May 27, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 37

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon the Chair would like to recognize sixteen students, Levels I,

II and III, from Charlottetown, Labrador, from William Gillett Academy in the

District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - with their principal Phil Snow, and their teachers Mr.

George Jefferies and Mr. James Weick.

Also, we would like to welcome this afternoon, thirty-three students from

Bishop Abraham Elementary in St. John's, in the District of St. John' Centre,

with their teachers Darren Hayes, Madeline Power and the teacher's aide Rhonda

Campbell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In statements by members this afternoon we have the

following statements: the hon Member for Port de Grave, the hon. Member for Port

au Port, the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the hon. Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just before we begin the proceedings, a point of

order arising from information disclosed in the House yesterday, during debate

on a private member's bill. I would like to have some clarification over this

point of order.

In the debate yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on a private member's motion, I

believe, and we believe as the Official Opposition, that the Minister of

Transportation and Works provided false information to this House on two

separate occasions. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and shows again

why it is becoming increasingly difficult for us, as members, to perform our

duties as duly elected.

Government members, I would contend, Mr. Speaker, should be equally concerned

as well because I know that they accept statements from their ministers as being

factual and that they actually make decisions based upon the factual information

provided to them by their leader and by Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pretty large credibility gap and I would contend, as

a result of the two instances I point out from yesterday under this point of

order, that it is continuing to grow. There is a statement being used to

describe the Bush Administration in the United States, saying that the truth has

become the biggest casualty of this government. I believe, unless we can get

clarification and I am proven wrong here, that it shows the same thing is

happening here, Mr. Speaker.

I make reference to two quotes from Hansard with respect to the Minister of

Transportation and Works. At one point, we were discussing letters that were

tabled yesterday. There were two letters tabled in the Legislature yesterday,

that were received from the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the

Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and the Minister of Transportation

and Works, in the debate, said - and this is right from Hansard, "We have

written the Prime Minister of Canada. We posed the same questions to the Prime

Minister of Canada on the same date as we posed the questions to Mr. Harper and

Mr. Layton."

Mr. Speaker, our information that we have is that this did not occur, it did

not happen, it is not factual, and that the letter to Prime Minister Martin, if

one exists, was not the same letter, did not have the same questions, did not

get written on the same day, and we have a Minister of the Crown suggesting to

all of us - and we have to take it as a fact, members on all sides have to take

it as a fact - that the same letter with the same questions were posed to all

three leaders on the same day, the day being February 24.

Mr. Speaker, under the point of order, what I am pointing out is that the

facts, as we understand them, is that on February 24, the Premier of the

Province, rightfully so, wrote to Mr. Harper, Ms Stronach, Mr. Clement, who were

contenders for the leadership of the Conservative Party. By error, which is

reported in the local media, and everyone has seen the press clippings, the

Premier apologizes for clerical error. By error, the same letter was sent to Mr.

Layton, the Leader of the NDP, and our information is that there was no letter

sent to the Prime Minister of Canada on that date, and certainly not a letter

that contained the same questions as was stated by a Minister of the Crown

yesterday.

The second point in the point of order, the second matter of an infactuality',

Mr. Speaker, what we believe is a false and incorrect statement made to the

House by the Minister of Transportation and Works, is that also in Hansard

later, in rising to a point of order while I was speaking, I was making the

position that members of the government caucus saw the letter from Mr. Harper,

which was tabled in this House yesterday, some of them, many of them, were

seeing it for the first time. We know it was distributed in the House by the

Government House Leader to the speakers in the debate yesterday. It was

distributed to the Minister of Transportation and Works. It was distributed to

the Member for Mount Pearl, as a Parliamentary Secretary, and spoke. It was

distributed to the Member for Lake Melville, who is a Parliamentary Secretary,

who spoke yesterday. It was distributed to the Minister of Environment and

Conservation, who spoke yesterday. Then they all referenced a letter that they

were given yesterday. I was making the point that many people had not seen the

letter, or might be seeing it yesterday for the first time, and the Minister of

Transportation and Works stood, and this is the quote, Mr. Speaker, from the

Minister of Transportation and Works from Hansard, "The fact of the matter

is, Mr. Speaker, this letter was hand-delivered to our caucus, at a caucus

meeting, by Mr. Harper himself when he was campaigning for the leadership, so we

have all seen the letter... We have all read the letter."

He contends - and again, we take that as factual. When we checked, Mr.

Speaker, our information is this: the caucus meeting that he referred to was

held here in St. John's, in this building, on March 4. The letter from Mr.

Harper was received in the Premier's office on March 16. There was a follow-up

and the letter itself says: I felt it might be important to follow-up our caucus

meeting, which we hope you thought was useful by putting our thoughts in

writing. The Minister of Transportation and Works told this House, and led all

of us to believe, that the letter was actually passed out to them on March 4 in

a caucus meeting. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice in this Legislature, and

members on the government side are the same, that we all take our information

from Minister's of the Crown who are bound by tradition and oath in this House

to tell the truth. Everybody makes their decisions, and we make our

representations, based on what we believe to be factual information.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, under this point of order, but I pointed out that the

minister yesterday, a Minister of the Crown, actually made two statements that

were far from factual and which misled and caused misleading information to be

entered into a debate yesterday that then led to others making assertions based

on it. I believe that we have to get to the bottom of it, because there is a

parliamentary tradition, Mr. Speaker, there is an old parliamentary tradition

and custom that if Minister's of the Crown are found to be stating infactual'

misleading information in a Legislature, that out of honour they resign. Now, I

am not calling for a resignation today. What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and

that is why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: They will find it funny, Mr. Speaker, because that is the

problem here, that we do not have a level of respect in that caucus, starting

from the Premier right down, with respect to this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could conclude his point

of order very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My whole point is this, I was about to conclude my point of order except I

was taken aback by the fact that members opposite would find such a serious

matter to be something to laugh at, to be something that is funny. I sense now

from the reaction of some of them that, again, it verifies that we were misled

yesterday on two occasions, and I believe it is right and proper for the

minister to stand and clarify it and to tell us whether or not our information

is correct or his information is correct, because both of them, Mr. Speaker,

cannot be factual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of points. First of all, it is certainly my position, and our

position, that there is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition cannot

get up and impute motives on a member which unto itself is unparliamentary on a

point of order. His point, Mr. Speaker, from the get go, in my view, is

unparliamentary in imputing motives on members opposite who, involved in debate,

provide information.

Secondly, we are not really in any position, Mr. Speaker, to take a lecture

from the Leader of the Opposition about disrespect in this House to other

members. Let me say that to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that his

point, if it was made in a very genuine or sincere way, would be to the issue

that is before us and the issue that he raises about the information that was

discussed. That is: What is the federal Liberal government's policy with

respect to the Atlantic Accord? What is the federal Liberal government's

policy with respect to development of the Lower Churchill? What is the federal

Liberal government's policy with respect to ten-province formula on

equalization? Because, in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, that is what we were debating

yesterday.

My last point is this, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Leader of the

Opposition, to the best of my knowledge he has never attended a caucus meeting

in our room, with our caucus, and I can assure him that neither will he ever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

Points of order are designed to facilitate circumstances when something

happens in the House as to the procedures of the House. Members know that in

this particular case there is a disagreement between two hon. members as to the

facts or circumstances and the information which was communicated. In that

particular case, while there is a disagreement on the circumstances or the facts

put forward to the House, that does not meet the requirements of a valid point

of order. The Chair has to rule that there is no point of order in this

particular matter.

MR. GRIMES: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised by the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize fully, when I raise the point of order, what your ruling would

be. I have been here long enough to know what the rules are. What I was raising

it for, was to provide the Minister of Transportation and Works, or someone on

behalf of the government, an opportunity to tell us the truth; because, Mr.

Speaker, that is what strikes to our point of privilege. Now, let me briefly and

succinctly state the points over again.

We have a Minister of the Crown who spoke on behalf of the government - and,

believe me, I have no interest in being part of the Tory caucus, so he need not

worry about me even trying to get in there. Mr. Speaker, the question of the

matter is this: Even in responding to it, the Government House Leader had an

opportunity to stand up and say whether or not such a letter was circulated in

the caucus, because it was not. It was not.

Now, he can stand up and deny that, and they can all, every one of them, all

thirty-three of them, can stand up and sign a pact, and we will go straight to

other sources that we have, that verify whether or not such a letter was

circulated in the caucus, because it was not, Mr. Speaker, and the people

sitting in their seats - all thirty-three of them - know now that they have to

tell the truth or be part of some other process.

The point again is this: All forty-eight of the members - forty-seven and

yourself, Mr. Speaker - we depend upon the information given under direct

questioning in Question Period or in information volunteered during debate. That

information, we have to take it because under the rules, the parliamentary

procedure, no one is allowed to accuse anyone of telling anything but the truth

in this Legislature. We have had instances here before where people have used

language to suggest that something other than the truth was told, and the person

who uses the language ends up leaving the Legislature, not the person who told

and said the statement that was other than the truth.

The Premier, right now, Mr. Speaker, can stand up, if he wants, on this point

of privilege, and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to

yourself as Speaker, whether or not that letter was circulated in the caucus

meeting, and hand-delivered by Mr. Harper. He can stand up and say that, because

his minister said it yesterday - and it is not true. It did not happen, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, if it did happen, they can stand up and say that I am telling a lie.

They can stand up and prove that I am a liar. Now, let's have one of them

stand up and do it, because this is the whole point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

If we have to rely upon what they say, and if we have to accept it as the truth,

then there has to be some onus that it be the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The second part of it, Mr. Speaker, which we will deal with

later in the day as well, is the fact that there was a statement saying that the

same letter, with the same questions, was sent to all three leaders on the same

day. The person who signed the letter to Mr. Harper, signed the letter to Mr.

Clement, signed the letter to Ms Stronach, signed the letter in error to Mr.

Layton, is in the Legislature. He can stand up and verify whether or not what

was said by the Minister of Transportation and Works yesterday was the truth or

not, because we will find out one way or the other.

We can find out right now, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you that it is a point of

privilege if we have to depend on the information and it is not factual, we

cannot do our jobs in this Legislature and it does infringe upon our rights as

elected members and it leaves us powerless, just as these erroneous documents

did. It leaves us with this kind of false information on which we are trying to

do our jobs and it cannot be done. So, I believe that our privileges have been

very much abused in respect to this debate and we should get the true answers to

the issues that I have raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members will know that one of the standard criteria of a

point of privilege is of course it must meet the parliamentary references by Beauchesne

and by others.

On page 13 of Beauchesne's 6 th Edition , 31.(1), reads

as follows, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of

facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

Therefore, the Chair again rules in this particular matter that because there is

a disagreement between hon. members as to the allegation of facts does not meet

the requirements of the point of privilege. So the Chair rules there is no point

of privilege.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate three talented and hardworking

athletes from the historic district of Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, Craig Snow, Samantha March, and Peggy Wakeham, were recently

honoured by the Town of Bay Roberts as the 2003 Athletes of the Year.

Apart from being an academic leader at Ascension Collegiate, Craig is

probably best known for his athletic abilities. For thirteen years Craig has

been a member of the Bay Roberts minor hockey system and has been a swimmer with

the Bay Roberts swim team for the past seven years.

Also two years ago, Craig was a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Summer Games Team. This past season, he played with this Province's volleyball

team in competition in Ontario.

Craig has been recognized for involvement in many more sports as well. An

athlete like Craig, who performs in ice hockey, ball hockey, volleyball,

badminton and soccer, most definitely deserves this tremendous distinction.

Mr. Speaker, the female athlete of the Year Award ended up being shared

between two gifted young ladies.

First, Samantha March performed solidly in basketball, ice hockey and

volleyball. She was a member of the Junior Hockey Provincial Champs and was

named the tournament's most valuable player. She was also named to the first

all-star team for the midget Pepsi Cola Classics in Clarenville. Samantha was

also tournament MVP at the provincial championships for badminton and

volleyball.

Mr. Speaker, tying Samantha for this award was Peggy Wakeham. Peggy has

excelled in many sports, including running, badminton, basketball, hockey,

rowing, soccer, softball, volleyball and swimming. Mr. Speaker, due to time

constraints, it would be impossible to list all the achievements this athlete

has received, but suffice to say she has performed at the top of her ability in

all fields.

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

congratulating Craig Snow, Samantha March and Peggy Wakeham on their recent

athletic recognition from the Town of Bay Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday night past it was my privilege to

attend the first presentation of Vive La Rose-The Emile Benoit story. The

location was in the hometown of the Benoit family at Black Duck Brook and was

attended by his widow, other members of the family, and residents of the

community.

The play will be next shown at the Stephenville Theatre Festival this summer.

Members of the cast were: David Bennett, a local singer and musician; Tessa

Cameron, star of Annie Get Your Gun in last year's festival; and the

well-known Newfoundland performer, Christina Smith, who was a friend and prodigy

of Emile.

The play was written by Robert Chafe and directed by Jillian Keiley.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was a wonderful man, a fantastic musician, a great

composer of music and an ambassador for Francophones and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, in general. He performed nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was my friend and he gave me the best gift ever. He

composed the reel, Jim Hodder's, which was recorded by Emile himself and has

been recorded by the Emond Dillon Band, a US group, Out of Alba, a BC group, and

numerous Newfoundland groups, including Rawlins Cross, Connemara and Danette

Eddy.

Mr. Speaker, Emile was sixty-five years of age when he became famous and he

is an inspiration to all people.

The play is a fitting tribute to a gifted human being. He left a rare legacy

and his life was a celebration of the best that this Province produces. The

story is wonderful and it will be a hit in the coming season.

I urge everyone to take in the Stephenville Festival and come and see the Emile

Benoit Story .

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group of hard-working and dedicated volunteers in

my district who are working towards helping teens quit the unhealthy habit of

smoking.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of Kick the Nic program is to assist teens as they

attempt to quit smoking by giving them the support they need. A group of

facilitators recently met in Port Hope Simpson to take

part in a training

session on the delivery of this program. The key volunteers were Boyce Turnbull

and Mildred Roberts of Charlottetown, Gwenda Penney of Port Hope Simpson,

Isabelle Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour and Tanya Dredge, Youth Services Co-ordinator.

Mr. Speaker, this group received training in the principles of the program

and now they are geared up to start delivering Kick the Nic program in schools

throughout my district starting this fall.

Mr. Speaker, this program will contribute to healthy living on the Southeast

Coast of Labrador and all volunteers involved should be congratulated for

contributing to healthy living in the entire region.

I ask all members in the House to join me not only in congratulating them but

encouraging other groups around Newfoundland and Labrador to start their own

programs to assist in a healthier environment in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the very important step taken by the Inuit of

Labrador toward the creation of Nanutsavut - Our Beautiful Land - as a

recognized Inuit Territory and a third order of First Nations Government,

allowing a large measure of self-determination and self-government to the Inuit

people of our great Province.

The overwhelming endorsement by the Inuit in the ratification vote held

yesterday shows the level of confidence that the people have in their leadership

who have persevered with great determination over the past thirty years to seek

a Land Claims Agreement acceptable to the Inuit.

We hope that speedy ratification by the Government of Newfoundland and

established without any further delay.

This is an agreement which I hope will endure and lead to greater happiness

and advancement of the Inuit individually and collectively - we should be ready

to make it work - and because the future is difficult to predict, we should have

a willingness to refine the arrangements if it becomes necessary to do so to

achieve justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important and historic day for the Inuit of Labrador,

and the Member for Labrador West and I, as representatives of the New Democratic

Party in this House, want to congratulate the Inuit and join with them with them

in looking forward to the future with new optimism and hope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to offer congratulations on behalf of the people

of our Province to the Labrador Inuit Association and their President, Mr.

William Andersen III, on the successful Inuit ratification vote that took place

yesterday. This vote on the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was without a

doubt the most important vote that has ever taken place for the Labrador Inuit.

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention the fact that three-quarters of the

eligible voters supported this agreement. This represents a definitive

endorsement of this agreement and signifies that the vast majority of Labrador

Inuit are ready to take the next step towards managing their own affairs.

This historic agreement is the result of almost thirty years of hard work by

the Labrador Inuit Association. Labrador Inuit should be proud of the work that

their negotiators have done on their behalf. Ratification of the agreement is a

major step forward for Labrador Inuit as we move closer to the realization of

the final agreement that will provide the Labrador Inuit with the necessary

tools to shape their own future.

Mr. Speaker, now that Labrador Inuit have ratified the agreement, I will be

bringing forward the agreement to Cabinet to seek the concurrence of my

colleagues to sign it. My federal counterpart will have to do the same thing

after the federal election. I also, Mr. Speaker, look forward to introducing

ratification legislation in this House during the fall sitting. This agreement

will come into effect once the House of Assembly and the Parliament of Canada

have ratified it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the Ratification Committee,

chaired by Carol Brice-Bennett, for all its hard work in the preparation of the

Official Voters List and conduct of the overall vote. Without the work of this

dedicated committee this vote would not have been possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, a day of great joy for the Inuit people and certainly one of

great emotion. I want to thank the negotiators for the Labrador Inuit

Association who have spent months and months away from their family. Some of

these negotiators have young children, and the sacrifice they made, I hope, will

pay off for the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the government negotiators who have done a

wonderful job in negotiating for the Province. I want to thank the Member for

Exploits, who was the Premier of a government who believed in the Labrador Inuit

Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I say today, with great certainty, that without his

co-operation this final agreement that was signed last summer would not become a

reality.

Mr. Speaker, I would be mistaken if did not thank the Member for Kilbride,

who was a member of the Opposition. I am sure that many times he could have

asked questions for the sake of personal and political gain, but he realized the

seriousness. For the way he conducted himself, on behalf of the people in

Labrador, I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while it is a day of joy for a

lot of our elders, it is too late for many who have founded our communities in

the most difficult times for them, as they have passed on and did not live to

see this great day come about.

To the people who were relocated from Hebron and Okak and were uprooted, for

a lot of these people, too, these land claims came too late; but, no doubt, it

is a great day. It is a day that the Labrador Inuit will remember for years and

years to come, as they begin to take shape and mold their future.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the last thing I want to say is that it is for our

future, and that is our youth. Their future looks really bright. Maybe the dark

days that we witnessed over the last number of years will turn to sunshine.

Maybe the trips that I made, maybe too often, to travel to the North Coast to

say goodbye....

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to respond and thank the minister for a copy of his

statement and congratulate the Inuit and all parties who were involved in

negotiations over the past number of years. In particular, I would like to

congratulate as well the Member for Torngat, who, we all know, is a great

representative for that area, who speaks from the heart when he is talking about

the land and his people. He is certainly to be commended for the great job that

he has done as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, things will change and that with

this agreement will come a new way of life where the Inuit people will have

control over their own destiny, that the future will be improved for the youth

of the area and in all areas of life; that they will have control and set the

direction that they want to set for their future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that Standard & Poor's Rating

Services has affirmed our Province's credit rating. I am pleased to say that

Newfoundland and Labrador's rating remains A- and our outlook is considered

stable.

The rating reflects the Province's solid economic fundamentals and

government's plan to get its fiscal house in order. Standard & Poor's

identified that "the new Progressive Conservative Party's stated

intentions that were announced in the most recent budget to restructure the

province's finances and eliminate the province's deficit over a four-year

horizon, and thereby stabilize the debt burden in the medium term" as a

factor in its current rating decision.

Government is strongly committed to improving our Province's fiscal

situation, and we are taking steps to do just that. The latest credit rating

from Standard & Poor's, a leading international credit rating agency,

reflects those efforts.

Mr. Speaker, while Newfoundland and Labrador does have a number of positive

strengths, Standard & Poor's also noted that several areas offset these

strengths. These include the Province's large unfunded pension liabilities, a

declining population, and the deterioration of its budgetary performance in the

past two fiscal years. Government has recognized these challenges and we are

working hard to address that.

Mr. Speaker, in developing the 2004 Budget, government was faced with making

difficult decisions. We have stated repeatedly that without these difficult

decisions, our Province's credit rating may have been in jeopardy. In issuing

its rating, Standard & Poor's has stated: "The stable outlook reflect

Standard & Poor's expectation that the government will adhere to its

stated goal of eliminating its cash deficit as outlined in the current four-year

fiscal plan. Any material deviation from the province's stated plan to balance

the budget in this time frame could result in downward ratings pressure."

Mr. Speaker, this government inherited a serious financial situation and it

is this government who will take the necessary steps to fix that situation. It

is encouraging that Standard & Poor's has recognized government's plan

to put our Province on a sound financial footing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for a copy of his statement. I

guess you just confirmed what we said all along. We are not drowning in debt and

we are not on the verge of bankruptcy. Moody's have just confirmed that and,

in fact, they confirmed the same thing in December and January as they are

today.

Under a Liberal Administration we have had the best credit rating ever in the

history of our Province since Confederation. There is one thing I will say that

you have been successful at, that is with the propaganda that the Premier

announced on January 5. He was successful in turning around the people's

attitude of this Province. The whole economy is reeling because of what the

Premier said on January 5. You have been successful in that, in painting such a

picture, but you have been proven false again today by what you just said here

because Moody's has said that we have an A- rating and it is maintained, as it

has been.

I am going to tell you now what you have done to the economy. You say you

have a plan to cut the deficit in four years, but what is your plan? It is not a

balanced one. It is slash and burn. All you have done is devastate communities.

You have dropped programs, you have killed services and you have not taken a

balanced approach at all. In fact, look at the retail sales for the month of

March.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement, which I received

half-an-hour after the House started this afternoon. Standard & Poor's has

confirmed what all of the rating agencies said last fall, that the Province's

debt is really stable. We are glad to hear that it continues to be stable,

despite the efforts of this government to disrupt the economy. Although our

credit rating is stable, Mr. Speaker, one thing that was announced in the last

two days was that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province - the only

Province! - in Canada whose retail sales have decreased in the last quarter

instead of increased, and that is because of the doom and gloom preached by this

government starting on January 5.

Mr. Speaker, it does not take a genius to stop spending money. What it takes

is some leadership in building and growing the economy, and that is what has

been lacking from this government opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw attention to the

public education campaign launched this morning by the Workplace, Health, Safety

and Compensation Commission. The campaign is called Safe Work. The goal is to

promote safety at work in an effort to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and

deaths.

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that I delivered another statement to

my hon. colleagues recognizing the National Day of Mourning for those injured or

killed on the job. It was a reminder that every year thousands of workers in our

Province suffer as a result of workplace accidents. It is my belief, Mr.

Speaker, that the Safe Work campaign will tackle this issue head on, making our

workplaces safer for all.

As minister responsible for the Commission, I am extremely satisfied that the

impact of injuries on the worker, the employer, and the Province are being

recognized. When a worker is injured, it affects colleagues, family, and the

community. Workplace injuries also have a negative effect on businesses and the

economy.

It is important to note that through the efforts of employers and workers,

some progress has been made to reduce injuries on the job. The total number of

accidents is down about 10 per cent from just two years ago; however, to build

on this success, it is critical that we create and embrace a culture of safety

so that, in time, accidents are simply unacceptable. To this end, Mr. Speaker,

the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, through the Safe Work

campaign, is committed to changing people's attitudes, making safety a

priority in the minds of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Safe Work campaign, Mr. Speaker, is a sound approach to raise awareness,

to educate, and, ultimate, to save lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for an

advance copy of her statement. I guess today we see the results of the work of

the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. The role of this

Commission, I guess, initially it was set up to provide benefits and income to

injured workers, but over the last number of years under the great leadership at

workers' compensation, we have been focusing more and more on prevention. I

think that is the real key, that we should not have any injures in our

workplace. That is the ultimate objective. I do not think any worker can be

compensated in any way for any injury. That is not acceptable. I think, by

leading this campaign, it is appropriate at this time. In Newfoundland and

Labrador right now we are reaching the peak construction season and the peak

fishing season in terms of the hazardous occupations that we have in our

workforce. To have a conscious effort made and publicity to make sure that

people are conscious of their safety -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Just one comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BARRETT: I think it is important, too, because at this stage in the

year we have a lot of young people entering the labour force for the first time,

a lot students and a lot of young people. We all know the tragedy that can occur

in the workplace with some young people who are not aware of the safety

procedures. Anything that we can do to promote safe practices in the workplace

is very, very important and I want to compliment the minister and the workers'

compensation on this great initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

too, are supportive of any initiative taken by government that will further

workplace health and safety. Also, Mr. Speaker, the best way to have a sound

workers' compensation commission financially is to reduce accidents in the

workplace.

I want to say to the minister that in conjunction with the Minister of

Education, I think it would be appropriate to look at having, as part of the

curriculum in a high school course, to teach occupational health and safety

because many of these young people, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in their

lives, will be going out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Many of these young people will be going out in the

workplace for the first time. All workplaces are not up to what we would like

when it comes to informing young workers of occupational health and safety, and

meeting the standards and their right to refuse - the right to refuse, which, by

the way, is twenty-five years old in this Province. I am proud to say that we

were the first Province, I believe, in Canada to have the right to refuse in

1978, and that mainly came about as a result of my local union, where we had

three deaths in nine days, and the McCarthy Inquiry. Those people who were in

government at the time will probably remember.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that every opportunity we have be used to

further safety and health in the workplace. I really do think that the Minister

of Education and the Minister responsible for Labour should look at the

introduction of a course outline to be included in the curriculum of high school

students, so that they will have first-hand knowledge in the classroom prior to

going out into the workplace for their first jobs.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers? Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as late as yesterday afternoon, Cabinet Ministers and members of

the government caucus were still saying that letters were written to all the

federal party leaders for their position on issues of importance to the people

of this Province, and yesterday responses from two of the leaders were actually

tabled in the House.

My question is for the Premier. I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that he has

actually written a letter to the Prime Minister, as stated by his Minister of

Transportation and Works yesterday, on the same day, posing the same questions?

In the spirit of yesterday, where letters were readily tabled, will he table the

letter he wrote to the Prime Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister himself would have no direct knowledge of exactly

when those particular letters went out. He may know part of it, he would not

know all of it. They went out from my office.

A letter did, in fact, go to the Prime Minister but it was very recently. It

did not go out at the same time, if that is the information that is required.

What I can state is, there is an ongoing dialogue with the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister called me 9:30 yesterday morning, which is for the third time

in two weeks. The issues, of course, that were raised in the letters to the

various leaders of the Conservative Party, and as well to Mr. Layton, are the

same questions that were ultimately put to the Prime Minister. They are also the

same issues that were discussed with the Prime Minister, going back as far as

December when I had that first meeting with him, which was the very first

meeting we were fortunate to have with any Premier in the country. I was very

proud of that and we got all these issues on the table at that point in time.

Each and every time I have had an opportunity to have a conversation with

him, and/or any of his ministers, I raised most of these issues that are of

importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that is what is important

here. The issue is not when the letter was written. I mean, to make small

political hay out of something like that, when the letter was - who cares when

the letter was written. The letter was written. We had a conversation with the

Prime Minister. We are continuing to move the people's agenda forward. That is

what should be important to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a bit of a condemnation of the whole government when the

Premier would stand up and say telling the truth is not important. Because the

minister, yesterday, said that the same letter was written on the same day,

asking the same questions, and that is a serious matter for the credibility of

this government that expects us to believe what they say and expects the people

of the Province to believe what they say.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation again,

there was no letter written before. There is a recent letter. I ask the Premier:

Would he table the recent letter that he sent to the Primer Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would only be too delighted. As I said, I think that letter

was probably sent as recently as yesterday or the day before. I would only be

too delighted to send that letter.

To be quite honest with you, the reason that letter was sent to the Prime

Minister and to the Liberal government was to make sure that they had an equal

agenda, they were provided the same opportunity that was provided to the other

federal parties. As well, you know, the current government does not have the

benefit of publicly disclosing every time we have a conservation. I have had

conversations, of course -

MR. E. BYRNE: Or what we have presented to them.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Or what we have presented to them, because that is done

in good faith and a lot of it is confidential. As things become of importance to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as we make progress, I will keep

this hon. House informed and I will keep the hon. gentleman opposite informed;

but, you know, with all the issues that are of importance to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - to tend and try to twist the facts, and pretend that

someone is not telling the truth or someone is lying to this House, nothing is

further from the truth. To get up and go through this charade day after day

after day does not serve the interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier stand and confirm that Mr. Harper's response

was passed out, hand-delivered, in the caucus meeting on March 4?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the meeting which we had, which is really an internal caucus

meeting and is really, quite frankly, none of the business of the hon. gentleman

opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do you know something? I was going to give him an

answer, but I am not going to bother.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that with three questions and the answers,

we have identified absolutely conclusively that the Minister of Transportation

and Works provided false information of this Legislature on two occasions

yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, again, if the Premier shared some of the information with this

caucus, they might not have embarrassed themselves yesterday by entering into a

debate where they asked: Where is the written response from the Prime Minister?

There was no written response because the letter was not sent until

yesterday, and I believe that is important, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his supplementary question now.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the Premier indicated that

he was delighted about the health care funding announcement from the Government

of Canada and from the Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, and yesterday

two Cabinet Ministers and two Parliamentary Secretaries indicated that they were

delighted with the responses from Mr. Harper on issues of relevance to the

Province. I ask the Premier: Is he as excited about the responses from Mr.

Harper as his two Cabinet Ministers and his two Parliamentary Secretaries were

yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I would like to know how excited the hon. member

opposite was, when he heard the news from Mr. Harper yesterday.

Sure, we were pleased. Any time there is progress made on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are very, very pleased. Mr. Harper came

to town yesterday. Of course, as the hon. gentleman opposite has been

suggesting, that we tried to move the agenda forward for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it seems like when we start to get results he gets

annoyed; he does not like what he hears.

Well, we got results yesterday; and the announcement yesterday, according to

our internal calculations which were done last night by the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, is that the announcement yesterday, in the

first year, could mean an additional $245 million to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a lot of money.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, $245 million is a lot of money and I am very

delighted about that, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I concur. I believe that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

were pleased to hear the announcement yesterday with respect to that issue, and

that we look forward to whomever forms the government delivering on exactly that

type of proposal.

Let's ask about a couple of others that were in the response from Mr.

Harper, in the letter that was tabled here yesterday - a commitment with respect

to the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. A direct question asked by the Premier:

What about your position on divesting to Newfoundland and Labrador at no cost

the 8.5 per cent share?

Again, members were standing yesterday and saying they were delighted with

the answer. The answer was, "I support the eventual disposition of these

shares that maximizes the value to Canadians."

Is the Premier satisfied that is the kind of answer that he is going to

accept and do nothing else about, or is he going to try to get a different

answer than that some time during this election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing how we are in the process of exchanging letters, I would be interested

to know if the hon. gentleman opposite or the party has written any of the

leaders to express their interest, because they seem to be interested in an

all-party committee; they seem to be interested in asking what we are doing.

It is your party. It is a Liberal government in Ottawa, a government that you

should have a good relationship with. I would like to know what your party has

done to advance that relationship on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, because quite frankly we are all in this together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We are all here as representatives of the people. We

are all here to advance the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What are you doing about it? What are you

doing to help? Absolutely nothing.

Now, when it comes to the Hibernia interest, yes, we are trying to purchase

it. I made a statement on that a long, long, time ago, as you know. I have

mentioned it to the Prime Minister on several occasions. I have mentioned it to

Mr. Harper, and I also discussed other things with Mr. Harper yesterday with

regard to a guarantee on the Lower Churchill. Now, of course, that is something

that the hon. gentleman opposite would not understand because he seems to think

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He seems to think that Hydro has another $10 billion in its pocket that it

can go out and borrow. Well why didn't you go ahead with the Churchill

yourself, if you had enough money to do it? You know why. You just simply do not

understand the process.

I talked to Mr. Harper yesterday, and Mr. Harper indicated to me that he was

very interested in considering a guarantee for the Lower Churchill. That is the

kind of progress I am making. Why don't you just get on the bandwagon and help

us out for a change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the Premier instructed

his caucus colleagues to stand and speak against a motion where we would do this

together because he did not want us. Today, he says, why don't you get on side

with us? Yesterday, the line was: We are going to do it without you; we do not

want you. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Premier: Did he yesterday, did I just hear him say

that yesterday in his position, in his meeting with Mr. Harper, that he changed

his position for the Province with respect to the 8.5 per cent? Because the

letter that he wrote on February 24 said: What is your position in supporting

the transferring, at no cost, to Newfoundland and Labrador of the 8.5 per cent

Hibernia share?

He just said: I spoke to Mr. Harper yesterday about trying to purchase the

8.5 per cent. Have you changed the position on behalf of the people of the

Province, without even consulting with your own caucus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to check Hansard to see if the word purchase was used. No, my

position has not changed on that. I have asked him to transfer -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I did - actually, it was just a misnomer. That is

all that was. I have actually asked him to transfer it at - it may be a purchase

at a cost of $1, because there has to be some consideration, in any legal

transaction, as you would understand, at least nominal consideration. So,

technically, $1 would be a purchase. Having said that, we are looking to have it

transferred at no cost to the Province because we think that is the right and

proper thing to do. Our position clearly has not changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have the Premier speak, because the story changes that often

that he has to check Hansard himself to find out what he said two minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, another commitment asked for in the letter to Mr. Harper, which

was sent by mistake to Mr. Layton, assuming he was running for the Conservative

Party leadership, it asked if he would ensure that future health care funds be

based on need rather than per capita. The response was, "The Equalization

program already incorporates a measure of need." I take it that means no.

He said no with respect to future health care funding being based on need. Is

that a satisfactory answer, as four of your colleagues in your caucus said

yesterday, that they would see this as a contract, that they would gladly hold

Mr. Harper to if he becomes the Prime Minister? Is that your position, that is

satisfactory?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has to understand that when you move from a

five-province formula to a ten-province formula that Mr. Harper committed to on

a stand-alone basis, that would have meant to us a $150 million on a stand-alone

basis. That is the reference to equalization because a ten-province puts $150

million more into the coffers of this Province to use for health care or to use

for numerous services here in our Province. You have to look at things in the

context of the overall policy, and a ten-province formula gives $150 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - far more than that person could obtain when he was

Premier of this Province and many times more that we will see before this is

over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem for Newfoundland and Labrador is that the

Premier, on behalf of the government, has already agreed to leave the

equalization formula unchanged if the Liberals get re-elected. He has already

agreed to that.

Mr. Speaker, another one of Mr. Harper's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - pre-commitments, and I am glad he asked about a guarantee

for development of the Lower Churchill. The actual question in the letter to Mr.

Harper, Ms Stronach, Mr. Clement and to Mr. Layton, not to the Prime Minister,

unless we see it in the new letter that was sent yesterday because there were

members in the House saying the letter was sent two months ago. It said,

"Will you support - with respect to Hydro - the Lower Churchill

development, including the provision of a federal government guarantee if

necessary?

I am glad he raised it, because the answer was this - and the members

yesterday said this is a contract we would gladly hold Mr. Harper to. This

satisfies us, said the Member for Lake Melville. The answer is, "I support

the further development of hydro power resources in Newfoundland and

Labrador." Is that a satisfactory commitment? Is that what a real answer is

to whether or not a guarantee will be provided if necessary? Is that the kind of

answer that this Premier is satisfied to receive from a potential Prime Minister

of the country? Is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the hon. gentleman

opposite that I had conversations with Mr. Harper yesterday. This was, of

course, written a couple of months ago. It was an attempt to get a preliminary

position on all issues of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and we quite successfully did that before he became leader of the party. I did

indicate yesterday in a conversation with him that I discussed the issue of

guarantee and I could say to this hon. House that he was favourably disposed.

But I would not put words in his mouth and say he made a commitment, because at

that particular point in time I did not ask him for a commitment. I am

establishing a good relationship with these people. I intend to continue to have

a good rapport and have a co-operative, collaborative relationship with these

people, unlike the hon. gentleman opposite and the hon. members opposite who had

a very, very poor relationship with Ottawa. They seem to be quite concerned and

discontent of that fact that maybe we might advance the cause of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and maybe we might continue that good relationship.

I understand as well that a friend of the Member for Port de Grave - the

minister has even asked to meet with your caucus and has been doing so for the

last month. You do not want to even give him a meeting. He is the Minister of

Natural Resources. Continued bad relationship with Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, maybe the Premier should spend a little more time meeting with and

discussing these matters with his own Cabinet ministers and his own caucus. His

Minister of Transportation and Works stood yesterday, referenced this letter

from Mr. Harper, when it said: Will you support these things? It did ask for

commitments, unlike the Premier just said. He changed his story. The Minister of

Transportation and Works, on behalf of the government, saying: If the

Conservative Party of Canada forms the government this letter is the basis of a

contract I would expect them to live up to. Now, the Premier up saying: I did

not expect that to be the answer. Well, your minister expected it to be the

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The question is, Mr. Speaker, and I know they do not like the

questions because, again, the minister misled the house twice yesterday. The

Premier is changing his mind (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation. I am asking the member, asking

the question, to get to his question very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

A question with respect to a commitment on 5-Wing Goose Bay, that they are so

proud of. Mr. Harper's commitment when asked: Will you support military

training in 5-Wing Goose Bay? The answer, "I have committed to an immediate

injection of $1.2 billion into defence spending...". No mention of Goose

Bay whatsoever.

The Member for Lake Melville stands up yesterday and says, just like the

Minister of Transportation and Works: This is a contract that is good enough for

me; that is a good enough commitment for me. Is that the level of commitment the

Premier is satisfied with? His Member for Lake Melville is satisfied. The

Minister of Transportation and Works is satisfied. The Minister of Environment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied, we are satisfied, the Member for Lake Melville

is satisfied, because Mr. Harper stood in our caucus and told you that there

would be a commitment to 5-Wing Goose Bay. That was verbatim. That was

face-to-face. That is as good as it gets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the new Conservative Party, Stephen

Harper, was in town. He knows there will be a windfall for government because of

increased gas prices. Mr. Harper knows it. He even admitted it and he has a plan

to give consumers a break. In fact, all the federal party leaders recognize

there is a tax windfall for government, and they are all jockeying to present

alternative policies to deal with this issue. The only person claiming that

there is no windfall is the Minister of Finance of this Province.

I ask the minister again: Will you do an analysis at the end of this year,

like the feds are going to do, to determine the amount of the windfall, or are

you still trying to hide this money and say it does not exist?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do analyses on an ongoing basis, and she will see a good analysis at the

end of the year. She will see it when the next Budget is produced. You will see

the line items and the revenue on every single item and expenditure. You won't

see them disguised under three different sets, you will see them under one true

basis of accounting, the accrual basis of accounting. That is what you will see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it appears he is not going to give the answer.

Well, given the fact that the part of the increased revenue this government

will receive because of higher gas prices is from the harmonized sales tax or

the HST, any changes would require the agreement of the provinces involved, Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick and ourselves.

Will the minister co-operate with the other provinces and the federal

government, to allow a return of revenue on prices over eighty-five cents a

liter, or are you even considering playing a role in what is being proposed by

your own leader, Stephen Harper?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member asked me questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked me

yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition asked questions yesterday that the

member asked me a week ago. I wish they would exchange their questions and get

them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they must be getting to the bottom of the

barrel now when they have to exchange questions and ask them several times over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say, for the third time, that either they don't

listen very well, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SWEENEY: Stand on your feet, Loyola, stand on your feet.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace would let me

answer, I would be delighted to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer rather quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I got the impression the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace wanted to be the

third one to ask it.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it -

MR. REID: Get up and answer the question.

MR. SULLIVAN: And now the Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants to be

the fourth one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance talks about answers. I have had questions tabled here

for weeks with no answers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The minister knows that Fishery Products International is governed, to some

degree, by

an act in this Legislature. He should also know, like most people in

this Province already know, that the marketing and value-added division of FPI

is the most valuable part of that company. In fact, it makes up approximately 55

per cent to 60 per cent of the sales. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that FPI is

considering selling 40 per cent of that division. I ask the minister if he can

give us an explanation of what the board of directors is proposing to sell. For

example, is it the entire marking division of FPI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am pleased to inform the former Minister of Fisheries

that, unlike himself, when he was Minister of Fisheries and stated that he was

just as much in the dark today as he was yesterday - I remember him saying that

- we are very much in the light today. Unlike the former Premier, we are very

interested in the FPI issue, extremely interested, and as a result of our

interest we are asking a lot of questions. We are asking an awful lot of

questions.

I have actually met with the officials, as has the minister, the officials of

the company, and we are fully informed. As a result of the questions that we are

asking, they are coming back with answers and we are actually asking more

questions because we are interested in the answers that they are giving us.

Having said that, we are taking advice from the Department of Justice, who

are involved in this as well, and the Department of Fisheries. My office is

involved as well. We have also gotten a legal opinion on this particular matter.

We are very much on top of this issue.

As the hon. gentleman opposite knows, this is a public company and we have to

be very, very careful -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer as quickly as possible.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a public company and, under securities legislation and requirements

and regulations, we have to be very, very careful what we disclose. Having said

that, you need to know that the government, your government, is all over it. It

is in good hands. We are again extremely, extremely interested in the outcome of

this, and we will continue to ask whatever questions are important to this

issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly hope that the Premier is getting more answers from FPI than I am

getting from him, because he did not answer the question that I asked him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: What the Premier just said is, trust me. Well, 4,000 public

servants trusted you, Mr. Premier, before the election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier - because he will not let the Minister of

Fisheries answer the question - Mr. Premier, FPI employs thousands of people in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Anything that affects FPI affects those people

in these rural communities.

I ask the minister if he will monitor the issue closely, and if anything that

is detrimental to the people's jobs comes about - if, for example, they sell a

division of that company that is going to have a detrimental impact on the

employees of FPI in this Province - would you consider, or will you change the

legislation to prohibit it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this company, and dealing

with this file, I can assure the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that we

will do whatever is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is our sole intention; that is our sole purpose.

With regard to a non-answer to his first question, I think he understands

here that this is about exposing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

liability for disclosing information that should not be in the public domain,

that is proprietary, confidential information. I am sure you would not want us

to do that and cost the people of the Province liability and damages for

disclosure of that information.

I just want to make sure it is very clear as to why I cannot give you a

direct answer. You can ascertain from reading the papers and from what is

available in the public domain as to what the general plan is. You would have

the same information there that the general public has. With regard to

securities legislation, we have to be very, very careful how we handle that.

That just comes from a legal opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

There is time for a very quick supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we will be watching FPI and we will also be watching

you.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the real Minister of Fisheries can answer this question

because it is about a somewhat different issue.

Last year, Minister, you were a member of an all-party committee of this

House that dealt with the closure of the cod fishery in the Gulf and in the

Northeast Coast of our Province. At that time you made a number of

recommendations to the federal government. One of them was for an early

retirement package for fishermen and plant workers in the Province. I ask the

minister, does his government still support this initiative, this cost-shared

retirement package for fishermen and plant workers? If so, what discussions have

you had with Ottawa pertaining to this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the minister, I want to remind people we are running out

of time in our commitments to the members of the New Democratic Party. I can let

the minister have about thirty seconds to give an answer.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that we

have had discussions, I have had discussions, with the federal Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans on this matter on a couple of occasions over the past seven

months. I have indicated to him our desire to see an early retirement program

for fisheries workers, and indicated that if the federal government was to go

down that road we would consider participating. That is well known to the

fishermen's union as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Last fall, our party campaigned on the creation of a Newfoundland and

Labrador Energy Corporation, two cornerstones of which would be the

publicly-owned Newfoundland Power and an equity position in offshore oil and

gas, starting with the transfer to our Province of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia

We are extremely delighted, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that the NDP federal

leader has committed to a transfer of the Hibernia share to the Province, and

has done so in writing to the Premier. Was the Premier any more successful

yesterday in talking to Mr. Harper than he was in getting an answer in March of

this year? Did he get any better commitment than he got from Stephen Harper when

he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, now that he is the

leader, when Mr. Harper said that he wanted to divest these shares in a way that

would maximize the value to Canadians? In other words, no, he does not want to

transfer those shares to Newfoundland and Labrador. Did he get a better

commitment yesterday than he got before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. gentleman for that question.

I must say, I was very pleased with the response from Mr. Layton. He was very

clear and very definitive on his position, as to what it was. That is, of

course, consistent with our position, consistent with your own party's

position.

There was no indication yesterday, whatsoever, that Mr. Harper was prepared

to change his position; however, you have to understand sort of the atmosphere.

We had a very quick conversation before we went in. We had a discussion at the

table at lunch. Major issues were raised just on sort of a peripheral basis, but

not in a situation where you could really drill down. So, there was no change in

his position officially yesterday. Again, I do not want to put words in the

mouths of these people, but from his letter there is no official change in his

position.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows, of course, that the 8.5 per cent equity share in Hibernia,

the transfer of that to this Province is a tangible way in which the Government

of Canada can show that Newfoundland and Labrador is the owner of that resource

and that it should be transferred. Has he had any response or luck with the

he in the same position with the Liberal Party of Canada and the current

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a position which we, as a party and as a government, feel very, very

strongly about and we will continue to advocate. It appears that the Liberal

Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, at this point, are not prepared to

change their position; however, there hopefully will be a total negotiation on

this together with issues on the Atlantic Accord, together with issues on the

ten-province standard.

As you understand, that is all part of the negotiating process, but it is

certainly our intention, as a government, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

to have a greater stake in their natural resources, in their offshore oil and

gas reserves. We are prepared to look at that and we are prepared to look at

expanding the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as an energy corporation.

That is something we are actively looking at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, can we have it confirmed that

the Premier did commit, during Question Period, to table the letter that he sent

to the Prime Minister in the last day or so?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Each and every day when the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied or he

wants to get more information, he is using points of order to extend Question

Period. All he needs to do is look at Hansard. The Premier's response was very

clear.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) what he said.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hansard is not ready yet, for the Leader of the Opposition's

knowledge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Hansard of today comes out tomorrow. He cannot look at

today's until tomorrow.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is this: They continue to use points of

order as a way to extend Question Period. Now, if they are not satisfied with

the answers, that is all we can do. The fact of the matter is that it is very

clear what the Premier said. He already knows it. Have a look at Hansard

tomorrow if you do not like it, or go out and listen to the tapes yourself, but

points of order are for infractions of the House, not to extend Question Period

for the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, a very brief comment on the

point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order - because I take it that was a new point of order that

you did not have a chance to rule.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it was not.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order?

I will sit down when the Speaker tells me to sit down, I say to the

Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, in referencing

checking with Hansard, indicated that it could not be checked today, and

contradicted himself even before he sat down and said you can go out and check

the tapes.

The Speaker knows, and everybody in this Legislature knows, that the Speaker,

himself, you yourself, Your Honour, have actually made rulings in this House on

the same day because everybody here knows that it can be verified what you said

just by checking with the people in Hansard. The written record does not come

out until tomorrow but the record is now available and he should apologize again

for misleading the people about the circumstance with respect to Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair did, on two occasions last week, remind members that points of

order are for parliamentary procedures. They should never be used to extend

Question Period or to ask questions for which answers which were given may not

have been acceptable or deemed to be appropriate by the person asking. Question

Period has an assigned time. It is thirty minutes. There is no point of order. I

ask members to be cognizant of the Parliamentary Rules and our Standing Orders.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report

for the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table the 2003 Annual Report for the Labour

Relations Board, which reports to this department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report the Resource Committee

have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without

amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Fisheries

and Aquaculture; Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development; Environment and Conservation; Tourism, Culture and Recreation;

Business, and Natural Resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report that the Social Service Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of

Expenditure of the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department

of Justice; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, and the Department of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report that the Government Services Committee have considered

the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates

of Expenditure of the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the

Department of Transportation and Works, and the Department of Government

Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: On today.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the

Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 28).

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the

Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 29).

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend The Automobile Insurance Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: - The Insurance Companies Act and The Highway Traffic Act to

Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance. (Bill 30).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act. (Bill 26).

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25).

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice

that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend

The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 27).

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in Question Period last evening the hon.

Opposition Leader asked to have the letter tabled that Mr. Saunders wrote my

department. I checked with Mr. Saunders and he has no problem with me tabling

this letter. I have now tabled it.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a

petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents in the

community of Williams Harbour in my district, Mr. Speaker.

The community of Williams Harbour is only about eighteen kilometres or so

from the Labrador Highway. This is a community who thought they were going to be

connected by road this year, actually, Mr. Speaker. All of the engineering work

was completed, the environmental review was completed, the routing for this road

has actually been determined and, to my knowledge, there was even some bridge

that was made available for use across the river. The only thing outstanding was

a commitment from the new government to continue with this construction and to

make the funds available under the Trans-Labrador Highway Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen and, in fact, what the government opposite

did, and what the Minister of Transportation and Works did, he, in the Budget,

through the Minister of Finance, announced that the Williams Harbour access road

would not be completed but rather was under review, was put on hold, was being

examined as to the economic feasability of constructing this particular

section

of highway.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there are very few roads in this community that

were built based on economic viability. Actually, I would question whether any

communities in those small communities in rural areas of the Province have a

highway based on economic viability. It is based on the requirement to service

people, as a government, to allow them to have access to services, whether it be

health care services or other government services that are provided. This is a

situation where, in the community of Williams Harbour, for a cost of about $5

million, money that is available in the Labrador Transportation Fund, to be

spent in communities in Labrador, could be spent to build this road, but the

government opposite refuses to allow it to happen.

Let me tell you what they did allow to happen, Mr. Speaker. They allowed the

expenditure of putting a ferry in Lewisporte for the people of Lewisporte and

the people of Central Newfoundland to use to access Labrador as an optional

route at a cost of $1.7 million to the people of Labrador. That money will come

out of the Labrador Fund. We confirmed last evening that actually $680,000 will

come out of that fund this year, just to run the terminal in Lewisporte and

employ a number of people at dockside.

Mr. Speaker, that is a complete and utter injustice that is being done to the

people in Williams Harbour and to the people in my district. These people

deserve to have a highway connection. The money is in the Labrador Fund to do

indeed just this, Mr. Speaker, to connect communities in isolated regions of

Labrador to a highway connection. There is absolutely no reason to delay this

construction, to cancel it or defer it. It can be built this year. It is a

one-season construction project. The money is in the fund, and right now the

custodian of the fund, the minister for Labrador, the Minister of

Transportation, and the Member for Lake Melville, the Parliamentary Secretary,

as custodians, are abusing the rights of this fund by taking the money to put it

in Lewisporte and not build a road in the community of Williams Harbour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clue up my comments by saying to the Minister of

Transportation and Works, and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, I want to

invite them to come to Williams Harbour, Mr. Speaker, to visit this community

and see the importance of having a road connection just eighteen kilometres from

a main highway into this community that, right now, is completely isolated, that

depends upon the services of other nearby towns. I want to invite the two hon.

ministers to go and visit that community, see how the money from the Labrador

Fund could be invested to the benefit of this community and to the benefit of

Labrador. All it means is just a decision by that government to make it happen,

Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition from the residents of a community in my

district. Again, I have read the prayer of this petition often in the House. As

you can see, Mr. Speaker, the size of the petition is getting bigger every day

and petitions keep coming in.

Mr. Speaker, the parents of the students, in particular of St. Joseph's in

Carbonear, are very upset. They are not certain what the future holds for their

students in September. The students, themselves, are faced with the possibility

of being bused to Harbour Graced to a school that is not ready for them, being

asked to go to another school within Carbonear, Davis Elementary, and that in

itself is of the same age as the school that they are being moved from. The

school is not ready. There have been no renovations done. There have been no

tender calls done.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process is flawed. How can anyone, how can any school

board, make a conscious decision to close the school without any preparations

done to make life easier and pave the way for a smooth transition? It is unheard

of, in this day and age, in 2004, for a group of people to meet - and that group

of people is the Avalon West School Board. They closed St. Joseph's

Intermediate School in Carbonear and they have reconfigured St. Francis in

Harbour Grace to include Grades 6 to 9 in the area.

Now, the school board keep saying that they have gone through an extensive

consultation process; but, let me tell you, I attended some of those meetings

and I was part of what was perceived to be a consultation process. I do not know

who this board consulted with. There was no consultation done with the parents,

there was none done with the students, so I do not know who it was done with. It

was done in isolation. A decision was made, pure, plain and simple, to close St.

Joseph's just for the sake of trying to save some money. Now, the fact of the

matter is, there is not going to be any money saved. If the school at Davis

Elementary have money spent on it to put a piece on, as the old school board

keeps saying, well then that in itself is not going to save any money. How can

you say one school, the same age as the other school, is a suitable school? Air

quality is not there; fire regulations are not in compliance; classrooms are

without windows. You have to climb over desks to get from - the inside student

has to climb over the desk of the outside student to get into their seats. It

does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, something has to be done. I keep asking, and I

will continue to ask as long as I am here: Why can't the new school board, the

jumbo, the super school board that is in place, look at the situation, review it

again, and at least give the parents and the students, of all those schools

there, another year of breathing space until we can find a suitable solution

which will be suitable to all the people in the area?

The minister yesterday - I noticed he was on T.V. last night and he visited

Leary's Brook here in the city, and I have extended the invitation to him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I ask the minster, again, if he would take the time to come

out and accompany me on a visit to the three schools, look at the conditions

firsthand, while school is in session? Not after school closes, but just to see

the condition of the school, and see that - you know, the people of the area -

Mr. Speaker, these people are not making up something here to cause problems.

They are seriously presenting this petition to me, on their behalf, to bring

here to the House of Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to bring this

subject up as long as the petitions keep coming in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask leave to move first reading of the following bills simply

because this was an agreement that we had in order to be able to get the bills

tabled today and into every members' hands so that there would be an

appropriate amount of time. This was the discussion I had with the Opposition

House Leader yesterday, and in particular now today, the Acting Opposition House

Leader, the Member for Port de Grave.

With that, I move first reading of Bill 25, The Professional Fish Harvesters

Act.

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

Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25)

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act," carried.

(Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, Bill

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

said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 26, The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Amendment Act.

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

Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 26.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act," carried. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a first time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act, Bill 26.

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

said bill be read a second time? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, the Provincial Offences Amendment Act, be

now read a first time.

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

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

Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27.

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

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

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

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

27)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27.

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

said bill be read a second time. Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 30, the Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, the

Insurance Companies Amendment Act, and the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, be now

read a first time.

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

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And the Highway

Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance, Bill 30.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services

shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act

And the Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile

Insurance," carried. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The

Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms

Respecting Automobile Insurance, Bill 30.

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

bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 31, the Schools Act amendment, 1997, be now read a first

time.

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

Education shall have leave to introduce to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to

Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall

have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act

to Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a

first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

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

said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Concurrence Debate for the social sector do now

proceed, including: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and

Community Services, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment,

the Department of Justice, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Social Services Committee Concurrence

Debate would now begin.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate may now proceed.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, and Acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that it was a pleasure to be able to take

part in

the Social Services Committee, the Estimates Committee meetings, and to say to

the following hon. members who served on that committee, it was an enjoyable

experience and a learning experience for me, under the Chairmanship of the

Member for Trinity North, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for

Conception Bay South, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and to say to the ministers

and all the staff from the five departments that were under this Committee - the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women,

the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Community Services,

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as well as Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, and the Department of Justice - I must say that I believe, and

I honestly and sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the questions and the

responses were very favourable and the co-operation that we received back and

forth was something commendable.

Mr. Speaker, during those Committee meetings I guess there were many

questions that came up, and I am going to touch on some of them that came

forward through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, for

which I was the critic.

Mr. Speaker, all too often we ask questions and issues are put forward and we

try to get a further response and clarification, and one of the issues that I

want to bring up today is with regard to the closure of the twenty HRE offices

throughout our Province, and having major concern about really no comprehensive

cost-analysis being done on the closure of those offices, because I understand

from the minister, when the question came forward, in particular one office, the

one in Burgeo, we know that there was an estimated amount of approximately $2

million that would be the savings for the closure of those offices, but there

was really no breakdown on what it was for each of the particular offices in

question.

Now, it is one thing to close the offices, whether it is for the sake of

saving money - I know some of the comments were made that we know that the

transportation systems are better today than they were back in the 1960s, and we

have better technology, and all of that is correct. All I hope is that the

system that is in place will fare out for the people of this Province, but I do

have some concerns with regard to the services. I know they are going to receive

the same benefits, that is always there, but the services and the magnitude of

service that they are used to having now - maybe there are a lot of areas in the

Province that never, ever had the service that those twenty offices had, but I

have concerns about the inconvenience that will be put forward to many of those

clients.

I just want to touch, for a moment, on the one in Burgeo, where not only the

clients in Burgeo and all along that coast have to travel to Burgeo by boat, and

now, once they get there, they have to travel from Burgeo all the way to

Stephenville if they have to go into the office. I know, and I will touch on

this a little later on, that this new technology may have eliminated a lot of

the concerns that I may be feeling today, and I hope that I can, in due time, be

able to say, I told you so and everything is going to work out fine.

Mr. Speaker, I have had numerous calls from all over this Island, people

calling on the Burin Peninsula with regard to the office that will be closing in

Bay L'Argent. They have major concerns. Not only do they feel that the service

will not be provided as it is today for their own residents there, but the

impact that it will have on that area where people used to come into Bay L'Argent,

more or less, I guess, the decline of the economy in that particular area due to

an office being there and the inconvenience to the clients as well as to the

staff having to move on.

I am sure we all heard the concerns of the Mayor of Fogo when he mentioned

the impact, and I stand to be corrected but I believe he said that his area

might lose out in the vicinity of $200,000. Now, I know the minister has a

greater scope to look at than the concerns of little local areas, even though

that is the main objective of this government to see that things are, I guess,

improved on in rural Newfoundland, but I cannot put it to one side when you hear

concerns from people like this, even though, like I said, the minister has a job

to do, to provide the best service and in the most cost-effective way.

I also have to go to the office in Bay Roberts. Even though the office in Bay

Roberts is not all that far, having to move the people in that area - they would

now have to travel to Carbonear, which is a fairly close proximity to each

other. Mr. Speaker, there are many people - maybe a lot of us do not realize

this but there are many people who do not have the opportunity, do not have a

vehicle to travel to Carbonear at the present time,

whereas they could get

someone to give them a ride to Bay Roberts, because many services that are

provided in those HRE offices have to be done face-to-face with the people and

not over a telephone.

Mr. Speaker, going into the telephone technology end of it - that is all

wonderful and I hope this system is going to work, but I have some concerns. I

think the minister was questioned by one of the news media: What about the

person who does not have a telephone themselves? More or less: Well, you can

probably go to your neighbours house or use a pay phone. Mr. Speaker, I have

grave concerns about that, for many reasons. People who have to apply for

assistance, whether it is the regular income support benefits, whether it is a

drug card they are looking for, whether it is special transportation within the

Province or outside the Province. There are many needs which come out that those

people have to have concerns about. They believe and they honestly think - like

I said, maybe they will be proven wrong as well, that this is all going to work

out.

By using the telephone, Mr. Speaker - and I will just touch on the part about

applying for regular assistance. There is an application, and in the application

when you are applying for assistance, I think there are fifty-plus questions,

straightforward questions, but some of them have two and three parts to them. In

total, I estimated that there are approximately between 100 and 120 questions to

be answered. To me - and I have to put myself in their shoes. If I was the one

on the other end of that phone - I did not have my own telephone - and I could

not go into the office, in the confinement of an office to sit down with a

social worker to make out the application and provide whatever information

possible, and I had to go to my neighbour's house, or worse again, go to a pay

phone somewhere - many communities in this Province, they may have pay phones

but they are in facilities that could be closed most of the time. But even to go

into a neighbour's house, or even into your own family, those people have

concerns about people knowing their business.

I think governments of the past saw this when it came to the point where they

thought that the confidentiality of people being in receipt of assistance - when

they send money for their rental accommodations they send it directly to the

client now rather than sending it to the landlord. In some instances that has to

change because some people cannot look after that system. But, to me, now here

we are saying that it is fine to go into someone's house to complete their

application over the phone or over a payphone and believe that confidentiality

is not going to be a major factor, because, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is.

There are many incidents where people have to go into the office. I have

constituents who call me from time to time who, for whatever reason, have fallen

behind with their light bill. They are unable to pay and they get their cut-off

notice from Newfoundland Power. They have to go into an HRE office, for the

simple reason because they have to sign off. The clients are not going to pay

for their bill but they do have to sign off and say: I am prepared that you

would take a portion out of my cheque each month to send to Light and Power. Mr.

Speaker, that, to me, cannot be done over a pay phone or over any type of phone.

Maybe if they had the form they could fax it in but many people in this Province

do not have access to a fax machine. So, I think that is one incident where

people will have to take a serious look. I mean, it is fine, like I said

earlier, for the people in my immediate area to travel to Carbonear, which is

not all that great a distance, but you have people who have to travel quite a

distance.

I know the office - I guess I made an error on this, and the minister

corrected me during the Estimates. I said the office in Placentia was closed.

That was incorrect, and I apologize for that. I do know that people in the St.

Mary's Bay area, for what reasons I have not found out yet, but they do travel

to Bay Roberts for some services. I mean, that is quite a distance. I do not

know if that is one of them, where they have to come to sign off on whether they

have their money taken out to help pay their light bill.

Mr. Speaker, other incidents that arise, and I have people calling me on a

fairly regular basis, and that is they are waiting for their EI to come through

and it is going to be delayed for whatever reasons. There might be an

investigation into their claim and they have to go to that office for assistance

while they are waiting for their EI to come through. They have to go in and sign

because this money will be reimbursed from the HRDC office back to HRE when that

particular time comes. That cannot be done just by a telephone call. They have

to go in and go face to face with the people who are doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I had calls from people who were either in hospital and, in

particular, the Waterford Hospital, people who have been released from other

institutions - which I will not name here in this hon. Chamber. When they are

released from this hospital or other institutions, they have to go directly -

they are probably single individuals - to an HRE office to seek assistance. It

is very difficult for them to be able to do this over a telephone. Number one,

lots of times it might be in an office that they are not familiar with. It could

be someone from my area who has been released in St. John's and are going to

stay in some particular home here in St. John's, and they have to go in and

see this particular worker. It just cannot be done.

Another policy, I understand - and I do not know how this will work out for

those people when they have to travel long distances, because my understanding

is that an actual worker has to be at the office at any particular time, even

through their lunch break. You take it, if it is so secure that they have to be

there for people when they come in, what is going to happen when they have to

travel those long distances? If they are in close proximity to the office, I can

see that, but to do it over - if they must be there face to face with them, I do

not know how this can be corrected and taken care of by using the telephone and

other communication systems.

Mr. Speaker, I also understand and I have major concerns with the upheaval of

the people who work in those offices because some of them - I know there are not

that many. I believe the number is twenty-some-odd through the HRE offices, who

will actually receive their layoffs. That is throughout the full twenty. Many

people have to move to different areas. I guess that is not the major concern of

government because a lot of people have to travel to different areas to seek

employment and to take

part in their daily jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, some of those

people, and I know for a fact - I have major concerns: What else is in the

plans? Because I know the people - I think there are twelve. One of those are

getting laid off now.

There are twelve in the Bay Roberts office who are going to be moving to

Carbonear. That is a problem in itself, but it is not the major issue. I do not

know if that is the end of the line or not, because I have it confirmed again

that those people are going to be placed - two workers in the one office. It has

also been told to me that they will be using the board room. The space is not

there. There are no plans to renovate or extend that office. I also had a phone

call today that there is just one washroom there. It is going to be used for

male and female. Those people are not used to that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think

it is right and proper to make those moves, to close those offices, without

having first consulted with those people. They knew about it, to some degree,

but really they did not know anything was happening until they got their notices

that morning that they were moving.

The other thing I heard today, and I have to confirm this, but the sources I

heard it from are always fairly accurate. They thought that their move was going

to be September of this year. I have been advised today that the staff at the

Bay Roberts office have been told they are moving next week. I do not know why

the rush is on now to get this over with. I guess the department is trying to

make those moves as quickly as possible and see where it goes from there, but

there is a lot of upheaval within the staff themselves, as well as what is

happening to the clients.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that surfaced when I was talking to some

of those people and it is what is called the review cycle. Apparently, it is a

form that is sent out to the clients to get more information, and they have to

send this back to the office in order for them to get their cheque. It is

possible that this could be lost in the mail. They have difficulty with it now,

and I have concerns with it because, with the system that we are going into now,

where there is no office close by - before, they could drop in, they could sign

the forms and possibly be issued their cheque at that same time. Mr. Speaker,

once this system sets in, it is going to be more difficult for those people when

they have to get information into the office, because they are used to going to

those offices and now that is going to be a problem because it is going to

happen through the mail system.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I failed to touch on when I referenced

the filling out of the application for benefits was, it is fine to fill it out

over the phone, whether it is in the confines of your own home, or your

neighbour, or on a pay phone, but you have to mail it into the office anyway.

They fill out the form, the application, they send it back to the client and

they have to sign it. In lots of cases, maybe the information that they need to

attach to this application is not just straightforward. There are lots of things

- birth certificates, other income support or whatever they received in the

previous sixty days - and all of that has to be included and verified - possibly

their bank accounts. That all has to be sent in. So, if they mail this out to

somebody it could take, who knows, two, three, four or five days, and mail it

back again and say: I am sorry, I cannot complete your application because all

the information is not attached. So here we go back in the mail system again.

Whereas now - and I know there are probably people around this Province who have

to do this, but why make the situation worse than it already is, when people can

just get a run into an office, drive into the office, provide the information,

and they would receive their cheque; because I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, when

those people have to go there looking for a cheque, a lot of them really do not

want to be going into the buildings but they know when they go there that they

are going to get the service they need from the wonderful staff who work in

those offices. There is no problem with that issue. Those people have a concern

for people, and they always will, and I believe today they still have a concern

for people and they are concerned about what is happening, that they will not be

able to provide the type of service that they have been able to do in the past.

Mr. Speaker, many times the elderly people have to go into those offices. I

know a lot of the work that is being done - and you have to tie the two

departments together because there was a break there a couple of years ago. A

lot of those people have to go to Health and Community Services as well. I just

want to explain for the purpose of this House - and the minister did it fairly

well during the Estimates, and I know I questioned her on it one time - a lot of

people still call them social workers, the people who have to go to the HRE

offices. In their mind they believe - because a lot of those people still think

they are going to get social assistance, and the worker they are dealing with is

a social worker. They do not distinguish between one and the other, and they

have a major problem with that. I know the minister said one time that there

were no social workers within her department, and that is correct, but those

people have a mindset where they are going, the type of people they are going to

be dealing with and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I brought up in the Estimates - and I know the

minister tried to clarify this for me - where I had my information from this

same Budget Details and Statistics we talk about every day in the House for

2004-2005, the comment that was sent out to us was, "Funding provided to

hire three additional accounts receivable collectors to collect outstanding

balances owed by prior income support clients. These collectors are based in St.

John's but provide services Province-wide."

I mentioned this to the minister, and no doubt later on she will be standing

to clarify some of those issues. That is where I got it from. It is not that I

just tried to say they were from St. John's. It was based on the facts that

were given to us, and that is why I made the statements in the public as well as

here at the Estimates Committee meetings, because it was information that was

provided to us through this document.

Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues are going to stand and speak in

reference to the other departments that are tied to this particular Social

Services Committee, but I have to say in closing that the concerns that I have,

much of the information that has to be provided through the HRE offices is very

personal and confidential information, and the people are very happy with the

service that they have. I know for a fact that the people in my area, they are

very upset that they are losing the office in our town. I guess we soon will not

have any government offices left in that particular district. We have Health and

Community Services there, and I know there is a review ongoing so I hoping and

praying that one will hang on in Bay Roberts. I understand where government is

coming from. They are trying to consolidate and all this, but I ask them, I

challenge them, to keep in mind the people. They are the greatest resource we

have, the people out there, and the services that they are looking for - I

honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, that when a service is provided to the people,

they can go in and speak to somebody face to face, it is far better than going

through a telephone system or other technology. We all know full well, we all

have our phone systems, we all have our message managers, and they are fine when

we are not available, but it is very discouraging when you get people who are in

need, whether they are looking for just regular assistance, whether they are

looking for rental accommodations, whether they are looking for a medical card,

whether they need transportation within the Province or outside the Province -

and many people have to travel outside the Province - Mr. Speaker, I just ask

that they would reconsider this. I know the decision has been made.

Mr. Speaker, I tha