because they, too, wanted to develop a larger piece of legislation to deal with a number of health disciplines. We are doing that same thing, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The piece raised by the Leader of the NDP speaks around maintaining the name midwives in the legislation itself. I think I have been clear in my comments that we will have a legislative framework that will regulate the discipline of midwives as an autonomous body. They will be able to practice as a discipline in and of itself, as a profession in and of itself, and they will have a legislative and a regulatory regime to govern their practice in the Province.

Again, I want to thank the members opposite for their comments and some suggestions that they have made as we move forward with the second piece.

I think one of the things I just want to separate here for a moment: the bill before the House today is a bill to repeal the Midwifery Act. Some of the suggestions as to what we might do in the future deal with a separate piece of legislation that is now being contemplated and being developed. I do appreciate their recommendations and suggestions as to how we might approach that piece of work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, with that said, I will conclude my comments.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 56)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, Order 18, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accounts. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: It is now moved and seconded that Bill 51, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accounts, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Certified Management Accounts." (Bill 51)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Lands? I will have to correct you, Mr. Speaker, not Lands; another department.

Anyway, I am happy to get up in regards to second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accounts, Bill 51.

This is in keeping with the – as a result of the government implementing the principles of the white paper. The White Paper was entitled Challenging Responses to Changing Times – New Proposals for Occupational Regulation. This is in keeping with that White Paper, in regard to regulations that would allow certain professions to self-regulate themselves, which I think is very, very important in regards to our society today and the professions that we have within our communities and throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just to reference a few things in regard to this bill and what it enables the management accountants to do in regards to their new structure, which the act provides under the new provisions. It certainly separates the advocacy responsibilities from licensing and disciplinary responsibilities, through the creation of two separate governing bodies with separate mandates and responsibilities. There is public representation on each of the governing bodies, which certainly gives transparency and accountability to the general public, a graduated disciplinary process, including provisions for the settlement of complaints without engaging the formal complaint authorization and disciplinary process, including mediation, where all parties consent to such a settlement.

That gets each and every one of the parties to work out their differences through a regulator process and a much smoother and transparent and accountable process as well; clear separation between the self-regulated occupations, complaint authorization committee and the disciplinary panel, which has to be there in regards to the intent of the White Paper and certainly the intent to make sure that these self-regulating bodies are governed under their own set of regulations but also keeping in mind that there is a public interest here as well and they have to be protected so there has to be an accountability and transparency piece there too.

There will be public representation on the disciplinary panel, which is comprised of registered members of the self-regulating occupations as well as lay people appointed by the Minister of Government Services, who is responsible for representing the public interests. I think that is very important, as well, in regards to the accountability piece and the transparency surrounding this occupation as I have done in other occupations, as well, in the spring session. I think this, too, is very important in regards to red tape reduction, in that allowing professions to self-regulate themselves in a professional manner and an accountable manner certainly cuts down on the red tape that people might encounter in regards to dealing with some of these bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important piece of legislation in regards to, on a go-forward basis, allowing this particular profession to self-govern themselves. It also gives them an opportunity, I guess, an option, of operating in a corporate form or in a limited-liability partnership, which there are certain advantages to the particular profession in regards to that. This is nothing new because we already have other professions that are governed under such rules, such as lawyers, physicians and dentists, I believe, who already have the ability to incorporate. This does not in any way violate, in a negative manner - consumer protection is not impacted at all in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important act in regards to that White Paper and following the guidelines and the suggestions that were put forward in the White Paper. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would leave it to my hon. colleagues and I will welcome any comments they might have in regards to this very important act.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to stand and make a few comments with regards to Bill 51 and to, I guess, agree with what the minister has stated.

In recent days we have been going through various legislation and this Bill 51, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants, is a bill that is replacing the Management Accountants Act that had been repealed. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is a prime example of cleaning up an old act with more modernized language and so on.

One of the key things that we learned through this - as a matter of fact, we met with the staff from the minister's department once again and I must say they gave us a lot of information. There was a lot of debate between the CMAs back and forth, but I think just about every concern that they had has been addressed in this legislation. One of the key components was section 3.(1) which still remains as the Society of Certified Managing Accountants. That is still in the new act. I mean, this allows the association to promote and increase knowledge and skills, to protect the integrity of their profession, and so on, Mr. Speaker. This society, I think, is made up of twelve members, three of them are appointed by the minister, and they play a significant part.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, when you are debating legislation and reviewing it and researching it, I guess you learn a lot of things about all those acts. First, when I heard about the Certified Management Accountants Act, I knew very little about it, but those individuals play a key part. They play a major role with some of the medium sized and larger businesses, I guess, in our Province. No doubt in this tough economic time they are playing a crucial part because they look after a product from the life expectancy of it all the way through and look out for the interests of the people. They are very key people with their employers. They are not only leaders but they are solid team players. Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier with regard to some of our larger companies today, whether it is in the fishing industry, the mining, manufacturing or what have you, those individuals play a key part.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is a key piece of legislation for the Certified Management Accountants and is something that – an old act has been repealed. Like the minister said, this is a new act, and we look forward to supporting this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services, if he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not really have anything else to add. I certainly appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague across the House. Yes, it is a good act. We repealed one act and we are replacing it with a more modern act that addresses the times that we find ourselves in in regards to professionals able to self-regulate themselves in an accountable and transparent manner.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks with regards to second reading.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants. (Bill 51)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 51)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act. (Bill 54)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act." (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House here today to speak to this particular bill, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act.

The Schools Boards' Association has been in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1971. The School Boards' Association Act received Royal Assent on July 8, 1988, but was never proclaimed into law. Its intent was to create an association of all provincial school boards. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this association has been in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 1971. So it has been around for the last thirty-seven years.

The Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association's membership is comprised of representatives of the Province's five school boards. In essence, the Association is the chair of each of the school boards and the director of the school boards, the CEO or the director position, as well as the chair of each of the five school boards. Within an association themselves they elect a president.

The board of directors are comprised of, as I said, the trustees from the different boards. Usually, that representative on the association is the chair of the school board. The association was consulted regarding the repeal of this particular act and felt that the legislation could be repealed and supported the repeal of this particular legislation.

The Province's school boards are subject to government legislation, such as the Schools Act, 1997 and the Transparency and Accountability Act. The association that represents these school boards are not required to have the same legislative authority that the school boards would have in the other two acts that I had just mentioned.

With all of the legislative requirements the school boards already individually adhere to, there is no need to have their association planning and reporting as a government entity. To do so would create duplication of the work already carried out by the school boards. The association will continue in its present form and repealing this piece of legislation will have no impact upon their operation or the operations of the five Province's school boards.

Mr. Speaker, the School Boards' Association, for people who do not necessarily understand that association or what kind of work they do, they would often be the body that government consults with when we are looking at educational issues through the Department of Education. They would often report or consult with us regarding policy changes, direction, and interpretation of policy to be able to open discussion on many issues. They have an executive director, Mr. Brian Shortall, who is certainly well known in the field of education for his skills in administration. He works with them. They would often be the connecting body as well that connects to the Canadian association of schools boards. They serve on that board as well. They will continue to exist. They are funded through funds from the Department of Education, which will continue, and they also pay a membership based on their budgets or their number of students. One school board may pay 50 per cent or 20 per cent or 5 per cent, depending on the number of students that they represent. So that is how they determine their own fees. I think between the different school boards their budget would be about $200,000, with $100,000 from the Department of Education.

We would anticipate that the Schools Boards' Association will continue to be active in this Province. They will not need to exist because they are legislated to exist. It would certainly be considered a co-operative movement between all the boards that they can get together, they can discuss issues, they can seek guidance, they can consult with government and they can certainly also partner and work along with their Canadian counterparts as well. As I said, they are part of

the Canadian association as well.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is an inactive piece of legislation and it is not required, and I certainly encourage all hon. members to support the repeal of this act.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes on Bill 54, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act. I think the minister has outlined the reasons why this bill is being repealed.

Just for, I guess worth noting, back in - the minister mentioned the date. I think it was in 1988 when the School Boards' Association became, as it was listed, as being incorporated. I happened to get a copy of the minutes from back at that time, June 10, 1988. The Opposition critic at the time was a Mr. Decker. He went on to say, with this legislation coming in, he said he could take all day and probably days talking about things good and bad in the Department of Education but he said that was not the time for it because I think they were called, back at that time, the School Trustees Association.

I am not going to belabour it here today either, Mr. Speaker, to go into various issues but we all know the important role that school boards play in this Province. I guess each and every one of us from time to time have issues of concern that come forward, whether it is from parents or students or anyone else in the community, but we deal with it on a daily basis. I have to say that the school boards that we have been involved with, I know in my particular area as well, we have had a good working relationship. The minister has explained that this piece of legislation now is not necessary for them to continue, even though they carry out many responsibilities. Like I said, Mr. Speaker, some of the questions that I had were: Why is this act being repealed? Will the School Boards' Association continue in the future? Will government still be providing funding to the school boards? I think, Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered those questions in her opening comments.

I just want to conclude by saying that, as she stated, there is no impact on the school boards as we know them today and that this piece of legislation is being repealed and we support that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

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

Obviously, I have no problem supporting this bill because it is quite clear, from the presentation by the minister, that the act that is covered by this bill – an act that was never proclaimed, by the way; voted on, but never proclaimed - is an act that should no longer be on the books, and it definitely should be repealed, but it does give us a moment to think about the role of school boards and I want to take a moment now to do that.

I am not sure what we call them now. The districts, and the board is the body that runs the district schools, bodies that have a lot of authority but bodies which can make decisions that then have to go on to government to be implemented.

I have been in this House now for two full years, and for six months prior to my being in the House I was leader of the party that I represent, and I remember going to the annual meeting of the Eastern School District in June 2006, and at that meeting the school board, the Eastern School Board, made recommendations around the various schools in their district. I was really quite pleased because one of the schools that I represent, Virginia Park Elementary School, was a school that was in consultation and discussion with the school board about the future of the school, and at that annual general meeting of the school board – I think it was their annual general meeting – they put out their recommendations of which schools they were going to support in the Eastern School District.

So, in the spring of 2006 the Eastern School District said that they were behind the future of Virginia Park Elementary School, and subsequent to that decision they made recommendations after that, to the government, to the Department of Education, to secure funds from government to renovate and extend Virginia Park Elementary, St. John's, to maintain a K-6 configuration.

I have been leader of the party that I represent for about two-and-a-half years, and I have been in this House for two years, and I have been all that time fighting for the rights of the parents and the children and the staff of Virginia Park Elementary School.

The school board keeps doing what I think is the right thing. The school board stands behind the school. The school board understands the role of Virginia Park Elementary, especially now with the housing that is planned for the Pleasantville area. They know that they need this school in the system. They know that they need to have this school as part of their plan.

We have schools in the district that are bursting from the seams and we have some people clamouring for schools that are bursting at the seams to get bigger. At least the school board recognizes that Virginia Park Elementary can play a role in what is happening in the east end of St. John's, and that this can be a K-6 school, and it should be both renovated according to the recommendations of the consultants who are hired to come up with their recommendations for the department and for the school board, and also to be extended - not just renovated but extended - so that it can be a viable K-6 school that will take care of the growing population in the east end of St. John's, a population that is going to grow extensively because of the housing plan for Pleasantville.

It struck me – I attended the meeting in Pleasantville a couple of weeks ago where the federal government, the Canada Lands Corporation, made its presentation about the plans for Pleasantville. There were people who got up to the microphones and people who also spoke to me on the floor, but there were people who got up to the microphones and one of their questions was: What are the plans with regard to education for children who will be part of the new housing in Pleasantville?

It is an extensive piece of development that is planned there. There definitely will be family homes. You will also have, probably, housing for senior citizens as well, and you are going to have individuals who probably are not part of a family, do not have children, but you are also going to have families there. One of the concerns of the people at the public meeting was: What are the plans for school?

Obviously, a new school is not going to be built in Pleasantville, and you are not going to go to the schools west of Pleasantville that are already filled when you have a school just to the north, a small school bus drive away, where you can have those children educated and housed in Virginia Park Elementary, which has an excellent record as a school with tremendous programming, a wonderful community school.

I just wanted to use the moment of the repealing of the act that we are repealing here, the Newfoundland School Boards Act, to point out the importance of the role of the boards. They are the ones who are in touch with the community. There are times they do not make good decisions, we all recognize that, but they are in touch with the community and they do make an effort, and in this case I think that they do recognize what needs to be done. Unfortunately, the government is dragging its feet. I have been promised now through two budgets, and my predecessor was promised through budgets before me, that Virginia Park Elementary was going to be on the list, that the recommendation of the school board was finally going to be paid attention to.

I would encourage the Minister of Education to respect the school board, to respect them all, but in this case to particularly respect the wisdom of the Eastern School Board's recommendations, to respect the fact that they realize the growth area that is going to happen, and I really urge the minister to put Virginia Park Elementary at the top of the list this year when the budget is done for schools that are to be renovated and extended.

Not all schools have to be extended, but this one does, to be the full K-6, and the potential is there, not just because of Pleasantville. There are children in that area who should be going to that school, and that is another issue, but when we get the new potential from the Pleasantville area we are going to need Virginia Park Elementary to be the K-6. We may even need it to be renovated in such a way and extended in such a way that down the road there might be potential for further extension, because the population is going to grow in St. John's East.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and yes, of course, I will be voting for the bill to repeal the old act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Education.

If she speaks now, she will close debate.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank my hon. colleagues for their input into this legislation this afternoon, the repeal of the School Boards' Association Act. I certainly thank them for their support in this act.

I would also like to acknowledge, as we heard from the hon. members, the importance of the school boards, and the fact that we have people in Newfoundland and Labrador who, on a volunteer basis, put themselves up for election to serve on the school boards and they certainly are entrusted at that time to make some very important decisions regarding the education of the students in Newfoundland and Labrador and provide that governance model.

There are many issues, certainly, facing schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, and students, and I certainly want to commend anybody who puts the time and effort in to make these boards work because they certainly do a very valuable service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The School Boards' Association, although not necessarily having to be entrenched in legislation, is like an umbrella organization that brings these various boards of trustees together. It is certainly something we value as the Department of Education.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close debate on this particular bill.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act. (Bill 54)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2. (Bill 50)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2." (Bill 50)

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

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill 50 which is entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2. This is a bill that primarily deals with the question of complaints that are made against Judges of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the existing act, under the existing legislation which is chapter fifteen of the revised statue of Newfoundland and Labrador, an act respecting the provincial court, in part two of the act there is reference to a body known as the judicial council. This is a body continued under that legislation consisting of a member of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland who shall be the chairman of the judicial council and nominated by the chief justice of the Trail Division.

There is also a bencher of the Law Society. There are two persons nominated by the minister. It also consists of the President of the Newfoundland Provincial Judges' Association. Under section 16(2.1) the chief judge of the provincial court is also a member of the judicial council. That judicial council does perform a number of duties which are set out in section 18 of the original act. One of those functions of the judicial council is to receive and investigate complaints against the judge or the chief judge and to reprimand or suspend a judge or a chief judge with respect to those complaints.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that under the existing legislation that the role of investigating and prosecuting a complaint against a judge, it is the same body as the judicial council. The same body that does the investigation and the prosecution also is the body that has a hearing on the complaint. That is the main function of this legislation, to change that. To take the function of dealing with a complaint against a judge out of the judicial council or away from the judicial council and establish three other bodies that will in fact deal with the investigation and prosecution and adjudication of complaints against judges.

The amendment will create a two-tier mechanism for the receipt and the consideration and the adjudication of complaints against provincial court judges by establishing a new and a constitutionally valid discipline procedure for judges of this court. The act will provide for a formalized initial screening process of complaints. The bill will address the lack of ability to use alternate dispute resolution mechanisms when resolving a complaint against a provincial court judge. As a result of these changes, which removes the complaint procedure from the judicial council, this will of course amend the functions and composition of the judicial council. I will speak more about that part later.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for these amendments has been prepared in response to discussions between the Department of Justice, or I should say consultation between the Department of Justice and members of the provincial court on the subject of modernizing part two of the Provincial Court Act, which as I said, deals with the judicial council and the process for receiving and investigating complaints against a provincial court judge or the chief judge or the associate chief judge.

As I mentioned, under the current law all complaints are received and investigated by the judicial council. The process does not separate the investigative or prosecutorial role from that of the decision maker. Further, Mr. Speaker, the current composition of the judicial council consists of three judges, two lay persons and a representative of the Law Society. Given this configuration, the possibility exists that a group of three non judges could vote to recommend the removal of a judge. This is problematic, as the Supreme Court of Canada has stated in two decisions, one is entitled, Monreau - Bérubé versus the New Brunswick Judicial Council and another case is the Queen versus Therrien. Both of these cases are dated in the year 2000, but by those cases a constitutional standard is now set which requires that any decisions made to remove a judge or to discipline a judge must be made by a body composed primarily of judges. So because of that precedent and because of that standard, it was necessary to amend the legislation, and the provincial court has advised us of that fact.

So accordingly, upon review of the composition and the powers and the functions of other provincial and territorial judicial councils, which the department has looked at, and as I said, following consultation with the provincial court judiciary, the department now proposes the new amendments to Part II of the Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Now, in a jurisdictional scan of the other jurisdictions of the country, there is no universal model followed by all of the courts, but I am advised that the proposed two-tier mechanism for the receipt, consideration and the adjudication of complaints about judges will meet the constitutional standard articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the two decisions that I previously mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, what the legislation will do is establish three different bodies and remove the prosecutorial and the investigative function away from the judicial council to these new bodies. One of the bodies is called the complaints review committee, another is a judicial complaints panel, and the third one I shall refer to is called the adjudication panel.

Section 19 creates a body called the complaints review committee. The complaints review committee is composed of a Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, who will be the chair of the committee; a superior court judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division; and a lay person appointed by the minister, who can represent the public interest.

So all complaints about a judge, all complaints respecting the conduct of a provincial court judge shall be made to and be received by the complaints review committee. Pursuant to section 2, this committee, when it receives a complaint, has a number of options. One of the options, of course, is to dismiss the complaint. If it feels there is a lack of jurisdiction under section 23(1)(a)(i), or if there is no evidence in support of a complaint, under section 23(1)(a)(ii).

So, alternative number one for the committee is to dismiss the complaint, and if the complaint is dismissed the complainant does have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, Trial Division.

If the complaint review committee chooses not to dismiss the complaint, it could attempt to resolve the complaint, with the consent of the judge and the complainant. It is in this particular case where alternate dispute resolution mechanisms can be utilized to try to resolve the matter without the necessity of a formal hearing.

The Complaints Review Committee has the alternative of referring the complaint for investigation and report, and finally to refer the matter to a judicial complaints panel for adjudication.

I would point out, as well, that the committee does have the right to suspend a judge while this process is ongoing, if there are sufficient and reasonable grounds to do so. That is said under section 23.(2) of the legislation.

If the Complaints Review Committee does pass the complaint to the judicial complaints panel, the judicial is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council but the members of the judicial complaints panel are set out in the legislation. There will be two Supreme Court justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Trial Division of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there will be two Provincial Court judges from the Maritime Provinces - New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island – and one of those shall be the chair of the judicial complaints panel. There will also be two lay persons appointed to represent the public interest.

If the complaint is passed on to the judicial complaints panel from the Complaints Review Committee, if there is admission of guilt, the panel has the right to reprimand, to suspend, to remove a judge, to order the judge to take medical treatment or to receive counselling. If, on the other hand, there is no admission of guilt, if the defence is not guilty, then the judicial complaints panel, or the chair of that panel, will select from the members of the panel an adjudicative tribunal, or an adjudicative panel, I should say, which will consist of three members all selected from the judicial complaints panel, consisting of one of the Supreme Court judges, one of the Provincial Court judges, and one of the two lay people. That panel will then proceed to hear the complaint and conduct a hearing. They can establish their own procedure, and the complaint will be dealt with, with the judge having the right to be heard and having the right to counsel. If there is no finding of guilt by the adjudication panel, the complaint shall be dismissed. If, on the other hand, the judge is found guilty, then the panel shall have the right to reprimand, suspend, order medical treatment, order the judge to take counselling, or order the removal of the judge. Regardless of the decision of the panel, either the judge or the complainant shall have the right to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trial Division.

That is the new procedure that has been put in place, and that will replace the existing process which conflicts with the new constitutional standard.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the complaints process is now taking away from the judicial council's functions, the judicial council will be left to perform the other functions that are set out in section 18. The most important one, of course, is to receive and interview applicants who apply for positions on the judiciary. They will also consider the transfer of judges, as set out in the act. They are responsible for preparing a code of ethics for judges, and they also will consider proposals to improve Provincial Court services.

I am advised that the main role of the superior court judge who originally sat on the judicial council under the existing legislation was to serve as part of the complaints process, and because that process has now been moved away from the judicial council to the Complaints Review Committee and the judicial complaints panel, then there is no longer a need for a superior court judge to be on the judicial council.

The next set of amendments will remove the superior court judge from the judicial council and that will reduce the total number of people on the judicial council by one. As a result of that, you will now have the chief judge of the Provincial Court be the chair of the judicial council. I think the president of the judges' association is a member. There are two people appointed by the minister, which is the same as it was under the original legislation, and one more, a member of the Law Society, appointed by the Law Society.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments will conform not only to the constitutional standard but they will also conform to the disciplinary model approved by government and that is currently being employed by other professions such as the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Newfoundland and Labrador College of Physicians and Surgeons. It is not anticipated that any additional funds will be required to administer these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no complaints which have necessitated a full inquiry by the judicial council in the past six years. Consequently, the court does have the necessary funds set aside to cover any travel expenses which may be incurred by the out-of-Province judges who are appointed to the judicial complaints panel.

The employment of out-of-Province judges is not unusual. It is not new to this Province. Our Province has in the past made a number of agreements with other Provincial Court jurisdictions with respect to the appointment of a judge from another Province to adjudicate a matter. Section 5.(1) of the act currently allows for the appointment of a bilingual judge from another province to conduct hearings in French.

Mr. Speaker, I believe these amendments are positive and will strengthen and enhance the current Provincial Court legislation. Both the judiciary and members of the public will benefit from a new and constitutionally valid discipline procedure for the receipt of the prosecution and the adjudication of complaints against a Provincial Court judge.

Mr. Speaker, I think most of the people of the Province are aware that justice must be perceived to be done and justice must be open and accessible to everyone in society. In keeping with these principles, these amendments to this act will allow each member of society greater access to the justice system, and hold those who work within the system to a high degree of accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the amendments in this act and I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill which is being brought forward after consultation with the judiciary. I look forward to the participation of members opposite to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about these amendments to the Provincial Court Act. Like most laws in our Province, I guess, it embodies - whether they are governed by government or whether they are self-governing, like our dentistry associations or chartered accountants or whatever else, physiotherapists and everybody, as time moves on, of course, changes need to be made to reflect the circumstances that exist at any given time. We have certainly, over the years, seen a number of changes in our Provincial Court judges' structure.

I guess the most famous one in the last thirty years or so came about with what I refer to as the Hickman era. That was back in the 1970s, of course, when T. Alex Hickman, who we all know, was a Member of this House of Assembly. I do believe he was Minister of Justice at one point, and became a Chief Justice of the Trial Division here in our Province. Back in the 1950s and 1960s we did not have Provincial Court judges; we had magistrates, and magistrates of the day were not legally trained. Most often, it would be a social worker who might be appointed to the bench or appointed as a magistrate. In fact, I remember two very good friends of mine actually, Justice Judge Luther who became a chief judge in the provincial court and Judge Peddle I think who still sits in Gander, were appointed not as provincial court judges from the legal profession, they were actually in the social work field back in those days in the 1970s.

When Chief Justice Hickman came along, of course, he realized that it was not acceptable to have a judge or judges that were not legally trained. Of course, as we came into the 1970s in Newfoundland and you saw more and more students coming out of law schools, he recognized as a legally trained person himself that we needed to have a bench that was legally trained. He implemented a program back in the 1970s which secured so many seats in Dalhousie University and a certain number of judges went off each year and the government assisted them in getting their legal training at Dalhousie Law School; in return, of course, for the commitment that they would come back and work at least for so many years on a payback situation in our provincial court system.

I think virtually every one of them who were judges went to law school. There might have been a couple who, for various personal reasons, did not go, but I think most of them did in fact go and get their legal training and continue on from that time into the provincial court system. Some of them are still there today. For example, Chief Judge Reid right now, I believe, of the provincial court still sits today and he is a chief judge. He went through under that program as did a very good friend of mine, Judge Gordon Seabright. Judge Seabright actually took the additional step. Not only did he go back to law school and get his law degree and go back to the bench, he also thought that someday he might like to practice so he went and articled through the Law Society. In fact, I think he articled with the firm that I was associated with and the minister of the day was currently a partner in at that time, back in the firm of Wells, Monahan, Seaborn, Marshall and Roberts back in 1979. He is still practicing. I think he is up to his late seventies or early eighties and he still practices from time to time here in the city.

That is the most major change, I think, we had in the provincial court system, legally training our magistracy. They ceased being magistrates, of course, and they became provincial court judges.

The reviews go on. We are all familiar of course, with the financial issues that arose with regard to provincial court judges back in the 1990s when most other times judges' salaries and benefits were determined in most provinces and jurisdictions by what they call tribunals, where people, consisting of government persons plus someone from the court system, got together. They picked an independent chair and they would deal with what was considered to be fair benefits for judges. In fact, it caused quite a controversy in our Province because back in the 1990s, in the Wells administration, as I understand it, and in the Tobin administrations, albeit we struck the tribunals and the tribunals went off and did their job, the governments of the day, on the grounds that they never had the money, refused to accept the recommendations of the tribunals. That, of course, caused quite a stir in our judiciary. As a result, for many, many years our provincial court judges were severely underpaid, vis-à-vis other jurisdictions in Canada that did use the tribunal system, because it just took them years before they ever caught up.

I am pleased to say I was the minister at the time, I think, that the first tribunal was actually accepted and implemented. That would have been in 2001-2002 when the government said: look, there are certain things that, albeit you might not have the money, you just have to knuckle down, buckle down and get to it.

Finally, it was decided that the tribunal report would, in fact, be accepted and we went forward with it. That was another major thing. We brought the provincial court into the modern era when it came to determining what their wages and their benefits would be.

The reason, of course, behind all of that fuss was – I say fuss but it was a very legitimate fuss – judges were saying, how should governments who appoint us also be determining what our pay cheque is. Because, if a case comes before a judge, and the government happens to be a party to that case, would they feel like ruling against the government when the government holds the purse strings? You cannot have that obvious conflict where it might not be seen to be a judiciary, that we are totally independent because they were dependent upon the public purse for their funding, and the governments of any given day would decide what their pay cheque should be. They decided that is why we needed to have the tribunals and that was the most proper way to go about it.

Talking about the provincial court, of course, the provincial court in our system is the workhorse. People might not realize, but we hear a lot on TV, particularly here in the City, one particular media source, their evening news, you hear a lot from their courtrooms and a lot of it is Supreme Court based when you hear the murder trials, or the more serious offences that are actually being tried, and court of appeal decisions. That, of course, in the sense of the true workhorses - and that is not to take away from those other levels of court, but in terms of not quality but quantity about 90 to 95 per cent of the criminal law activities that are dealt with in this Province are dealt with in the provincial court system. They are all around the Province, of course. We have less now than we had a few years ago. They have closed some down. I believe Ferryland had a courthouse that got closed down some years ago. The Port-aux-Basques courthouse was closed some years ago. Baie Verte used to have a full-time provincial court. That is all gone now, again partly based on statistics but in terms of the financial operating costs of keeping them.

It has been restricted. There are about twenty-four, I do believe now, or twenty-five. We have a chief judge and an associate chief judge, who, by the way, was recently appointed, Mr. Mark Pike; a very good selection, no question about it. I am pleased to say that we finally have a provincial court judge appointed in Stephenville provincial court to replace the late Mr. Monaghan who passed away this spring. It caused some concerns, the delay, and the fact that we were five or six months waiting to have a judge appointed, because that judge in Stephenville covers off not only Stephenville and Port au Port but also all the way out through the Codroy Valley, Port-aux-Basques, down the Coast, Burgeo, Ramea and Gray River. We were five to six months without a judge there and it caused a lot of backups and some people were very upset and put out about it, because, as they say, justice delayed is justice denied. That was an issue and it was a problem but they got it back on their trail now. Judge Jenkins has been appointed, a very good, worthy choice again. She has apparently taken up residence in Stephenville and she had her first circuit to Port-aux-Basques recently and hopes to catch up in the very near future as to where they should be on a very workable basis and get rid of the backlog that we have had for the past four or five months.

The provincial court, by the way, just does not deal with traffic tickets. Sometimes people think that because it says provincial court it is not serious. Virtually all criminal matters under the Criminal Code of Canada, they do start in the provincial court system. If a charge is laid, that is the first place you go. You might elect to go to another court after but that is where you have to go first, to start the ball rolling. Not only do they deal with all the matters that come under the Criminal Code but, of course, there are family law issues that get dealt with, the Children's Law Act and so on. Not everything gets dealt with in the Province under the Unified Family Court, which is here in St. John's. A lot of family matters get dealt with in the provincial court as well.

Small claims: It used to be that $5,000 was the cut-off. Anything of a financial matter between two persons that was less than $5000 you would deal with in the provincial court. That was also the small claims system under which a lot of communities, for example, were owed taxes. You would use the small claims court, if you wished, as a municipality to recover on your taxes. Now, they did not always have to go to court because municipalities had the old shut off case, I used to call it. If you do not pay your taxes, we shut off your water, and that was usually more effective than any court case. If it came to a point where they wanted to recover the actual money, that is where they ended up to, was in the provincial court system.

All the federal statutes, virtually all of them go through the provincial court. If you had anybody with poaching, breach of any fisheries acts would go there, the aeronautics act, some income tax stuff goes through there, and so on. All the drugs cases of course, that you hear about, all go through the provincial court.

So there is no question about what workload the provincial court judges have, but that brings me to the next point. These persons who worked very hard, sometimes they make mistakes because they are human beings, and that is a fact. They are only human, and because they make mistakes, sometimes a complaint gets registered.

Now, you can be in a provincial court system and you can be as upset as you want to be, if you are disappointed or upset about the decision that the judge made. That is not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about you disagree with a decision that he made, because if you did, you have a right to appeal from that. You can go to a higher level if you disagree with his decision. What we are talking about here is if a judge has an issue concerning his behaviour or his conduct. That is what we are getting at here. If he did something that you feel was absolutely inappropriate or improper in his conduct as a judge, you might want to bring it up – and we have had several of them.

The minister says we have not had one for the last six years, but we have had them in the past. We have had judges who were, as you say, they have had personal issues that might have involved alcohol, which we have had a commission look at, or the department either had to look at or our judicial council had to look at it. We have had the famous case here in Newfoundland of an incident in the Holiday Inn some years ago with a federal judge. So, judges do make mistakes. They are only human.

We had one judge, apparently, who was hauled over the coals because he got a divorce. Now, that is pretty straightforward in today's society. I believe there is only a 50 per cent success rate anyway in a marriage. Somebody felt that it was inappropriate for a person who was divorced to sit as a judge, and they filed that as a conduct behavioural issue with a judicial complaints committee.

We also have the ongoing famous one right now in Ontario, where I believe it is the Ontario Judicial Council made recommendations about a certain judge there, and I believe it is a Supreme Court justice. What he did was, apparently – I do not say apparently, because it was confirmed that he did. He was alleged to have overstepped his bounds as a judge in interfering in a municipal zoning regulation. There was something going on in a neighbourhood that he lived in and he tried to bring to bear his influence on the decision that was made on a municipal zoning regulation, and somebody said: Whoa, just a minute, you're a judge. In fact, I think he might have even been involved in the case. They said: That's not right, you cannot do that. You cannot be the decision maker in a case which you yourself feel you have a personal stake and you are involved in. You just cannot to that. That is totally inappropriate. But, he did. They went ahead and they had a judicial council. They checked it out and they reviewed the facts and that commission, last week The Globe and Mail article confirmed that it was inappropriate behaviour, which then brought him to the case of : Okay, what do we do now?

Like most things, having done something inappropriate does not automatically mean that you should no longer be a judge. We also have a thing called fairness in any given system that we work in. You have to look at what the issue was. You have to look at the severity of the issue, how inappropriate it was, was it a first time occurrence, and so on. The council has to decide all of that. As the minister says quite rightly, we did not have a lot of guidelines when it came to that, how to go about the investigating of it, but once you had your investigation done, there was not full, good, clear guidelines as to what could happen to that individual. Now, of course, if it gets past the complaints review committee and it is decided that there is a legitimate complaint, at that stage even, they can make some suggestions at the judicial complaints panel point of view.

For example, if there is an admission of guilt by the person involved, the panel may reprimand the person or they can suspend the person, and of course, the suspension is variable, what length they would want it to be. They could remove them. Now that is pretty serious. I would think it has to be a very serious type of offence if you are going to take the drastic step of removing him or her as a judge. There are grades, shall we say, or degrees of what punishment might or might not be imposed. There might be medical treatment recommended. Maybe the person, for example, had some medical situation which led to the improper conduct, in which case maybe the appropriate means is to suggest that he or she get the proper medical treatment so it does not reoccur. We have had judges, for example, who have been impacted by mental illness. Does that mean that they are no longer fit to be a judge if the mental illness is curable or controllable?

There are lots of serious considerations that have to go into this. Like everything, some of them are pretty straightforward. If the judge does something and there is no question about it, once you prove that it has happened, it is off the bench and away you go. That is not life when it comes to most judicial complaints. A lot of times, even if it is a legitimate complaint, you find yourself as to what is a reasonable, sensible way that you must deal with it.

The reason, of course, is we are concerned about making these complaints, and I have heard this over the years, anybody who has been around, of course, always feels that, my God, I did not agree with what he did. I do not think that was very nice, what he did, or he should not have said that, or he should not have said something else, and before, years ago, judges were God. It was almost like years ago when the minister and the magistrate, I will tell you, there are not too many people would have anything to say if the magistrate said anything or the minister said anything, at least not where I grew up. They carried a pretty heavy stick in my neighbourhood. Judges, of course, you would never, ever question it.

As time went on and we came into the modern age, everybody said: Whoa, just a minute. The role of a judge, besides knowing his or her job of course, is that – and as the minister says, and I will complete the statement: not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. If you feel that you have a legitimate complaint against a judge's behaviour, now we have a mechanism. With this amendment we will have a mechanism to make sure that it gets properly checked out. It is not just anybody that you go to. It is very important, I say, as to who constitutes the complaints review committee. Again, we just do not jump into an investigation right away. We do not let somebody make a complaint and say, okay, let's go and investigate and check that out right away. There is a reasoned approach to this.

First of all, you have your review committee, which consists of the chief judge, it consists of a Supreme Court justice and a layperson. It is very important, I point out, that the layperson is there, because you do not want the perception by the public – not only perception, you do not want the reality – that we are going to have some select group decide whether there is even a legitimate complaint. You have to have some public involvement because ultimately, of course, that is why a judge is a judge, he is there for the public interest. So it would not be appropriate just to have the chief judge who that person may or may not be good friends with, a Supreme Court judge who is a judge, unless you have some public content, some public openness and transparency about this.

So, that is why the review committee looks at it, and rather than every single complaint getting heard – there are lots of complaints, folks, that are absolutely improper. The complaint itself is frivolous. It should never be there, but somebody of course is upset. I do not like what that judge did, so I am going to file a complaint. That is their right to do that, but now whether it ever gets investigated. We have to say, just a minute: Is this even legitimate at all? That is why we have the review committee, so they decide the legitimacy of it. They might say: Look, we checked this out, absolutely nothing to it, frivolous, and dismiss it.

Now, that is not where it ends, because if you are the concerned citizen who took enough time to file that complaint, and you went to that review committee and they said it was frivolous and they gave it the flick, if you do not agree with that you are still going to have a right to appeal. You are still going to be able to take that to the appeal division, if you want.

Nowhere is it going to be even just in the hands of the review committee. You have another source of appeal, if you are disappointed or disagree or you feel aggrieved by the decision that they made to dismiss your complaint.

It is more detailed, albeit more complex, and it may be more detailed, but at least it is more open in the sense that you just do not have two judges and a lay person even. You can take it to another level of court.

Of course, once it gets to the court process then it is open; because, if somebody were to have a complaint kicked out at the review and you were to take it to the trial, any trials in this Province are conducted, anyway, in the public. Whatever happened then would be open anyway.

So, you always have that eventual public oversight as to what the allegation was, determining what the facts were, seeing what it was, and hearing rational decisions as to why it was either dismissed or determined to be a valid complaint.

Now, if it is determined to be a valid complaint, you do not get the same people going back then to do the investigation, and that was where one of the stumbling blocks were. Should the people who said it was a complaint also make the decision? It was decided that no, based upon other precedents we had in other jurisdictions, and other processes that existed, it was decided the best thing to do would be, once it was decided to be a valid complaint, let us have some other complaints committee, a judicial complaints panel, struck to actually investigate it and render a decision. So we will assume for a second that it has gone past the Complaints Review Committee – they have said yes, there is a legitimate complaint - off it goes to the complaints panel.

Now, the complaints panel, again, you notice how much more serious it gets now. Now it has been taken to be a legitimate complaint, the number of bodies increase. On that panel, number one, is going to be two Supreme Court justices who sit there, two Provincial Court justices from the Maritimes, and as I read it, actually, it is going to be two from each of the Maritime Provinces. I stand to be corrected there, but my reading is, for example, that on the committee there will be two from P.E.I., two from Nova Scotia, two from New Brunswick, and two lay persons.

The Leader of the NDP is telling me I misread that. What I thought, when I read it last week, there were going to be six there, two from each of the other provinces.

In any case, from that panel will be selected a particular panel to investigate and deal with that particular complaint. Once they make a decision, and assuming, for example, the aggrieved party who filed the compliant and went through all of this process, the panel was struck, the panel rendered a decision, and, for example, maybe the aggrieved party thought that it was appropriate that the judge be dismissed and the panel only ruled that the judge be suspended for two weeks, if you are aggrieved by the decision you can appeal again to the Trial Division. You have the right to appeal.

Again, albeit there is a process at the end of the day, ultimately it is going to come back to the individual aggrieved having a right to go to the courts themselves, which would be a full public hearing on the complaint, if they are not satisfied with it. It is a screening process that it starts out to be, which turns into an investigative process, which turns out to be a trial process if you disagree with how that eventually was done.

Judges, of course, to go back again for a second, how we appoint judges, some people might say: Well, how did they get there anyway? What is the good to do that? How did he or she get to be appointed as a judge?

You notice federally there was a move afoot, I do believe, by the first Harper Administration, to have similar to what they have in the United States, which is a confirmation hearing. If you want to become a judge in the Supreme Court in the United States, you actually have to go before a Senate judicial committee and they do what they call confirmation hearings and they look at everything. They go back over every judgement you ever wrote, because all of the appointees to the federal court, of course, the Supreme Court, would be former sitting judges. I do not know if anybody ever came from the profession to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States without having sat on some level of court before that.

Mr. Speaker, I notice it is approaching 5:30 p.m. and I understand we are coming back at 7:00 p.m., after a supper break. I have thirty-five minutes or so remaining. If it is okay, I will adjourn at this time and I would like to finish after we come back from the supper break.

MR. SPEAKER: The House shall recess until 7:00 p.m.

December 8, 2008        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLVI   No. 46A

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The House will now continue debate in second reading of Bill 50.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few moments to clue up on Bill 50 which deals with amendments to the Provincial Court Act, specifically having a judicial council.

I elaborated this afternoon, at length, of course, as did the minister who explained what the amendments were all about and why we need to have them. We have taken steps over the years in the Provincial Court Judges Act to modernize different pieces of it, going back to the day when they became legally trained, I guess, and then advancing to the days of the tribunal being accepted, to now picking out other sections of the act for modernization. The latest one, of course, is the judicial council piece.

I also took an opportunity during the break to have a look at Section 20(c), because I was not sure but, on the judicial complaints panel appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, I thought it was two judges from each of the Maritime Provinces. I since had a chance to check and it just says two persons who are judges of the provincial courts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island nominated by the Chief Judge of the person's court. I guess we are getting two in total on the panel, but whether they all come from one province or there is one from Nova Scotia, one from PEI or one from New Brunswick, I guess it really does not matter as long as there are two persons. It does not say what jurisdictions they necessarily have to come from.

The purpose and intent, of course, is so that they would not be Newfoundland and Labrador judges. The idea being that, yes, you have a judge involved because they understand the process, they understand what is probably appropriate or inappropriate, they understand the complexities of having a judicial review, and at the same time they are not a part of the judicial system in this Province whereby they might be impacted one way or the other, depending on who the judge is who might appear or what the complaint might be about.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say. We will be, of course, speaking in favour and voting for this particular piece of legislation when it comes to third reading. Maybe, when we do get to the committee stage, the minister can fill me in as to why, in particular, just the two persons, the way it is laid out there for those provinces and why that particular format was chosen. I suspect it is probably based on the law in some other jurisdictions, but the rationale for that would certainly be helpful.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything further to add to Bill 50, so without further ado I will take my leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. the Government House Leader be standing now to close the debate on second reading of Bill 50?

MS BURKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I was going to move into the Committee of the Whole for the bills that we have debated here today and the bills from Thursday as well.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the House to resolve into a Committee of the Whole so we could refer Bills 55, 57, 58, 61, 49, 51, 54 and 56 to the Committee of the Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion 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 (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to call Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CHAIR: Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CLERK (MacKenzie): 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 to 31 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 31 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 31 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, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the 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, I would like to call Bill 54, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act.

CHAIR: We are now ready to debate Bill 54, An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act.

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 cause 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 Repeal the School Boards' Association 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, I would like to call Bill 51, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 51, An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall cause 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 47 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 47 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 47 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting cause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Certified Management Accounts.

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, I would like to call Bill 55, An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 55, An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall cause 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 enacted cause 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 Repeal The Homes For Special Care 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 Bill 55 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, I would like to call Bill 57, An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act.

CHAIR: Bill 57, An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall cause 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 enacted cause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances 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, I would like to call Bill 58, An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 58, An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act." (Bill 58)

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 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 Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention 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, I would like to call Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry." (Bill 61)

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 to 50 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 50 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 50 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 Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry.

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 Bill 61 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, I would like to call Bill 56, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act.

CHAIR: We are debating Bill 56, An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act." (Bill 56)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

MS JONES: Hello!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to have a couple of words on this bill, because I know it is a bill that is of concern to midwives in the Province. They are concerned, Mr. Chair, with the repealing of this particular act, what will follow it and what will define the practice of midwifery on a go-forward basis in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I guess we just want to be on the record as saying that this is legislation that we definitely support and we have no problem with giving the government the time they need to bring forward appropriate legislation to govern the practice of midwifery in the Province. However, we do feel that this is a bill that has been a long time in coming. People have been waiting for a number of years, not just in the past five years that this Administration has been in office but in the years prior to that as well. We would certainly like to see legislation come as early as this spring sitting of the House of Assembly. We did get some commitments from the minister today that it is actively being looked at and hopefully those timelines can be met.

We just also want to encourage him; he said he would consult with those in the practice of midwifery in the Province. We certainly take his word that that will occur, and to ensure that these people have a voice in the legislation and that it is done in accordance with the legislation that they can certainly live by but also carry out their profession in this Province.

We will support the repeal of the bill today, and the reason we are doing that is because we certainly feel that there is no purpose being served right now in the legislation that is there. In fact, one midwife had told us that she had applied for a licence in Newfoundland and Labrador and under the current legislation, which is the act we are repealing today, the licence could not be granted. If the act cannot grant a licence to a person to operate and there is no scope of work defined by it, then it really is not serving a purpose in our opinion, but I hope that in repealing this it is not the end of this issue for government, it will be taken seriously, and I hope that we can see legislation in the spring sitting of the Legislature.

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

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

I know it is hard to see me when we are in this configuration of Committee.

I just want to say that today, when the minister was finished up in second reading, he did say that there were some recommendations that he heard, I think both from myself and the Leader of the Official Opposition, that he was certainly open to looking at and considering. I would love to know which ones of those recommendations they were. I do not know if the minister is ready to speak to that. I was encouraged by that and I would hope that the one, in particular, that the minister would seriously consider is when I recommended that the consultation that he talked about would really be all stakeholders together, not just a one on one but stakeholders together in a committee format and really involved in the discussion and the decision making.

I just wanted to strengthen that point because of what the minister said. I was encouraged by that and I think he knows that the midwives themselves, the Association of Midwives, et cetera, have heard that and they will be looking forward to the consultation.

That was my only comment, but to say I will continue with my position with regard to voting against the repeal of the Act because I am opposed to the notion of the umbrella legislation which the minister referred to. For me it is a bit ‘the cart before the horse', so I will not be supporting the bill, but that is not going to change what is going to happen in the House. I just wanted to repeat that.

Thank you.

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, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 56 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, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61 carried without amendment.

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 Bills 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61 without amendment.

When shall the 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. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 17, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2, Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2." (Bill 50)

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to speak very briefly to this bill. Obviously it is a bill that is certainly called for.

I want to thank the minister for the really good flow chart that he gave us, at least myself and I think the Opposition House Leader, which really helped with understanding the bill and how the act will work once the amendment is made.

I think it is really important that this is being done because everybody deserves fairness and justice. May I say, I will not say, even a judge but everybody deserves fairness and justice. I think that the structure that has been set up is certainly geared towards fairness and justice. I think that is really important.

I think, too, the fact that there are larger numbers of peers involved in the process is also extremely important while at the same time allowing for lay persons to be part of the process, maintaining the lay persons but with a greater number of peers.

That is all I wanted to say, just to give support to the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate in second reading of Bill 50.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I would just like to thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP for their comments and their support of this bill.

I am sorry I was late getting here. I would like to say I was in the office working but really I was in the office talking to my wife, so I am going to wave right now to let her see that I am still at work.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will move second reading of the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50, An Act To Amend the Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2, 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 No. 2. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a second time. When shall Bill 50 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 50)

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 50.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 50, 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 (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to call Bill 50, An Act To Amend the Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 50, An Act To Amend the Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2.

CLERK (MacKenzie): 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 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive. Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend the Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2. (Bill 50)

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 Bill 50 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, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 50.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 50.

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 Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 50 carried without amendment.

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 50 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from our Orders of the Day under motions, number 1, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution relating to the granting of supplementary supply to Her Majesty, Bill 67.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from his honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated December 1, 2008, and it reads:

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31 2009. By way of supplementary supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

John C. Crosbie, Lieutenant-Governor

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House 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: Order, please!

The Committee will now debate the resolution of Bill 67, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CLERK: That is it expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 the sum of $1,544,600.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 67 seeks supplementary supply totalling $1,544,600 for the 2008-2009 fiscal year which ends March 31, 2009. Bill 67 makes reference, in the schedule at the back of the bill, to one Head of Expenditure, which is Justice, for $1,544,600. These are expenditures that will be incurred before the year end March 31, 2009.

This special warrant was tabled by me in the House on November 26, 2008. The need for this special warrant had not been anticipated at the time the 2008-2009 main supply bill was approved by this House. This special warrant was urgently required to enable government to provide funding for an anticipated cost as the House was not in session at the time. It has been the practice to table warrants in accordance with the Financial Administration Act but then seek formal ratification of these warrants through the House of Assembly approving supplementary supply bills.

A special warrant of $1,544,600 was issued on July 31, 2008 to provide additional funds to enable the Department of Justice to meet the financial requirements related to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing.

With that, I will conclude my opening comments, Mr. Chair, on the specific Supplementary Supply bill that gives legislative authority to the Special Warrant that was tabled here in the House on November 26, 2008.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 67. Bill 67 is a supplementary bill which grants sums of money to the government over and above what they forecasted as financial expenditures and anytime that there is a supplementary bill regarding funds on the Table of the House of Assembly it certainly allows for a tremendous amount of leeway in terms of what can be debated around government expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is Bill 67 or whether it is any other supplementary funds that is required by government, everything that government does, undertakes, whether it be infrastructure projects, initiatives, services, programs, increases to public salaries in the Province and so on, it all requires money to be flowing through government to allow for those expenditures. Anytime that that money is not coming in, well then government has to borrow to meet those commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we are in a situation today in this Province, not where any of us predicted that we would be probably six months ago, or certainly not eight or ten months ago, when the Minister of Finance had brought down his Budget in this Province. A Budget, Mr. Speaker, at the time that reflected the price of crude trading in the U.S. Stock Exchange at about $89 a barrel, whereas today it is $44 a barrel.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, just yesterday or the day before it was just over $40 a barrel. So we did see an increase today in the price of crude, just like we seen a small increase in the stock market, but, Mr. Speaker, not only was that Budget based on crude trading at $89 a barrel, over the subsequent months that followed we seen a tremendous spike in the price of crude in this Province. We seen it spike to as high as $150-and-over a barrel in trading price, which caused the government, at that time, to be able to make large sums of money coming into the revenues of the Province, allowing them to be able to add to their bottom line for programs and services, allow for new infrastructure, allow for significant negotiations with public sector unions and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, although it was based on $89-a-barrel oil, and today it is $44, I am sure that the short change was made up in the many months in which the oil prices spiked and the trading price of crude spiked which allowed for more revenue to go into the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that revenue, this Budget was also based very heavily on the trading prices for minerals in this Province. It was based on the mineral royalties that would accrue to government, from things like iron ore and nickel, in particular, because we all know that nickel has been one of the largest new contributors to revenue in this Province in the last couple of years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it contributes hundreds and millions of dollars to the baseline revenues of the government.

Well let me just tell you, that the price of nickel not too long ago was trading at $22 a pound, Mr. Speaker. Today is it trading at $4.11 a pound.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville is shouting across the House but we are in committee, every member has fifteen minutes to stand and have their say on anything with regard to these resources. The Member for Lake Melville can stand up as soon as I sit down and give me his take on what he thinks of what is happening in the economy and the mineral prices.

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was saying that nickel was trading at $22 a pound, today it is at $4.11. That is a drastic decline in the amount of revenue that is coming into the Province just on the trading price of nickel, which will affect the bottom line of revenues.

Iron ore prices. Mr. Speaker, the iron ore prices may be fixed, on a fixed term, and may be able to be stored at those prices that it is being mined at, but at the same time the demand is falling. About a year ago every single company in the world that was producing iron ore was looking to the markets that were going to materialize in China because of the industrialization in that country and the high demand that there was going to be for steel to the Chinese market. They never predicted that today they would be watching that particular market starting to dwindle, but in addition to that, they would be watching the other markets in which they were selling starting to fall off as well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the companies that I have talked to have told me that already they are seeing, in this quarter, their sales for iron ore dropping at 20 per cent and 30 per cent, each customer, right across the board.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I just said that is what they are seeing in this quarter.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl has the same right as the Member for Lake Melville. I think it is awful that you are so rudely interrupted while you are on your feet in the House trying to give an address.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, having said that, we will see how quick they are to get to their feet and have their fifteen minutes when I am finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: This is having an impact, and a significant impact. That is why, when the announcements came from IOC, we were not surprised. That was the reason we were pushing the issue in the House of Assembly and asking the minister for updates on what was happening, because anyone who was following this knew there were going to be impacts in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was, frankly, mind-boggled the first week in Question Period in the House of Assembly when we were posing these questions to the government and we were getting things like: It is steady as she goes. It is the status quo. It is this and it is that, and everything is fine.

Mr. Speaker, at one point the Premier even said the economy could even overheat, but it was in the subsequent days that followed that we found out how much overheating the economy was really going to do in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only did we see changes taking place within IOC because of the less demand for steel in the marketplace, but we also saw a tremendous amount of layoffs with Wabush Mines. Nobody really predicted that was going to be to the magnitude that it was, especially the workers in Wabush. In fact, a lot of the unionized workers that I talked to in the last week or so knew that there were going to be some changes, they knew that there might be some layoffs, but they certainly never thought that it was going to be to the scale that it was where 130 unionized workers would lose their jobs, and thirty non-union, or temporary workers I should say, would also lose their job.

It is not only the 160 people who work in this mine today who are losing their jobs, but it is also the spinoff jobs in that particular community and in the whole region of Western Labrador, the impact that it is going to have on private sector contractors who have been doing work for this company. In fact, what we are being told is all the private sector contractors that are there, their contracts will be terminated by the end of this calendar year, so that will have a significant impact in this community. I know a lot of people who work for private contractors who are supplying not just Wabush Mines but also IOC as well. Mr. Speaker, you cannot sugar-coat these things. You cannot ignore that they are happening, because they are happening.

Then we asked about what was going to happen with Abitibi-Price and we were told: We are on top of the file. We are on top of it. We are in daily communications. We have been engaged for the last year.

Then, before the House closes, before the media scrums are done, we get the notice that AbitibiBowater in Grand Falls-Windsor is actually going to close down its entire operation, an operation that either directly or indirectly affects over 1,400 employees in that particular area, Mr. Speaker. That is a significant number of people and families in communities in this Province that are impacted, and I am absolutely appalled that members opposite have nothing to do only shout back and forth.

This is a serious issue, and maybe you need to be more engaged in what is happening. Maybe you need to go down to Baie Verte. Maybe you need to go down to the Springdale area, where your new member just got elected, and find out how many people in his district are going to lose their jobs, will not have a job to go to.

The Member for The Straits & White Bay North should know the difference. He has seen what happened in his own district on the Northern Peninsula when the Stephenville mill closed and there were many loggers and forestry operators who did not have work, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it came to the point where some of them were having their equipment recalled because they had nothing to do with it and they could no longer maintain it. That was how serious that issue was, and how it impacted people in that region.

It is not going to be any different in the Springdale or Baie Verte area, or the Terra Nova area or the Grand Falls area or the Gander Bay area where there are loggers and foresters who are working today, who are providing fibre for this pulp and paper operation in Grand Falls-Windsor. I know; I stood there on their doorsteps. I listened to what they had to say, and this means a lot to these people. It means a lot to them. Today they are sitting at home and they are wondering, come this spring, if they are going to have any reason to go logging, if they are going to have anywhere to sell their wood, Mr. Speaker. They have their permits, they have their equipment, but they do not know where the base of business is going to be for them.

They are going to look to this government for answers. They are going to be looking to this government for answers; the same government, Mr. Speaker, that is sitting there today and do not want to hear the harsh realities of what is happening to these people in the Province. They would rather engage in the petty politics of shouting back and forth across the House.

Well, let me tell them something: There are a lot of these people who are not going to have a job to go to, who are not going to have anywhere to sell their wood. It is not just going to be the unionized workers that are coming out of the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. Word is, Mr. Speaker, there will be 400 of them, as well, looking to this government for some solution, for some guidance to maintain their jobs, their families and their community, because that was their whole reason for existing. Their whole reason to be there was based around this mill since 1924 or -

MR. TAYLOR: 1909.

MS JONES: 1909, was it? No, it is not.

MR. TAYLOR: 1909.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, they had their 100 year anniversary there a couple of years ago, so it was like 1906 or something.

MR. TAYLOR: It was (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, they have been there for over 100 years, and that was the entire purpose of this community.

So, when you are talking about where the revenue is coming from that pays for and continues to operate everything in this Province, it comes from the Voisey's Bay projects, it comes from the iron ore projects, from the Terra Nova projects, the White Rose projects, the AbitibiBowater operations, the Wabush Mines. This is where the revenue comes from.

What we are seeing in this Province right now with every industrial sector across the board, from one end of the Province to the other, we are seeing decline, job loss, contract loss, reduction in where their ability is to market their product and export their product, and they are looking to this government for solutions.

One minister stood up this week and said: Well, we didn't create the problem in the global economy – and they are absolutely right. They did not create the problem in the global economy, any more than the government in Prince Edward Island created it, any more than the government in New Brunswick created it, any more than the government in British Columbia created it; but, what have we seen from those three governments that I just mentioned: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and British Columbia?

We have seen them responding with solutions in their province to the crisis in the industrial sector, to the downturn in the economy, to the limitations placed on export markets, and to the loss of jobs. That is the difference between what is happening in those provinces and what has been happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, where ministers have been living in denial of the realities that are being faced by the people of this Province, Mr. Chair.

So it is not about, did you create the problem? It is about, you have been elected to govern. You are the people that these communities, these individuals, are going to look to for solutions to deal with the crisis that is in their community, and you have not responded. You have not responded in terms of putting out there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: – the same kind of stimulus activities and packages that have been offered in British Columbia, or in Prince Edward Island, or in New Brunswick, or in Ontario, Mr. Chair, by those particular governments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask members for their co-operation.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I see my fifteen minutes is up. I will certainly let one of the government members – I think the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Mount Pearl want to speak, and then I will take my next fifteen minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After hearing the Leader of the Opposition, it is a great pleasure to get up and maybe speak for a few minutes on what I believe is how she likes to be flippant with the truth. I think the spreading of doom and gloom -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, would you ask the Leader of the Opposition just to be quiet while I am –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: Would you ask the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to let the hon. member know that I will be listening very attentively to every word he says in the caucus room and I will not be interrupting him while he is on his feet.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: Well, if she has not had her supper, she can chew on some of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, I think, as we talk about the seriousness, our government, this government, we are very much involved in these files.

I was just reading here a few minutes ago some comments that were in an interview in Labrador with a gentleman called Gino Levesque. Gino Levesque is one of the top brass, certainly, with Wabush Mines, Mr. Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition wanted to talk about mining, and some of the challenges we have in this Province today, Mr. Chair. I want to take a couple of minutes just to relate to the people of the Province and to this House what Gino Levesque said in an interview with Cindy Wall. That was on December 3, Mr. Chair.

He said we are facing a global economic crisis in the world and, of course, that crisis has impacted the people and the Wabush Mine, the Wabush customer, and our customer has no choice but to shut down. They need fewer iron ore pellets at that time, and Wabush Mines need to balance its production and inventory with its customer needs, Mr. Chair.

That is the reality that the mining industry is facing, not only in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but throughout Canada and throughout the world, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, just take a look at what is happening in Fort McMurray and in Alberta. We are seeing some of the workers from our Province getting laid off. As a matter of fact, my own son-in-law just got laid off from Alberta where he was doing an apprenticeship.

Mr. Chair, these are challenging times throughout the world. When we talk about the iron ore industry, just put this in perspective. An iron ore bulk carrier used to go on a lease for $200,000 a day. You can now pick up a bulk carrier and lease it for $2,800 a day, Mr. Chair, $2,800. That will tell you the magnitude of this crisis.

We all know where it started; it started in the United States, with some of the challenges they had down there regarding the housing market. It has transferred now throughout the world. In China, in India, these global economies have seen a downturn. As President-Elect Obama said just yesterday, in a statement that he made, we have not seen the bottom of this crisis.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, while the Leader of the Opposition wants to tout this and tout that, one thing she did not tout when they were the government on the other side - we just have to look at the Voisey's Bay contract to see it, the message that was coming out of Labrador was we wanted to see Voisey's Bay Nickel go underground and do the iron ore mine underground in the Eastern Deeps.

That did not happen, Mr. Chair, and I have to say, in the meeting that we had this morning with the Combined Councils of Labrador, who were out here having meetings with different ministers on different issues concerning the Combined Councils - this issue just came up this morning - they were all surprised to know that the former Liberal government never protected, never had it in the agreement, that Inco would be compelled to go underground.

You talk about holes in contracts. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition is the last one to stand up in this House or any other House and give a lecture to us or anyone else when it comes to contracts and how we are handling the economy of this Province, I can tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I remember a time, Mr. Chair, when that hon. crowd on the other side wanted to take $95 million out of the Transportation Initiative Fund and put it into general revenue. That is the track record, Mr Chair. That is the track record I know of the former Liberal government and the former Liberals on the other side.

We are in a different age; we are with a different leadership with a different vision, Mr. Chair. We are going to continue to support the economy of this Province. While we see the downturn in the forest industry in Grand Falls-Windsor, and let me tell you, that we are very concerned about what is happening out there. What about the Star Lake contract that that government over there, that Liberal government of the day, Mr. Chair? How come they allowed this to happen? Under their watch, Mr. Chair, under their watch. I can tell you what, we are going to do whatever we have to do with the task force of ministers to help Grand Falls-Windsor and to help other rural parts of this Province that will see a downturn, because we are sincere to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador; something that we take great pride in.

Mr. Chair, the mining industry has been on a downward trend and we have not seen the bottom of it, but having said that, I can tell you from being up in Labrador and from working with some of the companies, there is still a great interest. There is a great interest in the iron ore and in future mines. We have the Labrador iron sands project in the Churchill River. We have the Labrador iron ore mines up in Schefferville that want to look at production. We have the LabMag project just across the border from Labrador West. We have the project over there at Bloom Lake, which we hope to see benefits from.

Mr. Chair, we have the resources. One of the things about our Province, and particularly about Labrador, is that while we will see a downturn in some of these commodities on the world market, we will also, somewhere within the next eighteen, twenty-four months, see this start to bottom out and move up the other side and our ore, our resources will be looked at and needed throughout the world.

Mr. Chair, there are some great opportunities in the forest industry here in this Province when it comes to biofuels and wood pellets. This government has put some incentive plans out there so that people can start converting to wood pellets, great opportunities both in the Leader of the Opposition's home district, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, in my district, Lake Melville. These are going to be great opportunities as we move forward in the future; hydro development on the Lower Churchill, great opportunities.

So while we may see, Mr. Chair, a downturn of our economy, that will bottom out and we will see prosperity in this Province for a long time to come. I can tell you one thing, because of the vision that we have, with our Premier, and our Cabinet, and our caucus, we are going to ensure that the benefits of our resources will be for our Province and for our future generations.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

CHAIR: Leave granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, just to close, I have a few words.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that she can get over there on her high horse whenever she likes, but I can tell you what, she is the last one to give anybody a lecture on giveaways when it comes to this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: She can write the book on it.

MR. HICKEY: She can write the book on it. Yes, I say to the hon. member, she could even write the book on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments this evening. Probably like the previous speaker, all my comments will not be related to Bill 67, but at least we will try to get ten minutes in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: You have to ask the Member for Lake Melville, he would know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: That is right.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to stand and listen to various people. Before I go into my comments, I have not had the opportunity before because usually it was in debate, I want to congratulate the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale and the Member for Cape St. Francis. This is my first opportunity to be able to say congratulations to them and I am looking forward to their maiden speeches here in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I heard speeches last week when we were in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and different speakers were more or less saying what a difference five years makes. Well, Mr. Chair, all we have to do is look back probably within the last two or three months to see what a difference it can make. I do not blame anyone for this. It is like the hon. member opposite just said, it is a crisis in the world and I guess we are going to be affected by it just as well as anyone else.

I remember one day the Minister of Health and Community Services was up speaking and he looked over at us and said: there was so much good news in one day we had a job to take it all in. It is good to hear good news, and I will be the first to give credit where credit is due, but I have to be honest with you, Mr. Chair, that from time to time we hear hon. members talking about all the good that is happening in the Province and that is true. I have heard a couple of members recently, even my hon. colleague next door to me, in Carbonear–Harbour Grace, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. The other day he even gave a bit of credit for what happened in the past by former administrations, and that is the way we have to do it, Mr. Chair. We all know the good that we are enjoying in this Province today just did not happen in the last five or six years. There were projects that came on stream back over the years by former administrations of both political stripes.

Mr. Chair, that is where we are today and hopefully the crisis that we are in and all the major companies in this Province, the difficulty that they are going through today, will be addressed in the very near future. All we have to do is look at all the men and women, our trades people, who we talk about from time to time, making sure that once all the major projects get on-stream here, that they will come home.

It was only recently we saw a program, Homeward Bound. As a matter of fact, only a very few days after that - and I am sure my district is no different from the other forty-seven districts in this Province. Many of them are homeward bound. Unfortunately, for the time being, they are coming home with a pink slip, Mr. Chair. They are coming home and finding themselves in very difficult situations.

I have to say, Mr. Chair, I just want to touch on a couple of issues with regard to how things have been affected in my area over the last six or seven years. Hopefully we will come out of this crisis and be able to look after those issues in the near future.

One of them, Mr. Chair, we all hear so much about is health care. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that we have the best health care system in the world when we come to our country, Canada, but there are still issues, still concerns, that we have to worry about. All too often we hear talk of the shortage of nurses. We are short a thousand-plus nurses here in this Province. Hopefully that can be corrected, Mr. Chair.

You hear such stories! Only recently I heard about a young lady in Central Newfoundland who is a nurse. She was working such long hours, there were times that she would have to leave the house rather than answer the phone calls, because she had to go in and she was unable to carry out her duties.

Mr. Chair, doctor shortages: I know the minister recently said there were quite a few new doctors coming to our area. We find that a major problem in the area that I represent and the neighbouring districts. Mr Chair, we have doctors coming but they do not stay in this area, they do not stay in that particular area. It is almost like they are on a probationary period and when they get their time served they move to other parts of this country. Mr. Chair, I guess that will be going on for many years to come.

Another issue that I bring up on a daily basis - and it is a very serious issue - is the long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. There are two facilities that are located in the Town of Carbonear and both of those facilities are very old now, Mr. Chair, and they need to be replaced.

It was back in 2001 when an independent study stated that the Conception Bay North area, which is in Carbonear itself, the community, and Corner Brook were two of the top areas in the Province where we should have a new long-term care facility.

Mr. Chair, I know when this government came to power in 2003 they found themselves in a difficult financial situation and the facility in that area was placed on hold, but since the economy has turned itself around we know that there are three or four other facilities that have been built in this Province. We have no problem with that, but I believe the time has come when we have to look at the situation in the Conception Bay North area once again. The minister and the department, even in 2007, recommended that a new facility would be reconsidered for the Conception Bay North area.

Mr. Chair, it came to the point that last year the department and the officials recommended to government for the budget that $1 million would be considered for that facility, but we know that that did not happen. Even through there was $4 million that went into the Carbonear Hospital for other various concerns that were held there - and that is greatly appreciated - the time has come, Mr. Chair, when we need a new facility in that area and we are looking forward to that happening this year.

Mr. Chair, I just touched on some of the people who went away to Alberta to find jobs, and we were talking about the trades people coming back home. Those people find themselves in a very difficult situation. Hopefully the situation in our Province will correct itself in the very near future and they will be able to find jobs here and will not have to travel outside of their Province. Mr. Chair, many times those people find themselves in a very stressful situation, having to leave their hometowns and Province to travel to find work elsewhere.

Back to the long-term care facility, Mr. Chair, I mean it is a major issue in the area. It is not like we are looking for a ten or fifteen bed facility. It has been recommended that this facility should be a 210 bed facility. It is not only a place for those people, but when they have to move to St. John's and other areas it is a tremendous upheaval with their families and friends. Many people cannot get to visit them. Mr. Chair, that is what the people are concerned about and the people who signed those petitions know full well that this is a problem, and hopefully government will have another look at that this year.

Mr. Chair, from time to time we talk of issues with regards to education. Today we had a bill before the House with regards to the school boards. We know that the school boards play a tremendous part with the education of our young people in this Province. Having said that, we know many times issues arise that are, we believe, parents and teachers believe and students believe, that are not dealt with on a first come first serve basis.

All too often we recognize the concerns with air quality in our schools, and, Mr. Chair, we have called for mandatory inspections. I know the minister looks at it in a different light, but it seems like the issues, when they arise, Mr. Chair, are dealt with. I think, if the mandatory inspections of the schools were done, schools would not have to close down when they open. This could be done, Mr. Chair, over the summer months.

Mr. Chair, all we can hear from the Member for Mount Pearl is the neglect of the past. All we can hear is the neglect from the past. He knows full well, let me assure you, that everything in this Province has not been built in the last five years. I can guarantee you that. Everything in this Province was not built in the last five years.

Mr. Chair, I say to the hon. member, he will have his chance to get on his feet and talk about it. You know, he may be disappointed those days but he has his chance to get up and speak.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is coming to a close; there are only a few seconds left. I just want to say that I believe the people of this Province deserve better in a lot of instances.

I will take my seat now, Sir, and give someone else the opportunity.

MR. TAYLOR: It is just as well, (inaudible) TV turned off anyway.

MR. BUTLER: Good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are just not enough adjectives in Webster's dictionary to describe how honoured and privileged I am to be not only in this hon. House tonight, but also to be the MHA for the great District of Baie Verte-Springdale -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: - serving under an incredible government. It is beyond my wildest dreams. I still keep pinching myself and asking my wife: is this for real or am I in a big dream?

Speaking of my wife, Linda, now is the appropriate time to express my love and gratitude to her. Without her unfailing love, encouragement and support, I would not be standing here tonight. She was and is a tower of strength to me. To my three beautiful daughters, Gillian, Danielle and Hannah, thank you for your patience, love and understanding. You knew when to talk and when not to talk to me during the by-election.

To my mother, brothers, sisters, to all of my family members, a huge thank you for believing in me and offering your encouragement. It meant a whole lot to me as I, pretending to be brave, stared down snarling dogs so I could knock on doors and humbly ask for a vote.

To continue my thanks, Mr. Chair: how can I adequately express it to the constituents of Baie Verte-Springdale, who took a quantum leap of faith in the August 27 by-election and voted for me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: I am humbled, I am honoured, and I am thrilled!

Over the years, many great people served as the MHA for this area, of whom I have great respect, names such as Peckford, Smallwood, Hewlett, Flight, the current Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, Shelley, and Rideout. Compared to them, I feel like an ant tonight, but I will simply try to build on their accomplishments, for indeed they have left a very solid foundation.

Continuing on with my thanks, Mr. Speaker: I was delighted and honoured to have several MHAs and ministers, along with Premier Williams, visit the district during the by-election. They injected confidence, spark, energy, and flavour into my rigorous campaign. Knowing how busy they really were, I thought they made a big sacrifice. It meant a whole lot to me. It meant that I was not alone in this race. It demonstrated to me and to the entire District of Baie Verte-Springdale, that I had a team who was cheering me on, for which I am sincerely grateful. It gave me the assurance that I, should I be elected, would have a supportive and a helpful team, a team led by a strong, visionary, capable leader. That leader, Mr. Chair, is none other than Premier Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Premier, for accepting me as part of this formidable team, a competent team, a winning team, a proactive team, a solid team.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I am certainly in debt to my campaign workers. Their hard work, commitment, and dedication kept propelling me forward. Each person accepted their role, whether great or small, and with vigour and determination amidst the hot searing sun, right in the middle of summer holidays, Mr. Chair, sacrificed their holiday time just to solidify my victory. Forever I will be indebted to them. They cannot be thanked enough. It just goes to show the quality and the value of the volunteers we have in the Baie Verte-Springdale District, and, for that matter, the entire Province. The entire Province can boast about that. The volunteers are everywhere in my district and in this Province of ours; in fire departments, in minor hockey, in churches, in schools, in town councils, on zonal boards - the list is endless. This government certainly acknowledges their tremendous contribution to every fabric of our society. They are the backbone of any town, any community, any district, or any Province.

In addition, since my election and up to this point, I am grateful for the help I received from the House of Assembly staff and all the caucus members, for their support and willingness to help me during my transition and orientation. They were simply fantastic. As well, I have had meetings with various ministers who were also very accommodating when I wanted to discuss some district issues with them.

On that note, I would like to congratulate the Member for Cape St. Francis upon his by-election victory, August 27. All the best!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Since I am a new kid on the block allow me a few minutes just to introduce myself.

I was born and raised in Roddickton, White Bay, the moose capital of the world by the way, son of Audrey Pollard and the late Samuel Pollard. I graduated from Memorial University with a Bachelor of Physical Education and a Bachelor of Education in 1980. Following graduation I accepted a physical education teaching position in Springdale in which I taught for the next twenty-eight years.

While there, I spent countless hours volunteering in that beautiful community, such as coaching various school sports and town sports, President of the basketball league, President of Swim Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Section, Chairperson of the Regional Economic Development Board, the Emerald Zone Corporation, Vice-President of the NLTA Green Bay Branch, Councillor, Deputy-Mayor and Mayor of Springdale, and Rural Secretariat member.

In 1982, I married a wonderful lady, Linda Batton of Foxtrap, Conception Bay South.

Excuse me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: She keeps me on the straight and the narrow. She graduated from the School of Nursing in St. John's and is currently employed by Central Health, working in our hometown, Springdale. We have three daughters. Gillian is a nurse, Danielle is a school teacher, and Hannah is a grade nine student at Indian River High. Of course we have a dog named Ginger. She is also female.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Mr. Chair, my experiences with various volunteer organizations, from local, regional and provincial levels, in addition to my municipal experience, I feel, gave me a solid foundation upon which to serve. I believe it will give me an excellent start to be an effective member. Having said that, the learning curve is rather steep, but we all believe that one never stops learning. It is a life-long venture for sure.

It is with much delight that I accept this awesome challenge. I will work earnestly with my colleagues to advance the growth of the district and this great Province of ours; a have province, by the way, Mr. Chair. When it comes to the friendliness, the hospitality, and the quality of lifestyle we have in this great Province of ours, we were always a have province. Where else can you experience the clean air, the pristine waters, and enjoy just the natural beauty and feel safe? Where else can children and teenagers go out and freely hunt, fish, pick berries, and catch rabbits? Where else can they snowshoe, ski, or go out in a boat? It is impossible to put a dollar value on that type of lifestyle, Mr. Chair.

What I would like to do now is to zero in on my district, give you a snapshot or a profile.

We have approximately forty communities, fifteen of which are local service districts. Springdale is the largest town with a population of 2,761, and Tilt Cove is the smallest community with a population of approximately six. That gives you the breadth of our district.

We have, basically, two service centres, Springdale and Baie Verte. Both of these towns offer a wide array of services and have all the amenities one could desire in a small rural setting. Mr. Chair, the district was and is rich in resources from three traditional sectors, the fishing, the mining, and the forestry, all of which proved meaningful over the years in providing meaningful economic growth and jobs.

Let me say a few words about each, generally speaking.

Although there has been a significant downsizing in the fishing industry, it is still a billion-dollar industry. With its diversification, I believe it will continue to be a major economic player for the people in Baie Verte–Springdale District and to the entire Province. This government recognized that fact as they just recently approved, upon the recommendation of the Fish Processing Licensing Board, the transfer of the shrimp license to LaScie. This was indeed fantastic news for the people of the district.

Since fish is a renewable resource, I am confident that our government will continue to make strategic investments and develop sound policies so that the industry will continue to be a vital part of our rural economies. I look forward, Mr. Chair, in working with my colleagues to advance the industry, which the Lieutenant-Governor in the Throne Speech said is an industry that anchored our proud past and will always be vitally important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador as we work to build a strong, sustainable future.

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. POLLARD: By leave, Mr. Chair?

MR. CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Give him half an hour.

MR. POLLARD: The logging industry, Mr. Chair, which was the lifeblood of the economy of the District of Baie Verte–Springdale in its early years, along with the fishery, is also vital. It helped shape our region. It still remains a pivotal sector today, albeit it is facing very serious challenges. To understand the present, Mr. Chair, we might have to look at its history. During the 1940s and the 1950s, Bowater Pulp and Paper Company conducted a woods operation at Baie Verte. A long time resident of the area, Mr. Carl Wright, says that the Baie Verte Peninsula waterways were dotted with wood camps, each with fifty to seventy men employed.

At the same time, George Warr Ltd. and Ford Hewlett Ltd. were conducting similar operations in the Springdale area, providing hundreds of jobs to the locals. In addition to this, there were numerous sawmill operations sprinkled all over the district, creating a flurry of activity, thus putting food on the table for many families. As an example, Baxter Butt and Sons, after forty years, is still going strong, and to my knowledge it is the longest operating sawmill in the Province.

The industry, however, has encountered many challenges and consequently has downsized due to adverse global conditions. I am pleased that our government is trying to do whatever it can to maintain the long-term viability of the industry.

With respect to the mining sector, Mr. Chair, Notre Dame Bay of which the District of Baie Verte-Springdale is a major part, wrote the history book. According to Wendy Martin's book, Once upon a Mine, there were an incredible variety of mining adventures in this area. I quote, "It is a distillation of romance and adventure, blood, sweat and tears, disaster and shipwreck." It says that the copper boom served as the backbone of the mining industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It peaked in the 1880s and as a result propelled Newfoundland and Labrador into the world's sixth largest copper producer. Scores of mining companies sprung up everywhere.

Here are a few examples that sprung up in my district: Terra Nova Mines; Betts Cove; Little Bay Mines; Ming's Bight Gold Mine; Tilt Cove Copper Mines; Advocate Asbestos Mine; Little Bay Copper mines; Rambler; Whalesback; Nugget Pond; Pine Cove; and Richmont Mines.

As you can see, the mining sector has always been strong in the District of Baie Verte-Springdale. It is a part of who we really are. We have a rich history. The district is still the hotbed for exploration in this Province. With continued exploration I am confident that there are big finds out there ready to be discovered. Since 1857, mining, as I pointed out earlier, has always been a part of the social and economic fabric of the district. Its geological structure offers unlimited potential. With excitement, I eagerly await more good news stories coming from the district as this government continues to support this pivotal industry, which holds a lucrative position, not only in the economy in the district but for the whole Province.

From all indications it appears that the industry is rebounding in the District of Baie Verte-Springdale. With Nugget Pond and Pine Cove operating, crucial steps are being taken to get Rambler up and running. It has been a rather lean few years for the area but with a skilled labour force, expertise, and ample resources, the district is poised and ready, along with our government, for yet another boom. Now having said that, the present global economic meltdown may slow that growth, much to our dismay, and we have no idea how long.

Mr. Chair, I would do a serious injustice to the District of Baie Verte -Springdale if I did not speak about the tourism. With its rich history, character, culture, and heritage, I see an untapped industry. We had the one-two knockout punch, whales and icebergs. We have the rugged hills and coastlines, we have the landscape, and we have stories to tell. We have it all: whales, tales, and trails. There is unlimited potential for adventure tourism. The Alexander Murray Hiking Trail at King's Point, along with other trails, King's Point Pottery, the development of the Whale Tour Network strategy, the Dorset Eskimo carving site at Fleur de Lys, and the Indian River salmon river are all among more attractions to the district. With the tourism marketing investment increased from $6 million to $12 million, I believe this sector will continue to grow and expand not only in the District of Baie Verte-Springdale but also in the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very encouraging to see our government investing, over the next three years, over $17 million - not $15 million, not $16 million, but $17 million - in new funding for further development of the arts and culture and heritage sectors. When it comes to tourism, I did not even scratch the surface of what the Baie Verte-Springdale district has to offer.

Just let me mention a few firsts about the district: the world's first mine-motif stamp, Tilt Cove, 1897; first ore smelter in the Province, Betts Cove, 1875; first gold mine in the Province, Goldenville; the first and only productive asbestos mine in the Province, Baie Verte; first gold brick in the Province, Goldenville, in 1903; first railway track and locomotive in the Province, Terra Nova Mines; and the first modern day whale factory in North America, Snooks Arm.

The district, however, like any other district, is not without its challenges. Over time, I am confident that they will be overcome. As the MHA, I intend to work closely with the various ministers and departments to turn these challenges into triumphs. As everyone is aware, during my campaign the upgrade and the paving of roads seized the day. As I criss-crossed the district, I did gain a deeper appreciation of the magnitude of the need. Already I have had preliminary discussions with my colleagues. I appreciate their help and thank our government for injecting, over the last four years, almost $18 million on road infrastructure in the district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: We will continue to build on that, Mr. Chair.

As a former mayor, I am also acutely aware of the huge infrastructure needs of small communities. For towns less than 3,000 in population, I am delighted that our government boldly implemented the ninety-ten cost share ratio which numerous towns in the district wholeheartedly welcomed. Rejuvenated mayors and councillors are acquiring much needed funds under this new arrangement that otherwise would have been totally impossible.

The district is pleased that there is progress being made on the Baie Verte K to 12 school.

We are also looking forward to the enhancement of health care delivery by advancing the file on a new health care facility in Springdale that will house various services under one roof.

Some personal observations about the district: It is peppered with quite coves, tiny inlets, scenic harbours, and rugged hills; a photographers dream, Mr. Chair. Couple that with its proud, innovative, strong and determined people, and we do indeed have a winning combination. As I chatted with people in their driveways, boats, sheds, cabins, kitchens, stores, town halls, there is one conclusion that is not debatable, that I encountered Newfoundland hospitality at its finest. They were not only friendly, but they were warm, they were welcoming, and they were engaging. I witnessed cleverness, ingenuity, and creativity as the people introduced me to their hobbies, their projects, and the stories of the past.

Mr. Chair, this is a prime example if the resourcefulness, the resilience, the pride, and the survival spirit embedded in the people of the Baie Verte District and the whole Province for that matter. Mr. Chair, they are used to hard times. They have seen and experienced rough times which have moulded them into a clever people. Mr. Chair, in the next two years or so, according to world leaders, we will indeed experience hard economic times again. The constituents of Baie Verte-Springdale are curious of the impact that it will have, not only on our district but upon our Province. Since we are part of a global economy, we are not immune. We know we are not impervious to the world economic condition.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I am proud to say that our government has put us in a very good position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Well, you might say: how is that? Well, by adopting sound fiscal policies: one, by cutting personal income tax; two, by lowering debt; and three, by dramatically increasing social and infrastructure spending.

Interesting enough, Mr. Chair, major world economies seem to agree that these are wise steps to take when in a financial meltdown.

I am proud to say tonight that our government has already taken these crucial steps, even before there were talks of economic meltdown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: That is, Mr. Chair, the definition of being proactive. Consequently our Province is in a sound position to weather the global financial meltdown.

The people of our Province have shown that they are confident and pleased with the direction in which our government is going. They take comfort in knowing that sound, solid, fiscal management practices will continue, practices that have enabled our Province to improve, as well, its credit rating from not one but two credit rating agencies, in recognition of its prudent fiscal management. Also, a new Fraser Institute study just released this past Thursday has ranked NL fourth among provinces for investment climate!

The aim now, of course, is to stay on track and prioritize and strategically make investments so that we will continue to have a sustainable future, so that we will continue to be able to stand on our own two feet, so that we will not have to, on bended knee, beg for more handouts. The pride, the dignity, the positive attitude has re-emerged in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Our government is resolute in its stance, with its heels dug in, with a line drawn in the sand, and is saying, "Enough is enough". No more giveaways!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: No more business as usual. No more scraping dried up stale crumbs off the floor that drop sporadically from the table of Big Daddy and from powerful companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: I believe that we are indeed bold, strong, proud and determined people. With every ounce of energy, with every fibre in our being, with the strongest voice possible, this government, under the strong leadership of Premier Williams, will continue to implement sound fiscal management practices that will continue to take us through not only the good times, but also the hard times.

I am proud to be a part of this government, Mr. Chair. I am proud to be a voice for the people of Baie Verte-Springdale. I am proud to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am losing my voice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

Could I have the members' cooperation, please.

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

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

Before speaking to the issue that I am standing to address, I do want to say congratulations to the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale on his election and on his first speech here in the House this evening.

I would also like to welcome the Member for Cape St. Francis, as well, and congratulate him on his election.

I am happy this evening to be able to speak to some of the issues that have been concerning me over the last weeks, especially because of the economic crisis in which we find ourselves in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I have a hearing problem, Mr. Chair, and it is difficult for me….

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. speaker.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

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

MS MICHAEL: It really does bother my hearing; I cannot speak. Thank you. You can go to sleep, I don't care, but I have to have some silence so I can talk.

The situation which we find ourselves in, with the economic crisis, is quite serious, and we all know that. It is heading towards a recession, if it is not already there, and it something that is going on worldwide. It is not just going on here in this Province, and we all know that – and in Canada, it is not just going on in this Province either - it is a worldwide situation.

The one thing that I have found very interesting over the last weeks is that it is very hard to get economists to agree on things. It is hard to get economists to agree on what direction you should go in, in a certain situation. It is hard to get economists to agree on what path to take. If you have ten economists, you probably have ten different ways of looking at how to deal with the situation.

What I am finding very interesting in the time of this economic crisis is that economists of all stripes - and if we want to use the left and right analogy - economists on the left, economists on the right, economists in the middle, all understand the same thing about a recession, and that is that economy has to be stimulated during a recession.

Now, I have to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what we are doing. (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, and I will point out how that can be done, Mr. Chairman.

One of the things that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: One of the things that I have to say bothered me at the beginning of the crisis that we are in is that the very people who caused the crisis were the people who had to get the help, and that is a reality. We had a situation in the United States where, because of a financial system that had gone completely unbridled and without regulation, got themselves and the people whom they were lending money to without any thought to where this was going - the mortgages in particular – that these people, these financiers, these bank people, these are the ones, because they were unregulated, went down a path that caused, that really started the recession that we are in. Yet, at the same time, if they had not been bailed out things would get even worse. I find this very, very, interesting but it is the reality, and I have to say that went against my grain but I also knew that it had to happen.

The other thing that has to happen, which may go against the grain of my colleagues who are on the government side of the House, is that government has to get involved in that as well, and government has to realize that it, too, has to put money in – money that they may not have planned on putting into the economy - in order to stimulate and make sure things do not get worse, because the economic stimulation is absolutely essential.

Now, we have a government in Ottawa that did not want to believe that and who, when they came down with a financial statement two weeks ago, really saw the result of what that would do when they ignored the economy, when they ignored the economic crisis, and instead of making a financial statement came out with a statement that was more like a blueprint for them and who they were and where they wanted to go on issues that were not economic issues. It was sort of, you know, we have an agenda and now we are finally going to tell you what the agenda is.

Well, we see where that got them in the last two weeks, and we have seen where it got the country, and what we have been through in the last two weeks has not been a high point in our country. It has in some ways but not in others, because the Prime Minister chose to ignore what all economists were saying. He chose to ignore it.

Now, we have a challenge here in this Province. We have a financial statement coming up, and we are going to hear that tomorrow. I am really looking forward to hearing that, and I am hoping that we have a government, and we have a Minister of Finance, and we have a Premier, who do understand that in order to not only save the economy but to get it even more active than it is, more money will have to go in than may have been planned for this year and than may have been planned for next year; because, if we do not do it, the people who live in this Province will suffer without the economic stimulation.

There are many ways to stimulate the economy, and I know that the government will have ideas that we are going to hear about tomorrow, but I want to use some of my time tonight to talk about some of the ideas that I think the government needs to think about that would definitely stimulate our economy, not just in the present but as we go on into the future as well.

One of those, and we have all heard it - it has been said by economists, it has been in the papers, it was demanded of the Prime Minister and he did not do it - is to put more money, and I know we put money into infrastructure but to put more money, into infrastructure, and infrastructure both of the type when we are taking about roads, for example, municipal infrastructure, but also infrastructure when we are talking about housing and social programs like child care.

I would like to take a few minutes of this time that I am standing to talk a bit about child care. The thing with child care is that if we had a comprehensive, accessible, universal early childhood learning and child care program we could not do anything better when it comes to stimulating the economy. If we get into putting a child care program in place, first of all we have to get into training; because if we had a comprehensive program in place we would need more workers involved. Secondly, we would have greater employment, and employment is one of the biggest stimulators of an economy. So we would have more people working, especially if we paid a wage that was a good wage, which it is not at the moment, but that would have to be part of the package. The other thing is that we would have more parents working, especially women, and again greater employment means stimulation of the economy. The other thing which is more long term - it is not the short-term benefit but the long-term benefit, especially when it comes to early childhood learning - the more children we can get involved in early childhood learning, you know, when they are one, two, three years old, the more children we are going to have who are going to finish school, who are going to graduate from high school, the more children we have who are going to go on and do post-secondary education.

So, not only is child care dealing with the present when it comes to stimulation of the economy; it is building to the future when it comes to the economy, because putting money into child care in a large way is an investment. It is an investment into the present economy and it is an investment into the future economy.

Recently there was a survey done by Nanos Research - we have all heard of their names before - and it was really interesting. The thing they were doing the survey on was the attitude of Canadians towards the Universal Child Care Benefit as compared to childhood education and child care program. What their survey found was that almost twice as many Canadians said that setting up a national early childhood education and child care program was preferable to having a monthly allowance.

Now, we know that at the moment we do not have a national child care program but there are provinces in this country which have really good child care programs as provinces. Quebec is one. Manitoba is another. Ontario is another. So provinces cannot just wait and see what Ottawa is going to do, and this Province is in a situation where we can start getting a child care program in place. We can also start making sure that we are lobbying Ottawa, as well, to have a national child care program, but we should not be sitting back and waiting. If we want to look at one thing that could stimulate our economy, that is one thing that could.

I will go on to my next thing the next time I stand up, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to get up in this hon. House tonight and speak to Bill 67.

As the hon. members across the House, the hon. Opposition, indicated, there is a lot of latitude in regard to this bill because it is actually a money bill and it is accepted in the House of Assembly that you can talk on many things.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition intently as she referenced exactly how our resources were garnished, how things came into the Treasury in regard to the resources and the commodities that we are so fortunate to have in our Province, in our mining, in our oil industry and various other industries in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was quite interesting that she said that she cannot believe where we came from six or seven or eight months ago and where we find ourselves today in regard to the price of a barrel of oil and where it is today.

I reflected when I was here, and I think the last time when I stood in the House of Assembly I also reflected, on when we took government in 2003. Late that year the Premier addressed the Province in regard to the state that he found the Province in when he took the Premiership and government, and then he talked to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to that. As a matter of fact, he found it in a mess.

I will go back in time now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to when I ran in 1999. I ran in an election in 1999 and the then Premier, Premier Tobin, was looking for a second term and he went out to the people. I remember I only had ten days actually campaigning in this Province because I was out of the Province when the election was called. I came back into the Province and ran in the District of Gander and lost by 134 votes.

Anyways, when I came back, I was out there actively campaigning. It was like in Joey's days when they were saying that not $100s, not $1000s, not $2000s, not $1 million, not $2 million, not $3 million, not $5 million, not $6 million, we are talking about trillions. Because, when I went out through the door in the morning, with all the announcements in regard to the monies that this government, if they were to take office and have a majority in this Province if they were re-elected, this is all the money that they were going to spend, the money was falling out of the air so much that I had to duck because I thought I was going to get my head knocked off by all the bags of money falling out of the sky; but, lo and behold what did we find after the election? What did we find after the election? Well, there was no money. As a matter of fact, none of the things that he promised, or very little of the things that were promised in that election, were realized over the next four or five years because the money was not there because of, again, poor fiscal management, poor strategies or no strategies. That is exactly what happened in 1999.

What did we see over that period of time, over the four years or three years or whatever? I think it went actually the full four years, close to five years, in regard to the next election. What did we find? We found deficits. Deficits were rising continually, all the time, up to just about a billion dollar deficit each and every year, adding to a rising provincial debt to a point that it was at $11.8 billion when we took government in 2003.

Also what we saw was infrastructure that was being neglected and ignored. Infrastructure problems all across the Province, in every one of the districts, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, were being ignored and certainly nothing was being addressed in regard to infrastructure problems.

I reflect back and look at that and wonder why we were in such a state. I always said, and economists would always say, when you hit hard financial times you are prudent but you start looking towards good financial times, and when you are in good financial times you always and always reflect and plan for poor financial times. That is essentially what you are seeing here today in regard to what was referenced by one of my other colleagues in this House when he spoke and made his maiden speech, and I congratulate him on that, in regard to how this government, the past Cabinet in 2003-2004, instead of going ahead and forward in regard to what we had as a vision at that particular time, not knowing what we were going to find in regard to the financial status of the Province but no putting her on full stop, that is exactly what they did. They put it on full stop, that Cabinet and the Premier. They had an independent audit firm come in and give us a true picture of where we were to as a Province, and what we saw, we addressed. Then this government came forward with strategy after strategy. A $3.5 billion infrastructure strategy was put in place, which is still in place and still working its way through government. I say to the hon. members across the House in the Opposition, that creates jobs, that creates jobs all the way along, so it was prudent and fiscally responsible to put these things in place.

Sometimes I wonder, in regards to our Premier and his vision, because he always had a vision in regards to not only tomorrow, not only five years down the road, not only ten years down the road, but certainly to 2041 and beyond that, Mr. Speaker - probably beyond his own life, he has a vision – but did he have a vision that maybe sometime in the future we are going to hit this kind of a global meltdown, this global recession, and we had to be prudent in regards to addressing that? Certainly, what we see here today is the result of prudent planning, that we are the best-placed province in regards to addressing this meltdown. Certainly, we have challenges, and, yes, we have commodities that are failing on the global markets. We have the Chinese markets and those types of markets that buy steel and whatever they buy. They are having failing economies as well.

In the meantime, what we do have in Newfoundland and Labrador is confidence, and half the battle in regards to addressing a failing economy is having confidence in one's economy. I listen to CNN, I listen to all the various news channels, and all you hear is the negativity, not the positive stuff that is out there, which we try to get out there on a daily basis, giving confidence to our economy. That is very, very important as I see it, in regards to growing that economy.

We talk about Central Newfoundland, and I heard one of the hon. members across the way talk about AbitibiBowater and the challenges we have there. Certainly they referenced, you know, the minister and the MHA and whoever else; that we are all over the file. What they try to put out there in regards to being all over the file, what that means, is that they have a solution for it, that they are going to stop AbitibiBowater from closing their mill in trying times with a market and an industry that has been under duress for the past two years, let alone this global crisis. That is not what we call all over the file. We are all over the file, yes, in regards to trying to make sure that Abitibi or any other industry would have all the tools, and anything that we as a government can do for them, to weather a storm, whatever it may be. Also, I sang out across the House, I said, we are talking about plan A and plan B and plan C and plan D and plan E and plan F and plan H and on and on and on. That is exactly what we do, putting up everything that we possibly can in regards to, what happens if, what happens if. That is called strategy. That is called vision. That is called helping communities. That is called being proactive.

The MHA for the area, as well, has being all over the file, and now, as the Minister of HRLE, Human Resources Labour and Employment, she is all over it too, along with the taskforce under the chairmanship of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. These are the kinds of things that we do and those are the kinds of things that we did over in Stephenville when Abitibi closed their plant over there. Those are the kinds of things that we will do with Wabush. Those are the kinds of things that we do all along the way, taking into account that we are into a global recession and we have commodities under duress conditions and we have a melting market.

Obama might have referenced that maybe we have not seen the bottom of it, and maybe we have not, but, listen, we never, never can forget the confidence that we have in our Province and the respect that we have across Canada and the respect we have globally in regards to this Province now; never seen before, and only in three, four years have we seen that come around.

Then we reflect on the Leader of the Opposition saying, we never would have thought eight months ago we would find ourselves here. Well, I just cannot believe that we find ourselves so critically and uniquely positioned as a Province in reflection to a global market, a melting market at that.

In the meantime, Mr. Chair, I think as we go forward in time we will see a rebound in regards to the markets, we will see confidence creep back into our economies, and we will see confidence creep back into the global economy as well, but that will all take time. That will not come easy, it will not come without hard work, but we have world leaders too as we have, in this Province, a Premier who has a vision.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave, Mr. Chair, for just a second?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am married to a fine lady from New Brunswick and I know a lot of people in New Brunswick and often I get calls. I get calls from New Brunswick with regards to some of the friends that I have made over the years in regards to, God, they would love to have our Premier, they would love to have our government, and they would love to have our vision, to turn their province around and have it placed as well within these global challenging times as we have Newfoundland and Labrador placed. They cannot understand and they reflect, how did you ever make it? How did you ever make it in just four years, to have yourselves so well-placed? It was strength and vision; that is exactly what it was. It was strength and vision. That is where it took us and that is where we are today.

With that, Mr. Chair, it has been a pleasure to be up in the House in regards to talking to this bill, Bill 67. I am sure hon. members across the House have been hanging onto every word and understand every word I am saying, and I am sure they are going to get up and support me in regards to that vision and that confidence in one's economy. I would caution the hon. members that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are looking for vision and they are looking for leadership, and when it comes to vision and leadership you have to give confidence to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what this government is doing, that is exactly what this Premier is doing, so I would hope you would get up and support my words on this important bill in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say one thing for the Minister of Government Services, he is the eternal optimist, looking forward to me getting up and cheering on the vision that he has.

Mr. Chair, I am going to get into a few detailed things about the actual bill, but before I do, I must say, I have listened intently and have not echoed or made one comment back tonight; not the one. I was very curious that, so far, we have heard a lot of talk about vision. I have heard talk from, not the new member from Baie Verte-Springdale area, whom I congratulate, by the way, on his maiden speech, but the older members, I say, the veterans who are here, particularly the Cabinet ministers. You know, of all this vision we hear talked about, folks, I never heard one solution being put forward about the economic mess we are currently in.

All we talked about was – the Member for Labrador got up, the Minister for Labrador Affairs got up, and said, you did this five or six years ago; you did not do this. Voisey's Bay is on its way out. They tell me now, Combined Councils is going to get rid of Voisey's Bay, the mine is not going. The Minister for Government Services gets up and talks about their vision that they have, and everything that was not done five or six years ago. Folks: Extra! Extra! In case you did not know it, we are living in 2008 and there are a lot of people who want to know what you are going to do in 2008 to right the economy; not get here and play the old blame game again. You folks have been on watch, by the way, since 2003.

MR. HICKEY: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HICKEY: I want to set the record straight here. The Member for Lake Melville never said what that hon. member just said he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. HICKEY: He did not!

[Laughter]

MR. HICKEY: What I said, Mr. Chair, is that they gave away half of Voisey's Bay, as they did on a whole bunch of other resource files, Mr. Chair. That is what I said, and he just as well admit it because the proof is in the pudding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no Point of Order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I agree, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Labrador Affairs is wasting time again. The people watching this are the people who are aware of what is going on, Mr. Chair. They know, and they are watching with a keen eye as to what is not happening. They have had enough talk, from 2003 to 2007, about what happened with the old crowd. Boys, that is worn pretty thin. Since October of last year, people have been watching and saying, okay, this is their second kick at the can now. Where is this all going? They are watching very, very closely; very, very closely, I say to the minister.

First of all, just so we do not lose focus of what we are talking about here, I have some questions on Bill 67. Bill 67, by the way, is called Supplementary Supply. What happened here is that the government, back in July, I do believe it was, issued a special warrant. They ran out of money, or else they never had the money in the Department of Justice so they needed some extra money. They are saying, we cannot find it anywhere else in the department, we need about a million and a half dollars, because the Cameron Inquiry has overspent itself and we need about a million and a half extra. We did not budget for it, we cannot find it anywhere else in our savings in the department, so therefore we need this money, and they use what they call a special warrant.

There is another rule which says that once the House comes back into session, within a certain period of time – I believe it is fifteen days – the government who issued those special warrants must table them here in the House, and then later there is a supplementary supply bill which takes all of those special warrants, rolls them together, and we have a debate here to, in effect, sanction what was done in these special warrants. That is basically the process.

There are a couple of things unusual about this supplementary supply bill, because it only deals with one special warrant. It only deals with the special warrant for the Cameron Inquiry, $1,544,600, and that was tabled here on the 26^th of November. But, folks, that was not the only special warrant that was tabled.

I am looking at, and I have in front of me, a special warrant. By the way, the special warrant was done for this one by the Department of Justice, signed by Minister Kennedy of the day, on July 31, 2008; $1,544,600. I wonder what happened to the other special warrants, and why are they not included in the supplementary supply bill that we are dealing with here today? They were all tabled in November, but yet they are not here. I am wondering if there may be some simple explanation as to why they are not here, because normally that is the case and it is done. I will come back to the specifics of what is in this bill from the Minister of Justice.

Maybe the former Minister of Finance might have an answer to me for that, because he has done special warrants before. He brought in supplementary supply bills when he was the minister. I am sure they will give an answer for that.

I would just like to run through some of the other ones that went through special warrants and were tabled here in November.

First of all, the Department of Health and Community Services looked to pre-commit funds of $120,867 to enter into a federal-provincial agreement on substance use in the workplace. Now, that seems a bit odd, and maybe the minister, sometime, will get a chance to tell us. I do believe the Department of Health budget is about - what? – 40 per cent to 45 per cent of our total budget in the Province; huge numbers, into the billions.

Do you mean to say that the Department of Health could not find $120,000 in its budget from countervailing savings? Get serious! Do you mean to say on a budget of billions, you could not find $120,000 in the Department of Health and you had to issue a special warrant?

We had a member in this House who was the Minister of Finance, he was the former Member for Ferryland, who used to go crazy and spent fifteen years going crazy in this House every time there was a special warrant. Unnecessary! Absolutely unnecessary! You only need them, Mr. Chair, you only ever use a special warrant, if it is a case of abject urgency. Absolute emergencies! You cannot find it anywhere else.

Now we have the government, the Department of Health, with a multi-billion-dollar budget and cannot find $120,000, and they have to use a special warrant to do that, dated the 19 of August, it looks like, this year?

This is a strange situation because there are special rules, folks. For the new people who are here and not familiar with this, this is unusual stuff, when we get special warrants and supplementary supply bills. This is not just a case where it gives us a chance for members to get up and rant and rave about anything economic. There are some very legitimate questions here; very legitimate questions.

I will read another one. This one is dated - it looks like – the fourth of June, 2008. This is, by the way, two months after we passed the Budget here. I think we are probably – and I am assuming that is the fourth of June rather than the sixth of April. In any case, it is to the Department of Natural Resources and this one raises another interesting question. I am sure the members for Central Newfoundland would be very interested in this one, too.

This is a special warrant, June 4, the Department of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, to pre-commit funds of $6,890,000 against its 2009-2010 – get the years, here: 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 – budgetary appropriations in order to cover cost-shared agreements with AbitibiBowater and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited related to inventory management and silviculture development.

A couple of questions. Surely you had the foresight to know that you were going to need this, two years out. You never had the foresight to think about it when you brought in last year's Budget in March, number one.

Number two: Where do we sit now that Abitibi has announced last week that they closed down? Is there any impact of the closure of the mine in Grand Falls–Windsor last week on this pre-commitment of funds in this special warrant? Because there is only one AbitibiBowater, as I understand it now, that is operating and left in the Province.

These are questions people would like to know, because it was being tabled here in November, only two weeks ago, tabled in this House on the twenty-sixth of November, folks. The government said: We want your authority, or we did it; we went off and spent almost $7 million.

People obviously are now going to say, just a minute now. We have been here the last few days with people saying: What about the rights on Star Lake, and can we expropriate the mill? Can we take back the power rights, and stuff?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue when my turn returns.

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

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the Supply Bill that we have here today.

Before I start my remarks, I would like to extend my appreciation to all members of the House for their confidence in me as Deputy Speaker last week.

I would like to talk about the global financial situation, and we look at what is happening not only in Canada but really around the world. One of the speakers earlier - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - had talked about where that problem really, the root of the problem, which is the United States, what has happened down there with the financial institutions and the people who have really caused the fiscal problem that we are now facing.

I will say that we in this Province are perhaps in much better shape than most other provinces in Canada to deal with the financial challenges that lay before most provinces, the fiscal challenges, because of the global fiscal situation. A rising tide raises all boats, and the same thing with a global economy. If the global economy is suffering, it is going to have an effect on all countries, all provinces in Canada.

We see the demand for natural resources, the demand for iron ore, going down, and that is obviously going to have an effect on areas that produce iron ore. We have seen that in the news last week. Those are some of the challenges that this Province will have to deal with because of a global fiscal situation. We do not control world demand for resources, but I can say that what we do control in this Province, the things that we manage ourselves, are in good shape and it is because of wise fiscal management and sound government that have been provided in this Province over the past five years.

We see, when pulp and paper on a worldwide level, the demand goes down, it is going to have an effect on this Province, on the economy of this Province. That is something, unfortunately, that we do not control. The same thing when oil prices go down, it is going to have an effect on the provincial revenues. That is something again that unfortunately in this Province we do not have any control over.

What we do have control over we have managed very well, and because of that sound fiscal management, because of our policies over the past five years, I believe that this Province is going to be able to weather the storm. We are going to be able to do it, and we are going to be able to do it much better than most provinces throughout the country. We have provided good government, and that will help us to come out of the financial challenges that lay before most countries in the world.

Let us keep in mind the leadership under the current Premier when we got a better deal on the Atlantic Accord, and what we did with that $2 billion. We invested that $2 billion wisely. We paid down debt. We invested in pensions.

We heard calls from the Opposition to spend more of that money, to spend more here, to spend more there. Well, I tell you what: it is a good thing we did not listen. It is a good thing we made wise and sound financial decisions with that money, because if we had to listen and spend, spend, spend, where would we be today? I can tell you one thing: we would not be able to say that we are going to weather the storm that lay ahead. We would not be able to say that, even though the challenges on natural resources are there, we would not be able to weather the storm the way we can say we can weather it now.

Keep in mind also that we have made investments in our oil industry. We now have a share in Hebron. Again, something that the Opposition advised us not to do, something that only last week the Opposition were saying: Well, what about Hibernia? Have you checked into buying the shares in Hibernia? The same Opposition that told us last year not to take a financial stake in Hebron. Again, sound management in this Province.

We could have spent everything we had when everything was flowing along very, very well. We could have spent everything we had, as the Opposition suggested, and today they would say that we have mismanaged, but they cannot say that. They are not in a position to say that. Instead, we are in a position in this Province to be able to successfully deal with the challenges that lay ahead. We can successfully deal with those challenges because of the wise management and wisely investing the money we had when money was coming in very strongly.

Yes, there are going to be challenges but, yes, we are also prepared to deal with those challenges because of the sound government that we have provided. We took a strong stand and said no more giveaways. I believe that we are the only government that this Province has ever had that has taken that strong stand and stood by that strong stand.

You look at some of the policies we have put in place. We have a Poverty Reduction Strategy in this Province that is the envy of the country. Other provinces have looked to this Province to borrow what we have done with our Poverty Reduction Strategy because it is working, because it is the best Poverty Reduction Strategy in the country. We have invested over $100 million a year on a sustainable basis in our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

We have invested in municipalities by developing an improved cost-shared municipal infrastructure program. That is real stimulus. It is the type of stimulus that other provinces are saying we need to do, the country needs to do. Canada needs to look at municipal infrastructure spending; it is the way to sustain the country's economy. Well, we have done that. We have done it in this year's Budget. Where some municipalities were paying fifty-fifty it is now seventy-thirty with the Province paying 70 per cent. That is real economic stimulus, and it is happening today, and it is happening because of wise fiscal management, because of wise policy decisions, because of good government. That is the reason that our economy is able to withhold the challenges, to get through the challenges that other provinces are not dealing with as well as we are able to deal with.

Do you know something? When we formed government - part of the reason we need infrastructure investment in this Province - when we came to government just five years ago we inherited a crumbling infrastructure. You ask anybody who drives the highways in this Province today. What a vast improvement, what an improvement in our highways in this Province today compared to five years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: You look at our schools. You look at air quality in our schools. That did not happen overnight. It happened because the investment was not put into new windows, new roofs, and all of the things that cause bad air quality problems in the schools. It was not done. We inherited that and, guess what? We are fixing it. We are dealing with those issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We inherited hospitals that were crumbling, and anybody in this Province who has visited a hospital knows that. Well, guess what? This government has invested in new hospital buildings. We are building hospitals, we are building health facilities, which is good fiscal management and sound government policy.

That is the reason this Province today is able to weather the storm. That is the reason that this Province is able to see ourselves through some of the challenges that lay ahead. It is because of government's decisions, wise decisions, along the way.

We have made significant investments where they were needed and, yes, some would say - and we have heard the Opposition say - that we as a government have been lucky because we are receiving oil revenues and that is the reason we are able to do it, but we have also invested those properly in paying down the debt and giving us the ability, should we need it, should we need to run deficits or should we need to borrow money this year or next year, we have that ability because our credit rating has improved significantly, because we have been paying down the debt, because we have been paying off the debts that have been left for future generations to pay. We have been looking after that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up.

CHAIR: By leave, to clue up.

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

I will clue up. I will make, Mr. Chair, just a couple of other comments.

You look at some of the policies that this government has brought in. If you look at our drug programs, there are more people, thousands and thousands more people, today who are receiving help in purchasing their drugs than there were five years ago.

We have made those investments. We have given people in this Province the ability to purchase drugs at a much more affordable rate than they were able to do in the past.

Mr. Chair, I have several other points that I would like to make and I will make them the next time I have an opportunity to stand. What I will say is that while there are challenges, Mr. Chair, in this Province, while there are challenges in every province, I believe that in this Province we are much better prepared to deal with those challenges because of sound government and wise fiscal policies over the past five years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few more words regarding Bill 67, Supplementary Supply. As I alluded to earlier, the particular bill refers to the sum of $1,544,600 and that is in regard to an expenditure in connection with the Cameron inquiry.

I raised the question the last time I was speaking, and thank God for the Internet because I did manage to find the answer to my question – or I think I have, anyway. The question I raised was: How come we had seven special warrants tabled in the House on the twenty-sixth of November, or the twenty-eighth, and yet we only had one to deal with in the Supplementary Supply Bill? Anyway, I went out and checked the Financial Administration Act.

MS JONES: The minister didn't answer you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I didn't get any volunteers with the answer. Anyway, I went out and checked.

According to the Financial Administration Act, I guess what happens is, because it was a pre-commitment, the Cameron inquiry is a case where they just did not have the money in the budget and they need to come this route now through Supplementary Supply because it is a bill that they have to pay now in this fiscal year, whereas the other six or seven that were tabled deal with pre-commitments of money in years to come.

There is still a requirement that you table the special warrant in the House but there is no requirement that you bring in a Supplementary Supply Bill at this time because when you do the budget for those years that you have pre-committed to, then you will include it in those years' budgets.

That is the process, but at least I still raise the question and I look forward to maybe the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Finance or someone – I think it is a legitimate question regarding the pre-commitment of funds by the Department of Natural Resources to AbitibiBowater in particular.

As recently as June 2008 we were pre-committing $6,890,000. We tabled a special warrant here on the twenty-sixth of November, and then last week we hear that Abitibi is closing down. I am just wondering where, if anywhere, this special warrant or this pre-commitment now plays in regard to AbitibiBowater. It would be very interesting to know.

In addition to that, by the way, there were two that actually came out – the pre-commitment on the same day - one for almost $7 million, and there was a second one for $3,240,000 and it talked again about pre-commitment to cover cost-shared inventory agreements, AbitibiBowater, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, related to inventory management. So on the same day we have somewhere about $10 million earmarked or pre-committed to AbitibiBowater and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in relation to inventory controls and management. I am just wondering what the split was on that, and is it relevant now given the announcement in Central about the closing of the mill there.

Now, to come back for a second to the actual one we have in front of us, and it is not contained in the Supplementary Supply Bill but it was in the special warrant which was tabled here, there is a breakdown on what the money was for. It just does not say $1,544,000. The minister has included what it breaks out into: salaries; transportation and communications; supplies; professional services; purchased services; property, furnishings and equipment, and there is a different amount for each category.

I don't know if you call this poetic justice or not, but you will recall that the former Minister of Justice had quite a tête-à-tête with the commissioner of the day, Judge Cameron, about whether she should even get the funds anyway, and whether there should be an extension, and there was public commentary about how much the legal counsel were charging. In fact, we went through a Freedom of Information request and we got copies of the letters back and forth from the minister to Justice Cameron about this.

I guess it is poetic justice on the one hand, in his role as a minister you had to deal with these issues of should there be an extension, should there be funding, are you spending too much, and on the other hand we see here today, in another role as the Minister of Finance, he is actually saying: Give me the money so that I can pay these bills.

The question I would have in regard to this is: How far does this take us in regard to the Cameron inquiry? Was this just unexplained bills up to the date that the special warrant was issued, which I do believe was July 31, 2008? I am just wondering how much was budgeted in this year's budget for the Cameron inquiry; and, of this $1.5 million that we have here, was that just for bills that had accumulated up to then and we are going to see that there is another special warrant which will have to be cut? Because, as we are aware, the Cameron inquiry has not finished its job yet. We are aware that the public piece is finished, and Justice Cameron has gone off to draft her responses, I understand, to draft her report, and that is going to be submitted some time early in 2009 - some time, I believe, before March. I was just wondering if the amount we are talking about here, which was not budgeted but which is now being requested – actually, it has already been paid under the special warrant, has been obtained, and we are just ratifying it here - I am just wondering if the original budgeted amount plus this will pay for all of the Cameron inquiry costs or whether there are still more costs yet to come.

MS JONES: Ask him to table the breakdown, Kelvin.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We have the breakdown. The breakdown is here, I notice, from the minister, but we just do not know, I guess, if there is any more that is going to be required as we go forward. So I would have that question for the minister, if he could help us out once he gets an opportunity to respond to this: Do we have the full figures here, or are we going to be seeing more from the Cameron inquiry?

I would like to have one comment as well. I listened intently as the Minister of Labrador Affairs spoke earlier and he made a comment about Voisey's Bay. I probably will not get time in this session to finish what I am going to say about Voisey's Bay, but I would just say to everybody, I guess: Tread lightly; because this deal, when it happened back in 2002, we could drive Mack trucks through this deal. I just say as a word of caution that, to date, out of all the deals that we have made in this Province, and this is not to say any are good or any are bad in particular, but I do not think we should discourage the companies who have dealt with us in good faith from continuing to deal with us in good faith. There is nobody, as I understand it, yet who has one shred of evidence to suggest that Voisey's Bay as it was then known, or Inco or now Vale, has done anything but exercise good faith in the execution and the implementation of the Voisey's Bay deal.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs –

MS JONES: Labrador Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would know for sure. We have been talking about legally binding agreements, what was done, and what the companies have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, he is welcome to get up on this floor any time that he wishes and have his say. I do not interrupt him when he is up speaking, and I would appreciate the courtesy of him listening as well.

Now, what I say to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, for example: under the Voisey's Bay agreement there were special clauses put in there to deal with Aboriginal training, Aboriginal hiring, and I believe, to my knowledge, I have never seen anything to suggest that they have not reached their training targets and that they did not reach their hiring targets when it came to Voisey's Bay. I think that is good news. These people did not just commit to that; they did it.

We also heard about the Innovation Centre, which at the time was only a small piece of it, but they would make an Innovation Centre here, they would put training programs in place. It cost them millions. I think they turned over $10 million. I think they put another $25 million into the hospital in Happy Valley–Goose Bay. So far they have not done anything to breach it.

The big one, of course, talked about the hydromet or the hydromat, and we have had the decision announced only a couple of weeks ago. That was a very contentious one because they did not know - they had tried it in Goro and they knew they could make it work there, but they did not know if they could make it work here. The commitment was: We are going to build a demonstrator plant and try it, and if we cannot do it then we will build the hydromat, the old system.

They did not want to go with the old system, either. Environmentally, it was not as good; employment-wise it was not as good for the Province; cost-wise, it was not as good. They wanted the hydromet to work here and fortunately, now, they have decided it will go.

I notice the Premier, even – and I give him credit - he was out a couple of weeks ago. It took him a long time to get around to it. He hesitated a lot, but finally I did hear him in a press statement in the media, I think it was a couple of weeks ago on CBC, saying words to the effect that you have to give credit where credit is due. So far, these guys have stood where they said they were going to stand, so far.

By the way, let's clarify a little factual piece here, too, while we are at it, because the Minister of Natural Resources made a comment in the news –

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Leave to clue up on this issue?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just to clue up one little point, just a clarification issue, because people probably are not aware of this.

The Minister of Natural Resources who, by the way, wasn't around government at the time, she was not a Member of the House of Assembly and she certainly wasn't the Minister of Natural Resources, made a comment, I am sure, in all innocence, in the media a couple of weeks ago, saying that we in the Opposition strengthened the Voisey's Bay deal when it was before the House.

Now, folks, for the record, the Voisey's Bay deal came before this House of Assembly in June of 2002 as a special debate.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say again to the Minister of Transportation and Works, if he wants to be enlightened a little maybe he should keep quiet, let me finish and he will hear what I am going to say. He had lots of time to respond.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I don't intend to be nasty. I intend to be nice. I just want to get the facts on the table here, I say to the minister.

The fact is, not only was it a special debate, and he was here as part of it, it was done as a Statement of Principles, and when we came in to debate it there were a set of rules laid out by the then Government House Leader, agreed to by the Opposition House Leader, both of whom no doubt had consulted with their leaders. The current Premier was then the Leader of the Opposition. There were no amendments to the Statement of Principles. There were none. That was agreed. If you want to go back and check Hansard, there is no such thing as we strengthened the Statement of Principles, folks. The Statement of Principles as you saw and the public saw in June of 2002 became the legal, binding agreement.

MS JONES: No amendment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Absolutely - and there was not a single amendment made to the Statement of Principles for Voisey's Bay in this House of Assembly. It was not strengthened by anything that the Opposition of the day said, not a bit. I just want to set the record straight on that. Again, don't take credit or suggest that something happened if it did not happen. Those are the facts. Many of us here tonight were not here at that time. The Minister of Transportation and Works was, and he knows that what I am saying is correct. Each of us had an allotted speaking time. The Premier of the day and the Opposition Leader of the day had a prescribed time; I do believe it was one hour. In fact, the only person in the Opposition of the day who agreed with the government was the former member, Mr. Manning. He was the only person who spoke in favour of it. Obviously, as he said at that time, he did it, of course, because it was going to go to Argentia. That was in his area. The hydromet was going to go to his area, and he felt very uncomfortable having to vote against it. He went back, he said, and consulted with his people.

In fact, folks, the Leader of the Opposition of the day, the Premier, I remember distinctly when the member at that time, who sat right back here where the member for Deer Lake is sitting now –

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber Valley.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - Humber Valley is sitting now, the Premier got up from his chair and went back and shook his hand. He shook his hand because he stood up for what he believed in. He stood up for what he believed in, and the Leader of the Opposition stood up and shook his hand because he believed in him saying what he wanted to do, and voting where his heart was, as his people told him to do.

I will take my leave at this time because I would like to say a bit more about Voisey's Bay. I do not have it all out yet, but I just want to clear that little piece about the minister, factually, what happened. Factually, there were no amendments to the Statement of Principles. The rules of debate were agreed to. In fact, the rules of debate were agreed to in writing. The rules of debate form part of the record of this House, for anybody who wants to go check. Those are the rules, folks. If we are going to talk, let's talk with the facts.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure and a privilege to be able to stand in this House again tonight and represent the great District of Terra Nova. In fact, this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak since the House opened this time, and certainly since the election. As I said, it is a privilege to be here.

You know, when you look at what this means to people, this means a whole lot to folks who sit at these particular desks because it means that people have put their faith in you to represent them, and I am very pleased tonight that they did put their faith in me again.

In fact, Mr. Chair, out of the forty-eight seats in this Province, forty-four seats went to this government, and that says a lot about this government. In fact, I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, I believe that even Joe and Martha Chesterfield, who he always talks about, probably voted PC this time. We certainly have a lot of support, and we feel that support every day.

Mr. Chair, when we look around this Province, and we listen to the Opposition talk about all the negativity and the fact that things are so bad, and so on and so forth – and I understand, Mr. Chair, that there are challenges in this Province, and for me to suggest there are no challenges in this Province would be completely wrong of me.

I understand there are challenges, but I can tell you today that if I had to get up every single morning, every single day of my life, and I had to look at all the negative things that go on around me every day – because there are lots of negative things that go on around everybody that sits here in this hon. House. There are lots of negative things that go on around people right across this Province, but I have to look at the positive things that are happening in this Province as well, the positive things that will happen in my life as well.

I heard the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile say, you know, all the members on the government side are getting up and talking about how everything is so wonderful, but I have not heard a plan. Well, maybe the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and maybe the Opposition have not listened to our plan that we have had, not in the last four or five weeks, Mr. Chair, but this government has a plan, and has had a plan, since 2003, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: When we were elected in 2003, Mr. Chair, we were not elected to see if there was some way of getting re-elected. It did not have anything to do with being re-elected, and this government made some very, very hard decisions at times. It was not always easy to sit on this side of the House, I say, Mr. Chair. There are many decisions we had to make each and every day that sometimes impacted people at that time in a negative way, because we had to deal with the fiscal situation that the crowd across the way left us. I can tell you, that is not just a cliché, that is not just a saying: maybe the crowd across the way did not leave us with this. I can tell you now, it is facts, Mr. Chair; it is facts. I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we inherited this government, when we took over this Province, when we decided to govern this Province in a correct manner, we found right away that we had some big problems.

I will tell you what we did not do, Mr. Chair. We did not sit down and fold our arms and say, we have to give up now, there is nothing we can do. It is so bad, she is on the rocks and we are going to sit down. In fact, I have to liken it to Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers, and I congratulated them this morning on Open Line, twenty-five years of being together as a group. They do this little monologue and they talk about how one Feller is saying, it is so bad, it is so bad, it is so bad, and then after a while somebody says, yeah, boy, you know, but it is not too bad. Before you know it, everything is wonderful. I am not suggesting that everything is wonderful again, but I am suggesting today that we were willing to stand up and deal with the challenge that was before us.

We did have a plan, and we do have a plan, I say, Mr. Chair. In fact, what does our plan entail? Our plan, as the government, has entailed, since 2003, building a new foundation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is very easy, I say, Mr. Chair, to get up and criticize everything that this government is doing, to say, oh, you know, you are not doing it right, things are not going so good. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, things are going an awful lot better than they did when we took it over; and that is a fact. Things are going far, far better than what it was when took this place over in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Why is that happening? It is happening because of leadership, it is happening because of a vision. Yes, people have thrown the word vision out there this evening, people have taken the word vision and thrown it out, but we were not throwing it out just frivolously, Mr. Chair. We threw the word vision out because we believe we do have a true vision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: How do I know that? How do I know that we have a vision? Well, let me tell you. Just a few short weeks ago I was in Toronto, one of the times in my lifetime that as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian I was proud. I was proud to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, because I stood in front of a group of people in Toronto and I spoke to a group of people in Toronto and I talked about Newfoundland and Labrador just becoming a have province.

Now, what does that do? We can talk about have forever, and I have heard many people trying to say: well, what does have mean? Let me tell you what have means to me. Let me tell you what have means to my family. Have means that for the first time in my family's history, for the first time in my Province's history, we have faith in this Province, we have hope in this Province, and we have pride in this Province. I can tell you right now, that is something that no one can take away from us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I say, Mr. Chair, it is because of sound leadership. It is because of positive leadership. It is not because when we get up in the morning we look at all the negative things that are going around.

The people of Grand Falls-Windsor tonight, do you know who they are looking to? Folks, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor tonight are looking to us as a government to lead them. They are not looking at the crowd across the way, who can talk about all the bad things that are going on, and just cry and complain about how bad it is. Again, they want real leadership, just as this government showed in 2003-2004. There was real leadership then that brought us through, at that time, and I tell you it will bring us through again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Chair, as I said before, we are building a foundation. When I look at the things that have happened in this Province, under the leadership of our Premier, I can only stand back with pride. I think the big day for us came, the first big day, when, after months and days and nights of negotiating with the federal government, we finally came back, and the Premier came back, with a $2 billion cheque. Right away, Mr. Chair, that showed us that there was hope in the Province, things could turn around, we could make things happen, and this government made that happen.

We saw a $2 billion injection of cash. What did the crowd across the way say? Anybody remember? I remember, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador remember, because when they did that, when the people voted again this time in 2007, they remembered what the crowd across the way said. They said, no, no, no, no, no, you are being too aggressive, Premier. No! Take it easy on that poor Prime Minister, we would not want to hurt his feelings. For goodness sakes, take $1.4 billion because you are not going to get $2 billion. You are just being too covetous. You are trying to get too much for Newfoundland and Labrador. You have to pull back a bit. The people remembered that when they went to the polls in 2007, I say, Mr. Chair.

The fact of the matter is, our Premier, our government, came back home with $2 billion, when the other crowd were willing to accept $1.4 billion. That is a big, big, accomplishment for this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Chair, when we finally looked at our oil and gas industry, we realized that we had so many giveaways in this Province. We have been giving away things for years and years and years. You talk about a plan! I just have to go back again. I want to go back again, so I can recap just for a moment, because it is important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand. I want the people to understand this government has a plan. The plan that we had, as I said before, in 2003 is the plan that we have today in 2007, and that is to continue to make good deals, continue to make sound-

MR. O'BRIEN: Investments.

MR. ORAM: - investments for Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people of this Province.

I thank the hon. Member for Gander for helping me out here.

The fact is that we continue to do that. When we looked at dealing with Hebron, again this government decided we were going to take a firm stand. This Premier said, no more giveaways. What did we do? We said, there will be no more giveaways; we will get the best deal possible for my children, for your children, for everyone in this Province. We were not going to accept second best. We were not going to say perhaps we will take what we can get. No, sir! No more giveaways! I can tell you today: What did the crowd across the way say? I remember. I stood in this House and I remember what they said: you are being a little bit too hard on the oil companies. I remember that, Mr. Chair. You are a little bit too hard on the oil companies now, Mr. Chair, and guess what you are going to do? Even though you have this thing called oil that everybody in the world wants and everybody has been fighting over for years, you know what, if you are not careful they are going to run away. They are going to leave Newfoundland and Labrador and they are not going to come back. They are not going to continue to try to find ways to get this oil, so they are going to run away. They are going to give it all up, so you should take what you can get.

Do not bully. I believe one of the members across the way used the word bully. The Premier was bullying the oil companies. I sat back and laughed at it, you know; bullying the oil companies. Well, we bullied the federal government apparently and we got $2 billion. Now we are bullying the oil companies. What is going to happen there I wonder? What is going to happen with that plan? Well, I will tell you what happened. We got a deal with Hebron. This Premier, this government, got a deal on the Hebron project that Albertans said: hold the phone. We are not getting as good a deal as Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to reopen the negotiations. We have to get a better deal. We have to get a deal like Newfoundland and Labrador has.

That is the kind of thing that this government is doing, Mr. Chair. This government is committed to the people of this Province. It is not just lip service I say, Mr. Chair. It is not just something that we go out and try to breach and say, oh, we believe in the Province, and it is empty. It is not empty because it is full of results I say, Mr. Chair. What we are seeing here tonight, what we are seeing here today is results-based. It is what we said we would do, it is what we continue to do.

As I said, Mr. Chair, we realize there are challenges. There were challenges for Stephenville but I tell you, that this government stepped up to the plate -

CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

MR. ORAM: - and we found a way to help Stephenville, and we will do the same thing for Grand Falls-Windsor.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. ORAM: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. ORAM: Just to clue up, I say, Mr. Chair.

This government will continue to do the right things. We will continue to follow through on our plan to ensure that not only Grand Falls-Windsor is taken care of, not only Stephenville is taken care of, not only Wabush is taken care of, but every part of this Province including the Terra Nova district is taken care of, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Chair, I will finish with this. I guarantee you that we have no illusions of just being here to get re-elected. I have heard time and time and time again: Take the deal to get re-elected; take the Voisey's Bay deal to get re-elected.

Mr. Chair, what we have done is we have said, we are going to strategically put a plan in place that will help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will make this Province the strongest province in Canada and make us a have province; and that is exactly what we do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am certainly pleased to rise and say a few words again on Bill 67.

First of all, for those who do not know, the individual who just spoke, the hon. member opposite, happens to be the Minister of Business for Newfoundland and Labrador who stands in his place in this House tonight and offers nothing only rhetoric in the face of some of the largest industrial collapses in this Province. This is the rhetoric that we get out of the Minister of Business.

There are entrepreneurs in our Province today, Mr. Chair, who employ up to 5,000 people right here in Newfoundland and Labrador and they are looking to this minister for direction, for solutions, for innovation, for the vision that the minister opposite him spoke of a little while ago, and what do we get? We get rhetoric. That is what we get.

The people in this Province are looking for solutions, I say to you, the Minister of Business. It is time for you to call together the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time for you to start sitting down with the industrial sector and collectively garner the ideas and the visions of the business community of this Province and start incorporating them into your job which is to help find solutions for the people of this Province. We do not hear anything about these visions. We do not hear anything about these solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: The only thing that we have heard offered up here in this whole debate tonight is that we have it under control. That is all we have heard. We have not heard what is being offered up. We have not heard what is going to be done in these communities to protect and preserve the jobs for these families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is time, Mr. Chair, that that minister and other ministers, if they are going to stand on their feet, start talking sensibly, start laying out plans, start talking about solutions, start engaging the business community, start engaging the industrial sector, because it is quite obvious Mr. Chair, that I and many others have no confidence in the rhetoric that we have heard here tonight.

Mr. Chair, before I move on to talk about a couple of other things, I want to, first of all, congratulate the Member for Bay Verte-Springdale, congratulate him on his election and on his maiden speech here in the House of Assembly tonight.

I listened to him talk very eloquently about his district and, in fact, I learned a lot from listening to him in terms of the mining sector, where it got it beginnings in many parts of this Province, and I thank him for bringing that information here.

Mr. Chair, he talked about how successive representatives in that district held that position before him, and I just want to say to him: don't be too hard on yourself. I am sure that you will do a fine job in representing the people of your district, and I am sure that you too will put your mark –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - on this Assembly and on the people who have elected you to represent them. Mr. Chair, I certainly congratulate him for that.

One thing I do want to address in the few minutes that I have here is the comment that was made by the Minister of Labrador Affairs when he was talking. Although I had to go and have dinner and I missed it because I was doing other things, I did listen to his speech very attentively. One of the things that he talked about was how he had informed the Combined Councils today that there was no clause in the Voisey's Bay deal for the underground mine development of that particular site.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the minister, because he is the Minister for Labrador Affairs and what he says here I take very seriously in terms of these kinds of deals, and I ask that he would table that information in the House of Assembly, because under section 4.5 of the agreement it does say that, "…the Proponent shall commence the development of an underground mine or mines on the Leased Lands and an expansion of the Concentrator Plant in order to supply sufficient Nickel Concentrate to maintain the operation of the Processing Plant at full capacity."

That is the commitment written in the agreement in section 4.5 of the Voisey's Bay deal and if there is anything different, I ask the minister, in his position as the Minister of Labrador Affairs, to table the information in this House of Assembly so that we have other documentation, because it is not in the agreement that I have a copy of, unless there is another agreement.

Let me just tell you, Mr. Chair –

MR. HICKEY: On a point of order.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, there is Question Period every day and the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to stand in her place and ask me a question at any time in Question Period. Mr. Chair, what this hon. member is saying is absolutely false. There was no protection. The people of Labrador were very clear to you, to the Member for Lake Melville, and to the Member for Torngat Mountains, to protect, to ensure that underground mining went ahead along with the mining of the ovoid. That was the direction that came from Labrador, I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Minister of Labrador Affairs, I know, is out of the loop on a lot of things within the government, but if he is in the loop at all, get a copy of the Voisey's Bay contract and look up section 4.5. In section 4.5 of that contract is an agreement that the proponent will commence with the development of an underground mine in Northern Labrador.

Now, let me just tell the member the time frame to do that, because he obviously knows nothing about this deal. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the agreement is that exploration work would be undertaken until the year 2014, which he knows. The drill rigs are on site and the underground drilling is occurring. They have until 2014 to finish that work and then it is the beginning of the underground mining piece. It will be developed between 2014 and 2017, and the hon. member knows that, Mr. Chair. If there is any clause in this agreement that says otherwise, I would like to know what it is and I would like to have it pointed out to me.

Mr. Chairman, if you were to consult with the Aboriginal groups – and, let me just say, this deal is the first deal in our history to negotiate royalty agreements with Aboriginal people in this Province, the first time to have sectoral agreements that honour royalties, honour land claims, honour jobs, honour entrepreneurial partnership, honour contracting, all to Aboriginal groups in the Province. They, themselves - in fact, I talked to one of the Aboriginal leaders not too long ago who said to me: I wish they would slow down some of the mining in the ovoid for a little while and wait until the price of nickel goes up again, because their royalties are connected to what comes out of the surface on the ground and, of course, when the price is higher they get more money.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister talks about is contrary to what everyone else in Labrador knows, but I want to make a couple of points here. Inco has been a good corporate citizen in this Province, and the only reason there is criticism from the members opposite is because they did not ink the deal - but they have been a good corporate citizen. Every single thing in their plan that they negotiated they have followed, including the $25 million for the hospital in Goose Bay, including the $10 million for the Inco Innovation Centre, including the Land Claims Agreements and the royalty settlements with the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government, which were completed, Mr. Chairman. They honoured them. They completed the mine and milling concentrating process on site in Voisey's Bay, costing over $800 million to do. They did it on time and on target. They continued with the development of the hydromet and hydromat plant, Mr. Chairman, in Long Harbour and Argentia.

Mr. Chairman, once they completed that pilot project they made their announcement on time in 2008 that they would pursue and proceed with a hydromet plant. At that time, Mr. Chairman, when they signed the deal, that plant was estimated to cost between $800 million and $900 million. Now they are signing an agreement to invest $2 billion into that very plant in this Province. Does that sound like a corporation or a corporate company that is not prepared to honour their agreements that they have in place?

I am absolutely, Mr. Chairman, somewhat appalled that the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the very minister who should be meeting with this company on a monthly basis, on a weekly basis, on a daily basis, to stay updated on every single thing that occurs in this particular development, can stand in the House tonight and disparage the reputation of this corporate citizen and this company.

CHAIR: Order please!

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

MS JONES: May I, by leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, we have given leave to every member on that side of the House tonight for extended periods of time and I just ask the same courtesy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the truth hurts, and they hate to hear it, but my job is to stand here and correct them, Mr. Chairman, when they put false information on the honourable floor of this House. I will stand and correct them, just like I am correcting right now on this deal.

Mr. Chairman, to know that the Minister of Labrador Affairs, who should be fostering the good will of this corporation, and working with them to ensure that the agreement that they signed and the commitments in it are honoured, is the very one that is out there disparaging the reputation of this company with no reason to do so, that is shameful, I say to the minister, and he knows it is.

Until we reach a time in which this company no longer honours the contract they have, and no longer honours the agreement, then the minister may have a reason to stand in his place and say some of the things that he has said, but he knows that he has no facts to back up what he said. He knows that the agreement states differently. He knows that everything in that agreement signed by Voisey's Bay Nickel has so far been enacted upon and honoured every single commitment. The drilling and the exploration for the underground mine is ongoing in Voisey's Bay today. He knows it is not going to be completed until nearly 2014, and that is the time frame in which they will move to develop the underground mine on that site, at the same time that the Hebron deal will start being developed in this Province, the deal that they are so proud of, and I guess only time will tell if that company honours the agreements that they have signed on to; the same time frame, I say to the minister, if he wanted to read the deal. Perhaps his hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, could send him a copy because he obviously has not seen it or read it in the time he has been the minister within the department.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to certainly clarify those few points. I have a number of points I want to make with regard to this particular bill, and I will certainly have an opportunity to do that shortly I guess.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak tonight on a more serious note because tomorrow we will be delivering the fiscal or economic update for the Province. While I am not going to get into the details of what will be happening tomorrow, I want to say to the people of this Province that we are alert to the situations that exist in the individual homes in this Province, we are alert to what is happening with our seniors, with people with disabilities, people who live in situations of poverty, and people who are looking for work. We are aware that there is enormous global economic turmoil in existence right now. We have what I would refer to as an economic crisis that is ongoing in this world that has not been seen in decades, and many say as far back as the Great Depression.

We have the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States saying that the worst is yet to come. So what we have to do – and the thrust and parry in the debate of the House tonight is interesting, but I certainly would not want the people of this Province to think that any of us in this House, and I talk for all the parties, are not alert to the situations in which people find themselves.

What we have seen in the last number of months is unprecedented economic turmoil. We have seen oil go from $147 a barrel to, I think, on Friday, down to $38. We have seen, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the price of nickel plummet, and the price of steel. What is going on in this Province is a reflection of what is taking place in the world.

The Leader of the NDP pointed out tonight how the sub-prime mortgage crisis evolved in the United States and how it ended up affecting the automakers in Canada. In Ontario, the number of jobs that have been lost is enormous. We have seen what has happened in the world.

One statistic I read, Mr. Chairman, was that I think Citigroup, or the Citibank group in the United States, in terms of their market share, their value, had been worth something like $236 billon in June of 2008 and by October 31 their assets or their share values were at $66 billion. We saw the same happen with the Royal Bank of Scotland. We have seen it happen with the HSBC in the United Kingdom. We have seen what has happened in Iceland, a country which was held up for many of us as an economic example of how you should run your country.

So the situation is, some would say, dire. I saw a statistic today of the number of layoffs that have occurred in the United States. I mean, it is phenomenal the number the houses that are up for sale. So what we have to do in this country, and again I think the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, referred to that fact that there was the situation where the unregulated banking certainly did contribute.

Now, in Canada we exist in a more regulated environment. The assets of the banks were frozen to the extent there was no liquidity. Without liquidity there could not be credit for people to continue their businesses.

We have seen what has happened to pensions; it is absolutely amazing. We are in a situation right now in this Province where we are affected by what goes on in Ontario, by what goes on in the United States, by what happens in the UK, by what happens in India and China. So what we are trying to do as a Province, and what we will try to outline in the economic update tomorrow, is the plan.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that there is lots of rhetoric here tonight but there are no solutions. Well, the solutions are difficult to put into place right now, having regard to the volatility that exists in the commodities markets, for example. When we had, I think, last year, 37 per cent of our revenues come from oil and mining royalties and it could go up as high as 40 per cent this year, then obviously each time the price of oil goes up or down we are affected.

What we are trying to do is to build on the plan, as the Member for Terra Nova outlined. We are trying to build on the plan that we have had in place. In fact, in the economic update tomorrow I will outline how we are ahead of the game.

In a meeting with several economists and several major banks recently - that was approximately three weeks ago - the only two provinces in this country right now who are not in recession are Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have to do, we have to outline how we will deal with this situation. We have right now, for example, a number of unions who we are negotiating with or who we are not negotiating with. There are 38,000 public sector employees out there right now who are with the CUPE contract, the only one that is signed. We have labour unrest. We have the issue of the pension solvency issues that exist throughout the country. We are collaborating. We have put ABC behind us. We are collaborating with the federal government. The Premier has been at the First Ministers conference. I have been at one Finance Ministers conference and going to another one. What we are attempting to do is work with our federal and provincial partners because this affects us all. This affects the average citizen.

One of the reasons that all of the political turmoil occurred in Ottawa last week was because of the argument that the Minister of Finance had not outlined the plan that he would put in place. No plan will be perfect, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, but I think what you will see tomorrow is that we are attempting to address, and we feel we have addressed, the situation. However, no one knows where the price of oil is going.

One fact I learned the other day: apparently there are 86.5 billion barrels of oil produced daily in the world; 37 million barrels come from OPEC countries and approximately 12.5 billion from the former Soviet Union. So, 50 million barrels come from those two groups of countries, because now I think the Soviet Union uses Uzbekistan Kazakhstan, Russia. The production of oil reflects the price. There is a volatility there that none of us can predict. If you turn on Channel 43, the business ticker, you watch the price of oil just go up and down $1 or $2, and every $1 or $2 or $5 means something to our treasury.

Tomorrow we will outline what we hope, what we maintain, and what we really believe is a plan to take us through this economic turmoil and to see the other side of this economic downturn.

One thing that we did today, Mr. Chair, which has not been talked about in this House today, I do not think, is the home heating rebate. Well, the home heating rebate program is a very important program because it reaches out to those who find themselves in difficulty. It reaches out to senior citizens. It reaches out, not only to people who find themselves with low incomes, but to people, in this time, who have incomes up to $40,000. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and the Minister of Labrador Affairs will welcome the fact that we have increased the rebate for the Coast of Labrador, reflecting that it costs more money to heat your home on the Coast of Labrador. Right now, the rebate will be $200 for electricity, wood or wood products, $300 for heating oil, stove oil or propane, and $500 for Coastal Labrador communities.

This is a recognition. Last year, this program benefited, I think, 76,000 people and cost approximately $17.4 million, and we expect it will be something similar this year. We think that is a good program. That is one that says to the people of this Province, we care what is going on and we are trying to help you. Now, we have done that and we did not cut back on it this year, even though right now the price of home heating fuel is eighty-six cents a litre down from ninety-nine cents this time last year. Having regard to the volatility, it would be rather disingenuous of us to say, well, we will now reduce the amount we are going to give you because the price of the home heating fuel has down when we are saying there is volatility in these markets. That is an example of what we are trying to do.

In preparing for my new role, which I can tell you I approach with both trepidation and humility, I have been reading a lot, and I have to say, when I look at the former Minister of Finance, the budget from last year was a good budget. It addressed the issues that faced this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: It dealt with all of the major issues: our infrastructure strategy; the spending on hospitals, on schools; and the reduction of debt. It set us up. If you actually look at the economic outlook 2008 that was attached to it, it said a recession is coming, especially in the United States. There were predictions that the United States was in trouble.

As I moved through this and as I went to the First Finance Ministers' meeting, I heard finance ministers talking about all kinds of technical issues, and I sat there and the one question I asked –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking -

MR. KENNEDY: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. KENNEDY: The Governor of the Bank of Canada was there and all the technical questions were being asked to him, and the one question I asked: Governor Carney, I have to go back to the people in my Province and explain what you have said. I like your coloured graphs, I like these nice little charts, but is what you are saying, that the economy is going to worsen in 2009 and by 2010, in the first or second quarter, it should start to get better? He said: Yes.

That is what we are hearing from the economists, that is what you will hear tomorrow, and I look forward to providing the economic update.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: My apologizes, I did not see you standing.

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

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

I am happy to have a bit more time, ten minutes, I guess, because I did not get to finish what I was talking about when I was talking about how child care and a program like child care can be an economic stimulant and how it can stimulate the economy to increase a social program, to better a program, but also to put in place a program that is so clearly tied to economic growth. I had a few more things I would like to say about that, so I am glad to have the time to do it.

When it comes to child care in Canada as a whole, we have information that was released this year but it is based on a 2006 report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Of course, we are an OECD country, and the latest report from the OECD tells us that Canada has the lowest public investment and service access rates among all of the countries of the OECD when it comes to child care.

As a Province inside of Canada, we also have been rated by a national organization and we come off being very poor when it comes to child care. As a matter of fact, the report card that has been done for provinces in Canada has us with a C+. Yet - and this is the point that I really wanted to get at - it is a fact, and economic studies show, that having a public child care program that parents can access adds money to the economy.

A cost benefit study that has been done in Canada, for example, calculated that every dollar invested in universal high quality early childhood education and care will produce a $2 social and economic return to our society. Putting money into child care not only helps the economy at the moment, because of wages of the workers in child care, because of the mothers, in particular, being able to go to work because of child care, those benefits have real figures attached to them, and the study that has been done in Canada shows that the real figure that is attached to them is a $2 social-economic return for every dollar that is spent. That is a reality.

Long-term studies in the US actually come up with a higher figure. Long-term studies in the US, based on actual programs there, show even higher returns for low income children, well over $3 or $4 for every dollar invested in child care.

It is not pie in the sky, it is not a dream, it is not a wish, when we say that putting money into social programs is an economic stimulator, that putting money into social program does not only take care of people, it also takes care of people by adding to the economy. It helps the individual economy because income improves in families and it also helps the economy of the society itself. Every study that is done proves that families with two parents working, which is possible when you have child care, have a better chance to improve their economic stability than families with one; and in today's economy that is every truer than ever.

Being able to work as a women while also being a mother lessens the poverty of senior women down the road, because one of the biggest reasons why elderly women, a large number of them, live in poverty is because they did not work outside the home and they do not have the same pensions that their male partner had, if they had a male partner. They do not have pensions. If they did not work outside the home, they themselves do not get CPP. They may get a small CPP benefit when their male partner dies or when their partner dies, period. They will get a widow's benefit, but that is very, very small. The proof that helping women be able to have children in child care so that the woman herself can work - that is not the only reason for doing it, but if that is a reason for doing it, that means that down the road we have one less woman living in poverty.

There are many ways in which not having access to child care adds to poverty. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we are putting effort into getting women trained in trades and technology, and that is really good. I have been involved in it. As you know, that is work that I have been involved in, but one of the realities for women who are going into trades and technology is that they have a knock against them as women.

Studies that have gone on here in Newfoundland and Labrador - and these are studies that have been done by the Department of Education - show us that women apprentices succeed less than their male counterparts and it is usually, not always, because the women have family responsibilities. The statistic that came out in 2003 from our Department of Education found that 28 per cent of women apprentices in Newfoundland and Labrador quit their training for family reasons, whereas there are only 8 per cent of men apprentices who quit their training for family reasons. Those family reasons are mainly that they do not have the capability of having children cared for. That is usually the main reason.

What that means is that women who are training in the skilled trades and are looking forward to being able to earn more money, 28 per cent of the apprentices have to stop their training, whereas, as I said, only 8 per cent of men.

The other thing is that women are more likely to depend on student loans, according to the same report, with 52 per cent using government loans, whereas only 25 per cent of men use government loans. That will mean that the women are going to have a harder time paying off their loan because very often they do not get to go on and get a job in the area in which they have been trained, again because of family responsibility.

It is a no-brainer, to use a common expression, when it comes to looking at a social program like child care. It is tied in intricately with the economy. It is tied in with the economy both for individuals as well as for the general coffers, because if child care can add $2 or $3 for the economy for every $1 that is spent on child care, why would we not do it?

Yes, there has to be upfront money put out but that is part of investment. Investment means upfront money being put out for a return and the return that we get here is a return in the present, as I said earlier when I spoke, a return in the present as well as a return in the future, because as child go through early childhood learning, as greater numbers of children finish school, as greater numbers of children have good literacy rates, as greater numbers of children go on for post-secondary education and training, we will have people earning more money as adults and we will have a better economy. It blows my mind that we do not see it.

Women who are single parents, in particular, are in a very difficult state, because these women, single parents or lone parents, which every word you want to use, many of them are poor, a large number of them actually are poor, living in poverty. If they can train for work - and if there is child care they can - and if they can get decent jobs and they can get promotions, they are moving out of poverty. With every person and with every family that is moving out of poverty, that is improving the economy as well.

In Quebec, and this is sort of the model in Canada we look at when it comes to child care, 40 per cent - and this is really an important piece of information - 40 per cent of the yearly costs of the child care system, the costs of the system itself, are covered by the income and payroll taxes generated by increased maternal labour force participation. The very fact that –

CHAIR: Order please!

I remind the hon. member that her –

MS MICHAEL: If I could clue up please, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: I will clue up, because it is a very, very important point.

The fact that so many more women are able to work in Quebec because of having child care means that their participation in the work force actually offsets the net cost of providing the early childhood education and child care services to the tune of 40 per cent of the cost. That means, in actual fact, only 60 per cent of the costs are being covered by the government. Forty per cent and even less than that, because you also have the fees which are not included in this, so 40 per cent of the yearly costs of the child care system are covered by the income and payroll taxes generated by the working mothers.

I leave that thought, Mr. Chair. All of this information is information that is easily attainable. All of this information is out there. We have many think tanks and research groups in Canada who are constantly researching around child care. For me, if we are really going to see ourselves as offering the best in this country, if we are going to see ourselves as a Province offering the best to the people of this Province, then I think one of the things that this government should do is look at offering a child care program, then we will be offering the best to the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few more words here on Bill 67.

A little hodgepodge, I guess, for the last ten minutes, just to clue up. This will be the last time, I think, that I will want to speak on this bill tonight. Just to clue up, because different things have been – when you are spaced out in these ten minute speaking sessions you cannot sometimes get your train of thought going well enough.

First of all, the comments of the Minister of Labrador Affairs regarding the Voisey's Bay piece, I am really looking forward to getting a copy of Hansard tomorrow because I undertake that I will be providing to the President of Vale Inco a copy of the statements made here tonight by the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

I believe for anybody to cast negative aspersions and suggest that Vale Inco are not doing their utmost and their best and are going to do an underground mining project in Labrador, particularly coming from the Minister of Labrador Affairs, is absolutely irresponsible - absolutely irresponsible! - and not once but several times he reiterated it. Now, this is a gentleman who this company has to meet with whenever there is something concerning Labrador Affairs. Now, that does a lot of your relationship. They have been dealing with him, no doubt, for the last year or two or more and all of a sudden, I guess, they get an insight tonight into what the minister thinks about their relationship or what their good faith is all about. Anyway, we will just see where they come from. It will shed some light on where their relationship is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask for the co-operation of all members.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Anyway, the next point I would like to make, and this is to the Minister of Finance - I appreciate, by the way, the serious tenor of his comments tonight. We look forward to tomorrow to see what, in fact, the plan will be. Everybody, not only members of the House of Assembly but everybody in this Province, no doubt, are nervous because of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Everybody is going to look forward to seeing what is in the statement tomorrow with regards to projections and how it is going to impact this current year's budget, what programs, if any, the government intend to implement to help offset or alleviate the economic circumstances that we are going to find ourselves in, not only as individuals but industries. There are various sectors of course, the fishing industry, the mining industry - we know the pulp and paper industry are on hard times. We are looking to see if there are any directions from government there in a program vein that might do things.

Infrastructure: we hear a lot from other jurisdictions. The minister alluded to the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States. I refer, in particular, to the President-elect. The stock markets in the United States today apparently surged, on the news, by him, because there was some concern that even though he was the President-elect he was not being forceful enough in saying what he is going to do after January 20. Apparently, he released a fairly comprehensive package today in the United States and the stock markets in the United States took a big, positive boost as a result of that. Included in that package was a big infrastructure package, a stimulus package.

We will be anxiously looking tomorrow to see, is there going to be any kind of stimuli in our statement from the minister. Is it just a statement as to where we stand in the books in terms of the balance sheet, shall we say, or what we expect to be in the coffers, or are we going to see a plan as he alluded to, that is going to have some programming initiatives, that might be showing some infrastructure investments? We have had, and this government has had, to give them credit, a very substantial infrastructure program in the last number of years. Years 2003, 2004, and 2005 were a bit tough, but when we got into 2005, 2006 and 2007 we started to see some huge investments in the infrastructure. Of course, the money was rolling in, you could do that.

As the Minister of Finance said today, we need a bit of prudence here and a bit of balance. They did, to give the government credit - some members claim or say that we are always criticizing the government, but I think we give government credit sometimes when they deserve it. We certainly do give credit. When you had the money you spent it on infrastructure. God knows, we needed a lot of infrastructure in places in this Province. Over the years there has a been a lot of deterioration in the infrastructure here.

I use the word infrastructure in a different sense, not in our usual, normal infrastructure investment, but when you hear about the Obama plan and you hear about the federal government, where they are going to have infrastructure, they are talking about an extra incentive, an extra investment in infrastructure, because money is drying up and the jobs are drying up. This governmental expenditure, above and beyond what is normally contemplated, will help get us out of this recession. We will be looking tomorrow, of course, to see if that is there.

I just happened to have a little break outside and I got a copy off the web of the meeting that took place today, I guess, in Prince Edward Island. Our Premier could not be there, but I understand the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was there on his behalf. According to the press release that came out just late this afternoon from the Globe and Mail, they referred to what the other Maritime Provinces are doing. Prince Edward Island, for example, a very small population, about 125,000 maybe, 130,000, Prince Edward Island are going to spend $510 million on their stimulus package.

MS JONES: Extra, over and above.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Extra, over and above what their normal budget was this year.

New Brunswick, for example, is going to spend $1.2 billion over two years. Again, it calls for these extra expenditures because we are in the situation that we find ourselves.

When we started out this session back a few weeks ago we were hearing talk of a statement, a financial update, but I think that has emerged and grown into something more than that. The people of the Province are expecting a little more than just a balance book, accounting as to where we are now and where we project we are going to be at the end of March. Yes, they want to know about the impact of the oil prices on our revenues and so on. We pretty well know what our costs are. They were outlined as well in the Budget and I guess they have not changed much, but we certainly know what our revenue stream is and how it has been impacted with the price of oil and taxation and so on. Royalties from mining are no doubt down. That has been indicated by IOC and by Voisey's Bay.

We will get those figures, but we are also going to be looking for, as the Minister of Business says and the Minister of Finance says, a plan with something concrete that we can see how we are going to stimulate the Province. Maybe the government might decide, we do not want or do not need a stimulus package, maybe we are okay.

Like Prime Minister Harper, for example - that is what caused all the fury last week. He started talking about infrastructure and instead of dealing with the infrastructure piece or concentrating on it he ended up talking about, we cannot face a deficit and we cannot do such and such. Everybody in the world agrees that albeit deficit financing is not a good way to go, it may be a proper way to go if you find yourself in an economic recession.

The Member for St. John's South, for example, was talking about infrastructure when he was up. Again great things have been done but every jurisdiction in the Western World are saying that in order to get out of this recession we need even more stimulus by way of infrastructure and construction.

Before I conclude, I would again bring to the attention of the minister, because I do not intend to speak any more tonight - I raised a question when we spoke about Bill 67 directly. My question was: The amount referred to in Bill 67 of $1,544,000 for the Cameron Inquiry, is that the end of it for the fiscal year 2008-2009? Do we need more money in the Department of Justice this year to pay for the Cameron Inquiry or is what we have allotted here, an additional $1.5 million, going to be sufficient?

Now, I know the minister has other things on his mind tonight. He is getting ready for his statement tomorrow. Normally, in the process of debating bills, we would have a second reading and then we would have a committee stage and the minister would have an opportunity to come back in committee stage to indicate what the answer is. Again, I do not know if the minister heard the question the first time around. I guess he may not have and I am not sure if he heard the question this time around, but I will pose it again. We will certainly be asking a question, and if I need to I will ask it in Question Period.

Does the $1.5 million that we are talking about in this Bill 67 going to be enough to pay the full freight on the Cameron Inquiry for this year? God knows, there was a big fuss about it back some months ago; no extension, lawyers were spending too much money and we do not want to pay any more money to the Cameron Inquiry, and it was getting out of hand.

Even though they finally owned up to it and Justice Cameron was right and made sure that they did, in fact, give the extension, and now we see they are giving the money, we just want to know: Is that all of it or do we have to go through this fiasco down the road again when Justice Cameron comes back and says, sorry, I still do not have enough money?

Anyway, we look forward to getting that answer somewhere in the mix before the House of Assembly closes for this session.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, motion adopted.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 67)

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: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 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'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

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, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

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

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

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): 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 adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee has 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?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

AN HON. MEMBER: 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 hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, 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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2009, the sum of $1,544,600.

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, 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.

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: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2009, the sum of $1,544,600.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a Supplementary Supply Bill 67, 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 Bill 67, the Supplementary Supply Bill, and that this said bill be now read a first time.

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the Supplementary Supply Bill, 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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 67)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Supplementary Supply Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said 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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 67)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Supplementary Supply Bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said 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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2009 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 67)

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

MS BURKE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded 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 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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