December 7, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 53

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome in the public gallery thirty-four

Grade 6 students from Villa Nova Junior High School in the District of Topsail,

together with their teacher, Ms Darlene Moulton, and a number of parents.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements by the

following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the

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

District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a family

physician from my district who was recently honoured by the Department of Health

and Community Services for forty years of medical service in the Town of Deer

Lake and surrounding area. Dr. Duncan MacDonald was awarded with this special

certificate of achievement at a recent meeting of the Deer Lake Chamber of

Commerce.

Dr. MacDonald came to Deer Lake in 1964 and since then, along with his wife

Margaret, he has provided a family clinic service and, until last year, did

regular house calls and twenty-four hour on-call services.

His dedication to his profession and his love for helping others has extended

over five decades. He has seen many changes since he came to Deer Lake, and has

been a part of helping this town grow. Even at eighty-two years of age, he still

practices and remains active in community affairs.

Dr. MacDonald continues to be an inspiration to many and to his profession.

For some, he has been a part of their lives for many years. For myself, he has

been there a lifetime. He was there at birth, as I was one of the first babies

he born when he came to Deer Lake, and he continues to be an inspiration at this

time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS GOUDIE: It is on the Web site.

It is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to such

a wonderful man.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join with me in honouring Dr. Duncan MacDonald

for his forty years of service to the medical profession in the Deer Lake area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a team in my district

who recently won a provincial championship.

The Holy Name of Mary Academy Mustangs, of Lawn, captured the provincial 3A

boys provincial soccer championship, defeating a team from Mobile High, 3-1 in

the final. Scoring for the Mustangs were Sean Edwards, Robert Lambe and James

Grant.

Mr. Speaker, the Mustangs had advanced to the final with a 1-0 double

overtime victory over another Burin Peninsula team, the St. Lawrence Academy

Blues. They also defeated teams from Springdale, Doyles and Goose Bay to win

this prestigious championship.

Also honoured at this tournament were players who showed tremendous

sportsmanship. Awards were presented to Travis Edwards of the Lawn team, and to

Sean Slaney of St. Lawrence. The coach of the Mustangs was Colin Edwards and the

teacher-sponsor was James Rogers.

This is just one more soccer team from the Burin Peninsula that is continuing

the tradition of excellence in the sport of soccer. Mr. Speaker, I hope their

interest in this sport continues and we see more of the tremendous success in

soccer on the Burin Peninsula that we have come to expect because of teams like

the St. Lawrence Laurentians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to pay tribute to a very special lady originally from Bay

Roberts, the place of her birth. In her early years, she moved away to Toronto

where she was employed for many years. On her return home, she took up residence

in the very beautiful valley of Shearstown.

It was in Shearstown that I became aware of her compassion, her dedication

and love for all residents as she assisted her husband in operating the local

post office. Everyone would agree that whether she was assisting a child, a

senior citizen, or any member of the community, Annie treated everyone the same

and with respect. In return, she was loved and respected by all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending

greetings to Mrs Annie Earle of Shearstown, who now resides at the Interfaith

Home in Carbonear as she celebrates her 101 st birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two young students from my district who have

recently won awards in a national competition.

Mr. Speaker, Amanda Rose and Shannon Clark Howell placed in first and second

place in the national competition known as Write To Read.

Mr. Speaker, this competition is open to all youth across Canada. It asks

students to write about the best things, historic and otherwise, in their

community. It asks about things such as community landmarks, special geographic

features, or the special people who reside in their area.

The first place winner, Amanda Rose, wrote on her hometown of Forteau in the

Labrador Straits and the second place winner, Shannon Clark Howell, wrote of the

historic community of Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud that the writing skills of these two young

girls have been recognized across Canada and we are sure that we will hear more

from them as they continue with their studies.

I ask my colleagues today to join me in congratulating these two young

writers in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform all members today of the

proclamation of the new Income and Employment Support Act and Regulations. They

will replace the outdated Social Assistance Act and Regulations which have been

in effect since 1977.

The new Act better reflects the two major areas of responsibility of the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment: providing income support

in a stable dignified manner to eligible individuals and families and delivering

programs and services that support individuals in achieving their employment and

career goals.

Mr. Speaker, the Act and Regulations were developed after an extensive

consultation process with clients, advocacy groups, community partners,

departmental staff and other government departments. I would like to thank all

those who took

part in this process. I would also like to recognize the work of

the former Administration on drafting the new Act and passing it here in the

House of Assembly. Since then much work has been done to develop the new

regulations and these two are the result of much thoughtful debate and input.

The Act and Regulations have been written for the people we serve. They use

plain language with a focus on transparency and include clear explanation of the

department's service principles. In addition, the Act introduces regular rate

reviews every three years and legislative reviews every five years. This will

ensure income and employment supports and services remain current.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made a commitment to be open and

accountable. This is reflected in the new review process and in the clear,

transparent language of the Act and Regulations. Steps have been taken to ensure

clients, community agencies and advocates can easily access information on our

programs and services. The intent, Mr. Speaker, is to clearly inform clients of

the departmental service standards and of programs to which they may be

entitled.

Mr. Speaker, the Income and Employment Support Act and Regulations help

further this government's commitment to providing basic financial supports to

those who need them. It also provides the legal framework to assist people in

gaining independence by addressing and overcoming employment challenges.

I am sure my colleagues will agree this is a significant milestone that will

have a positive impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, too, want to, first of all, thank the minister for an advanced copy of the

statement and to say that we are very pleased to see the proclamation brought

forward today with regard to the new Income and Employment Support Act - Bill 23

it was at the time, Mr. Speaker - and wanted to say that even though we were on

the government side at that time, when this wonderful piece of legislation came

in, I remember very vividly members on the government side now, who were then in

Opposition, bringing forward amendments and -

MR. E. BYRNE: We saluted it.

MR. BUTLER: Saluted it, yes, you saluted it.

We had wonderful debate on it. It took some time but we did get it through

Royal Assent back in December, 2002.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the minister at the time, I say to the hon. member

opposite, was the hon. Mr. Ralph Wiseman.

I, too, want to thank all those who were involved because there was a

considerable amount of consultation that went on throughout the Province and

brought before the people's House. I guess one of the main things that I saw

into it was where it is now stated in law that the people will be reviewed - the

rates will be reviewed every three years.

I note where the minister stated that this government has made a commitment

to openness and accountability, but I was very impressed to note that we also

knew about the word transparency way back in 2002, Mr. Speaker, because it was

then that they say the special laymen's language was used in this bill. So, I

guess we knew what transparency was back at that time and it only just did not

come on the scene.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister: yes, it is a

significant milestone and we commend the government for bringing it forward

today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are pleased to see that this act has finally been proclaimed after having

been passed in this House in December, 2002, together with the new regulations.

What is really needed now, Mr. Speaker, is a significant review of the rates

of income support given to people in this Province. They are pathetically low.

They leave people way below the poverty line and provide a very inadequate

support for people to provide the basic necessities of life and must be

significantly increased. I urge the government to do that with the basis of what

the actual cost is of people surviving in various parts of this Province. So, an

entire review should be done as a priority for this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to inform my

colleagues about the significant advances in Newfoundland and Labrador's

educational standing, both nationally and internationally, as indicated in the

2003 results of the Program for International Student Assessment, commonly known

as PISA.

PISA is an international, school-based assessment administered in OECD

countries. The tests are designed to measure performance of fifteen-year-olds in

reading, mathematics and science. In 2003, forty-one countries participated - up

from thirty-two countries in the year 2000.

The 2003 assessment results show that students in Newfoundland and Labrador

achieve far above the international average in all three testing areas. Most

significantly, Mr. Speaker, is that our students are now achieving at the

Canadian average in reading and science. Our mathematics scores have also

improved significantly over the 2000 assessment and, while we are not as yet at

the Canadian average, our improvement in mathematics leads the country. It

should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador leads the

Atlantic provinces in all three testing areas.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our performance in relation to other Canadians,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are now fifth in Canada in reading, up from

ninth in 2000. We are also fifth in science, up from seventh in the previous

PISA assessment. In mathematics, our improved performance saw us move from ninth

in the country to sixth. This is excellent news, Mr. Speaker, for all of us who

care about education in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we fully recognize these kinds of assessments do not measure

everything that is happening in our schools. We know that learning is more than

just test results. However, these results measure the skills and knowledge that

individuals bring to their post-secondary studies, to their jobs, and to

society. These results give our students and their parents the secure knowledge

that the education they are receiving in Newfoundland and Labrador will ensure

they are well prepared to meet the challenges of post-secondary studies and the

labour market.

Several key factors can be credited for this demonstrated improvement. For

the past several years, the Department of Education has had a renewed focus on

assessment for the purpose of improving student achievement. As a part of this

process, follow-up with schools, school districts, and intensive teacher

involvement has resulted in the more effective use of test results for

instructional planning and greater attention to the details of the curriculum,

much of which has been reformed and improved in recent years.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also acknowledge former

Ministers of Education, including my hon. colleague to my right, and hon.

colleagues opposite for the work they did after 2000 to raise the profile of the

PISA assessments within our education system.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, this improvement is a testament to the

dedication and hard work of educators throughout the Province. Their diligence

has produced results which instill confidence in our education system. While

there are still areas for us to improve, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to PISA

2006, knowing that we have professional educators and administrators with the

dedication and expertise to help our students continue to achieve.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

I, too, would like to congratulate the students for their improved scores on

the international testing. As the minister said, we again this year have seen

that we are above the international average, but we still fall behind the

Canadian average, especially in mathematics, I say to the minister, something

that we seriously need to work on.

What I find ironic about the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, is that he

attributes the success that the students have had this year to the educators in

our Province, and this is the same minister who applauded a budget back here in

April that saw the firing of 475 teachers in this Province.

I say to the minister, if he is serious about improving the test scores of

the students in this Province, and if he is serious about improving the lot of

our students in this Province, that he hire more teachers rather than fire them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words in response to the Ministerial Statement. I

think that the students and educators in our Province certainly can be commended

for the great strides that have been made, as pointed out by the minister, in

recent years.

That is good on the provincial scene, Mr. Speaker, but on the federal scene I

think there are some areas of concern, where Canada, between the 2000 report and

2003, dropped from second in rating down to third, from sixth in math to

seventh, and in science they dropped from fifth to eleventh. Canada is also

ranked nineteen out of thirty developed countries for funding of primary and

secondary institutions. So, I say to the minister, there is need to keep a watch

on what is happening in the country and in our Province, and we have to ensure

that adequate funding is made available for our primary, secondary and

post-secondary educations to make sure that they meet the changing curriculum

needs and that we have proper teacher ratios in our classrooms.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have been raising

questions about the deplorable situation that continues to worsen at social

services offices in this Province. I ask the minister: Has your department

farmed out switchboard operations for some of its offices to a private call

centre?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have had concerns about the telephone service,

and we have a pilot project of three months to get some data so we can make some

firm decisions about the telephone service that we need in our downtown office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I guess, Mr. Speaker, so much for telephone technology.

Would the minister confirm that she has rewarded a call centre which carried

out a number of polls for the Progressive Conservative Party, and has Telelink

been given an untendered contract to carry out switchboard operations for the

St. John's office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at a three-month

pilot project with Telelink to get some hard data on the telephone service in

our downtown office so we can offer the best service possible to our clients.

Mr. Speaker, the contract with Telelink dates back to 1992, when the previous

Administration contracted with Telelink to provide after-hour services to the

Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get some information to improve the telephone

service, but the connection between HRLE and Telelink dates back to 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, clients are divulging sensitive personal

information to these call centre employees. Provincial government employees must

sign an oath of secrecy. What provisions have been put in place to ensure the

security of sensitive personal information being processed by these call centres

employees?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the concerns that have

been brought forward. The Telelink service right now is providing us with some

data so we can make the necessary changes to ensure that we have the appropriate

telephone service available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, they are answering the phones and providing

services to messages to our workers. They are providing no further services and

far less intrusive services than was established with the previous

Administration in 1992 when they took over our after-hours calls.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister, the calls that I

am referring to are from eight until five. One day these call centre employees

are assisting callers with a warranty information on a toaster, the next

assisting people in desperate needs of assistance.

Minister, are these call centre employees receiving any special training to

assist in dealing with the special needs of your department?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House and I will continue

to say, we are very concerned about the quality of client services that HRLE

provides to its clients.

Mr. Speaker, we have engaged Telelink for three months on a pilot to provide

us with data so we can provide the best telephone service available; and, Mr.

Speaker, to address the specific concern, yes, we have engaged in training with

the Telelink staff who will be answering the phones so they provide accurate

information. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that any

information on anyone's application for income support or their services is

provided by the Client Services Officer. This is a telephone answering service

for three months, to provide information, and it is not the staff at that centre

that is providing any services with regards to applications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members on the opposite side of

this House, before they pound their desk, call this number: 729-3982, and see

what wonderful service you are going to get for your clients in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this past week -

MR. REID: Call it right now. Not after four o'clock; call them right

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave District, who was putting a

question, and I ask him to get to his question now.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this past week the RNC were called to deal with

a violent situation at the St. John's metro office. These kinds of incidents

are becoming more and more commonplace, because staff and clients are frustrated

with the cutbacks and the unmanageable workloads. Will the minister stand up for

her department and tell the Premier to stop those cutbacks and hire additional

staff to correct this situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, and I will continue to say,

the quality of client services is very important to the Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment. The policy that we brought in to provide the

telephone service on a three month basis will help us determine what telephone

service is the best for that office.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, that office serves over 8,000 clients. So,

if there are issues with clients who come into that office who act out, our

staff have to deal with that on a daily basis. We have a very professional staff

who deliver a high quality of service. When they need services from security or

the police, they call on those measures at that time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister. Her staff has always given professional service,

but there is nobody in that office who can handle 500 calls per day with the

cutbacks they have there.

Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is this. As part of the program

review process your officials have been told the bottom line is to find cheaper

ways to deliver service. What other private sector partnerships have your

department embarked on, I ask the minister?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear, that as we go

through the Budget process or any process in this department the quality of

client services will remain very important. How we deliver those services will

change in the next few years as we introduce the new computerized pay system

across the Province. In bringing in this new computerized pay system, it will

allow our CSOs, the people who serve our clients on the front line, to be freed

up and put more time into employment and career services, which will help our

clients move from income support into the labour market.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask: Will the Minister of Health table the proposal he received from VON on

the palliative care program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the VON issue and the very important

palliative care project that is in place, that particular program deals with the

very important issue of palliative care. There will be a teaching module; there

is a learning module. The program is going to be used as an example for all of

Newfoundland and Labrador and, as the hon. member knows, Western Newfoundland,

in particular the City of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, was a leader in palliative

care and, in conjunction with VON, was a leader in palliative care. I am

confident that when this particular project is complete, and it will be

completed in April, we will have a precedence that will be of benefit to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: No proposal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, will he table the Terms of Reference for

the VON project he announced two weeks ago? Yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to table the Terms of

Reference. They were announced publicly in a press release some two weeks ago.

It deals with a needs assessment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the responses; the questions have been

asked. I ask the minister if he could complete his answer now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have just indicated to the hon. member, the very question that she is

asking was answered publicly in a press release that was released approximately

two or two-and-a-half weeks ago, and therein lies the answer to her question

because the Terms of Reference were specifically spelled out for the entire

population of Newfoundland and Labrador to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What was the total funds given

for the VON project and what amount of those funds were given for wages to

settle the strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, that question, too, was also addressed and

answered in a press release that was issued approximately two, two-and-a-half

weeks ago. In fact, I believe the exact amount was in the range of $120,000;

perhaps $140,000 was the total amount.

Mr. Speaker, the very questions that are being asked today by the hon. member

were issued publicly for every, single resident of this Province to see. It has

been fully disclosed. The information is on our Web page, it is on our Web site.

In fact, my guess is, it is probably in her files.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the VON fiasco, the Premier fired the Deputy Minister of Health without

cause. How much did this cost the taxpayers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have the exact number at my fingertips, but let me say clearly and

unequivocally, it probably was about one-tenth of what court costs were when

they fired many, many public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It probably was about one-tenth of the cost of what the

Leader of the Opposition did when he laid off the entire Cabot Celebrations crew

without reproach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that, in

the absence of the Minister of Finance, and as his first alternate, if I can get

the information for you, I will. But let me be unequivocally clear, Mr. Speaker,

there will not be any court case coming from it because we treated people very

fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us when the new Access to Information and

Privacy Act will be proclaimed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government is firmly committed to open

and transparent accountability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: This government will bring in legislation to control

lobbyists. We will bring in transparency and accountability legislation and, Mr.

Speaker, before the end of this session, this government will cause the

proclamation of the Access to Information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was passed in March of

2002 by the previous government, and eighteen months later they left office

without proclaiming that legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the new government has reviewed the matter.

We have given it very careful consideration. We have listened to requests from

the united municipal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Minister of Justice is so forthcoming today with his information,

can you tell us, Minister, how much it will cost government as a result of your

firing of Mr. Wayne Mitchell, the Privacy Commissioner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when the new government came into office

and reviewed the matter of the Privacy Commissioner, the government decided that

it had to make sure that the Commissioner's office had the resources it needed

to do the job that needed to be done. As a result of that, we decided that the

Commissioner would be a part-time Commissioner and put more resources into

investigators and staff and to properly resource the offices. As a result of

that, Mr. Mitchell decided to leave the position and the government is now

giving careful consideration to the naming of a new Information and Privacy

Commissioner. Mr. Mitchell was not fired, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Social Plan Secretariat for the Northeast Avalon

released a final report to government called a Poverty Profile of the Northeast

Avalon Region. In that document, the group identified two rural areas,

communities, and six urban neighborhoods in this region which were specially

singled out for low income and employment levels, low education levels, and a

higher proportion of groups at risk for poverty, Mr. Speaker. These

neighbourhoods need special services and programs from the government.

I want to ask the minister: What specific programs is her government prepared

to institute in these areas to tackle the problem of poverty in these specific

neighbourhoods and communities identified by the Strategic Social Plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the study that the hon. member refers to does

highlight certain communities and neighbourhoods that have higher levels of

poverty in the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to addressing poverty in every part

of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are doing,

specifically from Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is, we are bringing in

the computerized pay system so that staff can be freed up. So many staff will

work at the Income Support; however, staff will be freed up to work on an

individual basis, one on one, with clients who have the potential to move from

income support into the labour market.

Mr. Speaker, information like the information that has been generated and in

the report that the hon. member mentioned, provides us with specific details and

gives us the latitude that we need to know, where we need to focus our services,

particularly in employment and career services, so that we deliver these

services where they are needed most.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, now that specific communities and neighbourhoods

have been identified, can the minister say that her department and her

government will take a community-based approach and put in sustainable programs

that will work over the long run to deal with all of the problems related to

poverty? Even if they are employed, people at the minimum wage are living in

poverty.

Will this government act to target the specific problems that have been

identified here, or is she just going to say that we will have programs for

everybody, and everybody can hope for the best with individual services? There

need to be targeted programs.

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that

question, because poverty is not an issue that can be addressed with one single

policy or one rule or one way of changing things, and it is information like

contained in that report that gives us the data so that we can make

evidence-based decisions when we are dealing with poverty, and this government

is committed to reducing poverty.

It will happen in the long term, but that type of report gives us the

information to know where we need to target certain populations, and our

policies that we bring into play, Mr. Speaker, will have to have a broad base.

It will have to deal with housing, it will have to deal with education, it will

have to deal with health care, it will have to deal with Human Resources, Labour

and Employment, and issues like minimum wage.

In order for us to be able to deal with poverty, we have to do it in a

holistic fashion and, Mr. Speaker, we will bring in policies that will reduce

poverty throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I will say to the minister, even though it is only December, I am getting

calls concerning the Labrador Ferry Service for next year because it is a form

of transportation people use a lot. I want to ask the minister whether or not

the ferry service will remain the same in 2005 as it was in 2004, and whether or

not people will be able to make reservations in a timely manner, generally

February, rather than like last year when it was up in May month?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The answer to the first question is, by and large, yes; the configuration

will be the same next year as it was this year. Whether the number of trips will

change, say, between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay or so, I am not

certain yet. We are certainly looking at that possibility. In terms of a

reservation system, Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in a position to announce the

schedule and the 1-800 number certainly before Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance committed to giving the people of this

Province a financial update. Where is it?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was asked this question last week. He

committed -

MS THISTLE: He didn't give an answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you would like an answer - you have asked the question

and I would like the opportunity to answer it. Now, whether you want the answer

or believe the answer is quite another matter, but you are going to get one

anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The Minister of Finance stood in

his place, when asked a question, and made a commitment that before the fall

sitting would be over and done with, that he would be giving an update or a

mid-year financial statement. Nothing has changed with that. Just because you do

not have it today does not mean you are not going to get it. The government has

committed, the minister has committed, and when he is ready to give the update

members' opposite will be given appropriate notice and, at that time, it will

be plain for everybody to see.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much extra money will the Province collect

in tax as a result of high gas taxes this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an important question in terms of the increase on gasoline tax because

of the increase in gas prices because of world oil prices. Another question that

would be a good question and appropriate: What has been the increase in oil

revenues, for example?

The fact of the matter is, in due course - what the member is really asking

is for me to out-scoop the Minister of Finance before his mid-year financial

update. The fact of the matter is that neither me nor anybody else is going to

do that. The minister will give his financial update when he is ready to give

his financial update and all revenue matters, including gasoline taxation,

including oil revenues, and anything else that has affected the public treasury

will be brought forward immediately, will be brought forward on behalf of the

people of the Province for everyone to see, not only the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much money will the government save this

year in interest charges on the provincial debt because of the increasing value

of the Canadian dollar?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I can only reiterate what my former answer was. The member is asking -

it is pretty clear what is on the go here. She is trying to accomplish through

the backdoor what she could not through the front.

The fact of the matter is this, that before the fall Legislature, before the

fall session closes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want an

answer you will get it, but if you want (inaudible) go ahead and do it on your

own (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much money will the Province receive from

the Health Accord this fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can only say this again for everyone so

they will clearly understand, more importantly, for the people of the Province

who are truly interested in what the financial situation of the Province is, not

like the members opposite.

The Minister of Finance will deal with every issue next week, or when he is

ready in terms of the financial updates. My understanding, he has made a

commitment to the people of the Province that before the House closes this

session, he will give a mid-year update on the Province's finances. Now, all

of the questions that the minister has asked are an attempt to find out exactly

that.

I say to the member opposite and all members but, more importantly, to the

people of the public, that when the minister stands before this session is over

and gives an update, it will be abundantly clear what the financial situation of

the Province is, where we have had an increase in revenue, where there has been

a decrease in revenue, and people will be able to judge for themselves on how we

are managing prudently and effectively the finances of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will we, before this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on both sides for their co-operation. A number of

questions are being asked and it is difficult for the Chair to hear both the

question and the answer.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will we, before this House breaks for

Christmas, have a free vote in the House of Assembly on the sale of FPI's

assets in the United States?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated, publicly, that in the

event it was necessary to bring this issue before the House, that the process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) at all.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is correct. There might not be one at all.

- that if, in fact, it was necessary to bring this matter before the House

that it would be conducted by a free vote so that all members would be free to

vote as they see appropriate on this very, very important issue. Right now, it

appears that the company is not proceeding with this. We have asked a lot of

questions. Unlike the previous government, we continue to ask more and more

questions. We continue to be in the light rather than in the dark, as the member

was when he was a former minister. As a result, it appears that the company is

now second guessing as to whether they want to proceed with that. So, if, in

fact, they do decide they want to proceed and if, in fact, it is something that

needs to be considered by the people of this Province, then we will certainly

bring it before this House and we will have a free vote and it will be quite

open as we are. We are open and we are accountable and a very transparent

government and that is the way we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, will the Premier commit today

that FPI will not be permitted to continue with this sale until there is a free

vote in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have already indicated to the company that we have a

legal opinion - we had several legal opinions, actually - an opinion that

indicates that there is a problem with them proceeding with that particular

issue because it could be in contravention to the act. This government is not

going to do anything that is in contravention to the act. That is why we asked

the questions. That is why we sought the opinions, because we had serious

concerns about what was going on, and we, as a government, had concerns that a

major asset, the whole marketing arm of that company, would be sold off and

would diminish the value of the company, weaken the company, and affect all of

its operations, especially its operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have had a legitimate concern. We have been truly all over this. We have

asked a lot of questions. We have asked them, if they do proceed and they do

comply with the act, to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador several

very, very important concessions in order to protect the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. That has been our position from the start, and that is still our

position.

We presently have an opinion that indicates that they could be in

contravention of the act. If they are, they will not be allowed to proceed - as

simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will you table those conflicting legal

opinions before we are asked to vote on this in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell the hon. member - and it is a very good

question - clearly and unequivocally, the purpose of a free vote in this House

of Assembly -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would not mind, I am

trying to answer a question that was asked by his colleague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell you, clearly and unequivocally, that if a

free vote is put to this House, all available information will be available to

all members, including legal opinions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services tell

the House if high gas prices are causing school bus companies to delay necessary

inspections and repairs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I

do not understand the question that he has posed to me right now because I do

not know what gas prices have to do with repairing buses. Maintenance is

expected to be kept up on the buses, and it is not in relation to gas prices.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, that is not all the minister doesn't

understand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Gas prices affect the profits that the companies are making

when they are running their buses. That is what gas prices affect. Therefore, it

filters down to keeping the buses on the road with improper maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, trucks carrying contaminated soil are travelling across the

Province without being inspected. Can the minister explain why this is

happening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The incident that he is referring to, I am assuming, is the leak that was in

the truck that was transporting contaminated material from Gander. It comes

under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, but our officials were made aware

that they were transporting HazMat materials, and our officials were there at

Pynn's Brook. The truck in question was checked and inspected. There was no

problem. It proceeded on to the ferry, and when it got to the ferry they

detected a leak. That has been rectified, and Transport Canada have put firm

guidelines in for those trucks in future, that are going to transport that

material.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Public Tender Act Exemptions

Report for the Month of October.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

Notice of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of not only Southwestern Newfoundland, but actually from across the

ribbon that we know as the Trans- Canada Highway, and it relates, in fact, to

the closure of the weigh scales and inspection station at Port aux Basques.

I am very pleased to see the minister just address this issue of contaminated

soil, because that is exactly what this issue was about. I forewarned in the

spring that these type of incidents would happen. This was not just dirty

materials we had going across this Province. This was PCB, which, anybody who

has lived in this Province is well aware, is very dangerous.

The minister refers to it as a hazardous material. It is indeed very

hazardous. The very precautions that we warned about in the spring about the

closure of the weigh scales in Port aux Basques, now we are seeing the effects

of it.

We have a truck that travels across this Province from Gander, and gets on

the ferry, that was not inspected - which would have been inspected when it got

to Port aux Basques before it ever got on a ferry. Now, what if something had

happened after it got on the ferry and the ferry had left? Well, it is not our

problem; it is Transport Canada's problem?

Well, I am sorry, the people who travel this highway and expect safety are

not going to accept the minister's answer that it is a Transport Canada issue.

It is safety travelling. Do not tell me, when I get out in the middle of the

Gulf, that this is a Transport Canada issue. It should have been picked up at

the inspection station in Port aux Basques.

Again, in terms of proper information, there is a big sign when you come

outside of Port aux Basques, about four kilometres, which says: Inspection

the minister's department about the inspection station and inspection services

that were conducted at the Port aux Basques station, the director of

communications comes back and says: Well, they do not do inspections there. They

do weight scales.

If you do not do inspections there, why are these people certified as

inspectors, and why do you have a sign up saying, inspection station? You either

are or you are not. It comes back again to the so-called openness and

accountability, in particular, of this government.

We advised in the spring we were going to have problems with safety on our

highways if that inspection station was closed. There are 80,000 commercial

vehicles a year that go through that station - 80,000 vehicles - everything from

bad tires to carrying contaminated product, to there not being secure loads.

That is the purpose of having it there. I forewarned in the spring again: We

hope nobody dies as a result of this attempt to save money at the expense of

protection and safety.

The minister is well aware, as well, we had an accident outside of Corner

Brook this fall between two tractor trailers that never would have happened if

those vehicles had been properly inspected. They would not have been on the

road. Fortunately, nobody died in that particular case, but I do not want to be

standing up here in six months time or twelve months time and sending sincere

condolences to the family of somebody, when we get to that point, for the sake

of a few measly dollars that this government will not spend on the necessary

inspection services.

Again, this petition is grounded based upon safety, based upon the protection

and lives of the people of this Province. Surely, we have to see past the god

almighty dollar sometimes and put things in place to make sure that the safety

and precautions are there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on highway safety in the Province, the

closing of the inspection stations.

Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted last week when I heard the minister, on a

question from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, say there is no evidence

that the closure of inspections stations is showing any undue safety on our

roads. I was flabbergasted, Mr. Speaker, when, about a week before, all

headlines in Corner Brook were about a truck, a flatbed truck, that was 5,000

pounds overweight that caused the accident in Corner Brook. The reason? Because

there is no inspection station anywhere. If you leave Pynn's Brook and you are

in Corner Brook, you can leave three or four or five o'clock in the morning,

load down the truck because you know there is no inspection station on the west

side of Corner Brook. There is none in Port aux Basques.

This truck was almost 5,000 pounds overweight, according to your own

officials, Madam Minister, according to your own officials. So, if you can stand

up here, and you can stand over there and laugh at that, and say to the member

here that there is no undue safety on the roads because of the inspection

stations, I ask you to go and speak to your officials in Corner Brook. The roads

are unsafe in Western Newfoundland because of the number of trucks that are

violating these regulations, because there are absolutely none.

I heard the minister give an answer, that the number of tickets issued is

down. I scratched my head when I heard that in Corner Brook. I scratched my head

and said: If you take the police officers off the road in Corner Brook -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: If you take the police officers off the road, the number of

speeding tickets has to go down. They just have to; there is no one to give

them.

I say to the minister, if you want proof that the roads are unsafe because of

the cutbacks to the highway inspections, phone your staff in Corner Brook or

phone the RCMP in Corner Brook. Do not take it from me. Do no take it from the

media, who have pictures of a truck 5,000 pounds overweight. Do not do it. Phone

your staff or phone the RCMP. It is a major highway concern. There is a safety

issue that must be addressed, and we know the bottom line. I could say to the

members opposite, because of the lack of enforcement on the roads, if it is

unsafe in Western Newfoundland, it will soon creep all across the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, if it hasn't already.

I urge the government to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, are we into Orders of the Day now?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, Sir, if you call them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you. Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to move motion 3, to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act, Bill

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 Provide For The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57.

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

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act," carried. (Bill

57)

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

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House 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'.

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill,

An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act - no,

this is (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Clerk informs me that there is a mistake on the Order Paper, that it

should read that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would give

notice. Where it says on the Order Paper, Minister of Justice and Attorney

General, that should read the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the

Minister responsible for Labrador Affairs. If we could make those corrections,

it would be appreciated by the Clerk.

Is it the wish of the House that I recall the entire thing and do it

according to what should have been on the Order Paper?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we will begin from the top again, then.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Provide For

The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act," carried. (Bill

57)

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

first time. Is it the pleasure of the House 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'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

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

said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 7.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, to move pursuant to Standing Order

11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader pursuant to

Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday,

December 7, 2004.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 6, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act

And The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly

Act And The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today to introduce Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act.

The purpose of this act - and I do not think we can underscore the importance

of what this piece of legislation is ultimately about. During the election, and

even the lead up prior to the election, the party which I represent and the

party which I am a part of and proud to be part of, we made a commitment during

the election that should we form the government that we would introduce

legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could protect me from members

opposite? All afternoon they are shouting and bawling. If they want to talk, the

opportunity is going to be provided for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Right now, I have the opportunity to introduce a piece of

legislation and if they have difficulty with that, well, then, I do not know

what else to do about it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The hon. the minister is introducing a

very important piece of legislation and I think we should be able to hear what

the minister is saying.

The hon. the minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are three parts to this bill. First of all, it deals with

fixed-term elections. I think it is an important piece of legislation from a

variety of points of view and I can speak to some from my own experiences with

respect to what I believe this amendment to the act will do for all political

parties, what it will do for people in the Province, generally. I think, really,

it is a feature of what the House should always stand for, something a little

more democratic than what we have been used to.

When this bill passes this Legislature, committed right up front, right in

this piece of legislation, we will know today when the next election will be,

and it will be the second Tuesday of October 7. That is a commitment that the

government made in terms of - October, 2007, I apologize. So, we know today.

Now, what will that effectively do? Whether you have been in government or on

the outside of government, whether it has been in the past a Conservative Party

in power or a Liberal Party in power, the call of an election ultimately came

from one person and that was the Premier of the Province.

I will give you my own experience. I remember in August of 1998, there was

the potential of an election, a snap election. Now, I happened to have found out

exactly what the story was and the story, I say to my colleagues, was simply

this. The story occurred in August when then Minister of Mines and Energy, Chuck

Furey, had a Cabinet meeting in Stephenville, did an interview with Debbie

Cooper on CBC Here and Now. I recall every moment of it. Chuck Furey said, and I

will quote - he talked about the notion of shipping ore out of Voisey's Bay.

He sent a flag up the political flagpole, a litmus test, I guess, to see what

the public of the Province and how they would respond. They responded very

negatively. They responded harshly but they responded, unequivocally, in one

voice: no, they did not want that.

The last week of August, about a week later, out came then Premier Brian

Tobin and said quote, unquote - and I have the quotes if anybody would like to

challenge me on them - said: Not one spoonful would be shipped out of Voisey's

Bay. Not one spoonful. Not a spoonful of ore would leave Voisey's Bay. Now, at

that time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask my colleagues to bear with me because it is an

interesting story. It is pertinent and particular to the piece of legislation

that we are dealing with here today, Mr. Speaker.

It became abundantly clear, I say to members opposite, abundantly clear to me

that there was about to be a snap election called in September. I got a call one

night, and I will not say from whom, but it was from a former colleague and a

former minister, who was then a minister of that Opposition, notifying me the

election did not happen. It is not going to happen this fall, Ed, and here is

why it is not going to happen. A number of people in caucus were too skittish.

There were a number of people around the Cabinet table who said that it was too

early, that we might pay a bit of a price. As a matter of fact, as a result, it

did not happen. It happened in January, two-and-a-half years into a mandate.

What this legislation is essentially going to do is eliminate the snap calls

of the past. It is going to provide an opportunity.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There were thousands of students camped on the hill is

right, I say to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Part of that election ploy as well was not only that but they needed to get

ahead of the potential nurses strike that was going to happen the next fall,

which was the biggest piece of information that they had possession of but not

necessarily the rest of us at the time.

What this legislation does, with respect to that piece, is that it says to

every political party of every stripe, that the election will be a certain time,

it will be at a certain date. So you can judge yourselves and plan yourselves

accordingly. Who is going to be the winner of all of that? The public of

Newfoundland and Labrador will be the winner of a fixed-term election, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Provide the opportunity, as of today, to say we can begin

the process of policy development, we can begin the process of candidate

selection and identification. People who want to run for political office, not

knowing when the next election will be coming, like some members or some people

in the past - and I would suggest to you, some members, and I am looking at some

of them now who are sitting in the House who put their own personal, private and

professional lives on hold for in advance of a year because they thought, and

other people thought, that an election was coming, at great financial jeopardy

for themselves.

So, the process wins and hopefully the people win. Any of us, or anybody

outside of the forty-eight seats who aspire to have the absolute privilege to be

represented , or to represent a constituency in this Legislature in one of these

forty-eight seats now, have the opportunity to plan themselves accordingly in

conjunction with, and in co-ordination with, the political party for which they

wish to run, or even as has been in the past. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, for example, in 1996, ran as an Independent and sat right up behind

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for a term, as an Independent.

The point of it is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very good piece of

legislation. It exists in other jurisdictions. It works well in other

jurisdictions. Policy development, the public - and anything and all associated

with elections, the only victors can be the public, because they now understand

when the next election will be.

It stops what has happened in the past. It stops people fooling around with a

budget to try to make it look a little better to get through twenty-one days. It

stops the notion that if there is a ticklish public policy issue coming up, like

a nurses strike which occurred in, I guess, March 1999. It does not allow a

Premier or a government to try to hoodwink the people of the Province to get

ahead of a ticklish issue. It provides an opportunity for the government to look

squarely in the faces of the people and deal with it and say how they did it in

the best fashion for the people of the Province.

It takes that sort of notion, that one person in the Province can decide what

the agenda will be, when the circumstances are right, and call it quick without

even consulting anybody else, not only this Legislature but in the Province.

The question that I put to all member of the House: Is that a feature that we

believe is important? We believe so. That is why government is advancing it. It

has worked in this Province for many years. Every four years, on a fixed time,

municipalities right across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador go to the

polls to elect their municipal leaders. It is done in the fall, it is a good

opportunity, but it has worked effectively and it has worked well for the

communities in which municipal leaders get elected.

One of the second features - there are three features, I said earlier, to

this bill. The second feature deals with the notion if a seat becomes vacant in

this House. If, for example, the Member for Exploits were to resign, or the

Member for Cape St. Francis, God forbid, or any other member in this House, for

whatever reason, or if a member were to pass away, or for health reasons, or for

personal reasons, whatever the reasons may be, that should the constituency they

represent become vacant because that member happens to leave, then we are

changing the law, or suggesting that we change the law today, to shorten the

time up of when that by-election must be held. Right now I believe it is six

months. What we are saying is, if a seat becomes vacant, that with ninety days

the election must be called and must be over with.

The purpose of that, that used to be a feature in this House before.

Actually, I believe it was introduced by the former Premier Wells, if I am not

mistaken, I say to my colleague opposite, if I am correct, but it was an

important feature. We have, I guess, recommitted in this legislation to ensuring

that, if a seat becomes vacant, the people who reside in that area, irrespective

of where they live, if their district is not represented in the Legislature,

then a by-election must be called in a timely fashion, for one purpose and one

purpose only, Mr. Speaker, ultimately to ensure that they and their interests

and the constituents in that district do not go unrepresented in their House of

Assembly for an inordinate period of time. We believe a ninety-day period is

sufficient in terms of when to call an election and when to have it done by in

order for that area of the Province to be effectively and physically represented

in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the third and last feature of this piece of legislation is also

important. I believe it is the one that will probably generate the most

discussion in the House. The third feature deals with, essentially, that should

a sitting Premier leave the seat of government and effectively resign as Premier

of the Province, then what this legislation calls for is that, upon the election

of a new Premier - Premier and leader, they would both be the same, I say to my

colleague - in the House by his or her party, that individual must, within a

twelve-month period - not may, but must - within a twelve-month period, go to

the people of the Province to seek their own mandate.

Now, what is important here - here is the process. I want to take time to

explain the process. We look at when former Premier Peckford left, or when

former Premier Tobin left, for example, here is what occurred: The respective

parties went through a leadership convention, participated in their own

parliamentary or democratic process, which both parties have, or any party for

that matter, a leader is elected, of the party, and then, by being elected

leader of that party, that individual also becomes Premier automatically.

What this bill is saying is that once that person is elected as leader, and

once that person then becomes, in law, the Premier of the Province as result of

that election, that person, whether it be on this side of the House or that side

of the House, must go and seek their own mandate within a period of twelve

months.

Now, there are some questions that surround that, and I look forward to

answering those in the Committee debate, but it is another feature, in our view,

of accountability. It is another feature by where an individual or a party

cannot continue to govern - say there are three-and-a-half years left in a

mandate, or three years, or two-and-half, whatever the situation, as it exists,

there is an obligation, in law, a statutory obligation, for that person to move

ahead and call an election or to seek their own mandate.

There are situations that will present themselves from time to time in

Legislatures, and these are: What happens if there is a minority government? The

question has been asked: What would happen if there is a minority government - I

say to my colleague for Placentia & St. Mary's - in this situation, and

government was defeated, for example, on a budgetary motion, which means a

Finance bill? Obviously, if government were defeated on a Finance bill, or a

budgetary motion, it is a motion of non-confidence and an election must be

called immediately. That would remain the same. There is no way that you cannot

let that continue.

Other questions have arisen, and members opposite, I am sure, have questions.

We are looking forward, and I am looking forward, to debating some of those,

whatever they may be.

I guess, ultimately, if there is a take-home message that I would like to

leave with this particular piece of legislation, while it is not a thick piece

of legislation, it does not contain many clauses, it contains just a few, but

the few it does contain will revamp how politics in Newfoundland and Labrador is

carried out. It will revamp how people get ready for elections, and ultimately

how people are prepared on policy documents, on candidate selection, on

candidate identification. It will provide a fairer opportunity, no matter - and

this is the most important thing: It takes the advantage away from government

and it puts the advantage squarely where it belongs, democratically, with the

people of the Province. It takes the advantage - I sat in Opposition for ten

years, and I know all about what that advantage can do.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it was, but it was a fun time, I say to the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans. It was a fun time.

The point is this: I understand full well what the advantage to being

government is, when you have a Premier of a Province who has the ultimate

authority to call a snap election. To our Premier's credit, to the credit of

the leader of our party, in our own discussions within our own caucus in the

lead-up to the election, this is one of the things that he was adamant about

pursuing.

We believe, fundamentally, and I believe others will too, that in fixing a

term - like today, if we pass this legislation today or whenever we pass it, and

we believe it will be passed. We believe it has the general support within all

members of the House - that we can begin today to tell people, we can tell

people immediately that the second Tuesday in October, 2007, will be the next

provincial general election; the second Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, unless there are - and those are the questions we will

get to, but generally speaking, that should things remain constant that this is

what will happen.

So, we are very proud to put forward this piece of legislation, introduce a

fixed term. We are very proud that part of this legislation involves shorting up

the time for if a seat becomes absent, wherever that seat may be, that

constituents in that riding or district will not go unrepresented for an

unwarranted amount of time. That is shortened up.

We are also very pleased and supportive of the notion that if a Premier

resigns, as did former Premier Peckford, as did former Premier Wells, as did

former Premier Tobin, that should that occur no one person who gets elected

leader of the party and subsequently as a result of that become Premier, can

carry on with a mandate for more than twelve months without going to the polls

to seek their own mandate. We believe those are all essential features of the

democratic process in our Province and we believe, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally

that this piece of legislation enhances everybody.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A pleasure again to see this particular bill on the Order Paper for the House

of Assembly. An issue in principle - and this again, just so we all remind

ourselves that this is the debate in principle as to whether or not we agree

with the concept, the notion, the idea. No question, that the Liberal Party and

the Liberal Opposition as the Official Opposition fully supports and concurs in

the concept of a fixed-term election. It was clearly a part of our mandate and

our Red Book that we put forward to the people in an election, as well. I am

glad to see early action taken by the government with respect to this particular

issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I will say about it and there are

some possible amendments that we are considering to move at the committee stage

to try to strengthen this particular bill to guarantee that it does, in fact, do

what we all agree it should do in principle. That being, unless there are some

extraordinary circumstances, that the people of the Province should know when

the next election is; just like they do for town councils, school boards back

when they used to be elected. I guess they are going to be elected again some

time because one of the things that this government did when they became the

elected government is they did away with the elected school boards. Abolished

them! They took it upon themselves to wipe them out. They decided that even

though they were elected through a legitimate process, that they should be

abolished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, members opposite, I am sure a number of them

will want to speak to this because this is a very important democratic reform.

Rather than just yap from the seats, like is want to happen sometimes. I am sure

they will want to be on the public record as to why they support this important

initiative.

Mr. Speaker, people would know, I think, in Newfoundland and Labrador,

politics and elections, the people of this Province take as seriously as

anywhere in the democratic world. They guard the right, they protect the right.

As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say that there are an awful lot of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who love politics. They really do take an

interest in politics. They take an interest in their politicians. They take an

interest in what is happening in their Legislature. They take an interest in the

kinds of things that once we get elected, that we are as the government

empowered to do and as the Opposition challenged to do on their behalf in

raising issues. There is a very vibrant, political culture alive and well in

Newfoundland and Labrador and I think there is some real interest in this issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will probably move, and we have had a preliminarily

discussion of it because this is one of the pieces of legislation that we have

had, in my view, for a reasonable period of time. We were given this some days

ago, well over a week ago, maybe two weeks ago, so this particular piece of

legislation, in my view, is where it should be.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, right up-front, whatever time my point of order takes I would

not want it to come from the Leader of the Opposition's time and he can

certainly have that back by leave.

Secondly, I am not going to stand in this House and listen to any member make

an accusation against this government in saying we are not providing legislation

in the appropriate time when, in fact, it is not true.

I offered that Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, nine days ago, a briefing on any piece of legislation, any time, make any

staff available, and I am not going to sit down and listen to the Member for

Twillingate make an accusation that is false, because that is the fact of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And I am not going to listen to anyone else suggest that we

are trying to ram stuff through when we are not. We have provided legislation in

a more timely manner than any government before us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, I will continue to

do it above the objections of that member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order.

MR. REID: I am, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, and I don't

know why the Government House Leader is getting so hot under the collar and

yelling and screaming here today.

He talks about giving us access to legislation in a timely order. The

Minister of Fisheries rose yesterday afternoon in this House and gave notice

that he would be, on today, bringing forward a bill from his department, the

Department of Fisheries. I asked the minister at the time, yesterday afternoon,

and I asked the House Leader, and the Premier was also listening, if I could

have a copy of that piece of legislation, and I haven't seen it yet. What have

we got left in this session? Four or five days left in this session to debate

that piece of legislation, and yet it hasn't been forthcoming. I say to the

minister, if he wants to live by the words he says, present it to me right now

here in the House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is how the parliamentary process works, for the

member. You give notice on one day. We can't give it, Mr. Speaker, until first

reading is read. We gave first reading today, the member will have the

legislation today. We will not debate it until the member is absolutely ready,

Mr. Speaker, to have the appropriate time to do his own consultations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final presentation to the point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he should know the

difference. We have one week, after this one, left in the Legislature in this

sitting according to his rules and regulations. If he is going to give me all

the time I want to read this bill, then I suggest that it probably won't be

done this session.

MR. E. BYRNE: The appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Points of order occur when there is something offensive to the Standing

Orders. While these points that have been made by hon. members are interesting,

they do not constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, continuing debate.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean -

MR. E. BYRNE: You have no idea what you are talking about.

MR. REID: Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, you don't.

MR. REID: You don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask Kelvin.

MR. REID: You don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask Kelvin. Did he tell you that I was going to provide

(inaudible) every piece of legislation.

MR. REID: I asked you for it. I asked you for it. Whatever you want, you

said yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask hon. members for their co-operation. We have dealt with

the point of order.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) is what you are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have dealt with the point of order. I ask hon. members now if we could

continue with the debate.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Government House Leader seems a bit agitated

today. He caught me completely by surprise with a point of order. I was just

standing here in the House complimenting the House Leader on the timely

presentation of this piece of legislation and he got up on a point of order

saying that he was being accused of not giving us timely legislation. If he

checked the record, usually a point of order is, Mr. Speaker, as you described

appropriately, about some breach of the rules and usually directed at something

that the currently recognized speaker, which is me, was saying. I was saying

that this is a perfect example of us having received the legislation in plenty

of time to prepare ourselves for an informed debate. The House Leader for the

government jumped up on a point of order saying: I am not going to stand here

and say to people you are not giving it to me on time.

I just finished telling him we had this in lots of time. We had this piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, in lots of time, and we appreciated receiving this

piece of legislation in lots of time. If he wants to make an issue of it, which

he obviously did, by rising to a point of order, then maybe I can refer back to

yesterday where they passed us Bill 44.

As he points out, here is what we are debating today, Mr. Speaker. For those

who may be viewing us in the Legislature - because I indicated there are people

who are interested - here it is, a couple of clauses on this page. As a matter

of fact, there is one clause on this page and there is one clause on this page.

In its entirety, it is two pages long, it contains two clauses, and we received

it several days ago, over a week ago, I would suggest, so we could prepare for

the debate.

Yesterday, we had this bill which contains twenty-six pages in the first part

- and right now I am over 300 - it is 327 pages in the second part, so over 350

pages of an historic piece of legislation with respect to Inuit Land Claims in

Labrador, and when did we receive this bill officially?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday.

MR. GRIMES: Yesterday afternoon, about five minutes before we had one of

the most historic debates ever conducted in the history of the Province, Mr.

Speaker. That is an inconsistency. I was not intending to bring that up today,

and I will not dwell on it, but the fact of the matter is, you are expected to

deal with this in an intelligent fashion on behalf of the people who sent us

here. People on the government side, Mr. Speaker, received this bill yesterday.

The first time it was ever laid on the desk in the Legislature was yesterday

afternoon. As a matter of fact, by Friday afternoon when I went looking for it,

it was not printed. It was not printed.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader got a bit hot under the collar,

because I know he is under a lot of pressure. I know he is under a lot of

pressure, and he blew off a bit of steam for the wrong issue. I can understand

him blowing off a bit of steam yesterday if we complained about this, like we

did. Today, I tried to compliment the man. I tried to say this two-page bill,

which is significant, Mr. Speaker, we had it in lots of time. If they would only

give us all the legislation in the same timely fashion, we would not even

discuss the issue.

Here you have the Government House Leader jumping up, all indignant, talking

about the timeliness of this particular crowd. Timely, yes, I guess. Two-hundred

and sixty pages of legislation put on the Table at 1:30 p.m., expecting us to

have it passed by 5 o'clock. Now, I am a pretty good reader - I am even a

speed reader - but I could not read that. In four hours, you couldn't possibly

read that. You could not read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) signed off on it.

MR. GRIMES: There were members opposite yesterday, by the way, who signed

off on it, the Member for Port au Port says, signed off on it. He raised his

hand yesterday and stood in the House to vote for it, having never read it. Bit

of a John Crosbie with free trade, I would say. A very important document, never

read the document in his life, followed like a sheep what the Premier and the

government decided to do, stood up when he was told to stand up, sat down when

he was told to stay in his seat, and never said a word in the debate. That is

what we have over there, Mr. Speaker. Now, they have me sidetracked. Let me get

back to what I am trying to say here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for straying slightly from the

topic. I know the Speaker was just looking at the rules of order, suggesting I

may be straying a bit. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were speaking to the point of order.

MR. GRIMES: The point of order was ruled, as it was, no point of order.

Indignation by the Government House Leader for no good reason.

Let me start again. I compliment the Government House Leader and the

government for giving us this legislation in a timely fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, absolutely compliment them. I

would like for them to use this as a model for what we should be doing for all

the rest of the legislation.

Now, my friend and colleague from Twillingate & Fogo points out that

yesterday there was notice given about a Fish Inspection Act. It was given first

reading today, and absolutely the Government House Leader was right on this. The

normal tradition inside the Legislature is that the actual piece of legislation

would not be presented in the Legislature until after it gets first reading;

because, in our rules, it does not really exist until then, but that does not

preclude the government, any member of the government - the House Leader, the

Premier, the minister responsible - from giving us a copy of the bill so we can

study it.

That was what was asked for yesterday, by the way. What was asked for

yesterday, of the Premier - the minister said the Fish Inspection Act, in the

spirit of openness and accountability and transparency, which is also here, by

the way, Bill 39, a new bill, saying this government is going to be open and

transparent.

The simple question yesterday was, in the spirit of openness and

transparency, since you have told us we are going to do the Fish Inspection Act,

could you please send me over a copy so I can get ready? Yesterday, what did he

say? Oh, yes, no problem. We are open, we are transparent, we will give you a

copy of the act. What did we get today? The Government House Leader, all

indignant, saying: Sure, I cannot give you the bill; we did not do first reading

yet.

Sure, they might not do first reading until some time next week, but they

told us yesterday they were going to do the bill; we are assuming it is printed.

It may or may not be printed; nobody here has seen it. Nobody has seen it yet,

and no one in that caucus has seen it. The government caucus has not seen it,

Mr. Speaker, but there was a commitment made to provide it to the Official

Opposition, and of course today they are backing off from the commitment because

they are not nearly as open and transparent and accountable as they would lead

people to believe.

Now, back to Bill 40, Mr. Speaker, fixed election dates. I fully concur and,

as the Government House Leader said in introducing the bill, there are sometimes

extraordinary circumstances in our parliamentary traditions which prevent that

from happening. One of them being, for some strange reason, even in a majority

government circumstance, there could still be a vote of non-confidence in the

government because the rest of the members of the caucus may decide on some

particular issue not to support the Premier and the Cabinet. So, you should not

assume that a non-confidence vote in our democratic tradition is only possible

in a minority government circumstance. It is not. It is possible under any

circumstance. There could be a non-confidence vote at a point in time and then,

of course, the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of the people of the Province, as

the Administrator, has a constitutional responsibility to decide whether to

offer someone else the opportunity to govern or to call an election.

The idea that is here in subsection 3 about having the Lieutenant-Governor

maintain the ability to call an election under an extraordinary circumstance is

absolutely essential and we will talk about, not definitively but maybe, an

amendment to make that even a better provision and to make sure that, if the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council does do that, it is because he is acting

completely independently and not because of any advice received by the

government or the Premier. We will talk about that issue. It is an issue that

needs to be addressed and it should be in the bill, and we are glad to see it in

the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about setting the date: This government has

chosen the second Tuesday in October. That is entirely up to them as to when

they want it to be. The last election that we had, a year or so ago, was the

third week of October. The government, obviously, is signaling to us in this

bill that they think October month is the best time of year to have an election

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some other government might think maybe it should

have been the spring. Most people would think probably not in the middle of the

summer. It is too short and too precious to have it done with an election.

There was a Premier a little while ago who used to love February months.

There was a Premier a while ago who loved February month and called two

elections in February - two majority mandates.

MR. COLLINS: He did not live in Labrador.

MR. GRIMES: He did not live in Labrador, but I can tell you that being

the Member for Exploits district, the strangest thing happened. This is just a

little history. In Exploits district in communities like Bishop's Falls,

Botwood, Leading Tickles and Fortune Harbour, in the middle of February, two

different times - only three years apart, not four - there was no snow. The

temperature was in the teens and people were going to the polling stations with

shorts and T-shirts on. Absolutely amazing! Some people suggested that Premier,

that leader, had a bit of a lucky star or something over his head or whatever,

but I will tell you one thing, the weather sure co-operated in February.

Now, I take it this government is signaling that they cannot count on that

kind of weather in February. They think there is a much better chance of having

that kind of weather the second week of October, but it is their decision to

take. We do not have any particular quarrel with that, they are the government.

They are deciding that it should be the second week in October and that is fine

with us, one way or the other. They are the majority. They will decide that, and

we will live with that.

Mr. Speaker, then there is the other issue. The idea of what happens if the

leader changes. What happens if the leader changes before the four years are up?

Now, there has been a long tradition of this in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

think it is one of the issues that led our caucus to concluding that there

should be fixed terms because the leaders had changed fairly frequently during

Conservative governments, in the time of Moores and Peckford and another former

Premier, who is here in the Legislature with us, the Member for Lewisporte.

Also, in Liberal times, where in the last few years that I was here we had

Premiers Wells, Tobin, Tulk, and Grimes. So, the leaders have changed more often

than the government has changed.

There was quite an issue made with respect to: If the leader changes, does

the government that got elected as a collective group have the mandate to

continue on for the rest of the four years? Now, I have always contended that,

yes they do. I have always contended that. That was a point of contention,

obviously, with the Opposition, but I have always contended that we do not have

a separate election for the Premier in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our

parliamentary traditions have always been you elect your forty-eight members and

whichever party has the most members, the leader of that party is asked to form

the government. The leader of that party then becomes the Premier by virtue of

that.

We do not go out like some town councils and cities do, elect their councils

and have a separate election for the mayor. That is not our process. We do not

do like the United States does, have an election for Senators, have an election

for Congressmen but elect its President and Vice-President separately. That is

not our tradition.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have an hour. I do not plan to take it. So

I would suggest to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I know he

is anxious to speak, come back in a few minutes, you will get your turn and I

will gladly listen to you.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have that tradition. I understand that what the

government is signaling is that they believe there should be more authority,

more autonomy, more importance put on the role of who the leader is than who the

collective group is. That is what they are now saying they will put into this

legislation. That is their right to do so. They are saying that a government

does not get a mandate, the leader gets a mandate. They bought into that

argument. I do not subscribe to it. I understand that some members of my own

caucus might even subscribe to it. I certainly do not, never did. I have always

respected the parliamentary traditions that a government is elected by the rules

that have been sustained in western democracies for a century. Well, actually

several centuries, almost a millennium in terms of elections. They have served

people very, very well; certainly since the 1600s for sure. That is a tradition

that is carried on, being maintained and being sustained.

Now, I would suggest one thing. Again, they are the majority, if they decide

it is more important that the government change every time the Premier changes,

that you cannot continue on, that the other people in the government caucus did

not get elected with any mandate, only the Premier got elected with a mandate.

That is what they say they believe in that clause, that the whole government got

elected on the coattails of the Premier. That is what this says, that none of

them got elected on their own merits. They were no good. They meant nothing in

the vote. The Member for Gander, insignificant. What this says is that he only

got elected because they had a particular leader at a point in time and if that

leader changes the whole government must be re-elected. That is what is says.

Now, I am saying, as a matter of principle, that I, as one elected member and

having been a parliamentarian for fifteen years, disagree, fundamentally, with

that concept. I would be very surprised if this government does anything other

than vote for what is here because we know who wrote this. The Government House

Leader - it is here in his name - did not write this. We know where this came

from. It came from the eighth floor in this building from the Premier's

office. The Government House Leader did not write this. There might have been

some little preliminary discussion with him before they decided to put his name

on the bill to put it in the Legislature.

So, the fact of the matter is, I disagree with it. They are going to, most

likely, agree with it because they have been told, as per usual, this is the way

it is going to be, folks. This is what I want you to support and this is the way

it is going to be. I am not sure there was even a question asked as to whether

people agreed. I am positive there was no debate in their caucus as to whether

or not the principle, that I am now talking about, was sensible or not. I would

bet every penny that I own in this world, that debate was not held in that

caucus, and I am not wasteful man. I would like to keep my money. I think I am

pretty safe on this one, Mr. Speaker.

Now, on the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, I will throw in my pension and my RRSPs, too. The whole

works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The house, yes, the car, the works; a bit of farmland I got,

too. I shouldn't have said that. Maybe I did not disclose my farmland to the

Commissioner. Then, again, the Premier has been elected for over a year and he

hasn't declared anything to the Commissioner. So, I guess we can all decide to

declare nothing these days. A new set of rules.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, one other serious point about that. I think I have

adequately addressed, in principle, why I disagree with the concept, but I

believe the government is determined to vote for that new concept and that new

idea. My question, then, would be this: If they believe - because that what this

says - that if the leader changes the government no longer has a mandate to stay

in office - that if the leader changes the government does not have a mandate,

then why would you leave that new leader there for a year? Why would you give

them twelve months? Why would you want that new leader who does not have a

mandate, to use their words, and that new government - the government with the

new leader who is not legitimately elected because their leader is gone, that is

the only reason. Why would you leave that circumstance for twelve months? If you

agree that it is wrong, if you agree - which I don't - that if the leader

changes you have all lost your mandate, why would you stay there for twelve

months? Why? We are saying we can run by-elections in sixty days notice, and

thirty days to run the by-election. It might take a little bit longer than that,

but why would you take a year? Why would you give the person - because the

concept and principle is, you do not have a mandate anymore. That is what you

are buying into. You are buying into the fact that if your leader leaves, the

rest of the thirty-three on that side do not have a mandate anymore.

It is a little tongue-in-cheek and it is a little two-faced, Mr. Speaker.

They are willing to say, we accept that we do not have a mandate, but guess

what? We are going to keep one anyway for a year. Now they have it refined, so

maybe they do not believe in the principle that they do not have a mandate. They

do not have a mandate but we are going to have one anyway for a year. So, if you

believe, as a matter of principle, that you do not have a mandate if your leader

changes, then I think you should bring forward amendments to reduce that time to

much less than a full year. I think you should bring it down to six months, four

months, those kinds of things, but this is the law. We are talking about the

law. Good sense has reduced it many times in the past, and the Member for

Lewisporte knows it. They reduced it in his sense to forty-four days, and he

ended up in Opposition, so good sense does that. People spoke the last time and

we fully acknowledge it.

You either understand that you believe in the principle or you do not; but,

again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we believe in a principle

that says we do not have a mandate, but we are going to have a mandate anyway

for twelve months if we want it. Either you believe in something or you do not

believe in something. This is a matter of principle we are debating today, and

we will see what principle they espouse when we get to it.

The other thing is this: The other clause on the second page of this bill -

it is two pages long - talks about guaranteeing that by-elections will be called

within sixty days and held within thirty days of that, at a maximum, done within

ninety days. No disagreement. Again, as the Member for St. John's North would

say: Good sense has dictated that in any event.

By the way, the Government House Leader would know this. The change that was

made when the Liberals formed the government in 1989 was to bring in a

ninety-day limit for the calling of it, and guess why? The Member for St. John's

North might be interested in this. Guess why it was changed in 1989? Because

there was no limit in the legislation before, when you had to call a

by-election, and the Premier of the day, who happened to be Premier Peckford,

had a leader elected for the opposition party - a leader was elected for the

opposition party - by the name of Clyde Wells. A member who was sitting in the

Legislature for the Liberals resigned and vacated a seat and the Premier of the

day did not have the decency to call a by-election for over six months. Then,

when he called the by-election, guess when he called the by-election? For the

day before Christmas Eve, when there was hardly going to be a soul wanting to go

out and vote for anybody. He tried to make sure that nobody showed up, tried to

freeze the person out, left a seat vacant in the Legislature for well over six

months, so the rule was then changed, to make sure you call it within thirty

days.

There used to be a thirty-day limit, or within ninety days, and it used to

have to be held within thirty days. Then the thirty-day limit on holding it

disappeared in a subsequent amendment, and I think it is the right thing to

bring it back. I agree fully and completely and totally because, as the Member

for St. John's North said, good sense will take care of that. Well, good sense

did not take care of it then, I guarantee you, and good sense might not take

care of any leader who wants to stay around for a year, when you have

acknowledged -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I will be glad to here your representation about the choices

I made, because I do not believe in the principle. You believe in the principle,

fair enough, but if you believe in the principle then go a step further and do

not trust the good sense to have a leader call an election in less than twelve

months, if you are going to say we do not have a mandate but we are going to

give ourselves one for twelve months anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude with these other thoughts. What is here

fundamentally is the basis of some good work and some good thoughts and some

good ideas, but it does not go nearly as far as the democratic reform around

this issue that the Premier himself committed to the people of the Province in

the Blue Book when he was Leader of the Opposition, and here in this Legislature

when he has made some references to it. He talked about other things that are

not in this bill.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, I contend, will have to be amended again. It will

have to be amended again because there is this issue of the election will be,

unless there is an extenuating circumstance, on the second Tuesday of October in

Now, the current act also talks about an election time frame. How long is the

election period? There has to be a minimum notice of twenty-one days. I do not

believe the current legislation provides any maximum for the general election.

There is a maximum here now for a by-election, so how long is the election

period going to be? We know when the election is, but is the Premier going to

call -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four years.

MR. GRIMES: I understand what the Member for Lewisporte said, the

election period is going to be four years, but the serious point is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, it is not the fact when you talk about the law. There are

certain things that are allowed to be done once the writ is dropped - he knows

that - once the election is officially called. When it is held and when it is

officially called are two different matters, two very important legalistic

matters, because when the election writ period is in place, when the election

has been officially called, there are certain expenditures allowed to be made,

there is certain advertising allowed to be done, there are certain third-party

interventions that are permitted during that period, or not permitted during

that period and permitted during other periods. We have to refine it and make

sure it is tighter. Does it give the government or the Premier the right to call

the election in the middle of June and say the election period has now

officially started?

Common sense, the Member for St. John's North says, will dictate all of

that. That is why I am saying there are some other pieces that may not be here.

What is here is good, is what I am saying. What is here is good, but there are

other issues.

What about third-party involvement? What about third-party advertising? What

about third-party spending and intervention? Where are the new rules with

respect to that, that bring it in line with a very significant change? Because

now they dictate certain things, is it the same time periods when you know the

election is the second Tuesday in October?

We will raise them in more detail in Committee. We will put them on the

record now, because we know the Government House Leader and others will want to

give us definitive answers. I am saying, in principle, a couple of things here

are headed in the right direction. I have pointed out the one thing in principle

that I do not agree with, with respect to not having a mandate if the leader

changes, but the rest of the bill, the other items, are headed in the right

direction.

What about the election period for a general election? There will need to be

some clarification of that. What about contribution limits? In the Blue Book,

the Premier talked openly about the fact that there are going to be new rules

for contribution limits during elections for corporations and for individuals.

Those things are in the Elections Act now, Mr. Speaker. We are amending the

House of Assembly Act and we are amending the Elections Act, so what about those

new limits? Are we going to come back and amend the act again before that next

election? It does not look like we are ready to do it now because it is not here

for our consideration. You have the contribution limits for organizations,

individuals, and those types of things.

What about the new rules that the Premier put in the Blue Book about

leadership contests within parties? He said there was going to be a law that

says, when you run for the leadership of a party you must disclose who your

contributors are. You must do the full public thing the same as if it is a

general election. If you raise money for a leadership - these are right in the

Blue Book. I can read them for you verbatim, if you want, but I take it the

members opposite at least read their own Blue Book that they ran on, even

though, I guess, by virtue of not having a mandate, they all know they ran on

coattails and not a platform at all. That is what they have bought into.

The other piece of it, by the way, that if you raise money for a leadership

and if you do not spend it all, or if you withdraw from the leadership, he said

there is going to be law that says you have to give it back. You have to give

the money back. Now, that is part of all this reform that isn't in this bill.

Then, he said, there would be different content rules for advertising. There

were going to be brand new rules for advertising, right in the Blue Book, not in

the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am only pointing that out because there were other issues that

were raised in the context of the fixed election date and accountability, and I

would expect we will see a further amendment to either the House of Assembly Act

or the Elections Act to deal with those other issues that have been put on the

record.

Mr. Speaker, again, let me conclude at this point because we will talk about

it again at different stages in Committee. The concept of a fixed-term election,

absolutely the right idea. I commend the government to living to this

commitment, because there are many that they put forward to the people of the

Province that they did not keep. This is one that - so far, as I say, it is not

perfect, it is not in its entirety, but the basic premise of a fixed-term

election is the right thing to do and I am glad to see it here.

Mr. Speaker, we will look at potential amendments as we move through, and I

am glad to see and hear the participation of many members with this very

important, significant, democratic reform that is long overdue in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to be able to rise and make some comments about what

I think is a very progressive piece of legislation, Bill 40. It just happens to

fall in the sequence of Bill 39, another major piece of legislative reform, and

reflects very progressive legislation.

As the former speaker and the Leader of the Opposition points out, there are

three separate pieces of this legislation and I want to comment on the three of

them if I could. The first one, being fixed terms, is obviously a significant

issue. If you look at the history, and most recent history, of elections in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we saw, in a period of 1993, 1996, 1999, rapid

successions and rapid calls of elections.

Mr. Speaker, in each of those election calls there was a significant amount

of staging, a significant amount of manipulation that took place in advance of

those elections. One could say that it was a manipulation of the electorate.

This particular provision in this bill very clearly now forces a government,

any government, whether it is this government today or some future government,

it forces government to focus on governing the Province and not positioning

itself for an election, or continuously thinking about how it might be

opportunistic and call an election at a time when it suits their circumstance

best. I think that is the significant issue with respect to this particular

component of this bill. It now forces government to focus on a mandate that we

all now know will be four years. We know today that on October 9, 2007, the

people of the Province will be going to the polls again. This government

recognizes that, the Opposition Party recognizes that, but, most importantly,

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize that.

As a government, our responsibility is to provide good, sound, governance

today, create legislation that reflects a progressive government, reflects the

protection of the people of this Province. That is what our responsibility is,

and that is what our focus will be. We are not, today, thinking about whether or

not we have an opportunity today to call an election.

Right now, today, Mr. Speaker, we are about on the eve of signing what is

probably a major arrangement with the federal government. We have been

successful, we have been extremely successful, in our discussions with the

federal government, because we have established an excellent relationship with

the federal government. Our leader has demonstrated clearly that he has the

ability to negotiate skillfully, and hopefully in the next few days or the next

few weeks we will hear a major announcement on the Atlantic Accord.

Ordinarily, in politics in Newfoundland and Labrador, former Premiers would

have seized that opportunity, an opportunity like the Atlantic Accord, and a

good news announcement, to call a snap election to extend their mandate. This

will not happen. We can now focus on the good news coming out of a renegotiated

Accord, looking at how we might invest that new money in providing quality

programs and services.

Ordinarily, if we were not anticipating this kind of legislation, if

governments would not envisage this kind of legislation, governments of the past

would have strategically either accelerated the discussion process or dragged

out the discussion process to reach a point where they could make an

announcement and, at the same time or shortly thereafter, call an election on

that good news announcement, on the strength of that good news announcement, in

that false sense that they would lure people in to supporting their re-election.

That is what the past would have seen.

In 1999, for example, we saw a Premier call an election three years after the

1996 one, but what did he do in advance? He pulled out all the one-time revenues

from the federal government, produced a balanced budget, produced what he was

presenting as a rosy financial picture, which was false. It was a hiding of the

real truth. At the same time, though, he presented a picture to the people of

the Province that the finances of this Province were much better than they were,

and, in fact, called an election on the strength of the fiscal position of the

Province. This won't happen in future, Mr. Speaker. This particular piece of

legislation and this bill will prevent that from ever happening again in the

future, and that is extremely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The second provision in this bill is with respect to by-elections. Mr.

Speaker, I first got elected in a by-election, in April of 2000. In April of

2000 I was elected in a by-election, and in that General Assembly, the

Forty-Fourth General Assembly of this Province, we had some five or six

by-elections. If you look at each of those by-elections, Mr Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is substantial shouting across the House, and it is difficult for the

Chair to hear the Member for Trinity North. I ask members for their

co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that protection.

I say, Mr. Speaker, in that Forty-Fourth General Assembly, we saw some five

or six by-elections. I was one of the first. In the by-election in Trinity

North, the one I was elected in, the Premier of that day called that by-election

the day he announced the resignation of the former member. The people of Trinity

North did not have to have an extended period of time without representation in

this House.

If you look at the by-elections that followed, in Bonavista North, Conception

Bay South, The Straits & White Bay North, and St. Barbe, all of those

by-elections saw those districts go an extended period of time without

representation, and that should never happen, Mr. Speaker. The whole principle

of having representation in this House is to ensure that the issues with respect

to each electoral district in this Province, the issues that are of concern to

the people in those districts, they have an opportunity to be voiced on the

floor of this House, and that is a significant issue. Any time a government

allows a seat to stay vacant for an extended period of time, what that really

does is provides that district without any representation. There is a block of

people in the Province for that moment of time who do not have representation in

this House of Assembly. Yes, there is still a government in power, yes, the

day-to-day operation of government continues, but the voices of those people do

not get heard in this Assembly, the people's Assembly, and that is ex