April

23, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the House welcomes members' statements by: the

Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the Member for the

District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for the District of Topsail; the

Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the

District of Humber Valley; and, the Member for the District of Placentia &

St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Port aux Basques native, Mr. John

Ford, on being nominated to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from

Memorial University on May 29, 2008.

The award is presented to honour Mr. Ford for his determination to survive

and to commemorate the war in the Pacific and its victims. Mr. Ford enlisted in

the Royal Air Force in 1940, and after basic training in England was posted to

Singapore. He was taken prisoner by the Japanese in 1942 and placed in a

prisoner of war camp in Nagasaki. During his incarcerations, he and his fellow

prisoners suffered brutal treatment at the hands of their captors. When the

American forces dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Mr. Ford witnessed and

survived the explosion. He was rescued and returned to Newfoundland where he

resumed his employment with the Newfoundland Railway. He retired from the

Railway in 1976.

Since that time, Mr. Ford has lobbied for the rights of veterans and is a

very active member of the Royal Canadian Legion. He has provided valuable

contributions to the Legion activities, including the annual poppy campaign and

both the Caribou Legion Pavilion and Manor. For twenty-five years, Mr. Ford has

appeared at Remembrance Day ceremonies where he speaks of the horrors of war and

lobbies for world peace.

The Royal Canadian Legion presented him with the Meritorious Service Medal

with Palm Leaf, the highest award granted to members. In 2006, he was honoured

with a Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation for his contribution to the

care, well-being and remembrance of veterans.

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

congratulations to Mr. John Ford on being chosen to receive an honorary doctor

of laws from Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Town of Conception Bay South is home to many of this

Province's finest athletes.

On April 21, my colleague, the MHA for the District of Conception Bay South,

and I attended the 2007 Athletic Awards ceremony to recognize the achievements

of the town's athletes. During the evening, Mr. Speaker, all nominees for the

five award categories were honoured and the following athletes were the

recipients of the 2007 awards:

Coach of the Year was Mr. Basil Crosbie, for his involvement in rugby. Junior

Female Athlete of the Year was Megan Tilley, for her outstanding achievements in

soccer. Junior Male Athlete of the Year was Ian Martin, who holds the provincial

record in the fifty metre backstroke. Senior Female Athlete of the Year was

Danika Gulliver, who represented Team Canada on the Under 19 Women's Rugby

team in December. Senior Male Athlete of the Year was Robert Spearing, who was

last year's Athlete of the Year at Queen Elizabeth Regional High School.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the athletes for their

individual achievements and commitment to their particular sport. I would also

like to recognize Mr. Rex Hillier and his Selection Committee, who I am sure had

to make very some difficult decisions when making their final selections from

the twenty nominations submitted. Mr. Hillier was recently inducted into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame.

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

the recipients of the 2007 Conception Bay South Athletic Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate two outstanding constituents, who

are brothers, Justin and William Moores from L'Anse au Clair, who recently

graduated from Memorial University and are both embarking on careers as doctors.

Mr. Speaker, these young men grew up in a small community in Labrador and

were educated in a multi-grade school system, which is something their parents

are particularly proud of, both of them whom are former teachers.

Mr. Speaker, Justin received his Ph.D. in biology from Memorial University,

and is currently residing in Ottawa where he is doing research in the field of

genetics. William received a degree in medicine at Memorial University, and is

currently participating in his first year residency in the orthopaedic surgery

department at Memorial. His work primarily takes place at St. Clare's Mercy

Hospital, the Health Sciences Centre and the Janeway.

Nath and Barbara Moores are proud parents of Justin and William, and they

were overjoyed to attend both convocations which took place only a day apart.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I recognize these two determined

and ambitious young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on their academic

accomplishments, and I ask all members in this House to join me in acknowledging

their achievements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pay tribute

to the life of Graham Blundon, a long-time friend and colleague from Deer Lake.

Graham passed away on March 13, 2008, at the age of sixty-three. During his

career, Graham made an outstanding contribution to his community and to his

Province.

Graham was born February 19, 1945, in Bay de Verde, and graduated from St.

Barnabas Anglican School in 1963. Graham completed both a Bachelors and a

Masters degree in Education. He began his teaching career in Deer Lake in 1967

and I was so very fortunate to have had him as my high school mathematics

teacher.

Graham served as school principal, program co-ordinator, assistant

superintendent and superintendent with the Deer Lake, St. Barbe South Integrated

School District.

Mr. Speaker, Graham was an exceptional human being who touched the lives of

everyone with whom he worked and taught. As his obituary stated, he was in all

aspects sympathetic and dedicated to his work. His ability to communicate with

students, colleagues and friends classifies him as one of our great educators.

He graced our lives with his presence, and our world is a better place because

of it.

Graham was an active member of the community; the Masonic Lodge was dear to

his heart. He held many offices and was a past master. He was also a very

devoted member of the Anglican Parish of Deer Lake, serving in numerous church

capacities.

Graham will be sadly missed by his wife Ruth and their children. He will also

be sadly missed by his Masonic brethren, his friends and his church family.

Graham's legacy will be remembered for many years to come: a legacy of being a

resourceful, responsible, contributing member of our region and society as a

whole.

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

tribute to this outstanding individual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St.

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Dermot Lee Memorial Royal

Canadian Legion Branch 62, in Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay.

Branch 62 serves the entire St. Mary's Bay area and received its Charter in

1968 with the late Dermot Lee, after whom the Branch is named, as its first

president.

At a time when legion clubs are having difficulty in many parts of this

Province, Branch 62 is still one of the most active and successful.

Mr. Speaker, since my first election in February 2006 I have attended many

functions at Branch 62, and I am always impressed with the welcoming atmosphere,

the efficient organization and the tremendous co-operation and participation of

its members, not to mention the great food. It is truly a social centre in every

sense of the word.

I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 19, of bringing greetings

on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at the fortieth

anniversary celebrations. The dinner was attended by a number of dignitaries,

including representation from the Provincial Command. A number of long-service

awards were also presented during the evening.

Mr. Speaker, the Riverhead Legion is indeed the social hub of St. Mary's

Bay, bringing together residents from North Harbour to Peter's River. Service

organizations such as Branch 62 are vital to sustaining the vibrancy of our

rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, much of the success of Branch 62 can be attributed to the hard

work and dedication of Comrade Eugene Breen, who has been president for the past

fifteen years. Unfortunately, Mr. Breen was ill and could not attend the

celebrations; however, his praises were sung by all of those at the gathering,

along with prayers for a speedy recovery.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Branch 62 on forty years

of growth and service, and extend our continued best wishes as they carry out

their valuable work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this year, the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, in partnership with the

Regional Chamber of Commerce, paid tribute to its business community. Several

awards were handed out, but there is one winner that I would like to highlight

in particular today.

The Small Business of the Year Award was given to Essential Coding Inc. of

Grand Falls-Windsor. What is particularly striking about the recipient of this

award is that the owner and president is sixteen years old. His name is Scott

Oldford. Scott's business is a successful Web design and development company

that he has been managing and masterminding since the age of thirteen.

Today, while still attending high school at Exploits Valley High where he is

an honours student, Scott successfully employs some forty programmers worldwide

from his downtown Grand Falls office. Scott manages numerous contracts that

extend throughout the United States and the United Kingdom, and he is currently

working on engaging the Newfoundland and Labrador market.

In addition to the Small Business of the Year Award, Scott has also won two

provincial Youth Venture Awards and was just honoured as one of the top twenty

under twenty Canadian entrepreneurs, and I suspect this is only the beginning.

Just recently Scott formed and incorporated a sister company to Essential Coding

called Essential Hosting. I would suggest that the Ministers of Business and of

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development should record Scott Oldford's name for

future reference. He will no doubt prove to be an entrepreneur from whom we will

all hear.

I ask all hon. members in this House to join me in congratulating a truly

inspiring young man, Mr. Scott Oldford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from Newfoundland and

Labrador have once again shown that they can compete and succeed on the national

stage.

Each year, the Department of Canadian Heritage sponsors a national video

competition called: Racism. Stop it! This contest encourages students to create

a video that speaks to the elimination of racism. On March 21, a team of five

students from Gander Collegiate was named one of the top five high school

winners. This is the first time that a team from this Province has been named as

one of the winning teams.

The five team members are Laura Gushue, Mike Mosher, Zack Healey, Rhea Simms

and Nida Najifi. They wrote and produced the video as part of their work in a

local technology education course offered at Gander Collegiate.

The winning videos were selected by a panel of judges for their originality,

audiovisual quality and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, the message from the Gander

students' was - it only takes one to make a difference. It is a simple

message, but true and one that clearly resonated with the judges.

The winning videos will be shown on national television. Even better, Mr.

Speaker, the Gander Collegiate video will be the only one broadcast on both

This is a tremendous accomplishment for these young students. They developed

the idea for the video, as well as acted in and produced the final piece. What's

more, Mr. Speaker, as Christmas holidays began, they got together to create and

record an original score for the video.

Efforts like this to stop the racism and inequalities that are faced by the

most vulnerable are exactly what we are working hard to promote through the

Violence Prevention Initiative. We have committed $9.2 million over six years to

reduce violence in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to eliminate the attitudes

that continue the cycle of violence in our Province. It is extremely encouraging

to see our students embrace this important effort.

On behalf of this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere

congratulations to these talented young people and to their teacher, Mr. Brian

Mosher. I am sure we have not heard the last from them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement, and to

say that we, on this side, want to congratulate the five students and their

teacher, Mr. Mosher, on this very worthwhile accomplishment that they have made.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing the video. Hopefully, we will find out

what time it is going to be displayed on our national television and we look

forward to seeing that.

Mr. Speaker, all too often, as you know, as we listen to the news, whether it

is local or national, all too often we hear about racism and inequalities that

face many of our citizens, not only in our Province but in our nation.

Hopefully, the day will come, through projects like this, when violence

prevention initiatives will not be so high on our priority list and this issue

will be resolved once and for all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the Minister of Education for the advanced copy of her

statement.

I am very pleased to say congratulations to the five team members from Gander

Collegiate on being the first team in the Province to win a: Racism. Stop It!

award. Unfortunately, systemic racism exists everywhere and must be addressed

everywhere. It is very important for the government, too, to ensure that as it

continues with its programs that the immigration strategy and violence

prevention initiatives are working together in order to promote and ensure a

true role for diversity here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of an

important event in the calendar for our agriculture industry, one that

highlights the importance of developing and supporting initiatives to help our

farmers get the most out of their soil.

The event is the National Soil Conservation Week.

Mr. Speaker, every year in my department, along with our farmers and their

community of supporters, we dedicate extra time and effort to highlight the

importance of healthy soil to provide fresh local products. Conserving soil

means enhancing it and protecting it through effective programs and by sharing

knowledge and best practices about soil management. Through these efforts, we

are helping our farmers expand this industry and make more locally-grown farm

products available to consumers.

This government knows that agriculture is very important to this Province

economically, socially and for the health of our residents. In many parts of the

Province, our soils are very acidic and limestone plays a key role in balancing

that acidity. This government has significantly increased funding in our

Limestone Program to help more farmers access limestone and improve soil

productivity.

My department also operates the Soil, Plant and Feed Laboratory where our

expert staff provide soil analysis and advice to farmers. Our staff also

provides soil mapping services to identify areas most suitable for land

development, as well as advice on land clearing techniques and topsoil

conservation methods.

Mr. Speaker, Soil Conservation Week is a great opportunity for the people of

the Province to see what is happening in agriculture. The Forestry and Agrifoods

Agency is participating in a three-day Forestry Fair at the Pepsi Centre in

Corner Brook this weekend, from April 25 to April 27. We will have booths

providing information on soil conservation and related programs and services. I

am looking forward to attending the fair and encourage all of my colleagues here

in the House to drop by as well.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy and safe food supply is more than an industry; it is a

key to self-sufficiency. This government is working with our agriculture

partners to ensure this renewable resource can nourish and sustain the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador today and into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, anytime that you can draw attention to conservation in the

Province and be able to educate people of the importance of conservation is

always a noble thing of any government or any agency. I think the showcase they

will do at the Pepsi Centre, I am sure, will be of tremendous benefit to the

people on the West Coast this weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister's statement, that we need to have a

healthy and safe food supply within the Province but I think there are many in

the industry who feel there is a way to go before we are truly sustainable in

that regard. It is important to give real profile to the issues affecting

forestry and agrifoods within the Province. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I felt

that encompassing that department with the Department of Energy and the

department that governs oil and gas in the Province have oftentimes led it to

have less profile and not be seen in the way we have seen it in the past in

terms of the public image that goes with it.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of issues that are confronting the

forest industry and the agrifoods industry in this Province today. Most

recently, we have heard of the situation with regard to the lead that is in the

ground in St. John's. I think it has been determined that large numbers of

properties in this area have high lead content, although they have been

educating people in the region about this. I do not know if the minister has

been engaged in that issue or not, and maybe she can give an update to the House

at some point as to what government's involvement has been there in providing

some supports to those people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement.

It is extremely important that we do recognize the need to conserve our soil

and I am very pleased with the event that will be taking place in Corner Brook

next weekend. Unfortunately, I will not be in Corner Brook, so I will not be

able to go. I would have liked to.

In order to have a healthy and safe food supply we also need to protect the

agriculture land that we have in this Province. So, saving the land we have and

even getting more land involved in agrifoods is extremely important. I know the

minister knows that. In doing that, too, in the education that we do with

people, we also need to look at our food supply needs in the context of the

international needs; involving that in educational work that we do with, not

just farmers but also with consumers in the Province is extremely important.

Thank you very much to the minister for this statement and for the work that

is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

A couple of weeks ago I raised an issue in the House of Assembly related to

the lack of ICU beds and admitting beds at St. John's hospitals. Patients were

being housed in corridors and surgeries were being postponed. Since that time,

Mr. Speaker, I informed the minister that I have received more phone calls, more

e-mails from people who have been frustrated with this system. In fact, I spoke

to a gentleman this morning that has had his bypass surgery postponed eight

times. I think he has made that aware to the minister and to the department as

well.

I ask you, minister: Have you since investigated this problem with ICU bed

availability and will anything be done to help these patients whose surgeries

are now consistently being postponed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had indicated last week or the week before last in response to questions

from members opposite around the closure of beds at Eastern Health, and more

particularly at the Health Sciences Centre, I reported back to the House that

that was not in fact the case. All beds were open. There may be periodic times

when some beds may be closed for a very short period of time because of some

staffing change issues, but, for the most part, all beds at Eastern Health are

open.

With respect to the ICU, Mr. Speaker, in recent past Eastern Health has found

that they have had a lot of critically ill patients who have been admitted to

hospital. One of the unfortunate realities that physicians find themselves in on

occasion is trying to establish priorities. Many people may be on waiting lists,

many people may be booked for procedures and all of a sudden an emergency will

crop up and physicians will have to make that judgement call to respond to the

most urgent and the most life-threatening situation first as a priority and, as

a result, they require some rescheduling on occasion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister has failed to answer my question

around why we are seeing all of these surgeries postponed and why there is not

more availability of ICU beds.

This particular gentleman was told this week that we will admit you into the

hospital after five weeks of surgeries postponed, eight different occasions for

bypass surgery. He was then told: we will admit you into the hospital, that way

we can get you into surgery quicker. When he went to the hospital to be

admitted, he was told: I'm sorry, but we have no beds available to admit you

either.

Now, I have to ask the minister: Has he checked to see if there are enough

beds available within our hospitals in the St. John's region? Is this going to

be a consistent problem or is it not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things - in terms of the issue of how long this will be a problem,

as I said earlier, in recent past we have had a real flurry, a real increase in

the number of people who come in acutely ill, and as a result of that there has

had to be some prioritization taking place.

With respect to the total ICU beds, all of the ICU beds are open. So, in

terms of capacity issues, we are at a peak capacity right now with our intensive

care units.

One of the things the member might recall as well, last year our government

made a commitment to look at acute care services in St. John's; to look at the

kinds of services that are currently provided now, the kind of facilities we

need to provide those services. So, in terms of the long-term piece, I say, Mr.

Speaker, we are very much actively engaged in a process now looking at the

future needs of acute care services in St. John's and in the region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that in the last two weeks since we have raised this

issue the minister has not taken any action to deal with the problem. It remains

to be a problem. We are also being told, Mr. Speaker, by nurses that some of

these beds are remaining closed because of a nursing shortage, not just the

admitting beds but the ICU beds as well. We know that there are nearly 400

vacant positions in the nursing profession, just in the Eastern region right

now.

So I ask the minister: Is the availability of nurses contributing to this

problem at all, or is it just simply that we do not have enough ICU beds in the

St. John's Region?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I understand from officials, as recent as an hour or so

ago, all of the ICU beds in St. John's are open. So additional pressure that

may be brought to bear on the current number of ICU beds that we have in the

system is coming about as a result of more acutely ill patients presenting at

the hospital who require admission to an Intensive Care Unit.

In terms of capacity - I want to go back to a point I made earlier - there

will be periods of time when, in fact, as we are experiencing right now, there

will be increased pressures on intensive care beds.

The long-term piece, as I said a moment ago, we are very much in the midst

now of looking at acute care services in St. John's, looking at the current

capacity, looking at future needs, trying to identify what might our acute care

services look like in St. John's for the future to respond to a changing

population, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does he think it is an

acceptable level of service when people are travelling from one region of the

Province to the capital city, waiting for up to five week periods, having

surgeries postponed seven or eight times? Is this an acceptable level of

service? At what point, Minister, will you intervene to make improvements in the

system immediately?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: One of the things that you find yourselves periodically -

and as a government we have done this in the past. When we, in fact, have

pressures like we are finding now - unfortunately, the number of ICU beds are a

fixed number right now today. We do not have the flexibility to open ICU beds or

close them at a moment's notice, so periodically you will end up with

pressures like we are experiencing in the recent past. On occasion, in the past,

as a government, we have sent patients outside of the Province when we have had

increased pressures for acute care services. If that need arises, we will do the

same thing again.

One of the challenges you run into, though, in trying to transport ICU

patients, is the stability of that patient and their ability to be able to be

transported out of the Province for some kind of service. Eastern Health are

trying to manage with what they have there right now to be able to ensure that

the most acutely ill patients are dealt with as a priority and dealt with

earlier.

One of the challenges you run into in that kind of

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When that happens, sometimes individuals may have their appointments

postponed. The time frame that you are talking about, the reference to several

weeks and having it delayed eight or nine times, no, I would not agree that is

an acceptable process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Health to confirm for me if there were

3,000 cases of grievances outstanding at Eastern Health. Since then, I have now

confirmed that the number was correct. I have also been told that many of these

cases have been on the list for a number of years to be heard and, in fact, on

average, they have 350-400 new grievances filed on an annual basis.

I ask the minister if he is now aware of the issue, and what action will

government take to deal with this backlog of grievances?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the member's question yesterday, I had indicated in the

House that I would undertake to find that information I do not have it yet -

and when I have it available I will provide it to the House.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it goes without saying that high morale in the workplace has some

very successful impacts when it comes to the recruiting and retention of

professionals. Any grievances that are filed are obviously discontent in that

workplace, and we would like to see it dealt with.

It is our understanding that the process for grievances is a long and trying

process. I want to ask the minister if his government will undertake to devise a

process that could be more simple and could get the same result, so that these

people can have their cases heard in a more timely manner and hopefully improve

the morale in our health care system.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I do not want to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, but as I said

yesterday to the member opposite she asked me a question about the number -

I said I would undertake to find out the status of outstanding grievances.

In that process I will gain an understanding of what they are doing to deal

with it, and if there is something necessary or something that is available to

us as an instrument in the labour relations process to actually expedite the

process, then we will explore those options with Eastern Health to ensure that

they are settled as easy as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even with our limited resources, in twenty-four hours we can confirm

information, I say to the minister. With probably the few hundred employees you

have, you might be able to confirm it before the week is over.

My next questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that fire inspections of the Province's health

facilities is of great concern. Despite government's attempt to play down the

seriousness of the issue in the past couple of months, specifically last month,

we know now that there are significant fire and life safety issues at public

institutions that have gone on notice.

I ask the minister: Why has government downloaded this responsibility for

timely inspections, thorough inspections, to volunteer fire departments that, as

we know, are underfunded, in many cases, without the proper training to be doing

this work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The thing here is this: I said yesterday in this House that the protocol

system that we operate today was the one that was in place thirty years ago. It

has continued on. It was in when the Liberal Party was in power, and it

continued on.

Today, Mr. Speaker, what we have found out is there are deficiencies within

the facilities that we inspected. Our government has been committed to correct

those deficiencies as efficiently and effectively as possible. There are sixty

to ninety days to do that and, Mr. Speaker, twenty-four months to put in the

sprinkler system.

Mr. Speaker, we are acting upon the recommendations of the fire commissioner,

and it will take time to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the policy may have been there for

thirty years holds no relevance. The Speaker now knows there is a problem here;

the minister now knows there is a problem. We are only asking: What are you

going to do to fix it? It is a recognizable problem that needs the attention

immediately. Why download this responsibility continuously on these non-profit,

underfunded, under trained fire departments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, just let me inform the Opposition Leader, just

over thirty days ago, I directed the fire commissioner to go out and do the

inspections. He came back and he found some deficiencies there. Our government

is committed to look at those deficiencies and make sure they are corrected.

As far as what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, yes, we found that there were

deficiencies in those facilities. We found there were differences in protocols

that it was under for the last thirty years. We are committed to look at those

protocols to make sure that the security is in place for the future, from now on

in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we also understand that the same process that was

used for inspections in these health facilities is also being used for

inspections in our school system. I would like to ask the minister, in regard to

what is happening now within the health care system, if they will now conduct a

full inspection program of our schools in the Province to ensure that they are

indeed in compliance with fire safety regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly very concerned about fire safety

in our schools, and all schools are required to have a fire safety plan and do a

number of fire drills throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to ask the department to

speak - with the fire commissioner's office, and there were no outstanding

orders from that office. I went further on March 12 in a meeting with the CEOs

of the school boards and the chairs of the school boards as well to ask if there

were any fire safety issues, anything that needs to be brought to our attention.

I was assured by both the chairs of the boards and by the CEOs that there were

no outstanding issues. Any issues or orders that they had had a time frame on

it, they were working within those time frames, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget we also increased

the maintenance to our schools by 67 per cent. So, we are concerned about fire

safety. We have increased maintenance and I have certainly checked with the

chairs and the CEOs and have been informed that there are no outstanding issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that back in March her colleague told us

there were no outstanding life safety issues in the health care facilities

either, but upon review and inspection by the fire commissioner's office we

see a different result.

A simple question minister: Will you now undertake to have the fire

commissioner do a full inspection of the schools in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in a department as decentralized like Education,

where we depend on school boards, they are tasked with the day-to-day functions

of operating the schools. One of the responsibilities that they have is fire

safety.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken with, as I said, on March 12 with both the chairs

and the CEOs or the Directors of Education and it is my understanding that there

are no outstanding issues with regards to fire safety issues. I will take it

upon myself to go back, to check with the boards to ensure that the policies

that they have in place are being followed. I understand there are daily reports

that are done by staff at the school. They are submitted to the board on a

monthly basis.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about fire safety. There are protocols in

place. I will double-check, although I have checked on March 12, I will check

again to ensure that the protocols are being followed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Let me ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker. The fire

commissioner is the independent recognized professional that does this in our

Province, oversees this process. Why would you not want him to do a review and

inspection of schools in the Province? Answer that for me.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. I am not opposed to the

fire commissioner doing a study of the schools. What I am saying is that there

are established protocols in place. We do have a maintenance budget. We have

people who do maintenance. We also have chairs of the board and we also have

Directors of Education who are accountable to make sure that these protocols and

fire safety is in place. I have checked with these people, I will check again.

If they bring any issues or any concerns that the work or the protocols are not

being followed, I will certainly follow up on it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. JONES: Mr. Speaker, again, to the Minister of Education.

The protocol she refers to did not work in the health care sector. It did not

work when it came to inspections of life and fire safety issues in our health

care facilities. Why do you have so much confidence in the fact that they are

working in our school systems?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place and I have spoken

with the people who are charged with the accountability to ensure that the

protocols are in place. Each school does a fire safety plan. I have been told

and it is my understanding that these reports have been filed. These are done in

conjunction with the local fire departments. There are people who do daily

reports regarding the fire safety in our schools. They are submitted to the

boards on a monthly basis. When I checked with the Directors of Education on

March 12 they indicated that any outstanding orders that they had, they were

within the time frames. They gave examples of some of the issues that they had

to deal with, primarily storing materials, or whatever, under stairwells and

they had a time frame they had to deal with it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the people. I have been told that they are

following the protocols. I have said right now that I will go back and

double-check to see if there are any issues or anything we need to do, just in

case that protocol is not being followed, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS. BURKE: Mr. Speaker, fire safety is something we are concerned about

in our schools. It is something that is practiced throughout the school year,

but I will go back and make sure and ask if there is anything, any concerns that

we need to address.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was so concerned she would be committing to have that done

now. It would be concern enough for her to have that done.

Mr. Speaker, the fire commissioner today gave a technical briefing this

morning and some very informative information, very factual information and very

technical in nature. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier would agree with me that

the fire commissioner is a well-respected, knowledgeable individual on fire

safety in this Province.

I have to ask you, Premier, today: Will you at least relieve the gag order

that this commissioner has been placed on as an independent officer in this

Province, responsible for fire safety in the public, and allow him to talk?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is

obviously frustrated by the answers that she has gotten from both ministers.

The recent Minister of Education just stood up and said she has asked

everybody responsible the right questions and will follow through and will ask

again, and if anything comes up, she will come back and report to the House. If

there are any problems, we will deal with it.

There are no gag orders in place on anybody. We do not put gag orders in

place. The fire commissioner is not under a gag order. The minister is

responsible for the fire commissioner and the minister will speak for the fire

commissioner. When matters relate to education, that minister will speak for the

fire commissioner. The fire commissioner is not out speaking publicly. He has a

right to do technical briefings and everything else, but he acts under the

minister. He has a responsibility to that minister and the minister will speak,

and that is the way it is going to be. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Premier as well.

Yesterday AbitibiBowater announced that thirteen of its managers in Grand

Falls-Windsor were being laid off. The Minister of Natural Resources complained

to the media that she was not notified, only an hour before these lay-offs, I

think, were announced. Yet, in February the Premier had a meeting with

AbitibiBowater's CEO, David Paterson.

I ask you today, Premier: What was discussed at this meeting, and was any

indication given that these layoffs were actually coming?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no indication that any

layoffs were coming.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding from discussions that the mayors of both Grand

Falls-Windsor, Botwood and Bishop's Falls were not informed of what was

happening with AbitibiBowater, and certainly not kept in the loop by government

on any action you were taking on this issue.

I have to ask: Is there any particular reason why, in light of the fact that

there were cuts coming within this company, that there has not been consistent

dialogue between government and the mayors in those regions and communities

affected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and I met with Mr. Paterson in February. We met with local

members of the CEP union in Grand Falls shortly after. I have met with the union

local again, as late as Friday. The conversation that took place in February

talked about the state of the industry, that phase one review was complete, the

company was now entering into phase two review, they did not know what the

outcome of that was going to be and that they would keep us informed.

Unfortunately, that did not happen, in terms of the layoffs. I have expressed my

disappointment with regard to that in the strongest terms to the company. I have

been told that we will be briefed early next week on what the future plans might

be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the minister came anywhere near answering my question.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, government knew since 2007 that there was a revenue loss

in this company of $490 million. They also knew there were demands being placed

on the AbitibiBowater in Grand Falls that they were asking for a $10 million

cost reduction.

I ask the minister: Why did government not engage at a more, I guess,

powerful way within the company to try and curb any particular job loss that

could be occurring as a result of that announcement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government was engaged with company officials at that time in terms of

what they were looking for in the Phase 1 review. We were deeply engaged with

the mill employees, through their union, as they went through that forty-five

day process, found the $10 million in savings that the company was looking for.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very proactive with both the pulp and

paper companies in this Province. In the last two years, we have provided

approximately $40 million in help to both of these companies, almost $20 million

of it to Abitibi, in the face of the crisis that the pulp and paper industry

faces worldwide. We have been very proactive. We have been very supportive. We

have been very engaged, and we will stay that way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For a minister who claims to be so engaged, I do not know why she was left

out of the loop and that is by her own admission, Mr. Speaker. It obviously

went off the rails somewhere, and the minister was not included in the loop.

Mr. Speaker, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers estimate that there

could be eighty to one hundred layoffs of unionized workers at the Grand

Falls-Windsor mill expected in the near future.

I ask the minister: Will you now fully engage in the process to ensure that

we do not see another hundred jobs lost in this industry under the watch of your

government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this industry might have disappeared from

Newfoundland and Labrador all together, except that we were on watch over the

last (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We have provided, as I said, over $40 million assistance

to both of these companies.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I expressed my strong disappointment to Abitibi

yesterday. We have been very open with them. We have been very accessible. We

have been extremely supportive. We have a very good relationship with the CEP

union in Grand Falls and in Corner Brook.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my disappointment has been strongly conveyed; the company

has responded and said that they will engage with us. They are meeting in

Montreal over the weekend, and hopefully we will have something of substance to

hear from them next week, about their future plans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would just like to continue some questions for the Minister of Natural

Resources.

I think we all agree that we have a worsening situation there. We had

fifty-six people laid off in 2005, thirteen yesterday, probably dozens more of

unionized workers in a few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What are

the particulars of what you are trying to do to ensure that we will see a

continued commitment, or even to find out if there is a commitment, from

AbitibiBowater to maintaining operations in Grand Falls-Windsor? What are you

bringing to the table next week? Are you just going to sit and listen, or what

are you going to be bringing to force this commitment to happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, we have brought $20

million to the table, approximately, over the last two years, to Abitibi, to

sustain that operation in Grand Falls. We need to know where the company is in

terms of their Phase 2 review, what their plans are and what their expectations

are. Until we know where they are, and what they are planning to do, it is very

difficult for us to respond.

They have committed to inform us about their plans. They did not live up to

that commitment, in my estimation, yesterday. I reminded them of that, and I

certainly expect something better of them early next week. Then, at that point,

we can engage once we know what it is the company is going to need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to follow that a little bit, to get a bit more particulars, last year

AbitibiBowater announced that it needed to save $10 million, as we know, and

then the union announced in March 2007 that it had negotiated a plan with the

company for saving that $10 million. The company said it did not come quite up

to the $10 million as they saw it.

When you heard from them this week, Minister, did they give you any update on

that plan that they put together with the union last year, and where that plan

went to save the $10 million?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By the union's estimate, in their forty-five day review, they found closer

to $12 million. They built in that cushion.

We have a very good relationship with the union there. There is a great

source of knowledge and expertise for us, as government, to call upon from time

to time as we engage in dealings with the company.

We know that Abitibi has the best energy price in North America. We know that

they have very reasonable fibre costs in the country, in North America. We know

that their productivity is an issue for them. A big piece of the issue around

productivity is because not enough capital investment has been made in the mill.

To achieve productivity that they are looking for needs a capital investment in

that mill, so we want to know: What is your plan?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: I guess I really do want to follow up on that, then, because

that was my third question. How do you intend finding out next week what their

plans are with regard to investing in the Grand Falls-Windsor mill's

production facilities?

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish there were some other means available to me, but

unfortunately all I can do is ask. We have dealt with this company in good

faith. The people of Grand Falls-Windsor, and all of the eighteen surrounding

communities, the 944 people who are engaged directly with that company through

the mill and through their woodlands operation, I feel, have dealt with them in

good faith. We are asking them to do the same. We know it is troubled times. We

have worked with you in the past, we are prepared to work with you in the

future, but you have to talk to us and lay out your plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

We know that the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is a self-financed Crown

agency which derives revenues from levies on such items as beverage containers,

tires, and the sale of recycled material. In accordance with the Transparency

and Accountability Act, the MMSB issued a strategy plan for 2007-2008. This was

the first one that has been public since 2003.

I ask the minister: Why were there no annual reports provided to the public

since 2003?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the MMSB that those reports will be

forthcoming in the very near future. I have also been assured that they will be

filed on a timely basis, on a go-forward basis.

I would also like to point out for the member opposite that, although the

reports have not been filed, certainly the financial information of MMSB is

certainly available through the public accounts of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, recently the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

the Leader of the NDP Party, asked for some information with respect to the

external quality assurance surveys that were conducted at Eastern Health in the

ER-PR area of the labs. I have those for tabling today.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition today with reference to a long-term care

facility for the Conception Bay North area.

We know back in 2002 there were recommendations made by government that the

Conception Bay North area would be on the top priority list, and we know there

are other centres which have received information and have work started on some

of the long-term care facilities. Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing against them

having a facility; however, we are asking government if they will reassess their

decision as to why the one in Conception Bay North has not proceeded.

Mr. Speaker, we know at that time the recommendations called for, I think it

was, a 240-bed facility and there were various towns in the area at that time

which made presentations for it to come to their town, which I know was not

finalized. Through Estimates Committee meetings, I was told by a former Minister

of Health that there was $500,000 for an assessment to be done and I am just

wondering, Mr. Speaker, when that will be made available.

We hear people like the Mayor of Carbonear and others who are coming out and

referencing the Harbour Lodge and the Interfaith Home in Carbonear. Hopefully,

government will reconsider and see what can be done.

It was only this week, Mr. Speaker, that I had an opportunity to visit the

Harbour Lodge, and the staff there are doing a wonderful job in caring for the

people but the facility is outdated now, Mr. Speaker. So, with regard to this

petition, I am calling upon all my hon. colleagues in the Trinity Bay de Verde

district, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Harbour Main-Whitbourne and Bellevue, if they

would join me in asking government to reconsider the decision and hopefully in

the upcoming Budget there will be an announcement in relation to a long-term

care facility for the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this being Private Members' Day, I believe we

proceed to the Order Paper, Motion 1, standing in the name of my friend, the

Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to have a few words on this private member's

motion which I put forward yesterday concerning a requested reduction of tax on

gasoline.

First of all, I would like to preface it by saying that, albeit it is this

private member's motion, it in fact reflects the questions that have been

raised by literally hundreds of people in this Province to me directly, not

counting the requests that have been made through e-mails and correspondence and

phone calls to the Opposition office - literally hundreds of people whom I have

met in the last three months, who are talking about this issue of gasoline and

the tax on it.

Just for the record, it says:

WHEREAS this Province has seen a huge increase in offshore oil revenue as a

result of increased oil prices; and

WHEREAS many people, especially those on fixed incomes, are suffering the

consequences of the increases in fuel prices; and

WHEREAS this Province has the highest tax on gasoline in the country and this

puts undue hardship on consumers and makes it more difficult for businesses in

this Province to compete;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges government to reduce the tax

on gasoline in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we already know where the Premier stands on this, so I have

little doubt, I say right up front, where this motion is going to go today in

terms of being accepted. Given the Premier's lead, which I heard, or I read at

least on VOCM, that they are not in a position to do anything on the gasoline

tax right now, I feel pretty certain that this resolution is going to be

defeated. I understand there are only going to be two Opposition members in the

Chamber by the end of the day, others having to leave for medical reasons. The

vote will be whatever Conservative members are in the Chamber versus the two

Opposition members. Only two people, out of the people who are here at the end

of the day, I would suspect, are going to vote for this, a reduction in the

gasoline prices.

Now, you will get all kinds of reasons why. This member would say that some

of those reasons are going to be legitimate, why you could not and should not

reduce the gasoline tax. I am sure the Minister of Finance is going to be on his

feet responding to this, and telling us about how we have so many needs and

urgent things that we have to do, and we cannot do all things for all people,

and we cannot be all things to all people, and we have to get our priorities

straight. We have to have a balance. We cannot do everything at the one time.

There is his speech. His speech, I just gave it in thirty seconds, I would

surmise. When the Minister of Finance gets on his feet, that is what he is going

to tell you.

By the way, another thing he is going to say is, we cannot give you the

reduction on gasoline tax because - maybe he is even going to go so far as to

say, well, we gave you a cut yesterday; we eliminated the insurance tax

yesterday. We cannot do everything for you at one time. Don't go getting

greedy. Don't go coming here now today - they are out there, that crowd, with

their hands out all the time. He might even suggest that those Liberal

Opposition members over there are so irresponsible that these fellows would give

away everything and we would find ourselves back in the days of poverty again,

if you were to give them everything that they want. No doubt, all of that is

going to get said.

Not one piece of that comment that is going to come from the government

members today is going to take away from the fact that this resolution is a good

resolution, is a just resolution, and is a needed response by this government to

the people of this Province.

That does not take away from the fact that what the government did yesterday

in the tax on insurance piece, being a good thing. That was a good move. The

Leader of the Opposition stood here yesterday and applauded it. It was

definitely a good move. I am somewhat confused in the figures. I am hearing $75

million was the cost of that initiative, and I think the Premier said $94

million or 95 million, but, regardless, it was a good move. It is a substantial

move, and it takes money from the provincial coffers to do that, and this

Opposition applauded that. It is a good move.

There was a move made last year on income tax reduction, for example, all of

which is good stuff, leaving a few dollars in the pocket of the taxpayers and

the people of this Province, the consumers. Anything that leaves a few dollars

extra in your pocket is a good thing. The question always, of course, is: Can

you afford to do it, as a government? That is the question. It is like keeping

your bank account. You get your paycheque, you take it home, and there is only

so much you can do. As much as you might like to do, you might want to do, there

is only so much you can do. You have to budget so that at the end of the day

yeah, you might have a bit of money owing on your credit card, you might have a

bank loan out, and you might have a mortgage, because you cannot pay it all with

your paycheque, and you can carry a certain amount of debt. Sometimes, of

course, when your debt gets so high, you have to say, well, we just cannot spend

any more; we have to do without some things.

The question becomes, of course, and the Minister of Finance is right in that

regard, the question is the balance. Let's go back, first of all, and decide,

where are we going to get the money from if you were to even consider doing such

a thing, and what would it cost?

Now, it is my understanding, we are going to be in pretty good shape

financially this year, and we are going to be in pretty good shape financially

on a go-forward basis for a number of years. In fact, the Minister of Finance

gave a mid-year statement, I believe, in October or November of 2007, and at

that time the estimated surplus surplus being, of course, money that you

got, that you have not budgeted, you have it there to spend if you want to spend

it, is going to be in the range of $875 million. Now, that was based back in

November 2007. Wrapping your ears around that kind of figure, $875 million in

your bank account that you did not expect to have, that brings good tunes. I

would surmise that is going to go much higher than that. It will go much higher

than that, there is no question. It will go far beyond $875 million.

I mean the minister himself knows that the price, I do believe, was based on

a barrel of oil getting $76 a barrel. I believe that was his projection he used

on a go-forward basis up to end of March, $76 a barrel. He said we will have

$875 million. But, of course, we all know that - I do not know the last time a

barrel of oil traded or sold for $75 a barrel. We know it is very fluid. We know

it is very flexible, but I think yesterday, April 22, there was a point when it

hit $117 a barrel. Ever since November, even though the Department of Finance

used the figure of $75, $76 a barrel, it has been well above that; in the

nineties for sure. Since the last month or so it has been above the hundred

mark. So, that figure of 875 is going to go way up. The question is: Do you have

the money? The answer is going to be yes. There is going to be at least for this

year. Now you can say we are not going to spend it in this year, we are not

going to give you any tax break this year because we do not know what it is

going to be next year, and we do not know what it is going to be two years out

or we do not know what it is going to be five years out, but that is where

planning comes in. That is where you decide what your priority is and where the

immediate need is.

So, if you extrapolate from that $75 a barrel figure to the end of March, I

would make a guess - and we will see when the Budget comes out, depending again

on the figures that the Finance Minister is going to use in his projections. I

would hazard to guess that our surplus up to the end of March, 2008 - and that

is when the government year ends, the fiscal year for the government. It did not

end on December 31. It goes to March 31, which gives the government five extra

months beyond their mid-year thing. He gave it in November or late October. So,

November, December, January, February, March, there is five months gets added on

to that surplus. So, I would think we are going to be somewhere well over a

billion dollars. I would estimate about $1.2 billion. That is what I would

estimate that this government is going to have in its coffers, at least. When

the facts all get tallied up and when the money gets tallied up come the end of

March, at least that.

The question is: Where are we going to spend it? Well, we know where we are

going to spend, at least for this year, $75 million to $90 million of it. We are

going to spend it on the insurance tax reduction because that is not coming in

next year. We know that that is going to be in round figures. We will say there

is $100 million gone there. We still have over $1 billion, and how do we use it?

So the money is there.

Now the minister, of course, is a big advocate - and I do not disagree, by

the way, that you have to put some of that money on your debt. I have no problem

with that. I believe that the government would be fiscally prudent, financially

wise to take some of that surplus and put it on our debt, no question about it.

The trick is going to be: Where do you draw the line and how do you do the

balance?

We know there are a lot of infrastructure needs in the Province. We know our

hospitals, for example, are talking millions and millions of dollars needed for

hospitals. It came out recently in a report. We know there are always

programming needs, drug prescriptions and health care programs. There are always

all kinds of needs, and it is not going to be an easy task. The question is we

have an immediate concern. Yes, government gave a rebate on fuel taxes, for

example, to people who have homes. I think it is $300 or $400 this year, and

that is good. That helped, but the $300 does not compare to the hard hit that

people are taking.

I do not think it is fair and justified for government to say: We can't do

something for you this year because we don't know where we are going to be to

next year. Right now, on a litre of gasoline, for example, in this Province

right now, I do believe that as of the pricing commissioner's office, which

set it down on April 17, was the latest one - that is the agency that regulates

gasoline prices in the Province. A litre of fuel, the pump price as of April 17

- and this was in the Avalon region, it gets higher if you go to other regions.

In the Avalon region it was $1.276 per litre. That was the set price, and that

was five days ago. That is the figures I am using here. Out of that $1.27,

forty-one cents of it is tax. The breakdown on that, because different levels of

government take their cut of it, of that forty-one cents in tax, the provincial

government takes sixteen-point-five cents a litre, the federal government takes

ten cents a litre, and then there is an HST tax of 13 per cent, which works out

to be fourteen-point-sixty-eight cents. So if you add all that together, the HST

- by the way, the Province and the feds both share in that percentage. You

cannot say: Oh, that all goes to the federal government. That gets split, too. I

believe 8 per cent goes to the Province of the HST, I do believe, and 5 per cent

goes to the federal government, or vice versa. In any case, forty-one cents out

of every $1.27 that you pay at the pump per day goes to some level of

government. We know at least sixteen cents of that goes to the provincial

government.

We need not talk about who it is hurting and how bad it is hurting. If you

drive a vehicle, you get hurt if you have to go to the pump and pay that. If you

live in a home that has heating fuels, you pay that. If you have to travel on an

airline, their prices have gone up. I can notice it even in the last month. The

cost of flying from Deer Lake to St. John's, for example, has gone up to

reflect the increase in fuel prices. If you are a trucker in the trucking

industry it costs you more. If you want to travel on the ferry from Port aux

Basques to North Sydney, ticket prices are gone up to reflect the increase in

fuel. If you go to the grocery store and buy groceries, you pay more; all as a

result of the increase in fuel.

It is not a case of who this affects. I would go so far as to say that as

good and noble as the elimination of the tax on insurance was, there are even

more people impacted negatively by the price of gasoline than was negatively

impacted by insurance. If you do the numbers, the number of people who are going

to benefit from the tax reduction on insurance - there are even more people who

are negatively impacted by the increase in fuel prices because it touches

everybody's life.

For example, you may live in Grey River, not even own a car, but every time

the price of gasoline goes up that person who lives in Grey River is impacted.

If you happen to live somewhere where you drive a car, you are doubly impacted.

If you live in St. John's, for example, you are paying more to put it in your

car to go to work, or whatever you have to do, in your vehicle, but you are also

paying when you go down to Sobeys. You are also paying when you go anywhere to

do any shopping to get a consumable good because the vast majority, the bulk of

the goods that come into this Province are trucked in, and of course the

truckers pay the gas. The truckers have to recoup the gas costs, therefore the

truckers charge more for their transportation. Therefore, the grocery store

charges more when they put it on the shelf for the customer. It is pretty

simple.

Everybody, if you eat or live or drive -

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Everybody who lives or eats in this Province is impacted by this tax. The

question is - there is no doubt there is money to do it, there is no doubt that

there is a need to do it, there is no doubt that it negatively impacts a lot of

people. Forget about the tourist industry that is going to be impacted where we

are not going to have people coming in here. Forget about the business, even, of

businesses which are not able to operate their trucks and so on. Even if you

think about it on the level of people who are trying to feed themselves, and

look at people who are on fixed incomes, you take a person on a fixed income

right now, besides just the inflation rate itself, what are they going to do to

deal with this? Only a few people can deal with it. Only some people are in a

position to deal with it. Government is in a position to deal with it.

If the government of this Province - by the way, it is not only the highest

in Atlantic Canada, the tax charged by this provincial government is not only

the largest tax in Atlantic Canada, provincial tax, it is the largest in the

country of Canada. You can imagine what that does in terms of our competitive

positioning in Atlantic Canada.

Right now, that 16.5 per cent, we know what that generates to the provincial

coffers. That is why, of course; that is one of the big reasons why we have so

much money. We got it because the price of a barrel of oil has gone up; we are

collecting it in taxes. Put her all together and that adds into the surplus.

If the Province were to reduce the 16.5 per cent tax that they currently

charge on every litre of gasoline, it would hurt the Province to the tune of $20

million a year. A 4.5 per cent reduction, from 16.5 per cent down to 12.5 per

cent, would cost this Province $20 million.

Our proposition, and the reason for putting this resolution forward, is: We

might not be able to afford to do this next year, we might not be able to afford

to do this two years out, but we cannot and should not refuse to do something

that is extremely painful, harmful to people in this Province right now,

business, individuals, consumers, just because we might not be able to do it in

the future. We can afford to do it today.

I would suggest that $20 million, if it is only for the 2008-2009 fiscal

year, and the government have to look at it next year and say, sorry, we just

cannot do it any more, we do not have the big surplus we thought we had, we have

to put that 4.5 per cent back on, I have no problem with that, no problem at

all.

It is a proper, appropriate response by government to an urgent need. That is

what I call wise and prudent fiscal management, the same way as we have to put a

portion of it on the fiscal debt, on to our debt of this Province, and look

after our long term there, we also have to look at some extremely punishing

short-term problems that the people of this Province are facing.

Now, maybe I am all wrong in my figures. I don't think I am; I think I am

in the ballpark. The minister might say it is not $20 million, that it is $21

million or $19 million or whatever, but I think I am in the ballpark, and I will

not, for the life of me, and I do not think anybody in the public of this

Province will accept that we as a government, we as a Province, can have a

billion dollars in our bank account and we cannot justify taking $20 million of

it for this year to knock the provincial tax from 16.5 per cent to 12.5 per

cent, and 100 per cent of our population benefits 100 per cent.

It is not a case of only those who buy insurance who benefit. It is not only

a case of those who pay personal income taxes who benefit. One hundred per cent

of the populace gains by that move.

For example, the government, in 2003, when they became the new government,

said: Whoa - in their first Budget of 2004 - we have to do a bunch of draconian

stuff here because we do not have the money in the coffers to do things and

they did a lot of things. They did a lot of tough things back in 2004, a lot of

tough things. A lot of people did not like it, but the government said: We had

to do it. We did not have the money and we just had to do it. They put the

brakes on things and said, whoa - slash, burn, that was it - had to do it.

Now we find ourselves and the people accepted that. The people accepted

that, albeit it was hard on them. The government sold that story to them, and

they accepted that. The government explained their case and said, this is why we

have to do it, and the people accepted it - like it or lump it but they are

also in a frame of mind now that they are saying, if the government can do

things when the times are hard, why can't they do things when times are not so

bad, and still maintain the balance?

We can still take a significant chunk of that money and put on our debt. Now,

I realize there is another issue here looming in the wings, that we do not know

right now maybe the government knows, but I don't know and the public

doesn't know, I am sure and that is the issue of the public sector. You

have to be careful what you say these days when you talk about public sector

bargaining. We wouldn't want to be accused of interfering in public sector

bargaining, but it is not off the radar. It is a fair comment, and I will not be

muzzled in making a fair comment, and it is a very fair comment in this context

because it plays into the picture of what the government is going to do with the

surplus.

We know a chunk of it is going to go because they eliminated the income tax

piece. The next big question, I would think, on government's mind, and the

Minister of Finance is waiting anxiously to get a number, too, is, where are we

going to go with the public sector unions? We have at least the Nurses' Union,

we have NAPE, we have CUPE, we have the Teachers' Association, and we have

Allied Health, some pretty significant numbers in terms of the government

employees who are justifiably into negotiations. It is none of my business what

they are negotiating and whatever, but the bottom line is, whatever they

negotiate is going to end up with this government having to give some kind of

contract to these groups. That is going to cost money. The question is going to

be, what is it going to cost? I do not know, and probably government does not

know. I am sure government, if they do know, and when they do find out when that

all comes to an end, that figure has to get plugged in somewhere and then

somebody is going to say: Okay, we don't have a billion dollars any more,

plus; we are only going to have x-number of dollars, because that has to get

factored in.

Notwithstanding the public sector bargaining that has to go on, and that

figure that has to be plugged in to take some of that surplus away - and not

only for this year but on a go-forward basis, because whatever you negotiate, I

would think, is going to be there next year and the year after. It is very

unusual except, I think, back in the days of Mr. Wells when they rolled back

wages, back in the 1990s. Other than that, you don't see that very often. So,

that has to be factored in.

Yes, we have to factor in the insurance piece. Yes, we have to factor in the

infrastructure needs piece. Yes, we have to factor in the debt reduction piece,

no question, but this private member's motion is based upon the fact that we

are still in a position, I would submit, to give some kind of relief to 100 per

cent of the population of this Province in the short term.

It costs $20 million to knock 4.5 per cent off that provincial tax rate. If

it is only for a year, then that is all you can do. You can't say I can't do

it - $20 million off a billion. I don't think that is a big sacrifice. I don't

think that is irresponsible management. There is no doubt it would be

appreciated. As they say out my way, it is better than a rock in the pot. It

shows, I think, the goodwill on the part of government to say: Yeah, we are in a

pretty flush situation right now and if that is what it costs, yes, we are

prepared to do that. We are not going to get the debt paid down as quickly as we

would like, but that isn't a bad move. It is going to help everybody in this

Province to the tune of 4.5 per cent, and that will pay dividends, because it

all comes back.

It is not like these people will keep the 4.5 per cent. If I do not pay 4.5

per cent provincial sales tax on my gas, it is not like I am going to take it

and put it in the bank, it is going to be spent somewhere else. It is going to

be spent, I would suggest, on some other consumable. It is not like people do

not have debts. All you are doing is helping people who are strapped and just do

not have the money to face this crisis; and it is a crisis by the way. It is

getting to be a crisis.

I think, other than 2005 when the gas prices spiked back in the Hurricane

Katrina times and whatever, and things went really out of whack down South and

it spiked, I think there was only once in the history of the gasoline price

regulation piece that we have in this Province that the gasoline price ever went

down. That was after Katrina got straightened out and so on. She dropped by

about 22 per cent. Since that, it has been constantly rising and there is no end

in sight; no end in sight. It is $1.27 in the City of St. John's as of today

for a litre of gas. Can you imagine what the person down in Grey River and down

in Ramea is paying, in an isolated community? You have transportation costs

built into that. Even here in the City, it is predicted by all of the pundits to

go to $1.40 per litre unleaded fuel within the next month or so. That is pretty

drastic.

I would like to conclude by saying this motion just did not pop out of thin

air. I would like to think that it was thought out. I would like to think that

it was reasonable. I would like to think that the rationale for why we would

consider it as a government has been given. I would like to think that the money

is there to do it. I would like to think that it falls within the balance act

that government has to do with all of the demands and needs that exist in this

Province. There are very few things, of all of the things you can do - there are

all kinds of interest groups out there, but this to me is something that, for

minimal cost, $20 million, for 100 per cent of the population could be

achievable if only for a year. If it is something that has to be evaluated on a

year by year basis to see if it can be sustained, do it.

To not make the decision because we do not know if it is sustainable - this

is not like the public sector bargaining, that when you go down that road and

agree upon a figure you are pretty well expected to stick with it for the rest

of your life. People understand that if I have a rough time and government is

giving me a break this year I might have to put it back on next year. If that is

explained up front to people, that we are going to help you because it is a

crisis situation but it might not be there next year - it is like the Premier

said, I believe it was in the Throne Speech, he gave remarks saying, we try to

do what we can, there are all kinds of competing needs. We try to deal with it

as and when we can.

If it is an unfair request, because there are two levels of looking at this:

one is to say we are not going to do it. That is fine, and obviously the

government has made that decision because the Premier has already said we are

not going to look at the gasoline tax issue this year. Now, that conclusion has

been reached. I am interested in finding out what was the reasoning for it. Is

it because of the debt reduction? Is it because of the competing needs? Is it

that we can't afford it? Is that the issue? I am just looking for the

rationale, because the public will decide in their heads whether this resolution

is crazy. The public will decide whether a request to have a reduction in taxes

is loony-bin and I am bonkers for even asking for such a thing. I am not going

to make that decision.

I think, based upon the complaints we have heard and the requests we have

gotten to put this resolution to government - and government members have gotten

it, I am sure. Every single member of the government side, I am sure, has had

constituents asking about this issue. It impacts everybody.

At the end of the day, I think the resolution is well-grounded, I think it is

a good move that government could make and it is not a political move. You, as

the Opposition parties, would say, ah, you're going to do that because it is

politicking. It is not election time. You do not have to worry about that.

Nobody is going to accuse the government of doing something because it is

politically astute to do it. But, as the Premier is used to saying, we did it

because it is the right thing to do. I would think this is one very right thing

to do.

The Minister of Finance, I think, could do this, with the monies that he is

going to have in his coffers. He can sleep very, very easy knowing that he did

it. If it is one need that needs to be looked after, albeit maybe on a

short-term basis, I do not think it would be misplaced. The people of this

Province would be particularly grateful. Whether you are a consumer, whether you

are on fixed income, whether you are a worker, whether you are old, whether you

are young, it impacts everybody positively and it would be a darn good move.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the members for the leave.

In conclusion, this member will be voting in favour of the motion and I think

it is certainly justified. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I should say, as a Finance Minister for a little over a year and as a

Finance Minister in the government of Premier Danny Williams, that government

has done more to lower taxes for the people of this Province than any other

government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am very pleased to be able to have an opportunity to

speak to this, because there is no Finance Minister in history who lowered taxes

as much as I have in one year, in the one Budget I have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yesterday we announced that we are going to continue on

that trend, when we announced that we are going to eliminate the mandatory and

unfair and hated 15 per cent tax on insurance premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: This is going to put, this year, about $94 million or

$95 million back into the hands of the people of this Province, and then

annually thereafter another $75 million a year back into the pockets of the

people of this Province.

It was a tax that was mandatory. People had to buy insurance. You need

insurance for your home, you need insurance for your vehicle and you need

insurance for your cabin. A 15 per cent cut is going to do one heck of a lot to

put money back into the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who

can then use that money the way they want to spend their money, not the way

government tells them how they have to spend their money. They can now use that

savings to help them deal with the high energy costs and to help them deal with

inflation. That is what this government has done and that is what this

government will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I saw in the paper today a young lady who was quoted as saying

that she wished there were no taxes. Don't we all, of course, wish there were

no taxes? Government does not have any money on its own. Government only gets

money from what it takes from the people of this Province, so it is the

taxpayers' money. I know people talk about, we are going to go to the

government, the government should be doing this and the government should be

doing that, but it is the people's money, it is the taxpayers' money.

Government taxes people, government taxes companies that are doing business in

this Province, government taxes the oil companies doing business in this

Province, government charges fees and we also get money from Ottawa. That is the

revenue. There is no machine in the basement of this building or up there that

is cranking out money. I wish there were, but there is not. We have to deal with

the revenues that we take in from the people and we then spend those revenues.

I will never forget when I did my first pre-Budget consultation. I think it

was the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor of Stephenville Crossing who said to me, it is

the people's money and that is why it is extremely important. You have to take

extreme care and you have to be wise in how you spend that money. You have to

spend it carefully.

What the Opposition House Leader did not do, was that he talked at one point

of prioritization or priorities, and for the perspective of government, everyday

we receive requests from the people of this Province who want us to do things,

who want us to lower taxes or lower fees, who want us to spend money. When you

deal with those items one at a time, Mr. Speaker, they are all good. Now, maybe

there is one or two that would not pass muster, but most of them are good and

you want to do them all. The problem, of course, is that you cannot do them all.

The Opposition had a notice that they wanted us to lower taxes on insurance,

we did it. So today they are now saying they want us to lower the taxes on

gasoline. There are other taxes out there we would like to see lowered. Personal

income taxes we would like to see lowered. Payroll taxes, it is called a tax on

tax. Nobody likes taxes. As a young woman quoted in the paper today, she does

not want to see any taxes. We all agree with her. The only problem is we then

have no revenue to build hospitals, to pay our nurses, to pay our police

officers, to provide education, to provide educational services. We would have

no revenue at all. So taxes will always be with us.

I remember a quote from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the US Supreme

Court, he said: Taxes are the price that we pay in order to have a civilized

society. We do have to tax and we do that for the purposes of raising revenues.

Then we do what government likes to do, spend those revenues to try to bring

about a betterment and quality of life for the people of this Province.

We spent $2.2 billion on health. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, on

a per capita basis, spend more per capita on health than Prince Edward Island,

than Nova Scotia, than New Brunswick. Maybe that does not surprise you, but the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, on a per capita basis, spend more on health

care than Ontario. We spend more health care than Quebec. Yet, if you look at

the papers lately, if you look in the media lately, there is tremendous number

of requests for more spending on equipment, more spending on infrastructure,

more spending on resources; yet we do spend. Are we spending it wisely? That is

something that we are going to get advice on. The people of this Province do

spend on health care $2.2 billion. Sometimes I think if we had $1 billion

tomorrow and we put it into health care, people would not even know it is there.

We have reached a milestone this year in education. We are now spending $1

billion on education.

So what is wrong with this motion today, it is not that we would love to cut

taxes on gasoline, but we have to think of priority. Of all the things we want

to do, we have to prioritize and we have to make a decision. That is why we were

elected as a government to do that.

I know when I did the pre-budget consultations a number of groups, and I

think of the Federation of Labour in particular, they said no, do not cut taxes.

We do not want you to cut taxes any more. You cut taxes last year. You cut

personal taxes last year. You indexed tax brackets last year. We removed people

from the low end of the income scale last year; 5,200 people received the

low-income tax benefits. Four thousand people were removed from the tax rolls,

completely. The provincial tax roll, that is.

I remember the Leader of the NDP made a speech in this House and talked about

how someone making $13,000 a year only got a tax cut of a certain amount. I saw

a letter to the editor or a form piece in The Telegram talking about a

person making a low income and only getting a certain break, but the reality is,

is that person was removed from the tax rolls. That person pays no provincial

taxes at all. That person received 100 per cent tax rate.

Mr. Speaker, we also last year, in addition to giving the biggest tax cut in

the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, we indexed the tax brackets, a lot of

the tax benefits so that people could keep pace with the cost of living. We also

helped our seniors. Now there is a thing called a low-income seniors benefit.

That is a cheque that is paid to seniors in this Province in October. What was

happening is that you had a number of senior couples whose income, even though

they are only receiving the old age security and the guaranteed income

supplement, when you combined the two incomes they were above the threshold and

they therefore did not qualify for this seniors' benefit. So we raised the

threshold. As a result of that, 3,800 couples who were not getting the benefit

before now get that benefit, and another 3,200 couples were getting a partial

benefit. So, do the math, 7,000-14,000 seniors now sharing a cheque of $780 that

they were not getting before. That is a revenue measure, and that certainly

helped.

This year we dealt with the tax on insurance. We heard a lot of - as I did

the pre-budget consultations a lot of people said that is an unfair tax. We are

the only ones in the country - I think two other provinces were doing it but a

much lower rate than we were charging. An unfair tax, but they had to buy

insurance. It was mandatory insurance on their vehicles. They said, do away with

that particular tax, and we did. That is putting, as I said earlier, $94 million

this year, $75 million a year back in the hands of people. Now, it might be

helpful to review that tax. We have been charging, the Governments of

Newfoundland and Labrador have been charging the people of this Province a tax

on fire insurance premiums since 1952. So, it goes back one heck of a long way.

It later became part of the insurance premiums tax, it later became part of the

Retail Sales Tax Act, and it was 12 per cent. The Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador was charging a 12 per cent tax on insurance premiums in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Then the federal government brought in the Goods and

Services Tax, and the Goods and Services Tax was a value-added tax that was

based on a certain tax base, but it did not cover insurance.

So you have the GST in effect. That was not on insurance, it was on a number

of other things. You had the provincial sales tax that did cover insurance. Then

the decision was made, I believe it was in 1997, by the government of the day -

I am not sure, I do not know if that was the Tobin government or the Wells

government, it was the Liberal government of the day. They decided, with Ottawa,

and with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they would harmonize the GST with the

Retail Sales Tax. It was agreed that the tax base - it was agreed by

Newfoundland and Labrador, and by Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and Ottawa,

that the tax base that will be used for the new HST would be the tax base under

the Goods and Services Tax, which did not include insurance. So, with the

harmonized tax, the HST - and I should point out for people watching, I think

the original intent, they were going to call it the blended sales tax, the BS

tax. For some reason they decided not to call it that, and they changed the name

to the Harmonized Sales Tax.

So, insurance would not be covered. What the government of the day evidently

decided to do, they looked at the HST - now the HST is a federal tax. It is

legislated under the Excise Tax Act of Canada. It is administered by the federal

government. It is collected by the federal government. The tax is collected.

What they collect in Newfoundland and Labrador, eight-thirteenths today, it used

to be eight-fifteenths, would be sent to the Government of Newfoundland

Labrador. So, we cannot change that tax. We cannot eliminate that tax. With

respect to the tax on heating fuel, we cannot eliminate the tax. We can only

rebate an equivalent amount of money.

The government of the day, recognizing they were going to lose the revenue on

insurance, they continued the Retail Sales Tax on insurance. They left it in

place. They covered insurance premiums and they also covered the sale of used

cars. What they also did is they increased the rate from 12 per cent - and that

is what the Retail Sales Tax was at the time. They increased the tax rate to 15

per cent. Some would say by doing that there was an attempt to hide the tax and

let people believe it was part of the HST, which it was not. Now, some would say

it may have been an attempt to hide, others would say it was an attempt to get

more revenue. Because, remember, under the Harmonized Sales Tax the Province of

Newfoundland was getting 8 per cent,

whereas before, under the Retail Sales Tax,

it was getting 12 per cent, but that is what happened, and that has been the

case for many, many years. It really came to light when the Harper government

reduced the federal share of the HST from 17 per cent down to 6 per cent, so the

total HST became 14 per cent. People wondered, when they paid their insurance

premiums, well, the HST is 14 per cent; why is the tax on my insurance 15 per

cent?

Now the answer, of course, is that it was not HST; it was Retail Sales Tax.

There was a bit of an interest, there was a bit of media coverage, and then it

died away. Later on, the Harper government reduced the federal share of the HST

down to 5 per cent, so we had a total HST of 13 per cent. Then there was

interest again.

When I went around in pre-Budget consultations, I think this year what I

heard more from people than anything else was, eliminate that tax on insurance

premiums, eliminate the 15 per cent on insurance premiums - and the Williams'

government listened. We did not write a press release and we did not write a

bunch of speeches, but we eliminated the tax, and that is the difference between

talking about it and doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: In talking about priorities, this is not a priority. The

priority for this year should be helping people pay for their heat.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has to heat their home. This would benefit people who

have cars, but everybody has to heat their home, and the way we do that - as I

said earlier, we cannot eliminate the HST on heating fuel. As I say, the federal

government collects the HST in this Province and they send to us every year

eight-thirteenths of what they collect. Out of that eight-thirteenths, we pay a

rebate to people of this Province, and what we do is, we target that rebate. We

do not give it to everyone. It is not universal. We target it to people who need

it the most. We target it to people who are at the low end of the income scale,

people on fixed incomes, people like seniors, people who need help, and that is

where we target, but each year we have improved it.

When we became the government, the rebate, the HST rebate, was $100, the same

as it is in New Brunswick today. It was $100 and it went to about 11,000 people.

Today, we are giving that rebate, under the Williams' government, to 75,000

people, and the rebate amount is not $100 dollars like it was then and like it

is in New Brunswick today. The rebate for those who heat with home heating fuel

is $300, and in Labrador, in Coastal Labrador, it is $400.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

I will just take a few minutes to wrap up.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. T. MARSHALL: In Coastal Labrador, Mr. Speaker, as I said, they do not

use home heating fuel. They have to use stove oil, which is much more expensive,

and because the temperatures are colder the amount of litres that are needed in

the course of a year - because our rebate is based on, according to Natural

Resources, 3,000 litres is what is needed to heat a home in this Province, it is

higher than that in Labrador. Therefore, the correct thing to do, the proper

thing to do, and the right thing to do, was to provide a $400 rebate to people

in Coastal Labrador.

We are going to continue to monitor that very carefully. We make the decision

on the rebate in November. We will watch prices. We will see what will happen. I

have reports on my desk that say oil prices are going up. We know they are

volatile; they could go up. I have reports on my desk that say oil prices can be

down to $65 within two years. What the future is going to be, I have no idea.

The hon. Opposition House Leader made lots of predictions, and very

confidently predicted what our oil revenues were going to be; because, he said,

he looked at what I predicted at the time of the fiscal update and then he said,

well, oil prices have been higher; therefore the surplus is going to be higher.

That is what everybody says. Everybody questions me about oil prices. Everybody

talks about oil prices, but the oil royalties that we receive are a function of

not only oil prices; they are also a function of production levels.

As the Auditor General has pointed out, the Government of Newfoundland, we

can control neither. Oil prices are set in the world market. We do not control

them. Production levels are not set by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They are set by industry. They operate in a very tough environment out

there. We saw what happened with the Terra Nova FPSO. We saw what happened this

year when the Husky FPSO went down for a few days. We saw the massive revenues

losses when they were down for just a few days.

We do not know what the future is going to be. That is why we have to be

prudent, that is why we have to be careful, and that is why we will continue to

when it comes to spending money, we have to take a moderate approach and we

have to take a balanced approach. We have to ensure that we put money in the

pockets of the people, and that we have a very competitive tax rate. That is one

thing we have to do. We also have to spend money on government programs, in

particular health, education, justice, and programs to help people.

We have committed to a poverty reduction initiative. We are spending $91

million to help fight poverty in this Province, a program that has been referred

to as a model right across the country, a program that is considered one of

excellence, to be emulated by other provinces. Representatives of other

provinces have come here to look at our program. I know that the Minister of

Human Resources, Labour and Employment will have much more to say about that.

We also have to pay for our infrastructure. We have a crumbling

infrastructure. If we are going to have economic development in this Province,

we have to start to renew our infrastructure and not go into debt when we do it.

We have to fix our roads. We have to build hospitals. We have to build long-term

care facilities. We have to build broadband, which is the roadways of the

Twenty-First Century, and we will do it.

What we will do out of that surplus that the Opposition House Leader talked

about, we are going to pay for it. That is the difference. We are not going into

debt any more. We are doing to take a chunk of that surplus and we are going to

pay for our infrastructure. We are going to take another chunk of that surplus -

some people think, from some of the comments that the Opposition made during the

last session of the House, that we had a surplus and we were leaving it a bag

here in the House of Assembly. The reality is, the surplus is being spent. It is

being spent to pay for infrastructure, hospitals, long-term care facilities,

roads, wharfs, airports, new ferries, and the list goes on and on - hospital

equipment. We budgeted last year $23 million in hospital equipment, but we spent

last year $40 million on hospital equipment for the hospitals and people of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, we are going to spend a lot

more.

Also, one of the key strategies of this government is to leverage our

non-renewable resources, our non-renewable energy into renewable sources. If oil

prices are going to rise, we want to be in a position where we are not dependent

on oil. Right now, in our system, Hydro is burning a lot of oil at Holyrood.

When oil prices go up, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay

because we cannot isolate our people from what is happening with oil prices

throughout the world. We do not control those prices. What we can do, and what

the Premier is working on, is a plan to bring the hydro from Labrador, to use

that to make life better for the people in Labrador, to increase economic

development in Labrador, and to bring surplus hydro over to this Province so

that in the future, regardless of how high the oil prices go up, we are going to

have a renewable source of heating, a renewable source of energy, that will last

for the people of this Province as long as the river runs to the sea.

Mr. Speaker, that is the plan, to diversify the economy, to lower - first of

all, to provide a tax rate in the Province, to provide a tax scheme in the

Province, that makes us competitive, that helps us attract investment, because

if investment comes in that means new jobs, people create jobs. A low tax rate

is important to attract and retain our skilled workers. It is after tax income,

it is what is left in the pocket after the taxes are paid, that people look at.

When you cut taxes, when you cut personal income taxes, Mr. Speaker, that is

equivalent to giving people a raise. We did that last year and it was very well

received as the biggest tax cut in the history of the Province.

We will fix our infrastructure, which is a pre-condition for economic

development. We have invested in the hydro corporation, so that in the future

our energy will be based on renewable hydro as opposed to oil and gas. We will

continue to invest in poverty reduction to help the people of the Province who

need help. We will continue to invest in health and we will continue to invest

in education to provide the workers who are going to be needed for the booming

economy that we have.

We have an optimism in this Province, Mr. Speaker, that has not been seen in

generations. The Federation of Independent Business came to me and they said,

optimism, confidence in the future of this Province, is higher in Newfoundland

and Labrador than it is in any other province in the country other than Alberta.

We are on the right plan, we will make the right decisions, we will prioritize,

we will have a balanced approach, we will lower revenues, we will invest in

infrastructure, we will invest in hydro, we will invest in health and education,

we will invest in poverty reduction, and we will take a moderate approach, we

will take a balanced approach that will lead to a better Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this hon.

House today in the footsteps of the hon. Minister of Finance. I am certainly

proud to stand and support his comments regarding the proposed motion.

Yesterday was a great day, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, when notice was given that the insurance tax in this Province is going

to be reduced by 15 per cent. We all know that that will put money into everyone's

pockets, the working poor and the average family. It will put more money into

their pockets, more resources. That was a great day.

As the minister said, the savings will be $94 million this year, followed by

$75 million years down the road. That was certainly, certainly significant.

Again, Mr. Speaker, who benefits? Individuals, the average citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador, small business that employs the average individuals

of Newfoundland and Labrador, corporations that employ people in Newfoundland

and Labrador, municipalities that charge taxes and provide services to towns

throughout this Province, of course the insurance premiums are an expense that

they have to budget for on an annual basis. Some municipalities, of course,

struggle to find revenues, and I think this was a great announcement yesterday

for the municipalities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I am confident that

the umbrella association for municipalities in this Province, which is

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, would certainly look at this

announcement yesterday as being very favourable, because they recognize that

anything that puts money back into municipalities is a great thing. Of course,

that means that they do not have to charge the residents of their communities

money to get that money to pay the insurance premiums. That is great news.

Community groups this year, the Premier announced that there will be a

minister responsible for the volunteer sector. The volunteer sector in this

Province has many buildings. Many of these buildings and facilities have to

raise money to offset the cost of this tax. That was a great announcement

yesterday for those individuals as well. This tax we know was started back in

the 1950's 1952 I believe, as the minister said and I am proud, so

very proud that this government yesterday decided to eliminate it after

fifty-six years. Congratulations! A job well done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: As the minister said, we need taxes. We need taxes for

programs, we need taxes to support health care. The health care budget in this

Province, as we all know, is somewhere in the area of $2 billion. We need

revenue to support education. The education budget in this Province is

approaching $1 billion. These are two of the most significant expenses that this

government has, and to do that it needs revenue.

A famous philosopher, John Shed, said that a ship in a harbour is safe, but

that is not what ships are built for. In this Province, I am so very proud of

the captain of our ship, the Premier, and his crew, and the job that they are

doing at this time in our history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: - the most significant job, I think, that I have seen in my

lifetime, in terms of programs and making changes for the benefit of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian; no doubt about it. We have a lot to be proud of.

This ship, under this captain, is doing an admirable job. This ship is not stuck

in the harbour. This ship is on course. This ship recognizes that there is a

future ahead of us and there are things to be done.

Just look at what this government has done in the last number of years. They

have spent more money on infrastructure, more money on hospitals and more money

on long-term care facilities throughout the Province. Improvements to schools -

I was a school principal or vice-principal for thirty years. I started out as

principal in the 1976-1977 school year, in Howley, Newfoundland, and for my

thirty year career the most significant changes in education came at the end of

my career. There was more money spent in maintenance for school facilities in

the last couple of years. We know what the schools were like prior to that. We

know about the mould, we know about the leaky roofs, but this government has

taken the problem and is addressing it, and I am so proud of the work that they

are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: It takes money to do things. Sure, it would be nice to reduce

the tax on oil, but yesterday's announcement will put hundreds of dollars into

the pockets of average Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Also, it will help the

business community. It will help the economy of this Province and I think that

is what makes it so very significant, a very significant decision indeed.

The Auditor General just made a release. He talked about not our deficit; we

know what the deficit was in 2003. The deficit was approaching $1 billion but we

still have a debt of $11.5 billion and he is advising us that we have to take

steps to do something about that debt. What is the opportunity cost now that we

have the funds to be able to address it, of putting that decision off somewhere

down in the future? What is the opportunity cost? What is the opportunity cost

to the working poor? What is the opportunity cost to families? Let's get that

debt under control. Let's reduce the debt so that we can spend more money for

families in this Province by providing the services that our constituents are

looking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Income tax, I never thought I would see the day when I could

proudly say that in Atlantic Canada we have the lowest income tax. My good

friend and colleague, Mr. Minister Marshall, from Humber East was minister when

that decision was made. That was a very significant time in our history. I never

thought that we would see it.

Mr. Speaker, this government has demonstrated that it does have a very strong

social agenda. They have a plan. They have a plan to address poverty. We all

know about poverty, when we run our constituency office. We know about the

calls. We know about what the conditions are out there, but this government is

committed to doing something about it, and you can see it: things like doing

away with the cost of buying textbooks in high school, from Grades 10 to 12

from Grades 9 to 12, actually.

When I started out as a school administrator thirty years ago, it was free

textbooks for K8. When I retired, it was still free textbooks for K8. One

of the most uncomfortable positions that you can put a principal of a school

into is when a student comes to your office with a slip, a social services slip,

for his books, and he or she knows that they do not want the rest of the group

to know that they are getting their books from a social services slip. They no

longer have to worry. It is gone, thank God! It is now free textbooks from K12.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Doing away with school fees was significant, and that has all

happened recently, very significant.

One of the calls that I received when I decided to run in 2007 was from

people concerned, the working poor, concerned about the minimum wage. The

minimum wage went from $6 to, recently, $8. That is a $2 increase in the last

couple of years, very significant. The government is also planning to increase

the minimum wage from $8 to $10 by 2010, very, very significant.

There is a strong focus by this government on the needs of families and

children. The Prescription Drug Program, for example, what a wonderful thing. So

many families in our Province, and individuals, were worried about the cost of

medication. Sure, there was a program there for those who need it the most, but

the government finally recognized that there are others too, the middle class.

There are others in our society who needed the assurance that they would not

lose everything they had to cover the cost of medication, and this government

did that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Seventeen million dollars has been spent to help low-income

families. The government spent $650,000 to increase the Newfoundland and

Labrador Child Tax Credit by $5 a month; $300,000 to increase the Mother Baby

Nutrition Supplement; $1.4 million for insulin pumps to deal with Type 1

diabetes; helping women who are vulnerable to poverty, $250,000 in legal

services and $200,000 for Women's Centres. This government, I think, is doing

an outstanding job, there is no doubt of that, and I am so proud of the Poverty

Reduction Strategy helping people of low income improve their quality of life.

To do things requires money. I think the leadership of this government and

the astute negotiating skills of the Premier and the government have led to a

better deal, have led to more revenues, and now there is an opportunity here for

us to spend it, but spend it wisely. We have to listen to, obviously, the

Auditor General, and take his recommendations seriously.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of this hon. House, it is not easy growing up

in poverty. I can talk about my own circumstances. When I was an individual

going to school, I was raised by my grandparents. My grandfather died when I was

only a teenager. My mother got $100-and-some-odd a month, I think, social

services, and, of course, she supplemented that by taking borders and by doing

other things. I used a social services slip to buy my books in high school.

In my thirty years, nobody has done any more than this government. There are

people out there who are so proud of the job that you have done. That is why

this government got the support it did in October. There is no doubting that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I find it a little frustrating sometimes when my colleagues

get up and talk about the support for government on that side of the House. I

can assure you that the majority of the people on this side of the House also

support you, no doubt about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: We are in this together, and we are going to make improvements

to the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Reducing the debt will ensure

the oil is going to run out. It is not going to be around forever, no doubt

about that, so let's make the right decisions now. There is a significant

opportunity cost of not making those decisions by wrestling down the debt when

we can do it, because people will pay down the road.

Going around the district you see so many people with so many needs,

sometimes it is families or it is seniors. This government, with many of these

residents, is recognized for the job they are doing and the support they are

giving. They are very, very thankful, Mr. Speaker.

I am grateful as an MHA, and I am so proud to be a part of the Danny Williams

team. There has never been a better captain of a ship in this Province, as I

said earlier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: The hon. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we should refrain from using names. We refer to

members of the House by their titles or their districts.

MR. KELLY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to stand here this evening to support the

hon. Minister of Finance and to support this government with the initiatives

that they have been involved in. Budget 2007 was a highlight in the history of

this Province and I am confident that Budget 2008 will be an even more

significant highlight.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to certainly have a few words on the motion that was put forward

by the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile today.

After listening to the Member for Humber Valley, one thing I am certain of is

that he loves his government and his Premier.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I can only draw some conclusion

to is that I don't think he is supportive of a tax cut in gasoline for the

residents of his district. That was the other thing I concluded, Mr. Speaker,

from this.

Mr. Speaker, those were the two messages that I got, that the Member for

Humber Valley today is not going to stand and support a reduction in taxes on

gasoline for th