April 6, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 9

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the

Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of

Bonavista North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last night, you and I had the pleasure of attending the City of

Mount Pearl's 2005, seventeenth annual Focus on Youth Awards Banquet. This

event is organized and administered by the Mount Pearl Parks and Recreation

Department and the City of Mount Pearl, and they do a tremendous job.

It is sponsored by various community groups, companies and corporations, to

honour Youth, and Adults working with Youth, who make outstanding contributions

to the community in the areas of sports, self-improvement and volunteerism. I

would like to thank the sponsors of this event because, without their help, this

event could not be possible.

Mr. Speaker, the winners were: Male Youth of the Year, Philip Holloway;

Female Youth of the Year, Janine Hodder; RNC Youth in Service Award, Rebecca

Mercer; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Julia Hiscock; Female Youth Athlete of the

Year, Heather Jones; Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Chris Mallard; Youth Sports

Team of the Year, Tier 5 Synchronized Swim Team; Adult Volunteer Working with

Youth in Sport, Darren Moss; Youth Group of the Year, 4 th Mount Pearl

Pathfinders; Adult Volunteer Working With Youth, Lillian Bussey; Visual Arts

Award, Kylie Goodyear; Performing Arts Award (Individual), Megan Barnes, and

performing Arts Recognition Awards were given to: Mount Pearl Senior High School

Drama Club, Mount Pearl Show Choir, and O'Donel High Jazz Band.

I am truly overwhelmed to hear of all the accomplishments of these young

people and adults nominated. Their dedication and contribution to our city is

invaluable, and I commend them for all their efforts.

In closing, I would like to ask all the members of this House to join with me

in congratulating the winners and the nominees for the 2005 Focus on Youth

Awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Grand Falls-Windsor's

Centennial Committee Members and Volunteers who were named the recipient of the

Doug Wheeler Award for promoting tourism in our Province at the Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador Convention held in Grand Falls-Windsor recently.

The award, which is named in honour of the late civil servant Doug Wheeler,

commemorates his efforts to promote the Province as a tourism destination, and

recognizes a person or group who has done the most in the past year to develop

or promote the tourism industry in our Province. The Centennial Celebrations

Committee certainly fits that bill.

Mr. Speaker, the year-long festivities of 2005 introduced a host of new

visitors to the splendors of Central Newfoundland and all that the region has to

offer as a number one tourism destination.

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

congratulating the Centennial Committee Members and Volunteers for their

outstanding efforts in putting together an incredible year of events to

celebrate Grand Falls-Windsor's one hundredth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant accomplishment of a town

in my district. As you may know, Glovertown has been selected for the CBC

Hockeyville Contest.

Mr. Speaker, out of 450 communities that applied for this contest, Glovertown

made the first cut, making it into the top fifty as one of the only ten

communities from the Atlantic region. The only community in Newfoundland and

Labrador to do so.

Interesting enough, the person responsible for this, in large part, is a

twelve-year-old boy by the name of Tyler Pritchett. While waiting in his father's

office one day, Tyler stumbled across the posting from the contest on the

Internet. He decided to enter on behalf of Glovertown. The application consisted

of an essay explaining: why your town is Canada's Hockeyville. Tyler obviously

did an impressive job, as days later they received a call from CBC informing

them of the result.

Mr. Speaker, later this month voting for the winner will take place. The

community that is named the winner will receive $10,000 worth of equipment for

the local minor hockey association, $50,000 worth of renovations to their arena,

and if that was not enough, the winner will also host an NHL exhibition game.

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

congratulating Tyler Pritchett and his father, Kurt Pritchett along with contest

team members, Juan Gill and son Alex Gill; Craig Ralph with son, Jonathan Ralph,

and certainly the entire community of Glovertown on such a great accomplishment.

Best of luck to them in the competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Eric

Clarke of Blaketown who has earned special recognition in the Hockey Hall of

Fame in Toronto.

The volunteer program is sponsored by RBC Insurance who searched the country

for local hockey volunteers who go unrecognized for their efforts towards minor

hockey.

Mr. Clarke started as a coach in the association twenty-five years ago. He is

well known and respected in the area as a driving force behind keeping the

Trinity Placentia Minor Hockey Association in operation. He has served as

President, established female minor hockey, coordinated practice schedules and

organized tournaments and referee clinics. He is Mr. Hockey in the area.

Mr. Clarke was recognized on March 6 for his volunteer work. He will attend a

special ceremony unveiling a display honouring the 2005-2006 RBC Local Hockey

Leaders at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. A banner recognizing the

achievement will be also raised at the Trinity Placentia Stadium, which will

also receive $10,000 towards minor hockey as part of the volunteer program.

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

Hockey Hall of Fame-er', Eric Clarke of Blaketown, on his continued

contributions to minor hockey in the area and to the young people of the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the

Badger's Quay Lions Club as they prepare to celebrate fifty years of community

service.

In 1956, several individuals decided to search for ways to improve the lives

of the citizens of their town. This desire to help led directly to the formation

of the Badger's Quay Lions Club. Under the leadership of their first

President, Uncle Harry L. Knee, the club developed deep and lasting roots. The

clubs contribution to the social fabric of the community has been great and the

benevolent nature of those involved is evidenced by the fundraising activities

that have benefitted local hospitals, seniors homes, schools and youth groups.

In total, over the fifty years the club has raised in excess of $1 million.

Whether sharing time with and showing respect to the seniors that helped

develop their community, or entertaining the masses with their annual Christmas

concert, the Lions have always made people their priority. During times of need

the Lions are there. This international service organization reflects the values

of kindness, generosity and sharing that are so representative of the people who

call this great Province their home.

In retrospect, it seems that Uncle Harry and his friends made a wonderful

choice in establishing the Lions Club as it was a perfect extension of the

character and the empathetic nature of the men themselves. The Lions motto is:

We Serve, and for fifty years that is just what they have done.

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

congratulating the Badger's Quay Lions Club on fifty years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to recognize seven women from the Labrador

Straits: Helen Hancock, Nancy Flynn, Maisie Groves, Bonnie Goudie, Karen Buckle,

Alma Goudie and Shirley Letto on their competition of Women's Voices,

Personal Stories from Labrador Women . It is a collection of stories,

experiences and work of the women that have been compiled on compact disc.

Women's Voices is a project by the Forteau Community Access Program and

Smart Labrador, which set out to combine storytelling with computer training. As

each of these women learned to master modern day technologies, they also

documented in video and audio the stories of Labrador women.

Mr. Speaker, the CDs are available to people who are interested, as well as

bound printed copies of their stories. This has been a remarkable venture for

these women whose ages range from thirty-five to sixty-five and whose personal

and professional backgrounds vary.

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

these women of the Labrador Straits on the completion of Women's Voices,

Personal Stories from Labrador Women .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House that government will commence

the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service between St. Barbe and Blanc Sablon on

Thursday, April 13, more than two weeks ahead of the usual schedule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, starting the service early will allow ferry

users such as post-secondary students, teachers, or whomever, to either travel

home during the Easter break or embark on vacation trips and will allow for the

shipment of goods into and out of South and Southeastern Labrador earlier than

ever.

Mr. Speaker, the Apollo ferry is an essential transportation link for

the general public and the business community in this part of the Province. For

many years, residents of Labrador, particularly those on the South Coast, have

requested that government extend this service.

Mr. Speaker, the combination of favourable ice conditions and an improved

fiscal capacity has allowed government to response to this request in this year's

Budget with an investment of $759,000.

In total, government will extend the service by thirty days - a full month.

Traditionally, the ferry service ran until the first week of January but this

season government will extend the service until January 16, pending acceptable

weather and ice conditions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to announce that this extension

means that The Straits ferry service will now have its longest operating season

ever.

Mr. Speaker, because so many residents of our Province depend on this

service, government took a prudent, strategic approach in deliberating on how to

extend the service.

Before finalizing the schedule, government sought the informed input of the

newly-assembled Minister's Advisory Committee on Labrador Transportation. This

nine-member group has been established to make recommendations on how best to

address future Labrador transportation needs.

The Minister's Advisory Committee will be instrumental in advising

government, as we move forward, to address issues such as those associated with

the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Labrador marine service and air transportation.

Today's announcement, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrates once again our

commitment to dealing with the ongoing transportation issues in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I said to the minister when I walked into the

House, I hardly know how to take good news in my district because I have not had

any for two-and-a-half years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if I wasn't so humble today, I would be standing

here saying what a great member in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - whose perseverance in the last two years, and about

twenty-five petitions in the House of Assembly, finally got the minister to

listen.

But, no joking, Mr. Speaker, it is welcome news to me and to the people of my

district. We have often extended the ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle

on any given year when ice permitted starting the ferry earlier and running it

later. In the last couple of years, unfortunately, we did not always have that

privilege but I am glad to see that now it is being extended on a permanent

basis for a month and it will be well received news by the people of that area.

I can only say to the minister, I hope you will continue to do due diligence

on transportation files in that part of Labrador because they are critical to

the industry and the economy of the region.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: In doing so, I would also like to encourage him again to take

another look at the marine services between Cartwright and Goose Bay; how we can

improve on those services, have more trips, have more crossings, improve the

capacity so that the industry in Labrador can grow from a marine perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I echo the words

of my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that this is good news indeed

for the people of The Straits area but we look forward, Mr. Speaker - I say to

the minister, we look forward to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway,

and at that time we hope that government will see fit to have a year-round ferry

service with ice breaking capacities that will allow the free flow of traffic on

a year-round basis.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were going to be for the Premier but I will ask the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from our Premier about protecting the resources

that we have for the benefit of the people of this Province, yet we see

unemployed plant workers in the gallery today who are willing, ready and able to

go to work but they cannot because redfish is being shipped unprocessed outside

of our Province while their plant in New Harbour remains idle.

I ask the minister: Will you tell these people today that no redfish will

leave this Province unprocessed as long as there is a processor, such as Mr.

Woodman in New Harbour, who is willing to purchase that redfish and process it

here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It would certainly be our preference, as a government, if not one ounce of

fish went out of this Province unprocessed. However, Mr. Speaker, we have to

deal with the realities of the marketplace, we have to deal with the realities

of a place like Gaultois, for example, where if there weren't allowed to be

certain conditions of processing attached to that license last year, 101 people

getting 40,000 hours of work would have been unemployed.

We have to do a balance. I don't like it and the government doesn't like

it. There are certain market conditions that call for certain processing

conditions, and that is what we have tried to do here with a level playing field

that makes it the same for the Woodman's, as it does for the Quinlan's, as

it does for Gaultois, or as it does for any other processor in the Province, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I ask the minister for a straightforward answer.

Will you be allowing redfish to go out of this Province unprocessed this year

while there is a plant in this Province, such as Woodland's in New Harbour,

that is willing to process that fish? Yes or no, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not going to

dictate how I answer a question. The answer to the question is not a simple yes

or no. I said the preferred position of the government would be that not an

ounce of fish go out of this Province unprocessed of any species, but that is

not the real world. That position would see Gaultois shutdown, that position

would see some other plants not operate, so we have to try to find a balance,

and the balance is what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair did when she

was the minister and approved 51,000 pounds of redfish to go out. There was a

reason for it. The member made the right decision, just as we have made the

right decision, Mr. Speaker. Every situation is different, and we have to cut

the garment, unfortunately, to suit the cloth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that probably every Fisheries Minister since

Confederation allowed fish to go out of this Province unprocessed.

I remember living on New World Island when you were minister and there was a

Russian factory freezer trawler parked in the harbour buying herring because

nobody in this Province wanted to process that herring. At that time they didn't

even want to buy it because there was a glut.

I gave permission to have fish shipped out of this Province unprocessed

because there was no one in this Province who was willing to purchase it and

process it here.

We have a company in New Harbour that is not only willing to purchase it but

is willing to put people like those in the gallery today back to work. We are

taking that resource and we are going to ship it out unprocessed for the benefit

of people in countries such as China.

I ask the minister, categorically, again: Will you or will you not prohibit

fish from going out while there is a plant willing to buy and process it here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to put a

- just political rhetoric is all it is. There is no 3O redfish, which is the

species we are talking about, going out of this Province to China. None, Mr.

Speaker. The member knows that.

There are conditions of processing attached to companies who have applied for

an exemption. A certain amount of processing and labour is involved in head off

gutted, head on round. The final market destination has to be identified. The

amount that is going to be shipped has to be identified. The weight has to be

identified. All of these, Mr. Speaker, are conditions of licence, and none - N O

N E - of that redfish is going to China for further processing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't care if it is going to China or Timbuktu, if it is going out

unprocessed. All I am saying is, I don't care where it is going, I say,

Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: All I am asking you is: Why are you permitting it to go out

unprocessed when the people in the gallery, and many others in the Trinity Bay

area, are willing to go to work in that fish plant? The owner, who happens to be

sitting in the gallery today, is willing to buy that fish, willing to put these

people back to work in processing it. We have a Premier who, every time he

stands on his feet in this Province, talks about protecting our resource for the

benefit of the people in this Province.

I ask the minister: Why are you in conflict with the Premier, who wants to

keep the resource for the benefit of the people in the Province while you are

allowing fish to go somewhere for further processing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am not in conflict with the Premier, not in

the least, Mr. Speaker.

The year before there was an exemption policy, in 2004, there was a little

over 5 million pounds of 3O redfish landed in this Province, Mr. Speaker. With

an exemption policy last year, that went to almost 12 million pounds. That 12

million pounds of fish allowed Gaultois to operate, it allowed work out in Old

Perlican, which is out in the same area, it allowed work in Salvage, in Trinity

Bay, it allowed work all around this Province processing that to a certain

state.

Do we put an end to all of that, Mr. Speaker? I would like to hear from the

Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. Does he want me to put an end to all of

that, or do we do the least amount of it possible and try to improve the lot of

most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are depending on the fishery as best

we can? Is that a more balanced approach, or do we take the approach advocated

by the Leader of the Opposition, with the support, I would assume - if he is

speaking for his party - of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

Earlier this week, I asked the Premier if he would be prepared to table in

the House of Assembly the details relating to the failed Hebron-Ben Nevis

negotiations. At that time, he indicated that he would check into the

confidentiality issue and advise whether or not the information could be

released.

I ask: Is government, at this time, now that they have had a few days,

prepared now to give an answer to that question and advise if they are indeed in

a position to release to the people of the Province the information concerning

those negotiations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Here is the difference with a principled approach that looks forward to

improving desires and aspirations and our lot in the place that we call home. On

Monday, when this arrangement, or discussions or negotiations with Hebron, broke

down, the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party said: Were we

overplaying our hand or were we extending it too far? Yesterday, the same member

who asked the question today stood up and said: Did we give something up by only

accepting 4.9 per cent equity?

I suggest to the parties opposite, and I compliment the Leader of the NDP who

stands on a principle on this issue, saying that, yes, we have a right to have

some ownership and stake in terms of our own offshore oil company, or our own

movement towards an energy company.

I suggest to the members opposite: Define for the people of the Province,

like we have, where you stand with your desires and aspirations with respect to

the oil and gas industry. Define what you would do. Define for the people of the

Province exactly where you would set these negotiations. Then we will talk, I

say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly appears that government is on the defensive today. Any questions

that have been asked, I certainly have not heard any answers. All I have heard

is rhetoric.

I say to the minister, for a government who passed the transparency act since

they have become a government, I have been here since Monday asking questions -

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and now today - trying to get the information so

that somebody could be fully informed, so that you could make an informed

decision and take an informed position, and all I have gotten are naysays and

noes.

I say to the minister again, in another regard, trying to get information so

that we might be informed and have a complete picture, we have heard about the

super royalty regime. It was apparently developed by the Province during the Ben

Nevis talks, negotiations, similar to other royalty regimes in the sense that it

was going to be administered by the Province, I would assume.

I ask government again - surely this information, which is within government's

ambit, not subject to any confidentiality issues or commercial sensitivity

issues - would the government be prepared and willing to table the details so

that people can be informed about the super royalty regime that we are hearing

about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People have been informed, I would submit to this House, about the super

royalty regime. The Premier gave an undertaking to the member earlier this week,

and the Premier will live up to the undertaking that he gave in terms of

releasing any information that he can with respect to the confidentiality issues

that exist between the Province and Chevron.

With respect to the super royalty regime, here is the difference yet again.

As a condition of this project moving forward, the Province, this government,

said to the oil companies simply this: If there is a windfall situation that

exists where oil prices skyrocket to where they are right now, then we want

something more than just a generic option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That we demand - that we absolutely demand - as our

inherent birthright, something better than that. With respect to the level where

it would kick in, it would kick in at $50 a barrel.

I say to the member, that was the position that we took. Unlike when I first

was appointed Minister of Natural Resources, when I went into the department,

what was put in front of me but the contemplation of a high-risk royalty regime

by the former Administration that would have seen us (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although there is $60 million in the Provincial Roads Program in

this year's Budget, I have been notified in writing by the Minister of

Transportation and Works that there is no money for repairs and upgrades to the

Buchans Highway.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister is not aware that the new Duck

Pond Mine near Millertown will be in full operation this fall. Approximately 200

permanent employees, heavy equipment, and ordinary citizens will be travelling

that road and it is in a deplorable and unsafe condition.

I ask the minister: Why have you ignored the obvious need for repairs, and

why did you not allocate funds to upgrade the Buchans Highway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a $60 million provincial roads budget this year, of

which $12 million or $11.6 million is carry-over work from last year. We have

increased our budget by about three times the budget that the previous

Administration had when they were in government just three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, with the deteriorated conditions of the roads throughout our

Province, not just the Buchans Highway, I would submit to the Member for Grands

Falls-Buchans that there are many, many busy highways with people who travel for

work in this Province that need upgrading. We are trying to deal with those

highways in a strategic way.

We have $60 million there next year. We hope to have $60 million there next

year and for the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. Over the course of four to

five years with funding at that level, not at the $22 million when they were in

government, Mr. Speaker, with the funding at that level, we will get all of the

roads in this Province restored to a respectable state in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Development, and the Minister of Natural Resources, are all singing from the

same songbook. They all realize the value of the mine in Millertown and the

barite plant in Buchans to our provincial economy.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is: When are you going to wake

up and realize what is happening around the Cabinet table? When are you going to

realize that if you have this kind of major work going on in a region of the

Province, you need to show that you are committed to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador? When are you going to do these upgrades?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that if

they had been awake when they were in government and negotiated some good deals

with the federal government, like we have, and fought for some good deals with

the oil companies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - and what have you, then they would have had the money to do

the maintenance that was required during the 1990s and up until this year, Mr.

Speaker.

As it happens, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to negotiate some good deals

with the federal government, with the leadership of the Premier, and today we

have a $60 million roads budget, three times the budget that we saw when they

were in government the last year.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it will take us some time to deal with all the roads

in this Province, and there is no road in the Province any more important than

the next one. We are spending $25 million on the Trans-Canada. If we had another

$25 million we could easily spend it, Mr. Speaker, just like the $4 million we

are spending in the Member for St. Barbe's district. If we had another $4

million, we could easily spend it there. We will deal with the Buchans Highway

in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister opposite that, while I was in government,

I had road repairs done on the Buchans Highway every year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the state of the Buchans Highway, it has not

been done for three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, there is a limited number of minutes for Question Period.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who was putting a

question.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With a $76.5 million surplus left on the table, let me tell you, there is

lots of money for the Buchans Highway.

Mr. Speaker, the state of the Buchans highway has reached a very serious

stage. If the minister is not willing to travel the road himself, there are lots

of pictures I can show you.

Just this week I got a call from a resident in Buchans who was very worried

that the intravenous hookup in her husband's arm was going to become dislodged

while being transported by ambulance to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask the minister: Given the economic development that is happening and

given the serious problems being caused to the travelling public, will you tell

this House today that you will reconsider your decision and provide funds for

this urgent situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe when the member stood she said that she did work on

the Buchans highway every year that she was in government. Now, Mr. Speaker, she

was in Cabinet for seven years. If she did any kind of work on the Buchans

highway, she shouldn't need to be asking me to fix it today.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the problem with the Buchans highway, as we

understand the problem with the Bonavista Highway, as we understand the problem

with the Road to the Isles out in Twillingate District, as we understand the

problems on the Baie Verte Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. We

have a $142 million budget this year, one of the biggest in our history, and we

will need many of them to deal with the neglect that they had when they were in

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a shameful display of arrogance!

In the past three years since you have been the government, there has been a

new industry, new heavy equipment travelling over the road, and you haven't

spent any money on it. That is why it is in the condition it is.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation

or the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns the Duck Pond mine.

Minister, in the original environmental assessment documents which Aur

Resources submitted to government there was no plan to have permanent bunkhouses

on the mine site.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that government will stick to their

original plan that was approved?

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

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, not only can I confirm it but I can let the member know I

confirmed it yesterday morning on CBC Radio in Central Newfoundland, that we

would not support any move to that process. That has already been made public.

Not only will I say that, but yesterday I received a call from the Mayor of

Buchans, Mr. Corbett, to compliment the government on our support for his

community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To compliment the government on our support for sticking to

our guns for the people of Buchans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

We were very pleased to see support in the Budget for Memorial University and

the College of the North Atlantic and a continuation of the tuition freezes at

the post-secondary institutions, but, Mr. Speaker, the student aid system still

places far too great a debt burden on students, particularly those who do not

live where the education is delivered and who must borrow many thousands more to

cover transportation and accommodation costs to get a post-secondary education.

What is the minister's government prepared to do to end this discrimination

against students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador who must travel and pay

accommodation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, many of us, probably in this House of Assembly,

are very well aware of the financial burden when you attend post-secondary

institutions. Many of us probably come from rural Newfoundland and Labrador and

probably had to pay for housing, transportation and other expenses that people

who live very close to the university or the institution do not necessarily have

to pay.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made some significant contributions to the

post-secondary system, and our White Paper contribution is for $90 million. This

year alone, the education budget for both the K-12 and post-secondary, put an

extra $100 million into education.

Mr. Speaker, although we cannot solve all of the issues at one time, one

commitment that this government made - and we have lived up to that commitment -

is we have kept the tuition frozen for three years at university to enable

people to be able to afford their education and make it more accessible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is probably aware that 40 per cent of university graduates in

Newfoundland and Labrador have a greater than $25,000 student debt load at the

end of receiving a degree; three times the Canadian average. Now, Mr. Speaker,

most of these are rural Newfoundland and Labrador students.

Will this minister, and her government, move towards a needs based grant

program to allow to level the playing field for students from rural Newfoundland

and Labrador? How long, Mr. Speaker, if she is aware of this problem, is she and

her government prepared to allow this kind of discrimination to continue in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the education of our young people is a

number one priority for this government. There are a number of issues within the

post-secondary system, and this government is very much committed to addressing

those issues.

Mr. Speaker, because of all the issues, we cannot possibly address every

single issue in the one Budget but we have certainly made some significant

contributions to the education system. In saying that, I am certainly quite open

to meeting with different groups. As a matter of fact, I am meeting with the

Canadian Federation of Students tomorrow morning and listening to their issues

and their concerns because, as we move forward, we will have to address all the

priorities and the issues as we are able to do so, and at no way am I closing

the door to say that this issue is not a priority or not important. It is

something we will continue to look into and when we are in a position that we

are able to address it, we certainly will.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

years for a Goose Bay diversification fund and $9 million for a civilian airport

terminal. They also committed to $96 million under the Northern Access

Initiative, which included basing a Coast Guard ship in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask today: What discussions have happened? What lobby

has the Premier been engaged in to ensure that this $125 million commitment of

federal money gets invested in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There has been correspondence, I may say to the hon.

member, Mr. Speaker, that gives this government the assurance and the

reassurance that the commitments that have been made by the federal government

for 5 Wing Goose Bay will, in fact, be honoured and maintained.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between myself and the

regional minister. There have been discussions between myself and officials from

the Department of the Minister of National Defence and, in fact, the Premier has

been given assurances by the new Minister of National Defence that 5 Wing Goose

Bay is here to stay, and that commitments that have been made by this new

federal Conservative government will be honoured. I can say in addition to that,

not only will this new federal Conservative government honour these commitments,

but the member can be assured that this Progressive Conservative provincial

government will ensure that these commitments are, in fact, met and maintained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling me that there will be

a new civilian airport in Goose Bay, that there will be a Coast Guard ship base

for Search and Rescue and that there will be a $20 million diversification fund

honoured. That is what I am hearing him say today, because the people in Goose

Bay do not know that, I say to you, minister.

The other thing I would like to ask you is that in Stephen Harper's bid to

become the Prime Minister of Canada, he came into Labrador and announced that he

would move 650 regular force personnel into 5 Wing Goose Bay, the same

commitment he made at two other bases across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, because there was no mention of it in the Throne

Speech: When are we going to see the 650 military personnel on the ground in

Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitment that the federal government has maintained and has made for 5

Wing Goose, which will be obviously supported and endorsed clearly by this

government, is as follows: a new rapid reaction army battalion and a new long

range unmanned ariel vehicle squadron at CFB Goose Bay resulting, I might add,

in some 750 troops on the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is the commitment that was given by the new

Minister of National Defence, Minister O'Connor. Again, I can reassure the

hon. member, that is the commitment that this particular government will ensure

is kept as we move forward for the maintenance, the survival and the very great

future that is in store for 5 Wing Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would like to remind the minister that the Prime Minister

also said that there would be a foreign military training program ongoing in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Today we have no foreign military training at 5 Wing

Goose Bay, I say to you, Minister.

I would like to ask you, again: Where is the aggressive lobby tactics on

behalf of your government? When are we going to see the troops on the ground in

Goose Bay? When are we going to see the foreign military activity? When are we

going to see the $125 million in cash in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, our Premier has received the assurances

from the new federal Minister of National Defence. Our office in

Intergovernmental Affairs has received, as well, similar assurances.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, I am travelling to Goose Bay; I am meeting with GBAC;

I am meeting with the town council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; I am meeting with

the Citizens Collation. I will be accompanied by my colleague, the Member for

Lake Melville. Shortly after the Easter period, I will be undertaking a trip as

well to Ottawa to meet with my federal government counterpart.

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is that we have a commitment that has

been given by this new federal government, this new Conservative government for

the well-being and the future of 5 Wing Goose. It is our role to ensure that

this commitment is honoured and maintained. It is my particular role, as the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to see to it that this, in fact, will be

done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, since forming government the members opposite

made the decision to close weigh scales in Foxtrap and at Port aux Basques.

After realizing they were wrong, they reversed that decision.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Will she explain what the Minister

of Finance meant when he said they will be strategically reactivating these

weigh scales? Will the service be reinstated as it was before this government

cut it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I thank the hon. member for his question.

I will say this, that when this government took office we faced a very

serious financial situation here and we made a very prudent decision to close

down the weigh scales. We do not see any clear evidence that it jeopardized road

safety, but I will say to the hon. member, that before we took office the weigh

scales in Port aux Basques were not working for a year. But, we have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: We also are now opening the weigh scales in Port aux Basques

because I have had consultations with the mayor and the town clerk in Port aux

Basques who have put forth their arguments and legitimate reasons why they felt

that the weigh scales should be open.

Also, we have decided to open up the Foxtrap weigh scales as well. Mr.

Speaker, we will be monitoring and enforcing with our openings of our weigh

scales.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a very brief supplementary.

MR. SWEENEY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, if they call, we will get everything

reinstated back in the Province that government has closed.

Mr. Speaker, another area where this government is trying to pull the wool

over the people's eyes is in terms of fee reductions. In the Budget of 2004

this government increased fees, service charges and fines to the tune of almost

$26 million. Now this year they have reduced them by a stingy $1.5 million.

I ask the minister: Does she really expect people to believe this is a big

break for the average person?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. We have time for a very

brief reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member only picks one line out of a Budget Speech and reads it. One

line said $1.95 million, he forgot to read on and tell us and find out that we

are reducing almost $2 million reduction in a fee based on liquor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to hear the answer. There

are hundreds of establishments across Newfoundland and Labrador that sell

liquor, that had to pay 12 per cent more than the average consumer paid to buy

it at a liquor store. We eliminated that, 3 per cent last year, another 9 per

cent, $1.95 million.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will tell him, everything we do is strategic on

this side. It is not ad hoc, like they do on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

Employment, and Labrador Affairs.

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

I am pleased today to submit the 2005 Annual Report for the Labour Relations

Board, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports by standing and select

committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Motion 3, the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, to Move that the House Resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting

of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, known as Bill 3.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated 15 March 2006.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I

transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending 31 March 2006, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance

with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I

recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd: Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House.

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is now ready to hear debate on Bill 3,

An Act For Granting To

Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of

The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other

Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 3, and on the resolution that

accompanies that particular bill.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just have a few general comments on Bill 3. I know my colleague the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and my colleague the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, on the two specific aspects of the special

warrant, are certainly prepared to answer any specific questions on those

aspects that pertain to their respective departments, because these were the two

areas mentioned here in the bill emanated from those respective areas.

The first one was an extra vote of $24 million under Ex-Gratia and Other

Payments. That is in the Estimates Book, 2.1.02., and it is under Employee

Benefits for the $24 million. That has been clearly stated there. The Premier

had a statement here in this House on that. He responded to a letter from union

leaders dealing with an ex-gratia payment to those unions to deal with issues

that were referenced in that particular letter.

The other issue here, under Civil Law, 2.01.01, under the Department of

Justice, there was an amount. In the estimates there was $3 million for

Allowances and Assistance. That has been asked to be increased to $7 million, an

extra $4 million here under Supplementary Supply.

In total, both of these bills are $28 million extra funding needed to be able

to be expended to meet the needs of that department in the fiscal year

2005-2006.

Those are the specific references to these. I am sure the ministers can

certainly answer any questions. I think it has been very clearly stated here in

the House by the Premier of the Province on the ex gratia payment. I think

everybody is quite familiar with that, and that has certainly been articulated

quite well out in the public forum too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This being a money bill, of course, one can address pretty wide latitude of

what you might speak to. I do, in fact, have some particular questions for the

minister concerning Bill 3 and the details of it.

First of all, on the ex gratia payment piece of $24 million: I think the

Premier was quite clear in his comments when he read the Ministerial Statement

in this House some time ago that it was in response to a letter he had received

from four or five of the different unions groups that were being impacted by

this.

There is nobody, I don't believe, who has any disagreement with the fact

that the payment is going to be made. That is not the nature of my questions or

the concerns. Some more detailed questions and specifics, I guess, is where I

would like to go today. Maybe the minister, or one of the ministers, can give

some details in that regard.

There are two parts in this particular Supplementary Supply Bill. One

concerns the issue of the $24 million payment for the pay equity piece, and the

other piece is the $4 million under the Department of Justice. We haven't had

an opportunity yet, and I am sure we will hear, as the minister said, from the

Minister of Justice and Attorney General in regard to the $4 million. On the $24

million piece - because we have an audience not only in the gallery, of course,

but we have a lot of people in this Province who watch these proceedings and

would like to have a level of detail and understanding as to what is happening

here.

For the record, as I understand it as a person who works here, what we are

doing here with this bill is, the government last year didn't have this $24

million in their Budget. What they did was they came to this agreement with

these unions based upon their request, and government said: We will go along and

give you the $24 million that you requested. When that happened, of course, and

it wasn't budgeted for, government needed a mechanism whereby they can come up

with that money. What you do is you issue a Special Warrant, but whenever you do

that, you must come back to this House after and get approval for the money that

you have agreed to spend. So that is what we are dealing with here. Government

has already decided they are going to spend this money. Now they are here in the

House, and they did it by way of a process called a Special Warrant, and now

there here with a piece of legislation to actually dot the i's and cross the t's,

as it were, and get authorization to expend that money. So, that is the process

on why we are here and what we are doing.

The $24 million, for those who may not have heard, is that we have had an

issue in this Province for quite some time, where it was alleged of going back

to 1989, that women were not paid the same rates of pay for the same positions

and the same work as male workers. That led to court action, in fact, in our

Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It went to our Court of Appeal and, ultimately,

was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. What had happened is the courts

recommended, the lower courts that is, that the money should be paid. The pay

equity should be paid. There should be equity in payment to whether you are a

male or a female, but the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Province, who

did not want to pay it, were justified, shall we say, in not paying it at that

time because of their financial circumstances.

So, the Supreme Court of Canada said, aside from the issue of whether it

should or should not be paid, the Supreme Court of Canada felt that the

government of day was okay not to pay it because they did not have the money.

So, that went on and there has been a sore spot there with our workers in this

Province, as it should be and should have been for many, many years. Finally,

the unions got together and came back, as the Premier said in his statement,

read a letter and said: Look, we would like to have $24 million. Let's get

past this issue and let's move on, so that this issue is dead and gone,

regardless of what the court said, and let's move forward with a level playing

field from here on in.

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the process as to what has happened here

and the fact that the monies are being paid. Some questions I would like to have

a response to is - and I realize that $24 million, as well, is the exact number,

as I understand it, that was requested by the unions that put the letter

forward. So, we do not have any disagreement between what the unions asked for

and what the government has agreed to give. But, I am wondering if someone in

the government side can tell us what the full package was initially requested in

order to fix the pay equity problem? As I understand it, it wasn't $24

million. I think, for the record again, and people can be fully informed: Can we

have the details as to what was the full package requested versus what was

agreed to, the $24 million?

The other question I had, and I think we need to know, is: Now that we have

an agreement on how much is going to be paid, how will it be paid and when will

it be paid? I think that is important because there are a lot of workers,

particularly those impacted, like female workers in our Province, who are going

to get the benefit of this money. People are saying: Well, how much will I get?

Am I eligible? What criteria has been set out so that I know what piece of the

$24 million I am going to get? Who is it going to be paid to? Will it only be

paid to females who are members of the five unions who wrote the letter? I would

think government, to be equitable, is not going to make a pay equity settlement

only to see it apply to certain people. Or did those five unions include

everybody? That kind of information.

How many females in the Province are going to be positively impacted by this

decision, and how much will they get? Is there any formula already decided, that

this is the formula that will be paid, or is that something that will have to be

worked out in the future? We did not get many details. We know there was a

decision made to pay it but it is a big piece to know: Who is going to get it,

when are they going to get it and how much are they going to get? Those are the

things that I am hearing from people saying: How do we work through this

process? Now, I realize we are only here today to get the official approval, but

as piece and parcel of that package, we need to have and ought to have some

answers to those questions.

So, those are the questions that I would throw out first, and I hope one of

the ministers who are going to speak today - whether it be the Minister of

Finance or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Education or the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women - might address some of those questions and

provide us with some level of detail with regards to that issue.

The other one here on this paper today talks about $4 million extra that has

been agreed to spend in the Department of Justice. It comes under a heading

called allowances and assistance. Now that is a pretty broad category,

allowances and assistance. Having been the Minister of Justice for some time

myself, God knows what you could put under that heading, allowances and

assistance.

I look forward, again, to getting some specifics from the minister as to what

this $4 million is for. Is it being paid because we need extra RNC officers? Is

it being paid because we need new staff or have more staff? Is it being paid

because we are going to do some work to the penitentiary? Are we hiring more

lawyers? If so, how many are we hiring? We need to have some details. It is one

thing to go spend $4 million of the peoples' money but people want to know

what you are spending it on, and that is our role as an Opposition, to find out

what you are going to spend it on. I am very pleased to see that you have it to

spend, but the next question is: Is it being spent properly and responsibly?

I look forward to the Minister of Justice providing me with some level of

detail in that regard. I have had some indication that it might involve a civil

settlement or a lawsuit settlement of some kind. If that is the case, whatever

level of detail the minister can offer in that regard. Was it as a result of a

court case? If so, what court case? What was the nature of the court case? How

many people were involved in the case and so on?

So, the breakdown as to how that money was used and utilized would be very

important because I firmly believe that it is not only proper to do the right

thing, but it is right to do the proper thing. The proper thing includes being

fully informed so that people understand where the money is going.

That is all the comments I have at this time. I look forward to one of the

ministers responding. Again, for the people who might not be familiar with it,

this is one process in the House of Assembly where you usually have ten minutes

to speak each and you can go back and forward a number of times. So, I put those

questions and concerns out there, and I look forward to government providing us

with some level of detail and we will see where it goes from there.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I rise because I want to address some of the

questions with regards to the voluntary or the ex gratia payment that was paid

to the five unions, because there were some questions asked about that.

One thing behind all of this is the fact that this government is committed to

advancing the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador. In order to advance

the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to make sure that they

are able to share in both the economic and social benefits of this Province. Mr.

Chair, that is something that we have committed to do. We have made a commitment

that women's voices will be heard and that is something that transcends many

different departments within government, that we have to recognize and value the

role that women play.

Mr. Chair, as we all know, the whole issue of pay equity is something that

was rooted back to 1988 to 1991. At that time, as we are trying to advance the

rights of women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it was certainly

noted that there was not a fairness of the pay scales between the work done by

men and women. There was a deliberate effort - and so there should have been at

the time - to make sure that women were treated in an equitable manner within

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were agreements made by the

government at the time with the unions to ensure that women would be compensated

in a very fair manner. Mr. Chair, the Province found themselves, in 1991, where

they felt they were unable to meet these demands because of their fiscal

situation at that time. Therefore, the agreement that had been struck was not

honoured. As a result of that, the unions exercised every legal right they had

in order to address what they felt was inequitable treatment, and particularly

against women. Mr. Chair, that went right to the Supreme Court of Canada and the

Supreme Court of Canada felt that the government acted in a way that was

appropriate based on their fiscal situation at that time.

What is really surprising is that we have heard many times that when we came

into government, in 2003, that there was sufficient money in government. We felt

there wasn't and we felt we had to take some measures at that time to deal

with the fiscal realities. We hear over and over that we exaggerated the

situation. One thing I think that is key to that: If we were exaggerating that

situation and that meant that there had been money in the coffers up to that

point in time, I think that would have been a priority that would have been

addressed for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador. It wasn't and it went

right to the Supreme Court of Canada. At that point in time, every legal avenue

had been exhausted, so technically, from a legal perspective, the issue of pay

equity could not go any further.

However, the five unions involved in this did not necessarily feel that was

the end of the issue and they continued to remind government that they felt

there was some unfairness or some inequity. As a result of that, as we heard

when the Premier rose and read the letter from the five unions, they understood

that pay equity was an issue that had been fought to the very end, at the

Supreme Court of Canada. No matter how we look at it, it will never be

classified as a moral victory for the people who were affected.

Because there were no legal avenues and the pay equity issue had been fought

as far as it could, the unions felt that there still should be some way to

address the inequity that had happened. Realizing that we were not able to

address pay equity, they asked us, on a volunteer basis, if we would make this

one-time payment, this ex gratia payment, of $24 million, and that is exactly

what this government did. By doing that, we certainly have made a tangible

response to an issue that the unions have kept in the public view for a long

time, and one that certainly guarantees that women's voices will be heard.

In doing so, some of the questions that were asked by the hon. member talked

about the amount of money, where the $24 million came from, and how the money

will be administered. Well, Mr. Chair, the $24 million was in the letters that

had been written to the Premier. That is where that amount came from. Up until

that particular letter and the exact amount that the unions were asking for,

there were always various numbers being floated around. They ranged anywhere

from about $12 million to about $300 million. When we actually received

correspondence from the union with an ask of an ex gratia payment, it was in the

amount of $24 million and we were able to make that payment - something of which

I am very proud, being affiliated with this Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: The other information requested is: How will this money be

administered? Well, this payment was made to the unions in a lump sum of $24

million and it will be up to the unions how they administer that money, but it

was certainly our intent that we paid this money so that they could deal with

some of the issues that they were bringing forward to government. The actual

payments, and how they are going to make their payments, will be determined by

the unions involved; however, government has also committed that if, for any

reasons, they need some information and we have that information, we are able to

provide it either through government or through health boards, we are committed

to being able to provide that information for them and we will do just that.

That is basically - they asked in writing for the $24 million. We agreed to

pay the $24 million. It is a voluntary ex gratia payment and, Mr. Chairman, how

that fund will be administered is within the sole jurisdiction of the unions

involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of the minister. I do not know if your answers have

raised more questions. It partially informed me, I guess, in a sense that we

know now that the money is going to, I believe the words you used, the unions.

Maybe you could take us to the next level now of detail, because I understand

that the unions that you referred to include the Association of Allied Health

Professionals, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1615, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Public and Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Nurses' Union.

Can you tell us, of the $24 million, how is the cheque being split vis- B -vis

each of these unions? What percentage goes to whom? What is the dollar value?

And, if it has not been split like that to these six different unions, which

union was it given to?

The other question I have is, we see here the use of the word ex gratia

payment. Maybe the minister might comment, or one of the ministers, as to: What

do you mean by the use of the word ex gratia? Because I think it is very

important that we understand again why it is under that particular heading.

The normal, every day, common usage of the word ex-gratia, as I understand

it, is that we agree, without any admissions of liability or whatever, that we

are going to make this payment as you requested. If that is the understanding

that government gave it on - for example, we are not saying, by doing this,

there was an admission of liability - that would be my understanding of it. That

is what the word usually means. Using the word ex-gratia, and the fact that you

are not saying you are opening yourself up to any liability, does not mean that

you have not put some conditions on the money.

For example, how do we know, or do we know - that is where my question is

going here - do we know that the Association of Allied Health Professionals, the

Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers Local 1615, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and

Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union represent

all - all - of the females who should, and ought, benefit from a government

payment to look at and address the pay equity situation?

That is my question. If the answer to that question is yes, we have gone a

long ways to solving that problem; because, surely, we would not to find out in

a month's time, or a year's time, that some female worker in this Province,

for some reason, did not get compensated. If we are going to do this, we have to

be fair to everybody. The Supreme Court of Canada has already decided that we,

government, discriminated against women on this issue, so let's not leave

anybody out in the cold here.

I would like some clarification, if we could, from the minister as to: Is

everybody covered by these unions that you wrote this cheque to? I would like to

know, as I said earlier, how much of the money went to each union. How many

members are we talking about, totally? How many female workers in this Province

are going to benefit from the settlement, and how do you determine it? Is it

based on the seniority they had? As I understand it from the minister, you have

left that to the unions to administer.

That raises a whole spectre of other questions for me. It is one thing of

government to have money and to make a decision that they are going to right a

wrong. I said from day one, I applauded government for trying to right that

wrong, but there is also a responsibility here, if you are going to spend $24

million, to have some idea to see that it is going to be fairly handled, who is

going to handle it, and what are the conditions of dispersing it. Now, I did not

gather from the minister's comments that there have been any conditions

whatsoever attached to the union's split and division of this money.

It is not usual, I am sure, in the history of any government, that you just

cut a cheque for $24 million and say: We appreciate your problem. We agree with

you. We are going to try to right the wrong. Here is $24 million - and they don't

say anything else.

What assurance does government have that everybody is covered, and how it is

going to be divided? It is not going to look pretty at the end of the day if

somebody comes forward and says: Whoa, I didn't get my fair share. Yes, I was

a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private

Employees but, because I left - I was a worker who was affected by this in 1989

but it so happened, for whatever reason, I ceased to be a member in 1998. Does

that member get credit now for the period that she was there from 1989 to 1998,

or is she not going to get credit because she is no longer a registered member

of the union?

Those are the kinds of questions, and government, I suggest, have an

obligation to see that is done, because this is all about fairness and equity.

We have to be sure that we are fair and equitable to all women who should share

in it.

I would suggest to the minister that simply cutting a cheque because you are

nice people and because we have it in the bank, and giving it to the unions and

saying: Here, go figure it out yourself - that is not what this argument started

about. This argument started out because government discriminated against the

women. If government is going to make the payment, ex gratia or not, government

has an obligation to see that the problem is addressed. You don't just throw

the money at them.

I think the people of the Province, and I am sure all of the women of the

Province, have a right to know. You just don't pat yourself on the back and

say: Thank you very much for the $24 million.

How do we know, and what assurance do they have, particularly? Not only that

we know - more importantly, how do the women, all women, who have been a member,

or a party associated with, worked for, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, be assured they get their share? Is it just unionized women who are

entitled to a share? Is it just unionized women? What about any other women who

worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in any capacity from

1989, when the issue arose, until now, when you make this ex gratia payment in

2006, and they were not a member of a union but they worked for government? It

was a woman. They were women. They did get discriminated against. They were not

unionized. Do they or do they not get a share? Do they or do they not get a

share?

Pretty straightforward questions, pretty straightforward questions, and maybe

one of the ministers can give an answer so that the people of the Province,

particularly the women, can get at least a full picture of what has happened

here, to be assured that the ultimate equity is achieved.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I wasn't going to participate in this debate this afternoon, but I feel

obliged and motivated to do so, to be frank with you.

First of all, my colleague, the Minister of Education and the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women, outlined very clearly what occurred and how

we got to this point. We tried to rectify a situation. The member opposite talks

about ex gratia, and what that means. Yes, it means that it is an ex gratia

payment, voluntary, with no recognition of any other further liabilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: No obligations.

MR. E. BYRNE: No obligation, that is exactly right.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what they asked for.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right. My colleague just said, that is

exactly what unions asked for.

He has asked a question: Does it include everybody? Because we would not want

to get ourselves into a situation where some were left out. The answer to that

is also yes. The answer is that, yes, it does include everybody.

The third point he asked was: How will that be split up amongst them? Well,

that is in the process of being worked out, based upon information, looking at

past - and we would, as the minister said, my colleague said, make any and all

information readily available to those unions who were part of signing that, for

recognition of what went on. So, that would be worked out in terms of the

information as it comes forward. This has all been vetted through their own

executive boards.

That is not what motivated me to get up. You know, the great defender, and

defenders across the way, who are apparently saying these things now.... I have

to point out a fact for anybody who wants to listen, or people who may be

watching. The member who just spoke opposite me was the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General who brought this action not to get involved in pay equity to

the Supreme Court of the country. To listen to that member today, you wouldn't

know but they had absolutely nothing to do with how we arrived at the place we

are in. You wouldn't know but this is some sort of situation that we have not

acknowledge anything. The fact of the matter is, the place that we found

ourselves in was a place that the former Administration, by challenging this and

bringing it to the Supreme Court, put us in. I think we need to acknowledge

that. That is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.

From our perspective, let me be absolutely and abundantly clear, for some

time we felt - based upon the letter that we received - that a reasonable,

acceptable proposal had been put forward to government. It was a reasonable and

acceptable proposal that reflected the spirit of partnership for this issue. Ex-gratia

was an important word because it means no obligation or future liability, but it

also meant that the unions had come together to work with this government to try

to at least rectify a situation that that member, as the former Minister of

Justice and Attorney General who led the charge on bringing this to the Supreme

Court, who now stands up -

AN HON. MEMBER: They said they had lots of money.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, they said that they had lots of money when they were

there.

- who now stands up and - I am perplexed by his commentary, and in particular

by his tone.

This is a good initiative. This is a not only a good initiative, it is a

great initiative. It reflects the reality that this government saw as a

priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We had no obligation to fix this mistake, or even attempt

to, but we did it anyway. We had no obligation to look at fifty-eight widows

with respect to workers' compensation, but we did it anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the fact of it, and that has been reflected in

editorials across the Province, in this city, of trying to right past wrongs to

where we can, when we can get to them, but it speaks to our motivation as well.

When we feel there are situations that have been presented to us from the past

that we feel strongly about and motivated about, if we can find a way forward to

solve it then we will.

I want to compliment the five unions publicly. I know it has been done. The

Premier has done it, my colleagues have done it, but this bill is now before the

House for debate and this is a significant initiative that deserves support, and

it deserves support now. This is an initiative that rectifies a past wrong. It

acknowledges a way forward in partnership with the unions. It is

all-encompassing. We will make any and all information available so that the

unions themselves, and their members, can have access to whatever they need to

support how that will get dispersed. Mr. Chair, I ask you: What is wrong with

that initiative?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is nice to hear from the Government House Leader.

Just so there is no misunderstanding here, let there be no misunderstanding,

because I heard references to a couple of issues: number one, about my tone;

number two, the fact that I was the former Minister of Justice and so on, as if,

because of that fact, I ought to know better and should not ask questions.

Let's get some facts, if the Government House Leader wants facts. First of

all, in terms of where I stand on the issue, I will be voting in support of this

bill, absolutely, no question about it. As I said earlier, and I have stated

publicly, I agree with the fact that this government - and I applauded this

government for making this payment of $24 million. Let there be no

misunderstanding about that.

The fact that I agree with your initiative, which I think is a great

initiative, the fact that I think it is finally proper and time that a wrong has

been righted, does not take away from my right to ask questions about the bill.

The purpose here, if we were to come into this House and, every time a piece of

legislation dropped, someone gets up and asks questions and you say: I don't

like your tone, or you are being negative about this proposal - absolutely not.

For example, on the Minister of Justice issue, yes, I was the Minister of

Justice when this went to the Supreme Court of Canada on a legal issue: Could

the government do what they did in their piece of legislation? I was the

minister who made that decision, that we go to the Supreme Court of Canada to

see if that legislation was valid; and, lo and behold, the Supreme Court of

Canada agreed. The Supreme Court of Canada. It was not this person who was the

minister who said yes to that. I was only the minister who took it to the

highest court in the land and said: Tell us, is this valid or not? Sure enough,

the Supreme Court of Canada said the piece of legislation was justified under

those circumstances that existed financially from 1988 to 1991. That is all the

court case was about.

Unfortunately, no government, as I know, until now has any money to address

the problem. As I say, they have the money. Good move, right move, just move, in

what you did, but that brings me back, still, to my questions. I will not stop

asking questions, because I had them and I didn't get the answers. Contrary to

what the Government House Leader might say, I didn't get the answers, and I

will keep looking for them. I will tell you what: Maybe you are not listening,

because I asked the questions of the Minister who is Responsible for the Status

of Women. I am sure when she gets an opportunity now, instead of berating

anybody or talking about my tone, maybe she will get up and, I am sure, give me

the answers. That is all this is about. I am here trying to get answers to

questions which I have a perfectly legitimate right to do.

Now, back to the gist of the situation here: This government - and talk about

tone! You are the government, for example, that had an open and transparency

issue. You are the government that passed the Transparency Act. You made it a

law of this Province. Transparency: That means to be open to everybody. The

minute someone gets to their feet and asks a question: Oh my God! You are

negative, you are naysayers, you are doomsayers, you are troublemakers. Please,

don't be so defensive. I just posed a question, and if you have the

information give it to me. If you don't have the answers, fine, tell me you

don't have the answers.

I say to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women again: You have

told us, in your initial comments, that you have given the $24 million cheque to

the unions. One of my questions was: Will this cover off all women? Now, the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and we were back and forth on this

debate, hasn't risen since and told me who is covered and who is not, in

fairness to her. That is fine, and I accept the word of the minister. I am

saying that the debate here - at that point at least - was between myself and

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. She has been very forthcoming,

and she has no problem speaking for herself. She has been very forthcoming in

this House and can certainly speak for herself.

The other question I asked was: Were there any conditions attached? When you

gave the cheque - and again I haven't had the details - how much went to each

union? Now, I think that is a pretty straightforward question. I don't see

much negative about that. Somebody took a cheque, somebody gave it to six

groups, and I am saying: How much did you give to each group? That is not a

complicated question.

When I hear that somebody says, we gave the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Public and Private Employees, whatever the figure is, and does it

for the rest of them, I got an answer. I haven't gotten that to date. That is

all I am looking for. That is pretty straightforward, and I am sure the minister

is looking to come up with some kind of answer to that question.

The other question, of course, I asked is: How do we know everybody is

covered off? What assurances do we have that the $24 million is going to put

this issue to rest once and for all, so that we do not have somebody coming back

next year and saying: Look, I am sorry, I wasn't a member of that union but I

was discriminated against? How do I get my equity? That is pretty

straightforward.

Another legitimate question, I thought: What about some female person, who

worked for the government during that time period, who is no longer a member of

a union? Like, what mechanisms are in place? What if somebody left the union in

1996 for some reason, what assurances have government got? What process is in

place? What criteria has been set up - is all I asked - to ensure that the

equity, at the end of the day, went to everybody who should get it? That is

pretty straightforward.

Now, the Government House Leader insists that I got the answers to that. I am

still sitting here, after asking the questions, waiting for the minister to get

up and give me an answer. He jumps up and says: You got them. She gave it to

you. But, with all due respect, I have been listening here with my earphones on

and I put the questions to her. We are trying to clarify things here and I do

not have the answers.

So, those are the questions. Maybe we can move down the track and start to

try to get some of the answers to them. But, let there be no mistake about it,

at the end of the day, this person right here is going to vote in support of

this piece of legislation because the principle of what you did here is

absolutely proper, and I have no qualms about saying that. All I am saying is,

let's not take something that is so well intentioned, so well motivated and

the proper thing to do, and by some unknown or accidental purpose have somebody

come back later and say we did not do far enough. That is all I am asking here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, and the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my hon. colleague here, the Government House Leader, because I,

too, feel that the questions have been answered but I will speak again to

clarify some of the points.

One, this is a voluntary ex gratia payment made to the five unions. How that

money will be paid out will be done in concert between government and the unions

as to how much goes to the unions. But, it is our understanding that this money,

these funds will be available to the public servants who were denied pay equity

during the public service restraint act in 1991.

Then we are getting this tone from the other side about this payment, and it

almost seems like there is, in some way - although there is an admission that

there is going to be support for it. One thing that stood in my mind, when the

letter was read by the Premier in this House, the letter from the unions was

read and the request was there for $24 million and the Premier stood and said

that we would honour that payment, it was interesting to note that the hon.

members opposite did not applaud that decision at the time; they sat there. The

gallery applauded. We knew it was the right thing to do. We applauded, too. Now

today they are talking about their tone and somewhat offended because it sounds

like they may not be supportive, although they say they are.

Mr. Chair, that was a very telling moment in this House, very telling to the

women of Newfoundland and Labrador and very telling to the people who were

denied payment from 1988 to 1991. Mr. Chair, that spoke volumes; not just to me

as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, but to people who are here

and who are watching it. Today, when the tone was brought up again, they seemed

to become very defensive over it.

Mr. Chair, the point of the matter is that the pay equity issue, as a legal

issue, died in the Supreme Court of Canada a couple of years ago, back in 2004.

However, the unions felt there was a misjustice' done. Mr. Chair, quite

frankly, I supported the idea that something needed to be done to rectify the

situation. The five unions approached government in writing and requested a

voluntary payment of $24 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a small amount.

MS BURKE: No, not a small mount of money by any means.

Mr. Chair, this government responded and we were able to meet that request

that came from the unions. In addition to that, that money will be distributed

to the unions, who in turn will administer those funds. In saying that, there

was considerable work done on this issue in the last, probably fifteen years or

longer, where they have significant information about the disbursement of funds

and their members. They fought this. You have to understand that they went right

to the Supreme Court of Canada with a legal team to address this. They know

their information. They know the people who are affected by this.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we are also prepared - if there is any

information government can provide that is going to be requested, whether it is

from government or from the health boards, we have made a commitment that we

will provide that information. What we have done here is we have addressed an

issue through this ex gratia voluntary payment that the unions requested and we

are able to meet it. Mr. Chair, it does advance the Status of Women in

Newfoundland and Labrador and it should be supported by all parties of this

House of Assembly. What happened back then in 1991 was something that had to be

done, based on the financial situation of the Province at the time, and the

Supreme Court of Canada recognized that. The legal options have been exhausted

and the position of the government at that time was acknowledged.

What is really galling is the fact that sometimes we hear, from the members

opposite, that in 2003 when we formed government, they say to us that we

exaggerated the financial situation and that things were not as bad as we said

they were, and that we should not have made some of the decisions that we have

had to make over the last couple of years. Mr. Chair, my question is: If they

felt the finances of this Province were not the same as we felt they were, why

did they not rectify the situation when they had the opportunity and why did

they let it go to the Supreme Court of Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, that is very telling, because I cannot image that a

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who were not able to pay women for the

work that they did and can sit there and say that their finances were in order

and that this was not a priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I find that very hard to believe in this day and

age.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, the legal avenues were exhausted and as a result,

the unions - and I thank the unions for keeping this issue in the forefront.

They understood that the issue, as it was, could not be resolved. So they

decided together that they would approach this government, and they did, and it

was an open process. The letter they sent us was actually read by the Premier in

this House. The Premier read the letter, read the request that came from the

unions, and we were able to honour that.

As I had indicated, this money will go to the unions and it is our

understanding that they will use that to assist the people who were affected

under the public service restraint act in 1991. The actual administration of the

funds will be done by the unions. As I said, government will assist the unions

in any way we can. If we have information that will help them identify people or

provide valuable information, we are more than willing to provide that

information to the unions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to rise today and respond to this bill before us concerning pay

equity. I support this pay equity measure 100 per cent. I only wish that while

we were the former Administration we had the funds to be able to deliver on this

important issue that is before us today.

Since government has made the announcement of settlement, I have had several

e-mails. I think there is a fair amount of confusion out there, or maybe it is

not confusion, it is probably a lack of information. Women are saying to me,

they are not really sure how, or who, is going to be included in this. It is

easy to include the ones who are currently working for unions, and the ones who

are on the record as having worked from that period of 1988 to1991. There are

several women, or lots of women, who have since retired. Also, there are

probably women out there who have actually moved away from our Province. There

are also women who may have been deceased prior to this settlement being

awarded. These are all very legitimate questions that have been raised by

females in the workplace, and females who are not in the workplace. They are

wondering about these things.

There are a lot of questions, really. Will this be taxable? It is a lump sum

payment. Will this be taxable? My understanding is that it cannot be counted

towards anyone's pension, that it will not be considered to be part of anyone's

pension who is currently working, and it will not be included in anyone's

pension who are currently retired and received a government pension.

Another reason is, I heard the Minister of Education, the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women, and she said the payment would be made in

concert with the government and the unions. All we know at this point is that

government and unions have reached a settlement of $24 million. I think what

needs to be done at this point is, how will the payment be made? Will unions be

presenting a list of their members to government, who would have worked during

that period, and government will be verifying that list, or will government be

supplying unions with that list?

When everything is settled, will government be cutting the cheques? How many

women are involved? Are there hundreds, or are there thousands? Will government

be cutting the cheques, or will the unions be cutting them? There are five

unions involved. Will government be giving the largest union, which is NAPE, a

cheque for, say, $12 million - I don't know - when they can ascertain that

most of their members would come under this settlement? Will government be

cutting a cheque to NAPE, for instance, for - I will just use a figure for an

example - say, $12 million or $15 million, and then it will be up to NAPE to

divvy up and decide then how it is going to be?

I wonder, also, is there any appeal mechanism in place for those who may not

be aware that the settlement is actually given at this point? It might be

someone who is living outside the county, and somebody might not find out about

it until, say, two or three years down the road that there has been a

settlement. Is there any mechanism in place where people can submit after a

certain length of time? There might be a time limit on it? Or, it might be an

estate, a beneficiary who might say: Well, my mother worked for the Government

of Newfoundland in 1988. She is now, since, deceased. Can I, as her beneficiary,

now make claim for what she would have gotten during that period of time?

All of these are legitimate questions that were asked by my colleague, the

Opposition House Leader. It is not that we are against any of this; we are for

all of this.

It is interesting, too; I wonder, what was the original full package asked by

the five unions? Were the unions aware, at the time, of the settlement of what

the surplus was going to be for this Government of Newfoundland this budget

year? I know, in the Estimates book, when I look on page 9 of Employee

Retirement Arrangements, under the heading 2.1.02., Ex-Gratia and Other

Payments, that $24 million is in there in that section. That is where it is

right now. I am just curious. That was done by way of special warrant before the

end of March, so I am curious at this point: Were unions aware of the surplus

that government has on their books for this year past? Also, had government not

come and put out a special warrant before the end of March, government would

have had to have shown a surplus of almost $105 million. Since the special

warrant was issued, government now is reporting a surplus of $76.5 million.

Normally what happens during regular wage negotiations for public servants in

this Province is, whatever settlement is attained by unions, management people

inside of government who are not unionized normally get the same increment. That

is what happens.

I think my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, raised a very valid

question. The women who were in unions are taken care of by way of this

settlement, but the women who worked as part of management at that particular

time, in positions that were other than union, were they discriminated against?

Has there been any measure for government to speak on their behalf? Will they be

looked after?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we are doing today is simply asking questions. We are in favour of the

settlement and I am sure that most of my colleagues, or all of them, will vote

in favour of the settlement, but I am sure these particular questions are

probably on the minds of all women who are affected or might be affected.

MR. E. BYRNE: When you were President of Treasury Board it obviously wasn't

on your mind.

MS THISTLE: It certainly was on my mind. If we were in a financial

position at the time - we had people lining up for cardiac surgery, for cancer

treatment, and we did not have the money, but you have the money today because

of oil.

Under the severance heading that is here, that I just mentioned, normal

severance on an annual basis within government is somewhere within the range of

$7 million to $8 million, but we notice here, even after pay equity, there is

roughly $13.5 million forecast for severance for this coming year. That would

only indicate one thing - there is going to be another round of layoffs in the

public service - because there is almost double the normal severance amount

included in the Budget for the upcoming year. That is a fact. There is nothing

imaginary about that at all. That is a fact.

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is, we have not heard from unions themselves

how many women are expected to be able to get part of this settlement. When can

they expect this settlement? Would it be for this tax year coming up? I know it

is allowed for in the Budget. When can they actually expect to receive a cheque

in their hands? Will it be taxable? I am sure it will. Will it have any affect

on their pensions? Probably not.

I am just wondering about retired people who are out there now - pensioners,

in fact, who are currently out there now. They have made a request to government

for indexing. They had that commitment while government were campaigning -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time for speaking

has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to address some of the issues being

brought forward by the hon. member across.

Mr. Chair, as we have indicated, back in 1991 - and this is really, really

important for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the women

and the people who worked in the public service. Under the restraint act, they

did not get pay equity that had been promised to them for the years from 1988 to

1991. We can say this over and over and over, but the fact of the matter is that

the government of the day indicated that they did not have the financial

resources to meet the commitments. It was fought through the legal processes,

every legal avenue that was available, up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and

the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the position of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time they did not have the financial resources

to meet that commitment. So, therefore, it was felt that under those conditions,

the government acted in a prudent manner. However, that does not excuse the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from the fact that the promise of the

pay was never made. So, because there were no legal requirements, the issue of

pay equity - when the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, the issue of pay

equity and that argument died. It was over that day.

Now, we can say the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had a legal

victory that day because the Supreme Court of Canada sided with the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have to take it a step further. We have

look at it and say, because we won it in the legal channels, does that

necessarily mean, morally, that what happened to the women of Newfoundland and

Labrador at that time was acceptable? The unions have an issue that they felt

there was still an issue that needed to be resolved. They understood it could

not be pay equity. They fought pay equity right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, the unions together wrote this government and asked for an ex gratia

voluntary payment of $24 million that will be paid to the unions and that they

will administer those funds, and it is our understanding that they will be made

available to the public servants who were denied pay equity in 1991. We have

also agreed with the unions that if there is any information that this

government can provide to assist them, that we will make that information

available, and the health boards, as well, will do the same.

Now, what is particularly galling about being here today is to have somebody

who was the President of Treasury Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: At the time.

MS BURKE: - and a woman's voice at the Cabinet table asking questions

about how many women were affected. Well, do you know what? You are asking the

questions about ten years too late. Where were you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Where were you when the women of Newfoundland and Labrador were

knocking on your door and asking to be treated in a fair and equitable manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Do you know where you were? You were fighting it in the Supreme

Court of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: And, Mr. Chair, in addition to that, we have heard over and

over, and particularly from the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, that we have

exaggerated the fiscal situation that we found ourselves in, in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to members to my right, if they keep shouting across the House, the

Chair will have no other choice but identify the member. I ask the member to

respect the Minister of Education while she is being recognized by the Chair.

The hon. the Minister for Education and the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, as I was saying, where was the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans when the unions were knocking on her door and asking to be treated

in a fair and equitable manner?

Mr. Chair, she was at the Cabinet table and she was assisting her Cabinet

colleagues in taking this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that

the women of Newfoundland and Labrador, who worked in the public service from

1988 to 1991, did not share equitable within the pay of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, to ask questions today as to how many women, those

questions, as I said, are a bit too late. I am sorry. Mr. Chair, they are the

questions - if you want women to represent women of this Province and women need

to have a strong voice in Cabinet they do not ask the questions three years

after they get booted out of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we realize that the unions continue to keep this as

a public issue because morally, there was an issue here. People were denied

equal pay for work of equal value. Whether we look back to 1988, or 2001, or

1970, Mr. Chair, the concept is that it was often women who were discriminated

against based on the principles of pay equity.

We are at a point in time in our history where we are able to make a payment

to the unions of $24 million; as they asked for. They fought this through the

court system. We were unable to rectify it. The Supreme Court of Canada decided

that the government acted in a fair manner at the time. The unions felt that

they had to accept the legal opinion. However, they asked for an ex gratia

voluntary payment of $24 million. Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we are going

to deliver to the unions of this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would also like to add, because if we are talking

about who we have heard from since this decision has been made, we have heard

from many, many women; many women who have contacted us, who have acknowledged

that we have done the right thing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not

afraid to acknowledge that there were mistakes made in the past and we are not

hanging them on you. We are here to correct them. We are here still mopping up

the mess that we have been doing since 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: It is our understanding that this $24 million will be divided

between the unions in an agreement that the unions will come to and that they

will then distribute the money. We understand it will be to the people who are

affected back from 1988 to 1991. They have access to significant information.

They have fought this through the court system. We have also agreed to provide

any further information we can.

Mr. Chair, I find it very galling today that they can stand up and ask

questions they should have been asking years ago so that the women of

Newfoundland and Labrador share in the social and economic benefits of this

Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. TAYLOR: When you are in the hole you should stop digging.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, if he is committed

to rural communities around our Province, the first thing that he can do is

agree with the members who are sitting around his Cabinet table. If they are

going to walk the talk, they can agree that they are trying to promote rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. If they are, it did not cost government any money to

economically develop Aur Resources or the mine next to Millertown. So I cannot

see why, with the surplus they have this year, that the Minister of

Transportation and Works is not seeing the Buchans Highway as a priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am responding to a comment that was made across the floor

to me, at this very moment, by the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I am surprised. You should be very glad and very happy about this debate that

is taking place here today. You are making a step in the right direction, and I

am not here to say anything negative whatsoever about your government. I am not

going to go down that road. I am very pleased that your government finds

themselves in a financial position to be able to make this payment. I am very

happy that you can do it. The questions I am asking are not negative at all.

They are questions that were e-mailed to me by women who had worked for

government during the period of 1988 to 1991. There is no need to get defensive.

There is absolutely no need to get defensive, because you still have to answer

the questions that are pertainment to the women involved.

As I said earlier - you said I must know the numbers. Well, the Public

Service changes. There are approximately 40,000 people employed by the Public

Service of our Province. There are not that many here today, because a lot of

them were laid off. As I said before, there is an extra $7 million here in the

Estimates book for more to be laid off this year. So, there are going to be a

lot less people working for our Public Service. When you say that I know the

numbers, the numbers are changing. They are changing a lot since your government

came to power. I am telling you what is going to happen. The numbers are

changing. You take someone who worked in 1988. Anyone who worked in 1988, a lot

of them are retired today. We might have females who worked during that period

who are now deceased. Is there anything in place so that their family can have a

portion of that cheque?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) years ago.

MS THISTLE: I am not saying that, Mr. Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am not saying that, Mr. Government House Leader.

What I am saying is, there are women out there today who are not working for

our Public Service who are still able to collect on the pay equity for when they

worked during that period of time.

Okay, if there is somebody out there not even aware that pay equity has been

approved by your government, is there a mechanism in place so that if somebody

comes up in five years' time, they just found out about it, is there a

mechanism in place so that particular woman can submit her claim and say: Look,

I worked there at that time and I was unaware that government had a settlement

of $24 million. Is there any opportunity now for me to get in on that

settlement?

That is a valid question, I would think. That is a valid question. Another

one, too, what mechanisms are in place to protect the taxpayers? Are there any

assurances that this government have in place in settling this matter that would

look after any unforseen situations that might arise in the future? This is all

about asking questions, because the settlement came about in a bit of a hurry.

It was done before the end of March. Sometimes, when there is an issue that has

been resolved in a matter of days, sometimes not all of the I's get dotted or

the T's crossed. Our job, as Opposition, is to ask these questions. There is

nothing derogative coming from me, in my line of questioning. I am simply

relaying to government the questions that have been asked of me, in my position

as the critic for Finance. There is no other motive at all when I get up here to

speak.

I would like to know: When do you expect the package to be paid out? This is

the same question I asked before: Will the union be cutting the cheque for their

workers, or will they be presenting government with a list and then government

will cut the cheque for all of the employees affected? Was there any arrangement

made for taxes?

These are simple questions. You can joke about them, or you can do whatever

you wish, but these are the questions that are on their minds. Those answers are

not currently on the NAPE Web site. They are not currently on the NAPE Web site.

If government has these answers, I would only be too pleased if you would

share them with the population.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is an honour and a privilege for me to get up here today to indicate my

support to the payment of this sum of $24 million. As Premier Williams said when

he made the announcement, this is an ex gratia payment that would amount to a

tangible measure of solace for those who suffered more than others by the

necessary action that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador took in

meeting a financial crisis back in 1991.

I am extremely proud to be part of a government that is committed to

advancing the Status of Women in Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - not just in their social status but in their economic

well-being as well.

This government has done that under the leadership of the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister of Education, the leadership

of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the leadership

of the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Under that leadership, the cause of women in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be advanced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I believe, referred to

this as a pay equity payment. It is not a pay equity payment. I think it is

important for everyone to realize that, that this was not a pay equity payment.

It was an ex gratia payment, a payment that was made without any obligation to

do so, a payment that was made without any legal liability to do so, and it was

done in response to a letter, as the minister previously indicated, dated March

23, 2006, that five public sector unions wrote to the Premier and that he read

in this House.

The unions, of course, have all been named: the Association of Allied Health

Professionals, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Public and Private Employees, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union.

The letter referred to the history of litigation involving pay equity.

If members will recall, I believe it was back in 1988 or 1989 that the

government of the day, I think it was the government of the hon. Brian Peckford,

negotiated with the various unions a pay equity agreement to ensure that in the

Public Service of this Province there will be equal pay for work of equal value.

Of course, there was a great difficulty in determining the value of the payments

that needed to made, the number of people who would be entitled to the payments,

and accordingly it took a period of time - I believe it took four or five years

- before the actually payment that needed to be made to bring about the pay

equity could be determined.

The original intent was that the payments would be made over a period of time

so that pay equity would be fully implemented by, I believe the year was

approximately 1991. I may be mistaken on that particular year, but it was about

that time. As I indicated, because of the difficulty in determining the amount

of the payment and those entitled, that took five years. Then, at the end of

that period of time, there was a necessity of a retroactive payment. At that

time, I understand, Mr. Chair, the government of the day enacted the Public

Sector Restraint Act, in 1991, which essentially wiped out the retroactive

payment. In fact, the purpose of the legislation was to delay the implementation

of the pay equity for three years, and the unions, of course, took the matter to

court as previous speakers have, in fact, mentioned.

The matter was dealt with, I believe, initially in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Human Rights Commission. It was then determined in the Supreme Court of

Appeal, and ultimately in the Supreme Court of Canada where the Government of

Newfoundland was represented as one of the litigants. The Supreme Court of

Canada held that the legislation was valid, and that while the purpose of the

legislation may have been discriminatory that the limits placed on the Charter

of Rights of the union members were reasonable limits justified in a democratic

society. After the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision, that was the end

of the matter in terms of the pay equity case. In the meantime, the good news is

that pay equity was, in fact, fully implemented in the Province of Newfoundland

over a period of time.

Although the unions and people in the news talked about pay equity, it wasn't

really pay equity. Pay equity has been fully implemented. They were talking

about pay retroactivity. It was about getting back money that would have been

paid if the government of Premier Wells had not passed the legislation in

question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier received the letter that I referred to earlier from

the unions, and the unions sought an ex gratia payment. They recognized the fact

that the legal issue had been dealt with, that the Supreme Court of Canada had

made its decision, but they asked for an ex gratia payment, a voluntary payment

of $24 million to recognize the value of the sacrifices made by our Province's

public servants between 1988 and 1991. The Premier announced that his government

would be fulfilling that request. As I said earlier, he indicated that the

payment would be a tangible measure of solace for those who suffered more than

others by the necessary action that the government had to meet in 1991 because

of the financial difficulties in which the Province found itself at the time.

The supply bill that is before us today is in keeping with that commitment. As

the minister previously indicated, the funds are going to be paid to the union

as directed by them and that the administration and the distribution of payments

will be handled by the unions.

A number of the questions - I know the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile

and the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - they asked, interestingly, are

available on the Web site of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees.

If I can refer to that, it is dated March 23, 2006, and it answers the

questions: Who will receive how much of the $24 million and when? How much will

each of the five unions receive? How many members are included in the 1988 to

1991 years? It talks about why the1988 to 1991 period was referenced. It talks

about how the $24 million figure was reached. It asks, in particular, is this

pay equity money? It asks, what is an ex gratia payment? The answer they gave at

the time was that the $24 million payment is not pay equity money and it is not

compensation of any kind, but it is an ex gratia payment; which is a payment

that is not required. Recognizing that government was not legally required to do

anything on this issue, the unions believe that the ex gratia payment provided a

reasonable opportunity for the government to act morally on this matter and to

recognize the sacrifices that public employees made between 1988 and 1991.

In terms of why the joint union request; NAPE indicates that, individually,

each union had been advocating for a resolution to an issue that affected

members within each group and they agreed that working together was the most

successful means to achieving a reasonable solution to a moral issue. I am

delighted that this government did, in fact, take the necessary action to

provide - in the words of the Premier - that measure of solace.

Mr. Chair, there was recently an