May

12, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

On May 8, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order

relating to a line of questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. The

Government House Leader suggested that it is not in order to question ministers

about matters not within the purview of their departments.

The Government House Leader is absolutely correct. Questions directed to

ministers must concern matters for which they are responsible. Marleau and

Montpetit, page 426, Beauchesne's 6 th Edition , 409 and

Erskine May 26 th Edition, page 298. It is also the case that a

question must not seek to elicit an opinion, legal or otherwise, page 427 of

Marleau and Montpetit. Nor should a question seek information which relates to

any other presumed functions of a minister, such as regional responsibilities -

from Beauchesne's 5 th Edition , 351.

I ask all hon. members if they would bear these points in mind when

formulating their questions.

Members' statements today are from the hon. the Member for the District of

Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the

hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and the hon. the Member for the

District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance

and the recent grant awarded to this organization through our Province's

Wellness Program.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone will agree with me when I say that it is

vital to encourage our young people to participate in sport. The good habits of

exercise and fitness that our youth develop at a young age will serve them well

as they move into adulthood. There is an obvious problem in North America with

respect to obesity and associated health issues. Organizations such as the Mount

Pearl Sports Alliance assist in ensuring that children are given the opportunity

to be active and are recognized for their achievements in sport. This

recognition sometimes is the driving force behind keeping kids interested in

athletics.

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

Mount Pearl Sports Alliance in the development of its Wellness Program. I also

recognize the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance for the positive work it does on a

daily basis by offering support to those with an avid interest in minor sport.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 9, 2008, I had the pleasure of

attending the annual dinner of the Trinity Conception Youth Justice Committee.

The event took place at the Lions Club in Bay Roberts, who were the sponsors and

hosts for the event.

The objective of the executive and board members is to keep youth between the

ages of twelve and seventeen, to avoid becoming involved with the court system.

Mr. Speaker, representing the Minister of Justice as guest speaker, was the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl North, and we had the opportunity to wish him a

happy thirtieth birthday in the wonderful district of Port de Grave.

Chairperson, Mr. Melvin Harnum, outlined the need for more volunteers in some

areas, and every effort will be made to recruit additional individuals as

trained volunteers.

The Trinity Conception youth justice system is committed to our youth and

offers an alternative to them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

to the Trinity Conception Youth Justice Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a young woman from my district by the name of

Juliette Dupre, a student at St. Lawrence Academy.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Dupre currently attends Lester B. Pearson College of the

Pacific, Victoria, with the assistance of the Pearson Scholarship, from our

Department of Education, valued at $66,000.

Ms Dupre has amassed an impressive resume, Mr. Speaker, while still at the

young age of seventeen years.

In August 2007, she was recognized for her efforts at Sea Cadet Camp, HMCS

Acadia, including: first place in the HMCS Acadia Effective Speaking

Competition; the Veterans Association medal for Excellence as Top Cadet; and the

Lieutenant Al Hicks Memorial Scholarship.

In November 2007, Mr. Speaker, while attending Pearson College, she was the

recipient of the Most Diplomatic Delegation Award.

In December 2007, she was named Student of the Year at St. Lawrence Academy,

and most recently, Mr. Speaker, she was the recipient of a $7,000 bursary which

will allow her to intern at the legal department of the Standard Chartered Bank

in London, England.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous accomplishment, and all of us from the

district are proud of Juliette and her achievements.

I ask all hon. members to join me today in offering congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in this great House to honour a

young lady, Danika Wheeler, a Level III student at St. James All Grade School in

Lark Harbour.

Recently Danika was awarded the Doctor Leslie Harris Memorial University

Alumni Scholarship. Mr. Speaker, the scholarship is valued at $16,000 or $4,000

per year and it is awarded on the basis of her academic record, school

leadership and other activities.

She is an instructor for the Red Cross Water Safety Program, has a black belt

in Karate and is a member of the Senior Girls Volleyball Team. Danika was also

awarded the Canada Day Youth Award in 2006.

This young lady, Mr. Speaker, is a top achiever in everything she attempts.

Danika plans to attend Sir Wilfred Grenfell College this coming September and is

thinking of a career in Chemical Engineering.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to honour the achievements of this

bright young lady and to wish her well in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to offer

congratulations to a number of influential Aboriginal women and youth who are

broadening their horizons while celebrating and preserving their Aboriginal

ancestry.

Mr. Speaker, during the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards Show

and Gala on May 3, Mary Ann Penashue of Sheshatshiu received the Emerging Artist

Award. Ms Penashue is a true inspiration to Aboriginal women and artists

throughout our Province. She started drawing at a very young age, but it was not

until 1995 that she started to paint. Her work embodies the Innu people,

including young children and elders of past generations.

Mr. Speaker, when we see news headlines that express a positive change in any

community, I think it is important we acknowledge it here in this hon. House.

This coming June we will see two Innu youth graduate high school in Natuashish,

the first graduating students from that community in twelve years. Shekau Piwas

and Desiree Andrew will graduate from Mushuau Innu Natuashish School. These

students are important role models for the younger children of Natuashish and

will no doubt inspire future high school graduates.

Mr. Speaker, in its current issue, Downhome magazine tells the story

of two young Aboriginal women working hard to preserve their native heritage,

"bettering the lives of Aboriginal people."

Vanessa Webb of Nain and Julie Bull of Happy ValleyGoose Bay were recently

chosen, along with twelve other individuals, out of more than 150 candidates, to

be role models by the National Aboriginal Health Organization's National

Aboriginal Role Model Program. Our Aboriginal youth are setting a positive

example that is inspiring young people across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when our youth are presented with positive role models, they see

in them a guide in the pursuit of personal excellence and achievement. Recently,

Minister Kennedy and I had the opportunity to visit much of the North Coast of

Labrador and meet our partnering northern government, Nunatsiavut. While in

Rigolet, we had the great pleasure to meet and speak with several youth taking

part in the fifteenth annual Labrador Inuit Youth Symposium.

Mr. Speaker, this forum provides youth an opportunity to learn about the

Nunatsiavut Government with presentations from several departments. The Labrador

Inuit Youth Symposium is instilling the confidence in these young people that

will enable them to pursue many career opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal people continue to contribute to the arts, the

culture, and the growing economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important

to celebrate the efforts of individuals who are such an inspiration to us. I ask

the hon. members present to join me in extending congratulations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

First of all, I want to extend congratulations to all the individuals that

she mentioned here, who have had tremendous accomplishments within their own

right. I want to specifically acknowledge Mary Ann Penashue, whom I have known

and whose work I have become familiar with over the years, who indeed has

tremendous artistic ability. I am pleased to see that ability is being

recognized and certainly being rewarded.

I think Mary Ann has captured the very essence of Innu culture in the work

that she does, in her paintings. The expression of the faces of the Innu

children and Elders is very dominant in understanding the story and the

struggles of the Innu people of Labrador and the many challenges that they face,

but have done so not only in the face of adversity but with tremendous belief in

spirituality and being guided by that spirituality.

I specifically want to acknowledge the graduates of Natuashish. Mr. Speaker,

this is a community itself that has seen tremendous transition over the past ten

years as they resettled into a new community and into a new school filled with

new opportunity and new education programs.

I am very pleased today, to congratulate these two young women and to say

that indeed they are role models in Innu society and Innu culture in this

Province. I am very proud of what they have accomplished, as I am sure many

others are throughout the Province. I think that their mere graduation will

indeed be an event that will mark the transition for other students in the

education system within the Innu culture.

I certainly applaud the other individuals that she has mentioned here. I do

not think time permits me to have further comment, but just to say that there

are a lot of role models in Aboriginal communities within our Province and it is

nice to see that two of those have been highlighted by the minister today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I am delighted to join with you, Minister, in acknowledging the individuals

that you have acknowledged in your statement.

I, too, am so pleased with the award that Mary Ann Penashue won last week,

and I was delighted to be there that night at the gala when she received that

award.

I think one of the most important things that you can do in your ministry,

and that government can do, is to continue supporting education that will be

education that will come from the culture of the Aboriginal peoples themselves;

because, as we can see from what you presented here today, their culture is rich

and, as my colleague has said, there are so many role models there.

An educational system that is accessible, affordable, that is culturally

appropriate, will result in many more individuals reaching the achievements of

the individuals that you spoke about here today, so I encourage you to continue

working in particular with Aboriginal women's organizations who came up with

such wonderful recommendations last year at the June conference in 2007, and I

applaud you for your recognition of these individuals today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is hosting the annual

meeting of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, or CCMTA,

this week. This is an important meeting which draws over 300 delegates

representing federal, provincial and territorial government officials,

representatives from the American Association of Motor Transport Administrators

and industry partners.

CCMTA is a not-for-profit organization engaged in the co-ordination of

highway safety initiatives and policies as well as harmonization of legislation

pertaining to driver licensing, vehicle registration, and movement of commercial

vehicles throughout North America. One of the initiatives of CCMTA is Road

Safety Vision 2010, a national road safety plan, which aims to make Canada's

roads the safest in the world. The objective of this plan is to achieve a 30 per

cent reduction in highway deaths and serious injuries by 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this Province has been an active participant

of CCMTA and Road Safety Vision 2010 for many years, and that we are the host

Province for this important conference.

This year's theme for the CCMTA annual meeting is "Road Safety: Our

Vision/Our Leadership". This theme ties in the principles of Road Safety

Vision 2010 as it demonstrates that road safety vision is our collective vision

and it urgently requires our collective leadership in order to meet the

ambitious targets we have set for 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the CCMTA annual meeting is an important week-long conference

that will bring significant tourism and related revenue into the Province, and

offers us the opportunity to showcase our beautiful Province and culture.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Canada Road Safety Week, which runs from May 12-19,

is always launched to coincide with the CCMTA annual meeting. This morning, I

joined the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the RCMP, and the President of CCMTA,

who is Newfoundland and Labrador's Registrar of Motor Registration, to launch

this week.

Canada Road Safety Week is an opportunity for us to promote safe driving

practices. All too often we hear about tragedies on our roads. They are often

called accidents but most are preventable. The loss of life and the loss of

quality of living is enormous, and all us - government, police agencies and our

citizens - need to work together to reduce these collisions which can change

lives forever.

With the help of our safety partners, it is my sincerest hope that the

message is heard - that safety on our highways must come first, and all drivers

play a

part in ensuring that happens. The CCMTA conference and Canada Road

Safety Week certainly highlights this important message.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We want to also welcome the Canadian Council of Motor Transport

Administrators to our Province, all 300 of them. Hopefully, they will get the

time to travel to the beautiful Conception Bay North area while they are here.

I think it is very timely as well today to announce Canada Road Safety Week.

I guess we can never do too much when it comes to safety on our roads, or any

place in the workplace. I read recently that someone made the comment, "I

don't wear seat belts because they are uncomfortable." The reply came

back, "If you think seat belts are uncomfortable, try lying on a spinal

board for a few hours." I guess that is what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, at this time, to say to the minister I know he is doing

research and is always interested in making our roads safer - maybe it is a good

time now to meet with his colleagues from right across the country, those

people, while they are here, and get some feedback, and hopefully in 2009 we

will be able to implement winter tires.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for his statement.

While I will not talk about winter tires, I will talk about the other issue

that I have been speaking about to you, and that is the fact of our not having

universally acceptable 911 service in this Province.

I bring the minister's attention to the latest campaign of Mothers Against

Drunk Driving. Their campaign for this year, right now, is called Campaign 911.

What it does is urge Canadians to report impaired driving. So, if they see

somebody who looks like they are impaired, they call 911 and they can report

that person, and that person can be checked out.

Unfortunately, as we know, in this Province only three small areas are

covered by 911, so I could not miss the opportunity, Mr. Minister, to remind you

of that and to urge you to put a real urgency into the studies that you are

doing with regard to making 911 Province-wide.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier today.

Some weeks ago, in the House of Assembly, the Premier said he was not sure if

he should answer any further questions related to the Cameron inquiry because it

might be seen as interference; however, recent comments by the Premier stating

that the inquiry has become a prosecution certainly leads one to believe he has

had a change of heart, I would think. Passing this judgement, Mr. Speaker, has

added nothing to the inquiry other than being political and having political

interference.

I ask the Premier: Why would you make these statements that are nothing more

than an attempt to undermine the integrity of the Cameron inquiry that is

ongoing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me state for the record that there is absolutely no

intention whatsoever to undermine the integrity of the Cameron inquiry. The

reason I make these statements is out of a genuine concern for the patients, for

the citizens of this Province, and for the health care system in this Province.

Last Thursday I attended a meeting, together with the Minister of Health,

with some twenty-eight doctors, pathologists and oncologists, and came out of

that meeting with a very, very genuine and a very deep concern about where our

health care system was going as a result of this inquiry. You could see, from

these doctors, that particular division of the health care system was basically

a house of cards; that, in fact, it was in a very serious situation; that these

doctors were reaching out to us for assistance; and, of course, concerns were

actually expressed to me by doctors in that room that patients were being

adversely affected by the inquisitorial tone - and when I say inquisitorial

tone, it was under the terms of the Spanish Inquisition - that was actually the

term that was used to me by a doctor in that room. So, I reflected their

concerns and I have decided to reflect them publicly to make sure that the

inquiry was being conducted in a proper manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we did, this morning, talk to the Newfoundland

Medical Association and other pathologists as well because we were trying to get

an understanding of where government was coming from. They assured us this

morning that they are very supportive of this inquiry and the process that it

has been taking.

I ask you again, Premier: Why do you feel that limiting information, true

questioning at this inquiry is going to be of any help to patients or others

that you refer to at the end of the day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have to look no further than the top

corner of The Telegram today - and I will not read from The Telegram ,

but I will paraphrase what was said in that top corner. It came from a second

year medical student. He basically said: "Watching fantastic physicians

having their good names and reputations called into question is not a ringing

endorsement of our province as a place to start a career."

Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there will be forty graduates -

forty-three, I think, if I remember correctly - oncology and pathology graduates

that will graduate in all of Canada this year. Ontario needs fifty - that is one

Province.

So we are a Province here that is going through this inquiry, going through a

difficult time, under extreme scrutiny. We have three pathologists that have

already left. Perhaps the indication from these physicians that in fact more are

going to leave, and what we are really trying to do is to make sure that this

service is provided, and the best possible service in this division is provided

for patients in Newfoundland and Labrador on a go-forward basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want clarity from the Premier, and that is:

Are you saying that this inquiry is now contributing to the factor that there

are less pathologists in this Province, and that is the reason they are leaving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we called this inquiry ourselves. I stood

outside this House and admitted liability, and a question that was put to me by

a reporter as to whether we would have a defence on liability in this matter, we

indicated that - I indicated that no, I did not feel there would be a defence to

liability.

So we have done everything we can here to facilitate the patients, to make

sure that this is wound up as quickly as possible and as efficiently as

possible. If, in fact, this inquiry now goes on until February of 2009, it will

be delayed even more. These patients will be even longer getting the answers.

The lawsuits that will follow from that will take even longer, their

compensation will take even longer.

What we are trying to do is to get the answers as soon as possible, nothing

more than that. There is no other intention here, but what I am taking advice,

or I guess guidance from, was the meeting that we had with the doctors, whereby

these very doctors, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition quotes, indicated to

me that they are very, very concerned that if this type of scrutiny continues in

the manner in which it is being done, we will lose even more doctors in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only repeat what doctors have told me, and that is that they are

supportive of the inquiry. As difficult as it is, they know that the answers

have to be found and that this process needs to take place - and I have

certainly never heard them call it a witch hunt in any way.

I ask the Premier - he is to testify at this inquiry, as I understand: Do you

think it is appropriate that you would be out making these comments prior to

being a witness?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have never backed away from saying the

tough things that have to be said in this Province, if we consider it to be in

the best interest of the people of this Province. Nothing is more important than

health care, in my opinion, in this Province. As well, you can certainly rest

assured that by making the statements that I have made, that I have done nothing

to endear myself to the Cameron inquiry and/or its counsel down there. So what I

have, in fact, done is probably made my own job, my own testimony even more

difficult.

Having said that, what we are going through here - and you need to understand

it, is the commissioner, Madam Justice Cameron, has set rules of procedure and

practice which she herself laid out for the conduct of that inquiry. What we are

saying is that counsel are not conducting themselves in accordance with those

rules of practice and procedure which have been laid down by Madam Justice

Cameron. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have every right, legally and

practically, to challenge that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will know that this is the third public inquiry in our Province

over the past several years. Each inquiry has had a heated exchange in

cross-examination. I am sure the Minister of Justice would know that. We heard

an excerpt from him this morning on CBC.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Premier: What is being done differently at

this inquiry that has him and his ministers so upset, that was not happening at

previous inquiries in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I appreciate - and I am not trying to be disrespectful.

I appreciate that the learned member of the Opposition may not understand the

legal aspects of this, and I am not trying to diminish your question in any way.

Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure says that commission counsel will adduce

the evidence from the witness. Now, the adducing of evidence is defined by Black's

Legal Dictionary as bringing forward, offering or introducing the evidence.

It is not the role - and the hon. Member for Burgeo-LaPoile who shakes his

head, knows that it is not the role of commission counsel to cross-examine. It

is the role of commission counsel, as defined by Madam Justice Cameron, to

adduce the evidence, to bring it forward. It would be the role of Mr. Ches

Crosbie, who represents the victims down there, to cross-examine. It would be

the role of other counsel down there to cross-examine. What is, in fact,

happening down there is a cross-examination of witnesses, and hence my comment

that this is in fact a prosecution. What has happened, we have had a period

where five witnesses, and only five witnesses have been dealt with in eighteen

days and some of those witnesses are still on the stand. There is now a request

for another eighty witnesses and an extension out to February. We want to make

sure that, if that happens, it is done according to the rules established by

Madam Justice Cameron.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I understand that government has their own counsel

at this inquiry.

I have to ask: Why would it be your job, Premier, or the Attorney General's

job, in this Province, to be doing that kind of work? Why is it not being left

to the counsel that you appointed, that you are paying to represent government

at this inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is exactly what we have done. This morning,

representation was made by counsel for government of an application which would

have the substance, basically, of just what I said. It is an application to have

Madam Justice Cameron determine whether Crown Counsel Bernard Coffey, or

co-counsel, are able to conduct a cross-examination without leave from the

Commissioner.

In fact, that application has been made by Ms Jackie Brazil. She did that

this morning. She has been instructed by Madam Justice Cameron to file a written

brief, which she will file tomorrow, as counsel for the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Opposing parties will have, and co-parties will also

have, another three days to respond; and, at the end of the long weekend, Madam

Justice Cameron will make a ruling on this very issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, Jackie Brazil, who we know is an

employee with the Department of Justice, made the petition to the Cameron

inquiry this morning at the direction of yourself and the Department of Justice;

is that my understanding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Ms Brazil works for the Department of Justice. She is

acting on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Myself, the

Attorney General, and the members of Cabinet are the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador. She is acting on behalf of the government. She is representing the

interests of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, more

particularly, she is representing the interests of every patient - past, present

and future - in the health care system in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that is the process and this is the issue, why was Ms Brazil or someone

else in the Department of Justice not directed to have this intervention prior

to yourself and the Minister of Justice out undermining the integrity of the

Commission in the last three to four days?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: For those of us that have viewed some of the proceeding

during the course of the hearings, this representation has been made by several

counsels at various points in time throughout this hearing.

The Department of Justice felt that it was time to have this formally

presented to the Commissioner on the basis that Crown counsel or, I am sorry

Commission counsel, was in fact going outside the rules.

It was important that we have this brought to the attention of the

Commissioner and we, in fact, asked for a ruling. There have, in fact, been

objections made and I understand that those objections have been overruled.

A big concern here is that if this matter goes on until the end of February

next year, that we are going to have trouble, as a government, trying to put

Humpty Dumpty back together again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My other question is with regard to the Attorney General's comments in the

public airwaves on Friday, I think it was. I am just wondering if he was

directed by yourself, Premier, to make those statements on behalf of government

in your defence.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the way this matter was being portrayed on Open Line on Friday

morning and Friday afternoon, I determined that it was appropriate to outline

for the public exactly what was taking place, and to bring home the point that

the day before we had received a request to extend the filing of the report

until February 28, 2009. So, I took it upon myself to clarify government's

position and to reinforce that the Premier, in my opinion, had every right to

make the comments that he made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen a couple of delays since the Cameron inquiry started. First of

all, there was a delay because of the court case, the intervention by Eastern

Health, then again because of information being searched in government

departments and new information coming forward. We know that Justice Cameron has

now requested an extension to February, and I ask the Premier if he is prepared

to grant that extension to allow this process to be completed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, I want to make it clear, it is certainly not our

intention, under any circumstances, to shut down this inquiry. I want to make

that absolutely clear.

The letter came in last Thursday from Madam Justice Cameron. July 31 was the

original deadline, a previous extension had been asked for November, and now

another extension has been asked for February. We are told that eighty more

witnesses are to come. We know that the last five witnesses took twenty days. If

you want to do the math on that, it is going to go well beyond February.

What we will do is, we will go back to Madam Justice Cameron and ask her to

give us a detailed breakdown of where it is going from a chronological

perspective, where it is going from a cost perspective, because we have a

situation right now where one of the Commission counsel to date has billed

$412,000 to the end of March - March 31.

We see these costs being very high, but if they are justified then we do not

have any problem with that, but we will be going back to Madam Justice Cameron

asking her for a detail presentation on the reasons for the extension.

As to trying to shut down the inquiry, absolutely not, we certainly would

not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will know that public inquiries are never cheap. We have seen

some in this Province cost anywhere from $7 million to $11 million, in public

inquiries. I am not saying that this would be the same thing, but his own words,

Mr. Speaker, in October 2003 when the Lamer Inquiry was ongoing, the Premier

said that his primary objective was to restore the public confidence in the

judicial system in this Province.

Now, Premier, the primary objective in this Cameron inquiry was to restore

public confidence in the health care system. Based on that premise, based on

your own statements, will you not commit today to give the extension to Justice

Cameron to complete her work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is just the point. The whole question for us, as a

government, is the restoring of confidence in the health care system. We are

concerned that it may deteriorate, it may be eroded, it may get to a point where

we could never restore it to even the condition it is in today. That is why we

are so concerned about this Commission being conducted in a proper manner.

If Mr. Coffey or Ms Chaytor, as counsel down there, are prepared to play

within the rules and deal with the rules that are laid down by Madam Justice

Cameron, and keep their examination efficient and in accordance with the rules,

then there should be absolutely no problem; but, when the rules are set out, you

have to play by the rules and we do not ask for any more than that.

With regard to the health care system, at the end of this process we want to

make sure that the patients and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have

absolute confidence in the health care system.

We are very, very seriously concerned that if this goes on until February,

and the reputations of half of the other eighty people that are brought before

the Commission is damaged or tarnished or destroyed, then we will not be able to

recruit doctors to this Province to take care of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the most recent comments that we have heard from

the Premier regarding the Cameron inquiry are his comments, I guess, attacking

the testimony of a witness and discrediting their statements.

Now, I do not know if there is anything in the inquiry that says that is not

a rule, that witnesses cannot provide whatever information they choose, but we

certainly see this as an intimidating process for many witnesses that are coming

to the stand.

I ask, Premier: Why would you feel the need to go out there and attack

witnesses, intimidating statements that could be provided by witnesses in the

future?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I want to make sure is that witnesses who come

before that inquiry are not attacked, are not intimidated, are not disparaged,

and do not have their reputations destroyed by Commission counsel who are not

acting within the rules of procedure set down by Madam Justice Cameron. At the

end of the day, she is ultimately responsible for this Commission of Inquiry and

she will conduct it in the manner which she sees fit.

As a practicing lawyer of over thirty-odd years I can state here quite

honestly that we have absolutely every single right in the world to go before

that Commission of Inquiry, point out the rule that she inaugurated herself and

ask her for her

interpretation of how her counsel should conduct themselves

within those rules. That is a perfectly legitimate request. The concern of

intimidation is a concern of intimidation by improper actions of Commission

counsel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier feels that those actions are not appropriate inside the Cameron

Inquiry, but it is exactly what he has been doing outside in attacking the

personality of individuals like Mr. Abbott based on the testimony they have

given.

Do you think that is appropriate conduct, Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the hon. member opposite or Mr. Abbott or anybody

else says that this government forms policy by what they hear on open lines,

then I will have a say about that. This government has a long-term strategic

plan for this Province. Whether this government is in power at that time or some

other party is in party at that particular point in time we are trying to do the

best we can for the long-term interests of this Province. So, what Randy Simms

says or Bill Rowe says or anybody else says doesn't matter to us, I can tell

you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier if he is saying that no one in his government, him, his

staff or his officials, give key messages to open line callers to call in to

influence public opinion in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can assure you that while we are in government there

is no one within our staff in the Premier's office who has phoned up under two

or three different names and pretended they were someone else and made

representation as the hon. government opposite did when they were in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether it is one person or ten different people, I ask the Premier again,

have you, your staff or anyone inside your government given notes of key points

to be addressed on open line shows to callers in order to influence public

opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Every time I get on Open Line I get a note.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a final question for the Premier, and that is: Can the Premier tell us

how much government has spent to date on Open Line transcripts related to the

ER-PR issue? Can he confirm today whether there is a standing order agreement to

receive those transcripts and if you would be willing to table that information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is no standing order agreement and I cannot tell

you how much has been spent on transcripts.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, you wear two hats, one as the Minister of Justice and one as the

Attorney General. I heard what you had to say on the Open Line show on Friday

afternoon and I subsequently stated my opinion, I thought it was absolutely

inappropriate.

I ask the minister: Do you think it is appropriate that as the Attorney

General, the person who is perceived or supposed to be perceived in this

Province as absolutely fair and impartial, should be giving any opinions about

the conduct of a commission of inquiry while it is ongoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday past I received a letter seeking an extension of time for the

Cameron inquiry. The inquiry was originally meant to file its report by July 30

of this year. Now, we know there were some delays. Then in this letter I see

reference to the fact that nineteen witnesses have testified over twenty-nine

days. When I break that down a little bit further we get eleven witnesses in the

first four days and then eight witnesses in the last five weeks, the last

twenty-five days. Now, Mr. Speaker, that causes me concern. My role is to ensure

that the justice system works as fairly, as efficiently and as thoroughly as

possible. So like the Premier, I make no apologies for bringing this to the

attention of the public and I see that as my role, because if not, sir, at the

end of the day, with eighty more witnesses, the inquiry will never finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is absolutely unheard of in the judicial democratic system, that a

Minister of Justice, Attorney General is out commenting on a judicial inquiry,

certainly from a monetary point of view. Minister, you stood up here and

lectured me on inquiries 101 a couple of weeks ago, and you are familiar with

the phrase that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

I say to the minister, again: Are you seriously suggesting that the Cameron

inquiry, which was struck by government to get at the truth of this situation,

might now possibly be even limited because of time or money? Seriously.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not mean to lecture the hon. member, but the quote is

not that justice must not only be done but it must be manifestly and undoubtedly

be seen to be done. That is the quote, sir.

Now, in relation to what you are saying. I do not know the Opposition House

Leader's experience as a lawyer. I do not know what he did in terms of big

trials or big inquiries, but let us not confuse lengthy examination with

thorough, effective and efficient examination. When I see a witness who is on

the stand again today, who spent five days already and now he is back for two

more. Again, I reiterate, that as the Attorney General, my role is to protect

the integrity of the system of justice, and as the Premier has pointed out,

there is question as to whether or not that is being done. Follow the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is again for the minister. Minister, we heard about how some

lawyers who appear before big night-time inquiries acted. We saw that this

morning or heard it on CBC Radio, namely yourself. We heard your comments. You

did not mind back then, Mr. Minister, you did not mind then having very

intensive cross-examination of witnesses to the point where the commission,

Justice Lamer, had to bring you up short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Now what has changed, when Mr. Coffey wanting to get the

tough questions so he can get at the bottom and get at the truth here. What has

changed since 2004 when you did it yourself?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I say to the hon. member, my role has changed. Secondly, I say,

Inquiries 101, I was cross-examining. That is what my role was. I was allowed to

do that. If Mr. Crosbie were cross-examining as counsel for the patients, fair

enough. Thirdly, what we saw this morning with that excerpt is exactly the point

we are making. Commissioner Lamer took control of the proceeding and he put

counsel in their place. So at the end of the day, commissioner counsel did

exactly what he was supposed to do. Fourthly, I say to the Opposition House

Leader, it would not take me five days to ask questions I never needed to ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Still on the same topic of the inquiry, many people were very surprised and

disappointed to hear the terms witch hunt and prosecutorial coming from the

Premier last Thursday evening after meeting with the doctors. Mr. Speaker, the

health care system has been struggling with issues of recruitment and retention

of doctors and other health care professionals long before the Commission of

Inquiry.

I ask the Premier: Is the government trying to avoid the fact that it has not

properly invested in recruitment and retention of health care professionals by

laying blame on the Commission of Inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. I will

give the same answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. We called the

inquiry. We have admitted liability under the inquiry. We are extremely

concerned about the continuity and the future of the health care system in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Our concern is the patients; it is the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Respectfully, you stand up everyday, or every second day, and you express

concerns about the health care system. How are we to possibly try and put, as I

said, Humpty Dumpty back together again if that confidence is completely eroded

by an inquiry that is not being conducted by Commission counsel in an improper

manner? When I made that statement, I had just left a room with over two dozen

doctors in that room, some of whom had expressed to me their very, very serious

concern about the manner in which that inquiry was being conducted; hence, the

comment in The Telegram today from a second year student who wonders

whether this is a good place to practice medicine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier respectively, there are over 300 women out there who are

also looking for answers. Those women, many of them, have been saying publicly

since Friday that they want the work of this Commission to continue. They want

the questions to continue as they are.

Will you assure that the Commission will get to continue its work so that

these women can get their answers, because they too are under stress?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We will absolutely assure that. We rely on Madam

Justice Cameron to form the conclusions to give the reasons, which is exactly

why we asked her to do this in the first place. We have to make sure that they

do it in accordance with the rules. It is one thing to get to the bottom of this

and get the answers and then it is another thing to completely destroy fifty

reputations on your way through. That not only affects the people who have to

attend before that inquiry, and very good people have attended before that

inquiry, but they do not have the right to be completed disparaged on the stand.

Commission counsel does not have the right to do that. The patients are very

competently represented by Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Crosbie has the right to

cross-examine and get to the bottom of it.

My concern, as I said before in earlier questions, is that these patients

will get the answers quicker, they will get their compensation quicker, they

will get some relief quicker, the more efficiently that this inquiry is

conducted and the quicker that it is concluded. However, having said that, and I

have always said it before, if Madam Justice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If Madam Justice needs more time, then she will certainly have more time. We

are just asking Commission counsel to play by the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to take it on record that the Premier has said Madam Justice will

get the time.

I am really concerned about the effect of what you said has had on the women

and the families who have been affected by this whole issue. I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker - I am asking you, actually - if you will stand and make an apology to

the women and the families for the rash comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is pure, raw politics at its very best, what you

are playing over there now. I would expect a lot better from you; I really

would. You disappoint me so much when you go there.

I would have expected it from the previous Liberal government, the previous

Liberal Opposition, because they stoop to that all the time. It would not have

happened in Jack Harris' day, I can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 26.5(

a) of the

Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to

funding pre-commitments for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS MICHAEL: Do you want to go first, Tom?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administrative Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notions of motion.

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

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

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, this Wednesday being Private Members' Day

for Opposition, through an agreement with the House Leader, I give notice of a

private member's motion to be heard this Wednesday, moved by myself, the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are increasingly concerned at

the state of health care services and delivery in our Province; and

WHEREAS the crumbling infrastructure of health care facilities has been

revealed and remains an acute issue that must be addressed, including sprinkler

systems installed in personal care homes and hospital facilities to meet fire

code; and

WHEREAS the citizens of this Province have been subjected to a barrage of

news that has shaken their trust in the health care system, including the impact

on women with breast cancer and their families as a result of the faulty breast

cancer receptor testing in St. John's, and the revelation that 322 breast

cancer patients had received questionable tests between 1997 and 2005; and

WHEREAS the inaccuracies of radiology tests have unsettled patients and their

families and created costs for the system as some 6,000 tests had to be reviewed

and in some cases repeated; and

WHEREAS there is a health human resources crisis with all health care

professionals in the system and the Province has an aging skilled trades

workforce; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has an aging population; and

WHEREAS the Aboriginal population is growing at a significantly higher rate

than general population and our Aboriginal population continues to have a poorer

health status than that of our non-Aboriginal population; and

WHEREAS citizens living in rural and remote areas have difficulty accessing

health care services and incur great cost to access services; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has not yet reached national benchmarks for

wait times in the priority areas of cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint

replacements and sight restoration; and

WHEREAS chronic disease management, emergency health, cancer care and patient

safety are integral elements of our health care system; and

WHEREAS home care must be acknowledged as a part of the health care system;

and

WHEREAS we await whistleblower legislation; and

WHEREAS our health care delivery system was first subjected to

regionalization in 1998 and further changes to these regions in 2004; and

WHEREAS no external evaluation of the Integrated Health Regions has ever

occurred;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct an independent external review of the

Integrated Health Regions that would be examined by review panel; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly direct the panel to

recommend strategies for improvements to the Province's health care system in

the following areas: sharing models of success, administration, communications,

accountability, further enhancing patient care, community participation and

responding to local needs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have an

opportunity to submit their views to this review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to introduce a private member's motion - hopefully not

as many whereases as the last one moved by myself and seconded by the Member

for the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable treatment

for all citizens; and

WHEREAS Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of collecting

income tax in a fair and equitable manner; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen participated in the Atlantic

Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS participants in the 1999 License Retirement Program paid a

disproportionate and unfair share of income tax on their license retirement

payout as compared to those participants in the 1996 and 2002 Atlantic

Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS this inequity has cost fisher people who participated in the 1999

buy-back program undue financial hardship;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government

of Canada to immediately require Revenue Canada to review and correct the unfair

financial income tax burden placed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to answer a question that was

posed to me in the House on Thursday, May 8, by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in regard to lifting

the restrictions on Zone 11 concerning petroleum products and the pricing thus.

As we all know, the price freezes for petroleum products have been in place

for several years now in several regions of Labrador, since 2001. The maximum

price paid by consumers during that winter months remains frozen so that it

reflects the cost of the product purchased and placed in storage. Price freezes

are generally put in place with the first scheduled price change in November and

are lifted when there is no longer any seasonal impediments to supply, and the

storage supplies are diminished. Any product brought into the frozen zones from

other locations will be then purchases at current market. Therefore, should the

freeze not be lifted the suppliers would have to adjust their prices and could

not afford to bring in the additional supplies.

On April 24, 2008 one of the suppliers in that particular region formally

advised the board that fuel products were getting low and may very well run out

in the next few days, certainly by the beginning of May, 2008. That was despite

the increase in storage capacity that the supplier installed last fall. Demand

was higher than expected with the unusual, favourable winter conditions and the

discount between Zone 11, which was the one that was lifted - which is Lodge

Bay, Cartwright - and then Zone 10 where there is no price freeze.

In other words, what happened was Zone 11 experienced an increase in buying

in their petroleum products due to the close proximity to (inaudible) because

the pricing was cheaper in Zone 11, and they could go back and forth between the

two areas. As well, Zone 11 now can be supplied with both road and tanker

access. The other zones, subject to the freeze, are served by tanker only. The

new supply that is coming into Zone 11 at this particular time has to be bought

in the Ultramar facility in L'Anse au Loup, which is located in Zone 10. The

supplier would have to pay today's prices, therefore it was not economically

feasible for the local supplier to actually supply product at the frozen prices.

Thus, it would be unfair not to lift the freeze at this particular time, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notices have been

given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I want to present a petition today with regards to the long term care

facility that was supposed to go ahead in the Conception Bay North area. I know

I have presented this petition on numerous occasions. I know we did not hear

anything - I guess the news that we wanted to confirm in this year's Budget.

All that I was asking for on behalf of those residents is that government would

take the time and get the finances again - and have a reassessment done.

There was an assessment done back in 2002 and it was determined that they

were the number one priority on the list to have a long-term care facility, a

240-bed facility in the Conception Bay North area. I am just asking government

if they would reconsider that. It is an urgent need there, Mr. Speaker. The

facilities that are being used now are inadequate in this day and age and the

assessment that was done back at that time confirmed that. I am just calling

upon all members to urge government to re-evaluate the situation. I know the

present minister did tell me that the possibilities were there that it would be

looked at in the future.

So I am just calling upon all members and more particularly the hon. members

who represent the areas that entail the Conception Bay North area, if they would

urge government to see to it that an assessment would be done in the very near

future with regard to the long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North

area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something from

Question Period. I was asked the question whether there is a Standing Order for

information or transcripts through the Department of Health. I was just informed

outside that either through Robert Thompson or through the Department of Health

there is, in fact, a Standing Order, but I was not aware of it. I just do not

want to leave a misimpression in the Chamber on that particular question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Premier rose on a point of order, actually it is a point of

clarification. The Chair accepts the point of clarification.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 3, first reading of Bill 29,

An Act To

Amend The Legal Aid Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 29, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall

have leave to introduce Bill 29 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 29)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, first reading of Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Partnership Act, Bill 30, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 30 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Partnership Act," carried. (Bill 30)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Partnership Act. (Bill 30)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 5, first reading of Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill 31, and that the said bill be

now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 31 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," carried. (Bill

31)

CLERK: A bill,

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Motion 1, which is debate on the Budget Speech. I

believe the first order of business is a vote on the amendment which was

concluded on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of

Port de Grave carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call, as I said, resumption of debate on the main motion,

which will fall to our side to the House, I believe, to continue.

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my pleasure today to get up and participate in the debate that we have

been having here in the House regarding the Budget that was recently tabled,

Budget 2008 by the government. There are a number of points that I will make,

some of which have been made before but I think they bear repeating, and some of

them are my own personal comments on the Budget that was brought down by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget, as has been said, shows that the Province now has,

for the fourth consecutive year, a surplus recorded for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. When I think back to when I first was elected in

2003, it is amazing to think that we have now recorded our fourth consecutive

surplus as a Province. You will recall that when we first formed government we

were facing quite a difficult financial situation, had to make a number of tough

decisions early on in our mandate and made a commitment that we would get the

fiscal House of the Province in order and would work diligently towards that. We

actually had an eight-year plan for that. Within the first four years, we were

able to turn around the financial situation of the Province and ensure that we

are in a surplus position.

The surplus for the past year was over $1 billion; it was about $1.4 billion.

Our projections for the upcoming year, Mr. Speaker, are about $544 million.

Indeed, tremendous news and very positive news for the Province, and more

importantly, for the people of the Province. Having said that, we are all aware

that we have tremendous debt in our Province. We still have, on a per capita

basis, more than double the debt that other provinces and other citizens of

Canada carry. Our per capita debt, I believe, is somewhere around $23,000 or

$24,000 per person, which is a tremendous amount of pressure, financial pressure

that we bear as a Province. In terms of our overall debt, we are still over $11

billion. We are going to reduce it down, Mr. Speaker, to about $10 billion for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is something that we

committed to as a government. That is something that we committed to when we

were in Opposition. It is something that we committed to in our blueprints.

We believe, as a government, that we have to ensure that we bring down the

debt because it ensures the long-term sustainability and the long-term viability

and the long-term financial health of the Province, but we also believe, as a

Progressive Conservative government, that we have a number of social initiatives

that we need to bring forth and we have made a number of investments in our

Budget and in previous Budgets to ensure that the social side of this government

shows just as strongly as does the fiscally responsible side.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think is very important in terms of

this Budget is that we now, as a Province, have the fourth-lowest average

personal income tax rate in the country. That is something that is going to help

people in terms of improving our competitiveness nationally as a Province. It

helps people keep more money in their pockets. It allows people to use that

money in investing in new businesses, new opportunities or, in fact, in paying

the basic needs that they have in terms of heat, light, food and shelter, those

kinds of things, but it is getting money in people's pockets, which is what we

as a government have been trying to do with our Poverty Reduction Strategy and a

bunch of other initiatives that we have made.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak to, as Minister Responsible for Labour, the

fact that our unemployment rate is reducing. The labour force tables that come

out every Friday, we look at those on a weekly basis but we also compare them on

an annual basis to the previous year to see the kinds of trends that are

developing, and we see, as a government, that the trends are very much in a

positive direction.

Our unemployment rate for 2008-2009 is going to be the lowest unemployment

rate that this Province has had in twenty-six years, Mr. Speaker, in a quarter

of a century, the lowest unemployment rate that we will have. What it also means

is that we have more people now who are entering the workforce as well. Our

participation rate, they call it, the participation rate of people in the

workforce, is also increasing as well.

Those are positive signs, Mr. Speaker, very positive signs. The fact that we

have less people unemployed, more people available and participating in the

workforce, means that there are economic opportunities out there for people, and

people are apt to look after themselves in terms of their own self-sufficiency.

As well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about opportunities here in this Province

- economic opportunities, and opportunities for people in terms of raising their

families and making a living for themselves, and being able to look after

themselves - we had a net in-migration last year, in the last half of last year,

into this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I was brought up on stories of people leaving the Province. That

is all that I heard as a young man growing up, and all that, I am sad to say, my

own children have heard for the last number of years, the numbers of people who

leave this Province. When I think of my aunts and my uncles and my cousins, a

vast majority of them are living away. Most of them are living in the Toronto

area, in Ontario. A lot of them are living in the New England states, and a lot

of them are out west working. So, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I am used

to having relatives of mine who make their living elsewhere; and, for many, many

years, we have had people who have had to leave this Province to be able to make

a living, but last year, for the first time in many, many years, we had net

in-migration. We had over 2,000 people more return to the Province than left the

Province, and I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this government has

been able to reduce our debt, the fact that we have the fourth-lowest personal

income tax rates in the country, the fact that we have been able to lower our

unemployment rate to the lowest it has been in twenty-six years, all of those

things are the things that contribute to the net in-migration of people into

this Province.

So we have 2,000 more people who came to the Province than left the Province

last year. That, I believe, is a very healthy situation, Mr. Speaker, and one

that I hope continues into the future, and some of the initiatives that we as a

government have brought forward, I believe, are the kinds of initiatives that

will see that trend continue as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a minute, if I could, as well, about the

revenues that this government has. There is no doubt, we are living in a time

when we have revenues that are coming from our oil resources; we are a resource

rich Province. We have a lot of our revenue because of the price of oil. It is

sort of a double-edged sword in a lot of cases for us. It has allowed us, as a

government, to have revenues that we can use to bring in projects and policies

for the people of the Province, but it has also been a bit tough on people in

terms of being able to heat their homes and fill their vehicles with gas, and

their fishing boats, and all the other kinds of things that they do; but the

balance, Mr. Speaker, that this government has, is that we make sure that we use

those revenues in terms of some of the programs that I have mentioned.

I have already mentioned the reductions in income tax, the Home Heating

Rebate. Initially, the Home Heating Rebate was $100, when this government took

over, and it applied basically to oil. Our latest Home Heating Rebate Program

could give people up to a maximum of $400. The threshold of people who could

qualify for that was raised substantially up over $30,000, if memory serves

me correctly - and it did not only include oil but it included electricity, it

included propane or wood, whatever source of heat there may have been.

The revenues that we are receiving from our resources, we are trying to put

those revenues back into the pockets of the people as well, and not only the

people who are here today trying to earn a living and make a living but, as I

referred to earlier with our Debt Reduction Program, we are also trying to make

sure that our children who will be raised in this Province, and our

grandchildren who will be raised and working in this Province, will be able to

do so without having the yoke of a big debt hanging around their neck. We want

to make sure that the debt that we have, which I said to you was upwards around

$12 billion, will be reduced to $10 billion, and hopefully by next year we will

have it down in the single digits.

We have a very aggressive Debt Reduction Program as well as a very

progressive social program in terms of our Budget initiatives, and we want to

make sure that we continue to do those kinds of things, utilizing the revenues

that we have.

We have had to, as well, Mr. Speaker - I think one point worth mentioning,

one number worth mentioning - it has been commented upon that the percentage of

spending, the increase in spending that this government has undertaken, last

year, I believe, we were about 8.9 per cent and this year, I believe, we are

somewhere in the vicinity of about 9.5 per cent increase in spending. Some

people will say, Mr. Speaker, that those are very, very large increases in

spending, it will be difficult to sustain over the long term, and government

would need to be very careful about maintaining that level of increased spending

because, in actual fact, it is a fairly aggressive spending pattern.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is, the reason we have done that as a

government over the last couple of years is that we have had to. There have been

decades, I would suggest to you, many, many years, of not enough spending, not

enough investment in our people and our infrastructure, and we now, as a

government, have had to make a conscious decision to try and support that lack

of spending that occurred for many, many years, and build up the infrastructure,

make the investments in our people and in our programs and policies to ensure

that we catch up. This is not just about trying to get ahead, Mr. Speaker, but

it is about trying to catch up.

We have roads in this Province that have not been touched in years. We have

investments in social housing that have been neglected for many, many years. In

my own district of St. John's Centre there is social housing that was built in

the 1940s and 1950s that has not had any significant upgrades since then. That

is fifty-five to sixty years where these units have not had any significant

investment.

We need to make sure that we have the kinds of spending amounts that we have,

increases that we have, because we have a lot of catch-up to do. Once we catch

up, Mr. Speaker, once we have brought the Province to a point where it is caught

up, then we can go back to what would be considered to be more normal spending

patterns and maybe get down into the 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent

increases on a year-over-year basis.

For the first few years we have been able, because we have the revenue

streams, to do the kinds of spending and the kinds of investments that need to

be done to ensure that we bring our infrastructure, in particular, up to a point

where it needs to go.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak a little bit about - and I think it is

important to mention - I have people who have indicated to me that they feel we

need to be doing more in terms of tax reductions and that kind of thing. In

particular, people talk about the tax on gas, and the tax on home heating fuels,

and those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I believe, that we, as a government, make sure

that we do tax reductions in the areas in which they are going to bring the most

benefit. Right now, in terms of trying to reduce taxes, if we were to take the

tax that we have on gas, for instance, people go to the pump - and we have a

fixed amount. Some people think it is a percentage of the price, but it is not.

No matter what the price of gas is when you go to fill up your vehicle, the

provincial government Treasury, and I believe it is about fifteen or sixteen

cents per litre that the provincial government receives, that does not

fluctuate. If the price goes higher, we do not get more; if the price goes

lower, we do not get less. It is a fixed amount, Mr. Speaker.

That tax, people need to understand, is a tax basically that is used by

government as a revenue. It is government using that money to invest in things

like our roads, for instance, or investing in the other infrastructure that we

have, our hospitals and our schools, investing in salary increases for employees

of government, using it basically to make sure that things like the Prescription

Drug Program are available for the greatest number of people.

That is what we use our tax money for, so it is a fine line between reducing

taxes and also, then, potentially reducing the revenues that government would

have available to it to be able to do the kinds of things that it needs to do.

So we have made some adjustments in our tax regime. The Minister of Finance very

competently has been able to, over the last couple of years, make some

reductions in tax regimes. There are a number of tax regimes that we have, a

number of areas upon which we tax people and products and services and so on,

but it has to be done strategically to make sure that the kinds of reductions we

are making are reductions that are going to benefit the most people, are going

to benefit the people who need it, and are ultimately going to be in a manner

that is not going to hinder or hamper the provincial government from being able

to move forward and continue to do the kinds of investments that it needs to do

to service the people of the Province.

It is important for people to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the tax revenues

we receive are basically, as I said before, the revenues of the government, and

it is those revenues that we use to make sure that we invest in the programs,

whatever areas of priority we identify with our programs and services, to try

and make sure that we have as many people as possible impacted in a positive

way.

There is tax reduction, Mr. Speaker, there is investment in infrastructure,

and there is also social investment. I mention in terms of our social investment

the fact that we do have a Poverty Reduction Strategy, $100 million, Mr.

Speaker, annualized. I just came back on Friday from a meeting with some people,

where they asked me about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. Other provinces now,

across the country - ourselves and Quebec were the two that were leading the

country in this, but other provinces now across the country are starting to look

at what we do here in terms of our Poverty Reduction Strategy. They are asking

me: What is it that we did? How did we do it? How are we sustaining what we are

doing, and what kind of stuff is happening because of that?

There is a lot happening with our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker. We

started off with an investment of about $60 million with our Poverty Reduction

Strategy a couple of years ago. We had a stated goal, a committed goal. Sad to

say, we were the Province with the highest level of poverty in Canada when we

brought in our Poverty Reduction Strategy. I am sad to say that, but it was

fact, it is a fact, but we made a commitment that, as a government, with our

Poverty Reduction Strategy, to, in ten years, one decade - which sounds like

maybe a lot of time but, in reality, to do the kinds of things we are talking

about is not a lot of time - we said that we would go from the Province in

Canada with the highest level of poverty to the Province in Canada with the

lowest level of poverty. We said we would do that within ten years. So, we have

taken that $60 million investment and we, in the second year, made it

approximately $80 million, and now in the third year we are $100 million

annualized, and all of those incremental investments are building upon good

successes that we have had, Mr. Speaker.

We have a number of good investments in this year's Budget. One of them,

Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about is: we talked about, in our Poverty

Reduction Strategy, that one of our goals is trying to improve the earned

incomes of people. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to make sure

that people have more money in their pockets to be able to do the kinds of

things they need to do to sustain themselves.

People should be able to look after themselves. People want to look after

themselves; I firmly believe that. People do not want to be receiving support

from governments and agencies. I think most people, Mr. Speaker, would want to

support themselves. In my experience, that is how I find it. So we have over $2

million, for instance, Mr. Speaker, in this year's Budget invested in

initiatives that are going to allow income support clients or marginalized

workers who may be working a minimum numbers of hours, part-time hours, persons

with disabilities, other people who have low incomes, Mr. Speaker, we have

investments made there to enable them to get employed in the workforce, to

transition from an income support status that they may be in now into a working

status. We have initiatives to allow them to work more hours and keep more of

the money that they work.

We have skills development in there. There are opportunities out there for

people, Mr. Speaker, if they are given an opportunity, to improve their

educational and skill level. We have things involved in our Poverty Reduction

Strategy which will do that.

There are many, many initiatives that I could name. I am going to try not to

list them, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to sort of list everything out, but I can

tell you that there are $100 million worth of investments that are being made in

the Poverty Reduction Strategy to help the people of this Province, and in

particular to help the people who may be finding themselves in a low income

state or in a period of time where they are finding it difficult to be able to

provide their basic needs. By basic needs I am talking food, shelter, heat and

being able to find a job. I believe everybody who wants to work and who is

capable of working and looking after themselves and contributing to society

should be given that opportunity.

There are many people I speak to, Mr. Speaker, who would like to be making

more of a contribution to society, would like to be investing more in their own

future, and they have some difficulties because of various things they may need,

various services or supports. I believe it is government's role to be able to

provide that to people.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy we are talking

about investing in people. We are talking about investing in the kind of things

that the people of this Province have indicated to us they would like to see us

invest in. We have a done a round table. We did a fairly extensive consultation

process when we developed our Poverty Reduction Strategy, and we made a

commitment that two years after we implemented the strategy we would go back to

the community and talk to the community and talk to the people in the

communities about the Poverty Reduction Strategy to see if, in fact, it is

meeting their needs, and if it is not how are we able to tweak it or change it

to make it better meet the needs. If we are doing things that are working, then

please tell us so we can continue to make the kinds of investments that need to

be made to do those kinds of things. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

This year is a very pivotal year for our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We are

going to go back and consult again with the people of the Province and we are

going to ask them to critique us and to help us to measure the kinds of

successes we are having. We are going to ask them to help us quantify the

successes we are having, because it is important that we be able to be

accountable, it is important that we be able to quantify the money that is going

in with the benefit that is being received.

The one thing, Mr. Speaker I see that my time is getting short. I just

want to clue up, I guess, with this, the one thing I want to make mention of and

make sure that people in the Province understand is that the resources we have

as I said earlier, we are a resource rich Province. We are very rich in

terms of our oil and gas, in terms of our hydro electricity, in terms of our

culture and in terms of our people. We are very much a resource rich Province,

Mr. Speaker. But, we understand as a government that some of the resources we

have aren't going to be there forever. There will be a day when there will be

no oil offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be a day when we will have

extracted all of the gas that we can extract. As decision makers today in

government we understand we need to be very, very careful about the investments

we are making, about how we are spending the people's money, how we are

investing the people's money, because we want to make sure we get the

appropriate bang for the buck, if I could use that phrase, Mr. Speaker. We want

to make sure that the money that we are spending today on behalf of the people

of the Province is money that we are going to see a benefit from and realize a

benefit from in the future. So because of the fact that these resources are not

renewable, some of these resources are not renewable, we understand that we have

to be very, very careful in how we invest and we have to make sure that we do it

properly.

As one member, Mr. Speaker, I am very optimistic about the kinds of

investments that this government is making. I say to people every day, all of

our decisions may not be the right decisions but they are made based upon the

information we have and they are made based upon the times that we find

ourselves in, and sometimes your information may change or the times you are in

change and you need to change your programs. We are flexible and we will

continue to do that.

I want to leave people with the message of this: number one, we are certainly

a fiscally conservative government and debt reduction is a priority for this

government. I believe it is an appropriate thing that we should be doing.

Secondly, we also value our people and we make investments in our people. As the

Premier said on election night, the boats of all will rise when the tide comes

in. Well, the tide has come in, in terms of the money that we have, and we are

going to make sure, through our Poverty Reduction Strategy, that all people of

the Province benefit from that. Thirdly, we do have strategic plans, we do have

long-term vision. We are consulting with the people of the Province on that and

we hope the people are happy with the direction that we have taken as a

government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call now Order 6, which will be second reading of Bill 26, An

Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Twenty-six and twenty-seven, so can you start with

twenty-six that I just called?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will call Order 7 then, which is second

reading of,

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

(Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27,

An Act

To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act be now read a

second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 27)

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the Budget Speech we announced a number of revenue reduction measures to

put money back in people's pockets, to take government's hands out of people's

pockets. We announced a number of measures. Last year we announced what was

called the greatest tax cut in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and fee reduction. I think we reduced or eliminated 170 fees, as well

as the income tax cut and other revenue measures that help seniors, senior

couples. This year we even exceeded that, with revenue reduction measures of

$178 million.

What we now have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to pass the relevant legislation to

give lawful effect to those reductions. What we are doing here today is we are

dealing with an amendment to what is called The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act, which is more commonly known as the payroll tax. The

explanatory notes of the bill indicate that - well, you can see there is only

two. It is a very small bill, just a small amendment. There are two clauses,

only one and two. Clause one of the bill would amend the definition of exemption

threshold to exempt the first $1 million of an employer's payroll from a tax

under the act, and clause two would bring the act into force as of January 1 of

this year.

The payroll tax, or the health and post-secondary education tax, is 2 per

cent of a person's payroll, less the amount that is exempt. Previously, the

exemption was quite convoluted. Prior to this year, employers with a payroll of

up to $600,000 were exempt. Employers with a payroll that was greater than

$700,000 had a $500,000 payroll exemption, while employers with payroll between

$600,000 and $700,000 paid tax on payroll, less a sliding scale exemption

threshold from $600,000 to $500,000. Now that was quite confusing. So effective

January 1, under this legislation, employers will now have a threshold of $1

million. Payrolls above that amount will be subject to the tax, and as I say,

this will be effective January 1, 2008.

This amendment will remove an additional 308 small and medium-sized

businesses off the tax rolls. So, 308 small and medium-sized businesses will not

pay this tax whatsoever, and the tax burden will be reduced for 578 others.

Mr. Speaker, I am told there are about 31,600 employers in the Province -

31,600 employers, small and medium-sized businesses. We know that small and

medium-sized businesses, small business creates lots of jobs in the Province and

right across the country. About 2.5 per cent of these 31,600 employers in this

Province will pay the tax under The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, the measures contained in this bill, Bill 27, will put $6.5

million back into the hands of employers; monies that they can use to create new

jobs. Monies they can use to help them pay the increase in minimum wage which is

on the horizon and monies which will stimulate business reinvestment and

hopefully create more jobs. This is a good thing. It puts more money back into

businesses' pockets to enable them to invest and to reinvest and hopefully

employ a lot more people, and that was the purpose of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments on Bill

27, but I look at the clock and see sixty minutes up there. I do not say I will

be here for a full sixty minutes. The clock scares you sometimes, now that we

have the new clock.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on this bill. As the minister

has just stated, no doubt it is good news to know that the threshold now for

small businesses in our Province, when it comes to the payroll tax, has been

increased from the $600,000. Like he said, it was a bit confusing the

overlapping there. Now it is up to $1 million. It is amazing when you hear

figures from time to time. Lots of times you only concentrate on what you have

in your own district and surrounding area, but to know that there are 31,600

employers in this Province that will be basically affected by this tax. Over a

period of time, even prior to the election and since the election, we have had

the opportunity to meet with various groups involved in the small businesses and

they were a bit concerned about the increase in the minimum wage but here is one

way, hopefully, that this will help to alleviate the burden that they have had

placed on them.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, we also know that small business in this Province

- I guess the tremendous job that they do. I can only speak for my area, and I

have never ever counted them I suppose and had a figure like the minister just

had for the full Province, but I can assure you the small businesses in my area

really make what the district is. How many are out there with regards to five,

ten, fifteen and twenty people employed? Yes, we do have some businesses out

there that have a tremendous amount of people on their staff, up so high as 300

and 350, but for the greater numbers I guess it is in the lower range.

Just this Saturday I happened to attend a function at Ascension Collegiate,

it was called Youth Works, and we saw various employers there, various people

from government agencies, both federal and provincial, just more or less guiding

our young people, preparing them for the workforce. No doubt, their main

ambition, their main goal, is to remain here in the Province to do this.

Hopefully this will help our small businesses so that they can employ more

people.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on Bill 27 - it is a money bill - and I guess you

can go a little beyond the bill from time to time, and that is what I plan to

do. If not, I won't take very much of the sixty minutes for sure.

Time has elapsed pretty much on the main Budget motion. We tried to bring in

a sub-amendment, but that wasn't in order, so my time speaking on the Budget

was a bit limited. I have to say, from the outset, we as the Opposition and I am

sure the Government House Leader he got up and explained it very well the

other day, the process that we go through when budgets come down, and various

amendments and sub-amendments and so on. I guess that is what I did when I

brought a fourth amendment. I want to make it very clear and I have said it

before I think that my amendment to the Budget wasn't that I totally

disagreed with what was in the Budget. There are wonderful things, good things,

not only for my district but for the full Province, in the Budget.

From time to time there are issues that you thought were going to be there

that weren't there, and some of the issues that you look forward to. As a

matter of fact, I brought forward a petition again today, Mr. Speaker, on the

issue of a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. I knew it

wasn't going to be built this year, even though it was on the radar before. It

was a facility that the officials within government it wasn't a political

thing. It was done through the proper procedure, where they felt the Conception

Bay North area was a prime example where a long-term care facility should have

been built.

I believe today - even all hon. members who also represent the immediate area

that I do, when I reference them from time to time they believe the same thing.

All I was hoping for at this point in time is that government might be able to

come out and announce that, yes, we will do an assessment. We will have a

further assessment done and just see where you are in the long-range plans. That

is not taking anything away from any long-term care facility that has been

announced since that one. I am sure those people need the services just as well

as we do in the Conception Bay North area.

Hopefully, government will see to it that they will have that assessment

done. I am not standing here today saying I am looking for a long-term care

facility for the Port de Grave district. I don't care what district it is in

out there. Everyone would love to see it in their districts. Whether it is in

the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace or the District of Harbour Main, it

doesn't matter. Whether it is in Bellevue, the need is there and that is the

key thing to it, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that I speak on from time to time and present petitions on,

is the concerns that I have in the health system when it comes to the immediate

district, and one of them again is the retention and recruitment of doctors. We

know this year's Budget has stated very clearly that that is the intention of

this government, but at the present time and for the last couple of years, more

so than in the past, there seems to be a real shortage of general practitioners

in the Port de Grave District and surrounding areas. It is very evident when you

hear comments from your constituents, where they cannot get to see a doctor as

soon as they would like to because of the massive caseloads that the general

practitioners have in the area, but I guess the heart-wrenching

part is when

people call you and say: Where can I find the services of a general

practitioner?

I have to say, from time to time we have had to - know there was one doctor,

I think it was in the Mount Pearl or St. John's area, who I guess was just

starting up and was looking for patients and clients and there were ever so many

people who accepted that, even though they have to drive quite a distance. Some

of them have to get family members to take them there to see the doctors, but at

least they have a doctor who they can see when the time comes, and more

importantly than that, they have someone when major testing has to be done.

Whether it is CAT scans, MRIs or what have you, there is someone who their

reports can be sent to so that they can get the messages back, because you

cannot always get to see the specialists. We all know the workload that those

doctors have. We hear about it every day in the media, throughout the week.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in the District of Port de Grave that I hear

that, I hear it from the TrinityBay de Verde area, CarbonearHarbour Grace

and the Harbour Main area. No doubt there are quite a few doctors out there but

with the caseload that they have they are unable to take new patients.

From time to time, we know that our residents are returning back to the

Province, and some of them are not ordinary residents of our Province. There are

a lot of people from out of Province who retire and they move here to this area.

I know, when I was on a Parliamentary Conference last year in Winnipeg, there

was a couple there who said that they were going to move back and live in Salmon

Cove in the Carbonear area. I asked them if they had any relatives there and

they said, no, we came here on a vacation last year, we saw a house that was for

sale by the ocean and we are going to buy it. I said, your wife must have been

from there, and the comment was, no, we are both from out here but we are going

to move back there and live.

Lots of times, Mr. Speaker, those are the types of individuals we hear talk

of, when they come here, who are trying to get a general practitioner. Hopefully

that will be resolved in the near future. We know it is a major problem. I know

it is a major problem in my area, because in the clinic where I go to from time

to time, it is a two-doctor clinic, and I think over the past six years there

have been seven doctors there, just one doctor at a time, and finding it very

difficult to get the second doctor to stay for any length of time.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the nurses and retention of

nurses. We all know how busy they are, the workload that they have. We hear it

in the media every day, and hopefully that can be resolved. Hopefully, the young

people who are about to graduate now this year will see fit to stay here in the

Province. I think, hopefully, through the Budget and the new initiatives that

the government is coming up with, that they will stay here in this Province,

because that is another area that is very crucial.

The other item, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping for this year was, I guess, the

retention of keeping our winter depots open throughout the area in the

summertime for maintenance on the roads. We know that maintenance is being done

on the roads but many of the workers, from time to time, call me and they feel

that if the depots remained open they would be able to do the work in that

immediate area, rather than have to travel quite a distance, from time to time,

out of the one depot, like in Bay Roberts. They have a job to do, and many of

them feel that if everyone was kept on - because I think last year some of them,

when they were laid off, moved outside the Province. I am not saying every depot

in the Province has to remain open, but probably certain areas where a lot of

maintenance work has to be done.

The minister admitted to me from time to time, that there is a lot of work

has to be done, maintenance work, and that is being planned throughout the area,

and my area is no exception to the others, because a lot of ditching has to be

done now, after the storm that we had last August, and quite a bit of work has

to be gone over with, and hopefully that will not happen again.

I guess one issue we were all hoping would be reinstated in full capacity is

the twenty-four hour snow clearing. I know, through estimates and meetings with

the minister, there is notification that that is being considered in high risk

areas or high-traffic areas. Maybe down the road we will see that it will be

returned. I know in the winter, from time to time, many people call their MHAs.

I know I get calls on it someone is trying to get to hospital. I know that

when the trucks come off the roads I think it was 9:30 in the nights last

winter there is a system in place where they can call and have the truck go

out and help an ambulance get through in case there is a major storm. Many

times, I guess, people are concerned in life threatening situations that maybe

they will not get there in time. It is good to know that there is going to be

consideration in high traffic areas. We know for sure, on our TCH, that there is

traffic going, I guess, twenty-four hours a day, the transport trucks and a lot

of other people who have to go back and forth to work.

Mr. Speaker, many times when we stand we bring up issues and the issues that

we bring forward are not something that we try to think up and make up to try to

make government look bad, if there is such thing as doing that. There are issues

that come forward from constituents. I know in my case - and I can speak very

clearly this year - it is bad enough, I guess, being a critic for one department

but when you have six departments you get calls, not only from your own

constituency, but you get them from all over the Island. Whatever department you

are critic for the issues will come forward, whether it is Transportation,

Municipal Affairs, or what have you.

Sometimes you hear hon. members on the other side, well, you are only fear

mongering, but it is not that. You are bringing forward issues that are concerns

to not only the residents in your own area but also those who you represent

throughout the Province, because it is an ongoing thing. Even though they have

their own MHAs sometimes they believe, because you are a critic for a various

department, that the message probably is going to get through or you will help

it out a little bit more or what have you.

From time to time we hear talk of industry in our Province shutting down and

new industry coming in. I have had calls over this past weekend and again this

morning - I think there has been a demonstration out in Come by Chance. There

are major concerns with the workers out in the Come by Chance area, a facility

that has operated fairly well over the years and many people have had employment

there. The notification that I had this morning was that the possibility is of

150 workers at Come by Chance losing their jobs. I know they are part-time

workers, but being part-time does not mean they only work fifteen or eighteen

weeks there. I was told by the gentleman who called me from my district that he

goes to work there generally every year in February month and he is working

right up until December. It may be part-time but, I mean, those people get

anywhere from ten to eleven months work each and every year.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that government should step in because probably

that is not the right way to go, but I hope that government keeps an eye on this

situation. They are talking about contracting this work out, and many of the

workers are really concerned about it.

It is like the gentleman said to me, this is a new company that came in,

apparently, from Alberta - Harvest Energy Trust, I think they are called - they

came in and now they are seeing to it that there have to be reductions and they

are hoping to lay off 150 people and the work will be tendered out. Like he

said, here we are, there is another job fair coming to the Province - or I was

told - some time this week. He said it is unbelievable, that there are other

companies coming here from Alberta trying to get us to go that way. I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that everything will work out and those people will not be put in a

position that they will lose their jobs.

Another issue with regard to health care came to my attention just over this

weekend and I was really surprised, probably just because I was not aware of it.

We know we have a good system here when it comes to the overall health care

picture, and this comes to the ambulance operations. We know that there is a fee

to be charged, I think it is $115 - I know that is what it is out our way

but I was given the scenario about a family that came back I think it was to

Twillingate last year to visit family and friends, and this individual got sick

and had to be taken to the hospital in Gander and, to follow up that, had to be

transferred to St. John's. They called their friends here in my district -

they were up to visit him, I think - and they wanted me to check out and see if

the invoice that they received was right and proper. When I checked it out with

the officials in the Department of Health - I have to say, the lady was very up

front, very co-operative. In very little time at all I had the response back,

but, like always, it is not always the response that you want to hear.

I was told that for an out-of-town, out-of-Province resident to travel from

Gander to St. John's by ambulance would have been $1,416. There was also a

$150 administration fee and a $115 patient fee, for a total of somewhere in the

vicinity of $1,600; however, this family that travelled home last year and

received their invoice, the invoice they received for the ambulance from Gander

to St. John's was $1,957.64 plus $503.80 for the nurse to travel. I can

understand that part, but I said to them - I understand that we are subsidized

here, the $115 fee is the subsidy, but they said we have to recoup the cost over

and above our subsidy.

I am led to believe from that, if I was a patient at Gander, even though I am

a resident from Newfoundland, it would cost for the ambulance to bring me in and

government would have to come up with another $1,300, that fee that government

would pay to the operator to subsidize that cost for me to come in.

I guess the other thing that the resident, when they brought this to my

attention, the concern they had is how people do not know about this. I know I

didn't know it. It is not only on our side here; it is if we travel outside of

our Province. If we go outside of the Province, all we ever hear said is, make

sure you have insurance if you travel to the United States. That is

understandable, and we all do that, but if we travel outside of our own Province

- and I found out since I got this information that if I was to travel to Nova

Scotia or New Brunswick and unfortunately had to be taken from a park, if I am

camping there, to a hospital, it is somewhere around a $700 fee because I am out

of Province, but out West the fees are similar to what they are here.

I was totally amazed by the amount, even the $1,400 figure on top of the $115

to take a patient from Gander, whether you are outside the Province or wherever,

to St. John's, but they were invoiced $1,900.

We are still checking that out, but it is something - I guess if that is what

it is, that is what it is, but it seems to be a tremendous amount.

The only other issue I am going to touch on now for the next couple of

minutes is in regard to the teacher allocation. We all know the formula of the

past, and the minister has said this, rightly so, it was not working and a new

formula was brought in. The issue that I know we bring forward from time to time

is not that we are saying that the formula is flawed, what is there now; it is

the concerns that are expressed to us by people throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just ordinary citizens - not saying that a

teacher is not an ordinary citizen, but the calls that we receive are from

people who are in the system.

As a matter of fact, I was given a letter by a principal in one of the

schools in my area that he had received from the NLTA, and they were bombarded

with the same issues that we have. I know the minister said the other day that

she would be looking at this, and that the full formula was not in place, but

those schools have been advised of the number of units they will have for next

year.

One of the issues brought to my attention from a school in my area, which is

All Hallows in North River, they are saying that right at the present time the

Grade 4s have sixty-three students and they have three units. The same

sixty-three students will be moving to Grade 5 next year and they will be only

have two units with thirty-one and thirty-two students in each class.

That is the type of question they are asking. Another school has eighty

Kindergarten students coming up this year, in September, and they have two

units, for eighty. What is happening, they look at it as a half a unit in the

morning and a half a unit in the afternoon and this is where you come up with

your two units.

What people are saying is, if you have twenty Kindergarten students, twenty

in the morning and twenty in the afternoon, you do not have any time whatsoever

to look out for their needs and being prepared - you take twenty kids who just

started school - and they believe that should be four units for the eighty,

rather than two with a half-unit basis, and that is the way they look at them.

Mr. Speaker, I was only prepared for about twenty minutes. I did not think

about the hour. Like I said, we are talking on Bill 26, the Income Tax I am

sorry, we changed that, didn't we? - Bill 27, with regard to the Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act. As the minister stated, it is more commonly

known as the payroll tax. I think it is good news with regard to the $1 million

exemption now, and I am sure it is going to help businesses throughout not only

my district but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for Port de Grave for his remarks.

I think most people on all sides of this House are in agreement that lowering

the payroll tax will enable businesses to hire more people, invest in their

enterprises, and hopefully deal with more benefits for their workers such as an

increase in the minimum wage, so I would urge passage of second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education

Tax Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a second time.

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

Now?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call Order 6, second reading of Bill 26,

An Act To Amend

The Income Tax Act, 2000.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand here today to introduce second reading

of Bill 26, which regards the Income Tax Act of 2000 to provide for further tax

reductions that we announced in the provincial Budget of 2008.

As I said previously during my comments on the Payroll Tax Act, last year in

this House, in Budget 2007, we introduced a bill that reduced personal income

taxes in this Province by the largest amount in the history of the Province. It

was the largest tax decrease in the history of the Province. We did that for a

number of reasons. One of the reasons was to make our economy more competitive.

Newfoundland and Labrador had a reputation of being a high tax jurisdiction.

People would say: Well, there is no point of investing in Newfoundland and

Labrador because their taxes are so high. To be competitive, and in order to

enhance and improve investment so that new jobs would be created, especially for

those people who are not working, especially for marginalized people who have

not had an opportunity to get employment, one of the things that we looked at

was to lower personal income taxes, and we did that in a major way.

Again, in Budget 2008 we proposed, in this bill, to amend the income tax

legislation to reduce the tax rates by one percentage point in all three income

brackets. Last year, in Budget 2007, we lowered our rates in Newfoundland and

Labrador to the lowest income tax rates in the Atlantic provinces, and we will

continue to do so. This year's reduction, as outlined in Bill 26, will

continue with further reductions, a further $75 million in personal income tax

reductions for the residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, more specifically, this bill will reduce the rates. From the low

rate it will be from 8.7 per cent down to 7.7 per cent. The middle rate will go

from 13.8 per cent to 12.8 per cent, and the highest rate will go from 16.5 per

cent down to 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2008. That date of July 1, 2008

will be for a half year. So to get the full effective annualized benefit of this

rate will take two years.

I ran into a gentleman in Deer Lake Airport the other day and he said I

thought you eliminated the surtax, the 9 per cent surtax on personal income tax.

I said we did. He said: Well, how come I had to pay some of that this year when

I filed my income tax return? The answer, of course, is that the matter was

effective as of July 1 last year. It takes two years to become fully

implemented.

Mr. Speaker, for the whole of 2008 the blended rates will be reduced

therefore to 8.2 per cent, 13.3 per cent and 16 per cent respectfully for each

of the brackets numbers one through three. Of course, I am referring to the

effective rates for the whole year, considering the combined effect on 2008 of

lowering the rates halfway through the year. Fully annualized in 2009, however,

the whole year effective rates in 2009 will drop to 7.7 per cent, 12.8 per cent

and 15.5 per cent.

I am particularly happy about this announcement, Mr. Speaker, because with

these changes we can now say - last year we said we had the lowest tax rates in

Atlantic Canada. Now we can say that Newfoundland and Labrador has the fourth

lowest personal income tax rate amongst the provinces in the country. That makes

us competitive, as I said earlier. People now realize that you can invest in

Newfoundland and Labrador and the tax rate will not be overly burdensome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: All one needs to do is to look at the numbers, Mr.

Speaker, to appreciate the impact that the government has had on the pocketbooks

of taxpayers in this Province. As a result of the tax reductions this year and

last year, taxpayers will save 20 per cent or more provincial personal income

taxes. For many the savings is well over 20 per cent, depending on personal

circumstances. This year's change, combined with last year's change, has

saved taxpayers a total of $230 in personal income tax annually.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to look at - if we look at the combined

effect of the taxation, because I know there are some people in the Province who

find fault with providing taxpayers in all brackets with a tax cut. Th