November 21, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol . XLV No. 27

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member

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

Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member

for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the

District of Windsor-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for the District of

Burgeo & LaPoile.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jenny McGrath on

being awarded the National Child and Youth Care Worker for 2006. Jenny is the

daughter of Emeline and Joe McGrath of Bishop's Falls and has been a child and

youth care worker for almost a decade.

During the last eight years, Jenny was employed with the St. Francis

Foundation in St. John's. Jenny was also involved in the development of the

first Child and Youth Care Diploma Program in Newfoundland and Labrador, and was

also a part-time instructor in that program from 2003-2006.

Mr. Speaker, Jenny is also diligent in her commitment to learning. Three

years ago, she finished her Masters Degree in Family Support. Jenny then went on

to work in and supervise the Family Support Program.

Mr. Speaker, one of her co-workers stated that Jenny exemplifies everything a

child and youth care worker should be: knowledgeable, open, kind, and

determined. She demonstrates compassion, commitment and, most of all, a

tremendous love for her work.

Mr. Speaker, Jenny was Vice-President of the Child and Youth Care Association

of Newfoundland and Labrador for four years. She was active in planning the

national conference in 2002 and the provincial conference in 2006. Recently,

Jenny was recruited by Grant MacEwan College in Alberta to teach in their Child

and Youth Care Program.

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

congratulating Jenny McGrath on this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Leah Sperry of Frenchman's

Cove on the Burin Peninsula. Leah was recognized at Ocean Net's recent eighth

annual "Youth and the Oceans Conference" as one of Ocean Net's local

heroes for her work during 2006 in cleaning the beaches and shorelines of her

community. As MHA, I was pleased to be given the opportunity to present Leah

with a "Local Heroes Plague" on behalf of Ocean Net.

Ocean Net is a proactive, all-volunteer, non-profit environmental

organization founded and incorporated in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1997 with

a mandate to instill an "Ocean Conservation Ethic". Ocean Net was very

proud to announce this year that it has now achieved a real milestone, their

1000 th beach, shoreline and underwater cleanup.

Since its founding, Ocean Net has worked with its partners and network of

volunteers throughout the Province through education and action programs and

initiatives to fulfill this mandate and to be a catalyst for positive

attitudinal change.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Ocean Net on reaching such a significant milestone, and thanking

Leah for her leadership on environmental activity in her community.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how our volunteers make a

difference in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two teenagers from Glovertown.

Siblings, Zachary and Courtney Oram, ages seventeen and fifteen, travelled to

the Dominican Republic this past July. This trip, called Hero Holiday, was

organized by Absolute Leadership Development, a non-profit organization that

tours schools across Canada to promote messages of motivation to youth to help

them realize their potential and the impact they can have in changing the world.

This trip cost $2,100, money that they raised themselves through donations.

Mr. Speaker, this wasn't your average vacation to a sunny resort. Instead, it

was a ten day trip wherein Zachary and Courtney helped bring practical

assistance to those living in extreme poverty. Their tasks included: helping

demolish and completely rebuild three dilapidated homes in a local community;

constructing a community centre; setting up a clinic where they distributed

medication such as Tylenol; visited a Haitian refugee camp where they fed and

provided care packages - things such as toothbrushes, sandals, sunglasses and

soap. Finally, their group took a day to visit an orphanage for children,

helping feed them and organize extracurricular activities.

Amazingly, their group was able to accomplish so much in such a short period

of time. The things that they were able to do will undoubtedly have a lasting

effect on both the local people as well as the youth who took

part in this

project.

Mr. Speaker, both Zachary and Courtney told me that, while much of their work

was hard, it was extremely rewarding. If given the opportunity again, they would

love to be part of an undertaking of this nature in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me today in recognizing

these two individuals and their great accomplishments. Moreover, recognizing all

individuals who give of themselves to helping the less fortunate across this

world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Duke of

Edinburgh's Bronze Award recipients in the District of Carbonear-Harbour

Grace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate five youth from my district: Amanda

Butt, David Murray, Nathan Sellars of Carbonear, Lynn Kent of Harbour Grace and

Charli Slade of Victoria.

To qualify for an award, these students must undertake a balanced program of

leisure-time activities and meet the prescribed standards in four important

categories of self development. These categories include: community service,

adventurous journeys, physical fitness and skill development. Open to all youth

of Canada between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five, the program helps foster

the development of responsibility, leadership and perseverance.

Mr. Speaker, this award is an international award for achievement known

around the world. This award helps youth discover interests and talents they

never knew they had. It also assists them in making decisions of increasing

complexity and accept responsibility for their consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this award is recognized by both government, private industries

and as a significant achievement in the lives of young people. Completion of

this award provides tangible evidence of success and effort on the part of young

people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Amanda Butt,

David Murray, Nathan Sellars, Lynn Kent and Charli Slade for the Duke of

Edinburgh's Bronze Award. I wish them all the best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Marg Turner, a friend of mine from Grand

Falls-Windsor. Marg is part of the Newfie Bullets Broomball Team who took the

Bronze on 2006 World Broomball Championships in Blaine, Minnesota.

Marg Turner also brought home a very prestigious award. She was named to the

dream team as outstanding goalie of the tournament, making her the very best

broomball goalie in the world in the mixed division. Once again, our athletes

are recognized as the best in the world.

Colleagues, please join with me to congratulate Marg Turner for being the

best goalie in mixed division in the world for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remember a fallen soldier, Sergeant Vaughan Ingram, a Burgeo

native and member of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Sergeant Ingram was killed in an ambush that took the lives of two other

Canadian soldiers, Corporal Bryce James Keller and Private Kevin Dallaire - in a

burned out school house near the village of Pashmul, Afghanistan. A fourth

soldier, Corporal Christopher Reid, of Truro, Nova Scotia, was killed in a

roadside bombing in a separate incident on the same day.

Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 people crowded into two churches in Burgeo where

the funeral was held. Brigadier General Rick Parsons, the commander of the land

Force Atlantic Area, presented Sergeant Ingram's wife and mother with a

Memorial Cross.

At a second ceremony at the town's cenotaph, Sergeant Ingram's daughter,

Brooke, age five, was presented with his medals and beret. His older daughter,

Samantha, age thirteen, was presented with the flag that draped his coffin.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that the Burgeo soldier was in harm's

way. Sergeant Ingram was wounded on May 29, 2006, when his face and shoulder

were injured as a rocket-propelled grenade exploded in the light armored vehicle

in which he was travelling. Even after he was wounded, Sergeant Ingram was

anxious to return to his unit. As soon as he was capable, he was back - that's

the kind of determined and committed individual he was.

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

condolence to Sergeant Ingram's family. May his sacrifice never be forgotten,

neither in Afghanistan nor here at home.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform

colleagues about our tourism initiatives to market this Province in a very

competitive global marketplace.

This government is committed to growing the tourism industry and is

continuing to invest in our tourism sector and will continue to aggressively

market Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we demonstrated this commitment

during Budget 2005 and Budget 2006 when we increased the tourism marketing

budget by $3 million, bringing the total amount of marketing budget to $10

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: We continue, Mr. Speaker, to introduce tourists

initiatives and our top marketing priority is improving our Internet presence.

The Internet has become the most popular source for travel information and is

one of the most cost-effective means to promote the Province. Our Internet

Strategy is nearing completion and we will be launching a new tourism Web site

in January 2007.

The Web site will reflect our brand and our personality. It will have easy

trip-planning options with interactive travel tools and easy navigation. There

will be timely, relevant information - links for maps, directions, weather, and

so forth.

We are also redesigning and changing the size of our annual Travel Guide. The

2007 Guide will complement the new Web site and will be more user friendly. The

smaller size makes it much easier for tourists to throw in their bags and

knapsacks as they travel around this wonderful Province.

We have been encouraging our own residents, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

to be tourists at home this year with our resident marketing campaign: There's

No Place Like Home.

We have also partnered with the Discovery Trail Tourism Association to

implement a fall advertising campaign. This initiative has generated very

positive feedback, especially from the thirty-eight tourism industry operators

who invested in this campaign partnership.

Certainly, extending the traditional season beyond the summer months is a

priority. We are working with industry partners to complete an outfitting

strategy as part of this priority. As well, a strategy to promote winter tourism

will enhance tourism activities.

These initiatives are integral, Mr. Speaker, to making Newfoundland and

Labrador a multi-season tourism destination. Mr. Speaker, during a time when

global competition is increasing and travellers are looking for safe, pristine

and unique locations, Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to become that

destination of choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an

advanced copy of his statement.

Minister, we on this side of the House, welcome the announcement that you

made here today. Tourism plays a key role in our Province, and we realize today

that in certain parts of the Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is

down. Hopefully, your initiative today that you have announced will certainly

help bring that up.

Minister, you say that, There's No Place Like Home, and to Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians that is true. There is a place on the North Coast of Labrador,

it is called the riding of Torngat Mountains, that is often referred to as the

second Alaska, and with the development of our new national park down the road,

working with the Nunatsiavut government, we hope that we can attract people to

our Province worldwide.

Minister, we on this side of the House, applaud you today for the

announcement and initiative that you and your government have taken.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an

advanced copy of his statement.

We, too, welcome any progress in the area of promoting tourism to our

Province because many seasonal jobs depend on it, and it is a tremendous boost

to our economy.

Some of the things that affect us negatively, I say to the minister, are

things like the fares that are charged by Marine Atlantic, or the air fares, the

high cost of getting in and out of the Province, and especially within the

Province. These are things we do not have any control over but, I say to the

minister, there are many other areas of tourism that we do have control over,

and further action needs to be taken.

Recently, for example, the regional manager for tourism in Labrador, the

position became redundant and, to my knowledge, will not be filled. That was a

shock to tourism promoters within the Labrador region.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that the snowmobile industry

in Labrador is the greatest potential for the long winter months that we have;

however - Mr. Speaker, I see you rising and I will ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: The Snowmobile Association needs more funding in order to

continue operating, and that is a tremendous boost to Labrador's economy in

the long winter months.

Also, there is another issue with the outfitters who have lost up to $125,000

this year simply because zones were not open for hunting caribou. That is a

direct intervention that this government can make, to make sure that the

outfitters are able to book their guests, to accommodate their guests, to keep

their guides employed, and have hunters come in and conduct a hunt as they can

elsewhere in the Province when the season begins.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's North, the Chair of the Skills Task

Force, stated recently that employers in this Province must offer higher wages

if they are to keep their employees in this Province. Meanwhile, the Premier

publicly stated that FPI workers in this Province should consider taking wage

cuts, and the Minister of Finance indicates that hospital pharmacists should not

complain about their wages, even though they are far below their counterparts in

other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Do you see the irony between your statements

and those of your colleagues?

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

Board and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to correct an inaccuracy that so commonly comes

from that side of the House, as I never indicated that on pharmacists in my life

and there is nowhere that he can find, in print or on tape, that I ever said

that. We respect these people. We respect the work they do in the Province here.

I am prepared to look at dealing with not only pharmacists but other people in

hard-to-recruit areas and hard-to-retain areas with all of the unions in our

Province here, to sit down and look at ways to address this.

That is absolutely false. We have the highest workforce in our Province's

history, at 214,900 people, that two years before that were the second and third

most. We have a lower out-migration this year than the average of the previous

thirty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have less than half the number during the time when they

were in power here in our Province in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker.

He has his facts all wrong, like he usually does.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the minister lives, or where he has been in the past

year, when he says that we have the lowest out-migration figures in the history

of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development released a consultants report by Electronic Warfare Associates, who

were asked to determine if the fibre optic deal actually required $15 million of

taxpayers' money.

I ask the minister: Was this report the one that was discussed in Cabinet,

and was this report the basis for giving taxpayers' money to Persona and

Rogers?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the analysis that was done by EWA and PriMetrica

and others, as well as the information that we solicited from the Newfoundland

Association of Technology Industries, input from Memorial University, input from

the College of the North Atlantic, input from our telecom centres here in the

Province, Mr. Speaker, and a wide variety of people engaged in the industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador formed the basis for the decision that was taken by

Cabinet. A decision, Mr. Speaker, that has been supported by just about

everybody involved in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly appreciate copies of all the

information that came from those individuals and companies that the minister

just mentioned, but for the purposes of today we want to talk about the report

that the minister tabled yesterday, the EWA report, which states, Mr. Speaker,

and I quote: Electronic Warfare Associates is unable to comment on Persona's

solvency nor its ability to cover cost overruns.

I ask the minister: How can Electronic Warfare Associates and government

conclude that Persona needs the $15 million when they had no access to the

financial documentation from Persona and EWA - Electronic Warfare Associates -

could not even determine if Persona was solvent?

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

Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, with the Leader of the Opposition, he does not understand what is

put in front of him. I do not know if he has trouble reading, if he has trouble

understanding the context in which the paper is put, Mr. Speaker, but the fact

of the matter is, EWA and PriMetrica had access to the financials that were

required for the evaluation of this project. They assessed the project based on

a business case analysis, Mr. Speaker.

As for the availability of Persona's books, as for a detailed look at their

financials to see if they are solvent or not, Mr. Speaker, that was an issue

that was raised in June, 2006. Mr. Speaker, we went back, as I said before, we

approached EWA and PriMetrica to do an analysis and for that to be the basis on

which we concluded and continued negotiations, and concluded negotiations, Mr.

Speaker.

If you could keep the Member for the Bay of Islands quiet long enough for me

to answer, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, Persona have indicated to us

that prior to the finalization of this, Mr. Speaker - if you will give me a

second to conclude - we will have access to their financials and confidential

bases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had no trouble reading the report, I say to the minister, or understanding

it. I would suggest that maybe he read it himself. I am quoting directly from

the document that was tabled by the minister yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his Cabinet colleagues have been touting the

benefits of this deal and all of the benefits that it will bring in the

Province, and that it is well worth the taxpayers' investment of $15 million.

EWA, however, states in their report, and I quote - I will show him the page if

he wants to see it. This is what the report says: "...it is not possible to

quantify the financial benefits to the province or to this government." Not

possible to quantify the benefits to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How can the people of this Province accept

your version of the economic benefits when your statements are absolutely

contrary to those of the report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to quantify the

benefits exactly because the number is so huge and so enormous that you cannot

quantify it. It is in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of

dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked a question. I ask members for

their co-operation to permit the Premier to reply.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the benefits here are huge. What the

Leader of the Opposition stands for is, he is against better health care

services because an MRI will take sixteen seconds here on an ISDL, under this

particular technology it will take one-fifth of a second. That is eighty times

faster we could have medical information. He is against better education

information with tele-education. He is against better costs. Do you know that

Canarie and Wade Locke, the economists, have told us that on the mainland it

could cost $6 for one piece of this technology. What is being charged in

Newfoundland and Labrador right now for that $6 piece of technology is $4,000.

Four-thousand dollars, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is passing quickly.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is becoming quite obvious now who Dean MacDonald spoke with. All we need

to know now is when and where he spoke to the Premier, because the minister

cannot answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker, Electronic Warfare Associates stated that they did not know how

many new customers Persona would pick up as a result of this cable being put

across our Province. In other words, EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates, did not

know how much money Persona would be making off this deal once the cable was

complete.

I ask the minister: How could EWA and government determine that $15 million

of taxpayers' money was warranted for this deal when it was not even

determined how much Persona was going to make off this venture? Do they really

need the money, is the question I am asking?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You walked into it now, buddy, because you don't know

what you are talking about and that's the problem. You haven't got a clue

what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why don't you go to number 6 and number 7?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we go to the EWA

report we can go to items number 6 and item number 7. There is a full list of

the benefits here: Attraction of more skilled labour; fuller participation in

academic research. We have a letter here from Memorial University of

Newfoundland and Labrador that says they fully support this. They will be a

customer. The College of North Atlantic will be a customer. The Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador will be a customer. Business associations in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador will be customers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday he got up and talked about job

fairs and we are not doing anything in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is

a rural Newfoundland and Labrador company. It provides services to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Two hundred communities in this Province, they employ

120 people; and, Mr. Speaker, I just might conclude, we have a fifteen page

document that includes the benefits. You are welcome to a copy of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair will have to recess the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, you may have exempted yourself from the Cabinet

meetings, but you are the only one over there who knows anything about this

deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because your minister certainly doesn't know anything about

it; he can't even answer a question.

Mr. Speaker, a report by Electronic Warfare Associates states that government

has no need of these fibres at this time. That runs contrary to all comments

that has been made by government members opposite.

I ask the Premier, or the minister, or whoever knows something about this

deal: Why are we subsidizing companies to the tune of $15 million when,

according to this report, we do not even need those fibres at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A simple answer, Mr. Speaker, government spends about

$20 million annually on this, and that is a conservative estimate. New rates

will be 50 per cent; that means we will save $10 million annually times forty,

which is the life of the fibre; that is $400 million annual savings. That is why

we will purchase those fibres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Maybe the Premier will tell us what golf course he was on when

he talked to Dean about this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If this unsolicited and untendered proposal was so good and so squeaky clean,

as the Premier referenced it last week, why did Electronic Warfare Associates

raise the red flags on page 7, the last paragraph, when they stated, "Prior

to future projects being considered, a formal process should be created by

Government to simplify the application and review of unsolicited

proposals."

My question to the Premier is: Why are we letting this unsolicited proposal

go through today, or last week, without the proper process as was prescribed and

recommended in this report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite, and all

members opposite, know that this is the proper procedure. There is no sense

trying to taint this and smear this, and smear Mr. MacDonald and anybody who is

associated with it. There are good companies associated with it: Rogers,

AllStream and Persona, and it is an attempt to smear it. This is a proper

procedure, a proper process that was followed, which is going to result in huge

savings and benefits for this Province. Our own Memorial University of

Newfoundland and Labrador is now going to be on the research map.

The previous speeds that can be talked to, you would have to look at about

sixteen minutes for a conversation to take place on a dial-up modem. On

high-speed, it can take place in one second. So, I would say a word on a dial-up

and I wait sixteen and two-third minutes for an answer from the research analyst

who is on the other end. When you put this in place, we can talk simultaneously.

The hon. gentleman opposite has no idea what he is talking about, and the

benefits of this. Not only that, this is going to bring businesses to these

South Coast communities. It is going to bring business to Port aux Basques, and

to Ramea, and down in the Burgeo area, and down -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no need for the Premier to get upset. All I am doing is raising

issues that arose from the report that was tabled by his own minister yesterday.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I ask you again to respect the Chair and the integrity of the

House.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to Electronic Warfare Associates, almost half the

overland cable that Persona will be installing will be located in Nova Scotia,

which means that a good portion of this $52 million, $15 million of which comes

from the taxpayers of this Province, will be spent in Nova Scotia. As a result

of this, are the taxpayers of this Province subsidizing a cable connection

through Nova Scotia? Is Persona going to get new customers out of this in Nova

Scotia, and did you ask the Government of Nova Scotia to contribute toward this

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite does not even

understand the basics. Is he suggesting that we put the cable on the Joseph

and Clara Smallwood and drop it in the middle of the Gulf? Is that what you

are suggesting, we should probably just dead-end it down in the water and have a

talk to nobody at some point in time? Is that where you are kind of going with

it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have never heard anything more ridiculous, Mr.

Speaker.

This project is going to create 1,650 person years of employment. It

is going to create $120 million in jobs. That is what it is going to create.

That is going to be the income from it. The taxes alone are $20 million. The

benefits in this are through the roof, and the hon. gentleman is concerned about

whether we are going to hook it up to Nova Scotia. No, boy, we will hook it up

to Bolivia somewhere!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Premier is just trying to

confuse the issue. I am not talking about the underwater cable. I am talking

about the overland cable that will be laid in Nova Scotia, between Cape Breton

and Halifax, I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions we can ask about this report, and we

will continue to do it in the coming days, but I will conclude today by asking

the minister two brief questions.

When will you tell us with whom did Dean MacDonald meet, and when? And,

finally, and in the interest of openness and honesty, will you table in this

House today the full proposal as was submitted to this government by Persona?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I started to say yesterday - and hopefully he will not

interrupt me today so I can give him the answer - over an eighteen month period,

Mr. Speaker, there were eight meetings between consortium officials and

government officials. Three of those meetings, Mr. Speaker, Dean MacDonald was a

party to, four of those meetings Mr. Paul Hatcher was a party to, and in one

meeting the crew of MTS Allstream were a party to it. That is what happened over

the course of eighteen months, Mr. Speaker.

Now, as for that, Mr. Speaker, the Premier never met with either one of them.

I met with Dean MacDonald on one occasion, I met with Paul Hatcher on two

occasions, and the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development

did not meet with either one of them.

As for the issue of plugging in, in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, just so he

understands it, the reason why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: The reason why we are building this infrastructure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The

Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was answering, and he had

spent about forty seconds. I ask him if he would like to finish his answer in

about ten seconds.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will table the report as soon as the ATIP office has screened

it, as happens with all government documents.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition, the reason why

the cable has to be strung from Cape Breton to Halifax is because in Halifax

that is where all of the major Canadian providers of cables go.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not go over there you only plug into Aliant, which is

our problem anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said he

did not know who the proponents met with. So, today now he knows. I guess he

went back and got educated. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they also met with someone in

the Department of Business.

I ask the Minister of Business: Did Dean MacDonald, or anyone associated with

the deal, meet with him or anyone in the Department of Business?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for Grand Bank still cannot

listen, still cannot read. I just a minute ago said how many meetings took place

over eighteen months. I said who they were with. I said that I met; I said she

did not; I said that he did not. Nobody else met. I was the one who met twice.

She did not meet at all and he did not meet at all. Officials handled the rest

of the meetings, Mr. Speaker. Now, if they are too stupid to understand that,

Mr. Speaker, I will write it down and I will send it across to them. Those are

the extent of the meetings.

As for the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, it is in the report. The business case is

there. The investment is sound. Memorial University says so. Axel Meisen, who

does not dance, I can tell you, to the Premier's tune, says that he supports

this deal. Dr. Chris Loomis, who is the VP of Research, says he supports this

deal. Everybody who is anybody, except that crowd, which are nobody, supports

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume he spent all night trying to

find out who met with whom. He still did not answer the question of whether or

not they met with the Department of Business.

Mr. Speaker, for those taxpayers who thought that $15 million of their money

was being spent by government to purchase fibre so that our schools, university,

hospitals and government departments would see a reduction in future cable

costs, nothing could be further from the truth. They will still have to purchase

these services from either Aliant or Persona.

I ask the Minister of Business: What is government's intention for the

fibre optic cable it is purchasing from Persona?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said on numerous occasions - and they fail to

listen - that we will own a number of strands in the cables that are being laid.

That will form the backbone of the government's IT division. It will form the

backbone which we will build out into other areas of the Province to expand the

Internet and broadband coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in case they have not noticed it, every other jurisdiction where

there are a multitude of carriers involved in the provision of Internet access,

the competition results in a minimum of a 15 per cent reduction in the cost to

consumers and governments and we see no reason why that will not happen here,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I just made the assumption, since the Minister of

Business was out speaking about the deal, that he knew the details, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, given government's intention, I ask the Minister of Business

then or the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, if Aliant,

which employs hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and has excess

capacity on this fibre optic cable, was asked to submit a proposal?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions over the past couple of

years, particularly in the CDLI initiative, the Distance Learning Initiative,

Aliant, or anybody at all, was asked to submit a proposal. On those occasions,

Mr. Speaker, the bid that came in from the competing interest, which was Persona

in a request for proposals, was far less than what we saw out of Aliant.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the telecommunications industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador, depending on one carrier, has cost this Island and

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador an excessive amount of money. Those

are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, listen to what Nati said: This will better position our Province

as a place to invest in research and development, deliver new and exciting

services to business and consumers alike and further our ability to complete

globally in this knowledge-based economy. That is what the President of Nati

said, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the question is whether or not Aliant was

offered $15 million like is being offered to this consortium.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said yesterday that

the business case for this proposal provides for a very modest rate of return

for the proponents. Given as a report by Electronic Warfare Associates states

that additional revenues derived from new services and/or new communities served

weren't considered in assessing this project.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, since the

Minister of Business cannot address it, how it was determined that the rate of

return for the consortium would be modest.

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when IWA and PriMetrica were engaged to assess the proposal that

was in front of us, when EWA was engaged to assess the proposal that was in

front of us, they were asked to look at the business model that was placed in

front of us and to assess it against industry norms. They assessed it against

industry norms and said that with the $15 million from the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, there would be a very modest rate of return.

As for the issue of Aliant, Mr. Speaker, if you want the information on

Aliant and how much government money has gone into tendered contracts and

un-tendered contracts into Aliant over the past ten or fifteen years, you call

Aliant and if they are ready for us to release it, then you can well have it. I

can tell you, it is a lot more than $15 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case we have not noticed, today is November 21. The government is already

one month behind -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair recognized the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.

I will try once more. In case we have not noticed, today is November 21 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation. This is the third occasion when I

have directed my attention to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask

members to permit the member to place her question.

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

In case we have not noticed, today is November 21, and there is a concern for

people in this Province. The government is already one month behind last year's

timing in announcing home heating fuel rebates. This morning on Open Line the

Finance Minister said the documentation has not even yet been presented to

Cabinet for approval and his response to the host was rather vague when asked if

the rebate would proceed at all. Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest

energy poverty rate in Canada. The Canadian Housing Renewal Association says the

poorest 20 per cent of income earners are spending more than 16 per cent of

their annual income on energy.

My question to the Premier is: What is your government planning to do for low

income households? Is government going to help the people of this Province get

through another winter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I will say - a very brief background - the program was instituted on

an ad hoc basis in January of 2001, where there was $100 given to homes that

were using home heating fuel. In March of 2003, with the winter almost over, the

former government brought in a program again that brought it in on an ad hoc

basis. They did not get their money until July and the winter was over.

The only other time there was a program is, this government in the fall of

2004 brought in a program and gave a $250 return to people with low income below

a certain level. Last fall we saw the need that if you made it by a dollar you

received it and if you did not make it you did not get any. We brought in a

program to phase it out at $30,000 to allow low incomes to get as high as $400

at the lower level and phase it out where no one would get less than $100, even

at a $30,000 level.

This year I have looked at it and compared, and prepared a Cabinet paper that

will come to Cabinet. The reason it was vague is because I do not articulate

government policy on public airways before it is made. It has not been passed by

Cabinet. I do no prejudge what Cabinet is going to do; but, when Cabinet does

move it, it will be the earliest, the second-earliest in history, that we would

have a program if it comes down this month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, well, then, I want to give some help to Cabinet

in making its decisions.

This government has to do more than to provide a sliding scale of up to $400

only for oil heat and with no distinction between a single person and a family

household with incomes of up to $30,000. This Province did announce a plan last

November, but cancelled it after the federal government cut the EnerGuide for

Houses and EnerGuide for Low-Income Households program.

All other Atlantic Canadian Provinces have stepped up to fill the gap left

behind by the federal government and rescued these programs for the benefit of

their citizens, and also created jobs and training. Most recently, Nova Scotia

announced, on October 3, its own EnerGuide program. It has also reduced HST on

heating fuel. As well, P.E.I. does not charge sales tax on home heating fuel.

Why is this government not removing the HST on home heating? Or, maybe that

is what is in your plan.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, there are numerous things that are not factual in what was

stated. I like getting the facts out. Overall, we have done a tremendous amount

for low-income people. For people on social assistance we have even went up to

doubling the subsidy that they get, and in Labrador a significant increase. We

put money into low-income, single parents with children, and increased their

income support level. We have increased their heating supplement.

We have also, with HST - if we took the HST off fuel, in home heating fuel,

it would average $187 per person, and people making $250,000 would get that, if

we took it off it. People making $100,000 would get that. We took it and we

allowed $400 to go to low-income people so everybody does not get $187. We

devoted this program solely to low-income people, in addition to several other

things we have done over the past year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Before we proceed, I notice in the public galleries we have some visitors:

Mayor Jerry Dean from the Town of Botwood, in the District of Exploits; Deputy

Mayor Scott Sceviour; and Town Manager Edward Evans.

We welcome you to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to present this petition. It is actually from the

residents of Ramea, which is not within my district, per se, under the Electoral

Boundaries Commission. It is in the District of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape

la Hune, and I will explain the reason. He has already been on it as well, but I

have been asked as well, as the adjoining member, to submit this petition

because the facilities that are being asked for would actually be situated in

the Burgeo & LaPoile District on the Burgeo side; of course, Ramea being an

island off the coast adjacent to my district.

The petition is about the need for washroom and waiting room facilities in

Burgeo for the people who use the Burgeo to Ramea ferry. What is happening at

the present time, of course, is, if someone is travelling from Corner Brook to

Burgeo, or anywhere in the Province for that matter, to go and catch the ferry,

sometimes they have to wait. It could be an hour, depending on how early they

are, and right now there is no washroom facility in Burgeo, at the terminal

facility, for anyone who needs to use the washroom.

I have been advised by the council and representatives in Burgeo that they

have made that request to, I guess, the Minister of Transportation, who would

look after the ferry service and the terminals there, in the past, and nothing

has happened, so they have asked me again.

They are saying, in the interest of human dignity - because right now you

have seniors, you have children, you have men and women, with no place to go to

use the washroom, quite frankly. So, what they are asking for is if there could

be some kind of whatever system put there so that at least they would have a

washroom facility that they could use in conjunction with the ferry service.

I do not think there is a great deal of cost and expense involved, but in

terms of running the ferry service itself, it is certainly a practical - not

only a health requirement, I would suggest, but it is a safety requirement when

you have to get out and do whatever, wherever, down around the piers and the

rocks down around the ferry terminal just because you do not have a washroom.

That is a human necessity, I would submit, and a very reasonable request.

So, on behalf of those people who use that ferry service and need that

washroom facility, I call upon the Minister of Transportation to give it his due

consideration and hopefully we can see something accomplished in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave of the Opposition, if we could do first reading of a bill so we

can get it circulated, Bill 46,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

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

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

Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

I did not hear the bill number.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 38 or Bill 46? Bill 46.

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

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

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

46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46 be now read a first

time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to

consider Bill 35 and Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 35 and Bill 23, and that I do now

leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now call Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, Aye'.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act,

carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Bill 35 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 23,

An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority

For The Province.

CHAIR: Bill 23,

An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority

For The Province.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 30.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 30, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood yesterday from comments by the minister when he closed debate in

second reading that there were some amendments that were being brought forward

today that he had discussed with the Leader of the NDP. I have not yet seen

those amendments and I am wondering if they are going to be proposed in

committee today for discussion?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the copy is printed. I think it is just being passed by the Table now to

the member who has raised the particular question there. We are certainly

prepared to move these. The minister is presently on business and cannot move

it, so I will move the particular clause there on clause 5 if we could, Mr.

Chair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Table has just received a copy of the amendments that were put forward.

The Chair had no idea that there were amendments coming, other than there was a

word spoken here yesterday. So I will pass it now to the Table Officers to see

if the amendment is in order and then we will provide discussion and debate on

the amendments as put forward with the particular clause that has been

identified.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We intend to be fully co-operative, of course, to see that things proceed in

a timely fashion but we have to be practical here. I mean the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has not even seen it yet, and to suggest that we

just get it, read it and respond to it without even any thought is not

acceptable. We are just asking: Why doesn't the Government House Leader just

set this matter aside and move on to something else? That will allow the Member

for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to read it, and the Table Officers who have not

even read it themselves to see if it is in order, then we can come back and deal

with it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendments, of course - I do not have a problem with that but amendments can

be moved here from the floor of the House and amendments made in Committee. That

has been tradition. They have been produced the same day, the very same day in

which it is passed. If they want to come back to that, I am prepared to come

back to Committee if they want to take a look at it. There were ones there that

I think the minister, on this particular one, was prepared, in discussion with -

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had some concerns there and the concerns,

I think, were probably unfounded, but had some changes, I think, that would be

compatible with the bill. We are prepared to entertain. We are prepared to

entertain, and it is the normal procedure, Mr. Chair, that there could be

sub-amendments moved to those bills. There could be other amendments done at any

stage, and that is the normal way that it has advanced, but if they want to time

to do it, move out of Committee, take a look at it, I do not have any problem

with doing that.

Having said that, if that is what they wish, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy

Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and

have directed me to report Bill 35 carried without amendment, and ask leave to

sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the

Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, passed without

amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act,

be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, with leave?

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

presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I move third reading of the Notaries Public Act, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The

Notaries Public Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, has now

been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be

as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act," read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have several bills that we are waiting on, I know, just being circulated

there. First reading is already done. For second reading, if the Opposition is

ready to move, the minister can introduce in second reading the Vital Statistics

Act. That is Bill 43.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not even received a copy of the bill

that the minister proposes we now go into second reading on. I have a list -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It is being distributed as we speak.

I say to the Member for Lewisporte, I can only tell you what I have in front

of me, and I only got it now. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of anybody

wanting to delay anything. I think it is a very reasonable request. Why don't

we take a brief adjournment? Why don't the personnel and the Clerks circulate

what we want to do this afternoon, give us an opportunity to take five or ten

minutes to have the appropriate persons review it, and then we can proceed? Why

rush the thing if it has not been even circulated yet, let alone read?

MR. SPEAKER: If it is agreeable - it seems as if there is some

communication that is agreeable to the House - the House can take a brief recess

and when I am advised by the House leadership then we can come back to the House

again. Is that acceptable?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. There has been a host of bills we

are trying to get circulated and printed. They have been moved in first reading,

so it is out of my hands to lay them on the floor of the House. In all fairness,

we will take five or ten minutes.

I did speak with the Opposition House Leader. If there are bills there that

we can advance today, to expedite, we will certainly do it I am sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair senses there is agreement that we recess the

House. The Chair will await direction from the House leadership. Then we will

ring the bells and we will come back when the House is ready.

The House is now recessed until further notice.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call second reading of Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The

Vital Statistics Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics

Act." (Bill 43)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill 43.

The Vital Statistics Act currently specifies that a fee be paid to clergy and

other people required to keep registries of births and deaths, who are required

by law to provide this information to the government on a regular basis. The

rate of payment set out in the act is outdated. It is cumbersome to change a fee

set in legislation or requiring Cabinet approval to change. Allowing the fee to

be set under the authority of the minister responsible is a more flexible

approach and consistent with normal government practice for many other fees. The

amount of money paid out will be relatively small, approximately $2,000 a year.

Payments will be made at a rate of $50 per hundred events or fifty cents each,

up from $20 per hundred or twenty cents each. Average payments to individuals

would be about $10 every six months. Although, they can range from $5 to $100,

depending on the number of events registered. Because this is such a nominal

fee, it is more efficient to allow changes to normal administrative mechanisms.

Most fees of this nature are under the direct authority of a minister

responsible. We are simply proposing the same for this circumstance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to offer my commentary to this bill, Bill 43. I

was hoping when I saw it that the minister was going to propose that she was

going to repeal all the fees regarding birth and death certificates in the

Province, considering how, as was stated here in the House yesterday, I think by

the Minister of Finance, that the number of people being born here now are on

the decline in this Province and the number of deaths here in the Province are

increasing. I was half expecting that the minister would do a favour for the

people out there, especially the poorer people and the people who are suffering

from a loss with regard to a death certificate. Then the other things that

happen, Mr. Speaker, with regard to fees and that over there, which I am sure I

will get into sometime over the next little while, regarding the Department of

Motor Vehicle Registration.

Mr. Speaker, this government was the one that implemented the fees on death

certificates to begin with. Now we are trying to get the rate of fee or the rate

of payment back into the minister's possession so that she can arbitrarily

increase the fees or decrease the fees, which I do not say we will ever see a

day when they are decreased, knowing the record of this government. Everything

else has gone up in this Province.

Somebody who suffers a death, a survivor is left with paying a fee to get a

record that their spouse has passed away, or a loved one has passed away. The

very least that this government should do - and I know they have been talking

about it for the past three years, reviewing fees, eliminating red tape. I hear

all that so often. I think if this government wants to eliminate red tape they

should all resign. It would be the quickest way to eliminate red tape.

A person out in my district yesterday had to subject himself to standing up

in public and taking off his bandana that was concealing a scar. It was tragic

what happened yesterday. A poor individual went up to get his driver's licence

renewed and was subjected to having his picture taken in public when he asked if

it could be postponed; which, by the way, I think there is a rule over there

that there is a year's grace.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that maybe the minister should take some of the

money that she is trying to get out of this and put it into some training for

her staff, so that the staff can be more customer friendly. The customers who go

to government laying out their money, and in some cases very exorbitant money,

like $180 to license a car for a year, to beat the front-end out of it and

destroy rims and tires in pothole, at least when they are taking their money,

smile at them and not denigrate them into a situation where they have to stand

up with a crowd of people and expose the suffering that they have already

incurred. A cancer victim yesterday, a cancer patient yesterday trying to

recover, having to do that. Mr. Speaker, it is demoralizing.

When I see something like this, a bill to amend a fee, and the minister says

five cents or 5 per cent, whatever number she is using over there, you know it

seems such a pittance. Do away with the fees. Give the ordinary person out

there, the consumer, the poor man out there, the poor woman, the poor young

person who has to go up and get a book to apply for a driver's licence, pay $2

for an instruction book - and this Province over the years have given them out.

We have to stop bleeding our citizens. We have to stop doing it. We have to get

some heart and some compassion and let is show. I suggest maybe there will be

some breaks coming because it seems like everything is under review and with

eleven months left before an election, I am sure there will be good news stories

floating all over the place next year.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. There is no rhyme or reason to be at this

stuff. If we are going to bring bills before the House here, let's bring bills

in to put people to work, instead of having lineups of 9,000 people on Kenmount

Road trying to escape these fees. Thirty-five hundred people on a Sunday,

showing up at the Fairmont Hotel looking for work to escape these fees and find

a way to feed their family. Mr. Speaker, all of these fees, these are dangerous,

devastating fees to a lot of people. Somebody who is out there now on the side

of the road cutting brush is going to end up with $100 a week EI to sustain them

over the next winter months. Just imagine, to pay $180 to park their car to get

down to get $100 EI a week; just to use their vehicle on the side of the road.

Minister, if you can find some way to save money, yes, come forward and bring

it to this House and I will certainly endorse it, but let's be real about it.

A death certificate is something that you people imposed on the people of this

Province and I think it is your right to try to decrease the fee, get rid of it,

eliminate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It makes sense. If we have this act, it makes sense, I think, that fees

should not be concretely put into the legislation. I agree with my colleague,

that it really disturbs me that we have fees for births and deaths. People are

being penalized through fees because one of their loved ones has died. People

are being penalized if they have a child. We should be celebrating that, not

making them pay money because they are having children.

When this was brought in, perhaps the government of the day, the current

government, saw us in a financial situation where they thought it was necessary;

but, you know, we are not in a financial situation today where we have to be

penalizing the people in Newfoundland and Labrador for dying and for having

children.

I think that I agree that we should be removing fees on births and deaths.

Maybe my recommendation is that the minister who is responsible would reduce the

fees on death and birth reporting to zero dollars. Maybe that is what -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do away with it?

MS MICHAEL: Well, that is what I mean, zero dollars. That is what we

should be looking at. We should not be penalizing people for dying and having

children.

That is what I have to say about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am only going to speak for a couple of minutes in relation to the comments

that my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just made about the charge that is

being imposed upon the residents of this Province under this government.

She talked about a birth certificate. It was only when the current Minister

of Finance, I guess, had some kind of a dream there a couple of years ago, woke

up and discovered that there was one other way that he could hit the people in

the Province with a fee and that was to impose a death certificate, because we

did not have to pay for that before. I guess the minister figured that at least

he could get them coming into the world in a birth certificate but he forgot, or

the previous governments had not looked at, the fact that if somebody dies we

were not going to make a dollar off them, but he found out a way to do it, Mr.

Speaker.

It is interesting that we are talking about fees, because I had the occasion

last Saturday night to attend two Fireman's Balls, one in Joe Batt's Arm and

the other in the small community of Island Harbour on Fogo Island. I went down

to that community after the dinner in Joe Batt's Arm and I was talking to a

couple of individuals there and they were very happy that they had forty-five

people - because it is a very small community - out for the Fireman's Ball

that night. The thing that they complained about is that they have a very small

fire hall, a very limited number of people in the community, no means by which

to raise funds to buy equipment and to keep the equipment that they have up to

scratch with regard to firefighting and firefighting prevention, but, in order

to hold that meeting that night, or hold that dinner that night, and be able to

offer those who came a bottle of beer, they had to apply to government to get a

licence to actually sell a beer on the premises that night. That licence cost

$100.

The question that they asked me was - you have to remember, now, the size of

the community, and all they were trying to do was to raise a few dollars to buy

additional needed equipment, and the government is saying to them - the

government, by the way, that does not give them any money, or very little, to

help them purchase equipment or to repair equipment - the government is looking

for $100.

Mr. Speaker, I just said there were only forty-five people attending that

dinner that night, so they are not going to make a lot of money. In fact, they

probably went in the hole as a result of this fee, but every single time that

they have a fundraiser in that little hall in Island Harbour and they sell a

beer, they have to send in - not only do they have to send in the request and

get it in on time and get it back to Fogo Island on time, but they also have to

enclose $100.

I am asking the minister today to eliminate that fee so that small

communities, especially communities like Island Harbour, who are suffering from

out-migration - even through the Minister of Finance rose to his feet today and

said we don't have an out-migration problem. I don't know where he lives. I

don't know what kind of a rock he crawled out from under to make that

statement but, I tell you, I have travelled this Province from coast to coast to

coast this summer, and the fall and the spring, and the number one issue that is

raised with me in every community in which I go is the number of people who have

left, the number of houses that are boarded up, the number of people who are

going, and, as a result, they cannot find people to volunteer as firemen or

firewomen in their communities.

Two weeks ago, I attended a Fireman's Ball in Twillingate. As I rose to

give my speech that night, I said: I am going to have to change the name of this

function in the future. Because I always refer to it as a Fireman's Ball,

because there were never any female volunteer firefighters in my district, but

in Twillingate the other night they had their first female firefighter - first

one. The reason, they told me - talking about out-migration - the Twillingate

Fire Brigade has twenty-five members, eight of whom left the end of August to

seek employment in other areas of this country. As a result, one young lady

agreed that she was going to join the fire brigade, and I encourage others to do

it, but to listen to the minister stand and talk about there is no

out-migration, and listen to another minister sitting behind him talking about

fees that we are charging people, I ask her to consider reducing that fee that

this organization and many, many other voluntary organizations in this Province

have to pay to the government to hold a function in a local community hall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words at second reading on this

proposed amendment to the Vital Statistics Act.

I just wonder; this is an opportunity, of course, where members who have some

concerns about the proposed amendment get to ask the minister for some

clarification, say whether they are or are not basically in agreement or

disagreement with the proposal.

My reading of the amendment - some of the members, even the members opposite

over here, have spoken as if this is a fee that is collected by the government,

whereas it is my understanding that the purpose of this amendment is for

government to determine a fee that gets paid to the registering officer.

For example, under

section 22 at the present time, if a clergyman in this

Province witnesses a baptism of someone they are entitled to get a certain fee,

and the fee stipulated at that time, at least, in 1990, was, for every 100

births, for example, that they do, they would get $20. That $20 fee per 100

events, they call it, was determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and

what they are saying now is, we are going to change that so that, yes, the

clergymen or women or person is paid a fee - the registering officer, yes, will

get a fee - but, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council determining the

fee, it will be the minister who determines the fee.

MS JONES: Do they get a fee now?

MR. PARSONS: They currently get a fee, I say to the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The current rate is, for every 100 births that a

clergyman does in the Province, when they send it in to get registered, they are

entitled to be paid $20 for every 100 births.

My understanding is that this bill is not so much government collecting a

fee; it is government determining, by this amendment, who determines what the

fee is that will be paid to the registering officer. That is my understanding of

the amendment. I just want the minister to clarify that is her understanding of

what is hoped to be accomplished here as well.

My question to the minister would be, however: What is the motivation for

taking the fee issue - who determines the fee? What is the rationale, the logic,

for saying that it is going to be the minister now who decides the fee, and not

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council?

I mean, it has been my understanding, in every system we live in, if you are

going to collect money from the people, or you are going to make decisions on

money being paid out, it is a very important decision and primary considerations

and responsibilities of an Administration. Why are we now, in the case of

registering officers for births and deaths, saying that this is not important

enough any more for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet of the

Province, to deal with; we are going to let this be decided by the minister.

Now, that seems to me - there is some reason for that. Surely, in the system

we work in, we set fees for everything else. The Minister of Finance, for

example, has certain authorities to do things, but when it comes to

taxation-type issues they always come back to the House and to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make those decisions; but here we are with the

Minister of Government Services saying, in future, what the registering office

or the clergyman in this Province is entitled to for registering a birth

certificate. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with that. I would

just like to know if the minister could explain to us who requested this and why

the change of procedure so that she gets to decide that fee, as opposed to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council? We have had issues raised here as to fees. I

mean we have been fee'd to death since November of 2003, the people of this

Province, and now we are even starting to decide that it is getting a bit

confusing about who sets what the fees are; forget about the issue altogether of

what the fees are, which my colleagues have raised here.

I am just wondering again, the curiosity is overwhelming here: Why is the

Minister of Government Services, all of a sudden, going to be allowed to decide

what a clergyman gets paid for registering a birth or a baptism in this

Province?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, sorry.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order.

The Government House Leader asked what the intention was here. The Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair does intend to speak in second reading on this

bill. However, if the minister wants to respond to the question that I just

asked, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said, by all means, go ahead

and give your answer, if you wish, before the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair speaks. Someone suggested that because the minister stands up and speaks,

he is closing the debate. If that is the understanding that is on the other

side, in that case, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair will stand and

speak. We will just give the extended courtesy to the minister to respond to the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair assumes then that if the minister speaks now that

she will not be closing debate. She will be participating in the debate and that

we will then come back for further comments from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with answering it and debate not closing, but I would

suggest, in carrying out the business, normally the minister will speak last,

take notes of any questions and answer them when she concludes the debate on

that. Then in Committee, if there are questions on any clause in Committee, you

can go back and forth in the House without any limitations. It is the

appropriate way to proceed, Mr. Speaker, but the minister has agreed she will do

it on this occasion; then we could move probably in that manner, that would

expedite business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not understand. The Government House Leader has hardly been prepared the

last couple of days to move this House efficiently, yet he feels the necessity,

on every occasion, to try to give some defence to something that we might

suggest. I think we have been totally reasonable in how we are moving the

business here.

Now, the Minister of Government Services, to whom I just addressed that

commentary and the Chair, has agreed to get up and speak, yet he feels a need to

get up and in some way apologize or speak for her. Please, the minister is

prepared to speak, let her speak. We have had occasions in this House, numerous

times, when, for the sake of progress, the minister responds. We have a debate

back and forth, there is an exchange of information and it moves things forward.

Now, if you want to get into this stickily, prickly type of attitude whereby we

are going to be up and down all day long trying to move this thing - you know,

you can play this game anyway you want. We are prepared to be fair but if you

want to get stickily, we can play by those rules, too.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have indicated that I have no problem with the minister standing and

answering. She is going to do that, but I have indicated if there are going to

be a series of questions, the appropriate place to do it is in Committee on each

clause and we are open to follow the process. That is the purpose, to expedite

business so we can exchange without getting leave on every occasion. The

minister will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are lots of bills with twenty clauses and thirty

clauses, Mr. Speaker. The minister will answer that question, she has indicated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is just seeking direction from the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we now ready to proceed?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question but I do want to

reserve the right to make the closing comments on this bill.

The reason for this is, the rate of the payment right now is outdated in the

act. What we are doing is bringing it in line with the payments that we are

paying right now to the clergies. The first rate was set back in the 1960s.

Right now we are just cleaning up this act to bring the births and the registry

rate that we pay the clergies in line with what is being paid now.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have had a response from the minister and we will go back to the

Opposition House Leader for some comments before we move on to the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of clarification, again. The minister's response to my

question - what my question was: Why the shift in policy from having the fee

determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, under this bill, to be

determined by the minister? The minister's comment in answer to that was: We

are bringing this act now in line with the existing circumstances. Now, that

does not explain the question. My question was quite simple. Why was it the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, who set the fee, and you now want to have it

such that you, the minister, sets the fee? That is what I want to know. I am not

talking here about the amount of the fee or anything. Why is the shift from the

Lieutenant-Governor to the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is aware that this is, of course, second reading

where we should be debating the principles of the legislation. We have had an

exchange back and forth. I am wondering if the minister wishes to make a

comment? Perhaps we could then, after that, go to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are allowing the fee to be set under the

authority of the minister responsible. It is a more flexible approach and it is

consistent with the normal government practice for many other fees in

government. We are just trying to clean this act up and bring it in line with

the fees that we are paying right now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile raised a very interesting

point here this evening. I am pleased to see that the minister did get an

opportunity, eventually, to get on her feet and give us the appropriate

response.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill, I guess, that when you first look at it, at a

first glance, you tend to think that the government might be going to bring in

some more fees around death certificates, birth certificates and things like

this in the Province. You have to look a little closer, Mr. Speaker, to realize

that they maxed out on that a couple of years ago. Indeed, what they are doing

right now is reforming a piece of their legislation to ensure that the clergy

and other people out there in the Province who carry out this work on behalf of

the government are actually going to be paid an appropriate remuneration, that

at this time is going to be set by the minister and not by the Lieutenant

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions as well. I would like to know how

much money is going into the government coffers right now over increased fees

for death certificates and birth certificates, which they introduced by the

current Government House Leader today, who was the Minister of Finance at the

time? When they brought these fees in, how much more money are they collecting

in those fees today and how much are they paying out to people like clergy

around the Province to do this piece of work for them? I would suggest very

little but collecting a great deal of money. I say that because not only do you

pay for your birth certificate the first time you get it but I have lots of

cases where people may have misplaced their birth certificate or lost it over

the years. They come and they call your office and they want to get another

copy. The first thing you do when you walk into Vital Statistics to pick it up

is you have to haul out a cheque book and pass over some money. Whenever you get

it, or how often you have to get a copy of it, you still have to pay for it.

I would suggest they are making a fine lot of money off the backs of ordinary

people who have to have a birth certificate or a death certificate for purposes,

Mr. Speaker, of carrying out other business in their lives - they have to have

it - like trying to access a moose license, which the fee increased for that,

like trying to renew their motor vehicle registration or get their driver's

license, in which those fees were also increased by the members opposite. I

think at the time there were like 160 different fees, new fees, or maybe it was

a little less than that, probably 155 new fees that were introduced at the time,

Mr. Speaker, and increased at the time.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: I say to the hon. Member for Lake Melville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Claire.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville sits in his desk and

growls all day long, but never stands on his feet to add anything substantial to

a piece of legislation in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am making a point here, and the point is that

the government that he is a part of increased hundreds of fees to ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province. That was what they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They hauled a bundle of money in from ordinary people out there

in this Province. That was what they did, Mr. Speaker. Why don't they stand on

their feet and justify that? Why don't they do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: They reduced one, Yvonne, the polar bear one.

MS JONES: Yes, the only fee or licence that did get reduced was the polar

bear licence. That was the only one. Under the Budget - maybe the Member for

Lake Melville would like to be enlightened, because when the Budget came down,

Mr. Speaker, there was one licence, one fee, that did not increase, and that was

for a polar bear licence.

Now, I have never hunted polar bear, have no intention of hunting polar bear,

and most people I know have no intention or do not do so, so for those people we

did not get much of a tax break that year, I will put it to you that way, but

there were a lot of other fees that did get increased, Mr. Speaker.

The only think that I am asking the minister today is that, in bringing in a

remuneration or a fee that will be paid out to people like the clergy in the

Province, to carry out the work of issuing these birth certificates, death

certificates and documentation, what percentage of that money will be paid out

that was collected in new fees by the government? When they brought in a fee for

death certificates, for example. I think it is a very important question, a

substantial question, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people out there are

wondering what the government ever did with all that money that they had to dish

out of their pockets back two years ago in the Budget when the fees were being

brought in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There continues to be a great amount of dialogue across the House from both

sides. The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I ask

other members if they could permit the member to be heard in relative silence.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit here intently and listen to other people when they debate in the House,

and it is unfortunate that I am not always afforded the same privilege.

I have made the important points that I intend to make with regard to this

bill. I am sure the minister will do due diligence in her consideration and

provide the responses in her closing remarks.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am pleased to rise and speak to this bill. When I saw this come

across today for the first time, of course, we never had much time to look at

it; it was laid on our desk and we are asked to speak on it. In the meantime,

there is no trouble to speak on it.

I see that the minister is looking for authority to control the purse when it

comes to paying out fees to collect vital information; however, I wonder why she

is not getting the same authority to reduce fees. She is not looking for any

authority to reduce fees when it comes to the 155 fees that you brought in three

years ago. I do not see her standing up here in the House and asking this House

for authority to reduce fees. That is not going to happen.

Yet, for all of that, there are 20,000 senior citizens out there today who

have a driver's licence and, in order for them to have their driver's

licence renewed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a lot of dialogue going on from one side of the House and the other

side of the House; there is an equal share on both sides. Therefore, I would ask

all hon. members if they would be co-operative so I can listen to the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans making her presentation.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the members opposite cannot stand to hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was on his feet in the media in August

forecasting a $68 million surplus. He was forecasting a $68 million surplus in

August, and now, last week, he forecasted or said: Here is a reality check.

Guess what? We are almost $40 million in the hole since the Budget was brought

down last March. Now, this is what he said: The good news is, we might have a

surplus by the time everything is tallied up.

Now, that says a lot about this Minister of Finance and this government. They

are running on oil revenues only. They have been three years on the job - four

years now, actually, going into the fourth year, already into the fourth year -

and they have not created or stabilized a new industry in this Province since

they started. If it wasn't for the oil industry that was already started and

running when they took power, they would have nothing to show. Now, this is the

same minister who forecasted a $68 million surplus in August, and in November he

had to haul in his horns -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Minister of Finance

and Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind providing the thirty seconds I am going to take for her time,

but absolutely never since the Budget of $6.2 million was proposed did I release

any statement or anything that we are going to have a $68 million deficit. That

is absolutely false, and I think it is right and it is incumbent on her, as the

critic, to put the right information out to the people of this Province. That is

wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you know, August 14, 2006, this year: Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan

says government will have to borrow less in the fiscal year. That is because the

Province ended up with $68 million more in revenue than projected, mainly due to

increased offshore royalties.

Now, there was a hiccup when the Terra Nova FPSO had to cut production. White

Rose had to cut production because they needed renovations on their FPSO. Now,

what would happen if the oil production stopped for the rest of the year? What

would happen? We are dependent solely on oil in this Province. We have forgotten

our fishery, our fishery that is down $300 million in revenue alone just this

year. We have forgotten our fishery. We are hoping that we will get through the

next election based on oil. That is what we are hoping for here.

When the Minister of Government Services today stood on her feet and looked

for permission to decide on a rate to pay the clergy of this Province for

sending in information on who is born and who is dying - why can't she stand

up and say: I am looking for permission to reduce the rates for seniors in this

Province?

We have 20,000 seniors who need medical exams before their licence is

renewed. Prior to 2003, that would cost nothing, zero. Prior to 2003, that would

cost a senior no money. As a result of this government, who had a surplus last

year, deciding instead of giving seniors a break they would rather put their

money down on The Rooms so The Rooms would have no mortgage, now they are

charging seniors $100 to go out and get a medical exam and have a reassessment

to get a driver's licence. There is something wrong with this picture, when

they would have the nerve to say to a senior: You might have been paying $75 a

trip for an ambulance before 2003, but, guess what, if you think your condition

is serious enough and you need an ambulance, it is going to be $115.

I want to relay to you a story that came across my desk about two weeks ago.

This is a health issue but it is related to money. I had a letter actually

written to the Premier and it was copied to me. There was a constituent of mine

from Grand Falls-Windsor who was in the hospital for two weeks. It was

determined that this individual needed a test done in St. John's; one of those

balloon tests because the individual was having heart problems. Before the

individual left in the ambulance that day it was determined that she did not

need to take anything only pajamas and a toothbrush. That is all that individual

needed to take. The ambulance brought her in to the Health Sciences Complex.

That day when they did the test they ran into trouble. There was bleeding there

they never expected, so the patient was asked to spend the night. In the morning

the doctor came and saw that patient and she was discharged. She was not

discharged from the Central Newfoundland Hospital, she was discharged from the

Health Sciences Complex. She was there in her pajamas and a toothbrush in her

hand. She asked for wheelchair assistance to get her out to the main lobby, it

was denied. To bring her back to Grand Falls-Windsor she would have had to hire

an ambulance privately to take care of that, about $2,000.

Now, there is something wrong when you will discharge a patient in her

pajamas, without any relatives here in this city, and expect her to make her way

home without any arrangements. This is a matter that is currently being

investigated and there has to be some reasonable explanation given to that lady.

You do not do that to anybody. You do not send people out of a hospital in an

ambulance, away from their hometown and away from their relatives, and expect

them to get back with not even a credit card in their pocket or no money. That

is inhumane. This is going to be investigated further.

This same government, who has had a surplus budget over the past year, who

has had an injection of a lot of money from Ottawa and so on, is still charging

$115 a trip for an ambulance. I have had seniors give me a call and say: Before

I order an ambulance, I'm going to make well sure that I really need one. I'm

not going to go and spend $115 out of my pocket unless I know I'm in serious

condition. Now, when a senior has to pick up a telephone and put it down again

and say: Gee, I don't know, maybe if I wait until the morning I might be all

right. Because it is $115 that person has to pay and they also have to pay for a

medical escort to go along with them if they hire an ambulance. It was

twenty-five dollars and now it is fifty dollars; it is double. So if you have a

senior who is going from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor, they have $115 for the

ambulance and they have fifty dollars for a medical escort. Now, not every

senior can afford that. They are going to make a big decision: Will I go or will

I stay? Will I be better in the morning? Will I wait?

The situation in 2003 and 2006 for this government is entirely different. For

the first time in our history we are forecasting budget surpluses, not because

of anything that this government did, not for anything that this government has

produced in the way of adding to our economy, not one thing. All the money that

came into this Province came from federal money, and, of course, our oil

industry. They have not diversified our economy in any way, shape or form. So

this would be a good opportunity - when I heard the Minister of Business, not

business because the Minister of Business was asked a couple of questions this

afternoon and he decided that he would not answer those questions, so the

Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development decided to jump up in case

the story might get more contradicted and they would have a bigger mess on their

hands under the fibre optic deal. Right now they are only allowing two or three

people to answer questions in case they get mixed up. They are allowing the

Premier and they are allowing the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development. If anybody else answers: My God, you could make it worse than it is

already! So, don't anybody else answer. You are not allowed.

Minister of Government Services, you have an ideal opportunity right now to

do something for the people of this Province. Instead of wrangling about and

trying to decide what you are going to pay a clergy to deliver vital

information, why don't you use that same energy and decrease the fees or

eliminate fees?

The Minister of Finance was on a CBC Crosstalk in early November and he was

saying at that particular time that this is the first time in the history of

Canada - now what a great statistic to be able to brag about - the first time in

the history of Canada that this Province, or any other province in Canada, has

had more deaths than births. Now, this is what the Minister of Finance, the

President of Treasury Board, said on CBC Crosstalk. He has no hope for this

Province by the way, because he said that in the next seven years 27 per cent

more children in our schools will be gone; 27 per cent more of our school

children will be gone in seven years time. He has no hope for this Province,

none whatsoever. If he was doing his job he would be saying: Look, I don't

care what the figures say, we have a plan. We are going to bring people into

this Province. We are going to make sure nobody else leaves this Province.

Instead of that, he said 27 per cent of the school population, that is 21,000

children, are not going to be here in seven years time. He said we have the

highest death rate and the lowest birth rate and you know that impacts on our

equalization.

What are you doing about it, new government? Because you have the highest

death rate and you have the lowest birth rate and it is impacting on your

equalization. What are you doing about it? What is your economic plan? What is

your economic plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Zero. All you have is

the doghouse plan, fibre optics across the Trans-Canada Highway and across the

Gulf linking up whatever is on the Trans-Canada Highway. Forget about rural

Newfoundland. I noticed myself. I have been watching the situation evolve here

in this Province. There is a shifting attitude, there is a definite shifting

attitude, and I think it hit home the other day when I heard Randy Simms on Open

Line saying: Who cares about rural Newfoundland? Who cares about rural

Newfoundland and Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to be as tolerant as it can at second reading, however,

it is incumbent upon the member to relate her comments to the principles of the

bill. I call her for some questions on relevancy and ask her if she could relate

what she is saying - I am sure she will - to the principle of Bill 43.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is so very relevant when I talk about - it is all connected to money and

fees. We are talking about death certificates and we are talking about birth

certificates and we are talking about the gathering of information and the

paying of information, and who will be paid and how much they will be paid, and

will it be the authority of the minister to make those rules or will it be the

authority of Cabinet. Now this bill is asking that the minister have that

authority today. When you think about that, you have to think about the fact

that the amount that was set for gathering that information was, for every 100

names that were submitted $20 was the fee. How long would it take the clergy in

Ochre Pit Cove to gather 100 names to send into the Registrar to get $20? A long

time. Because as I heard on the radio last week, the United Church in Ochre Pit

Cove closed their doors. The United Church in Blackhead will close next Sunday.

That is two churches. There has been a bed and breakfast being made out of

churches out in Conception Bay. Doesn't that tell you people are leaving rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is no plan? Does anybody care that rural

Newfoundland and Labrador is dying? Does anybody care or does it matter that you

see all these IT centers here in St. John's with everybody behind a little

desk making $7 an hour or $6.50? That is all that matters, is it?

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up now because I will have plenty of time in other

bills to give comments on the economy in this Province. I do not know what the

reason is for this bill, but I want to leave a thought with the minister. Madam

Minister, if you are thinking about getting authorization to make these changes,

I would like for you to put the same enthusiasm and bring it to your Cabinet to

reduce and eliminate the fees you brought in three years ago.

Thank you.

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

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

I just want to take a couple of moments to speak to Bill 43. When I heard the

minister explain what this bill is about and how the authority, I guess, will be

taken from the Lieutenant Governor in Council and placed in the hands of the

minister, and then I heard her reference what the registers are paid, I guess I

was somewhat taken back; when you have to send in 100 births or 100 deaths in

order to get a $20 fee sent back to you. I have to say to government, you are

pretty good in raising your fees but you are not very good in paying out to

other people what I think they should get for doing the services.

We know from the last budget that prior to the last budget the cost for a

birth certificate was zero dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: No, I am sorry! A birth certificate was twenty dollars and a

death certificate was zero, and both of them increased to a twenty-five dollar

fee. I think, personally, that is a bit much.

Like the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, and the hon. Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, and others, that really, when it comes to birth

and death certificates, I believe that the fee should totally be eliminated. I

say to the minister, if there is a fee to be paid out to the registers, whether

they are clergy or whoever, I think she should consider it in the next budget

and see that they get a little increase. They have to send in 100 before they

get a twenty dollar bill back. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a little ridiculous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five hundred dollars to get twenty dollars.

MR. BUTLER: Twenty-five hundred dollars to get twenty dollars. That is

not a bad turnover.

Mr. Speaker, seeing we are on fees, some of them - it is amazing when we look

at what came down the last time and we are talking about balancing the budget

and so on, but we know from the Budget in 2004 the total revenue from increasing

fees was in the vicinity of $24 million to $25 million. I will give you just one

little example. Someone visiting a park, going into the park just for day use,

they have to pay five dollars to get a shower because they are not camping

there. Mr. Speaker, we talk about increased registration fees for passenger

vehicles. It went from $100 to $180. Personally, I think the people in this

Province have paid enough on the fees.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do when you were there?

MR. BUTLER: We always hear on the other side of the House, and here we go

again: What did you fellows do when you were there? I would say, it is time for

this government to stand on their own legs. They have been in power now going on

four years. They can find money, $15 million to do other things, and I will not

go into that, that is for another day. If we can come up with $15 million - and

here we are now looking at people who are passing away, charging a $25 fee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paved the roads?

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, here we go on provincial roads again. There has

not been a government since Confederation that has not done work on roads or

water and sewer. You would not know but this administration were the first ones

that ever did anything with a road or water and sewer in this Province.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker -

MR. HICKEY: We are the only ones who ever did anything with the roads in

the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I would like for the Minister of Transportation - he says

they are the only ones who ever did anything with roads in this Province. I

would invite him to come to the District of Port de Grave next week and have a

chat with the people in his own depot, have a chat with the people in his own

depot.

I would say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WISEMAN: You were the EA. You were the EA to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I am asking that the hon. member be able to do his presentation

in relative silence.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: The Member for Trinity North says I was EA to the minister. I

guarantee you the work was done not only in that district and others. When he

won his by-election there was a good bit done in his district.

Mr. Speaker, I say, when it comes to government services branches again - we

talk about a little corner grocery store who are dealing with food, the increase

of the fee from zero dollars, from a $125 to a $300 increase for people to

operate a small convenience store. In liquor licencing, annual brewers agents

went from zero up to $100 increase.

Mr. Speaker, I know this bill might not touch on all of those issues, but I

have to say when it comes to the minister taking charge and control over those

fees it will be a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, if we do not see another increase

now. We will say, no, no, government did not do this, the minister just did this

on her own, it is passed to her, and we will see our fees rise again, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now

she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I listened intensely to the debate on the other

side of the House and I have to say, I wondered if they even read our Budget

last year, because they have not mentioned once there that we reduced school

fees by $6 million last Budget. We also have every fee under review here in the

government. Very quickly they have forgotten that the Opposition now was here in

this power and we got a financial mess when we came to this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has been very tolerant relative to relevance on both sides of the

House, and I would ask all speakers if they could constrain themselves to the

principles of the bill. We are on second reading, and we are making some

progress.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister to make her concluding comments.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say to the Opposition, under

the leadership of Premier Williams and this team, the people in this Province

have seen great leadership and have seen $171 million worth of work put into the

infrastructure in this Province alone this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I wonder, when the listening audience out there are listening

to the bills, what the intent of the bill is this evening, I have to tell you

that we are talking about a rate for the clergy when they register a birth and a

death with the Province. I have listened to them go around and talk about the

(inaudible), we didn't do this, we didn't do that, and we didn't do

something else. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have done a lot in three years,

considering the corner that we have turned in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I also think the people in this Province are not fooled by the

shenanigans that go on, on that side of the House with debate.

I also would like to say that we should focus on the intent of the bill, what

exactly it is, to give the minister the authority which is consistent with other

fees in the government, a mechanism that you can have the flexible approach.

You know, I listened to, we do not care about the seniors. Well, we have done

things for the seniors in this Province. We have done a number of things with

our health care in this Province for the people here, to better our people.

They talked about out-migration. Well, ever since I have been living in this

Province - and I have lived here my entire life - I have seen young people go

away to get work. I have seen old people, younger people, all make choices in

life, and this government has the lowest unemployment rate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister if she could assure that her comments are relative to the

principles of the bill. We seem to have varied considerably. The Chair did let

her have some leeway because it is a matter of a financial bill to some extent,

but I want to say to the minister that if we could constrain ourselves more

precisely to the principles of the bill then we could make greater progress.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will focus on the bill, because I do believe that the listening audience

needs to know what this bill is. It is actually increasing the fees from $20 to

$50 for the clergies, to bring it in line with what we are paying out under this

specific act.

You know, this government has done red tape reductions. Some of the

cumbersome things that are on business here, we have taken initiatives to work

this out with our government and put it in action.

I want to say to the Opposition members who commented on this bill today,

they have gone from talking about what this government haven't done. We do not

have to worry about what we are doing. We are very accountable in this

government, and the people of this Province certainly know that they put us here

to do a job and this government is doing just that. We are a people's

government and we care about our people, and we will continue to do initiatives

that will better the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I would like to conclude this bill at second

reading.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification.

There was a bit of noise coming from both sides, and I am not sure if I heard

the minister correctly. Did you say the fee was going to be increased from $20

to $50?

MS WHALEN: The fee paid out was usually $20, but now -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government

Services.

MS WHALEN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The fee that was paid out was $20 per 100. It is now $50 per 100. It is more

in line with the act right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am wondering if we could perhaps leave these matters to Committee? I will

recognize the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I will call the question on second reading.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, has now

been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act," read

a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by

leave. (Bill 43)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, Order 4, Bill 40,

An Act To Revise The

Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

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

An Act To Revise The

Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting

The Conduct Of Public Inquiries." (Bill 40)

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

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

I am extremely pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 40, which is entitled,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, 2006.

Now, this bill is going to replace the current legislation, the current

Public Inquiries Act, which I understand is over thirty-five years old. There is

certainly an identified need to update the legislation so that we can ensure

that there are stronger and more effective mechanisms for public inquiries which

will coincide with administrative law principles, principles of natural justice

and fairness that will allow for greater efficiency and flexibility and includes

enhanced advisory and investigatory powers.

This bill will repeal and replace the current Public Inquiries Act of 1990,

as I mentioned, with the new Public Inquiries Act of 2006, and the new act will

do the following: It will provide powers for the establishment of a commission

of inquiry and to appoint commissioners under

Part I of the act. The act, in

Part II, will bring to this Province something new, and that will bring in what

they call an inquiry - some people refer to it as a hearing commission, or a

study or review commission in

Part II - and sets out the powers and duties of

each: the commission of inquiry in

Part I and the inquiry under

Part II, and

under

Part III will create a regulatory financial framework.

The public inquiry legislation is an important government tool used to create

public policy. We have seen in this Province the most recent commission of

inquiry, which was that conducted by the former Supreme Court of Canada Chief

Justice Antonio Lamer. As I will indicate later on in my remarks, some of the

amendments that will be introduced today were precipitated by comments that

Commissioner Lamer made in his report to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Government in 2006.

This bill is intended to build upon the current legislation but, of course,

this is not an amendment; this is a complete overhaul of the law relating to

public inquiries in this Province.

I know the Opposition House Leader, when we are bringing in legislation,

likes to give the background. He likes to put the legislation in context. He

likes to speak to, I think he calls them, Bill and Martha. What does he call

them? What is it?

MR. PARSONS: Bill and Martha.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Bill and Martha.

He gives them the background, and I enjoy listening to it because that means

I only have to speak directly to the amendment or directly to the legislation.

He gives a long speech and sets out the context, which must be helpful to people

out there who are dealing with, or listening to, a debate about legislation that

involves lawyers and legal terms. So, I thought I would help him out a little

bit today because I think it is going to be helpful for all of us, g