December

1, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 42

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the House of Assembly would like to welcome four students from the

Baie Verte Skills Link group who are visiting us from the District of Baie

Verte-Springdale. The group is accompanied by their coordinator, Tina Thomas;

and chaperones, Larry Harvey, Gail Goudie and Clem Thomas.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following private members' statements will be heard:

The hon. the Member for the District of the Isles of Notre Dame; the hon. the

Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the

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

hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the

Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

The hon. the Member for the District of the Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Mr.

Gordon Noseworthy, the supervisor of the Twillingate Harbour Authority.

As harbour supervisor since 1998, Mr. Noseworthy has worked tirelessly to

improve and develop the infrastructure in the Twillingate Harbour. As a result

of his vision and dedication, the Twillingate Harbour has seen construction of

wharf extensions, floating docks, a gear storage shed, and a harbour authority

office complete with laundry facilities, paved roads and parking, and fresh

water services. Homeport to 115 commercial fishing vessels and strategically

located along the Northeast coast, Twillingate Harbour is well equipped thanks

to Mr. Noseworthy's efforts.

Mr. Noseworthy recently organized and hosted the House of Commons Standing

Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and seized the opportunity to promote the

infrastructure of the Twillingate Harbour Authority.

Mr. Noseworthy was recently recognized as the winner of the Regional

Individual Commitment Award, given to the individual who exhibits individual

commitment of extraordinary dedication to the ongoing success of the Harbour

Authority Program in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Further testament to his outstanding work, Mr. Noseworthy also received the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans National Individual Commitment Award, awarded

to one of the 574 Harbour Authorities supervisors across Canada.

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

congratulating Mr. Gordon Noseworthy on his success as the supervisor of the

Twillingate Harbour Authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House to recognize World AIDS Day, which we mark

today, and the work of people in our Province who work tirelessly to improve the

situation for people who have HIV-AIDS and to increase the public education

needed to decrease the incidence of this disease.

I pay particular tribute today to the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and

Labrador which is celebrating its twentieth year of operation this year.

The members of this mainly volunteer group work tirelessly to undo the

stigma, discrimination and misinformation that is still very present in all

parts of our communities.

Their work covers everything from managing the Tommy Sexton Centre to

advocating for anonymous HIV-AIDS testing which should be available throughout

the Province.

I have had personal contact on a regular basis with the volunteers and staff

of the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, their office is in my

district, as is the Tommy Sexton Centre, and I know the depth of their

commitment. We cannot thank them enough for the service that they provide to the

community and especially, to the community of persons with HIV-AIDS and their

families and supporters.

I wish them well as they celebrate their twentieth year and I ask members of

the House of Assembly to congratulate with me the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland

and Labrador on its wonderful work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an

outstanding young person of my district, Ian Smallwood.

Ian is attending Grade 4 at Hazelwood Elementary in St. John's. He plays

hockey with the St. John's Caps both house league and all-star. He has been

playing softball at Waterford Valley for five years, including this past summer.

He started playing baseball this summer in Mount Pearl. He has been in Tae Kwan

Do since he was three years old and now holds a purple belt.

He is extremely athletic as you can see. This past summer, at the age of

nine, Ian begged his mother to let him join her in running the Tely 10 Road

Race. Equipped with new running shoes he trained with her for the big day.

Ian ran the Tely10 and won an award at this year's event for being the

youngest to finish the race. He finished ahead of 429 others.

Ian is a tremendous young man, the proud son of Sue and Glen Smallwood of

Thomas Street, St. John's. His goal in life is to be a professional hockey or

basketball player.

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

congratulating this young man for such an outstanding sports achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gary Kennedy of Port de Grave is an established Newfoundland artist who is

recognized in many parts of the world. His work can be found in private

collections in Australia, Norway, England and the United States.

Without any formal training, his style evolved through the influence of the

late George Noseworthy, a celebrity American artist from New York who moved to

Port de Grave in 1966. One of his many highlights is the exhibition that is

presently taking place at The Rooms. His exhibits will be at the art gallery in

St. John's until December 7.

The late E.H. Vokey, an educator, made the following comment, "I wish I

could express in words, what you have done with a brush and paint." Truly a

remarkable story and a milestone for one of our many local artists.

I ask all hon. members to extend congratulations to Mr. Gary Kennedy and I

hope you will be able to visit his exhibits at The Rooms before December

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to

Corporal Joshua Collins of Placentia, who recently returned from an eight month

tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Joshua is the son of Keith and Karen Collins of Placentia, both of whom are

retired soldiers.

Corporal Collins was welcomed home to Placentia on November 1, by a

100-vehicle motorcade, followed by an official ceremony at the Royal Canadian

Legion, in which I was privileged to participate and bring greetings on behalf

of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

During his visit home, Corporal Collins participated in the Remembrance Day

ceremonies in Placentia, as well as the other events held in the local schools.

It was also fitting that he celebrated his twenty-fifth birthday on November

11. He was serenaded on many occasions by admiring students and residents of

Placentia.

Corporal Collins is one of the many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who put

their lives on the line every day while serving their country in Afghanistan for

the cause of world peace. The tremendous greeting and outpouring of pride by the

people of Placentia on November 1 is reflective of the overall support and

appreciation we have for our troops overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me today in welcoming home

Corporal Collins safe and sound and in saluting all our Province's men and

women who serve in the armed forces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate The Gulf News, which celebrated

its thirty-fifth anniversary on November 23.

The Gulf News is a weekly publication that serves south western Newfoundland.

It has a press run of just over 3,000 copies each week. Over the past

thirty-five years, The Gulf News has won multiple industry awards on a regional

and national level for excellence in reporting, advertising and circulation.

The Gulf News office is located in Port aux Basques, and the local staff is

made up of Natalie Musseau, reporter; Charlene Blackmore, customer service

representative; Fay Cousins and Selma Kilpatrick, advertising sales

representatives; and Mandy Ryan, editor and business manager. The managing

editor, whose office is located in Grand Falls-Windsor, is Ron Ennis, and the

publisher, who works from his office at The Western Star in Corner Brook, is

Shawn Woodford.

The Gulf News has had many different formats, publishing days, editors and

staff since its first issue was distributed on Friday, November 23, 1973, but

the content has always been relevant to the people of the southwest coast. For

thirty-five years this paper has been delivered door to door in communities from

South Branch, to Port aux Basques, to Franois. The stories thirty-five years

ago, dealt with health care, the municipal election and the minimum wage the

same issues that often concern us today. Residents still look forward to getting

the Monday edition of The Gulf News and reading the local and provincial news,

sports, birth, wedding, and graduation announcements.

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

congratulations to The Gulf News on their thirty-fifth anniversary. May you

continue to thrive and grow for another thirty-five and beyond.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to report on

the provincial government's continued support of the Province's

manufacturing sector.

Today, and extending through Wednesday, the Department of Innovation, Trade

and Rural Development is facilitating the Lean Product Design and Development

Workshop. This is an initiative of the Fluent Manufacturing Consortium and the

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association.

Delivered by Ronald Mascitelli, the Founder and President of Technology

Perspectives, the session is based on themes outlined in the newly published

book, The Lean Product Development Guidebook. Internationally recognized, Mr.

Mascitelli's clients include Lockheed-Martin, Adidas, Intel, Boeing, and

Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley - a global provider of industrial automation

and an employer of 20,000 people.

The workshop is designed to provide companies and organizations with a set of

practical tools for reducing waste and increasing the profitability of any new

product development activity. Firms using these methods have experienced a 50

per cent reduction in time-to-market, as well as dramatic improvements in gross

margins and enhanced customer satisfaction.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to attend a portion of the session and

was impressed by the level of enthusiasm and interest of participants that

included, among others, Lotek Wireless, C&W Industrial Fabrication and

Ribbon, and the Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation.

The manufacturing sector represents a key component of the Province's

growing economy. For this sector to continue to grow and prosper, it is

important for the independent companies and organizations to work collectively

and individually to improve productivity and ultimately to improve

profitability.

I am happy to report that my department helped create this partnership

through a $16,400 investment under the Business Networks Program and sector

specialists who worked to bring this local community together.

As a government, we are committed to providing accessible programs that

enable local companies and organizations to more effectively sell their products

and services, expand their operations, and target new opportunities. This is

evident in our series of financial and non-financial programs aimed directly at

diversifying and strengthening local economies.

We are in exciting and prosperous times as a Province. I am confident that

programs and sessions of this nature will enable private industry to capitalize

on business opportunities and position the Province for continued growth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We in the Official Opposition, of course, would certainly endorse and support

any kind of initiative, ITRD or any other department of government that is of

assistance to the manufacturing sector or indeed any other business in our

Province.

I guess it is not always the massive announcement or projects and programs,

for example, that help people along. It is the combination, sometimes, of a lot

of smaller initiatives such as these types of seminars and so on, and marketing

campaigns, that help business. Albeit we do, I think, have an exciting time in

our Province right now, I hope the word prosperous, as used by the minister,

certainly comes to be; because, in addition to the manufacturing companies that

he referred to, we have some much larger manufacturing and producing entities

and bodies which are going to probably be on a few tough times in the next

twelve months or so.

I refer, of course, to our mining industry in particular; the recent

announcement by IOC that they are going to take serious looks at their expansion

programs. Wabush Mines, for example has already announced layoffs. In our export

sector, for example, the fishing industry, particularly in aquiculture and the

rest of the fishing products, in which we could be upon some serious times if

the Americans and Europeans do not have the money to buy our products; and, of

course, we all know about the serious impacts we have had for some years now in

the forest industry.

Anything the government does to make it easier and better for our companies

to be productive and profitable, we would certainly be supportive of.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

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

It is good to see this kind of effort being supported by the government.

Anything that can be done to increase the productivity of businesses in this

Province is extremely important. It is also interesting, too, with the whole

thing of practical tools for reducing waste, that is an important aspect of this

announcement as well because I think that is the kind of environmental action

that has to be built into all of our business around the Province.

It is an example of the kind of economic diversity that the government needs

to be putting effort into; because, if twenty or twenty-five years down the road

we cannot be depending on the offshore - we do not know, but at this moment it

looks like we probably will not be able to - we have to make sure that effort is

going into economic diversification. So, I would encourage the minister to look

at ways in which, under his leadership, secondary processing in areas like the

fishery, in agriculture, and value-added production and resource-based

industries can creatively be created. We need the opportunities for those things

to happen if we are going to have an economic diversity that will lead us into

the future even when we no longer have the resources that we get, especially

from mining and oil and gas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy

Attorney General for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Donald H. Burridge, Q.C., on

his becoming a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. The American

College of Trial Lawyers is widely considered to be the premiere professional

organization composed of trial lawyers in both Canada and the United States.

This is a very prestigious recognition, as membership in the College cannot

exceed 1 per cent of the total lawyer population in any state or province. There

are currently three Fellows of the College of Newfoundland and Labrador, but

this is the first time a lawyer with the Department of Justice has been bestowed

with this honour.

Mr. Speaker, founded in 1950, the College is composed of the best of the

trial bar from Canada and the United States. Fellowship in the College is

extended by invitation only, and only after careful consideration, to

experienced trail lawyers who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose

professional careers have been marked by the highest of standards of ethical

conduct, professionalism, civility and collegiality.

Mr. Burrage has demonstrated an exceptional knowledge of the law and has

extensive work in litigation, having been trial counsel in approximately

eighty-six cases, particularly displaying expertise in Canadian constitutional

law and Aboriginal law. Mr. Burrage was called to the Bar of Newfoundland and

Labrador in 1985 and during his career has successfully argued cases in the

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal, as well

as the Supreme Court of Canada.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am very pleased

to acknowledge the induction of Mr. Burrage as a Fellow of the American College

of Trial Lawyers. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge and recognize such a

level of expertise within our own public service - one which I experience each

and every day in my work with Mr. Burrage as Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney

General.

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

congratulating Don Burrage on his induction as a Fellow into the American

College of Trial Lawyers and this recognition of his significant expertise and

accomplishments in the legal profession.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister's advance copy of his statement.

I would certainly concur in everything he has had to say about Mr. Burrage in

terms of his abilities. I had the good fortune not only to have dealt with him

in private practice for some years but also work with him when I was in the

department as minister for four years. At that time I believe he was assistant

deputy minister, and he has now worked himself up to be the actual deputy

minister.

I do not know if he is inclined to the administrative piece or not, because

he was always so intent, when I was there - he loved the courtroom, loved the

advocacy piece of it, and he was certainly suited for it.

Not only is he a very dedicated employee; he does, in fact, have a superior

work ethic, superior legal skills, and a superior knowledge level. I am

surprised - and I told him quite often that there is no doubt he could go

anywhere in this country that he wishes, if he wished to work in private

practice. There are firms in this country who would readily take Mr. Don Burrage

to work with them, if they could, so we are very fortunate in this Province to

have him now be the mainstay in our Department of Justice.

I remember in particular working with him on the establishment of the Lamer

Inquiry and the Terms of Reference for it. I could say that, in addition to

everything else and all the other skills that he has, he has a huge dose of

common sense and he brings a lot of humanity to everything he does.

We would certainly like to congratulate him as well. I do not know if he is

still as committed as he was to his run but every day faithfully, I believe, for

the last twenty-five or thirty years, he runs ten kilometres at lunchtime. I

hope he still gets time to do that, because that shows his level of commitment

as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal HillQuidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for his advance copy of the statement.

I am very pleased to join with the minister and with the Opposition House

Leader in congratulating Mr. Burrage. I do not have the privilege, as both of my

colleagues have had, of even meeting Mr. Burrage, let alone working with him,

but just reading what the minister has presented to us, I think, should make us

proud that we have somebody of his calibre working in the Department of Justice.

I really am quite pleased to congratulate Mr. Burrage, and maybe I will drop

into the Department of Justice to meet him and say hello.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance.

Since August, eight of the ten provincial jurisdictions in this country have

already had enough confidence in their economic information to release financial

updates. The ninth province, New Brunswick, has already outlined their timetable

as to when they will make their announcement and also put a plan in place for

the economy.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have only seen bits and pieces

of information and I guess a lot of that has been conflicting, depending upon

the audience that government was addressing on any given day, whether they were

people in collective bargaining or people outside. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the minister today: When are they going to release the vital economic

information and data for Newfoundland and Labrador? Because it is imperative

that the business community and the public have that information.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition Leader for her question, but what is imperative is

that we continue to run this Province as we have been doing over the last number

of years and try to fix up the mess that was left by the Liberals when we took

power in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Essentially what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we have

consulted with experts throughout the country, locally and nationally, as to how

this economic crisis should be addressed. We are taking the steps that are

suggested, the first being to maintain and keep spending money on

infrastructure, which we are doing and which will be outlined in the economic

update. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to create employment and to continue to create

employment which will give people money to spend.

We take this situation very seriously, Mr. Speaker, and the economic update

that will come forward in the next week or two will outline how we plan to

address the situation. The advice that has been given to us, and the advice that

we are following, is to maintain the course and steady as she goes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should remind the minister that the have

status that this Province finds themselves in today is to a large degree because

of the deals that were negotiated by previous Liberal governments and Liberal

premiers, I say to you, Minister, and that cannot be ignored in the economic

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Province and the minister has had months to

prepare this vital economic information to gather the opinions of the leaders in

the business community.

I would like to ask the minister today: Have you met with the leadership in

Newfoundland and Labrador? Have you consulted with the business community, and

do you have a handle on where the industry sectors are going?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I remind the Leader of the Opposition,

if she would stop giving speeches and ask questions I could specifically address

it.

Let me remind you of a couple of basic facts. When we took power in 2003

there was a $12 billion debt and a $1 billion deficit left by those Liberals. So

what we have attempted to do is to clear that situation up. We have done that.

Let me remind the leader of the Opposition, in case she missed it, for the

last number of years we have ran a surplus based on prudent and fiscal spending.

Last year we spent 36 per cent of a $6.35 billion budget on health care

$2.36 billion. We spent another 20 per cent on education - $1.3 billion.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is looking after the well-being of this

Province, continuing to take the steps that we have taken, and we will see our

way through this crisis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not answer the question in terms of who has been consulted,

who in the business community has been engaged in these discussions by the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind him of something else. The millions of dollars in

debt would still be there if it was not for the revenues that rolled in from

Hibernia and from Terra Nova and from White Rose and from Voisey's Bay,

projects that were done by Liberal Administrations. Why doesn't the minister

get a history lesson in all the numbers that his department handles, and where

that comes from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we do not know of any consultation that has

occurred with industry sectors in the Province, so maybe the minister can tell

me what dialogue he has had with his federal counterparts in terms of looking at

what the proposed economic stimulus package will be from the Government of

Canada, how it will impact Newfoundland and Labrador, and what investments will

be made here.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, let me see, a Liberal government when the Upper Churchill was done; let me

see, the Lower Churchill was going to be given away by a Liberal government, so

don't talk to me about what the Liberals have done other than leave us in

debt, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in terms of what have we done? What have we done? On October 31, I was

appointed Minister of Finance. Three days later, I was at a Finance Ministers'

meeting. Since then, Mr. Speaker, I have been at the First Ministers' meeting

with the Premier, I have met with the chief economists of three major banks -

the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and the Royal Bank - I have met

with local economists. We are monitoring the situation on a daily basis. We are

following the advice that has been given us.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done in this Province is exactly what is suggested

in order to battle recession: one, to maintain the course; two, to pay down

debt; three, to reduce personal income taxes; and, four, to create employment.

Does that sound like a plan, Leader of the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can outline for me, then - outside the ministers'

investments into sectors of the economy like the fishery, the forestry sectors

in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and if there will be any investments

coming forward for future projects like the Lower Churchill?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case the Leader of the Opposition has missed it, there appears to be an

insurrection going on in Ottawa right now and we are not quite clear who is

going to run the government. The Building Canada Fund is not outlined as to how

it is going to be dealt with.

The steps we have taken, Mr. Speaker, are to continue to spend and,

again, with some due credit to the Liberals, the Vale Inco deal was announced

there a couple of weeks ago; Hebron is on course. So what we are doing, Mr.

Speaker, we are taking the steps that need to be taken to maintain a strong

economy.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, offered the unions wages, the public sector

increases, which will amount to $500 million over four years; 8 per cent which

could go into their pockets immediately, Mr. Speaker, and which they could spend

for Christmas.

These are the kinds of steps we are taking to stimulate the economy, to

battle the recession; and, as has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we are actually

in the best position in this country to battle this recession and crisis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it sounds a lot like status quo to me, but let's

establish this. There has been no discussion with the industry leaders in this

Province. No discussion with the business community in this Province. No serious

discussion with the federal government on forestry and fishery investments or

even large scale developments like the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Have you had any discussions with

the federal government around the perspective sale of shares in Hibernia and has

there been any dialogue with our Province, you as the minister, and the feds on

that issue?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are aware of, Mr. Speaker, as we enter this as we are in the

middle of this crisis actually, is the best way to put it, is that we cannot

control everything that goes on in the world.

What is happening in the United States, the sub prime mortgage crisis was not

brought on by us. What is going on in Europe and Asia was not brought on by us,

but, Mr. Speaker, we have to live in a goldfish bowl if we thought that it does

not affect us. So what we have done, we have consulted with the experts, we have

looked at our own figures, Mr. Speaker, and we are quite confident that it is by

maintaining the status quo, if the status quo, Mr. Speaker, is spending money on

infrastructure, building schools and hospitals. If that is the status quo, well

yes, we will maintain it because it creates employment, it puts money in the

pockets of individuals, and that is what stimulates the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every other province in the country is getting their heads around what is

happening in terms of the economy. The minister claims that we are in the middle

of the tsunami on the economy. Economists are saying we might be at the

beginning. I do not know where his information is coming from.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this: What analysis have been done with regard to

the retail sales tax in the Province? We already know that the number of imports

coming into the Province has dropped by about 25 per cent. We are hearing of

businesses that are closing up shop in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I would like to ask the minister: What analysis has your department done

on what the outlook on retail sales tax will be, and how that will affect the

bottom line of the budget this year?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain what the Leader of the

Opposition refers to. Is she talking about retail sales or retail sales tax? Is

she talking about revenues? Because last year, Mr. Speaker, the revenues in our

Province broke down to - 61.8 per cent came from taxation, which included

offshore oil royalties and mining royalties are 37 per cent of our revenues.

There was investment; there were fees and fines, other provincial sources, and

equalization and the transfers - the Canada social and health transfers.

So I am not quite certain what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking

me, but if she asking me about retail sales, Mr. Speaker, it is expected that

they will grow and they have grown 8.1 per cent, August of this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have an actual increase in housing starts.

The only province in this country right now, I think, that has an increase in

housing starts. We are up to 220, 298 by September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: So does she wish me to keep going (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Natural Resources

MR. KENNEDY: Give up, did you?

MS JONES: Oh, not by far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I say to the minister, I have hardly given up, I have only just

begun.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: It just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how serious they really take

this issue. But I say to him, I am not giving up, Mr. Speaker, by a long shot.

There will be lots of questions to come on this.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Natural Resources is in relation

to an answer she gave us last week when we asked her about the mining operations

in Labrador West. She stated she was in regular communications with the mining

companies, certainly did not outline that there could be any downscaling of

activity there.

So I ask you minister: When were you made aware of the plans of IOC and what

the impact was going to be, and why did you not inform the House?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the time that I gave my answer in the House, I had been in discussion with

the management of IOC within that twenty-four hour period. I was told at that

time that it is was steady as she goes, that they will be slowing down perhaps

their Phase I and Phase II development but would still be taking orders. That

while the world-wide global crisis was having an impact on them, they saw that

if because they had made significant investments when times were good, they

felt strongly that they could weather through the next piece but they were going

to further assess that as a company and be in further contact with me, which

they were, Mr. Speaker, late last week. That is when I was informed of the

significance of the slowdown with regard to Phase I and II, the impact on

temporary workers and contractors, but no layoffs are expected at IOC at this

time, Mr. Speaker, of permanent employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could inform us as well, when she will get the next update

from the company and if you expect that there will be any layoffs going into the

summer if the demand for steel remains down?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are very proactive in our communication

with these companies. I initiated the contact with IOC, especially when Wabush

Mines indicated that they might be having some layoffs. I wanted to know where

everybody was. That is the plan that they have laid out at the moment, Mr.

Speaker. They continue to make investment. One of their pellet plants each

of their six pellet plants will be refurbished during this period. That speaks

to their commitment in preparing for a time when production comes up again. They

expect a four-week shutdown in July; they are asking everybody to take their

holidays at this time. There will be an impact felt on contractors and on

temporary employees, but IOC will continue to invest and expects, hopefully, at

the end of the year, to have ridden out this crisis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least we have one minister over there who claims to be somewhat proactive.

Let me get to the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker.

In the media interview on Friday, the Minister of Health stated that he only

recently became aware of a 2003 report on mental health services. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this contradicted the information that was contained in all the reports

filed by the Child and Youth Advocate from 2003 to 2007, in which the Child

Advocate stated that the mental health report was being reviewed by the

executive of the Department of Health and Community Services.

So I ask you, Minister: Which is it, did you just become aware of the report

in your department and start dealing with it or is the information reported in

the Child and Youth Advocate reports incorrect and inaccurate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is no either-or answer to the question.

There are two separate issues. I am not going to refute what the advocate wrote

in her report. It is there in black and white. Anyone who wants to read it, they

can. So it is there for the reading.

Fundamentally, what I had indicated in the House and indicated outside the

House was that, a short while ago, this report of 2003 came to my attention and

I have asked officials in the department to start reviewing that report to see

about its validity for today, to update any information in it, to look at the

suggestions and recommendations that are there, to ensure that they are

reasonable, reliable and we can look at them as being a foundation piece to make

future decisions. So there is no either-or to the question being posed here, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there is so much confusion around this particular

issue. In 2005 the Child and Youth Advocate indicated that the first option was

to review this report, the mental health report, that would be done by the

Department of Health and Community Services, and that they would look at

therapeutic foster care as a way of reducing the number of youth being sent out

of the Province for mental health services.

I ask you, Minister: Was that review ever done in 2005 or was it just told to

the Child Advocate, reported in their annual report, and no action taken?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, personally, I cannot speak to what may have

happened in 2005. If the member opposite would like for me to find out whether

or not the department reviewed the issue in 2005, I can determine that answer

and provide it to the House and to anyone who has an interest, but fundamentally

the question to me was with respect to my involvement, what I was personally

doing, and what I had indicated just very recently: I had revisited that 2003

report and had it reviewed by officials.

There is no contradiction in the report. The member opposite is trying to

make an issue of nothing. Fundamentally, if the advocate has indicated that

there were some comments in her report in previous years, that is in black and

white, as I said a moment ago, and anyone can read that. I cannot speak to what

activity may have taken place within the department in 2005 on this issue but I

say, Mr. Speaker, I can speak very clearly to the issues that I have been seized

with since I have been minister. With respect to this report, very recently I

have directed officials to review that report and provide some advice to me, and

I have committed to review the question at hand and to make some decisions on

behalf of government, or bring it to my colleagues for decisions on behalf of

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me ask again. The Child and Youth Advocate

reported in 2005, and reported again in 2006, that the Department of Health and

Community Services was doing a review of therapeutic foster care as a way of

reducing the number of children being sent out of this Province for care. I ask

you again, Minister: Was that review ever done in the Department of Health and

Community Services? If so, where is it, why was it never tabled, and why were

you not aware of it as the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If the member opposite can repeat her questions maybe I can

repeat my answer.

Fundamentally, I said, Mr. Speaker, anything that is written in the advocate's

report about something she may have said, comments she may have made, it is

there in black and white, anyone can read it; I am not going to refute that.

Anyone can read that statement.

What I am saying to the member opposite, in response to questions she has

made - and I have said to the media, in response to the questions they posed -

where the status of that report is today, as of today, in my role as minister, I

have recently provided direction to officials in the department to review that

report, to sit down with me when they have done that analysis and we will then

talk about what actions we will move forward with. I will then decide what

recommendations I will bring to my colleagues in Cabinet, and as government we

will make a decision around what future direction we will take with respect to

enhancing and improving and building upon mental health services for children in

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the minister of something: people in this Province need to

have confidence in the information that is being reported to them by public

offices like that of the Child Advocate or even your office in the Department of

Health. Why is this information contained in public documents and you have no

knowledge of it?

My question is: Will you find out if the review on therapeutic care was ever

completed in this Province and, if not, can you tell me why the Child Advocate

was given that information from your department and it reported to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If the member opposite wants to stretch out Question Period

by repeating the same questions, I can repeat the same answer. I gave you an

answer a moment ago. I had indicated to you that I would undertake to find out

whether or not a review had taken place and report back to you. I just gave you

that answer about two questions ago, but if you want me to repeat it I just did

it again. If you would like it repeated again, ask that in your supplementary

question again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ever since the story broke and these families had the courage to go forward

and talk about the mental health issues affecting their children, and the lack

of services that they have been getting in the Province, the minister and the

department has been hiding behind the fact that they are conducting a review of

a report that they have had for five years - five years - and not dealt with.

The same department that every report must go to die on a shelf or not be read,

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure.

Anyway, let me ask the minister this, while he hides behind that review: Can

you give us a firm timetable, when will you be able to respond to the legitimate

pleas of these young people in the Province who need help and need services?

When can we expect your department to have this current review you talk about

completed and have information laid out for the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let us make something abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker: This

minister, any minister in this government's Cabinet, does not hide behind any

reports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, this government has very clearly,

since we were elected in 2003, demonstrated that we are an action oriented

government. All you need to look at are the investments we have made, the

success we have had, and the improvement we have made in the delivery of health

services, education, and other social programs in this Province. That is the

kind of government we are, Mr. Speaker, not one that hides behind reports.

With respect to the question at hand, though - when will you have it? - I had

indicated that they are undertaking a review. Very clearly the problem in this

House has been, when the member opposite says, give me a date, then she is on

her feet: Why don't you have it? I clearly indicated to people I have met with

respect to this issue, including the families in question, that over the next

couple of weeks I will have an opportunity to be able to provide some kind of

response.

If the member wants to nail down how we will roll that out and what

timeframe, I am not in the position to give her that level of detail.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

On April 18 of this year, then Minister of Justice Kennedy announced a review

of the operation of adult corrections in the Province, and this report was

received by government in late September of this year.

I ask the minister: Your predecessor had committed to release this report

prior to the opening of the House of Assembly, it has not been released, and I

am wondering if the minister is in a position to tell us when he intends to

reveal the findings of that report.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for his question.

My predecessor, as Minister of Justice, with a goal to improving living and

working conditions in the various correctional facilities we have in this

Province did ask that an independent review be undertaken in April. Simonne

Pourier and Gregory Brown, who are senior managers with the Correction Services

of Canada, were retained to do that report and they were joined by Mr. Terry

Carlson, a former executive director of the John Howard Society of Newfoundland

and Labrador. They have conducted, I think, 275 meetings. They have a report of

about 280 pages with seventy-seven recommendations.

After extensive discussion, government is anxious to get this report out. I

am very anxious that this report and the whole idea of corrections generally

becomes part of the public debate and discourse in this Province. The hon.

member does know, however, that there are processes

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

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

There are processes and policies and protocols that we have to go through. We

are going through those procedures right now and when they are completed I will

be very happy to release the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We had a commitment from this administration in the Blue Book, going back to

2003, about the time they release reports, and I believe sixty-days was the

timeline used there. We are certainly well beyond that, I say to the minister.

The review of corrections was considered necessary in response to reports of

inhumane treatment at a provincial lockup, a suicide and a preventable death at

Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Media sources indicated at the time that the

report itself highlighted some seventy-seven recommendations for improving the

state of adult corrections in this Province.

I ask the minister: Assuming that you are reviewing the findings of the

report, will the provincial government now undertake any specific inquiries into

those alarming deaths and suicides that prompted the report in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the first thing of course is for government

to complete its work, its protocols in order to look at the report in order

to release the report to members of the general public because I do know that

the report will be of great interest to correction officers and to inmates and

ex-inmates and their families.

With respect to specific inquiries, I can only tell you that the

recommendations are being reviewed. I have met with government officials and

with certain members of the general public concerning that request, and that

information would come forward in the normal way in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services said in Question Period last

Thursday that the

section of the Occupational Health and Safety regulations

covering occupational diseases is being removed because it is too broad and he

would have to register all 35,000 workplaces in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the registry is specifically for the workers who regularly work

with biohazardous wastes on dangerous, heavy industrial work sites and with

hazardous materials among other things. Not all workers in the Province would

have to be registered under these regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Government Services: Will he reconsider

and revise the draft

section of the regulations to indicate that all

occupational diseases would be reported?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, what I have committed to is to meet with the

President of the Federation of Labour and any other of the stakeholders out

there, to explain exactly what we are trying to do within the regulations

themselves.

Again, to Thursday's question, my answer is that I see this as a

strengthening of the regulations, a strengthening in regards to me as the

minister responsible being able to focus in on issues within different

industries that we see developing within the Province.

The code of practice that we have developed in regards to silica; the code of

practice in Wabush is hailed worldwide, used in other jurisdictions as a

template. We have been asked for it from Australia. These are the ways that we

can actually address, in a focused way, those issues and those concerns by those

workers in these industries.

Again, as well, in regards to the listing of those particular diseases, they

are covered off under S.23 of the Workers Compensation Act. So in no way are we

violating or changing our focus in regards to industrial disease. It is a

concern, but also the safety of the workers are (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I say to the minister that the code of practice is one thing; the

identification of the diseases and the workplaces where they are related is

another thing, and I think that comes before the code of practice. I have no

problem with individual codes of practice. I do have a problem with making sure

that all diseases are covered.

So I do have to ask the minister then, in reference to

section 23 of the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation regulations, under the act that covers

those regulations: Can the minister actually stand there and tell us that all

currently recognizable occupational diseases are covered by

section 23, because

I have read

section 23?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in interviews, and also in regards to

the House last week, on last Thursday, I do not believe coming from a profession

of pharmacist that we can ever cover off all the diseases that might have to be

addressed under occupational disease, because we have a changing global

industry. We have industries that are developing in Newfoundland and Labrador as

we go forward with our economic development plan, but, in saying that, S.23, as

I understand it, will continue to be updated. The list that is currently under

the regulations of Occupational Health and Safety and Government Services is

forty years old. When I stated, in regards to one of the talk shows, that it was

outdated, I meant that some of the diseases might have dropped off the table,

but they have not dropped off the tabled. It is just that we have more diseases

to deal with, and other industries to deal with that are related to the safety

of our workers, which is always a major concern.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Questions and Answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity

And Administration Act, No. 2. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, last week we introduced a private member's

motion for Private Members' Day of last week, and because we did not get the

private member's motion called last week, I am asking for a clarification. Do

we need to read the motion again today for Private Members' Day on Wednesday

or will the motion, as read last week, stand for Private Members' Day on

Wednesday of this week?

MR. SPEAKER: Unless members want the motion read into the record, the

Chair is willing to accept the motion as already read into the record by the

hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS BURKE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with that, we will leave the motion as read last

week into the record for Private Members' Day of this week.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if I am in order here but last week in Question Period, you

will recall, the Leader of the Opposition was inquiring about the status of

carbon monoxide sensors in Seal Cove and also the nature of the inspections that

were done and what orders might have been provided to the department as a result

of the inspections. If it is okay, I will give the report here now.

As I said last week, Thursday, Friday, Occupational Health and Safety

inspectors were at the College of the North Atlantic facility in Seal Cove. The

first issue on the CO monitor, carbon monoxide monitor, is there is no carbon

monoxide monitor at the Seal Cove campus. There are carbon monoxide monitors in

various facilities around the Province. There appear to be some inconsistencies

in the way carbon monoxide monitors are deployed. That is being reviewed by the

department right now. We tend to have them in facilities that have heavy

equipment shops and what have you. However, as I said, there are some

inconsistencies, which we are in the process of correcting right now.

Occupational Health and Safety's inspection last week found no immediate

problems. However, they did provide the department with a list of items that

they wanted us to address and we are in the process of complying with those

orders four or five orders, basically. One of them dealt with a number of

leaks in the building, in the roof and around a number of windows. We are in the

process of dealing with that. There were a number of water damaged ceiling tiles

that Occupational Health and Safety felt should have been replaced due to the

possibility of mould development, and that is being addressed as well.

There was an order about general air quality in the building. I will just

clarify what that issue was about. In the vicinity of the air intake for the

ventilation system in the building, of course we know last week two diesel

operated vehicles were parked in close proximity and idling to the air intakes.

We have been told, we have been directed by Occupational Health and Safety,

to post No Idle signs in the vicinity of the ventilation system. We have been

asked to compile the various air quality testing that has been done in the

recent past on the building and provide that to Occupational Health and Safety,

which we are doing. We have been asked to provide them with our asbestos

abatement plan, which we have, and we will do. We have also been asked to have

an oil burner mechanic inspect and certify the boiler that was replaced in

2007-2008. While there was no apparent problem with the oil burner identified

last week we have been directed, as I have said, to have somebody who is

certified as an oil burner mechanic do an inspection and verify that what we

believe to be correct is actually correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

facility for the Conception Bay North area. I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, when

I say the Conception Bay North area, it also takes in the south side of Trinity

Bay and all around that particular loop.

Mr. Speaker, we know that last year the minister, in his good judgement,

through the Department of Health and Community Services, asked government for $1

million to see that this project would proceed. This year he announced a million

dollars for two different facilities here in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, I stand

on behalf of the people who signed this petition and I have several petitions,

let me assure you.

It was good today to hear the minister refer to this government being

prudent, how they have their departments review issues, and how they do not hide

behind reports. I will go along with all that, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the

hon. members opposite, when it comes to this report, I ask them to really give

it consideration. It is a serious situation. We can bicker back and forth all we

want, but the residents of that area have spoken out. The professionals have

spoken out about the facilities.

I am not saying that should be taken from Carbonear and built in Shearstown

or Bay Roberts; that is not the issue. I do not care where they build it; the

people in that area deserve a new facility. It has been recommended; it has been

suggested by the professionals that that would be done.

Mr. Speaker, I am just calling upon the hon. members - there are three

ministers from that area that this year they would give it serious

consideration, to ask government, when the Budget comes down this year - and I

hear my hon. colleagues, they give it serious consideration every year. That may

be true, but when you know that you were at the top of the list back in 2001,

another report in 2007, and there are five other facilities that have been built

throughout this Province, I would say that we are far from at the top of the

priority list now.

I just ask government and the hon. members for that area to consider it and

put it before the government again this year for consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on the Long Island Causeway on behalf of

the people in that particular area. These petitions, which contain thousands of

signatures, have been circulated all throughout that part of the Province and

they contain signatures, I think I said last week, from Triton, Pilley's

Island, Springdale, Grand Falls, Windsor, Lushes Bight, and all around that

particular area, because it is a serious issue not just for the people who live

on Long Island but also for the people who live in that particular area because

of the interaction of family, relatives, the dependency upon services, and being

able to get off the island even for their children to attend school in Pilley's

Island. It is a major issue for the people in this area.

In their lobby to government over the years to have a causeway built to Long

Island, they never dreamed that they would end up with a reduced ferry service

as their future mode of transportation. Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example

of where government has not listened to people, has not taken the time to

understand what the real transportation issues are in this community and in that

part of the Province. Even though their MHA sits on the inside of government,

his voice obviously has not been heard either.

Mr. Speaker, I say that because it was this issue when the minister went out

and announced there would be no causeway, that there would be a new ferry

service, never even went into Long Island and Little Bay Islands to announce

that ferry service, Mr. Speaker, went to another part of the Province to tell

the people out there what their future ferry service would look like, never even

went in their communities to do it, to sit face to face with them.

In addition to that, according to their MHA, they never informed him either.

He was out in the public at the time saying to people, the government did not

inform him, the minister did not inform him, the bureaucrats did not inform him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, to me that is a serious breakdown in how government

represents people in this Province.

The people in Long Island today are not only being told that they are not

going to get a causeway but they are being told that you are going to get a

ferry service, a new ferry, a new boat, a beautiful new ship, but you are going

to get a lesser quality of service. Now, does that make sense? Does that make

sense to all of you over there in the government, to tell the people in Long

Island that we are going to build you a beautiful new boat - not go out there

and tell them; go down in Marystown and shout right across the Province to the

people in Long Island that we are going to build a new boat and give you a new

ferry service, but do not go in the community, do not go in and sit down and

talk to them about it.

Mr. Speaker, a new ferry with a lesser quality of service. Will the children

on Long Island because I have been to Long Island and I have been to the

school in Pilley's Island where these children go to school. When they get up

in the morning and they take the ferry across, and they get on a bus and they

take the bus to school in Pilley's Island, they need to have some assurance

that at the end of the day they are going to have a ferry to get back home. They

do not have the privilege that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for presenting a petition has lapsed.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have thousands more, so I will have lots of opportunity to present them.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Before we move into Order of the Day, I ask members for their co-operation.

A long-standing tradition of the House - not only this House but every other

parliamentary precinct as well is not to refer to members, while they are

asking questions or providing answers or providing commentary, by their given

names, but to refer to all Members of the House of Assembly by the district that

they represent or the position that they hold on the executive.

Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice

and the Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 53)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

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

An Act To

Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law (Bill 53) and that the said bill

be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 53, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,"

carried. (Bill 53)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

(Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry. (Bill 61)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry (Bill 61) and that this bill be now

read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 61, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry," carried. (Bill

61)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 61 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal

The Venereal Disease Prevention Act. (Bill 58)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act (Bill 58) and that this bill

be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Health and Community

Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 58, and that this bill be now read a

first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act," carried.

(Bill 58)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act.

(Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal

The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act. (Bill 57)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act (Bill 57) and

that this bill be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 57, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances

Act," carried. (Bill 57)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care

Allowances Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 57 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 57 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal

The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act (Bill 56) and that the said bill be now read

a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Health and Community

Services shall have leave to introduce Bill 56 and that the said bill be now

read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

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

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 56 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act. (Bill 55)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act (Bill 55) and that this bill be now

read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 55, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act," carried.

(Bill 55)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 55 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I moved, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The Schools

Boards' Association Act. (Bill 54)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The

Schools Boards' Association Act (Bill 54) and that this bill be now read a

first time.

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

have leave to introduce Bill 54, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act," carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The School Boards' Association Act.

(Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 54 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I moved, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Student

Financial Assistance Act No. 2. (Bill 52)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Minister

of Education to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Student Financial Assistance Act No. 2 (Bill 52) and that Bill 52 be now read a

first time.

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

have leave to introduce Bill 52 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 52)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act No.

2. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 52 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 52 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Fire

Protection Services In The Province. (Bill 60)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act Respecting

Fire Protection Services In The Province (Bill 60) and that the said bill be now

read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 60 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting Fire Protection Services In The Province," carried.

(Bill 60)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Fire Protection Services In The

Province. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 60 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Provide For The

Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The Province. (Bill 59)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

of Municipal Affairs shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The

Province (Bill 59) and that this bill be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 59, and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency

Services In The Province," carried. (Bill 59)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration

Of Emergency Services In The Province. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 59 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 59 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Securities Act. (Bill 49)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Securities Act, Bill 49, and that the said bill be now read a first

time.

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

introduce Bill 49, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Securities Act, carried. (Bill 49)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 49

be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting

Certified Management Accountants, Bill 51; and I further move that the said bill

be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It was properly moved and seconded that the hon. the

Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants, Bill 51, and that this

bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services

shall have leave to introduce Bill 51 and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting Certified Management Accountants, carried. (Bill 51).

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting Certified Management

Accountants," Bill 51.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 51

be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper, the second reading of bills, I

would like to call number 3, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The

Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979, Bill 47.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47,

An Act To

Repeal The Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act, 1979, be now read a second

time?

Would there be commentary?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to repeal the Labrador Linerboard

Limited Agreement Act, and what that Act was: it was enacted in 1979 to

facilitate and support the transfer of the Labrador Linerboard Mill at

Stephenville to Abitibi Consolidated ownership, and the conversion of the mill

to newsprint production.

Mr. Speaker, the initial Act dealt extensively with the transfer of the

facilities and the property to Abitibi Consolidated. It also addressed the

issuance of twenty-year timber licences to that company at Coal Brook, Journois

Brook, Robinsons River, Flat Bay Brook, Southwest Brook, Jackson's Arm,

Sheffield Lake and Chain Lakes. All of which are in Western Newfoundland, Mr.

Speaker.

So, as per

Schedule B, clause 3 of the act, these licences were renewed; at

first for twenty years and then for another five years, expiring permanently on

January 1, 2005. On that date, Mr. Speaker, all requirements of the act had been

reverted to the Crown as un-alienated Crown land.

The timber that reverted to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, is allocated by forest

managers in a manner that best satisfies local forest management objectives.

This has included the allocation of timber to logging contractors and to

domestic cutters.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Linerboard Limited Agreement Act no longer serves

any useful function since the closure of the Abitibi Mill in Stephenville. With

the closure of the Stephenville Mill, the processing plant link to the licences

was permanently severed, making the act's logical candidates for repeal as

part of the Department of Natural Resources red tape reduction efforts.

The Forestry Branch of the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency has a three-year

red-tape reduction plan, Mr. Speaker, in place to eliminate unnecessary forestry

related legislation in years two and three of the plan, 2008-2009. Because this

act is no longer applicable, Mr. Speaker, it was identified as a piece of

legislation that could be immediately addressed. It removes legislation that has

outlived its purpose and intent and reduces forestry's red tape count by 412.

There are no legal implications or impacts to proceed with the repeals of the

acts, Mr. Speaker. Abitibi has been consulted and they have no concern with the

repeal of these acts, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I wonder if I might call upon the Government House Leader for her

co-operation. When we had met this morning it was agreed that Bill 41 would be

called first, and that was going to be responded to by the Leader of the

Opposition. I believe she is currently being interviewed by the media and not

available to respond in second reading at this time. I also understand that the

Leader of the NDP does not have her papers with her to respond to this bill at

this time either. So with the leave of the Government House Leader, we could

move on to something else that would be beneficial to everybody.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that is not a problem. I thought I would call

forty-seven and forty-eight ahead of forty-one and forty-two, only to give the

House a break from having to listen to me all afternoon, but I have no problem

going ahead, Mr. Speaker, and calling from the Order Paper,

An Act To Repeal The

Pickersgill Fellowship Act. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 41,

An Act To Repeal The

Pickersgill Fellowship Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Pickersgill

Fellowship Act." (Bill 41)

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

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of acts, I guess, we will be

speaking on today, or at least two, to repeal some of the acts within the

Department of Education. Certainly, one that we are looking at in this

particular bill is to repeal the Pickersgill Fellowship Act. I think it is

important to note, for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and for this hon.

House, who Pickersgill was, and this fellowship act and when it came into play

and why it is necessary today to repeal this particular piece of legislation.

This act was named in honour of the late Right Hon. John W. Pickersgill. He

was a senior public servant, federal politician, historian and active writer on

politics.

The Right Hon. John W. Pickersgill was a graduate of the University of

Manitoba and Oxford University. He began his career as a public servant in 1937

with the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. He was also Assistant Private

Secretary and Special Assistant to Prime Ministers Mackenzie King and Louis

Saint Laurent. He was involved in provincial politics in the late 1940s and was

instrumental in supporting Newfoundland's pro-confederacy movement.

In 1963, the Right Hon. John Pickersgill became MP for Bonavista-Twillingate,

which he represented until 1967.

The Right Hon. John Pickersgill held positions of Clerk of the Privy Council,

Secretary of State, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Government House

Leader and Minister of Transport.

In 1970, he was appointed Companion of the Order of Canada. In recognition of

his service as a former public servant and former federal Cabinet minister he

was bestowed the title Right Honourable.

The Right Hon. John Pickersgill passed away November 14, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, it was in 1968, just after he concluded his term as MP for

Bonavista-Twillingate, that the Pickersgill Fellowship Act was enacted as a

legacy to the Right Hon. John Pickersgill. Its intent was to award a fellowship

annually to eligible Memorial University graduates pursuing pre-doctorate level

studies in history or political science. Since this time, government no longer

requires grants and scholarships to be enshrined in legislation. We are

therefore asking to repeal the legislation known as the Pickersgill Fellowship

Act, because the act itself is no longer required in order for us to be able to

provide this fellowship.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note that the fellowship will continue

to be awarded every year to a graduate of the university, through the Dean of

Arts at Memorial. It will in no way impact the existence of the fellowship or

the students. It is also important to note that government supports Memorial's

Board of Regents and their respective finance department in their commitment to

ensure continued accountability for this money.

Mr. Speaker, scholarships are very important to the university and certainly

to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as we have many people in this

Province pursuing a post-secondary education.

In 2007-2008, the Department of Education issued 152 provincial K-12

scholarships to students planning to attend Memorial University of Newfoundland

at a cost of $152,000. This included 106 electoral district scholarships,

forty-five Centenary of Responsible Government scholarships and the Constable

Moss Scholarship.

In 2007-2008, the Department of Education issued fifty-five provincial

post-secondary scholarships to current undergraduate and graduate students of

Memorial University of Newfoundland, at a cost of over $100,000.

Memorial University also provides scholarships. In 2007-2008, the university

issued over 1,700 scholarships, at a cost of $2.5 million.

It is also noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that there are no scholarships that are

required to be enshrined in legislation other than the Pickersgill Fellowship,

which is being repealed. The repeal of the Pickersgill Fellowship Act is part of

government's overall Red Tape Reduction Strategy, an effort to eliminate

unnecessary regulations, requirements and legislation. The department is moving

forward with this initiative and continues to eliminate unnecessary regulatory

requirements.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the Pickersgill Fellowship Act is a

reflection that this legislation is no longer required, as scholarships are not

required to be enshrined in legislation and this repeal in no way will impact on

the availability of this particular fellowship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 41. I guess I have

always, since I have been here ten years, starting off - when we have second

readings or whatever, I try to give a little explanation to - not to members of

the House, of course, because they are well aware of the rules, but a lot of

people in the general public who watch this broadcast on the House channel, for

example, they do not understand the procedure as to what is going on. Sometimes

it is helpful to have a little explanation of what it is.

What we are dealing with here today, of course, is a bill - it has a number

on it, forty-one. The government want to repeal, or get rid of, do away with an

act, or a law that we had in this Province called the Pickersgill Fellowship

Act. Once we are finished the debate, of course, there will be a vote and no

doubt, given the numbers in the House, it will be repealed and we will never

hear of the Pickersgill Fellowship Act again.

Now, I have no problem - and I am a proponent actually, sometimes, of getting

rid of things that you do not need. I do not know and on the surface of it,

and I stand to be corrected here by the minister later if this is one law or

one act that we should get rid of. Maybe, once I pose some of the questions that

I have, she can educate me and maybe I will be of a different view. As of right

now, I am not aware of the answers to the questions which I have. So I will pose

them for her consideration and response.

She refers to him, of course, as John - that is his Christian name - but

everybody in this Province has heard him called Jack Pickersgill. Nobody ever

called him John Pickersgill.

By the way, for those of us who are so young that you do not recall. Jack

Pickersgill is an icon when it comes to the political history of this Province.

I always thought, for example, he was born here. I thought he was a

Newfoundlander, but apparently he was born in Manitoba. He still has family

here. I am not sure, there is an

article written in one of the local newspapers,

I believe, one of the Robinson- Blackmore papers by a Pickersgill and I do

believe that is a relative of the late Jack Pickersgill.

MR. HARDING: His son.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think that is his son, according to the Member for

Bonavista North.

There is one thing about red tape to get rid of things you do not need, but I

certainly hope this is not seen by anybody, including the family, as

disrespectful, because this fellowship came about for very good reasons back in

the 1960s. It was to honour Mr. Pickersgill for the contribution that he made,

not only to the history and the political history of this Province as an MP, but

also what he did in the Canadian parliamentary system.

Jack Pickersgill, the word on the hill, as they say in Ottawa, for years he

was so knowledgeable, so informed, carried such clout in the Prime Minister's

office with Prime Minister Mackenzie King and with Prime Minister Louis St.

Laurent that if you had any question in Ottawa whatsoever, the byword was: Clear

it with Jack. That was the phrase that was heard for years and years in the

capital of this country: Clear it with Jack.

In fact, as pointed out by the Government House Leader, he played an

instrumental role in our joining Confederation. He was the person who

negotiated, set up a lot of the parameters surrounding the vote that would take

place back in 1948-1949, of course, when the Confederate and anti-Confederate

forces were roughing it out here in the Province.

There is a famous story, apparently, that they were not sure - they thought

the vote was going to be so close - Mr. Pickersgill did not know what he would

recommend to the Prime Minister. If it was only, for example, by a couple of

percentage points, what should the government do? Should you enter into

Confederation or have Newfoundland at that time become a part of Confederation

based upon such a small percentage?

Before he went in to see Prime Minister St. Laurent, he went out and he

checked the election results that Prime Minister Laurent always had in all of

the elections that he was involved in government. Sure enough, Prime Minister

St. Laurent - albeit the votes were very, very marginal, fifty-two point

something in the case of the vote that ultimately took us into Confederation -

the Prime Minister of Canada of that day had even smaller percentages in any

election that he ever won, so Mr. Pickersgill figured we were on pretty good

terms. If Louis St. Laurent could be the Prime Minister of the country based on

very small margins, we certainly could have Newfoundland as a part of the

Canadian federation on very small percentages. Hence, of course, the

recommendation was that it would stand, and it did stand and we became a part of

Canada.

He came back to Newfoundland after that, educated originally in his undergrad

in Manitoba, and then he was at the University of Oxford. Once he finished his

civil servant's roles in the Prime Minister's office in Canada he came here

and he got involved in the day-to-day politics, of course, and became an MP, and

a very good one and a very influential one that he was indeed.

First off, I do believe, he entered the Cabinet in 1953 as Secretary of State

for Canada. In 1954 he was named as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Later, I do believe, in 1963, in the Pearson government, he was appointed

Secretary of State for Canada again, Government House Leader in the House of

Commons, and also the Minister of Transport, until he retired in 1967.

This person went back into Canadian politics well before we became part of

Canada in 1949. From 1949 up to 1967, the date of his retirement, he was iconic

in his stature both in this Province and in Canada. Back in those days, by the

way, there was an excellent working relationship between the Province and

Ottawa. We cannot say the same these days, of course. We have not had that good

relationship between our Province and Ottawa now for a few years, which

culminated, of course, in the ill-conceived ABC plan which we saw recently. We

saw that, and we talked about our cousins in Ottawa, but we saw how that all

culminated with the federal election. It might not matter now anyway, I guess,

because, given what is happening in Ottawa today, Mr. Harper might not be the

Prime Minister very much longer anyway, but I don't think we did ourselves any

favour there with this ABC issue to start with.

Anyway, I would like to pose for the minister the question: What is more

important, the Red Tape Reduction Committee or the fact that we pay respect to

people who have done not only the country but certainly this Province a great

service?

We did not create - and you have to look at the environment in which we

created the Pickersgill Fellowship. We did not create the Pickersgill Fellowship

only to have it succumb to some government's - no matter what government's -

Red Tape Reduction Strategy forty years hence. Sure, we have ways of giving

scholarships today. Yes, we do give scholarships today and, as the minister

indicates, we give something to the tune of $2.5 million a year in scholarships,

and so we should - it is good thing to be doing but, surely, do we need to

take away from the reputation, the respect, the stature, that we gave to this

iconic politician and legislator and civil servant that we were fortunate enough

to have as part of our history?

For example, the minister referred to the fact that he was given the title

the Right Honourable John Pickersgill. Well, folks, the only people in the

Dominion of Canada who have the right to the title of the Right Honourable are

Prime Ministers, Governors General and the Chief Justice of the country. Now,

that is a pretty select group and that says something about the stature in which

these individuals are held: Prime Ministers, Governors General and the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Only one person that I am aware of from

this Province ever had the distinction of being called the Right Honourable, and

that is none other than Jack Pickersgill.

This was not a Joey Smallwood doing in the old Liberal days of Smallwood in

the 1960s. This title was bestowed upon that individual because of what he did

for parliamentary process, for education, for politics, for people. Now, under

the guise of a Red Tape Reduction, we are going to say: Sorry, we are going to

get rid of that particular scholarship.

I mean, God forbid, if this government had its way, we would be taking the

name Stanley off the cup. I mean, folks, there are certain things that are so

precious to us, so important to us, that are historic to us, that they should

not be tampered with.

We can look at this and say: Ah, it is a repeal bill; don't get your

knickers in a knot over this. This is only going to repeal a wasted, useless

piece of legislation that we have.

Well, I hope that is not the attitude that the government is dealing with.

Because, folks, when we forget who contributed to us being what we are, and when

we forget to pay respect and homage to the people who made us what we are,

because they get tied up in a Red Tape Reduction Strategy, we have a big

problem. I think that is the beginning of putting your foot on a very slippery

slope.

We have stood up in this House every day and we give members' statements

and we honour people, we honour events, we honour communities, and we honour

things that happen in our Province because we are pleased with them and we are

proud of them. Yet, here we are going to get rid of

an act that paid tribute to

an individual who contributed so much to us as a people. I think that is

disrespectful, folks. I think that is disrespectful, and there is no need of it.

Even if the intent is that we are still going to have somebody over at

Memorial University, in the Department of History and the Department of

Political Science, pick somebody and say: Yes, you have the Pickersgill

Scholarship. We are going to give that to you, now. We are not going to

disrespect Mr. Pickersgill, because we are still going to get somebody over

there to do it in his honour. I think that is disrespectful.

This particular act exists for a reason. This is not like some of the others

statutes we have here called the anomalies bill, whereby over the course of time

we get rid of an and or the, or but, or a piece of legislation that is

absolutely no longer necessary and we repeal it and retract it. We are talking

here about getting rid of a law, a bill that exists;

an act that existed out of

respect for someone. How far do we take that? Did anybody consult, I wonder,

with the Pickersgill family? I hope so. I hope somebody consulted with the

Pickersgill family to let them know that: Thank you very much but the

scholarship that we had to honour your dad, we are going to get rid of that.

That does not warrant the respect of continuing to be

an act in this Province

anymore. I would like to know which family members were consulted because I do

not know if they did and they were they would certainly feel differently

than I would if my father were honoured with such a fellowship, and only to have

government say we are going to get rid of it as part of a Red Tape Reduction

strategy. To even put it in the same breath is insulting.

Were the committee members - apparently this scholarship, by the way, there

is a committee, as I understand, that talks about who gets this fellowship each

and every year. There is no doubt, of course, look at the significance here

folks, as to why it is in honour of the historical, for example, the Department

of History at MUN is involved and the Department of Political Science is

involved, because that is where this guy's strengths were. That is what he

contributed to, our history and our political science. There was a committee,

apparently, that picked the recipient of this fellowship each year. It is not

the amount that is involved. I understand it was $4,000. I do not even know if

it was renewable, but it was $4,000 to honour someone in the name of Mr.

Pickersgill. Were the committee members consulted in addition to the family

members? How did they feel about it? Who was on the committee and who said: yes,

we do not think we need to do this anymore in honour of Jack Pickersgill. We are

going to forget that all of a sudden. Everything he did and contributed to us as

a Province, we do not need to do that anymore. We can give scholarships under

the Department of Education, under some other bill so we will get rid of it.

I also notice because there is a tie-in here. It is one thing to give

endowments and to give fellowships and to give scholarships. Because one of the

principle motivations of course is that our students, besides helping them

financially, which is a big plus, it also makes them feel proud that as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians they win these scholarships. But is there

anything sacred anymore, when the government has to take credit for everything,

that the government cannot leave poor old Mr. Pickersgill's Fellowship in

place so that somebody can get some credit in this Province other than the

government? Can somebody please say that yes, we are going to leave Mr.

Pickersgill's name there in honour and give the $4,000 rather than under the

guise of a Red Tape Reduction strategy say we are going to scrap it and now all

the scholarships comes from the Minister of Education, the Government House

Leader or the government? Surely God, this is going a bit too far! This has gone

a bit too far.

I am going to look forward anxiously to see who votes in favour of this

repeal. I have to look closely because surely anybody in this Province - this is

not about politics, folks. This is not about politics. Anybody who has a sense

of history, anybody who has a sense of respect for our history and our culture

and our political figures and heroes of the past could not vote to repeal that

act. In fact, we need to go out of our way just because it is so iconic and so

important and a part of our culture to recognize this individual. Maybe someday

we will be passing a special act here to pay tribute and honour to some member

of this House, and if that is what is required at the time, we should. We honour

our Olympic heroes. We honour our sports heroes. We honour our academic heroes.

Who are we now today, 2008, December 1, to question the motivations of what the

hon. members and the reasons and motivations they did it back in 1967? They did

not do it for the sake of the $4,000, folks. Let's not kid ourselves. Four

thousand dollars was not the issue back in 1967. It was the honour that they

were bestowing that was important.

These students who have been the recipients, of course, there is a bit of

pride that goes with it besides the few dollars. I am sure there are people,

members of this House who have been Rhodes Scholars. The Premier is a Rhodes

Scholar. He is very proud, no doubt, I am sure, of having said he was a Rhodes

recipient.

Same today, we honoured the Deputy Minister of Justice today because he has

become a Fellow in the Royal Fellowship of Trial Lawyers. We can honour that in

members' statements yet we cannot leave poor old Mr. Pickersgill's memory in

the place of esteem where it ought to be? This is a backwards step, big time.

This shows absolute thoughtlessness. I do not know whose suggestion it was.

I know the Minister of Business is responsible for the Red Tape Committee and

I have seen all kinds of announcements and press releases come out of them in

the past year, about how many question marks and semicolons and little boxes on

forms that we have gotten rid of, but surely to God this is a step in the wrong

direction, folks. This is a step in the wrong direction. So let's see where

the compassion is here. What is more important, the memory of an important,

historic, political, cultural figure that we chose to honour, this House chose

to honour in 1967, or a government that is wrapped up in its Red Tape Reduction

to the point where we would dishonour and disrespect this gentleman and the

memory of this gentleman?

So again, I would like to know and to simply say in such a cavalier

manner: we do not need this anymore. We can give out our grants under the

Department of Education. We can give out our fellowships and our research

things. We can do all that now under the Department of Education. We do not need

it. Well, folks, that does not make it right. That does not make it right, just

because you found another way to do it. Absolutely, does not make it right.

I would like to ask a question as well, in particular on clause 2 of Bill 41,

and it says: Assets arising from the repeal of the Pickersgill Fellowship Act

become the property of the Crown and liabilities resulting from the repeal of

that act become the responsibility of the Crown.

I am just curious, more than anything, as to what assets we could be

referring to, or what liabilities we could be referring to? Because if it is

simply a committee that would meet to decide who the recipient is on an annual

basis and the award was $4,000, I would not think we are in too complicated an

area of assets and liabilities. Maybe some explanation as well, as to where we

are to with that particular piece.

The bottom line is, I think we as legislators here, and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, have to take a second swallow on this one. You can try to hide it

behind all kinds of committees and whatever, but this will be seen in the

public. I am sure anybody who has heard this, if that is the case, if the family

hasn't been consulted, if the committee hasn't been consulted - and even to

do this regardless; you should never ever have gone down this road to start to

do this. This was a misstep, this was terrible. It is a mistake.

I think it would be very compassionate, very humanistic, of this government

to say: We didn't consider some of these things, folks, and it is not a right

move. It is always time and it is always honourable to do the right thing, even

if you started out doing the wrong thing. There is nothing wrong with saying, we

made a mistake.

I think this would be one case, so that there is absolutely no perception, no

possibility by anybody, that we might be doing anything to disrespect or

dishonour the legend that was known to anyone and everyone in Newfoundland and

Labrador and certainly in Canada as a political giant who is known as Jack

Pickersgill. We need to do the right thing here. We would be more than

supportive of government to say, this is not the right time to be worried about

red tape. This is a time to be proud of our past and Jack Pickersgill was a very

important part of our past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have a few moments to speak to Bill 41.

It was interesting, because when I first saw the bill I thought; oh, I didn't

even know that there was a Pickersgill Fellowship Act. I guess I was too late to

even think about applying for it. I might have been able to do it when I was in

university, but I was away before this was put in place. The interesting thing

was seeing the name Pickersgill, because Jack Pickersgill, when I was growing

up, was a household name. I was a student and I certainly knew Jack Pickersgill's

name, even when I was a little girl. I guess everybody did, because he had such

a role in politics, both on the federal and the provincial level.

My ears picked up when I looked at this and saw that this was a bill, when we

had the first reading. I had some questions that arose. I know it is a repeal

bill and repeals should be automatic. As a matter of fact, if we are going to

give a lesson to people who watch us when we are talking here in the House, it

is probably also good to point out to people that usually in the House repeal

bills do not get very much time. Repeal bills are very often put together under

an omnibus bill and you just pass all the repeal bills at one time and you do

not take the time to do the talking that we are getting to do today.

Since each bill is being taken individually, even though there is no need to

do it, I certainly am glad to make some points with regard to this bill.

Scholarships are very important, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and

when I saw the bill being repealed I automatically assumed that the scholarship

was going to be repealed as well. Then the Minister of Education said, when she

introduced the bill, that, no, the fellowship will not be cancelled, the

fellowship will continue to be awarded. What I do not know is: will the

fellowship continue to be awarded with the same name? Will the government

maintain the name? I will be happy to hear from the minister, when she gets the

opportunity to make the final statements, what the answer to that is.

I do have to agree with my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, that I

think it is important to maintain the name, because the fellowship was put in

place to honour not just the life of Jack Pickersgill but the kind of life that

he lead as a politician. It is specifically geared to people who are doing

political science in their studies as part of what they study. It is obviously

there and in place to make sure that young people because generally it is

young people in university, although you can be a mature student that young

people who are interested in politics and who are doing political science get a

fellowship to help them on their way with that study.

For that reason, I think it is important to maintain Mr. Pickersgill's name

on the fellowship, because anybody getting it does a little bit of reading of

history. If the person has not already come across Jack Pickersgill's name

they certainly will when they research who the fellowship is named after. In the

context of political science at Memorial University, it maintains Jack

Pickersgill, which is what the naming of the fellowship was supposed to do. I

think that is extremely important.

I also looked at

section 3 of the bill where it talks about the assets

arising from the repeal. I, too, would like to have more information from the

minister on what exactly are the assets and the potential liabilities resulting

from the repeal. I am really not sure what that is and I think we need to get

the detail of what those assets and liabilities are.

I thought I heard the minister make reference to the Board of Regents. The

implication, to me, was that the granting of this fellowship is not going to be

under the government, per se, but is going to be under the Board of Regents. I

would like to have further clarification on that because I thought that is what

I heard the minister say. I took quick notes: The government supports the Board

of Regents and trusts or believes in its accountability. It seems to me that she

was saying, the responsibility will be passed on to the Board of Regents for

granting this fellowship.

I would like to have further clarification about that because I think that

would be extremely important, because with the repeal of the Act we no longer

have a structure in place for the granting of this Act. We no longer have a

board that is responsible or a committee that is responsible. I would like more

information from the minister, then, on; if this board is not in place or this

committee is not in place and we no longer have

an Act, where is it going?

I guess I am a little bit surprised that the bill does not spell that out a

bit. Now, maybe

section 3 covers it and the pointing out of assets and

liabilities, that is what it is all about. I think it would have been

interesting for the bill to indicate that this does not end at the scholarship

itself and that there is a structure that will be replacing the granting, even

if that structure is passing the responsibility on to the Board of Regents.

I think it is important, for the record, that we find out from the minister

exactly how this is going to happen. Is it going to be called the Pickersgill

fellowship still, is it going to be granted annually, and is it the Board of

Regents who grants it? I presume there is a mechanism inside the university in

the Arts Faculty where people who are eligible can easily find out about this

fellowship. That is how they get it. Because they are in political science, they

become aware of the fellowship and they can apply for it. I think we do need to

know what the mechanism is. It does not bother me if the Act is gone as long as

there is something in place replacing what was there, a structure that is

already there. You do not need a superstructure because that is what the Act

did, it created another structure. If the Board of Regent has a way of and

it does giving out scholarships and fellowships then there is nothing wrong

this one becoming part of that structure as long it is still called the

Pickersgill Fellowship. I would like some details on that.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to use this opportunity of the

repealing of this bill with regard to a fellowship just to make some comments on

how important scholarships and fellowships are. We do know that our students, I

think more so today than before, for different reasons, really have a heavy

burden when it comes to getting their post-secondary education. Some of us in

this hon. House will remember going to university and not even having to pay for

our courses at all. Many of us I see some of my colleagues nodding are

old enough to remember that. We did not even have to apply for some of these

fellowships unless you went on in post-graduate work. In your post-graduate

work, of course, it was a different story. A lot of us got our first degrees

without having to pay any cost for tuition.

That begs the question, then, when I think of this fellowship - a small

number of people are lucky enough to be able to win fellowships, to win

scholarships. The numbers that the minister gave out are impressive, you know,

152 K 12 scholarships, fifty-five post-secondary, and 1,700 at Memorial, but

when you balance them against the number of students at Memorial, for example,

1,500 is a very small percentage of the full body at Memorial. That is the way

it has to be because not everybody can win scholarships and win fellowships.

With the Pickersgill, how many years since it was in place? Forty years. Maybe,

forty by four - that is how much, $4,000 - that is how much money has gone out

in the Pickersgill fellowship. Only one person a year.

I think it would be good for us to reflect at this time that we are repealing

this Act, reflect on the reality of our students in this Province and the

student debt that they carry.

I want to use the opportunity to ask the minister to continue to think about

the whole issue of interest that our students have to pay.

I began some while ago saying that we should have no interest on student

loans, that they should not have to pay interest. I understand that the minister

at different times has indicated - quite recently, actually - that it is

something that she is willing to look at, to give some consideration to, and I

would encourage the government and the minister to do that because, you know,

when a student has a $25,000 debt and that student has to pay 10 per cent

interest, if the student pays off the loan in ten years it means that the

student will have paid two-and-a-half times the value of the loan. While banks

may do that, and while financial institutions may do that, and credit cards may

really rob us of money - because I think that is what they do - I do not think

that government should be doing that with students. I think we really do need to

look the whole issue of interest on student loans, and I am glad to see that

there has been some indication from the minister that she is willing to look at

that issue and willing to give it some thought. I use the opportunity of this

bill to encourage her to do so.

I think, Mr. Speaker, those are all the comments that I want to make but I do

encourage the minister, and I am sure she will, when she does her final

statements on this bill, that she will be able to give us some answers to the

questions that I have raised here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am just going to take a few minutes to speak with regard to Bill 41,

An Act

To Repeal The Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

I guess when I came here today, and I know you had to do research into it, when

you get a bill and there is so very little information in it, I guess many of

the questions that I had for the minister she provided them in her opening

comments.

I was wondering if this particular Fellowship Act would continue, if the

scholarship would be still in place, and so on, but we learned, Mr. Speaker,

that this will continue. The only thing that is happening here today, in my

understanding - I know the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked if the

name would stay the same, and in my understanding the minister said in her

opening remarks that it would still be known as the Pickersgill Fellowship.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that with regard to this act it was put in place, I

guess, to pay tribute to an individual. I am not going into the full comments

that my hon. colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile made. I think he did a fine

job. I almost forgot his district that time, but just to say that I think the

comments that he made should be cons