May

20, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 29

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the

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

District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl

North.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, I took

part in the Annual Sea Cadet inspection for RCSCC 71

Atlantic in Grand Bank, as well as RCSCC 289 Corvette, Lamaline.

Mr. Speaker, the annual inspection is an opportunity for the cadets to

demonstrate what they have been learning for the past year to invited guests and

to members of the general public and their families.

I want to congratulate all cadets, and their leaders, Mr. Speaker, for the

wonderful display of skill and ability. Things went extremely well with both

inspections, and the cadets did a tremendous job in demonstrating their skills

and talents. I also want to congratulate those who were named recipient of

awards at the banquets.

Mr. Speaker, it was also the twenty-fifth anniversary of 289 Corvette Corp in

Lamaline, and I want to congratulate all who have been a part of this group over

the last twenty-five years. More than 500 cadets have gone through this corp

during that time, and certainly this is a tremendous measure of success for a

sea cadet corp from a small community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the cadets worked hard to prepare for this event and I would ask

all members in the House to join me in offering congratulations and to both the

corps in Grand Bank and Lamaline.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize an

outstanding individual in my district. Michael Austin, son of Norman and Evelyn

Austin of Lewisporte, was born twenty-nine years ago with a chromosomal

abnormality which adversely affects his speech and his fine motor skills.

Michael has lived with many physical challenges. As a matter of fact, Michael

has been in the operating room over fifty times in his life for both major and

minor surgeries. He has had major stomach surgery twice, open-heart surgery

which had to be performed at a hospital in Ottawa, and possibly facing more

open-heart surgery in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as we whine about our sniffles, our aches and our pains, or

about the weather, it would be good for us, I think, to take some perspective

from Mike's experience.

You see, Mr. Speaker, despite his challenges, Mike has been a Special

Olympian for many years now. In 2003 he won three gold medals in snow-shoeing at

the Happy Valley Special Olympics. As a matter of fact, from 2003-2008, Mike has

won one bronze medal, six silver, and twelve gold medals.

He always smiles. He is always excited to see you coming, and he has a spirit

that I would say is gentle like the lamb but, at the same time, strong like the

ox.

Michael is an inspiration to me personally, he is an inspiration to his

family, and his determined character is an example to everybody.

I am sure he is watching today, and I want to say: Thank you, Mike, for

setting a standard that the world should strive to meet. You are indeed a

remarkable person.

Members of this House, please join with me in recognizing a great person,

Michael Austin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate the nominees

and the winner of the 2007 Citizen of the Year Award for the City of Mount

Pearl.

Volunteers give so much of their time, without need or want for compensation

of any kind. The selfless acts of these individuals were especially evident at

the 2007 Citizen of the Year Ceremony which was recently held in the City of

Mount Pearl. The work of volunteers is oftentimes not recognized and it is vital

that ceremonies such as this continue, to bring the efforts of these individuals

to the forefront, highlighting the great work that they do.

I would like to recognize in particular Paul Boland, nominated by the Mount

Pearl Men's Slo-Pitch Softball League; Shirley Boone, nominated by the

Children's Wish Foundation; Michelle Case, nominated by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Kidney Foundation; George O'Brien, nominated by the Mount Pearl

Seniors' Independence Group; Ros Pratt, nominated by the Mount Pearl Citizens'

Crime Prevention Committee; and the winner of the 2007 Citizen of the Year

Award, Agnes Murphy, nominated by the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival Board of

Management.

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

nominees as well as the winner, Agnes Murphy, of the 2007 Citizen of the Year

Award for Mount Pearl. Volunteers are truly the heart of our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the late Judge

Michael J. Monaghan, who passed away on April 27 following a valiant battle with

cancer.

For nearly two years since his appointment in June 2006, he served as the

Provincial Court Judge in Stephenville, capping a wonderful career in law and

community service in this Province reaching back four decades. He was a lawyer's

lawyer and a judge's judge, in that he brought to his practice and the bench a

human, practical, realistic, intelligent yet compassionate side that few are

fortunate enough to possess.

Following his graduation from Dalhousie Law School, he spent most of his

career practising criminal law, family law and civil litigation in Corner Brook

where he partnered with both our current Minister of Finance and the current

Chief Justice of the Province's Supreme Court of Appeal, former Premier Clyde

Wells. Named Queen's Counsel in 1983, he also was a Member of the Law Society

of Newfoundland, the Canadian Bar Association, the Rotary Club of Corner Brook

and the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade. He held directorships at Air

Canada, the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, Gateway Cable Limited and

the Nursing Advisory Board of the Western Memorial Hospital Corporation. He was

a former president of the Victorian Order of Nurses and, more recently, he

served our Province on the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation Board of

Directors and the Ireland Business Partnerships Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Monaghan demonstrated a strong commitment to his region

and his Province by standing as a candidate in both federal and provincial

elections, and all of us in this House recognize the commitment and sacrifices

required to stand as a candidate.

He was a truly exceptional family man, lawyer and a judge, a dedicated

business leader, a tireless volunteer and, to me personally, a valued friend.

Mike and his treasured wife of thirty-eight years, Uschi, raised a wonderful

family and brought their intense passion for this Province to friends all over

the world. Both professionally and personally, Mike made a profoundly positive

difference in the lives of innumerable people and served our Province with pride

and distinction.

Mr. Speaker, his unique laugh and his back slapping humour lit up every room

that he entered. It was always a pleasure to be in Mike's presence. I

personally will miss him, as will countless others in Corner Brook,

Stephenville, throughout the west coast, across our Province and indeed around

the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in expressing our deepest

sympathies to the Monaghan family and our sincere appreciation for all they have

contributed for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for an advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am pleased to join with the Premier in paying tribute to Michael

Monaghan. I never had the pleasure of appearing before him in court as a judge

but my two sons who have, certainly said he was a super judge.

I had the benefit of working with Mike Monaghan. In fact, although I was

articled to Clyde Wells, I spent most of my time with Mike Monaghan back in the

1979,1980,1981 era, and he was, to put it quite simply, great in a courtroom,

handling witnesses and defending his clients. He was fantastic to appear with

and to many, although Mike Monaghan might have appeared gruff on occasion, he

had a huge heart and a huge capacity for fun. He was competitive but he was very

compassionate. He was outspoken but he was extremely bright. He had a great

sense of humour himself and he loved a good story and a good joke. He will be

sadly missed. Again, I pay tribute with the Premier, all the best to him and to

his family. He will be sadly missed by everybody in the legal fraternity and on

the West Coast of Newfoundland.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the Premier for the advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am pleased to stand with you and to send condolences to Judge

Monaghan's family. I did not know him and I do not have a background in law,

so I do not have a lot of knowledge personally but I do know that as a man and

as a person involved in law, he had a stellar reputation. So, I am very pleased

to be able to offer my condolences to his family and his friends and to the

Premier as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge the great work being done by the

Water Resources Management Division in my department, in terms of flood

forecasting for Badger. The "Ice Progression Model" is a unique

computer model, developed by the division, to simulate ice conditions on the

Exploits River. It is crucial for providing advance flood warning to the

residents of Badger and to our Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and

Labrador agency.

Since February 2006, this simulation model has been used, along with

satellite RADAR imagery, for flood forecasting. Unlike visual images, RADAR

images can penetrate cloud cover and do not require daylight. The technology can

differentiate between various ice surfaces and open water. This allows for

accurate location on the ice front and represents a major improvement in the

flood forecasting capability as the satellite imagery improves prediction of the

timing of any impending floods. The initiative combines ground-and-space-based

observations to develop an integrated environmental monitoring capability.

Mr. Speaker, we are working cooperatively with other organizations on this

important monitoring service. The RADAR imagery service is provided by C-CORE

and funded through the European Space Agency's Global Monitoring for

Environment and Security program. The satellite images are provided by the

Canadian Space Agency, and I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Budget 2008 has

allocated funding to assist with the continuation of this service. The data

which we will acquire through this flood monitoring model adds valuable

information to our existing environmental disaster prevention services.

Mr. Speaker, this model demonstrates our government's commitment to use the

best available technology to adequately monitor and alert, if necessary, the

people of Badger of any potential flooding situations. It combines satellite

radar images, weather forecasts and field observations, along with the expertise

of staff in my department.

I commend the employees of the Water Resources Division for their significant

work in the development of this model. Their expertise is grabbing the attention

of nations throughout the world, and they are consistently asked to share their

work with the international scientific community. They have presented papers in

Frascati, Italy; Cambridge, England; and Yellowknife.

This is a wonderful example, Mr. Speaker, of the great work that is being

done right here in Newfoundland and Labrador by our government in terms of

service delivery to the people of the Province and the global community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

that we are very pleased to see something like this take place. Each and every

one of us in the Province saw what happened in Badger and on the Exploits River

through the various medias. None of us ever want to live through that

experience. I have to say that it is wonderful to know that there is technology

coming in place. When people work together, hopefully, this will never happen

again, and that people will be warned.

I am sure the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, as well as myself, we

know what we went through last year, and that was very little as compared to

what those people went through in Badger back a few years ago.

We want to commend all those involved, especially C-CORE. I know they worked

jointly with Memorial University here in St. John's for years - and to the

Canadian Space Agency. Hopefully, with the climate change and various things

happening in our Province that we have not seen before, it is through technology

like this that people will be better prepared.

Mr. Speaker, we just want to say that it is understandable why nations around

the world are looking for this technology in what we are doing here and we want

to congratulate all those involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and offer

congratulations to her and to the staff at the Water Resources Division for this

work.

In this day and age, with the technology that we have, this is a clear

example of how we can become a leader in the world in so many different ways.

The Badger flood, as my colleague has said, was very devastating to families

in the community, and we know from Hurricane Gabrielle that adverse weather

events are becoming more common, and we understand that some of these have to do

with climate change, so I really encourage the minister and her ministry to

continue working in innovative ways to see how we can prepare ourselves for

adverse events even before they happen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Premier and the Minister of Health were both

carried live on television stations in the Province, saying that government was

going to put in place a plan to solve the Province's critical shortage of

pathologists, and that it would be done in the next seven to ten days.

I would like to ask today: What plans have been put in place, and have those

remedies now been presented to the pathologists in the Province for

consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we can advise that the initial meeting

took place a week ago Thursday. Since then, there have been meetings between the

Department of Health officials and medical officials.

In fact, there was an unfortunate accident over the weekend, of which hon.

members may not be aware, where the Deputy Minister of Health was in a serious

car accident, so that has kind of put us back for a day or so, but hopefully by

this week we will certainly have the matter resolved and have recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly will await an update on that.

Also, last Thursday we made the public aware in the House of Assembly that a

leading physician in diabetes care for the Province was actually leaving and had

tabled her resignation. A number of patients have contacted us over the weekend,

who are very concerned about this. I understand, Minister, her resignation has

nothing to do with pay or benefits, but rather the working environment within

Eastern Health.

I ask today if you, as the minister, will intervene and see if there is a way

that we can retain this leading expert in diabetes in the Province before she

decides to make her resignation effective the middle of June.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite indicated she made us aware last week, but we were fully

aware of the resignation of Dr. Colbourne. As to the reason for her resignation,

I cannot comment on that because I really do not know.

I can tell you, though, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is this Wednesday or

Thursday - I am not sure which day it is, but one afternoon this week - she has

an appointment with me, and she and I will have a chat. At that time, no doubt,

we will talk about a range of issues including her experience with our health

system in the Province, her plans for the future, and any suggestions or

recommendations that she may want to make to help us improve our health system,

and I am looking forward to that discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any efforts to retain this physician in the Province will certainly be to the

benefit of those patients she serves.

It is our understanding that there has been no replacement found for her,

upon her vacancy, and that her patients will be fielded out to other doctors in

the Province who do not necessarily specialize in this disease or treatment.

I ask the minister: Do you know if any plans have been made to take up the

caseload that will be left behind if she is to make her resignation effective?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is the normal practice, any time a physician leaves their practice,

whether it is in St. John's or anywhere else in the Province, the normal

procedure is that, that physician has a responsibility to ensure that someone

else is responsible for the care of their patients.

As I understand, in this particular case here, arrangements have been made

for the patients of this individual who is leaving to be followed up by other

physicians throughout the Province. Because, as I understand, this physician had

patients from around Newfoundland and Labrador, so many of those now will be

followed by physicians potentially back in the area in which they live, but in

some way or other there have been arrangements made, as I understand it, for

another physician to be following the patients seen by this particular doctor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, during the Budget consultations, government,

through the Minister of Finance, decided to manage expectations around the

Budget, especially as it relates to capital costs that are exploding, and

basically saying, I think, in two of the consultation sessions that some

projects may not get done. I think the biggest capital project that would be

proposed by the government to date would be the Lower Churchill Project.

My question today is for the Premier. Premier, can you provide the House with

the latest cost estimates for the different components of the Lower Churchill

Project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have those estimates with me today, but I am certainly happy to

produce them and table them in the House.

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

I would like to have that, Minister, in as short a time as possible as you

can. We have been waiting for ten weeks, I think, now, for some information, so

we would not want it to drag on that long.

Mr. Speaker, also, earlier on - in December, actually, 2002 - when the

Premier was speaking during a rally on the Lower Churchill Project, he was

quoted as saying that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there

is some redress on the Upper Churchill.

I guess my question would be: Has any action been taken by government to

condition that Upper Churchill agreement so that we can see approvals for

development moving ahead on the Lower Churchill deal if the rest of the

components fall in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to date, as the hon. member opposite is

aware, there has not been any redress granted to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the Upper Churchill,

and that is an ongoing problem. Of course, as you know, the renewal comes up in

2016, and then there is an automatic renewal out to 2041; and, of course, our

Energy Plan speaks from that date.

I have also indicated, too, that if the Lower Churchill is not going - if the

power is not going to go through Quebec, then there will not really be an

opportunity in that particular project to interface with Quebec. If we happen to

go east and we go south then we will not be dealing with the Province of Quebec

or Hydro-Quebec at all.

The only opportunity where there would be an opportunity to discuss redress

in that package is if we go into Quebec and then on out through to Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I know that in the past the Premier was quoted as

saying that the Province of Quebec and its agencies have been doing what they

can to try and block development as it relates to the Lower Churchill facility.

I guess my question would be, then: Is there any future consideration being

given, or at this time is there still consideration being given, to a possible

deal with Quebec for the transport of power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have said from time to time we are

keeping all of our options open; and, of course, that is the wise thing to do

because it enables us then to leverage the best possible deal, whether it is

east and south or whether it is west and south. So, from that perspective, there

is always a possibility that a deal could be done with Quebec; but, of course,

they would obviously have to pay fair market value.

The problem with Quebec is they have always tried to basically cut us off at

the border. So, once we get to the border of Labrador and Quebec, they want us

then basically to hand our power over to them.

In the last agreement which was being done with the Grimes government, they

were going to build it, they going to contract it, they were going to own it,

they were going to manage it, they were going to market it, they were going to

finance it, and they were basically going to take control of the whole project.

We have reversed that; we have said Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership

with the Innu, should do this project, and that is really where we still stand

on that, but, by the same token, when we have made applications - and we have a

very sophisticated team looking at this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

which we can be very confident in, and very proud of. Basically, what we

have said to them is make the necessary applications to go south and make the

necessary applications to go west and south, and that is exactly what we are

doing, and we are keeping all options open at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few years ago, there was a study paid for by the Province to look at the

wielding rights of power in Quebec. I am just wondering if that study has been

completed, and if it will be released to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have not seen that study, Mr. Speaker, but what we

have done is I mean, as far as we are concerned, we do have wielding rights

through Quebec. The issue is capacity to transport the power, transmission

availability. So what we have done is we have filed an application through the

OATT process, which is I think this is right the open access process. Is

that the proper terminology, Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Open Access and Transmission - which is the first time

the Province has ever done it, so we have actually positioned ourselves and got

ourselves in the queue, in position to get access to power. This has kind of

thrown Quebec for a loop, because it has never happened before, and now they are

finding that for a certain segment of power we are ahead of them.

We are now going through the regulatory process, which - I cannot go into all

the detail on it, but there are appeals being done through that regulatory

process to make sure that any roadblocks that are being put up by Quebec can be

opened.

Now, whether we can get through those or not I do not know, but it is

unfortunate that Quebec and Hydro-Quebec are really trying to do this to us on

the Lower Churchill when, in fact, they basically stole the Upper Churchill on

us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier spoke of a partnership with the Innu. We know that over the last

two years the provincial government and the Innu Nation have been trying to work

out a deal on the Lower Churchill Project itself, but they are also seeking

reparations on the Upper Churchill portion, as I understand from the Innu right

now.

I guess my question to the Premier is: Have there been any negotiations

around that, and will there be some redress for the Innu on the Upper Churchill,

if the Lower Churchill Project is moved forward?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations and, as I

understand it, detailed negotiations, with respect to the claims agreement, of

course, and the land claims agreement is the one that we are trying to basically

get resolved first. Now there is a situation where it might have been possible,

actually, to discuss all of the issues together and see if we can reach a final

agreement with the Innu.

On the public airwaves last week, Peter Penashue indicated that there would

be no deal without redress; and, of course, this government does not take

ultimatums very lightly. Redress is something we would certainly look at, but

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not obtained redress on the Upper

Churchill yet so we would be hard pressed to be able to provide generous redress

to the Innu on the Upper Churchill under those circumstances, but we do not want

to negotiate that aspect of it in public. Nor do I really want to negotiate it

here in public, either, but your questions are fair and, if you have any more,

we will try and answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I guess, Mr. Speaker, a lot of that is coming from the fact

that there has been compensation for the Innu in Manitoba on the Grand Rapids

Generating Station, which is a project as well going back forty years. I guess

the negotiations that you currently have ongoing with the Innu today are based

directly around the Lower Churchill project.

Do I understand that there has been no discussion yet on any redress

to do with the Upper Churchill as it relates to the Innu?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can probably say with 99 per cent certainty that the

question of Upper Churchill redress has been raised at the table. Either myself

or the ministers have not been at that particular table because the negotiation

has not got to that stage yet, but I do understand that it has been raised and

it is part of a shopping list of matters that will have to be dealt with in

settlement of the full claim. I can tell you, though, that I think the major

priority right now would be the quantum and location of land in the land claims.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have also heard media reports of MOUs signed with the State of Rhode

Island and the regional power companies of Nova Scotia on issues such as the

Lower Churchill power consumption and the distribution.

I guess my question would be: What agreements have been made for customers of

Lower Churchill power? Can you table in the House any market analysis associated

with economic plans, such as what you are forecasting to be major customers over

the next twenty-five to thirty years, and if you have actually targeted these

markets to date?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question relates to an earlier question asked, and the response given to

the Premier. We are keeping all of our options open. Yes, we do have an MOU with

Rhode Island. We have an MOU with Emera in Nova Scotia. People all over North

America are interested in our power. We made four different applications under

oath, which we were able to do because of Quebec's commercial arrangements in

the U.S. We can now apply for transmission through the Province of Quebec

because of those arrangements. This project will cost anywhere from $6 billion

to $9 billion. Power purchase agreements are going to be required to help

finance this project, and yes, when Newfoundland and Labrador goes out of this

Province, we are courted by people who are interested in energy and purchasing

energy, green energy from us, from all over North America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just ask the minister for a simple

answer. Would you be prepared to table the market analysis and the associated

economic plans with regard to the market studies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. These are commercially sensitive negotiations

that we are in. We are about trying to get the very best price that we can for

our resource, which is green energy that we have in abundance in this Province.

Wherever we can get the best deal, Mr. Speaker, is the market that we are going

to go to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe then I can ask the minister if she would be prepared to table the MOUs

that you have with Enron and also with Rhode Island state?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will table any information in this House that does not compromise our

position in what it is that we are trying to achieve in getting maximum benefit

from our resource. We are open and accountable and transparent. We make as much

information available as we possible can in every circumstance, and we will not

deviate from that in this one either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the Estimate Committee on Natural Resources the

minister did indicate to me that there was reports or information which

concluded that the Maritime route is both technically and economically feasible

as an option for the Lower Churchill power developments.

I ask the minister, if she would be prepared to table those reports in the

House of Assembly or at least make them available for the public to review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as the last answer I

gave. Where I can provide information that does not, in any way, compromise what

we are trying to achieve in the development of the Lower Churchill, I am more

than happy to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier mentioned on several occasions that the federal government is

ready to assist this project through the supply of a loan guarantee. Going back

a couple of years, there was some tremendous debate over whether that commitment

was actually made by the Prime Minister or if it was not.

I guess my question today would be: Is there any further evidence that

indicates that the federal government is prepared to invest or at least provide

the loan guarantees that may be required if this project was to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Are you kidding?

The federal government has not fulfilled the promise for the $10 billion that

they promised us, in writing. They have not fulfilled their promise on custodial

management. This would be of particular interest to you, in Labrador they have

not fulfilled their promise in 5 Wing Goose Bay which they promised very

clearly, and they have made us a promise on the guarantee. So you be the judge

of that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find a lot of governments short on promises these days, I say to the

Premier. I guess my next question and my final question on this is: Is a loan

guarantee from this federal government still a vital part of this project? I

guess if it is, I have to ask: Why is there not any discussions ongoing around

it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I did not say there have not been any discussions.

There have been discussions. There have been representations by the department.

There have been representations by Hydro. There have been discussions with

Minister Lunn, Minister Baird, if I remember correctly. Certainly, the matter

had been raised on previous occasions with the Prime Minister. So everything

that can be done is actually being done, but I can tell you categorically, and I

have stated it here time and time again, that this Province is going to move

forward with or without the federal government. The guarantee would certainly

help. It would be a wonderful help. It would make our cost of money easier but

this government, this time, like they did to us the last time, they shafted us

on the Upper Churchill but they are not going to shaft us on the Lower

Churchill, I can guarantee you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, students from this Province who are continuing their education

in the United States have found themselves in a difficult situation after they

were informed in mid April that their U.S. student loans were being cancelled. I

am of the impression that I think they wrote the Premier and other ministers in

government, and to date I have been told that they have not received any

response from the Province.

I ask the Minister of Education: Is she aware of this crisis being faced by

those students from this Province and, if so, has anything been done to help to

address their situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly if there is issues with the student loan

program brought to this government's attention it will be dealt with by the

Department of Education. I do not have that information on me today but I will

certainly take it under advisement and look into that matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is. The

situation those students find themselves in from this Province is that they are

studying programs that cannot be obtained here in this Province and on a very

short notice they were advised that their student loans that they receive down

there had been discontinued. Many of them find themselves in a very difficult

position now financially, some of them owing as much as $30,000 to $90,000 and

still have so many semesters left. With this funding discontinued from the

American side of it, they find themselves in a difficult situation. I know they

have been in touch with their federal representative, Mr. Manning, and they are

looking at the federal side of it. I will just ask the minister now - I know she

is going to check this out - once she gets the information, I am wondering if

she will work in conjunction with the federal government and hopefully something

can be done to alleviate their situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I look into this matter - certainly a portion

of the Canada Student Loan comes from the federal government, another portion

comes from the provincial government - so many times the policies and the rules

or the guidelines around student loans are certainly something we share with the

federal government. So as we work through this issue, we will certainly keep

that in mind and work with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of an access to information request concerning Mr. John

Fitzgerald, our man in Ottawa, I had some questions for the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs. It might be one, depending on what his answer is.

Minister, I am wondering if you would be prepared - I understand there is an

employment contract between Mr. Fitzgerald and the Province. I wonder if you

would be prepared to table his contract of employment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I guess any contract that is under the Public Service

Commission is available, so I will check and certainly get back to you on that.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the election campaign the Premier committed to bringing forth

whistleblower legislation to protect public servants who might want to bring

information forward in the best interest of the general public. In fact, there

was a story carried in The Telegram , I believe it was October 7 in that

regard, and the Premier undertook at that time to have it introduced in the

first sitting of the Legislature.

Given that we will probably be winding down the House here soon, I am just

wondering if we can look forward to seeing that legislation, the whistleblower

legislation during this first sitting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member opposite that we are, and have been working on the

whistleblower legislation. We have looked at the legislation that is in place

across this country, and we have had extensive discussions as to the nature and

content of this legislation. However, what we are looking at now, there does

need to be some consultation with certain groups to determine the matters of

significance that would come under the whistleblower legislation.

My understanding, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, but my understand was

that we would bring in the whistleblower legislation during this session of the

House, and I think that also includes the fall session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week I asked the Premier about the Conflict of Interest Advisory

Committee and asked if he could confirm that such a committee existed and who

the members of that committee might be. I am wondering if the Premier has had an

opportunity to gather that information to date.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee

does, in fact, exist under the Conflict of Interest Act. I do not have the names

of the members with me, but I will certainly provide same in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my questioning last week, I asked the Premier if he would refer the Andy

Wells fundraising dinner situation to that advisory committee for a decision.

Albeit, the dinner may have been cancelled, the potential conflict has not.

I ask the Premier: Are you still prepared, or have you committed and referred

that matter to the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee to ensure that all of

the rules and regulations outlined in that piece of legislation were, in fact,

followed by Mr. Wells?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no dinner, therefore there is no list. Given that there

isn't a list, there is nothing for the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee

to consider, to determine whether or not there was a conflict of interest.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is ensure that we will notify all non-elected

officials of their responsibilities and obligations under the Conflict of

Interest Act. They are required by this act to self report. We will ensure that

they know all the conditions under which they ought to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to ask the minister, regardless of the existence of a list or who was

on the list, we had an issue here where the head of the Public Utilities Board,

or someone else on his behalf, was going to engage in an activity that

potentially could be a conflict of interest under the legislation. Again, for

someone to come back after the fact and say: Well, I am not going to do that

now. That does not clear or get rid of the potential conflict of interest.

I ask the minister: Are you saying now that you will not be referring the

Andy Wells situation to the conflict committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If any conflict of interest existed, it could only be determined by the list

of people who would attend the dinner and contribute to the dinner, because if

those people had anything to do with him in his role as the PUB, seeing who they

are and what they did is the only way that that could be determined. There is no

list, Mr. Speaker, so there is nothing to refer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2008 did not provide new funding for emergency medical

services in the Province; nor did the government announce incentives for the

retention of rural paramedics. We are training and then losing rural paramedics

to Alberta and other provinces because they are not being paid a salary and do

not have working conditions commensurate with others in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services why this

government is not providing incentives to encourage rural paramedics to remain

in the Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, paramedics in Newfoundland and Labrador are employed one of two

ways. They are employed by some of the health corporations throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador; there are many institutional or hospital-based

services. In addition to that, there are many community volunteer organizations

which provide ambulance service in respect to regions, and there is another

group of private operators out there, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the issues around compensation for those who are employed with one of

our regional health authorities, they would be a part of one of the unions,

either NAPE or CUPE, and the President of Treasury Board is in the process of

negotiating collective agreements with those groups as we speak.

The other bodies enter into a contractual arrangement with government, and

that contract just recently expired. In a very short period of time government

will be negotiating with both the community operators and the private operators

for a new contractual arrangement to take us into the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Within that contractual arrangement we will lay out the kind of financial

reimbursement we will provide to those operators, and those operators will, in

turn, use that money - and some others, possibly - to hire paramedics for their

services, and the compensation that they provide them will be (inaudible).

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

Vidi.

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

I ask the minister: Does the minister recognize government's responsibility

with regard to the retention, and is government really committed to making sure

that it is putting things on the table to deal with the retention issues, not

just sitting back passively but putting concrete things on the table in the

negotiations that he is talking about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite does not need to stand in this House and

ask a question about whether or not this government is serious. You just look at

the track record of this government since 2003, since we formed government.

Every single thing that we have done since 2003 as a government reflects our

government's commitment to improving the quality of life for the people who

live in this Province; it reflects our commitment to improving services,

enhancing services.

I stood in this House last week and commented about the significant financial

investment that our government has made. Since we formed government, it is over

$500 million - over half a billion dollars - of new investment in Health and

Community Services in this Province. So anyone who stands in this House and asks

the question about whether or not we are serious about improving the lives of

people in this Province, serious about investing in health care, need not go any

further than that very significant point: half a billion dollars of new money

gone into health since 2003, since we formed government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

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

Obviously, the minister does not have anything specific to put on the table

with regard to emergency medical services, because that was my question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 2008, the Minister of Education

announced $584,000 for a human simulator for training emergency response teams

at the Bay St. George campus of the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Was her statement a re-announcement of money

that was originally made on August 18, 2006, by the Minister of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development?

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 the paper mill closed down in Stephenville we made a

commitment to the people of Stephenville and surrounding areas that we were

going to do what we could, as a government, to help diversify the economy. One

of the integral parts to that was working with the College of the North Atlantic

to expand services, to offer more programs, so they could bring in people,

paramedics, the Canadian military, people from across Newfoundland and Labrador,

people from across Canada, to participate in training to help diversify the

economy, to mitigate the impact of 300 people losing their jobs in Stephenville,

and that is exactly what we have done over the course of the past three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 35)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of

Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this

House not adjourn on Thursday, May 22, at 5:30; and I give notice further to

Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn on the same date at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present another petition with

respect to the access to high speed internet services in St. Mary's Bay.

This petition today, Mr. Speaker, is on behalf of the towns of Branch and

Point Lance. My comments at the last sitting with respect to the situation

involving the communities of St. Joseph's, O'Donnells and Admiral's Beach

apply to today's petition.

Mr. Speaker, we have evidence in that area that internet services are

approaching with the emergence of cables and so on. This raises the hope and

interest and expectation in all these communities that they want access to high

speech internet services.

Mr. Speaker, in government's evaluation over the next couple of months of

the Request for Proposals to look at extending these services to government

service agencies, I would just encourage the government and the people

evaluating these proposals, that in doing so to keep under consideration the

requests of these people who do not have government service agencies in their

communities.

I present the petition on behalf of these communities, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Child And

Youth Advocate Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House

Leader should have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Child And

Youth Advocate Act, Bill 33, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader

should have leave to introduce Bill 33 and that the said bill be now read a

first time?

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act," carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): A bill,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth

Advocate Act, Bill 33.

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

said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Judicature

Act.

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

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

Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

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

introduce Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 34)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means to

consider certain Estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of Ways and Means and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

We were debating the Estimates of the Office of the Executive Council on the

last day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I will just take a few seconds to set the stage, I guess, of where we are. We

started debating the Estimates for Executive Council on Thursday, at which time

I believe we had two hours and thirty-seven minutes available to us. My

understanding is that there is about an hour-and-four minutes or so left on the

clock to debate and ask questions and debate the estimates under the head

Executive Council.

Now when I introduced those estimates for consideration on Thursday, I made a

few opening remarks, as did the official critic for the Official Opposition and

the leader of the third party. Then we got into a situation where we were by and

large - I was taking questions and we would answer the questions as best we

could and go back and forth across the House that way. I am certainly quite

prepared to carry on and do that today but just for the purposes of

recapitulation, the estimates that we are dealing with under the title of

Executive Council has to do, of course - as I indicated on Thursday - with the

expenditures of the Legislature itself, and that includes expenses to operate

the House and to pay members and operate committees of the House and all of that

kind of thing, and pay for the broadcasting of the House and committees of the

House and whatever the House is involved in. In addition to that, of course, it

includes Officers of the House, the expenses for operating the Auditor General,

for example. The Auditor General operates his office as an independent officer

of the House. His expenses and the expenses of his office are a vote that comes

directly under the Legislature; as do the Child and Youth Advocate, as do the

Citizens' Representative, commonly known as the Ombudsman. These are certain

statutory offices that are independent offices of the House whose budgets appear

collectively in the Legislature vote.

Also, of course, in Executive Council we deal with the operations of

Government House, the residence of the Lieutenant Governor. We deal with the

expenses associated with the Premier's office. We deal with expenses

associated with the Cabinet Secretariat, with communications and consultation.

We deal with financial administration human resources of Executive Council. We

are dealing with a new head dedicated to Research and Development, on which I

answered a number of questions the previous day. Also, one of the larger offices

those days under the head of Executive Council, of course, is the Office of the

Chief Information Officer. That particular agency provides support services to

all government departments and agents, and does contract work; installing,

maintaining and operating information services, technology and so on.

These are the heads of expenditure that we are dealing with. As I indicated,

we got into those, to a debate on sort of a question and answer. As questions

came up, after a couple of speakers from the Opposition parties, then I would

attempt to answer whatever it was that was raised up to that point in time. I am

certainly prepared to carry on with that, Mr. Chairman. I believe that is where

we are and that is where I am certainly prepared to go from here. I do hope that

the clock is going to be fixed though and that it is going to be indicating a

bit - what is that? Is that fifty-nine minutes, is it?

MR. TAYLOR: Fifty-nine, thirty-eight.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay. So that is about right then, all right. I was looking

at it as fifty-nine hours, Mr. Chairman, and I was beginning to -

MR. TAYLOR: It sounds like it when you are talking some days.

MR. RIDEOUT: I know I am dull and boring, Mr. Chairman, and unless I

really get excited, at which point some people out there in the audience tend to

kind of accuse me of being Hitlerite and all kinds of other words that come when

I get in flights of oratory over here. Nevertheless, the time is right and we

have about an hour or so to deal with those estimates, and I will be happy to

answer whatever questions that the Opposition has as we go through the next hour

or so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Before we continue, we have been governing ourselves in this

debate with a ten-minute speaking period. We have not been stringent in sticking

to that, but as a general guide for ten minutes. If that is in order for both

sides, ten minutes for a question to revert back and forth.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first opportunity to actually have some debate on the Estimates

for the Executive Council. As the Government House Leader has just outlined, the

Executive Council takes in a number of facets of government in its budgetary

process, and one of those happens to be within the Premier's Office.

I do know that in Committee on Thursday, while I was not able to be present

for most of the debate around these particular Estimates, I do understand that

there were a number of questions asked by my colleagues in the Opposition. If I

seem somewhat repetitious, I do apologize, and if the answers have already been

given, the Government House Leader can certainly state that claim and I will be

happy to look it up and read what the responses were.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the Premier's Office, I want to look at the

amounts of money being budgeted here; because, as you know, when you look at the

Executive Support for the Premier, last year most of these employees did receive

increases in their salary. In fact, a number of staff in the Premier's Office

received increases that ranged anywhere from 12 per cent up to 18 per cent

increases in one fiscal year in their salary that was being paid to them. The

reason for that - I think the Premier used at the time - was that they have a

lot to tolerate when they are putting up with me and my demands and my

schedules, and also we need to ensure that once we get good people we can keep

good people.

I think that is always an argument that is used, not just in the Premier's

Office but in our health care system, in our schools, in every facet of society

when it comes to recruiting, retaining and paying people; it is always getting

the best people you can for the dollar.

The Public Service is no different. The public servants who work within this

building are no different than those who work within the Premier's Office

oftentimes. So, when you see an 18 per cent increase to an employee in the

Premier's Office, and you happen to be a twenty-year civil servant in this

Province but you are getting the opportunity to vote and take zero, zero and

three as a wage increase over that three-year period, it does not look too good.

It does not look good at all.

Now we are into a new round of negotiations and I know that there has been a

deal with CUPE, and CUPE is out today recommending to their members that they

accept this deal. I know that because I was in parts of the Province over the

weekend where they had just concluded meetings in different regions with

different sectors of the union. I know that the people who went out and held

those meetings on behalf of CUPE were standing in the public rooms and

recommending to their members that they actually accept the offer that was on

the table, which is a very handsome offer, I must say so myself. It is a

reasonable offer, I should say, that has been offered to these people.

That is what is happening now and I can only assume that, despite the fact

that employees and political staff in the Premier's Office received raises

last year going up to 18 per cent in some cases, if these deals are accepted by

the unions across the board, that they would also get these additional increases

as well.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the Estimates for the department this year we do see an

increase in the Salaries for Executive Support. The increase is about $440,000

and that is an increase over what was budgeted last year, so I do not know if

that is for new positions in the Premier's Office under his support staff or

if it is for some other part, Mr. Chairman. It says the Cabinet Secretariat,

Executive Support, so I do not know if that is new positions that are being

created in the Cabinet Secretariat or if it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Under 2.2.01.01. there is an increase of $440,000 and I do not

know if that is for new positions and if new positions are being created or not.

Mr. Chairman, if the answer has already been provided that is fine, and if it

is not I am sure the minister will be happy to enlighten me.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, under the Premier's Office, I am aware as

well that there is an employee or an office maintained in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay; it is called a representative, I think, of the Premier's Office. I am not

sure what the salary allocation is for that position, and if there are

representatives placed in other regions of the Province besides Labrador.

I am just wondering about that, and I am also wondering what the role of that

individual is in that Labrador office because I have not in my time, since 2003

when this government took office, I have not seen this individual represented in

most of the forums that I have been involved in. In fact, I do not know if I

have ever seen him represented in a forum in my district other than I think it

was a consultation session that the Minister of Labrador Affairs held at one

particular time. So, I do not know what the job of that person is, and I would

like to know what the salary outline is for that Labrador office, how much is

being budgeted under the Premier's Office to provide for that.

I also know that the position is based in the Labrador Affairs building in

Goose Bay, so I am assuming that there is not really an office cost or anything

associated with the position. I am assuming that is all incorporated within the

budget of Labrador Affairs. I know that they are housed in the same building, so

I can only assume that there would be no expenses or cost of having the office

there, but I am not sure and maybe you could clarify that for me.

I do not know if the minister prefers that I continue, or if he prefers to

intervene at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay.

Those would be a couple of questions that I would have around the Estimates

right now as it directly relates to the Premier's Office.

If there are representatives like this in other parts of the Province, maybe

the minister could tell me where they are based and also what the cost is, of

having those representatives, and again what their jobs would be, because I am

somewhat unsure of what their jobs actually are.

The next

section that I wanted to look at is with regard to

section 2.6.01.,

which is the Rural Secretariat. Under the Rural Secretariat you will see that,

although there was a million dollars, or $1.4 million, budgeted for this

department last year, there was $1.3 million spent, and I think the year before

there was $1.2 million spent.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this Rural Secretariat, because it

is very unclear as to what we get in rural communities for the $1.4 million that

is being spent each and every year on this Secretariat. If you look at the

Estimates here, you will tell that a lot of the money is actually spent on

transportation and communications, so I guess it is because of meetings or

discussions that they have around the rural economy, but the results that you

have seen for this amount of money, in my opinion, are non-existent. I have seen

very, very, little in fact.

What I do know of it is that there are people who are appointed to the Rural

Secretariat. They travel around, they have meetings and discussions as a group,

but I have yet to see what the real results of those discussions have been;

because, if you look at rural economies in the Province today, they are not

being guided by the Rural Secretariat. They are not being guided by individuals

or expertise in helping them develop new industries in their region. All I have

seen out of this Rural Secretariat is just another group of people that

government can draw into its web to support the initiatives in a public way, or

promote in a public way government's policies and government's plans, but

nothing that I have seen has been anything concrete, and it is important to know

that this Rural Secretariat, consecutively for the last two years, has spent

anywhere from $1.2 million to $1.3 million of taxpayers' money, money that

could have been invested into those communities themselves to create opportunity

and industry, but rather it went into a group of individuals to travel and get

together and have discussions of which we have seen very little or no results at

all. In fact, I have even read some of the publications that they put out, their

annual reports and their report in which they project what they are going to do

for the next year; their planning reports, I guess, which are now required by

the House of Assembly. In fact, I see nothing in it; nothing in it, nothing that

is tangible. It is all words. It is great phrases. It is good intentions. It is

all the slang that you put around rural development when you talk about it, but

it is the slang that produces nothing that is tangible in terms of new

industries, growing economies in rural areas, creating employment for people.

None of those things are a part of the target that this committee has to meet.

What is the function of a Rural Secretariat that does not have any targets

within its mandate of creating jobs, building economies, broadening economies,

promoting small business or any of those kinds of things? I have to question

this, because again this year there is $1.4 million being spent for the Rural

Secretariat. Now, I know that there is nothing wrong with having groups of

people come together from various regions of the Province to have discussions,

but I do not think a Rural Secretariat meeting that is going to meet for four

days out in Strawberry Hill Resort, one of the most expensive resorts in the

Province to stay in, is going to prove any results or provide any guidance to

the people that I represent in being able to do the work of rural communities.

That is where I have a problem.

I have no problem with people getting together and having discussion groups.

I have no problem with tasking people with the responsibility of guiding rural

development in this Province. God knows it needs to be done, but there is a

better way in which the money can be invested to get more results. Anyone who is

in this Province who works in rural development today will know that they are

working on shoestring budgets and that they have the responsibility of entire

rural economies on their back, and I know that. I deal with zonal boards and

development organizations and the tourism organizations all the time. In many

cases they are the only paid staff in a region. They are the only office that

has its door open to the public and therefore everything is falling on their

shoulders, whether it be a forestry issue, a fishery issue, a manufacturing

issue, looking at any kind of small business, everything to do with regulations

and regulatory process, right down to: How do I get a business plan and a

marketing study done?

These are the kinds of things that are landing on the shoulders of rural

development workers all over Newfoundland and Labrador. They are working on

shoestring budgets and organizations that are underfunded, where they have

limited resources at their fingertips to do the job that needs to be done. Yet,

we are spending $1.4 million again this year to bring together the brains of

rural development in this Province, to do what? To do what? To meet what goals

and what targets?

I would suggest that this money is better spent in propping up the resource

teams that are out there doing work in rural communities. It is better spent

providing leadership in communities that have lost economies, whether that be in

the Harbour Breton's of the world, whether it be in the Port au Port

Peninsulas, whether it be on the Coast of Labrador, in districts like my own.

Mr. Chairman, I think the money can be better spent than it is holding meetings

for a caravan of workers or people all over the Province who seem to have some

connection to rural development.

I do not know who all of these board members are. I know some of them. I know

people in my own district who sat on these boards, and I have talked to them. I

know people in other districts that sat on these boards and I have talked to

them. The one question I have asked them all is: What do you do? What is your

purpose? How are you guiding rural development in this Province through the

Rural Secretariat? I have yet to find one of those board members who could

provide me with those explanations. In fact, most of them told me their only

involvement is being invited to a meeting where they look at government policy

and government planning is being invited to a meeting where Cabinet ministers

come in and ask for their input. There is nothing wrong with asking for their

input, but is it going to meet the goals that we need to have met?

Mr. Chairman, I will leave those couple of points to be addressed. I am sure

there are a number of ministers whose departments would guide those particular

initiatives, who would certainly want to respond. I will just await their

responses.

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

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

I am happy to be able to speak again to the Estimates, the discussion which

we began on Thursday. I note that there were a number of things when I spoke the

second time on Thursday. There were a number of things that I did question and

did have some queries about for the House Leader. I think what happened was he

ran out of time at the end of our session. He spoke specifically to a couple of

the issues that have been raised, both by myself and by the Opposition House

Leader, different issues that we both raised.

The House Leader did answer questions with regard to the OCIO, which I

appreciated when he pointed out the flexibility that has to be allowed with

regard to some of their expenses because the money gets determined by requests

that come from departments, and I was quite pleased with that answer. He did

give some detailed information about how the OCIO is funded. I think he also

talked about the office in Ottawa. These were the two last things that the House

Leader spoke about at our session on Thursday afternoon past.

I did have some questions that I would have to like answered, some specifics,

and I think I am going to repeat them because I do want to know what the

expenditures are about. Actually, some of them had to do with the Public Service

Secretariat. One was head 3.1.06., two subheads under that. The first subhead

being Salaries, which is subhead 01., I note that the salaries that were

budgeted in 2007-2008, the amount of money was $1,140,000, the revised

expenditure was $250,000 and this year $1,140,000 is being budgeted for again.

Now I do note, under this head, that the appropriations provide for strategic

human resource development initiatives throughout the provincial government and

its entities with relevant funding transferred to departments. So I suspect

there has to be discussion with departments, but I do have a question about why

so much is allotted for. Do we have a history of spending that much, and why the

budget is allowing for that much again, $1.1 million?

Then, the other subhead in that section, 06., Purchased Services, last year

the budget allowed for $806,000 and only $200,000 was spent, and this year the

budget is allowing for $1,719,500. That is a significantly larger number than

what was spent last year - $1,500,000 more, actually - so I really would like an

explanation of those two subheads under head 3.1.06. I did see that the minister

copied down those numbers as I was saying them, and I think he is looking for

that information, so I look forward to the answers with regard to that section.

I think, as I said, he did answer the questions that I had with regard to the

OCIO so I do not have to repeat those, but those questions with regard to the

Public Service Secretariat, I would like to know what the answer to that is.

I do not have a lot of other line items. The other thing I did ask the

minister about on Thursday, and that he did not give an answer to again, he

ran out of time, I think - I asked with regard to head 2.9.01., and that is the

head dealing with Research and Development. I know that nothing was budgeted

last year with regard to this head, and this is a new area, but we do have

significant money here, $1.5 million, and money is allotted under all of the

usual subheads, so my question was, last Thursday, and I will repeat it again:

Was there a plan put in place? What guided the budget items? What guided the

amount of money that is being allowed? For example, what guided the $520,000 for

salaries? What is the expectation with regard to salaries? What guided the

budget item, which is subhead 05, of $608,700? What guided all of those? Why,

those who put the budget together, did they give those figures when this is a

brand new piece of work? I would like to know what the guidelines were for those

areas.

That is a serious concern, and it is a legitimate concern, because we have a

fair bit of money here that is being spent it is being spent on important

work; I am not saying that it is not important but it is money that needs to

be accounted for, so I think it is quite legitimate to ask how the decisions

were made to come up with the budget items in something that is brand new.

Because I do have a concern, Mr. Chair, with regard to the fact that we do have

a fair bit of money to play with in the Province right now, and yet we still

have some areas where we do not seem to be giving priority, and those areas

concern me, and I have to refer to the concern that I raised today in Question

Period.

The state of our emergency medical services in this Province is quite

serious: the fact that we do not have standardized services; the fact that for

rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular we definitely do not have

standardized services, and people living in the same area, for example, cannot

even be sure that when they call for an ambulance they are going to get an

ambulance that is going to give them what they need, that is going to have

paramedics on it, that is going to be able to give them emergency service right

away; and, depending on where you live, for example, on the Burin Peninsula, you

could end up getting an ambulance that will be able to meet every one of your

needs and help save your life right away, or you could get an ambulance that is

not equipped at all to help you. So, the lack of standardization is a very

serious issue when it comes to the health and safety of the people in our

Province.

The other thing that is really important and first of all to say, before

I go on, that lack of standardization is a real concern for the people who work

inside of the emergency medical services. They have lots of concern about that,

and even those who work with a good operator, and the paramedics, for example,

who have good working situations - some of them - they are concerned about the

fact that the service they offer is not universal in the areas where they work.

So, yes, I am concerned about how we spend our money because in some areas I

do not see us spending it where I think we should be spending it. You know, when

this government sits at the table with the private operators and the unions and

the public which is the public operator of our emergency medical services -

they have to be there looking out for the well-being of the workers as well, and

government does have a responsibility. If government subsidizes the service

and it does subsidize the service then government has a responsibility to

look out for the welfare of the workers as well as the welfare of the public who

are going to use the service, and government does have a responsibility to

answer the question: What are you doing with regard to the retention of workers

inside of the emergency medical services? When I asked that question today in

Question Period I didn't get one answer to the questions that I asked.

I say to this government and to my colleagues from this government, as we sit

here in this room: Don't you think that I, as a member in this House, have the

right to an answer to a question when I ask it, a question that is so important?

I am not asking these questions, you know, just to be frivolous. They are very

serious questions. When I ask, what is our government doing with regard to the

concerns around retention of people inside the emergency medical services, I

think we need an answer. When I ask the minister to give me an idea of what the

government is willing to do with regard to when he sits at the table negotiating

with regard to retention, I expected that he had some concrete things that he

could tell me, not go off and rant and rave about everything else that the

government is doing. I know the government is doing a lot of good things, I know

there are good things in the Budget, but when I ask a specific question, I

expect a specific answer.

It is the same when it comes to asking the questions that I have asked here

both Thursday and again today. I have asked for some specific answers with

regard to a couple of the heads that are here in the Estimates, and I look

forward to hearing the minister give me an answer. I just want explanations,

that is all, explanations with regard to the money that we are spending. If

these are things that we are giving priority to, if this government is giving

priory to them, then I would like to know the rationale and the reasoning behind

government giving priority to the items that I have asked about.

I am ready to hear some of the answers to this, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I noticed that at the end of her comments the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi was talking about matters related to health care employees and

retention and that kind of thing. These are all very important matters. The hon.

member referred to the fact that she raised a question in Question Period today

and according to her she didn't get any answer, but there was an answer. Now,

the hon. member may not have been satisfied with the answer.

I can only say, Mr. Chairman, there was a time in this House before the rules

were revised back a number of years ago, when we had what we used to call the

Late Show. The Late Show was a situation where there was half an hour set aside

on Thursday evening, from five to five-thirty, whenever we adjourned in

those days I think it was six o'clock when members had the right to give

notice of the fact that they were not satisfied with an answer given by a

particular minister and they could debate that: five minutes for the member to

debate it and five minutes for the minister to respond to the debate, and there

was a mechanism whereby members could express their displeasure with an answer.

The bottom line is, and anybody who follows Parliament knows, that members

can ask what questions they wish and ministers will respond as best they can.

Not all the time are people going to be happy with the answers, and not all the

time are ministers happy with the questions, but there is nothing we can do

about it. We have to field them as best we can, and answer them as best we can.

That is not to trivialize the importance of a question, but the bottom line is

that ministers provide the best answer they can and if that is not satisfactory,

well, you will have to keep asking the question again in some other form or in

some other forum.

The Estimates of Executive Council are not a situation where I can respond to

that particular question as raised by my friend opposite, but I will try to

respond to questions that she raised that do fall under the expenditure of

Executive Council. One which she raised in Research and Development - a couple

of matters she raised in Research and Development that I did not have an

opportunity to reply to on Thursday - one was for professional services in the

amount, I believe, of $608,000 and change.

Of course, this is a new expenditure area so this is a new item, and the

whole matter of the $608,700, this particular funding is to support the

establishment and the marketing of the council. We have to establish the

council, which we have, and then we have to go out and market the fact that we

have this particular council, and we have to contract professional services to

be able to do that. There will be, perhaps, ads in the newspaper. There will

probably be -

MR. TAYLOR: Saturday past.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay.

I understand there was an ad, for example, in the weekend paper just past.

There will probably be radio ads. For sure, there will be ads in what we

locally call the R-B papers all around the Province - I think they are

Transcontinental now - but that is the kind of expenditure that will be

undertaken under this head to establish and market the council, the development,

the compliance and the operation of its policies and its activities.

So we have to be able to tell people that this new council now exists, that

we are open for business, and here are the kinds of things that we are looking

to do. Would you like to get in touch with us? Do you have something that you

would like us to consider? Do you have a proposal related to research and

development that you think ought to be considered by this particular group?

It is to market the council; it is for the development, the compliance and

the operation of the policies and activities of the council; it is to provide

research expertise relevant to the development of a provincial R&D Strategy

and the council. All of those activities will be contracted out as necessary and

paid for under this particular head if all of the work gets done in this

particular fiscal year.

In terms of salary support - believe the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi asked a question on that as well - the salary costs are for I think it is

$520,000 and it is for contractual positions and for temporary assistance as

well. It reflects the funding that is going to be required to support the

establishment of the council and the development of a provincial R&D

Strategy, including a Chief Executive Officer, an Administrative Support and

four Senior Specialists. That is what the salary positions will pay, and also

some contractual work if necessary. These people will provide the expertise of

dealing with operations and the related systems. It will deal with setting the

corporate development and strategy development and the marketing intelligence.

Again, those people will provide the day-to-day daily operation and direction of

getting the council set up, getting it up and running, and doing an analysis of

proposals that come forward for consideration and so on. That is what that

$520,000 is for; it is for a Chief Executive Officer or an Administrative

Support person and for four contractual positions.

I believe those were the questions posed by the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Leader of the Opposition posed some questions relative to the Premier's

Office again, and she indicated if I had answered them on the last day, well,

kind of forget about it and just say that I answered them and she would look up

the questions.

Some of them I did answer, but perhaps not in the detail in the way that she

posed them. She made some reference to the operation of the Premier's Office

in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and wondered if there were others. I did indicate on

Thursday, in answering this question, the Premier's Office, outside of

Confederation Building, has two sites of operation; one is in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay and one is in Corner Brook. In each of those locations, of course, there is

a very minimal amount of support staff.

The member asked about the support staff in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is

an employee there, a special assistant who handles matters on behalf of the

Premier. The member wanted to know what that person is paid. I think that person

is paid at position seven, step four in the Public Service Secretariat pay

scales, in the amount of $57,724. So the person who fills the position in the

office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is paid approximately $57,500, an executive

position type salary doing an executive position type work.

The member is questioning the role. Well, of course, the role of the Premier's

Office - there was a time again when the Premier's Office operated in Grand

Falls-Windsor; that office has been closed. I had a very good friend who used to

be the Premier's representative in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I am delighted

that her daughter - Mrs. Jean Shea's daughter - is the Minister of Education

in this government, so she follows in good, strong political footsteps, I can

say to my seatmate, the Deputy Government House Leader and Minister of

Education. I knew her well, still do; her mother is still with us, thank

God, but she was a great employee in the Premier's Office in Grand FallsWindsor,

but some former Premier or other closed out that office and it no longer

operates. There was a Premier's Office, and still is, in Corner Brook, that

operates out of the Sir Richard Squires Building. I believe there used to be a

Premier's Office in Labrador previous to the one being set up now. I believe

that some former Premier or other had an office in Labrador, but I am not 100

per cent certain of that.

In any event, this Premier, our present Premier, decided, and made a

commitment, I believe, during the 2003 election, that he would set up a branch

of his office in the Big Land, and he has. I have indicated who the person is,

and what salary they are paid and so on.

The role - well, the role of the Premier's Office, those satellite offices,

is to make sure that the Premier is fully informed and fully conversant with

issues as they relate to the government globally in that particular region of

the Province.

We all see it everyday in our daily work as members. People would come to me,

when I was a member representing Lewisporte or Baie Verte-White Bay in the old

days, they would come to me as their MHA and they are not satisfied with the

work that I have done on their behalf or with the answer that I have given them.

So they will go to a minister, they will go to the Leader of the Opposition.

They might go to the Leader of the Third Party. Some of them will want to go to

the Premier. If there is somebody in Western Newfoundland or in Labrador who

wishes to converse with the Premier's Office, then the role of that office is

to be available for that purpose. That is one of the things they do.

So, when you talk about the role, the role is whatever the Premier wants it

to be. In general, it is to make sure that there is some availability for people

in various regions of the Province. Here on the Avalon, and out perhaps as far

as Clarenville and Central Newfoundland, it is relatively easy to come east and

come into the provincial capital. On the west coast that is not so easy. In

Labrador, of course, it is not so easy again. So, we try to regionalize various

government offices. We have done it with various departments by setting them up

in regions of the Province. So, in those particular regions the Premier decided,

for good reason and good cause, that it would be appropriate to have a branch or

an operation of the Premier's Office in those areas. They have been there, in

the case of Western Newfoundland, for decades I guess; in the case of Labrador,

Happy Valley-Goose Bay now for the last two or three years.

The hon. member mentioned the office space. Well, as she indicated, the

Premier's Office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is located in space that is rented

by the government through the Department of Transportation and Works, which is

the landlord for the government, and it provides a lot of office space. It

provides office space for Labrador Affairs. It provides office space for

Aboriginal Affairs, and there is office space made available to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Culture and Recreation.

MR. RIDEOUT: Culture, Recreation.

There is office space made available to the Premier's Office in that

building for which the government is paying rent anyway. So there is not an

additional cost in that sense, in that we did not have to go out and rent

additional space. There was space available in a government leased building in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay that if it was not occupied by the Premier's Office,

would perhaps be unoccupied or would be occupied by some other branch or

division of government. So, that I think addresses those matters.

The Opposition Leader raised a matter that kind of stumps me in indicating

that there was a salary increase of $400,000 under subhead 2.1.01 in the Premier's

Office. There isn't any -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabinet Secretariat.

MR. RIDEOUT: Cabinet Secretariat now and the Premier's Office are two

separate things. In the Premier's Office there is no increase. There is a

$1,700 increase in salaries from the Premier's Office year over year. Last

year the budget was $1.372 million and the actual spending was $1.358 million,

and the budget for this year is $1,374,100. It is only a minimal increase,

$1,700, which I guess would take care of, maybe, somebody moving up on a step or

something of that nature.

In the Cabinet Secretariat there are a number of areas where there is

budgeting for salary increases. Could you give me the head again, please, the

one that you said there was a $400,000 increase?

MS JONES: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: Subhead 2.2.01.

Subhead 2.1.01 is the Premier's Office, and you are interested in 2.2.01?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe the hon. member, when she speaks again, will have to -

the activity that is included in this particular head, 2.2.02, under Cabinet

Secretariat for Planning and Coordination, the activity provides funding for

coordinating and implementing of the requirements of the transparency and

accountability legislation, the evaluation and government now, I spoke about

this the last day as well, where we have an ongoing evaluation of government

programs. We did have this renewal exercise that we went through shortly after

we became government, but we believe that we can always be reviewing and

analyzing programs that government are engaged in. There is an amount in here to

always be in the mode of having people analyzing and reviewing government

programs for their effectiveness and for their relevance. We should never be in

the mode that we have programs just for the sake of having programs. Are the

programs, first of all, necessary? Are they delivering to the people of the

Province the program objectives, the objectives for which the programs are set

up?

I remember a day in the life of this Province when we had salary details in

departments and they never had a dollar in order to implement the program with.

The only thing they had was salary money. There was no money in the votes of

those programs to do anything. You had somebody working in a program, getting

paid, but they did not have any money in which to deliver the meat of the

program to the people around the Province. So, part of the $425,000 expenditure

in this particular head is to make sure that programs are evaluated, that they

are effective and they are relevant, and that they are being delivered

effectively throughout the Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hog the situation here but I believe that

that is the essence, really, of the questions that were raised by both speakers.

I will take my seat now and see if that provides the information that was

requested.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity, about fifteen minutes or so remaining, and the

time to debate some of the figures here in Estimates. There are actually three

headings that would get dealt with in that time frame here in the House, and

that is the Executive Council, which we have been dealing with last week and

dealing with here again today, and of course there is the Legislature piece and

the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We have not put much time on the other two, and

it does not look like we are going to get a lot of detailed time now on the

other two, given that we have only got about fourteen minutes left, but the

exchange between the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition,

it is nice to see that, because there are questions - and he has the

information. Albeit, Executive Council comes under the Premier, traditionally

the Premier does not come and answer the questions. Someone does for him, either

the Minister of Finance or the Government House Leader. In this case today, it

is the Government House Leader. It is obvious that some members do not

understand the process probably, this back and forth.

One of the members in the Chamber just commented over here, when the Leader

of the Opposition was going back and forth with the Government House Leader to

try and get some clarification. One of the members over here, the government

member said: You should have asked that in Estimates. Well, for the

clarification and education of that particular member, this is the Estimates.

This is where we do the Estimates on the Executive Council. That member ought to

know that when we are doing that, it is totally within the mandate and the right

of the Leader of the Opposition, or myself, or any member, to ask the Government

House Leader about this information. There are no other Estimates. There is

nowhere else that we go off to, to do Estimates for Executive Council. It is

done here. So rather than those snide remarks, ask it in Estimates, we are in

the Estimates.

I would like to take an opportunity, though, to comment on another heading

here and that is the Legislature. The reason I do that is just for the education

and information, maybe, of those who are watching. Anyone in this Province in

the last two years who has been a party to and listened to the news media and

the reports that have come out, particularly from the Auditor General, there has

been a lot of commentary about MHAs, MHA scandals - those words were used - and

all of that detail as to who pays MHAs, how much they get paid and what they can

use their monies for, that comes under a heading here called the Legislature. In

fact, Chief Justice Green, who did the report, made a comment, in fact, and

said: There is not enough openness. When it comes to the House of Assembly and

how it operates and how MHAs operate there wasn't enough openness and there

wasn't enough transparency. In fact, he drafted a new piece of legislation

which said exactly how the House operations would be run.

For the information of the public again, the House is treated differently

than other government departments. It is almost like a law unto itself, because

there is a distinction between the Legislative Branch of which all forty-eight

members form a part and the House of Assembly. That is a separate branch of

government called the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch which is

the Premier and the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet and all the different

ministries and so on. Then, of course, the third branch is the Judiciary which

we are not concerned with here other than through what it costs for the judicial

system.

I would like to take a few moments to comment on the Legislature piece. Now,

under the Budget here for the Legislature there are a number of things. It is

not only the House of Assembly and it is not only what MHAs get paid or what

they can use their constituency allowances for. Right now, it is virtually

impossible, given the current setup of the House of Assembly, to have any kind

of repeat occurrence of what happened in the past and as alluded to by the

Auditor General. We keep our fingers crossed in that regard because it is

obvious there wasn't enough oversight, it is obvious that it wasn't open

enough, and it was dealt with by a committee called the IEC, the Internal

Economy Commission. That is no longer the case. It is dealt with now by a board

of management.

In fact, anyone who has been watching this cable channel that carries the

activities of the House, you will be aware, of course, that it also carries all

of the board meetings. Everything now that goes on concerning the House of

Assembly and MHAs is dealt with on camera. Now, there are some financial matters

that might get dealt with behind a closed door first, but even those because of

their personal nature or their financial nature, once the decision is made must

be made public. Anyone who has watched here in the last number of months, we

have had a number of meetings. The next one, for example, is tomorrow at five o'clock,

and that will be televised as well.

You need not worry anymore about who the MHAs are, what authorities they

have, what funds they have to help them do their job, what they spend their

funds on. In fact, there is a report that comes out every single month now as to

every single person in this House, online, saying what they spent their money

on. There is no question any more of never finding out what the money was used

for.

Chief Justice Green, in his report, wanted that kind of openness, and that is

why I wanted to take a few minutes today to speak about it. He said one of the

issues before was the legislators, we the MHAs, would never ever talk about it.

That is why I want to talk about it, because it is important to do that, to show

that there has been an absolute change in how the House of Assembly and how MHAs

operate post-Chief Justice Green's report; absolutely, totally different.

First of all, as I say, we have a bunch of rules that never existed before.

Chief Justice Green, not only did he do a report, he actually drafted the piece

of legislation called the Openness And Accountability Act that we adopted in

this House last June before we broke, because we knew there was going to be a

provincial election in the fall and we did not want to go into an election not

knowing what the rules were going to be for the incoming MHAs or the returning

MHAs. This House sat here last year and unanimously, I might add, unanimously

passed the law that Chief Justice Green said the House of Assembly and MHAs

should operate under.

Now, even though that law exists, we all know that, like all laws, over the

course of time it will take some tweaking. Not everything that Chief Justice

Green said - and he himself admits in subsequent conversations, there is some

tinkering that will be required in order to fit certain particular

circumstances, but at least now there if there are going to be any changes done,

there is a process as to how it is done. It will not be done any more behind a

closed door. If any MHA here has a particular concern and needs to bring his

circumstances to the Commission, that Board of Management Commission, and say,

look, I am sorry, this is my fact situation, it does not fit with what Chief

Justice Green said, can I get this changed, all that has got to be done in front

of the cameras. It just cannot be done verbally. That person has got to write a

letter, it goes to the Speaker, the Speaker brings it to the Commission, the

Commission must have a hearing on it, it must be heard in public, and once it is

all decided, it is not even done that day. You must wait a certain period of

time before that is ratified. Chief Justice Green and the new Act said, yes, the

Speaker can deal with certain things, and the Clerk, but other things, if they

require any kind of substantial change, have got to come back here to this House

to be debated and to be decided upon.

It is not only the MHAs that come under the House of Assembly. There are a

whole bunch of groups. For example, the Auditor General himself and his office

come under the auspices or the umbrella of the Legislature, as does the Citizens'

Representative. I believe it is currently occupied by a Mr. Fleming, and his

office and his staff come under the Legislature. The Child and Youth Advocate

come under the Legislature. The Chief Electoral Officer comes under the

Legislature, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner comes under the

Legislature. There is a whole number of offices that fit under the auspices of

the Legislature as well as MHAs, of course, and as well the operations of the

House of Assembly itself. Even the TV, Broadcasting, comes under the House of

Assembly. Hansard, which is the written transcript of every day we come in here

- everything that we say everyday is verbatim, taken down, typed up and becomes

Hansard and it is there in perpetuity. Anybody who wants to refer to it can go

back and refer to it. The cost of all of those things comes under that broad

umbrella of the Legislature.

There is one thing - I put it to the Government House Leader who actually

sits as a member, as does myself as the Opposition House member, as does the

Leader of the Opposition, as does the Leader of the NDP and as does the Member

for Topsail, I do believe, and I believe the Minister of Innovation Trade and

Rural Development, the Member for The Straits &White Bay North, also sits on

the board. I put it to the Government House Leader - I ran into a unique

situation at all of the Estimate Committee meetings I went to. That was that in

the minister's office, under every department, it talks about the minister's

salary which is paid for by the department. It talks about the departmental

secretary who is paid for by the department, an executive assistant paid for by

the department, but it also talks about a secretary to the minister. When I

asked, who is that person, the secretary to the minister - because you notice it

says departmental secretary to the minister and secretary to the minister. I

said: What is the distinction? The answer that I received was, that is his

Constituency Assistant or her Constituency Assistant, which raised the question

- because the Member for Topsail, for example, who sits on the board of

management who was the former Auditor General herself, I asked her about it

because it seemed odd that we would be having the Constituency Assistant for a

minister paid from a departmental budget. Why wouldn't the Constituency

Assistant for the minister come under the funding of the Legislature the same as

everybody else's Constituency Assistant? That was confirmed by every minister

at Estimates, and I have sat in on, I think it is ten so far. That was confirmed

by every minister, that their Constituency Assistant and the Parliamentary

Secretaries as well for the Constituency Assistants - and I believe it was

confirmed as well by the Minister of Finance which is one of the Estimates that

I sat in on - actually get paid for by the departments.

I find that very odd and I am curious as to whether or not there is an

explanation, because if there are forty-eight MHAs and we all are entitled to a

Constituency Assistant, why would the eighteen ministers, we will say, and why

would the five Parliamentary Assistants, for a total of twenty-three, why would

twenty-three Constituency Assistants be paid for under departments

whereas the

rest get paid for out of the House? I would have thought, if we are going to be

truly open and accountable and accountable is the operative word here

why wouldn't all forty-eight Constituency Assistants be paid for by the House,

or by the Legislature? It doesn't make sense.

In fact, I think it is contradictory, because what that person does for a

minister or for a Parliamentary Secretary has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do

with what he or she might be doing in that department.

CHAIR: Order please!

I would just like to remind the member that we are trying to stick with the

ten minutes. We only have a little over three minutes left in case the minister

wants to respond or if the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has a

question.

MR. PARSONS: I will just clue up. The Government House Leader gets the

tenor of my question.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He is giving leave as well, Mr. Chair, if that is okay.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Again, it begs to question here: If we are going to be truly

open and accountable, why would a minister's CA come under his budget in the

department and everybody else's CA come under the Legislature?

As I say, the Member for Topsail, the former Auditor General, happened to be

at one of the Estimate Committee meetings that we did and that came up. She

confirmed that that was not her understanding. It was her understanding and she

thought that it was proper if all forty-eight CAs or Constituency Assistants

would be under the Legislature. She did not understand as well.

I do not know if I missed something on the board of management, but if I did

she certainly missed it as the former Auditor General. In fact, she Chairs the

Audit Committee of the board of management, and I sit on the Audit Committee of

the board of management, but it is an issue that probably someone needs to deal

with. Albeit we are getting more and more open, it is quite clear that that

issue of where Constituency Assistants ought to be placed in terms of payment -

their duties is another issue. The fact that they are going to operate out of a

minister's office and so on, and have an office in the minister's office or

have an office in their parliamentary secretary's office, that is one thing,

but their duties are described as Constituency Assistants. They do constituency

work for the person who got them hired. They do not do ministerial work. That,

by job description, is done by an EA, an Executive Assistant for a minister. A

Constituency Assistant, under the job description, works for the MHA.

For example, the Member for Gander, who is also the Minister of Government

Services, has an Executive Assistant, but that person gets paid for by his

department. That makes perfect sense, because he does the work that the minister

needs to do as a minister. The Constituency Assistant, by job description, who

the Member for Gander would have as a member, I would think does constituency

work for the District of Gander. The question is, it is there and I think it

needs to be answered. Maybe if we are doing something wrong we ought to rectify

it and put it in next year; because, albeit we are approving the Estimates here

and everything is proper, I think that is a legitimate question that we need to

have answered.

Anyway, my time is running out here and, like the Government House Leader

said, we don't want to hog the time, even though we have nine hours left in

concurrence. Albeit the Estimates might be done from this perspective, we

certainly have nine more hours down the road to delve into these issues. I am

sure the Government House Leader will have an answer for that question as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to briefly respond to the last point made by the Opposition House

Leader because I don't believe there was any particular question before that,

that I need to respond to.

The matter of constituency assistants to ministers, and parliamentary

secretaries, and how they are paid, I don't know how far back this goes but I

know it goes back before the life of this particular Administration. At some

point, I do not know if it was under former Premier Wells, I do not know if it

was under former Premier Tobin, but I do know that when I joined the then old

IEC as a member of the Opposition in 1999, and I was there for a brief period in

those days before I had some family matters and I had to get off of the IEC and

I could not attend the meetings on a regular basis, I remember asking the

question why it was that certain constituency assistants, their vote appeared in

the House of Assembly vote, and other constituency assistants, their vote

appeared in the department.

I was told that is the way the government of the day structured the vote. To

keep the House of Assembly vote low, to keep the House of Assembly vote down,

back in those days, they transferred those salary units - because there was a

time, I understand, when all of the salary units appeared in the legislative

budget. For a matter of structuring budgets and departmental budgets, I remember

being advised that money was transferred from the House of Assembly back some

time ago, I am not sure under which Administration, to pay constituency

assistants for ministers out of the department where that minister served.

Personally, to me, that is a bit crazy. The constituency assistant works for

the MHA, works for the member for the particular district, whether that member

is a minister or parliamentary secretary or not.

I will tell you how crazy it was. I remember this one in particular. I

remember asking why Brian Tobin, who was the MHA for what is now The Straits

& White Bay North, had a constituency allowance for travel of, I don't

know, $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000, and the next district to him had $35,000 or

$40,000. The answer was it was because he was a minister, and ministers were, in

those days, expected to do their constituency travel out of their departmental

travel and therefore it was not necessary to have that kind of thing show up

additionally in a vote in the House of Assembly.

I remember we changed it. We changed the House of Assembly budget for the

constituency allowance for The Straits & White Bay North while Brian Tobin

was still Premier, and we did it on the basis that one of those days there was

going to be a member for White Bay & The Straits who was not a minister,

perhaps, and certainly was not the Premier, and that member, at that point, had

to have an entitlement to a regular constituency budget.

So that was the kind of you know, I am not saying there is anything wrong

with this but that was the kind of thinking that went into allocating

various expenditures back in some of those days, and I guess it is still a

carry-over now. My constituency assistant, as I understand it, the salary for

that person, even though he works and lives and goes to his work every day in

the Town of Baie Verte, the salary for that position is in the Department of

Fisheries. Perhaps we should be changing it, but it is a matter certainly for

the House of Assembly Management Committee, and it is something that I would not

have any objection to.

That is the answer, that is the explanation: it is something that has gone on

for quite a long time and perhaps one of those many, many things that have gone

on long enough and ought to be changed; because, as the member who took his seat

just said, the Legislative Branch is distinct and separate and an independent

branch of government.

We have the Executive Branch, we have the Legislative Branch, and we have the

Judicial Branch. These are the branches that we have in our government, in its

totality, and each of these is separate and independent of the other, and not

dependent on the other for their existence or for their operations.

So, if the Legislature is going to be independent, as it is, and a separate

branch of government, as it is, then all of the functions related to the

functioning of the Legislature - members, officers of the House, that kind of

thing - I think it makes a lot of sense to be part of one budget; but, for

eighteen or nineteen people, which includes seventeen or eighteen ministers and

three or four parliamentary secretaries, it is different, and it has been

historically different in this Province for quite some time. Perhaps the time

has come to look at that.

Mr. Chairman, on that basis I will conclude debate on the Executive Council

Estimates and we will move on from there.

CHAIR: The time for debate on the Estimates of the three subheads has now

expired. We will call the clauses.

I remind the hon. members that, with respect to the subheads, or the subhead

of the Executive Council, some of these subheads have been referred out and they

will be excluded in the calling of the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.2.06.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.2.06. of the Executive Council.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 2.2.06. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.4.01. to 2.6.01.

CHAIR: Subheads 2.4.01. to 2.6.01.

Shall these clauses carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.4.01. through 2.6.01. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.9.01. to 4.1.07.

CHAIR: Subheads 2.9.01. to 4.1.07.

Shall these clauses carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.9.01. through 4.1.07. carried.

CLERK: Consolidated Fund Services.

CHAIR: With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.1.03. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 2.1.03. inclusive.

Shall those carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 2.1.03. carried.

On motion, Department of Consolidated Fund Services, total heads, carried.

CLERK: The Legislature.

CHAIR: With respect to the Legislature.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 6.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01. to 6.1.01. inclusive.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 6.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Department of the Legislature, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Departments of the Executive

Council, Consolidated Fund Services and the Legislature carried without

amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It has been moved that we rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded, nay.

Carried.

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

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them

referred, and have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment

the estimates of expenditure of the Legislature and the Consolidated Fund

Services and the Estimates of the Executive Council, excluding subheads 2.3.01

to 2.5.04, subhead 2.7.01 and subhead 2.7.02, and 2.8.01 and ask leave to sit

again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that they have

considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that

they have passed without amendment the estimates of expenditure of the

Legislature, Consolid