May 15, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 28

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER ( Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Speaker would like to welcome six students from the Keyin College,

St. John's, who are accompanied by their instructor, Ms Paulette Samson.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

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

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

Kilbride, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, and the hon. the

Member for the District of St. John's East.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and recognize a

tireless worker for the promotion of multicultural heritage in our Province,

Thaddeus Dreher.

Since coming to Canada in 1956, Mr. Dreher has worked tirelessly to promote

multiculturalism in St. John's. He is a founding member of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Multicultural and Folk Arts Council, now called Newfoundland and

Labrador Multicultural Council, established in 1979, and has served as its

president since 1987.

Under his guidance, the council has organized many educational and

entertaining communal events, fostering diversity, social harmony and

cross-cultural understanding. He has facilitated the settlement of many

immigrant families and has raised funds to assist minority students. Through his

exceptional leadership and commitment, Mr. Dreher has enriched the lives of many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

He and the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Multicultural Council

continue to host cultural events such as the most recent one, African Night on

April 19, which showcased Africans from different parts of the African

Continent.

They have just finished a winter program of multicultural events at The

Rooms. There will be other such activities at The Rooms sponsored by the

Council.

Mr. Dreher was awarded the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award on June

12, 2007.

I ask members of the House to recognize Mr. Dreher's tireless work in the

promotion of different cultures in our wonderful Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre

Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the J.M. Olds

Collegiate Tigers of Twillingate, for their outstanding success in the 2007-2008

School Sport program.

In September, the JMOC Tigers won their second consecutive Provincial 3A Boys

Softball title, played at Bay D'Espoir. In October, the Tigers won the

Provincial 3A Boys Volleyball Championship, played at Random Island. In March,

the Tigers claimed their third championship of the year going undefeated in the

Provincial 3A Boys Hockey tournament, hosted in Twillingate. The Tigers also

battled for their fourth provincial banner of the year, but settled for silver

in the Provincial Boys Ball Hockey tournament played at Burnt Island.

The Junior Female Tigers, however, were successful in winning the fourth

provincial banner for J.M Olds Collegiate, as they claimed the Provincial

Basketball Championship in the Central-Western Division played at Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent announcement by School Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador, J.M. Olds Collegiate was recognized as a Gold Star School, one of only

a few schools in the Province. This gold standard award recognizes the highest

level of participation, sportsmanship, and success in school sport programs at

the regional and provincial level.

In total, the Tigers were successful in winning five regional banners and

four provincial banners in 2007-2008. This success can be attributed to the

efforts of dedicated and skilled athletes, committed coaches, and supportive

teachers and parents.

Mr. Speaker, the school sports play a significant role in enhancing the

quality of school life, and building the spirit and pride of a school and,

indeed a community. I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

recognizing the outstanding success of the J.M. Olds Collegiate Tigers and the

positive impact they have had on their school and their community.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize some

of the good things that are going on at Bishop's College in St. John's, a

school not in my district but a school that is providing high school education

for a lot of young people in my District of Kilbride.

Bishop's College was recognized in a recent Telegram

article by

Peter Walsh, titled "Bracing for the Worst" for the training it is

providing the whole student body in case of a hostage crisis or if an intruder

enters the school with a gun.

Specifically, this program is called Intruder Lockdown Training and has been

ongoing at Bishop's College for the past two years, long before the Eastern

School District decided to adopt this type of training for all of its 120

schools to start next year. Actually, the Eastern School District is using the

Bishop's College Lockdown Protocol as a guide for 2008-2009.

Bishop's College also has a very active Positive Behaviour support system

in place for its students. Students are recognized and rewarded for positive

behaviour in the areas of attendance, discipline and achievement.

Currently, Bishop's College is mentoring Gonzaga High School to get this

program off the ground there too.

Mr. Speaker, we often only hear about the negative things going on in some of

our schools. The many, many, many good things that are happening are rarely

mentioned.

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

Bishop's College, its staff and students, for all the good work it is doing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in

this House to recognize the contribution of Sadie Sheppard and her dedication to

the Peterview Volunteer Fire Department as a volunteer firefighter. Sadie and

her husband, Glen, are both members of the department and they have two boys,

Travis and Jimmy-lee.

Mr. Speaker, Sadie joined the volunteer fire department in November 2001 and

is the only female member. We are all aware of the commitment of these

volunteers being on call twenty-four hours a day. It is certainly a bigger

challenge when husband and wife sign on as volunteer firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, in Sadie's capacity as a firefighter she has been called to

many emergencies such as firefighting to a rescue in the Bay in which there was

a tragedy through drowning. Sadie's passion and dedication as a volunteer

firefighter is certainly recognized by her peers.

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

Sadie

Sheppard as the Peterview Volunteer Firefighter of the Year for 2007.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the people's House today to

recognize a first for our Province.

A familiar organization, which unveiled its new name on Tuesday, has

organized the very first provincial conference on sexual and reproductive

health.

Planned Parenthood the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Health Centre,

has gathered together over 100 stakeholders to attend a two-day conference

entitled "Sexual Health: More Than Just Sex".

Included amongst these stakeholders are educators, health professionals,

social workers, and leaders of various community groups.

Mr. Speaker, sexual health encompasses a broad range of topics. More

importantly, it must be seen as more than just relating to sexual activity.

People must consider Pap tests, cervical cancer, testicular exams, fertility

issues, sexually transmitted infections, education, violence, and much, much

more.

The lineup of speakers and the variety of issues being covered at this

conference is truly amazing. As a teacher, I taught the sexual education course

for many years and I can say, without hesitation, I would have greatly

appreciated a resource such as this one.

Mr. Speaker, the excellent organization and vision for this conference is

shown by its delegate registration. This event was completely sold out and has

exceeded all projections for attendance.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this hon. House to

join me in congratulating Planned Parenthood the Newfoundland and Labrador

Sexual Health Centre, for organizing this conference, the first of its type in

our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to provide an

update on our government's history-making 2008-2009 Provincial Roads

Improvement Program.

In January, this government unveiled our Province's largest roads

improvement program ever, investing $73 million to revitalize roads, bridges and

related infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: This program will create an estimated 1,400 person years of

employment. We officially launched the Provincial Roads Improvement Program on

February 20 by providing almost $2.5 million in the District of The Isles of

Notre Dame, and have since completed our allotments by announcing the funding in

thirty-nine other parts of the Province.

We have currently issued or awarded tenders for close to 60 per cent of the

program, totalling $42 million, and plan to have most projects tendered or

awarded by the end of May, significantly earlier than before. Of course, getting

this early start allows construction work to begin months ahead of previous

programs. This bold approach has been embraced by industry leaders such as the

Newfoundland and Labrador Road Builders/Heavy Civil Association.

Among the projects slated for the $73 million, 2008-2009 Provincial Roads

Improvement Program is $14 million for bridge construction and rehabilitation

and $6 million to repair wheel rutting on the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr. Speaker, it gets even better. When cost-shared work such as the

Trans-Labrador Highway is factored in, the total investment in provincial road

infrastructure in 2008-2009 jumps to $182 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: In regards to the Trans-Labrador Highway, this government will

invest $17 million for construction of Phase III of the highway and cost-share

$45 million with the federal government for widening and hard-surfacing of Phase

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, after going it alone last summer, the provincial

government continued to lobby the federal government to cost-share widening and

hard-surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and our aggressive approach paid

off when the federal government finally came on board this past December.

Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented Provincial Roads Improvement Program is a key

element of this government's six-year infrastructure strategy, worth over $3

billion. We are in the third year of this plan that is expected to generate an

average of 6,500 person years of employment each year; and, as outlined in the

provincial government's original Blueprint, strategic, long-term

infrastructure investment, will foster regional development, employment and a

vibrant economy. Our investment in infrastructure is supporting the business,

trade and tourism industries and continues to lead the way to a better standard

of living for everyone in the Province.

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 advance copy of her statement.

I know she said things are getting better. I say to the minister, it can't

get much better than what she just announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister, I am looking

forward to the millions that is coming to my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The only comment I want to make, I want to join, and we on

this side of the House want to join the Newfoundland and Labrador Road

Builders/Heavy Civil Association in embracing such an announcement. The only

thing, I want to revert to a comment the Premier made some time ago, that we do

not rehash our announcements, but I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I would do the same

thing if I was in the minister's seat. I would stand up day after day and blow

my horn about this as well. Seriously, it is a good announcement. I want to

congratulate the minister on a fine job and I say to her, we are looking forward

to the construction crews to roll into our districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the

advanced copy.

You know, we all can celebrate this because the money belongs to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: No, seriously now, Mr. Minister, you are moaning over there.

You and I know that it is great. No matter which party is in government right

now this is a wonderful thing that we have money, as a Province, to spend, and

that is wonderful.

It feels good to spend money. I have to say that during the Estimates

meetings I said: My God, how much money have we got to play with here? This

feels good. It feels good, but it is the money of the people and it does not

matter who is sitting over there, it would be the money of the people and that

is great.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: I am celebrating. I am celebrating, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS MICHAEL: The one thing that I would say to the minister, during the

Estimates Committee when I was with the Minister of Government Services at that

Estimates meeting, we talked about looking at the need for a public transit

system and it would be really good for your department and his department to do

more thinking together about a public transportation system to broaden what we

have in the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate twenty-six students from Memorial

University's business faculty who, last night, took top place as the most

enterprising campus in Canada at the 2008 National Exposition of ACE, Advancing

Canadian Entrepreneurship. This is the third consecutive year that ACE Memorial

was named national champion.

As national winners, they now get to go up against the best student teams in

the world at the Students in Free Enterprise or SIFE World Cup in Singapore this

October.

The ACE Memorial SIFE team of Heather Comerford, Sarah Fisher, Michael

Harris, Haroon Iqbal, Lisa Smart and Michael Wadden won the final round against

Mount Royal College, Ryerson University, the University of Calgary and Wilfred

Laurier University. Memorial students also earned first place in the financial

education challenge and performed well in the entrepreneurship category.

Mr. Speaker, at the ACE National Exposition universities from across the

country showcase their entrepreneurial ventures and community outreach and

leadership projects.

This year alone, ACE Memorial's more than eighty members dedicated over

26,000 volunteer hours to seventeen different projects that made a difference to

an estimated 2,400 people. These projects include: an initiative to help foster

greater entrepreneurial skills and financial literacy among high school

students; Launch Pad, and incubation center for student entrepreneurial

ventures; and the "Think Green" program which teachers young students

how to run their own profitable recycling venture.

Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to hearing about the outstanding

accomplishments of ACE Memorial's teams as they consistently place at or near

the top of regional, national and international competitions. Last year I was

fortunate to have the opportunity to join the Premier to see ACE Memorial's

2007 SIFE presentation first-hand. As we know, they finished second worldwide. I

will say that again, Mr. Speaker: They finished second worldwide. These truly

are our future business and community leaders in the making.

Mr. Speaker, ACE Memorial encourages young entrepreneurs in this Province to

build bright and rewarding futures for themselves and their communities by

practicing and teaching others the principles and values of entrepreneurship.

I know that all hon. members will join me in acknowledging these enterprising

students for all their hard work and dedication in preparing for these

competitions and in carrying out their valuable community work.

They represented their faculty, their university and their Province,

Newfoundland and Labrador, extremely well at this prestigious national event,

and they will make for a formidable Team Canada at the World SIFE Cup.

Again, I congratulate them and wish them success in Singapore.

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 minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We, in the Official Opposition, would also like to congratulate these

enterprising young entrepreneurs. I understand that actually they have a pottery

program here in the Province, up in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair. It is called the Molder of Dreams in Port Hope Simpson. That, in itself,

has proven to be a fantastic project.

It is great to see that not only do we have young students in this Province

who are the best in the Province, but they are also the best in the country.

With a touch of luck, I am sure, because they have the skill, they will

certainly prove to be the best in the world.

So, hats off to them.

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 minister for his advanced copy.

I, too, congratulate the team from Memorial University. It is wonderful to

see what they are doing there in the School of Business. I was particularly

struck by the Think Green Program which teaches young students how to run their

own profitable recycling venture. It is great to see that not only do they have

entrepreneurial skills but they are putting them into the area of green

business. I encourage the minister to look at other ways in which we can

encourage young people both as entrepreneurs and as entrepreneurs in the green

business and I am thinking back to when we had the Conservation Corp. which

trained young people - as Energy, New Brunswick does - to do retrofits. It was a

wonderful program. It was environmentally good. It would help people retrofit

homes, and at the same time it was training young people both in business and in

green business. So, I encourage the minister to look at that as a possible

program that we could reinstate in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Premier, under

section 14 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which was most

recently amended in 2007, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is supposed to

appoint a Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee. I am wondering if you could

confirm the existence of this committee and the names of the persons who

currently sit on it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will take that under advisement, and advise. I do not

know the answer to that question.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Premier, under

section 14 of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Conflict of

Interest Advisory Committee once struck, it says is required to "advise

deputy ministers and chief operating officers on their duties under this

Act."

I am wondering if you could also determine, when you make your inquires,

whether Mr. Andy Wells was in fact - who is currently the Chair and Chief

Executive Officer of the Public Utilities Board, whether he was in fact ever

advised by the Advisory Committee of his ethical duties under the Conflict of

Interest Act?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question that is being put before the House in this Question Period by

the member opposite is, I assume, as a result of certain activities that are

taking place in the city at this time.

I understand that Kevin Breen and a group of his friends are organizing an

appreciation dinner for Andy Wells in recognition of thirty years of public

service. I have spoken to Mr. Breen with regard to that this morning. As well, I

have also spoken to Andy Wells. I want to assure this House, Mr. Speaker, that

if there is any violation of conflict of interest requirements or any hint of

impropriety, this government will deal with it. Both of those gentlemen have

offered to me and to the Premier a list of participants that will attend this

dinner and we will scrutinize for any conflict whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments of the minister but, again, we would still like the

information from the advisory committee, whether Mr. Wells was in fact advised

of his responsibilities under the act.

Under

section 15 of the Conflict of Interest Act, a public office holder is

obligated to disclose in advance, in writing, full particulars of any activity

that may contravene the act to his or her deputy minister or chief operating

officer.

Was the Premier's office or any other department or deputy minister of

government contacted by Mr. Wells in advance, in writing, regarding his plans

for this, apparently, solicitation of funds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been assured that there

is no conflict of interest; based on the information that has been provided to

me, through the minister, I am assured at this point that there is no conflict

of interest, whatsoever.

This issue did not come to my office. This issue came to our attention

through David Cochrane, a reporter with CBC, who indicated that this was a

possible story and asked for our comment on it. We indicated at that time we had

absolutely no knowledge of any dinner or any fundraiser or anything that was

going on. Since then we have taken it upon us, because it has arisen as a story

for whatever merit, to check into this and we are quite satisfied that there is

absolutely no conflict of interest, whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

With all due respect, Premier, there is a process. The process says there is

an advisory committee, which was supposed to have been struck and had a

membership. The law requires that Mr. Wells, I would submit, was required in

advance to get the opinion of the advisory committee. It is not a case of Mr.

Wells or anyone else saying, we are doing this now after the fact and we are

doing it properly and there is no conflict. That has to be determined by the

committee, and I suggest that it is not proper for a government to accept that

person's word on it.

My question is, Premier, again: Will you ask the members of the advisory

committee, can you verify or Mr. Wells verify that in advance of this

solicitation, that he approached the committee and had clearance to do this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, we will, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker,

section 7.(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act says, "A

public office holder shall not, directly or indirectly, accept a fee, gift or

personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected,

directly or indirectly, with the performance of his or her duties."

Given that the Conflict of Interest Act -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows quite well that he is to refer to documents and not to

read from them. I ask the member to either paraphrase or quote the document as

he knows it.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that the act requires and makes that statement, I would ask the

Premier: Will you undertake, Premier, to have the Conflict of Interest Advisory

Committee investigate this matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my conversations this morning the one thing that Mr. Breen was very

careful to point out, that when he discussed this matter with Mr. Wells the one

caveat that he was strictly given was not to engage anybody in any aspect of

this appreciation dinner that could appear before Mr. Wells in his duties as

Commissioner.

There is no conflict of interest here, Mr. Speaker. Both Mr. Breen and Mr.

Wells have offered to the Premier, and to myself, the list of people who will

attend this dinner to ensure that we can see quite clearly that there is no

conflict of interest and there is no impropriety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I say again to the minister, it is not a case for the minister

or the Premier to decide if what Mr. Wells or Mr. Breen says is okay. There is

an advisory committee established by law which is supposed to determine those

things.

I ask the Premier: Will you ask the advisory committee to investigate the

matter? That is pretty straightforward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, in October actually, this government had no problem

strictly following the conflict of interest guidelines in the case of top

officials at the College of the North Atlantic. The then Minister of Justice,

the Member for Humber East, in fact, initiated through the Department of Justice

an investigation and referred it to the authorities. That was in the case of

where some top officials were allegedly receiving money from the Quatar

government, and in that case, they were dismissed.

I ask the Premier: Will you ask Mr. Wells to step aside from the Public

Utilities Board until the investigation is completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to discuss

the CONA matter because I understand that is now before the courts and that will

be dealt with accordingly.

There is nothing being done wrong here. We have assurance from the people who

organized a dinner to thank someone for thirty years of public service as a

public official - done with good intentions. We have checked into it. We have

asked all the right questions as to what was involved, who was involved, if

there is any possible conflict with Mr. Wells' role as Chairman of the Public

Utilities Board, and we are quite satisfied that in fact that is not the case.

Now that requires, as requested, a check by the Conflict of Interest Committee

no problem but as for asking someone to resign because someone wants to

go out and have a dinner in his honour to pay tribute for thirty years of public

service, not likely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest prevalence rate of diabetes in

Canada, and we understand that the lead physician for adult diabetes care in

this Province has tendered their resignation and is leaving this summer. No

replacement has yet been identified.

I ask: What will be the impact of losing this physician, and the effect on

the delivery of service to adult diabetes patients 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.

Any time we get a resignation of a very capable, competent health

professional in this Province, obviously we are disappointed by that, and

hopefully they would have made a different decision, but I understand she has

made some decisions about her future career and where she would want to pursue

that, and I wish her well.

With respect to her role, obviously she was making a major contribution, as

were a number of other people, I say, Mr. Speaker. That particular physician was

residing here in St. John's, but there are many other physicians in the

Province who are very actively engaged in providing care and treatment to their

respective patients many of whom have diabetes and they will continue to

provide that care.

We have, over the last two years in particular, been working very diligently

as a department, working with our four authorities, in developing a strategy

around chronic disease management. Diabetes happens to be one of those chronic

diseases.

The activities that this doctor was involved with will continue, with the

people who are around that particular team.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A significant piece of foundation work has been done, and the work will

continue with the other people who were a part of that process with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to this physician tendering her notice, we also are aware that

one of the nurses who has the expertise in insulin pump therapy in the Province

and there are two that run two separate clinics in the city that one of

these particular nurses will also retire in June, and that patients have already

been given notification that no new adults will be able to receive insulin pumps

in this Province over the course of the summer months, and it will be reviewed

again in September.

This is a tremendous gap in service for these patients, Minister, and I ask

if there is any plan to deal with this, or if the service will just be eroded

for several months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question is very specific around one of the functions of this particular

nurse, with respect to insulin pumps, and I have not been made aware that adults

will no longer be able to access insulin pumps because of it, but I obviously

will endeavour to undertake and to find out if that is, in fact, the case;

because, obviously, the fact that one person would leave should not result in

our not being able to provide supports for individuals who are getting insulin

pumps to be able to be orientated to the use of that and understand how it will

change the management of their diabetes. That should not happen, I say, Mr.

Speaker, so I will endeavour to get an answer for the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, patients have informed us that they have been told

that this service will be suspended over the course of the next three to four

months, and that it will be reviewed in September.

I ask if you will take it upon yourself to see what is happening here, and if

there is a way that the service can be reinstated over the summer months.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite does not mind repeating

questions, I do not mind repeating the answer.

The answer is yes; I just told her I would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Minister.

My next questions are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with some of the questions related to a

potential criminal matter involving the International Student Exchange Program

through the Department of Education. I have asked some questions in the House in

the last few days on this.

Maybe I should direct this question to the Premier.

The student recruiter who eventually took her concerns to the police actually

made contact with the Premier's office on February 5, 2007, through the

Premier's Principal Assistant. In an e-mail response on February 6 from that

assistant, he said that this alleged fraud and misappropriation of funds would

be brought to the attention of the Premier at the earliest opportunity.

I ask the Premier: When were you advised of this potential criminal

wrongdoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this information came to government and it came to

me, as Minister of Education, through the agent, Ms Lisa O'Neill, in August

2007. Prior to that, the information had been shared with the school board who

sought legal opinion, who dealt with the issue.

We are talking about: When did it go to the police and who reported it to the

police? Well, Mr. Speaker, through the government processes, it landed on my

desk in August 2007 and I reviewed it. I took it very seriously and I made sure

it was turned over to the police.

What is really important to remember here is, when this agent felt there was

criminal activity going on, at any point in time, rather than go to the school

board or the government, this person - and she basically did, at some point, go

to the police - she had the option, at any point in time, feeling if there was

criminal activity that affected her or her business, to take it to the police.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: I just want to conclude by saying, when it came to me through

the government processes and I had a time to meet with Lisa O'Neill, I

certainly took the issue seriously and we made sure it was reported to the

police.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no idea why the Premier would duck this question. It is pretty

straightforward. I have copies of e-mails that were sent to his office, e-mails

that were returned from your office to the individual.

A simple question, Premier: When were you made aware of this situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: In March 2007, as the Minister of Education, I was made aware

of the fact that there was an issue, or a potential issue, with an employee at

Eastern School District. I was also advised at that time that the school board

had sought legal counsel and had been working with legal counsel and working in

compliance with the collective agreement that was in place to deal with that

issue. I also understand that issue was also referred to the Board of Trustees

at that time so they could make a decision on this case.

Mr. Speaker, as government, if we knew that there was an issue with an

employee at the school board, we would expect that the school board, through the

Schools Act and through their responsibility of what they need to do, would take

action on that matter. We understood the school board was doing that.

Mr. Speaker, subsequently, when I met with Ms Lisa O'Neill, I felt that we

should take the matter a bit further.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier: What action was taken by him, or his office,

when they received notice of this misappropriation of funds back in February

2007?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Education, I am certainly

responsible to deal with matters that come to me regarding the educational

system or boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This matter came to my attention in March. I asked what was going on. I was

told it was being dealt with appropriately. It came back to my attention through

another means in August 2007. Again, rather than saying, oh, I have already been

briefed, I know what is going on - I got the documents, I reviewed them, and I

called Ms Lisa O'Neill. I set up a meeting. I met with her, along with

officials, and we continued to follow up.

Mr. Speaker, when we followed up, we referred the matter to the police. We

also have a formal program evaluation going on to that program. I wanted a

financial analysis as to what was going on. I wanted a legal opinion as to

whether or not the board should be provided in this type of business.

Mr. Speaker, we did follow up and there has been a lot on work done in this

area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I have no idea why the Premier is ducking these questions, but

it is quite obvious that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is quite obvious that the minister is unable to answer for

him, because the minister continues to claim that she knew about it in March. I

am talking about notification in February.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said in the House yesterday that the student

recruiter had presented her with a package of information related to this

potential criminal wrongdoing in August 2007.

I ask minister: What was contained in this package? Was it just print

material? Was it video or visual material, and was there any kind of audio clips

as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to address, many times we hear

the Opposition criticize this government and refer to our Premier as a one-man

show; but, Mr. Speaker, this is an example of where the Premier understands that

issues are dealt with in the departments by the ministers and we have the

authority to deal with these matters.

There are many times matters enter government through various doors, through

various departments or the Premier's office, and they are routed to the

particular department that deals with it. This is a particular case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Ms Lisa O'Neill, she provided me

with an envelope of documents. There was no audio tape; there was no video. I

saw the video on the news.

I was asked to produce some letters that we had, to follow up that, and I can

table it once we are finished Question Period, when I find it here - I do have a

letter to table here in the House that will say that, while it is under active

police investigation, the police have requested that there is certain

information that I should not table as public documents that could interfere

with that criminal investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, this is obviously one issue

that his office did not pass on to you, because we know that their office knew

in February; you claim that you did not know until March 2007.

Mr. Speaker, my question again for the minister is that, when she had this

information in her possession - notwithstanding the fact that she was notified

back in March and did not act in her capacity as a minister to report this to

the police, notwithstanding that - when she was provided with information and

evidence in August, why did you, Minister, not turn this over to the police

immediately so that there could be an investigation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Let me explain again.

On August 30, 2007, I received a package of documents. I reviewed those

documents and I phoned Ms Lisa O'Neill and scheduled a meeting for September

6. On August 31, the following day, I asked if there was any further information

within the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I also advised, that day, for the officials to contact the

police.

It is my understanding that the officials consulted with the Department of

Justice and basically asked the question of whether or not it had been dealt

with, and did the board have the legal authority to deal with it or should we do

anything here?

The information, the decision we got back, or the opinion from Justice, was

yes, this was a board matter and they had dealt with it and it was in their

authority.

I was not satisfied that we asked the right question and I said, no, I want

to know, should we turn this over to the police? That was what my gut was

telling me: let's turn this over to the police.

I had a subsequent meeting

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: I had a subsequent meeting with an official from the Department

of Justice, and following that meeting there was a letter gone to the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary that indicated that we had this information and we

felt it should be investigated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: At any time did you receive

advice, legal or otherwise, telling you that you should not go to the police and

report this matter? Very simple.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the minister, I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition,

this is a line of questioning that concerned me yesterday. The hon. member ought

not to ask and seek information on legal advice. That is clearly unparliamentary,

and your question is out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will try and rephrase my question differently,

and if it is out of order I do apologize.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the minister, and I am asking her: In her

capacity as a minister, did anyone advise her not to report this incident to the

police?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the person who had this information, and who

had concerns, I wanted to make sure that I asked the question, that it was

understood that my request was to turn it over to the police.

I am absolutely assured, and I can assure the hon. members here today, that

when I said I felt it should go to the police, when I met with an official of

Justice and I was very clear with that request and my question, that is actually

when it happened.

Mr. Speaker, I made sure that direct question was asked so that I knew that

the opinion coming back was a result of that particular question. When I asked

it, it was probably within twenty-four hours that it was turned over to the

police.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows she went to the police

only after she had this information in her possession for months and months and

months, and the police had already been notified.

I ask you, Minister: Who advised you not to table any documents or provide

information to us in the House because of an investigation that is ongoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, because this is a matter under police

investigation, I am certainly seeking a legal opinion as to what documents I can

table here in the House. When I have an opinion to indicate when they go

through the documents and indicate what can be tabled, I will do that.

In the meantime, I do have a letter from the RNC which I will table it is

here in my possession today that indicates that they feel that this

information, if I release it now, will interfere with a criminal investigation,

and I really do not feel that I should do that.

Once the criminal investigation is over, certainly the documents can be

tabled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is that, when there were allegations

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: when there were allegations that some college officials in

this Province accepted thousands of dollars from members of a Qatar family, I

think, or a royal family, that this government moved very quickly to report it

to the police and to the authorities at that time, and to ask for an

investigation.

What I do not understand, Minister, is why the same kind of efforts were not

made when you knew, when the Minister of Business at the time knew, when the

Premier's office was informed, why was this issue not reported to the RNC? Why

did you, as a minister, take it upon yourself to not report a criminal activity?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I think it would only be fair to outline some of

the timelines that happened from August 30 until November 22.

One thing I do want to say is that I also had concerns of potential child

abuse, and I spoke to the Director of Child Protection on August 30, as soon as

I had the information.

Mr. Speaker, I met with Ms Lisa O'Neill on September 6. That was shortly

before the provincial election. Unfortunately, I had a death in the family and I

was off work for a few days leading into the election. Then the election

happened and, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, after the election I took some time

off waiting for the new Cabinet to be named, wondering if I was going back into

the portfolio, but certainly to have a rest at that time as well.

As of November 1, I was back in the Department of Education. It was one of my

priorities; I followed up on it immediately. We got the Request for Proposals

for the formal program evaluation.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: I also followed up on the legal aspect of it. I wanted to

assure that the question that went to the Department of Justice clearly

reflected the question that I wanted asked was: Should we turn this over to the

police? I followed up on that, and it was turned over before the end of

November.

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.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

As the minister knows, children eighteen and under are currently able to

access insulin pumps through the Janeway. However, once they are over eighteen,

unless they or their families have a medical plan, they are no longer going to

be able to afford to keep the pump. This is an enforced change to their

lifestyle and one that we heard about at the dinner that the Diabetes

Association held for MHAs, and that will have a huge impact on the maintenance

of their disease.

I ask the minister: Will this government commit to funding the cost of

diabetes supplies devices, including the pumps, to individuals over eighteen -

especially those who had the pump up to that time - who cannot afford it, so

that the cost is not a barrier or a burden to managing the disease?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have said in this House many times, and yesterday I think was the most

recent time, that of all the things this government has done in the last four

years - and there have been many, many significant investments, the day is not

long enough to list them. One of the things that we have gotten the most

comments about has been the policy decision we made last year and the investment

of money to provide insulin pumps to children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when you hear the testimony of these young

children and how it has impacted their lives and how it has changed their lives

and over the long haul, we all understand and acknowledge what a tremendous

impact it will have on their quality of life. It will actually impact their

well-being well into their adult years.

Mr. Speaker, that was an initiative we did last year. It is a program that is

into its first year and already we are getting rave reviews. Programs like this

are always reviewed and evaluated, and as always, anytime we see an opportunity

to improve the quality of lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we will

continue to make investments in many of those areas.

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.

Yesterday in debate the minister talked about the young man who spoke to us

at the dinner sponsored by the Diabetes Association. He talked about how pleased

this young man was and how awesome it was that he had the pump, but what the

minister did not tell the House was at the end of that this young man made a

plea to the government to make sure that the funding for the pump would not end

by the time he became eighteen because if that happened he did not know how he

would be able to make the adjustments in this life.

I am asking you, in the name of that young man who asked us that night at the

dinner, will you look at making sure that this money continues for these

children once they reach the age where right now is a cut-off point?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is the day for repeat questions, the second

question from two different people we have had repeated. Let me repeat the

answer again, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I said many times in this House and I will say it again today,

all programs that we deliver through our four regional health authorities are

programs that are under continuous evaluation. On an annual basis, we make

investments in many programs to improve upon them, to enhance them, to expand a

larger number of people who may have access to the benefits. We did it under the

Prescription Drug Program, we did it under our oxygen program this year, we have

done it under our medial transportation program, and the list goes on.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the insulin pump program that we introduced last year, that

too, will go through an evaluation over time and we will look at opportunities

to build on it, to improve it, and if possible, make continued investments to

ensure that the children of this Province, and the adults of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- get the kind of supports and services they need to manage diabetes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to stand and rise on a petition with regards to

the doctor shortages in the Conception Bay North area. Namely, I guess, more so

for the general practitioner, that the people have difficulty obtaining a

general practitioner at this time. It is very difficult for them to know that

they cannot get a doctor in their own area and some of them have to travel to

other areas to get the services of a general practitioner. Even then, Mr.

Speaker, there are many of them who are unable to obtain a general practitioner.

I know government this year have a recruitment and retention program in

place. Hopefully, that will take care of the situation and we are looking

forward to that, but at the present time, Mr. Speaker, many people are

concerned. By not being able to get to a general practitioner, many of them are

ending up at the emergency units from time to time when there is really no need

of it.

When I started presenting those petitions, I guess it was just on behalf of

some of the residents who signed them, but now from time to time we get more

people coming on side. I know the Joint Councils, during one of their recent

meetings brought it to the attention of the public that they are in support of

this. They know the major concern is there. Only recently, an

article which

appeared in our local paper, The Compass , the Mayor of Carbonear has

brought it to his council chambers saying that something has to be done before

it becomes a critical situation. They are looking into it to see what they can

do to assist as well. I know they have written Eastern Health asking them for

some support to proceed with that.

We even hear the doctors themselves speaking out. I know the clinic where I

go, there is only one gentleman there now and they usually have two there. The

workload that he has, he has a tremendous number of clients and they are unable

to take others. So, there is a tremendous emergency there, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join, not only with the petitioners but all others who have

come onside over the recent days and months, that hopefully something can be

done and we ask government to get involved to see that this issue is resolved on

a quicker basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Petitions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition from several communities in St. Mary's Bay, in

my district, with respect to the provision of high-speed Internet services.

Mr. Speaker, when I campaigned in the general election a couple of months ago

and in the by-election two years ago, the two main issues that came to my

attention in those areas were the issues of transportation and communications.

Transportation, Mr. Speaker, we have control over, and we are making visible

improvements in the transportation system in my district and people can see that

as they evolve year after year.

Communications is a different matter and regulated by the federal government

under CRTC and Industry Canada and not really within our jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago this would not be an issue, high-speed Internet

services, but today it is a vital issue, one that is vitally needed in our

communities and one that most of us take for granted.

The dial-up service, as most communities use today, is a bit archaic.

Something that we, in this part of the Province, everyday takes for granted is

that we have high-speed Internet services.

Mr. Speaker, there has been recent developments in the St. Mary's Bay area.

Persona has installed a fibre optic line out the Salmonier Line to Placentia

under the Distance Education program contract to hook up schools. Persona has

already established a couple of other lines. Now that lines are appearing, this

has sparked renewed interest and renewed hope for these communities.

Mr. Speaker, government is currently evaluating proposals and expressions of

interests to provide high-speed Internet services to government service agencies

in some of these areas. The problem with that, of course, is that not all

communities have government service agencies, but I understand in the evaluation

of their proposals, they are looking at possibilities that will enhance the

opportunities for these private sector companies to expand those services.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the communities today, especially St. Joseph's,

O'Donnells and Admiral's Beach, and there will be others in the next couple

of days that I will present as well, I hope the government in their decisions

will find ways to enhance the opportunities for the private companies to expand

these services to these communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of my colleagues to revert to

Notices of Motion. I missed it, I admit, on the way through.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Government House Leader have leave to revert

to Notices of Motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Child and Youth Advocate Act. (Bill 33)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

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

MR. SPEAKER: 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 call debate on Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax

Act And The Tax Agreement Act, which was moved by the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

I believe the next speaker would be the critic for the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to hear debate on Bill 28,

An Act To

Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and have a few minutes to debate this particular

bill and I understand the minister had an opportunity to introduce this bill in

the last day of the House of Assembly. Now we will have an opportunity to

certainly participate in the debate on it.

As people know, whenever there are bills before the House that deal with the

money issues and the issues of finances regarding the government, that there are

always opportunities to talk on issues that are very far reaching and issues

that pertain directly or indirectly to the funding of governments and how that

funding is distributed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on a couple of issues today, a couple of issues

that have been raised in the public and are certainly of public concern in the

Province. One of those issues has to do with the ongoing Cameron Inquiry that is

happening in the Province today. This inquiry was struck because of faulty

testing of ER-PR testing in our labs in Newfoundland and Labrador and because of

discoveries made with how some of those tests were evaluated and some treatments

that were prescribed. It was over a period of time, of a number of years, and

this issue became of such grave concern to the people in this Province and to

the public that they raised it with the government asking that there be a full

inquiry, an open inquiry, one that would allow for the views and opinions of

people to be heard, would allow for the testimony of those who were involved and

would allow for the questioning of that testimony, Mr. Speaker.

Government, reluctantly at the time, decided that they would establish this

inquiry. Mr. Speaker, it was the right and proper thing to do, because not only

was there a result of faulty testing involved here but there were also lives

lost as a result of prescribed treatments and the wrong diagnosis, and opinions

drawn with regard to those tests. Mr. Speaker, that was one issue, and one issue

that has contributed, that alone, to this being probably the largest disaster in

health history in this entire Province.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, and those people whose lives were lost, as

a result of those other families who today are out there still dealing with the

consequences of those diagnoses and those treatments, and for many of those who

are hanging on today knowing that the end is near simply because they did not

get the treatments that they were intended to have received, that is the real

story of what we are dealing with in this Province. That is the real reason this

inquiry was called. It was called to find the answers for those individuals

whose lives have been impacted in a most severe way in this Province.

The other reason, Mr. Speaker, was to ensure that things like this do not

happen

again, ever again, in our future.

The other issue here was how information was communicated to these

individuals, to those individuals who were suffering from serious

life-threatening illnesses but yet remained in the dark for months and months

without being told that their tests were faulty, without being told that their

treatments were ill-prescribed and without being given any information, Mr.

Speaker. They were left in the dark for not just months, but in some cases for

years. However, the officials and professionals and management within Eastern

Health Corporation were aware of this. Ministers, deputy ministers and staff in

the Premier's office were aware of this. No one chose to communicate to those

people at that time in any public fashion what was happening with regard to this

particular testing, of ER-PR tests in the Province.

These are the reasons that this inquiry has been called, Mr. Speaker. It has

been called so that we can find out what went wrong in our system, from our

laboratories to our political structures. It was called, Mr. Speaker, so that in

the future we can ensure that if ever again - and I certainly hope it will never

happen again, but if ever it does - there will be appropriate process and

mechanisms for not only dealing with the adverse effects on the medical side but

also dealing with how these things are handled and communicated within

governments.

Mr. Speaker, accountability is one of the hallmarks of this government. The

day they came into office they talked about accountability, they talked about

openness, they talked about transparency; but, Mr. Speaker, when you get very

close to hitting a nerve with that government, the ideas of openness and

transparency seem to take leave. It seems to take leave with this government.

They seem to want to, all of a sudden, not open the doors for accountability but

look at how we can shut the doors and keep as much in as possible.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is the stage that we have reached in this

public inquiry, a public inquiry in which the Premier and the Minister of

Justice, the Attorney General for the Province, have gone out and undermined a

process, the very process that they themselves put in place and wanted no input

from anyone else in doing so. No, they would not have input in the terms of

reference for this. They were going to go out and do this their way, and they

did that. Now, they are out undermining the process, undermining the individuals

who are involved, and I think that is wrong. I have no problem saying that is

wrong.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, I still cannot believe what I have seen

and heard in the media in terms of the extreme efforts of the Minister of

Justice in this Province to go out - not just the Minister of Justice but the

Attorney General in this Province - and to scour through the storage closets of

Confederation Building and the storage rooms of government looking for

information. To what end, Mr. Speaker, was this information going to suffice? So

what, Mr. Speaker? So he could prove that two decades ago in this Province there

may have been some interference in another inquiry that might have been ongoing?

What relevance does it have in light of what is happening in this Province

today? Remember the real reason that we called this public inquiry. Remember the

real reason we called it. We called it to find out why there are over 100 people

in this Province who have died as a result of faulty testing. We called it, Mr.

Speaker, to look at how better efforts can be put in place for accountability,

both within our government structure and within our health care structure. We

called it, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that proper communications, protocols and

accreditations were put in place from our laboratories to the board rooms of

government. That was the real reason for all of this. It was never about the

Minister of Justice or the Attorney General. It was never about the Premier. Why

they have called all of this into disrepute, Mr. Speaker, I will never

understand.

Mr. Speaker, once they were challenged on their comments, once they were

challenged on the inflammatory language that they had used, once they were

challenged on the process that they had used to deal with a high judicial

inquiry in this Province, what did they do? They went looking and scrambling for

someone to come to their defence, to back them up. Mr. Speaker, they weren't

out there to do that. Most people realize that this is not about them, that it

is not about them and it is not about politics. Most people realize that it is

about real issues that affect real people and their families in this Province.

That is what it is about. But they will not let it go.

Not only have they called into question the integrity of this commission, the

integrity of the individuals who are involved, but they have called into

question the integrity and professional ability of any person who will dare to

speak. Even those who have not spoken, Mr. Speaker, people like Justice Gomery

who was the head of the Gomery Commission who led that commission in the country

for well over two years into one of the largest political scandals probably that

we have seen at an inquiry level in Canadian history. Well, maybe not in

Canadian history but certainly in recent days. There have been some that have

been much larger than this in Canadian history, so I correct that statement. An

individual, Mr. Speaker, who has just conducted an inquiry of subsequent nature,

of high national profile, an individual who did not deserve to be berated, whose

reputation did not deserve to be dragged down by the Minister of Justice or

anyone else.

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Leader of

the Opposition but I have been listening for several minutes now to her debate

on Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act,

a piece of legislation in second reading that has to do, as I understand it, the

principle of the bill has to do with removing the insurance tax on insurance

premiums.

Now, I am a parliamentarian that has been here for a long time, and I

appreciate that during debates on pieces of legislation remotely connected to

money you can have a remote connection; but, I have to say, and I am all for

giving the Leader of the Opposition whatever licence she needs to do her job, I

really do believe that we are setting a dangerous precedent here in straying

from the principle of this bill which I believe has to do with removing the tax

on insurance, and nothing else.

We can debate that all day and all night, as the old fellow said, until the

cows come home, but we certainly cannot stray to the hinterland and do what we

like.

I believe it is a legitimate point of order.

MS JONES: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of

order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that issues relative to money bills or legislation regarding

money and spending of government, or revenues affecting government, is for free

debate in the House of Assembly. When you look at sales tax, or tax on

insurance, those are taxes that would have accrued to the revenues of government

that, as a result of government decisions, will either be lost or be added to

the bottom lines of revenue that this government administers. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I feel that my comments would have been very legitimate and

well-applied to this bill, so I will await your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has raised the issue before, here in the House, as

it relates to what is relevant to what we consider a money bill, and what

latitude we would give members to speak.

The Chair has had a chance to review, actually, the three bills here:

An Act

To Amend The Income Tax Act;

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act; and this particular one that we are debating here today.

The Chair has decided that this particular act, while it relates to the

retail sales tax on insurance, we would consider as a money bill and we would

allow pretty well free latitude for members to speak as if it was a budgetary

item or a money bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue with my debate at this stage, but it is obvious that the

government will go to whatever lengths they have to go to, to try and stifle any

comments and any debate around this issue because they simply do not want to

hear what has to be said.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is factual. I am quoting the quotes of

ministers, I am quoting the quotes of premiers, I am quoting their actions that

they have taken in a very public way in the media; and, Mr. Speaker, the review

and the rewind of the story is not one that government wants to relive. Well, as

long as I have time and ability and breath, to speak on this particular issue, I

will do so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the actions of the Minister of Justice. Again,

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice was out yesterday. Not only was he out

trying to dig himself out of the hole I referred to, that he has gotten himself

in with regard to this issue, interfering in a judicial inquiry in the Province,

but, in doing so he had civil servants, high-paid professional civil servants

who are hired to assist the ministers in departments within government to

provide for the laws and legislation of people of the Province, Mr. Speaker,

those were the individuals that he had out yesterday scouring through the back

rooms of government buildings, going through file boxes, dusting off the folders

and looking for information dating back to the last twenty years. Why, Mr.

Speaker? Why? So he could hold it up and say: Look, we are not the first ones to

intervene and ask for something in the middle of an inquiry in this Province.

The Chief Justice, when he was the Premier, did the same thing.

He ran out to the microphones yesterday, out of this House of Assembly, like

a child with a bag of candy, Mr. Speaker, like a child with a bag of candy,

going up to reporters saying: Oh, let me tell you what I am doing and let me

tell you what we are looking for.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General wants

to get his staff, those high-paid professional people who work in his

department, spending hours looking through dust-filled boxes, if that makes him

feel that is good use of taxpayers' money and good use of the resources in his

department, I guess I will have to leave him to his own judgement, but certainly

in my judgement it is inappropriate and certainly unnecessary; because, what was

the minister trying to prove? The only thing he proved was once again to prove

that he has no principles when it comes to disparaging the reputation of

profiled people in this Province.

The Attorney General out calling into question the integrity of the Chief

Justice of this Province, whom we all know is in a position today where he

cannot even defend himself if he wanted to, because he takes an oath as the

Chief Justice of this Province and he cannot be out in the media defending

himself or responding to comments posed by the Minister of Justice.

The Minister of Justice knows that better than any other person, probably,

sitting in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, why have principles? Why stop at

that? Why not call into question the reputation of another profiled person in

this Province, to try and build some kind of defence for yourself, Mr. Speaker?

- To try and build some kind of defence.

The actions I have seen of that minister have been nothing short of totally,

totally, inappropriate, I say, Mr. Speaker, and what did he prove? That two

wrongs do not make a right, Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have seen of this.

To go out and say, whoa, we are not the first; maybe it was done back twenty-odd

years ago in the middle of another inquiry. We are looking at it. We are looking

through the boxes.

The Dustbuster I am going to call him from now on, Mr. Speaker, the minister

that is known as the Dustbuster, because he is the only one I have ever seen

dusting off the files to try and prove his point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Anyway, having said that, what does it really say? It says to

me, Mr. Speaker, that two wrongs do not make a right.

It does not matter to me where in this country or where in this Province

there might have been someone else who went before a public inquiry and asked or

tabled some notification that they were not happy with the process, or the way

that something was handled. That does not justify what is happening in this

Province today. It does not justify it, Mr. Speaker. In no way, shape or form

does it justify it.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I say to the Minister of Justice, it proved

absolutely nothing. It proved absolutely nothing, only the lengths that you are

prepared to go to, to try and prove that you might have a point. That was all.

It proved how childish you can actually be when it comes to trying to dig

yourself out of a hole and trying to defend your very own comments. That was the

only thing it told me. The only thing it told me, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that it told me, Mr. Speaker, is that no matter what happened

twenty years ago - it does not matter happened twenty years ago and what Premier

of the day went before a judicial inquiry and said: I don't like the way that

things are going here and I would like to change it. That has no relevance in

today's debate that is ongoing in this Province, none whatsoever. It does not

make what anyone else is doing today, the Minister of Justice or the Premier, it

does not make it right in anyway whatsoever, but let me tell you what was

unprecedented from people that I have talked to twenty years ago when this was

ongoing, and that is that there was not the same inflammatory language being

used to accost the judicial inquiry in this Province, certainly not at all. It

was not being referred to as inquisitions or the Spanish inquisition, I believe

was used. It was not being referred to as a witch hunt, and it certainly was not

being dealt with in the process of the public Open Line shows. It was being

dealt with in due process, which the minister knows was in place and could have

been used but they choose not to use it, only after they had been in the public

airways, in the Open Line shows, and all the rest of it, Mr. Speaker. That was

the only time they chose then to use that particular process.

Mr. Speaker, it holds no relevance to me whatsoever. It does not change the

actions of this minister. It does not change the actions or the comments

espoused by the Premier. In no way, shape or form does it change anything that

has transpired. So you can take your officials and you can send them into the

backrooms of every single government storage room right around this Province,

minister, and you can pay top dollar to these officials to go out and dig

through the files and dust them off and blow off the cobwebs, and you can come

back with whatever you want, it does not change the fact, sir, that you, as the

Attorney General in this Province, were interfering in a process, in a public

inquiry process that was set up for one reason, not to deal with you. It was set

up to deal and to correct the inadequacies that existed within our system to

ensure the integrity of our health care system on a go-forward basis and to

provide, not just for liabilities but also to provide a level of comfort and

answers to the many individuals and families who have been directly affected by

this.

Personally, I feel that the Minister of Justice and the Premier had no right

weighing in and intervening in the way that they had in this process. If they

had an issue with the way questioning was being done within this public inquiry,

they had every right and ample legislation, and rules and regulations in place

to deal with that and to do it appropriately, but they did not. They used

inflammatory language and they questioned the integrity of the process. Not only

that, Mr. Speaker, any person in this Province who dared to take an opinion

different from the minister or the Premier, their reputations were called into

question. We have seen it again today, this morning in the news again, the

Minister of Justice questioning and calling into question the reputation of

Judge Gomery. This is the level that this government is prepared to go to, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with admitting that you over stepped your bounds?

All of this could have been corrected within two hours; within twenty-four hours

after the minister put his foot in his mouth and after the Premier put his foot

in his mouth. It would have taken only a simple explanation that maybe I have

gone too far and I will now take it through the proper processes; but, no, no,

there was no backtracking with these people. There was no backtracking. It was

scrambling like kids to find a way to prove that I am right. You do not always

have to be right. Sometimes the process itself will dictate what is right and

what is wrong. Do I need to remind you, that you and the Premier, minister, were

the people who put this process in place? You did it with no input from anyone

in this Legislature. In fact, I would like to remind the members opposite, as I

have in the past and will do again, that when this process was set up we asked

to have input into the terms of reference. We asked to have some input into how

this was going to be done, and we were told: No way. We were told by the

government and the members opposite: No way, you will have no input into this.

We are going to do this our way.

Well, even doing it their own way, Mr. Speaker, certainly did not satisfy

them. It did not satisfy them. Still, when there was something they did not

like, when things got a little bit too scorching hot somewhere - we will find

out, I guess, as time goes on - all of a sudden they are running, they are

scrambling, they are taking everybody on. They are out there beating the drum,

trying to shut everybody down, but people are smarter than that you know. I give

people a lot more credit than that. People are smarter than that and they are

seeing this for what it is. They are seeing this for what it really is. The fact

that government has weighed into it and have made the comments that they have

and have made this issue an external debate about them is absolutely resentful

in my opinion and it does nothing only take away from the real purpose and the

real meaning of what this inquiry was all about. I hope that you keep that in

mind as you continue to dig into the bowels of Confederation Building for the

documents and the papers and the reports or whatever it is you think you need to

prove something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, while you are digging - I might just leave this with the

Minister of Justice, that while they are out there digging for these documents

on the Hughes Inquiry to see who said what and what they said, maybe he could

also look for me and find out what changes did occur during that Hughes Inquiry.

Because I have been told, Mr. Speaker, just like he was told some information, I

have also been told some information - because it was long before my time, I say

to you, minister, long before the day I ever walked into this Legislature. Let

me just say to you that I was also told that the terms of reference for the

Hughes Inquiry after was expanded, was extended. Changes were made, and the full

scope of what the commission asked for that inquiry was granted. It was granted.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, not only was the terms of reference expanded - and

if we look through the legislation in the House of Assembly we may find

something on it, at least through legislation in council we will. A Minute in

Council for sure had to be developed around that, and the minister has a copy

over there. I am sure at some point today if he does not get up in the House and

read it out he will run out to the media and explain it to them. So we will have

to see, but what I have been told - and when he is looking through his

documents, if he finds this, maybe he can table it in the House of Assembly that

the former Premier at that time, whose reputation he has been calling into

question as well through all of this, who happens to be the Chief Justice for

the Province today, at that time actually did amend the terms of reference. They

broadened the scope of the terms of reference to allow for the Commission to do

the full scope of work that they wanted to do as part of that process. I also

understand that they were given the full required amount of time that they

needed, and they were given the resources that they needed to finish the

process. That is something else that we have had a debate about in this Province

in the last recent days, a full debate about whether the resources should be or

should not be given by government to Justice Cameron and the Commission to

finish the work that they have started, an issue that should have never made it

to the floor of this Assembly, in my opinion. An issue that should have been

dealt with between government and the Commission in terms of looking at and

honouring the agreement that was in place and the terms of reference that were

in place, ensuring that those recommendations that we are looking for at the end

of this process could be founded in a way that was complex, that was thorough.

If that was what was accomplished and it needed more time to happen, then I

think that time should have indeed been granted.

Government suddenly found - very quickly found, in fact - there was no

support out there for them to shut down this inquiry. They found that out very

quickly, when you had people in the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association out saying: We do not want to do away with this inquiry; we want to

see it finished. In fact, we want them to have the resources that they need to

be able to do this.

Then we had the Cancer Society out there saying that they did not want to

have this shut down. They wanted to see it finish the full scope of the work

that they had been asking to have done.

Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden they realized there was no support for them in

their irrational comments that they had made to close down this inquiry. All of

a sudden they decided they would take a different approach and they would follow

the process. Now, imagine that. Imagine that. Now the Premier and the Minister

of Justice are going to follow the process, to intervene in this particular

inquiry, which is something that four days before they certainly were not doing,

but as soon as they learned that the public support was not going to be there

for what they were asking, they decided they would look at other options and

take other measures.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister is down looking through the storage rooms and

going through the boxes of files, trying to find something to prove something to

someone, which we do not know what it is all about yet, maybe he could also look

for some information for the Minister of Education. Maybe he could look for some

information for the Minister of Education as well, because, she seems to have a

hard time finding information.

Two months ago over two months ago - I asked the Minister of Education to

table information in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. To date, she has not

been able to compile it, find it, whatever the case may be, and provide it in

the House of Assembly. Maybe she needs to get her colleague, the Minister of

Justice, the Dustbuster in the government, to go down and look for her

information as well, and dust that off too, and bring it up; because, in over

two months, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am making a very important point.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Education could call in the assistance of

her colleague and try and dust out the closets in the Department of Education

and find this information I have been asking for, for over two months. Because,

Mr. Speaker, apparently in twenty-four hours the Minister of Justice had climbed

through bundles and bundles, and cartons and cartons, of information, so surely,

with a little assistance from him and his officials, I would think that the

Minister of Education, over the long weekend, would be able to find the

documents I am looking for on the fire safety in the schools, and table it in

the House of Assembly next week.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about another issue, because I have a little bit

of time - not a lot of time, because I have to catch a flight to my district

this evening and I certainly would not want to miss that flight because I have

important engagements on in my district but, Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak

for a couple of minutes, before I go, on another issue that I raised today in

the House of Assembly in Question Period, and this, Mr. Speaker, has to do with

the potential criminal matter involving the International Student Exchange

Program within the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fund that, as I understand, was administered through

the Eastern School District. The Member for Grand Bank would know, because he

was the Director of Education with the Eastern School District at the same time

that this incident was reported to them, Mr. Speaker, back in November 2006.

In November 2006 a recruiter in Korea contacted the Eastern District School

Board, Mr. Speaker, operated under the leadership and authority of the Member

for Grand Bank at the time. He was the Director of Education there, and that

board was contacted, and an individual in his office was the point of contact.

This recruiter from Korea spoke with that individual and reported to him: I have

evidence here of a criminal matter that is occurring with an employee within the

Eastern School District.

That information was passed on to that school district but, Mr. Speaker, it

was never passed on to the police. The Eastern School District at the time, the

CEO, did not see it fit to go to the police and to report this matter, but

decided to deal with it in-house. In-house, Mr. Speaker! We all know that under

collective agreements, when employees are accused of fraud or trying to do side

deals, of embezzling government money, it is very clear in the contract what the

repercussions are - they are let go but that does not negate a criminal

investigation.

Mr. Speaker, at some point the school board needs to answer for the reasons

why they did not take this matter to the police. Mr. Speaker, we will get to

that. We will get to that, but the other issue here is that months after this

the information was provided to government. It was provided first in an e-mail -

e-mails of which I have copies - that were sent to the Premier's office. The

e-mails were sent on the fifth of February, and the Principal Assistant to the

Premier is who the e-mails were sent to. In those e-mails, they were told: I

have learned of serious wrongdoings within a leg of your government.

That is what they were told. They were also told: I had tried to let a

department of your government handle it, but no one has moved on it.

Now, we will figure out what department that is, that was contacted prior to

February and did not move on it. Maybe they are referring to the Eastern School

District. If so, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Eastern School District was

contacted in November.

The other thing this individual said in the e-mail to the Premier's office

is: I don't know how far this corruption goes, but I do have evidence. First I

thought it was small, but now I am feeling it is bigger than I thought.

These were the e-mails that were launched in government's possession in

February 2007, telling government that they had evidence of corruption within a

government department, telling them that they have concerns about it.

It says in here I am reading directly from the e-mail

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am reading directly from an e-mail that says

they have knowledge of this corruption and they have evidence of wrongdoing

within government.

Mr. Speaker, they were referring to the Eastern School District that is

administering a program that is funded by the Department of Education. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier's office sent back an e-mail the very next day, as they

should, acknowledging a serious, serious allegation being brought to their

attention, and said to them: we will alert the Premier of this and bring it to

his attention at the earliest possible opportunity. That was on February 6,

The Minister of Education says I didn't know anything about it until March.

Maybe she didn't know anything about it until March, but somebody in your

government knew about it in February, I say to the minister. Whether it was the

Premier, whether it was another Cabinet Minister, whether it was a deputy

minister, whether it was a staff member, I don't know, but we will attempt to

find out.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that, when government was notified why did they

not go to the police? We have heard answer after answer after answer that does

not excuse any minister within government or the school board from not reporting

criminal activity that is ongoing with public funds within government. I am sure

the former Auditor General, who sits in the government opposite, would have an

opinion as it relates to that. The Member for Topsail, who was the Auditor

General at one point, Mr. Speaker, if she had ever picked up anything like this

within government and knew that there was a misappropriation of funds by any

employee I can guarantee you, going back to her reports in the ten years that

she was the Auditor General, she would not have been shy about writing a

chapter

or two around this; I can guarantee you. What she will do today I have no idea,

but there was a time, Mr. Speaker, when she could have published a full draft on

an incident like this ongoing within government.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which was brought to the attention of the

Premier's office, like the ER-PR issue was, but nothing was done with it. It

sat there. It was brought to the attention of the minister and her department

and nothing got done. It sat there. There were meetings with the former Minister

of Business who today is the Minister of Government Services. The individual

went in to the former Minister of Business's office, sat down, met with that

minister, discussed the whole issue, and he did not report it to the police. He

sent the individual to see the Minister of Education. Finally, this poor

recruiter who had evidence of wrongdoing, had evidence on an employee, could

find no one within government who would listen to her or act on her issue in

terms of bringing it forward to the police in this Province, and finally she

went to the police herself. She spent five hours being interrogated by the

police and presenting the information into what we know has been launched a

criminal investigation. She should not have had to do it. This woman travelled

halfway around the world to meet with these ministers to try and get them to

bring it forward to the police but they did not do it. At the end of the day,

she ended up going to the police herself and spending five hours going through

interrogation, presenting the information that she had - as she called it,

evidence - in order to launch this investigation.

Mr. Speaker, you do not have to go back very far to find other occasions when

there was suspicion of wrongdoing by this government that they were not long

running to the police, and that was within the College of the North Atlantic.

There were some issues and allegations within the College of the North Atlantic,

that officials there had accepted some money from members of the Qatar royal

family for work that they were doing, or services they were providing over

there. As soon as government became aware of it, they reported it to the police

and that was the appropriate thing to do. In fact, it was the Minister of

Justice at the time, who happens to be the Minister of Finance today, who

actually reported it himself to the police and ensured that this was dealt with.

Why was that same protocol not followed when it came to this particular

issue? Why was this protocol not followed within government? I would like to

know the answer to that, and at some point I am going to find the answer to

that. I am going to find the answer to it because there is no legitimate reason

and no rational reason why any minister within a government would not report

evidence of criminal activity or wrongdoing of public funds on any occasion, Mr.

Speaker, any occasion. The fact to say I sought advice from this one and I

sought advice from that one, and I called this one and I was advised by this

one, does not negate your responsibility to the taxpayers and the public of this

Province to report activity that could be seen as criminal in nature; absolutely

not negate their responsibility to do that.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, why was the school board not called into

question? Why was the Eastern School District who was being presided over by the

minister's parliamentary assistant, the individual is today, but was the

school board at the time was being presided over by that individual? Why were

they not called into question? I could not believe the other day when the

Minister of Education said at no point did she ever discuss this issue with the

CEO of the school board or the director of the school board. The Director of

Education within a school board is the individual to whom deals directly with

the Department of Education. We all know that, Mr. Speaker. We all know that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not even have enough concern to pick up the

phone and call the Director of Education within the school board. So, I do not

understand while one event within government to deal with the College of the

North Atlantic was reported to the police and the proper authorities and

followed within days of it being known to government but yet we have an issue

that involves ministers, that involves former Directors of Education, who today

are members of the government opposite, who had knowledge of this within their

departments for up to ten months, and in the school board's case for up to a

year, and never went to the police. That is the question that I cannot get an

answer to, Mr. Speaker, cannot get an answer to.

Once you adopt a set of protocols within a government you would think that is

what would apply right across the board, but that is not the case here. Mr.

Speaker, the minister may feel that she had ample information but I am certainly

not satisfied. I am not satisfied, because the way I look at it, it does not

matter how much money it was, it does not matter what entity of government it

was, it does not matter what employee it was, that any time there is activity

like this it should be reported to the police and there should be an

investigation. That is the point that I am trying to make, and whether the

minister wants to hear that point, whether she wants to abide by it, whether she

wants to answer questions around it is really irrelevant to me. The relevant

aspect that I have here is that once you are notified, you have an obligation

and you have a responsibility.

I would certainly hope that when you take an oath of office as a minister

within that government, you are taking an oath to ensure that these things are

followed through appropriately. Not let them fall by the wayside, not let them

sit in your office for months, not leave it to some other employee or person to

deal with, but to take it in hand and to deal with it yourself. We certainly did

not see that in this case. In fact, we have seen no repercussions and no

direction given to anyone as it relates to this matter in terms of where it

should have went or what will happen in the future. That is my concern.

When this happens again, what is the course of action that this government

will take? Will they stop and look at who the players are before they make a

decision? Will they automatically follow protocols? Will they balance it out

against how much money is involved and how much is not? None of those issues

should be relevant, I say to government members and to the Minister of

Education. None of these things should be relevant. In fact, they should all be

irrelevant. They should take a proper course of action, no matter whether it

involves your colleague there today who happens to be the former CEO or it

involves anyone else in this Province. It does not matter who is leading the

board, who is chairing the board, who works for the board or anything of that

sort, it should be done as a matter of proper protocols to be followed.

Therefore, we will continue to ask the questions around it and we will continue

to look for the answers, because at no time should three Cabinet ministers, or

the Premier's office and two Cabinet ministers have been informed, including

the Director of Education for a school board and none of it be reported to the

police. If it can happen in that case, it can happen in other cases, and that is

what my fear is in this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are debating has to do with the tax laws in the

Province and has to do with the taxes that government charges or do not charge.

In this case, I think it has to do with taxes around insurance. The biggest tax

that we are dealing with and rate hikes in the Province today is taxes on

gasoline and home heating fuel. Last night we seen another jump in the prices of

home heating fuel in the Province, we seen another jump in the prices of

gasoline in the Province, and it is becoming more and more difficult for these

people to be able to provide for themselves the fuel supplies that they need.

We have asked over and over again in this House that the government's tax

on gasoline be reduced. We have asked over and over again that the subsidies on

home heating fuel be increased to match the demands of what is out there, to

match the demands and the price hikes that people have to pay for this service

in the Province. We will continue to do that because we think it is important

and we are not seeing any relief. We are not seeing any relief at the pumps

or when it comes to home heating fuel for families right now in this Province.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it would probably be the complete opposite. What we are

seeing is a continuous increase on a regular basis, and it is causing a lot of

hardship for people who are out there.

So, while we look at taxes in terms of reducing income tax, or reducing the

HST on insurance, or whatever the case may be, it all plays a role in offsetting

the financial burden that is being inflicted upon people in this Province, and

it is helpful to those families who depend upon those services and use those

services.

Mr. Speaker, it is always important to remember as well that there are many

others out there who need to depend upon fuel sources and supplies to keep their

house warm, to keep their vehicles running, and they are unable to afford the

high costs that we are seeing being calculated in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will conclude my remarks, because I do have

to catch a flight to my district, and I apologize that I will not be able to

stay and listen to the rest of the debate that will be ongoing in the House this

afternoon. I am sure it will be a very interesting and enlightening debate, and

I am really sorry that I am going to miss it, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to

conclude my remarks and I am sure there are others who want to add to it.

Thank you.

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

If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now, if he is speaking to the

motion, he will close the debate on Bill 28.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I move second reading of

this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 28 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax

Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

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

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax

Agreement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 28)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider certain bills.

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

of the Whole 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!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to call for Committee consideration Bill 26,

An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 26,

An Act To Amend

The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee consideration of Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Health And

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

CHAIR: The Committee will now debate Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Health

And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax

Act." (Bill 27)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follow.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education

Tax Act. (Bill 27)

MR. CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

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

carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to call Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And

The Tax Agreement Act.

MR. CHAIR: The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 28,

An Act To

Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MR. CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6.

MR. CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 6, inclusive.

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 6, inclusive, carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened as follows.

MR. CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement

Act.

MR. CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

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

carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIR: It has been moved that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIR: Against, nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them

referred and have directed me to report Bills 26, 27 and 28 carried without

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the

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

report Bills 26, 27 and 28 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Bills be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Bills 26 and 27 now, and 28 by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Bills 26 and 27 now, and 28 by leave.

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

presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 26,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

(Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26,

An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act, 2000, be now a read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26 be now read

a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Health And

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The

Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 27 be now read

a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education

Tax Act . (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I request leave to move third reading of Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail

Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax

Act And The Tax Agreement Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax

Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the

bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax

Agreement Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider certain Estimates.

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

of the Whole to consider certain Estimates, 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 (Mr. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is a part of procedure related to the Budget actually,

which we don't see in the House frequently, I suppose, those days. Just for

the record, I remember when every single estimate of every single department was

done in the House this way. It was only after the Estimate Committees were

brought in I know it was after Mr. Jamison came back to be Leader of the

Opposition, so it was during the Peckford days that the House actually adopted

an Estimate Committee procedure so that various heads of government departments

could be referred outside of the Legislature, outside of this committee, to

individual committees. Up until that time, every single head of every single

department was done in this House, on the floor of the House, in Committee of

the Whole as we are going to do here now.

What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, as I said: This House has now resolved

itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, which really is a

Committee of the Whole House to consider estimates of various government

departments that didn't get sent off to committee. We submitted, for the

consideration of committee, I believe about nineteen heads altogether, including

the major departments and some major agencies. There are certain heads we never

send out, they are always done here.

These are the Legislature itself. For example, the vote of the Legislature in

total, I believe, is somewhere in the order of $24 million. The $24 million or

so that we are going to spend to have a democracy in this Province, to elect

members to the Legislature, to pay for the cost of having members, their

salaries, their constituency offices, their constituency assistants, their

blackberries, their telephones, their travel, that kind of thing is covered in

the Legislative Estimates.

Of course, besides that we have a number of Officers of the House whose

expenditures are also covered in the Legislative Estimates, the Auditor General,

for example, the Citizen's Representative commonly known as the Ombudsman, the

Child and Youth Advocate, and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. These

offices are also covered here in the Legislative vote that is before us for

consideration today.

I should say, Mr. Chairman, in passing, that year over year there has been a

fairly significant increase in the amount of the vote for the Legislature. The

budget for the Legislature has been considered already in a public forum. The

Management Commission that represents all parties in the Legislature has

considered the budget for the various offices that fall under the Legislature

and for the Legislature itself. That has already happened in a public forum, as

I said, in that particular committee. There is a significant increase and most

of the increase is built around increases that were necessary to ensure the

members of the Legislature. If there are any particular questions by members who

are not members of the Management Commission, then, of course, as Government

House Leader I will do my best to answer them. That is that.

Also, of course, under this head there are various offices of the Executive

Council that fall under the general umbrella of the Executive Council that are

debated and questioned in the process that we are doing here today. I will

briefly give an overview of what estimates these are and if members have

questions relative to them or if they want to engage in a general debate on

Executive Council and the Legislature and do it in that way, of course it is

totally up to members as they proceed to make their way through the estimates

that are before us.

In the heads that we have available or that must be considered in this

process, in Committee of the Whole, there is Government House. Government House,

of course, as everybody knows, downtown, is the residence of the Lieutenant

Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that residence and the staff that

support the Lieutenant Governor and the Office of Lieutenant Governor - while

the Lieutenant Governor is appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada under the

great Seal of Canada, the expenses outside of the salary, the salary for the LG,

expenses, like the operation of the house, the staff, the capital improvements

to the house, building the stables on the property, for example, to house the

RNC horses, these expenses are covered by the government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The funding for them is appropriated and voted on by this Legislature

under the head, Government House. Again, if there are any questions relative to

Government House, I will be happy to answer them.

The Premier's office: The Premier's office staff, by and large, other

than basic office supplies, it's

salary estimates or salary details for staff, are covered under this

particular vote as well. The Premier's office, of course, in addition to

operating an office occupied by the Premier and his staff on the eighth floor of

Confederation Building, there is a small office operation in Corner Brook and

there is a smaller-still operation of the Premier's office in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay in Labrador, and those estimates are presented for the

Committee's consideration.

Cabinet Secretariat: This is the support mechanism for the Cabinet and the

Committees of Cabinet. We have the Executive Support, Planning Coordination,

Economic and Social Policy Analysis Division, the Advisory Councils on Economic

and Social Policy, there is a Protocol office and there is the Public Service

Development Plan. All of these expenditures fit under the general head of

Cabinet Secretariat, and it is the support mechanism that supports the Cabinet

process, the Cabinet as a whole and Committees of Cabinet, like Economic Policy,

Social Policy and Treasury Board. All of those functions that are carried on and

need support at the Cabinet level, come from the Cabinet Secretariat.

The Communications and Consultation Branch of government is included under

those heads as well. Everybody knows that this particular branch gives

communications advice to the government as a whole and then to individual

departments through the communications directors that are assigned to ministers

and departments.

In Financial Administration and Human Resource Support, we have Financial

Administration and Strategic Human Resource Management. The Rural Secretariat

has been referred out, Women's Policy office and so on. These were referred

out.

The next one that we have in this here is Research and Development. Research

and development is a new activity that we announced in last year's Budget and

are just getting in the process of setting up