December 5, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV

No. 41

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Humber West and Premier of the Province,

with leave; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Burgeo

& LaPoile; the hon. the Member for St. John's West; the hon. the Member

for Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

Does the hon. the Premier have leave to make a statement to the House?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but before the Premier begins I would like

to give notice at this time that we will on tomorrow be raising a point of

privilege. We will need some time to compile a research, but I just wanted, in

compliance with the rules which said we should give notice at the earliest

opportunity, and it concerns the appearance of the Speaker and the Speaker's

staff in a partisan political advertisement this past weekend. We will be

entering a point of privilege tomorrow.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me leave to make this member's

statement.

I rise today to congratulate our Province's newest Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Paul

Boland, from Curling, in the great District of Humber West.

Paul is a graduate of Regina High School in Corner Brook and is currently

attending Memorial University Medical School after receiving a Bachelor of

Science with Honours in biochemistry.

He is twenty-three years of age and has already accomplished a great deal in

his young life. He has received the Governor General's Medal, consistently

been on the Principal's and Dean's list and, most recently, the Faculty of

Medicine Dean's List.

Mr. Speaker, aside from his numerous academic achievements, Paul is a

tremendous athlete, excelling in baseball. In 2001, he was selected as both

Corner Brook's Male Athlete of the Year and the Province's best junior

baseball player.

Paul has represented our Province on many occasions at the national level and

also dedicates time to coaching minor baseball and mentoring young players.

Paul received the news just over a week ago and is justifiably very excited

and very proud. However, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if his excitement matches

that of his very, very proud parents, John and Colleen Boland.

Paul has decided to attend Oxford University in England, as is the privilege

of all Rhodes Scholarship winners, where he plans to study cardiovascular

medicine and play for the Oxford Kings Baseball Club.

I know that Paul will carry on a great tradition of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians competitive spirit there, as I was honoured to be the Captain of

the Oxford Blues Hockey team when I attended the same University.

Mr. Speaker, as a recipient of this award myself in 1969, I know firsthand

the hard work required and the immense rewards and opportunities that lie before

Paul Boland.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me as I extend

congratulations to Paul Boland and his family on this tremendous accomplishment,

and I wish him the very best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to students

in St. Lawrence in the District of Grand Bank for recently receiving the Most

Spirited Award at an Allied Youth International Conference.

Eight students from the St. Lawrence Allied Youth Post #989, representing the

Burin Peninsula, received the award for the most spirited poster during closing

ceremonies of the seventy-fourth Allied Youth international conference held in

Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia.

The group included: Jordan Rennie; Nicholas Giovannini; Dawn Benteau; Laura

Pittman; Cassandra Turpin; Alison Dunphy; Juliette Dupre; Deanne Slaney, along

with the accompanying teacher, Angela Rose.

The conference promoted healthy lifestyle choices for the students and

provided motivational speakers and information sessions for them.

One of the most popular sessions was a motivational presentation by Terry

Kelly, who is an accomplished singer and songwriter from Newfoundland and

Labrador. His talk was about how he overcame obstacles with his blindness to

achieve his goals. Through songs and stories, he captured the students'

attention and they left with a positive message that they, too, can achieve

anything they put their mind to.

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

students from St. Lawrence on winning this award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mr. Roy Sheaves, a Port aux

Basques resident and long-time Lions Club member, who was awarded the Melvin

Jones Fellowship earlier this fall. This fellowship is named for the founder of

the International Association of Lions Clubs. It is the foundation's highest

honour and represents humanitarian qualities such as generosity, compassion, and

concern for the less fortunate. This fellowship is given to members who make a

significant contribution to the charitable Lions Club International foundation.

Mr. Sheaves and the Port aux Basques Lions Club made the donation last year,

which was sent to help tsunami victims in southeast Asia, and Mr. Sheaves was

elected to receive the award.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sheaves has been an active Lion for thirty-five years and

has held various leadership positions during that time, including district

governor. He has also been a volunteer fireman for thirty-five years and was

involved in the Boy Scout movement for twenty-five years, achieving the rank of

regional commissioner.

Mr. Sheaves' name will be posted at the Lions International Headquarters,

he received a plaque and the club received a banner for his efforts.

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

congratulating Mr. Roy Sheaves and the Port aux Basques Lions Club on receiving

the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I feel privileged to stand in the House and bring greetings to a man

who is a very special part of my life, and indeed, of the lives of all our

family, my dad, who is celebrating his ninety-fifth birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Dad is a person who, for as long as I can remember, has

given so much of himself to his family and to his community. His life, until a

couple of years ago when he took up residence at Glenbrook Lodge, revolved

around his family, to whom he was a great example, and his community. He was

very active with the Knights of Columbus, the Benevolent Irish Society, as well

as with the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

He is still relatively active, getting out to visit his family three or four

times a week, and his good sense of humour still prevails as any of the staff at

Glenbrook Lodge will attest.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I, on behalf of all our family

and friends, wish a very happy ninety-fifth birthday to my dad, Mr. Jim Ridgley.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Bay Arena for introducing,

Active Living, a new promotional fitness program for healthy living. It works

quite simple, family and friends can skate at the Bay Arena in Bay Roberts for

up to one hour every week for free.

Joyce Morgan of the Bay Arena spearheaded the venture. Businesses from

Marysvale to Spaniards Bay-Tilton pay for one-hour ice time so that families can

become more active. Like most sports, skating is a good source of exercise.

Mr. Speaker, besides having their businesses promoted, the sponsor of the

week gets their business's name on their new Web site and on the sign outside

the Bay Arena. For businesses who want to give something back to the community

and get people more active - the Active Living promotion was so successful that,

in fact, businesses currently have the Bay Arena booked every week up to the end

of January, 2006.

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

congratulating the Bay Arena on their new promotional fitness program, Active

Living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the efforts and

accomplishments of the 840 Indian Bay Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron.

On October 15, 2005, at the Annual General Meeting of the Air Cadet League of

Canada, the Indian Bay squadron was presented with the Robert Arklie Best ACR

Drill Team Award. This award is presented to the best drill team at the annual

ceremonial review. This is an impressive feat, considering that a total of

twenty-one squadrons participated in the annual event. The squadron from Indian

Bay also received a Gold Proficiency Award for the third year in a row. Only

four of the twenty-one squadrons participating received this honour.

In addition to these impressive team accomplishments, the Indian Bay squadron

has also produced a number of exceptional individual efforts. Most recently,

Matthew Button travelled to Calgary where he represented our Province, and won,

in the Air Cadet League of Canada Effective Speaking Contest. Matthew received

this award after winning the provincial speak-off in April.

Individuals such as Matthew, and organizations like the 840 Indian Bay cadet

squadron represent the very best of what this Province has to offer.

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

congratulating Matthew Button and the 840 Indian Bay Air Cadet Squadron on their

achievements, and wish them the very best in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that Saturday,

December 3, was the United Nations International Day of Persons with

Disabilities. This day was initiated in 1982 to promote an understanding of

disability issues, and to mobilize support for the dignity, rights and

well-being of persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 10 per cent of people in Newfoundland and Labrador

have a disability. We believe that their needs must be actively considered in

the planning, development and implementation of government strategies that may

affect their lives.

Along with other government partners, we are working to enhance the

employability of persons with disabilities, and to increase the employment

opportunities available to them. This includes the need for education and

training, to connect employers with persons with disabilities, and to build

knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, to help mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities,

this week we will be releasing the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour

Market Agreement for Persons with Disabilities Report 2005-2006. This document

reflects the efforts throughout government to allow persons with disabilities to

live as independently as possible within their communities. This includes nearly

$7 million in investments made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. I can assure you,

the members on this side of the House want to say that we recognize the United

Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I guess, when we hear

the figure the minister just mentioned, 10 per cent is a staggering figure when

we look at our population here in this Province. We have to continue to do

everything to see that the needs of those people with disabilities are taken

care of.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like for the minister to

consider when they dive into the process of considering the concerns of those

people. One that I know has been brought to my attention a couple of times in

the district is, people with disabilities, where they are trying to get some

funds for the conversion of vehicles so they can access and get around and

travel. I know that has been a problem because I have dealt with the

departments, and hopefully the minister will look at that.

The other thing of some concern at this point in time is, I know there is a

strike ongoing with regard to buildings being open, and they are not totally

accessible now due to a strike with the elevators and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: By leave, just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: With leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BUTLER: Just to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the minister, when we mentioned here the

$7 million invested, I can assure you, any money that can go in to help those

people's lives, and make them have a better independent living, we are all for

it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

are mentioned in his statement are very serious issues.

On Friday night past, I had the opportunity to attend the Labrador West

Canadian Association for Community Living branch in Labrador West, where there

were over seventy people in attendance. They had to report and acknowledge all

of the work that has been done in the community of Labrador West to improve

I also had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, to serve on a

committee called the Labrador West Employment Corporation where, at that time,

we encouraged the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and other mining companies in the

area, to hire persons with disabilities. That has been done, as other employers

in the area have as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues. We are responsible for taking care

and improving the life of persons with disabilities within our communities, and

that is only going to be achieved by more awareness and more education in this

area.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Premier.

Premier, it is four days until Judgement Day for the Abitibi mill at

Stephenville. The government has sat back during the recent unfolding of this

process while the union and the company struggle to find common ground for a

deal.

I ask the Premier: Has government been asked to provide a concilliator or has

government offered any assistance during these negotiations? If not, why, with

only four days left, is government not willing to work with the parties to find

a solution?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, to make the assumption, and then to make another leap, the

assertion, that government has sat back and done nothing is absolutely false. I

spoke to the president of the union as recently as yesterday morning, for

example. We have been engaged and being provided with advice and providing

advice to the extent that we can. Mediation and arbitration services are

available through my colleague, the Department of Labour. Both parties

understand and know that; yet, neither one of those parties have asked for that

yet.

Is government willing to assist in any way that we can? I think we have

already demonstrated that. If there is a way to continue to do that, then those

parties recognize right now, if they need services from the government, that the

member is talking about, they would be provided immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, sitting quietly by is the same as doing

nothing, I would suggest to the minister.

You have repeatedly stated that different groups in the community and so on

are on side with the offer that government made some weeks ago, probably months

ago now. This is not about whether people support or do not support what

government offered to the mill at Stephenville or to the people of that region.

We have two combatants going at it here, and a workforce, a community and a

region, which will suffer the consequences if it is not resolved.

When is your government, Minister, going to stop playing spectator on this

issue and get involved? Why are you waiting for the union or the company to ask?

The community is asking and the community needs your involvement. When are you

going to do something proactive rather than sit back?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that - to suggest that this government

has not been proactive on this file, maybe it is the Opposition that needs to be

a little proactive in their thinking. It is a fact that the community

leadership, the union leadership, and the rank and file individuals in the

Stephenville and Bay St. George area support the initiative that we put forward

for the people in that area. Fact number two: The member has alleged that we are

sitting back and being a spectator. Absolutely false.

Let me ask the member this question, let me ask the Opposition this question:

Do you believe, or do they believe, that we should go in and say to the

membership of the union, yes, strip your contract and give Abitibi whatever they

want? If that is what they believe, let them go out there and say it. We won't

be saying it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly not suggesting that anybody be allowed to strip anybody's

contracts, and we take the issue far more seriously than the Member for Lake

Melville, who laughs whenever we ask a question about the Abitibi situation.

This is indeed very serious and we ask government to get on with it. There is no

point in making an offer if it doesn't get resolved. Failure is still failure.

To shift gears here, for the same minister: Minister, I asked you a question

on Thursday past about a hearing that is set before the Public Utilities Board

on December 7 th , that deals with $24 million in surplus that

Newfoundland Power has gained as a result of a tax settlement. You indicated in

your answer that your department had it under advisement and assessment and when

you made a decision you would decide what you were going to do. Minister, I

understand that the deadline for intervention by government went by on November

23th, and at that hearing on December 7 th the Public Utilities Board

will decide what Newfoundland Power can do with that surplus.

I ask the minister: Is government now, albeit this late hour, going to try

and intervene in this hearing and demand that this surplus money, $24 million,

be returned to the electricity users in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to clarify what I did say on Thursday, that

we are assessing the information and the question that came forward from the

member; that we are assessing it.

Now, with respect to intervention, government already has intervened, Mr.

Speaker, in all issues related to the PUB, and the intervention is called the

Consumer Advocate, and the Consumer Advocate is appointed by government to

represent consumers' interests.

Now, with respect to the details of the issue: Newfoundland Power had an

outstanding dispute with Revenue Canada, it was settled in their favour, and

that provided them with an additional $24 million this year. They have applied

to the PUB for $10 million to be applied to depreciation and expenses on this

year so there may not be any increases next year. Part of that application

process is that they have asked the PUB: How do we deal with the other $14

million? PUB hired Grant Thornton. If the member wants to see that report, go to

the website and he will see it. We have the Consumer Advocate in place and we

have the absolute confidence that what should be done for the ratepayers on this

issue will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: The appointment of a Consumer Advocate does not, in

and of itself, remove responsibility from government to intervene. We have lots

of precedents in this Province where, notwithstanding that the Consumer Advocate

appeared on behalf of consumers, government departments, through the appropriate

ministers, when needed, intervened on behalf of government. I am suggesting here

- in fact, I have spoken to the Consumer Advocate on this very issue, who

confirms my understanding, that it is indeed quite appropriate for government to

intervene themselves. In fact, it would only strengthen his case if the

government were to intervene here. Oil users have received a rebate program from

this government - albeit, not a sufficient one - while electricity users have

literally been left out in the cold.

I ask the minister: Why are you not willing to intervene at this hearing and

see that the $24 million surplus is returned to the electricity users in the

Province to help them go through this coming winter? Why aren't you

intervening? Don't pass the buck to the Consumer Advocate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Here are the facts of the matter. Newfoundland Power won an outstanding issue

or a case with Revenue Canada, that they could not predict, that put $24 million

extra in their bottom line. They have applied to the Public Utilities Board to

put $10 million against expenses that would negate any cost increases or a

request for any increases next year. That is a positive thing, as I see it.

The second thing with the (inaudible), you take the $10 million from the $24

million and you are left with $14 million. Newfoundland Power has then asked the

PUB to decide: Where should that go? The PUB may decide, based upon the

intervention of the Consumer Advocate, who this government has confidence in and

will continue to have confidence in, to return that to the ratepayers. This is a

regulated activity, one that we support and a regulated activity where we

appoint, on behalf of all citizens, the Consumer Advocate. We continue to have

confidence in him and his ability to represent consumers on this - what may be a

very good news story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, although we know the Minister of Finance was not prepared to do

anything for the ratepayers in this Province with any kind of program - he did

it for the oil users, but not for the electrical users. Here is an opportunity

for government to do something for electricity users by intervening in that

process.

My next question is for the Minister of Government Services. Minister, I made

an inquiry of your office several weeks ago regarding oil companies insistence

that customers order a minimum of $200 of home heating fuel before a delivery

would be made. You stated in response to me that you would speak to the Public

Utilities Board for guidance and assistance. Minister, I have spoken to the

Chair of the Public Utilities Board myself, who says that the board has

absolutely no authority to deal with this issue, which you ought to have known.

Now, Minister, there are people on fixed and low incomes who cannot afford a

minimum order of $200 of oil in order to have it delivered. Instead of deferring

or trying to defer this issue to the Public Utilities Board and deflecting your

obligation to help, what, minister, do you intend to do to help these people who

do not have $200 minimum?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about our citizens and the

oil in this Province and electricity rates here. We are doing everything in our

power right now to help those people, and my department is certainly - the PUB,

they do have the resources there to look at this situation and we will indeed

look at what the hon. member just asked there and see if there is anything that

we can do in this government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. I previously asked the minister to update us on the Stephenville flood,

and today I wish to follow up with additional questions.

Mr. Speaker, the affected residents are in limbo and staying in rented

accommodations or with family and friends. There is a real concern about the

length of time and lack of information regarding the proposed plans for those

affected by the flood. I ask the minister if he can tell those affected, when

will these plans be available to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the flood of September 27 certainly has been

devastating for a number of families in the Stephenville area. There were 156

families evacuated at the time. Six families have been able to return to their

homes. We now have 150 families who are either in rented accommodations or are

staying with family members. In order to make decisions as to what is going to

happen with these families in the long term, we certainly needed thorough

assessments done because not only did their houses flood, Mr. Speaker, the whole

infrastructure was torn out of the neighbourhood, the roads were torn out, the

sewer lines were torn out, the water was tore out. Mr. Speaker, there were even

homes that were moved from their foundations, moved out into the middle of the

street.

The assessments, for the most part, have been recently completed. I can speak

for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that there has been

ongoing communications with the town and with the federal government. We will

continue to work with the federal government to see what relief will be supplied

under the funds that are available to help make sure that these families are

re-established appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, along with concerns being raised about the fact that people are

not getting back into their homes in a timely manner, there is a lot of

uncertainty about whether people will be forced to refurbish existing homes,

rather than move to a new subdivision.

I ask the minister: When can residents expect to hear from him and government

regarding the situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, it is certainly a very serious

issue that these families and this neighborhood within the Town of Stephenville

has certainly been devastated. As I said, it is not a matter that the water from

the brook had backed into the community, into that neighbourhood, the river

actually broke, the brook did, and it came through the neighbourhood and it tore

out the infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been working with the Town of Stephenville

and with the MO officials to get the assessments done, but, Mr. Speaker, what is

also important in here, there is another partner, and that is the federal

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: We need to work with the federal government to see what

commitments, as well, that they will make to the people of Stephenville. Mr.

Speaker, we would like to deal with this as soon as possible, but we need

commitment from our federal officials as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: I say to the minister, the guidelines are already there. It

is the same guidelines as there were in the Badger situation. So, I think that

government realizes the first number of dollars they have to spend, and after

that, it is being shared by the federal government. The more costs it incurs,

then the federal government picks up more.

Mr. Speaker, the Badger flood of 2003 was a terrible disaster, but with the

help of both levels of government and a huge volunteer effort by groups, such

as: the Red Cross, Royal Canadian Legion, Lions Clubs, municipalities, church

groups and individuals, these people are now getting their lives back to normal.

It is my understanding that there has not been as much money raised through

volunteer groups for Stephenville as there was for Badger.

I ask the minister, whether the provincial government will commit to offer

additional assistance to cover any shortfall from the volunteer groups so that

the people involved in the Stephenville flood receive the same level of

compensation as received by the people in Badger?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point in

this whole issue. There are guidelines that have been established by different

levels of government as to what types of compensation can be paid. There may be

requests that go above and beyond what may be laid out in policy at this time.

As he mentioned, there has been fundraising efforts in the past to help

communities and there is fundraising efforts to help the people of Stephenville

at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the assessments and are able to

see what we can fund and where we can help, again, we want the federal

government, as well, to come to the table with us, to work with the Town of

Stephenville, to work with the provincial government and let us know if there is

any type of funding that may be above and beyond what their policy stipulates.

They can look at it as compassionate grounds to help the people in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, we need the federal government to be there at that table and

tell us that if there is funding outside the guidelines that they will be

willing to assist, just like we have been asked as the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, since taking office, this government has

created turmoil in the regulation of fuel prices that has resulted in the

interruption formula being used far too often to gouge consumers, and gas prices

being much higher in this Province than they have been in other provinces.

Mr. Saunders was fired first, then it was Mr. Toms, and government continues

to hide behind the excuse of the Public Utilities Board. Will the Minister of

Government Services take some responsibility for the problems she has caused by

having the petroleum products office in turmoil and advertise for a full-time

commissioner who can represent consumers as their watchdog in this Province, to

protect them and give them the necessary break on fuel prices that they so

desperately need, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, pricing petroleum comes under the PUB. Nothing

has changed. The former Administration had the same regulations. The only

difference here is that we did put one of their appointments - how do I say

this, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We looked at the structure of that, and when the expiration of

the contract was up, Mr. Saunders was let go.

I need to assure the hon. member over there, there is nothing changed in the

regulations. They are the same regulations that they had in place before we took

government, and the regulations are indeed working.

The market is very volatile there. We cannot control the market prices, but

we do control the regulations and the interruption formula, and the regulations

have been working quite well. The hon. member knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, yes, they may be the

same guidelines, but the guidelines under the previous Administration were used

eleven times: nine times to bring prices down, only twice to increase them, and

that was for the purpose of making sure there was supply used.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to think that the guidelines

are working. The guidelines are not working when every single day, sometime

twice a week, rates go up. While the minister and others continue to try to

convince the people of this Province that gas prices have been set fairly, there

is evidence stating that is simply not true. Prices here in this Province are

currently higher than other areas by margins greater than they had been before.

If the formula is the same, maybe the formula needs to be fixed.

Will the minister now hire a new commissioner - my original question - and

assign their first task to conduct a review of how prices are regulated in the

Province so the gouging can end?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have to state again that the Province has no

control over the world oil prices. It is a volatile market there. We have

regulations in place to oversee this; and, when the interruption formula is

needed, the PUB makes that decision. The hon. member over there knows quite well

how this works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: I will tell the hon. member right now that we cannot control

hurricanes like have happened there, and the factors that have happened in the

world market, but we can, indeed, look at our regulations. Our regulations are,

indeed, working for this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right: I know how it

works. That is why I am so incest over this. This whole process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Incensed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Incensed, Mr. Speaker.

This whole process here that she is getting on with - the only hurricanes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. He was putting a

question.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to the people of this Province

that the Premier treats this as a joke. He treats it as a joke. This minister

has failed the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, government passed legislation that it claimed would lead - here

is another one - to rate reductions in automobile insurance premiums,

particularly for young people. The PUB was brought into the fray, again, I

guess, the beating board for government. The companies filed their rate

applications. Some of them have been approved by the Public Utilities Board;

yet, young people are being forced to renew their premiums at the same rate as

before.

I ask the minister: Why is this happening, and why are young people not

experiencing the rate reductions that they were promised?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, since this government took office, we have seen

the consumers in this Province have over 20 per cent savings on their insurance

premiums.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: We had 15 per cent in the year 2004. We have now, since August

1, 2005, another 5 per cent. We have eliminated the age, the gender and the

marital status from our insurance, which -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - young people in this Province now, some of them, have up to

46 per cent in savings.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

If this wasn't so serious - there is not a person out there receiving rate

decreases. I haven't had a call from one person who has received any genuine

savings.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, yes, they can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would put his question quickly now.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville, I will tell you

one thing, they can reach me a lot better than they can reach him.

Mr. Speaker, the deadline for filing rate applications by insurance companies

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the time for Question Period is limited to

thirty minutes, and time is passing. I ask the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace to put his question quickly.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that some of these

applications have been approved by the PUB, while others have not been approved.

Those applications that have been approved are still not resulting in rate

reductions.

I ask the minister: What enforcement mechanism does she have to ensure the

promised reductions become reality, instead of simple political rhetoric?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the PUB is reviewing the filings from the

insurance companies right now, and the majority of the filings have been filed,

as far as I know from the PUB, and that the insurance companies will be

returning 5 per cent to the consumers in this Province, retroactive to August 1,

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. I say to the Premier, there has been a long

outstanding issue in this Province concerning the public sector and concerning

pay equity for women whose rights were taken away by discriminatory legislation.

The Minister of Finance does not seem willing to resolve this injustice despite

repeated demands from the NDP, women's groups and labour organizations across

this country. I say to the Premier, this issue is not going to go away and will

continue to be raised until it is fixed.

Would the Premier now, on the eve of the anniversary of the Montreal

massacre, the grossest form of discrimination against women, do what has to be

done to resolve this issue and show the women of this Province that his

government will not continue to support this discrimination against women?

MR. HARRIS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this government has the

same concerns that he has, that this is considered to be a very grave issue, in

my personal opinion and in the opinion of many members of Cabinet and caucus in

this particular government. This is a black mark on this Province and on this

government, quite frankly, and something has to be done. I welcome the question

from the hon. member.

As the hon. member knows, during the strike we made an offer to try and

settle this. I do understand, from the solicitor for NAPE at the time, that

there were some legal difficulties with her actually endorsing the possibility

of any kind of a settlement because of legal complications, so that settlement

was put on the table with the good intention of trying to resolve this. Three

hundred million dollars is not available to settle this, $100 million is not

available to settle this. This is a question of interest and compounded

interest; however, I would encourage the parties to get together, all parties

here who are generally interested in achieving a settlement, to try and come to

their bottom line, to come to a number that is a reasonable number that this

government, this Cabinet and this caucus can get their teeth into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that during a strike is not the opportune time to try

and straighten away major issues like this, although it is an opportunity - the

strike was about many other issues that took the priorities. The onus is on

government to correct this problem. It was governments that created it.

I say to the Premier, again: Will his government now do the right thing at

this particular time in our history where our financial reserves are now

considerably greater than they were in years gone by?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have personally spoken to Carol Anne Furlong on this issue,

and it is an issue which she has raised on behalf of her members. I have also

spoken to Joyce Hancock, in an inadvertent meeting, actually, that we had out in

the hall a couple of weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Those were Joyce's words, not mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can assure you, without disclosing any Cabinet

confidence, many, many of our Cabinet ministers are very anxious to see this

matter resolved and want to see it resolved.

Our government is open to consideration of what we consider to be a

reasonable settlement in this particular matter. We certainly encourage all the

parties to come to the table; but, again, there is only a certain amount that is

affordable.

Now, I know you cannot put a price on doing something that is right, and I

accept that fully, but by the same token we have to come up with something that

is affordable so that it does not compromise other social initiatives that this

government wants to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, time for a very quick

supplementary.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier initiate such a meeting between the groups and lay a

proposal on the table to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

The time allocation is for a very brief reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will undertake that a committee of Cabinet will certainly get

together and look at this initiative. It has been already discussed generally in

Cabinet. We would have to go to the Department of Finance, of course, and get

the numbers that are behind this, of course, and come down to some reasonable

numbers, and then prepare to sit down -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - actually sit down with the various officials and the

various leaders involved, but we need all parties at the table. There cannot be

any loose ends of any claims out there with regard to a pay equity claim. It is

also incumbent upon them to sort of come together, see what they can come up

with, and we will work with them to try and find a solution if we can.

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.

My questions are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Wilfred Benson continues to live in a tent in the woods behind Ruth

Avenue in Mount Pearl. Mr. Benson suffers from schizophrenia and paranoia, and

has been in the Province for a number of years. His family and others have

expressed serious concerns about the lack of attention being paid to his case by

health officials.

Minister, I want to ask if your department is fully aware of this situation,

and why he is being left to fall through the cracks in our health care system

when we know that there is treatment required and he needs it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: We are fully aware, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the issue

that has been raised by my colleague opposite. It is a complex case because here

we have an individual who, by choice, has elected a certain lifestyle. It is

unusual, it is unorthodox, but, nevertheless, he has made that choice in his own

life.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the fact of his

circumstances. We have assigned a social worker dedicated to deal with the

issues surrounding this particular gentleman, and we will certainly monitor any

developments with respect to this gentleman who is living in these arrangements

as you have described.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not the lifestyle choice that concerns me.

It is the fact that this is a patient who is mentally ill, requires treatment,

and is not receiving it. We are moving into the winter months; it is a serious

concern.

I want to ask the minister - obviously, our Mental Health Act is not working

when we can have situations like this that we are not dealing with. I guess I

need to ask what the Department of Health is doing, and what the plan of action

is before we get into the cold winter months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there are privacy issues that are at play

in this particular case, as I mentioned, and it is important that this point be

emphasized. There is a social worker who is dedicated to this particular matter.

With respect to mental health services in the Province, Mr. Speaker, it was

only several months ago when we announced a new mental health framework leading

to a brand new Mental Health Act.

Mr. Speaker, the existing mental health legislation in this Province is some

thirty-one years old. I look forward, and this government looks forward, to

introducing in this Legislature, in the spring of 2006, a new Mental Health Act,

which, Mr. Speaker, will deal with gaps in the system that presently exist. Mr.

Speaker, in the development of that act, I might add, in response to the

question by my hon. friend, there are consultations that are ongoing.

With respect to the specific issue, if I may finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have about forty seconds left. Is there a supplementary question?

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

MS JONES: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I do have another question and it is

regarding the flu influenza. I have had a number of calls from people who are

telling me that the vaccine is not readily available, who have been receiving it

in the last number of years.

As we all know, the Province of Ontario provides this vaccine free of charge

to all of its residents. The reports this year indicated there have been

substantial savings in the Ontario health care system.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to make that available to

all of the residents in our Province.

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

He will have time for a brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not aware of any shortage

with respect to dealing with this issue; however, it is a public health issue

and, when issues of public health are raised, it is certainly my job, as the

minister, to make an inquiry to ensure that individuals are protected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice regarding a

private member's motion that on Wednesday, December 7, we will be moving the

motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair dealing with

the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like today to present a number of petitions on behalf of residents

from the District of Burin-Placentia West, in which they are calling for and

supporting the establishment of a kidney dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would just like for a few minutes to speak on this

matter. I have to be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, up until about a year-and-a-half

ago I was not too much in the know about kidney dialysis. I do not pretend to

say that I am an expert in any degree, but over the past year-and-a-half, as I

have met with the committee on the Burin Peninsula and have delved more into

this subject, I find there are so many challenges that these dialysis patients

face. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to gain a greater insight into this challenge by so

many people, I, in fact, took an afternoon and visited a dialysis unit site here

in the city to see what is involved in that, to speak with professionals in the

field, and to garner more information on this particular topic.

Mr. Speaker, when I look to the residents on the Burin Peninsula who are

involved in this, their committee, and I look to people who are on the committee

that have been directly affected by kidney problems and the need for dialysis.

There is a lady who serves on the committee whose husband passed away due to

kidney failure, and, Mr. Speaker, her commitment to this cause is noble. I think

much of her waking day and hours are constantly involved in putting this agenda

forward.

Secondly, a lady who is presently receiving dialysis, who has to travel to

Clarenville three times a week to receive the dialysis - I think that is the

uniqueness of this disease. We have other diseases where people can travel to

specialists and so on and so forth, but with this one, you are left with very

few options. One, being that, if you are a candidate for home dialysis, that is

one thing and you can receive that in your home, but if you are not, then you

are left with two options. One of those things being that the patient has to

relocate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JACKMAN: Just by leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested for some concluding comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I guess what we have here is people who are

left with very limited choices. They either relocate or they have to travel, and

we know the expenses that are incurred in this. The people of this petition -

and there are thousands of names here - are calling on government to look at

this matter and, hopefully, we will see a dialysis unit established on the Burin

Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I wonder if I could have the indulgence of members of the House for a moment?

My colleague, the Minister of Health, when you went through tabling of

documents, was engaged in another matter with one of our colleagues, and he

wanted to table a document today. So, I am wondering if we could just have leave

to revert to that for just one moment to allow the Minister of Health to table

the necessary document that he wants to table and then we can move directing

into Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank colleagues opposite, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with

section 75(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act,

I wish to table the Report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on the

operations of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank colleagues opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Order 1, actually, Mr. Speaker, today, Address in Reply and we look forward

to my colleague, the new Member for Exploits, making his maiden speech in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the

people of Exploits for their overwhelming support on June 23 of this year.

However, Mr. Speaker, such a campaign cannot be as successful as it was without

a good, organized effort by a team of dedicated volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I also take this opportunity to thank the people who made up

that incredible team, from my campaign manager, chief financial officer, the

people who managed the headquarters, signage people, poll captains, including

the people who went door-to-door with me day and night throughout the Exploits

District for three weeks.

Mr. Speaker, to say thank you hardly seems fitting, but these people told me

many times that they would do it again because they believed in this government,

they believed in our leader, Premier Danny Williams, and that they believed in

me.

Mr. Speaker, family is most important. I would like to thank my wife today,

Rosemary, my brother, Pleaman, my sister, Marie Rowsell, my mother, Levina

Forsey and my mother-in-law, Josephine Morgan. These people have supported all

my endeavours without question. But, if I may, there is one other person who

played a major role in my life. Actually, he was my role model. He taught me the

principles of life. He was a navigator, a fisherman and a logger, but,

unfortunately, he passed away at the early age of forty-five when I was

eighteen. His name was Chesley Joshua Forsey.

Mr. Speaker, since being elected five months ago to the House of Assembly,

for the District of Exploits, I have had the opportunity to respond to many

enquiries from constituents and met with most of the community leaders. I have

travelled through the district on a number of occasions and attended many civic

celebrations. Mr. Speaker, I was also afforded the opportunity to engage in

public meetings with a couple of communities which allowed me to register the

concerns of the residents of these communities.

Mr. Speaker, the highlight of my visitations was when I was invited to the

Memorial Veterans Pavilion at the Dr. Twomey Centre in Botwood. To have the

privilege to sit at a meeting of legion members and war veterans was very

rewarding. Actually, to be referred to as the young fellow, I thought was

complimentary, and then I realized that some of them were thirty years my

senior. Mr. Speaker, this being the Year of the Veteran and being the 60 th

anniversary of the end of World War II, it was at that meeting I was gently

reminded of the contribution of our young men and women who answered the call of

duty and were instrumental in aiding to the end of this great war.

Mr. Speaker, the Exploits is full of history and great tourism attractions.

The theme is our region is Exploits Wild and Free. The Exploits River is one of

the greatest salmon rivers in the Province for sport fishing. People come from

all across the Province, and from outside the Province as well, to enjoy the

recreation on this great river.

Mr. Speaker, the Community of Glovers Harbour in the Exploits District is the

home of the giant squid, the biggest ever seen. Tourists from all over the

country enjoy viewing the replica of this enormous creature. Further on, to

Leading Tickles, tourists flock to the Ocean View Park to witness caplin roll on

the beaches, watch for whales, and enjoy looking at the huge icebergs that flow

into Notre Dame Bay. Mr. Speaker, Wild and Free is an appropriate theme for our

region. There are many other attractions with all kinds of walking trails and

sight seeing adventures.

Mr. Speaker, the Exploits is rich with history, from the days of the Beothuks,

to the start of the paper and ore concentrate being shipped from the Port of

Botwood, to the major role that our people played in the Second World War.

Botwood was a strategic site and very advantageous to the allies in the Second

World War. Mr. Speaker, just this past summer Botwood was recognized as an

historic site by Parks Canada, a recognition that was rightly deserved. History

will tell all of us about the connection the Exploits had to fishing, logging,

shipping and, of course, the railway which was what this region was built on.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to comment on a few positive notes related to

the direction of this government, and the effect it has had on the Exploits

District.

This government is committed to improving health care. This was very obvious

when we saw the need to upgrade the Dr. Hugh Twomey Centre in Botwood. Over the

summer, this government undertook major renovations to this facility, which

included roof repairs, walls and floors. May I add, Mr. Speaker, besides the

service this facility provides, it also employs 132 professional skilled

workers.

Mr. Speaker, municipal infrastructure and regional services is another area

this government has made great strides in, in the district. Besides the water

and sewer projects approved this year for the communities of Cockles Cove and

Leading Tickles, the Towns of Botwood and Peterview recently linked into the

regional water supply of Grand Falls-Windsor and Bishop's Falls, at a total

project cost of $7 million which was cost-shared by the three levels of

government: federal, provincial and municipal.

Mr. Speaker, there were some road upgrades approved this year for the

district that were desperately needed, and will improve better access to the

communities affected.

I was also pleased to have been able to get funding approved for upgrades to

the town hall and fire hall for the Town of Bishop's Falls. Mr. Speaker, the

Lions Club and the Boys and Girls Club of Botwood were housed in the one

building. This past summer, this building was destroyed by fire. The Boys and

Girls Club have over 250 members registered, and the list of activities and

programs offered by the club are phenomenal. They offer such programs as youth

engagement proposal, a project centred on social policy for youth living in

rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Other activities include: computer

training, tutoring, tours of Memorial University and the Marine Institute.

However, Mr. Speaker, their biggest undertaking was organizing and managing the

summer recreational program for the town.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the valuable need for this club, and the initiatives

undertaken by them, I had the support of my colleagues in government to help

them find temporary accommodations and provide emergency funding to support them

in their efforts to finding or building a new home.

Mr. Speaker, the program initiated this year by Municipal Affairs and

Minister Byrne under the Community Enhancement Program provided funding for

community infrastructure and meaningful employment in the district. Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased with the progress made under this program. We were able to approve

projects for twelve applications.

Mr. Speaker, some of these projects included: upgrade to a gear storage

building in Morris Cove; much needed renovations to the fish plant in Leading

Tickles; upgrade to a recreation building in Northern Arm; and repairs to the

Interfaith Goodwill Centre in Botwood.

Mr. Speaker, other projects were approved for: the Exploits Valley

Development Association; the Town of Point Leamington; the Lions Club in Botwood;

the Knights of Columbus in Bishop's Falls; the Community of Fortune Harbour;

the Town of Point of Bay; and also Your Strength-is-Our Strength in Peterview.

Mr. Speaker, these programs created much needed employment and will provide an

enduring benefit to the communities.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to my

colleagues for their support and direction since becoming the Member for the

District of Exploits on June 23. It is indeed noteworthy that this team effort

approach is the foundation that fosters a true working relationship for the

benefit of not only my district but also for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the opportunity to participate in the

management and growth of future opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador, and

believe that this proactive approach, under the direction of our leader, Premier

Williams, will result in long-term sustainable benefits for the people of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I am also excited about the challenges that lie

ahead, and firmly believe that this government will meet, and exceed, all

expectations of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this team. I will continue to work

hard over the balance of this term of office to achieve effective representation

and to address any area that will collectively, or individually, benefit the

people of the District of Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to address the House today, and I wish

to take this opportunity to extend the compliments of the season to all the

members and their families, and extend sincere best wishes for a joyous

Christmas and a healthy, rewarding, new year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say to my colleague, a well done job for his first speech. It has

been a tradition in this House - it is probably the only time that all members

on both sides of the House, irrespective of our political differences or our

political parties, where we extend the courtesy to a member to be listened to in

his or her first maiden speech, and I do want to say congratulations to him on a

job well done.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Motion 4 on the Order Paper. Do you

wish me to read it out, Mr. Speaker? Do you wish me to read out the motion? I

certainly can.

For the record, Motion 4 is:

WHEREAS, in accordance with

section 3 of the

Citizens' Representative Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a

Resolution of this House of Assembly, by Order in Council dated December 14,

2001, appointed Fraser March to the Office of Citizens' Representative;

AND

WHEREAS the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, has, in accordance

with subsection 7(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act been suspended as the

Citizens' Representative;

AND

WHEREAS

section 6 of the Citizens' Representative Act provides that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on Resolution of this House of Assembly, for

cause remove the Citizens' Representative from office;

AND

WHEREAS there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens'

Representative;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED by this House of Assembly that Fraser March be

removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has called Motion 4.

The debate on this motion will be in accordance with Standing Order 46, and the

debate can begin now.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present an amendment to this motion as

put forward. I understand it has been approved by the Table officers and it has

been seconded by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

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

MS FOOTE: I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words

after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor,

"Fraser March be given an opportunity to state his case to the House of

Assembly before a vote is taken regarding his removal from the Office of

Citizens' Representative".

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has listened to the amendment as put forward by

the Member for Grand Bank, seconded by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

The House will recess to consider whether or not this amendment is in order.

The House is now in recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules on the amendment put forward by the Member for Grand Bank,

and seconded by the Member for Grand Fall-Buchans, that the amendment is in

order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, before the Member for Grand Bank proceeds to

make her comments, I would like to put myself on the record as to my involvement

in this particular issue involving Mr. March.

I am a member of the Opposition, the MHA for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile, and I am one of the Opposition representatives on the Internal Economy

Commission. For the record, I would like it to be known that I have played no

role, whatsoever, in any discussions that took place at the IEC involving this

issue, as a result of some correspondence that I was a party to, while I was

Minister of Justice in the last Administration. So, based upon that information,

I decided early on that it would not be appropriate for me to play any role and

be party to any discussions concerning this issue, and that is not withstanding

some comments, I understand, that were made in the public media this morning by

Mr. March. I would like to confirm for this House, and for the record, that I

have not played any role in the discussions of any information or evidence of

the IEC in this matter. I will not be making any comments here in the House

concerning this resolution or any amendments thereto and I will be abstaining

from any votes in relation to same.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges the comments made by the Opposition

House Leader and confirms them as Chair of the IEC.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to speak to the amendment. Clearly, I am having some difficulty with

the process here and the fact that you have the Citizens' Representative who

was hired by the House of Assembly, that I would like to think that the person

who does the hiring also does the firing, if that is, in fact, what is to happen

here. My position on this, of course, is that I do not think I have enough

information as one of the Members of the House of Assembly to make that

decision. I know that there has been information that has been passed along, and

I know what happened at the IEC based on comments from the representative of the

Opposition on the IEC, but having said that, as one Member of the House of

Assembly, I really would like to have an opportunity to hear from Mr. March,

himself.

I think it is only right and proper that an individual who is being looked at

as someone who has, obviously, done something that would warrant having him

removed from this particular position, then should also have the opportunity to

speak to the House of Assembly. I understand that he was invited to speak to the

IEC and he chose not to do that, but that is his right. I think that if anyone's

reputation is at stake, their job is at stake, then I think, as Members of the

House of Assembly who did the hiring, that we should, in fact, have Mr. March

here and be able to hear from him exactly what it is, what transpired to lead to

this chain of events.

I know that Mr. March has a good reputation in this Province in terms of his

involvement with the labour union over the years, and I guess at some point in

time people do things that they probably regret having done. I do not know, I do

not know what the situation is here. I know that I have had an opportunity to

look at some material, but, again, the individual who was involved in making

that presentation, when we talked about it, there was nothing there black and

white. There were so many grey areas. I think I came away with more questions

than I had answers. To be honest with you, I think the problem I am having with

this is that I would like an opportunity to have Mr. March come and speak to the

accusations or the allegations and to determine whether or not they are in fact

right, or to get his take on what transpired and have a chance for him to speak

to them because I think that is important. I think that is only right and

proper.

I think anyone who is being taken to task over something, or some issue, or

something they have done, or something that is alleged to have been done, really

should have the right to speak to that and to defend him or herself. In this

case, of course, it would be Mr. March having the opportunity to defend himself

in the House of Assembly, defend himself in front of the people who, in fact,

hired him. That is how the process worked in terms of the hiring, and I am a

little confused about the process in terms of the firing - or the suspension, I

should say, because of course, to date, Mr. March has just been suspended from

his role as Citizens' Representative and suspended with pay, I understand. I

have some difficulty with the whole process. I understand, too, that if, in

fact, the House is not sitting and something like this arises, then the IEC can

make a recommendation to Cabinet. If it is an urgent matter, then of course

Cabinet can move. I fail to see the urgency of this issue, given that it has

dragged on for some time. Why it could not wait until the House of Assembly sat

for the decision to be taken by those of us, again, who hire the Citizens'

Representative, I am having some difficulty with that aspect of it as well.

I also have difficulty with the government, in fact, bringing forward a

resolution and not speaking to it. I would have assumed that -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: That is fine, I say to the House Leader.

My difficulty was, in terms of the resolution being raised here, for me to

get up and speak to it I would have liked to have heard from the government in

terms of what they saw as the rationale or the reason for suspending Mr. March

and hence, firing, if it came to that, in a vote in the House of Assembly.

No, Government House Leader, you can get up. I am here now speaking my twenty

minutes, whatever I have on this issue, if you do not mind. At the end of the

day this, for me, is an issue of doing what is right and proper with respect to

Mr. March. It is due process. It is what should have transpired. What has not

transpired to date - you know, the fact that again the IEC, the recommendation

of Cabinet, Cabinet making the decision to suspend Mr. March with pay, but we,

in fact, in this House of Assembly, have an obligation to this person. No matter

who is in the role - and I am not standing here to defend Mr. March, or to say

what he did was right or wrong.

I do not have enough information to stand here today to tell you that what he

did is wrong, or that he should be absolved, or that he should be allowed to

stay for the length of term; I think it is another two years to go in the

position. That is what I need. I need those answers, and I think those answers

should come from Mr. March. I think Mr. March should be given that opportunity,

no matter what the government members are going to say with respect to this

issue, or the Government House Leader is going to say with respect to this

issue.

It would have been nice, before I had to stand to introduce an amendment, to

have heard from the government in terms of what they saw as a rationale here.

That did not happen. That is why I stood and introduced the amendment. Now that

I am here, I am saying, okay, if I did not get the information from the

government, it is important, I think, even with that information, to have a

chance to get Mr. March's version of what transpired here, whether or not he

feels he is being hard done by, and why he feels that way, if he thinks that, in

fact, he should be allowed to continue in the position. Then we would all in

this House of Assembly have heard from the individual himself, what has

transpired, and why he feels the action that is been suggested here is something

that should not take place.

I think that is only right, that anybody whose job is on the line, whose

reputation is on the line, should, in fact, have the opportunity to do that. I

understand that is what he has been asking for. I do not understand why that is

such a hard request to bring into the House and to agree to. Obviously, he feels

that what is being suggested here in terms of what he did that would lead to his

dismissal from a role that he has taken very seriously, and a position that we

all take very seriously - in fact, it was the previous government, the Liberal

government, that put in place this particular position, one that we supported

wholeheartedly. In fact, we all supported Mr. March going into that position,

because it was all voted on again in the House of Assembly, because we did the

hiring. It was an Officer of the House of Assembly.

Whether or not he has done something now to suggest that he should be removed

from that office, I really do not know. I do not have that level of comfort to

make a decision that, yes, we should now let Mr. March go and look at putting

someone else in the position. It is only Mr. March, I think - and that is what I

would put forward, Mr. Speaker, that it is Mr. March - who can tell us exactly

what it is that has led to today and led to this part of the process being one

where we are now questioning whether or not what we are doing here is right - or

at least some of us are questioning whether what is happening here is, in fact,

right.

This person has asked to appear before the House of Assembly. Why would we

not agree to that? Why would we not agree to set aside some time for Mr. March

to appear before the House of Assembly, since we are his employer? That is only

right. Isn't that what you would do with any individual in any other place of

business or any other environment where you have an individual who feels they

are being hard done by or that they are not being treated with the respect that

they deserve - or any company, any corporation, any organization - would you not

give an individual that opportunity to be heard? That is all he is asking.

Whether, at the end of the day, what Mr. March has to say carries any weight

in terms of whether or not he continues in that position, or whether or not we

agree that he should be let go, that remains to be seen, but at least he would

have been given that opportunity. Those of us sitting in the House of Assembly

who have a responsibility to hear what he has to say will know that the

decisions we are making are being made as informed decisions. That is the

difficulty I am having today, as one of forty-eight Members of the House of

Assembly; I do not feel that I have the information I need to make a decision

here that, at the end of the day, I feel that I can, in fact, defend. I think

that is what is important here. When you make a decision, you have to be able to

defend that decision.

As I said earlier, what I have seen to date, there is no black or white

there. There are issues surrounding a number of matters that have been brought

forward, but everything is kind of second-hand and, in some cases, third-hand. I

do not ever pride myself on making decisions coming from hearsay. I need to hear

first-hand, supposing it means it is going to take a bit more time, that we are

going to have to spend more time looking at things in-depth, it is going to take

a little more research or, in this case, it is going to take hearing from Mr.

March himself.

That is what I am asking today with this amendment: that, in fact, Mr. March

be given that opportunity to appear before the House of Assembly so that all of

us, when we make a decision, can defend that decision based on having first-hand

knowledge about what transpired, and having Mr. March explain. If there is

something that happened that we have difficulty with - things happen. Things

happen all the time. Maybe there is a good explanation for something. I do not

know. Again, I do not have access to the information; information that I need to

make a conscientious decision. People can defend what they have done. I mean

people do things and in hindsight say: I shouldn't have done that. I do not

know. I do not know how damning the things that he has done are. I do not know

enough. I do not know if it is something that he did and he regrets. I do not

know if there is someway he can compensate for what he did.

There are just so many questions I have about all of this. But, I do know

that Fraser March, as an individual, certainly with his involvement in the

labour movement over the years, has given a lot to this Province, and I am not

saying that he should or should not be let go from this most important position.

I think I would like to hear from him, his thoughts on what has transpired here

and why it has gotten to this point. What possibly happened to bring it to this

point? With an individual appointed to this position of such importance to the

Province, to the people of the Province, a position put in place by the House of

Assembly, what transpired? What brought it to this point where a gentleman will

be removed from that position and not allowed to complete, I think it is two

more years of the term of office? I think as a Member of the House of Assembly,

as one person involved in his hiring, that I would like to hear from Mr. March

about what happened here. Why it is that we are at this point, with this

particular position and this particular individual.

I am not standing here defending Mr. March or suggesting he has been hard

done by, other than to say I would like to have the opportunity, as one person

of forty-eight who hired him, to ask him myself, or a committee of the House, or

whomever, but some representation from this House of Assembly to get the facts

from Mr. March himself, rather than getting things second-hand, and in some

cases, third hand. We know what happens when things get said - from one person

to another, to another, things can become distorted along the way. That is the

issue I have with this. It is much better I think, and I think all of us would

have to agree, it is much better for all of us to hear firsthand from the person

who is being impacted here so that - and it is only right. It is only right that

that person have that opportunity. At the end of the day, if the result is such

that, you know, he is removed from that most important position in the Province,

then sobeit, but at least due process will have been served. At least we can

have that level of comfort in knowing that we did everything that we should have

done, as employers, to make sure that whatever decision is made is the right

decision.

That is where I am coming from today with this amendment to the resolution.

That is where I am coming from in terms of saying let's do the right thing

here, and we can. As Members of the House of Assembly we can do the right thing.

There is nothing stopping us from doing that. There is nothing stopping us from

bringing Mr. March to the House of Assembly or having a committee of the House

of Assembly interview Mr. March. But, at the end of the day, if I were asked to

vote on this resolution now, I could not do it with a clear conscience. I could

not do it based on the information I have and I do not think I have enough

information to make an informed decision, and that is bottom line here, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you so much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say right up front, I mean, this is obviously a serious

matter before the House. I do want to make it clear that this is not a

government motion. This motion was brought forward after about a year of

considerable discussion, and it was brought forward in my role as Government

House Leader, and as Government House Leader I sit on the IEC.

Now, it is important for people to understand - who may be watching the

debate today - what IEC stands for. It stands for Internal Economy Commission.

But, what it really is and essentially is, that it is a committee of the House,

I say to the Member for Grand Bank. It is a committee that is comprised of two

representatives from the Official Opposition. Represented - the Speaker is the

Chair of that committee. The Deputy Speaker is the Vice-Chair, and myself, in my

role as Government House Leader, sit on that, as does the Opposition House

Leader, in his role as Opposition House Leader. That committee deals with all

matters related to matters of the House of Assembly and what is in the

jurisdiction of the House of Assembly. That includes, for example, the Auditor

General. That includes the Chief Electoral Officer. That includes the Child and

Youth Advocate, and it also includes the Citizens' Advocate.

So, obviously, the concerns that have led us to where we are today emanated

from the Auditor General's report. Now, I take exception to the member, as a

member of the Internal Economy Commission, not a member of government, because

the resolution that came forward today was a unanimous decision made at the IEC

by members on the IEC, which included representatives from the Official

Opposition, not the NDP. The NDP are not members of the IEC, because, I think,

they need, according to the rules, three parliamentary seats to have a seat

there. So, my comments are to the IEC and the membership, and decisions that

were made were taken in an unanimous way.

First of all, the Member for Grand Bank has indicated that all she has is

second-hand information, third-hand information and really what amounts to

hearsay. I take exception to that. The IEC, and members of it, struggled with

the issue that is before us and how best to deal with it; how, not only to be

seen to have done a piece of due diligence, but also to actually have done it,

to ensure that due process was served.

Members of the IEC have grave concerns of the findings in the Auditor General's

report. I am speaking to the facts of what occurred. This is not a government -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this point of order - it is related to the procedure that we are

involved in right now. We have a motion from the Government House Leader. He

says in his capacity as a member of the Internal Economy Commission, but looking

at - and I have done some research in preparation for this because I am quite

concerned, as is the Member for Grand Bank, and I am sure other members, as to

the procedure that we are undertaking here dealing with an Officer of this

House. We do not have anything before us except this bare motion. We do not have

any report. We do not have any evidence. We do not have anything to go on other

than whatever is in the public domain.

Looking at the House of Commons procedure and practice, Marlow and Montpetit,

which this House has been using, page 885, in dealing with committees and

presentation to the House. It says, "It is not in order for Members to

allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has

presented its report to the House. This restriction applies both to references

made by Members in debate and during Oral Question Period."

Now, we have a committee, an Internal Economy Commission, which I regard as

an administrative committee of the House, which has considered the matter and

made a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, who has acted upon

it. Now we have a motion before this House with no report, no evidence, no

documentation, no findings; a bare motion. The member - and I am not trying to

shut him up other than to say if he would follow the rules, fine. But, the rules

seem to be that whatever went on in the Internal Economy Commission he cannot

use that to justify this motion if we do not have a report from the Internal

Economy Commission saying that here are our findings. We found this fact or that

fact, or this other fact or some other fact and here was the procedure that we

used. In the absence of that, I think this debate can't go very far, because

someone has to try and justify an allegation in this motion which says:

WHEREAS

there is cause to terminate or to remove the Citizens' Representative as an

officer of this House. Someone has to justify it. If they can only do it by

evidence that was somehow discussed or presented or considered by this

committee, well we have to know what findings the committee made, because I

understand there are significant disagreements about the facts, let alone the

conclusions, let alone the weight to be given to them, between the Auditor

General and Mr. March and others.

I just raise that as a point of order, because it will certainly affect the

debate. People have referred already to certain things that happened. The Member

for Grand Bank said that she knows some things, some of them are second or

third-hand. Is this the kind of decision we are going to be making here today

based on second and third-hand information, when there is no report to this

House, apparently serious enough for the Government House Leader to come here

and say that there is cause to terminate him.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this, Mr. Speaker, and I raise it as a

point of order based on Marleau and Montpetit. I don't think we can talk about

what evidence the committee had unless we know, from a report from this

committee, what the evidence was, what the conclusions were, what the procedure

was that was followed, something to justify this motion before the House today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I always listen intently when members make a

point of order, particularly when we are on important subjects, matters before

the House. I am not going to engage in debate, only to say this: That we have

known for some time, all members in this House have known for some time, that

this motion was coming forward.

I appreciate the concerns raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

and, Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I am going to take those concerns, as a member

of the IEC. I want to be very clear on this. As a member of the Internal Economy

Commission, I think we should take those concerns for what they are worth. We

normally meet when the session is open. I know today is Monday and we normally

meet Wednesday morning. I think we should refer this matter to the IEC to meet

Wednesday morning.

If there are people who have fundamental differences on process, I have no

intention of trying to ride roughshod or to try to not deal with a matter of

importance, but I will say this to the member, and to members opposite, the

process that was defined was explained to everybody in this House, dating back

eight or nine months. This issue, and the issues dealt with by Mr. March - or

with respect to Mr. March - members in this House should have been advised. I

know that the Leader of the NDP was advised at many points, Mr. Speaker, by

yourself, in your role as Chair. Members of the Official Opposition who were

part of the decision making on this process should have advised their own

caucuses. I know that I advised my caucus in terms of where we were.

Fair enough, if members have an objection in terms of information not being

out there, then, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer this to the IEC for a

suggested Wednesday morning meeting, but I will say to members that, before this

House adjourns this session, this motion will be dealt with, one way or the

other - it has to be - but, I do not have any difficulty whatsoever in delaying

that, if there are objections or suggestions that may be made for the IEC to

deal with. Fair enough. If members have those objections or suggestions that

they wish to make, then I advise them accordingly that, the sooner you can do

that, the better off we all would be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to Order -

Oh, I am sorry. You can rule on the point of order first, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the point of order, in response to the Government House Leader, the

point of order is raised in terms of what can be referred to in debate in this

House. The Government House Leader can move to other business while this is

being considered by Your Honour, but let me say that what went on in the

Internal Economy Commission, I was not there. We are not a party to it, as the

Government House Leader has pointed out. If he is suggesting that somehow we

were party to it because I was advised by you of things that took place

throughout, I think that just sort of compounds the problem. I should say, for

the record, that when I was advised of certain procedures taking place I

objected to the process. I indicated that I did not believe that the process was

the right one, but that is just for the record.

What I am saying here today is that the Internal Economy Commission played a

role here, a strong role, and I do not think we can proceed on the basis that

what went on in the Internal Economy Commission we all know about somehow or

other through being advised by our caucuses or whatever, and somehow we are

going to make a public decision about that, most of which or all of which went

on behind closed doors. It is not proper. If the Internal Economy Commission can

produce a report that we can consider, then I guess the House has to consider a

report, but right now we do not have a report. I do not propose to join an

Internal Economy Commission, behind closed doors, to try and sort things out. If

the Internal Economy Commission has a report which recommends the termination of

an officer of this House, then we should have that report - what conclusions,

what findings they made. It is not enough to say, we got a legal opportunity. If

we want to get into that we can, but my point of order - I think it still stands

to be answered at some point - what is it we are going to be able to talk about

here? Because, if we are going to talk about a legal opinion, I will have some

comments about that because I think I have an idea what that is all about; but,

if we are going to talk about conclusions that were reached by the Internal

Economy Commission, we should have them on the Table by means of a report from

the IEC.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further commentaries on the point of order?

The Chair will take the matter under advisement, keeping in mind, I remind

all hon. members, that the Commission of Internal Economy is a Commission and

may not fit with the word committee as we have designated here on page 85 of

Marleau and Montpetit. With that in mind, the Chair will endeavour to arrange a

committee meeting of the Internal Economy Commission at the earliest

convenience, in consultation with the members who sit on the Commission. I will

refer the matter back now to the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I believe it is Order 8, if I am not mistaken, to move to second reading of a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, Bill 66, to be

introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66,

An Act To Amend The

Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health

Care Costs Recovery Act." (Bill 66)

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

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

I am pleased this afternoon to speak about an amendment of the Tobacco Health

Care Costs Recovery Act. This amendment will provide our Province with the

authority to sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of health care costs

associated with tobacco related wrongs directed towards individuals who have

received government health services.

The Newfoundland and Labrador act is modelled on legislation that is

currently in place in the Province of British Columbia. Nova Scotia has also

recently introduced similar legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1998, in British Columbia, the tobacco damages

in Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought into force. The act gave the

Province of British Columbia the authority to sue the tobacco industry for the

recovery of health care costs. On the very same day, British Columbia commenced

an action in the British Columbia courts against tobacco manufacturers. The

manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of the British Columbia

legislation on three main grounds: extraterritoriality in the potential

application to persons outside of the Province; violation of the rule of law;

and, interference with judicial independence. The British Columbia court held

that the legislation was constitutionally valid in all respects expect in regard

to it extraterritorial reach.

British Columbia responded by repealing the legislation and passing a new act

in the year 2000, and this new act addressed the specific criticisms that the

court had raised. The 2000 act was also challenged by the tobacco manufacturers.

It was found unconstitutional by the British Columbia Supreme Court, again on

grounds that it had extraterritorial reach. The British Columbia Court of Appeal

disagreed and, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the legislation was

held to be constitutional.

On May 24, 2001, this Province and this Legislature passed the Tobacco Health

Care Costs Recovery Act, which has yet to be proclaimed. The model is based upon

the British Columbia legislation, but it differs in one minor way. It differs in

that it does not expressly state that a tobacco related wrong means a breach of

a common law, an equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed by a

manufacturer to persons in the Province - and I emphasis the words: in the

Province.

A review of the legislative record does not reveal why Newfoundland departed

from B.C.'s language in this definition but, in light of the emphasis that the

courts have placed on the extraterritorial application, it is considered

appropriate to expressly state that the duty is owed to persons in the Province,

in conformity with the B.C. legislation, in order to avoid potential challenges

by tobacco manufacturers which could delay this Province's litigation to

recover health care costs associated with tobacco related illness. This is the

basis for the recommendation before the House today, to insert the words

"in the Province" in

section 2(

m) of the legislation.

In proceeding to court to sue tobacco manufacturers for such tobacco related

wrongs, B.C. already defended, as I mentioned, two separate court proceedings by

tobacco manufacturers that challenged the constitutionality of the act. As I

said, fortunately, on appeal, the constitutionality of the legislation has been

confirmed now by the highest court in the land. In a decision that was released

on September 29 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the

constitution validity of the legislation on all grounds. This Province

intervened with British Columbia and other provinces before the Supreme Court of

Canada.

The proposed amended to the definition: tobacco related wrong, in

section

2(m), adopts a language incorporated in the B.C. legislation of a tobacco

related wrong by inclusion of the words in the province' thereby expressly

stating that a: " tobacco related wrong means' - as I said previously

- a breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed by a

manufacturer to persons in the province who have been exposed or might become

exposed to a tobacco product." It is accordingly considered appropriate,

Mr. Speaker, to introduce this amendment to expressly adopt the language

employed in the British Columbia legislation, in light of the repeated

challenges faced by British Columbia and the recent Supreme Court of Canada

ruling upholding this provision.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that in October, 2002, the government of the

day engaged litigation counsel Humphrey, Farrington, McClain and Edgar of

Independence, Missouri, the home of the late President, Harry Truman, to conduct

the litigation following the outcome on the constitutionality of the

legislation. I recently met with Mr. Ken McClain and, I understand, the firm is

ready to proceed and that local counsel will be engaged so that this could

happen.

I would urge all members to support this so that we can now proceed to

recover the costs from the tobacco companies rather than from the taxpayers of

this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words concerning this amendment to

the Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This started first, of course, back

in 1999. I believe it was Premier Tobin who made the comments during the

Provincial General Election of January-February, 1999 saying that it would,

certainly, be prudent and nice if this Province could, as they do in the United

States, find some way to sue tobacco companies and recover some costs we incur

in our health care system as a result of people who use tobacco. That is where

it started.

I, personally, had my first meeting with the B.C. solicitors in December,

1999, and that is where we got on to drafting the piece of legislation we had

here, and, as the minister refers to, we did, in fact, run into a big, big

roadblock back there in 2000 because the B.C. legislation was put to their

court. The tobacco manufacturers challenged it and it was winding its way

through the court process ever since. It was sent back, I do believe, by the B.

C. Court of Appeal on one occasion, redrafted, sent out again, challenged again,

and the court, in that case, the second time around, upheld it. It found its

way, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, we felt it was most

appropriate in this Province to at least draft our legislation, and even if we

had to leave it on the shelf until we heard from the Supreme Court of Canada, at

least we would be ready to go when the Supreme Court made their decision and

assuming they would, ultimately, uphold the validity of that piece of

legislation.

This was, in fact, patterned after the B.C. legislation. I am pleased to see

that the Supreme Court of Canada did, indeed, at the end of the day, and after

several years of going down the legal trail, approve the legislation. We now

have a proper, legitimate, legal framework in order to commence our action. In

fact, I was waiting, I say to the minister, to see when the proclamation would

take place because it is a piece of legislation that was near and dear to

myself. I saw it started. I would like to see it finished and I would encourage

government to, in fact, see it through, because I do believe, at the end of the

day, this decision could be as valuable to this Province as the Atlantic Accord.

If this case winds itself through the court, and based upon the statistical

information that I have heard in terms of recovery to this Province, it could,

indeed, be a very lucrative and beneficial pot of money at the end of the day,

justifiably so, to offset the health care costs that we, in this Province, incur

as a result of people who smoke. So, I do encourage government to get on with

the amendment that is needed as they feel it and then get on with the

proclamation.

I must say, as well, kudos, I guess, to the former Administration again. I

thought it was appropriate at the time, and I still think it is appropriate,

that you do not need to invent the wheel. In this case, we did not try to invent

another wheel, for example, how to sue tobacco manufacturers. We followed the

B.C. pattern, which I think was appropriate. It saved a lot of money. It saved a

lot of time and effort. If someone else got it and it works and it is good,

sure, we should make use of it here. That is why I also felt at the time, and I

still feel, that bringing in the professionals from the United States in the

legal field who have already done this, the McLean Company, to which the

minister refers, in Independence, Missouri, who I happened to meet with and, in

fact, first engaged to come here to help us in the ultimate litigation of our

case, are well versed in litigation of this magnitude. We are taking on a

defendant here who have very, very deep pockets, who will do whatever it takes

to win this case. I think it is prudent of us, rather than go it alone and

challenge a case of this magnitude and not necessarily have all the legal

expertise here, that we have engaged somebody who has done it. These people have

done it. In fact, they were one of the law firms that was part of the American

consortium of law firms that sued. There was, I believe, $136 billion settlement

by the tobacco companies back several years ago.

I would, at this point - and I will make the comment again later when we get

into committee stage and we address the particulars, but I will mention it to

the minister now in case somebody might want to get some information available

so that we can be properly informed when we do debate on the detail stage. I

notice here that the amendment the minister is putting forward is basically

adding the words in the Province' to the existing legislation. I just query

whether or not that is in fact being too restrictive, because does in the

Province' or will in the Province' then be taken to be only those parties

who currently live in the Province? I think that would be very, very restrictive

because we may have 20,000 people who were residents of this Province,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are no longer - technically, at the time

of the commencement of the act - living in this Province, but the cost to our

health care system that was incurred as a result of them smoking may have well

been incurred by them and by our Province while they were residents of the

Province.

For example, the person who lived in Corner Brook who has now taken a job in

Alberta, does that mean that when our lawyers sit down to prepare our case that

we have to rule out these people because they are no longer in the Province? I

would suggest, if that could possibly be interpreted that way and be negative

for our case, if there is anything possible in terms of an amendment here to

suggest that it should be in the Province or at any time resided in the

Province' so that we catch all of these people.

We have to realize here that when we prepare this case now on a go-forward

basis, now that we know we have the framework within which to sue, there are

going to be actuaries involved, statisticians involved to determine: What are

the costs? It is fine to say you can sue and it is find to say you have a cause

of action, but if you ever get to the point where a judge says to you: Okay,

what are your damages? You have to be able to justify, this is the amount of

money we want. You calculate the amount of money, of course, based upon the

facts that you have and the statistics. So, let's not rule out by this

amendment in the Province' all of those thousands of people whom we may

have been able to include in our case but cannot now because we have tied our

hands by saying: in the Province.

Our costs that we have had into our health care system is not only on a

go-forward basis, we want to sue for the costs that our health care system has

had historically. Now, fortunately, putting those statistics together from an

actuarial point of view and a statistics point of view, we have a big advantage

over a place like B.C. Not only do we have a smaller population, which makes the

numbers of people that you are dealing with and the number of dollars you are

dealing with smaller, but we have had a fairly homogeneous type of population

here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is much easier to trace it and get

that information then it would be in B.C., for example, where there is more

diversity, culturally, than it would be in a place like Newfoundland and

Labrador.

So, I say to the minister, I have no problem with whatever is needed to be

done, from a housekeeping perspective, to make this piece of legislation the

best that it should be, by all means, and we will be absolutely supportive of

it, but I have grave concerns about inserting the words, in the Province',

if it becomes a hammer that the tobacco manufacturers beat us with. If anything,

we will make sure that it is as broad as we can, to include everybody we

possibly can, to recover as much as we possibly can, because every penny we can

squeeze out of the tobacco companies is going to come to the betterment of this

Province and to provide the people of this Province better health care, so be

it. I say to the minister, go for it, but I think you need to amend this

further. If it is not necessary, I would appreciate it if someone in the

Department of Justice might be able to explain to me why it is not necessary.

But if it is necessary, we would certainly be agreeable to proposing the

appropriate amendment.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation, Bill 66, An

Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

As the previous speaker indicated, this bill was modelled on the work of the

British Columbia government who initiated this procedure to make legislative

changes to permit the suing of these companies to recover the costs of health

care. I might add, on a partisan note, that it was an NDP Government of British

Columbia that we were following the lead of in terms of modeling our act and

legislation and who engaged the process of passing legislation having it vetted

by the British Columbia Court of Appeal - having it vetted, not directly I

suppose, but by being challenged - and then remodelling their legislation. We

have, as the minister indicated, held off to allow them to go through that

process rather than reinventing the wheel, legislatively speaking, and we are

now in a position where the Supreme Court of Canada has vindicated the last

round of amendments so that these litigations can go forward.

I want to say, I support the efforts of government to continue this action.

It is legitimate to require the people who have been producing this toxic

substance that is addictive in nature, that has been ruining the health of young

and old, I suppose, in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of North America

for many years. Now, as the markets in North America seem to be closing down, to

some extent, by significant campaigns to try to end smoking and end smoking

addiction and help those who are addicted to quit and to make it basically safer

for people who do not smoke to be in public places, work places, et cetera, the

market is lowering down for these companies who are now working on expanding

their markets in Asia and China and seeking to promote their products elsewhere.

They are just as poisonous, Mr. Speaker, just as toxic, but nevertheless, this

has not stopped these companies pursuing the profits that they are obtaining

from the sale of this addictive and toxic product. So, I do support it.

As the technical question raised by the former Attorney General, the Member

for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, these are something that

I would urge the minister to deal with when he closes the debate. It is an

important issue in this Province. Health care costs are significant. I am told -

and maybe the Minister of Health, if he is going to speak, can correct me -

something in the order of 800 deaths in Newfoundland related to smoking each

year. The minister is nodding his head. I remembered that in the back of my mind

somewhere. That is a lot of people who are dying as a result of the use of a

product that was poisonous and addictive.

I remember as a child - I smoked, I guess, when I was twelve or thirteen. We

knew we were not supposed to do it, but we did not know it was poison. We did

not know it was toxic. We did not know that in a number of years time it was

going to be banned from workplaces because it was a toxic substance. It is very

addictive, particularly to young people who think that they are being cool by

having a cigarette, or at least they did and maybe now it is not so cool.

One of the things that we noticed when we were having these debates in the

House about ten years ago when the products marketing act were being discussed

and we were trying to work on removing the likelihood of children smoking, one

of the things we found out by having hearings in this House and from witnesses

was that one of the fastest growing market segments for the tobacco companies

was, in fact, young girls. While males were slowing down with their smoking

habits, they were actually targeting young girls, creating an impression that

cigarettes, somehow, were slimming agents, that they assisted people in

controlling their weight, that they were actually great weight reduction

products, or at least creating an image in people's minds to that effect. I

think that is an indication, when you see the statistics showing the number of

young people smoking, particularly young women smoking, on the rise, how

insidious the work of the tobacco companies has been in addicting young people

and older people to cigarette smoking, obviously endangering their health and

incurring significant costs in our Province.

I would say, on the technical side, whether in the province means residing in

the Province now or residing in the past, there are probably all kinds of

examples of people who may have grown up in Newfoundland and Labrador, got

addicted here by starting smoking when they were teenagers, went away to work

for twenty years and then came back to live in Newfoundland and Labrador for

their retirement, ended up getting cancer, and the Province incurring health

costs as a result of that. Are they in the Province ? This is an open question

here. Are they in the Province, in the meaning of the tobacco related wrong?

Does the wrong have to be committed in the Province, and what is the wrong? Is

it the one that got them addicted in the first place? Is it the fact that the

medical expenses were incurred here? I presume the minister has some response to

that.

The last question I hope that the minister will address when he rises to

close debate, or someone on behalf of the government, there seems to be the

suggestion by the minister in the final remarks that he made that the government

would be engaging outside counsel to handle this litigation. I do not know if

that was part of his speech or he just sort of said at the end they are planning

to engage outside counsel.

There have been outside counsels engaged in the past, and I believe the

decision was made at some point not to use outside counsel because of the

significant cost involved. Perhaps the minister can address that when he closes

debate, that this is important litigation and has a potential for going on for a

long time. These suits in the United States went on for a long time, lots of ups

and downs and ins and outs, eventually resulting in settlements of significant

nature. Why would the government choose to use outside counsel for something

that could prove to be extremely expensive? I think at one time the previous

government talked about doing it on a contingency fee so that the government

would get a share but the law firms involved would get a share as well, a

significant share.

It seems to me to be legislation that is facilitating a lawsuit that

ultimately must be successful, given the track records of what goes on in the

United States and what is going on between the Supreme Court of Canada and the

Legislature of British Columbia in fashioning by B.C., for example, an effective

legal regime to allow a suit to take place and to say to a law firm: Here is

what we are going to do, folks. We are going to make sure this lawsuit succeeds.

We are going to pass whatever legislation is required to make it succeed. You do

the legal work, collect the money, and you can get a cut of it.

Why wouldn't the government say: Look, this is a government suit; we have

government lawyers. If we need to hire a couple of more to do it, surely it can

be done at a cost that is a lot less than giving a piece of the action.

I do not know how big a piece he is talking about. Even if you are talking

about 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent - I do not know what contingency

fees the government is negotiating for this - it seems to me that government, in

a situation where the chances of recovery seem to be quite high, the only issue

here may be the amount of recovery and what the damages might be, isn't this

something that the government ought to be doing, in fact, on its own, as opposed

to letting a law firm take a big chunk of the action instead of the government

hiring a couple of people, if necessary, to undertake this work and to achieve

what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through this action.

I hope he will address that when he closes. I know he did not place a lot of

emphasis on that in his remarks. He was talking more about the principles and

purposes of litigation, which we support fully, but I have a bit of a problem

suggesting that this should be put out to a contingency fee arrangement when you

have a situation where what is really happening is the guarantee is there in a

sense that the government is going to ensure the success through appropriate

legislation, and we have the ability, a staff of legal experts, lawyers and

advocates on hand. If they are inadequate in the sense that they are so busy at

other things that more are needed, well, we are in a position, presumably, to

hire more to undertake this work.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation and support the

efforts of government to recover these health care costs.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close debate at

second reading.

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

I would certainly like to thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of

the New Democratic Party for their comments here today.

With respect to comments made by the Opposition House Leader as to the

inclusion of the words, in the Province, it has been the advice given to the

government that, in view of the emphasis that the courts have placed on the

extraterritorial application, it was considered appropriate to expressly state

that the duty is owed the persons in the Province, which is in conformity with

the B.C. legislation, for the purposes of avoiding any potential challenges by

the tobacco manufacturers which could delay Newfoundland and Labrador's

litigation to recover health care costs that are associated with tobacco related

illness.

I will certainly be happy to have the lawyers in the department have a

meeting with the hon. Opposition House Leader in order to address in more detail

the concerns that he has raised.

With respect to the comments made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party

concerning the government's counsel in pursuing this legislation through the

courts, an agreement was entered into between the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the previous Administration, and the firm of Humphrey, Farrington and

McClain, an American law firm from Independence, Missouri. As I said in my

previous remarks, Independence, Missouri, was the home of the late President of

the United States, Mr. Harry Truman.

A contract was entered into, an agreement has been entered into, with this

American law firm by the previous government, which this government continues

with, that will allow this firm to represent the Province and to pursue the

costs on an contingency basis. What I indicated in my remarks was that, that

American law firm, of course, has retained the services of a local law firm in

order to commence the action in our local courts because, obviously, the action

will commence in the courts of this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their comments and I would

urge all hon. members to support the passage of second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 66,

An Act To

Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery

Act. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66 has now been read a second time. When shall this

bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Health Care Costs

Rec