MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

In 1935, she married Levi Hodder and together they were parents to seven children: Hazel, Donald, Marie, Harvey, Enos, Carol, and Donna. Aunt Becky, as she is affectionately known to her family and friends, enjoys excellent health. Her time is spent knitting and over the years she has earned a very fine reputation for the quality of her quilts and afghans. In fact, her entire recreation room is still a beehive of activity. Mrs. Hodder is very active in her church and usually attends services every Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, over the Thanksgiving weekend in October, her family hosted a Thanksgiving birthday celebration for their mom, grandmother and great-grandmother. More than 200 friends dropped by to wish Aunt Becky many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, although Aunt Becky is well-known in her community and is a cherished constituent of mine, she is even better known to you, for one of her sons Harvey is very well known to this House. It is this wonderful woman that you, Mr. Speaker, call mother. To Aunt Becky, family has special meaning. All of children have been very successful in business, medicine and political life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to your mom on her ninetieth birthday and, sir, I hope that you inherit her good genes of long life and health.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to thank the hon. member, but I also want to note that if we are looking at all the signs that surround the hallways in Confederation Building here today, that someone else also has a birthday today, a fiftieth birthday and I say to the hon. member, happy fiftieth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize four individuals from my district who were recently presented with the Governor General's Award for their rescue efforts in a snowmobiling accident three years ago.

On the evening of March 17, 2001, Heather Shears and a companion were snowmobiling in the Goose Arm area of the Bay of Islands. They were travelling on the narrows when they went into the slob ice. By chance, a cabin owner, Denise White, saw the lights of the snowmobile crossing the narrows and realized the machine was sinking. She notified her husband, David, and others who immediately began to try and rescue the couple. They found a dory buried in the snow and covered in ice. They managed to clear the dory of ice and snow and began to tow it by snowmobile to the water, but the snowmobile got bogged down. The men had to get another machine to get the boat launched.

With the boat in the water and Mr. White using a flashlight to spot Ms Shears, the other three men, Robert Cox, Thomas Buffett and Cornelius Murrin, prodded and broke the slob ice using paddles and a mop handle. They lost one of the paddles, but Mr. Cox continued to break the ice, and at one point he lost his boot and continued breaking the ice with his bare foot.

When they reached Ms Shears, she had been in the icy water for forty-five minutes. It took the three men to get her aboard the boat. Unfortunately, Ms Shears' companion was not able to be saved. Ms Shears was taken to a nearby cabin and provided medical care while arrangements were being made to have her transported out of Goose Arm on snowmobile to the hospital.

Mr. Speaker, last week Ms Shears was again able to thank her rescuers as she officially presented them with certificates of commendation from Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing Thomas Augustus Buffett, Robert Lesley Cox, Cornelius Thomas Murrin, and David Bruce White, and to quote the inscription on the certificates, "for an act of great merit in providing assistance to others in a selfless manner in Goose Arm Narrows, Newfoundland and Labrador".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to acknowledge an unusual accomplishment that occurred in my district over the weekend of December 3 and December 4. On that weekend, two volleyball teams from schools in my district won both the 2A and 3A male volleyball championship. What is so unusual about their accomplishment is that both provincial winners came from the same school gym at Riverwood Academy in Gander Bay.

The team from Carmanville School Complex won the 3A provincials at Baie Verte. As you are aware, Carmanville School Complex was burned on May 28 this year, and students from that school now attend Riverwood in Gander Bay. This team has won two gold and a silver in the provincial competitions in addition to their most recent win. Congratulations to coach Ms Heather Beaton and the students from Carmanville School Complex.

In addition, Riverwood Academy from Grander Bay played in the 2A provincial championships in Roddickton and came home with a gold medal. This is the first time that a volleyball team from Riverwood has won a provincial volleyball championship. Congratulations to coaches Mike Francais, Gary Petten, Perry Bath and their team from Riverwood.

Also this past weekend, December 10 and December 11, two schools from my district competed for the Fair Play girls provincial tournament co-hosted by Musgrave Harbour and Lumsden. In the final, the gold medal match was between Musgrave Harbour and Lumsden School Complex. In a well-fought championship game, the team from Lumsden, coached by Barry Hall, came out on top with Gerald Wheeler and his team from Musgrave Harbour finishing second.

From these accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, you can see that Bonavista North's volleyball players are in the forefront of volleyball in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a group of bright young students from my district who have recently won an award for their skills in robotics.

Mr. Speaker, the robotics team from St. Francis School in Harbour Grace took top honours in the Skills Canada Robotics Competition held in Mount Pearl on December 4. This is a fabulous achievement for this school, its team and its teachers.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the school won the award for the most spirited school and most spirited coach. Coaches Randy Dobbin and Norman Littlejohn are to be congratulated for all the extra time they have dedicated towards helping these bright young students advance themselves scholastically.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the students must not be overlooked. Timothy MacKenzie, Devin Osborne, Hilary Finn, Corey Merrigan, Paul Sheppard, David Stephens, and Patrick and Caitlyn Butt worked many hours to achieve this recognition, and we are sure that we will continue to hear more from all these intelligent students as time passes.

Mr. Speaker, these students competed among over 100 junior high school students from all over the Avalon and one team from the Northern Peninsula who took part in the second annual Intermediate Skills Challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these students and their coaches on their recent achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Joey Russell, a sixteen-year-old resident of Labrador West, who has and continues to excel in the figure skating world. Most recently, Joey won a bronze medal in the 2005 BMO Financial Group Skate Canada Eastern Challenge in the Junior Men's Division held December 2 to December 5 in Mississauga, Ontario. This medal qualifies Joey to compete in the 2005 Bank of Montreal Canadian Championships to be held in London, Ontario, on January 17 to January 23.

Mr. Speaker, these are Joey's most recent accomplishments. Joey has been skating for ten years, and during that time he has built quite a reputation both locally, nationally and internationally. Joey's past successes include seven regional titles, six provincial championships, a silver medal from Skate Canada Eastern Challenge, a bronze medal at the 2003 Canada Winter Games, and a two-time silver medalists in the Canadian Junior Nationals in 2003-2004.

He has also competed internationally with Team Canada at the North American Challenge Skates in 2003-2004 in Lake Placid, New York, where he finished fourth, and San Jose, California, where he won a bronze medal.

Joey is a member of the Polaris Figure Skating Club in Labrador West, and when asked where he sees himself in five years from now, he says: On a world team and training for the 2010 Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Joey on his success to date and wish him the very best in the future as he continues his training in Alberta.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update hon. members on our fiscal situation for 2004-2005.

Since taking office one year ago, government has been focusing on turning around the serious fiscal situation we inherited. We were forced to make difficult, yet necessary, decisions in this year's budget. The situation simply could not continue and we knew that measures had to be taken for the good of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the fiscal year, the deficit is projected to be $707.5 million, down from the $839.6 million estimated at budget time. The $132.1 million variance is primarily the result of an increase in oil prices, revised federal estimates of equalization and new health care money. There are on-time revenues, Mr. Speaker, of $102.5 million in that amount of $132.1 million variance.

Oil royalties are currently expected to be $78.5 million higher than forecast at budget reflecting higher oil prices. Equalization and offset payments increased by $89.6 million from the budget forecast.

Health and social transfers are expected to be $30.1 million higher than estimated at budget time. The main reason for the increase in additional revenues on health care comes from the Ten Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care. For the 2004-2005 fiscal year, this commitment will result in an additional $34.4 million for the Province offset in part by federal re-estimates of these transfers.

These positive adjustments to revenues are offset in part by projected negative adjustment to HST revenues of $64.2 million.

Mr. Speaker, on the expenditure side, we are basically on track with our budget projections. Throughout the year, it is common to experience variances in expenditures, overruns in one area are offset by savings in another. With continued vigilance, we expect to maintain budget targets for expenditures.

In terms of cash requirements, the 2004-2005 budget projected a need of $361.6 million. The total cash requirement is now projected to be $118 million, an improvement of $243.6 million. This variance is primarily due to the reasons I just discussed, and the deferral of the census loan repayment.

Mr. Speaker, government has made some progress in addressing the Province's fiscal situation, but the work is far from over. Most of the positive variances since budget time will likely not be available next fiscal year. We must, and we will, remain steadfast in our commitment to sound fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to include with this statement a table showing the summary of the borrowing requirements for 2004-2005, also a table showing the reconciliation of budgetary requirements to the consolidated accrual deficit, and a table also showing the estimated provincial and federal revenues for this fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for sending over a copy of his statement, but I would say to the crowd opposite: Don't pound your desk too hard, because anything that you said in this statement gives you no credit, absolutely no credit. I say, it is a disgrace to this House to come in with a statement today of one-and-a-half pages, and there is absolutely no detail in it.

Last night, in this House, you passed a bill, accountability and transparency, and you made no reference today to the interest paid on the debt, the strengthening Canadian dollar, and what you are going to save on that. You made no reference whatsoever.

I can tell you something, Mr. Minister of Finance, any monies that you had in new revenues were external to this Province. They came from the Liberal Federal Government of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Every one that you mentioned.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I will tell you! I will tell you! I will tell you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). You are just like Mr. Efford and the rest of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The member has about thirty seconds left to complete her statement.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is glaring is this example on the next page. These positive adjustments to revenue are offset, in part, by projected negative adjustment to HST revenues of $64 million. That is what is glaring here, a loss of retail sales of $64 million.

The people of this Province have no confidence in this government. You have no plans for economic development. You created a Department of Business for a million dollars and you have no economic development plan for this Province. You have failed miserably!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It comes as no real surprise that the Province is better off now than it was when they projected the figures back during Budget time, when they tagged on everything they possibly could to make the Province's situation look at bad as possible, to justify their disastrous budget.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, with the improvement in relations, I was expecting to hear the minister say that he was going to undo some of the negative things that his government did since they got into office, like replace the textbook funding for school students, replace the Alzheimer drugs funding, deal with some of the outstanding needs in our health care system, like Labrador transportation, like primary health care, and the other things that are desperately needed in this Province.

The big number, I suppose, of $243 million is the real improvement in our fiscal position as result of these changes, Mr. Speaker, and obviously means that the Province is far better off than this minister and his government would have the public believe. They should be using some of that money to address the problems that exist in this Province, the desperate problems that exist here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about a project currently being undertaken by the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada or the FWIC. This organization has recently chosen to adopt communities in northern and coastal Labrador for their upcoming national project, ‘FWIC into the North'.

Women's Institutes are an informal, educational organization for women who want to work together to expand their skills, broaden their interests and strengthen the quality of life for themselves, their families and for the people of their communities, country and the world through self-fulfillment, service and sociability.

At a recent national meeting of their executive, they committed to a project aimed at improving the lives of families in coastal Labrador by donating funding for supplies for children's activities. A letter is now being sent to the mayors and chiefs of the various northern communities asking for their suggestions for project ideas.

I would like to thank the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada for their interest in providing support to our northern region. I wish them well on their project and on all the good works being done by the various Women's Institute branches in this Province and across the country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to offer thanks to the minister today for an advanced copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the work and the efforts of the Federated Women's Institute of Canada for choosing a community in our Province and a community in Labrador in which to offer their charitable services and the work that they provide.

I also want to use this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Women's Institute groups of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because all of these groups, like most of us, look at this time of year as the time of year where we have a greater sense of community and a greater sense of giving and our -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to conclude.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where our contributions, Mr. Speaker, are strengthened by the spirit of Christmas and, I guess, having this group recognized and the need in a community in our Province and in Labrador, draws all of our attention and heightens our own awareness as to what the real needs are in a lot of these communities that are only being met by charities and not being met by governments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the examples I would like to give to the House is a call I received myself only a week ago from foster parents in this Province who informed me that there was no money available to buy gifts through the Foster Parent Program for the children that they sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear that, and actually the first time I had heard it. A lot of our foster families in this Province are middle-class families who have children of their own, and this is always a difficult time of year for them.

I guess, through my response to this statement, I would ask all members of the House if they know of a foster family or foster children in their own district that they would like to support this Christmas. It would be important because there are no funds available through the government programs to buy gifts for foster kids this Christmas.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. I say to the minister, it is good news to see groups across this country interacting with each other, and what place better, I say to the minister, than through groups on the north coast of our Province, the North Coast of Labrador.

I think this demonstrates the problems that are inherent on our north coast and the amount of work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West for a few more seconds.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, this demonstrates the inherent problems on the North Coast of Labrador, and I think it clearly demonstrates just how much work is left to be done by this government on behalf of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today the Government of Canada, in co-operation in with the provinces and the territories, is creating a national sex offender registration system to enable police to have rapid access to current vital information about convicted sex offenders. The national sex offender registry came into force today.

Mr. Speaker, the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a number of conversations going on across the floor of the House that are preventing the Chair and others from hearing the hon. the minister. I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

The cornerstone of the registry is the new national sex offender database that will be maintained by the RCMP. The information in the database will only be accessible to accredited police agencies and will be used for the main purpose of investigating unsolved crimes of a sexual nature. The database is designed to be searchable by local police by specific criteria, such as geographical area, postal code area, modus operandi, physical attributes of the offender that will produce instant lists of previously convicted suspects matching the facts of a specific offence.

Mr. Speaker, the database will serve more than 60,000 law enforcement officials in every province and territory. The register will play a major role in the protection of youth by enhancing investigations of sexual offences involving children and adults. It will also assist with a quick identification of repeat sex offenders.

The new national registration system will enhance public protection and improve investigations of sex offences by identifying possible suspects known to reside near the offence site. An officer will be able to instantly obtain a list of sex offenders who are registered and living in the area if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a sex offence has occurred.

The act will allow for the inclusion of the names of offenders under sentence for sex offences as of the date of proclamation, namely today. Convicted offenders will have to report to a registration centre - here it will be the RCMP site at White Hills - within fifteen days following a registration order issued by the court. When an offender is released from incarnation, he is given a custody (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Re-registration will be required annually and within fifteen days of a change of residence. Offenders will be required to provide their address to local police and to keep current information such as, home phone numbers, name change, aliases, identifying marks and tattoos.

The act creates a new criminal code hybrid offence for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the registration order and for providing false information punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Mr. Speaker, the new national registration system will enhance public protection and improve investigation of sex offences while providing a reasonable level of privacy to offenders. We welcome this positive initiative which will assist all police agencies, and introduce improved access to offender information across the country. The new registration system will enhance public safety and security - especially for children across Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister giving me an advanced copy of his ministerial statement, even though I got it this morning on the Internet, actually. In fact, we have had three ministerial statements today, Mr. Speaker, and this government had nothing to do with either one of them. Two came from the federal government, one came from a charitable donation, I say.

This sex offender registry is indeed a very important initiative. In fact, I first heard about it in 1999 at a National Justice Ministers' conference. What this does show is a great deal of national co-operation. The police agencies, the various legislatures in the country, there was a lot of technological challenges that had to be overcome, legislative challenges, and money was involved. Finally, after all those years, we see that it has come to fruition. It is a very significant event, particularly for the protection of children because that is quite often where we need such a database, which is accessible now throughout the country by all of our law enforcement agencies, and anything that is helpful in that regard is certainly a worthy, worthy achievement. We applaud the federal government for what they have done in this regard.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The establishment of a national sex offender registration system is a positive move. One of the most disturbing things about sexual offenders, Mr. Speaker, is their persistent tendency to re-offend. That is what justifies the kind of invasion of privacy that is involved in the type of registry of this nature, but the fact of the matter is that there is very little rehabilitation possible based on the statistics that we see regarding sex offenders. So it is important that there be a method of keeping track of these people in the community. There have been some disturbing stories about notifications to communities in some cases, which I find disturbing and perhaps not the best way to do it. The national sex offender registry will, obviously, be of assistance to local police in an area where a sex offender is required to be registered and perhaps that is a better way to ensure the safety of the public and, at the same time (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Before we move to Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize a former MHA for Conception Bay South, Mr. John Butt, who is in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last night government stumbled and bumbled their way to the passage of the Transparency and Accountability Act in this House, even to the point of seeing two of their own members, and notably the Member for Topsail and St. John's Centre, vote against certain aspects of the bill that we are changing at the eleventh hour.

I have a number of questions, Mr. Speaker, with respect to openness, accountability and transparency. In a recent Freedom of Information request, we received information from the government, through that process, that a firm entitled and called Ryan Research and Communications was paid $42,000 for work done on behalf of the Executive Council to government.

I ask the Premier: What public process was used to select this firm which has completed internal polling for the Progressive Conservative Party in the past and, as well, what actual work was completed under this contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a reputable firm, of course, that has done work throughout the Province, has done work for us in the past, as it has done work for a lot of other people. It would have followed a normal process that would be within the guidelines that government is allowed to follow. There is certainly nothing untoward. I do not know what the premier is trying to imply by this but he seems to be going down -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sorry. Forgive me, I forgot. The public took a closer look and said: Goodbye, Roger.

In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition is going down the same road again. He is going to start to throw out things that have a tag. If anybody listened to him last night, and to his rants and his raves as he went on in the Legislature. He made all kinds of accusations about myself, about people I have been involved with in business, bringing in people's names who have nothing to do with this Legislature, innuendo, slander, name calling, personal attacks. He should have gotten a message at the end of the last election as to what people thought of his tactics over the last three years and he is right back to them again. So he is obviously on the same track. It is getting him absolutely nowhere. The people are not responding to it. They do not want to see it. They do not want to hear it. Why don't you get on with issues that are important?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I also remind all members on all sides of the House of the parliamentary custom, refer to members by their parliamentary titles, positions or by their electoral districts.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, we have the first answer in the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency. A question was asked about a contract given, no information about the process, and no answer at all about what work was done. I take it we will get the answers later.

Mr. Speaker, in the same Freedom of Information request - because these are serious questions about openness, transparency and accountability - it lists the non-existent Department of Business, which has the Premier as the minister and one staff person. That is all that exists in the Department of Business, and that person was only hired a few weeks ago. It lists them as spending $100,000 for communications work with a firm entitled Market Insights Incorporated.

I ask the Premier again, as the minister responsible: What public process was used to select this firm? Could the Premier also, please, update the House as to what work was done for that $100,000 in a department that does not exist, and will he table the final product in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure this hon. House that all relevant information will be tabled and that all appropriate government guidelines and procedures have been followed. There is nothing untoward done. I do not have the information at my disposal here, but I will certainly provide it to hon. members opposite. There is no hidden agenda here.

With regard to the Department of Business, we have been extremely busy. I have been trying to do as much as I can myself, with the limited time that is available.

As you know, I have been concentrating on trying to get these revenues which the minister referred to today, these significant equalization revenues that have come into play. We were at the Health Care Accord; we dug in there and we went late at night and went through the day. I personally had my own confrontation with the Prime Minister in order to get more money out of the Health Care Accord. We were successful in taking that up by a significant amount. The offer went up by some 50 per cent.

At that same particular meeting, we did a deal with regard to equalization which has resulted in significant revenues for this Province. Now we are dealing on the Atlantic Accord. If we can bring the Atlantic Accord -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I could just finish -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excuse, Mr. Speaker, I just cannot get a chance to finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members, when they are answering questions, to keep their sequences within about a minute, and I think a minute has expired. I will transfer it back to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another specific question. I appreciate the undertaking that the information will be tabled. I look forward to receiving it. The rest of it, people will judge as to whether our Premier had anything to do with an equalization agreement when he was not even at the meeting. He left that meeting, as the record would show.

Mr. Speaker, another question in the spirit of openness and transparency. We, as the Official Opposition, filed a Freedom of Information Request on October 4 - you usually get an answer in thirty days, and it is now December 15 - requesting all severance payments by government to employees who were dismissed or who involuntarily left government, including the former Deputy Minister of Health, Ms Fry, and the former Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, our information to date from officials is that the request has been completed by the department and forwarded to the Premier's office before it is being released. I ask the Premier, in the spirit of openness and accountability, when is he going to release the information and why is he not permitting it to be released while the House of Assembly is in session?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that information can be put together. It is public information that will be readily available. As soon as we get it, we will pass it over to the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite.

What is paid in severance is what these people are properly entitled to, according to law; so, whatever the severance is, it is, and it will be publicly disclosed. There is no special severance given out to anybody at all. Whatever we had to pay, we had to pay.

If I could just go back, because I did not have an opportunity to finish, we did actually achieve extra money through the Health Care Summit, with the $34 million. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that I walked out of the equalization meetings. Well, two things. First of all, our equalization deal was already done and that is why I had a confrontation with the Prime Minister on September 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That was already in the bank.

The reason I walked out of the equalization meeting was to stand up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why I walked out of that meeting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me tell you, as a result of that stand, if, in fact, we have terms that are agreeable to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we bring home the Atlantic Accord, we will end up with a surplus this year, not a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier need not be angry at me. I am supporting him with every ounce of energy that I have with respect to the Atlantic Accord. I hope that he does succeed and I hope that the Prime Minister of the country lives to his commitment, Mr. Speaker, but that has nothing to do with the questions I am asking today about this government, their own actions, and their new-found commitment to openness and accountability.

I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Before the House opened, government stated that the study on the fixed link to Labrador, which was commissioned almost a full year ago, would be available and ready for release on November 22, the day this Legislature opened. It was publicly announced. The date was given. They then delayed that date, stating that the group at the university needed to clean up a few final details. It is three weeks later. I ask the Premier: When will that be report be released?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Leader of the Opposition's support for our position on the Atlantic Accord, I guess he just sticks his head out the window and sees which way the wind is blowing; because if it happens to be blowing this way, he is going this way, and if the wind is blowing that way, he goes that way. He is all over the map on the Atlantic Accord.

When it was convenient for him, when the Liberal convention was on and he wanted to basically keep his position over there, he cuddled up to John Efford and took a position with John Efford. As soon as the weekend was over, he went the other way.

For somebody who supports me, I ask him: Why, in The Telegram, on November 7, 2004, did he say: What is it that our Premier is in a rant about, turning down $1.4 billion over eight years?

That person over there would have had us accept, our Province accept, $1.4 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Those numbers are now at $2.8 billion and climbing every single day. You would have taken less, Sir. That is not support, in my mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I might remind the Premier that I asked a pretty straightforward question: When will we receive the study on the fixed link to Labrador, which is one of his pieces that he says is part of the real future for Newfoundland and Labrador? So far, four questions and zero answers in the new era of openness and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, another straightforward question. Maybe this time he would want to answer the question that I am asking, instead of making a speech about a non-related topic. Government has had possession for several months, Mr. Speaker, of the Hay Group report, apparently suggesting cutbacks and severe changes in health care for the Western and Northern regions of the Province. They have had possession for over a month and it has been discussed with the boards and the unions.

When, in the spirit of openness and accountability, might we in this Legislature and the public ever see that report in the new era of openness, transparency and accountability?

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes. Can't answer that one, can you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me say to my hon. colleague across the way, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, when she sings out we can't answer it, we can answer it. The problem most of the time, Mr. Speaker, is they don't accept it.

The fact of the matter, with regard to the question the Leader of the Opposition has asked with respect to the Hay report, it is my understanding, in communications with my colleague, that their report is not necessarily complete. It will be done in due course, and once government, the Cabinet, and the caucus have an opportunity to see it, we will make up our determinations then. Up to this point, all of that report is not yet complete.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would invite them to check and see which report, then, is being discussed with the unions and workers in Stephenville and Corner Brook and other health care workers.

Mr. Speaker, October 1 we submitted, as the official Opposition, a Freedom of Information request relating to the pilot palliative care project for the VON, the Victorian Order of Nurses, in Corner Brook. In a written response, the government denied us access to any information under the act. Through the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker, we also requested that the Auditor General be invited to conduct an investigation into the settling of that strike.

I ask again, the Premier: In the new era - this is the dawn of the day after they passed the bill - of openness, transparency and accountability, will he let his members of the Public Accounts Committee vote to investigate the funding of the settling of the Victorian Order of Nurses strike in Corner Brook?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition should know, the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of this House of independent members, capable, intelligent people, who can make up their own minds. They will decide what they want to do under the Public Accounts Committee of the House.

As a former chair of that committee, we made decisions collectively, and I would hope that the current members would do that too. It is independent and reports to this House of Assembly. It doesn't report to the Premier, it doesn't report to me, it reports to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. That is where the committee is struck and that is where it reports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A bit strange and odd, that in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability, the Premier personally settled the strike, but he cannot personally answer a question about it.

Mr. Speaker, there have also been many questions raised related to the process surrounding the awarding of a government telephone contract to Group Telecom a few years ago. The Public Accounts Committee has asked for permission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: The Public Accounts Committee has asked for permission to review this contract, but has been refused by members on the government side at the direction of the Premier.

I ask again of the Premier: Will he allow his members to vote to investigate this particular transaction, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for asking that question, because that is the rant that he got on last night and implied that there was wrongdoing with what I had done in the private sector when I was conducing businesses, employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, paying taxes in Newfoundland and Labrador, and building a reputation which he has spent four years trying to destroy. Well, I am sorry, you are out of luck, because you are just not getting anywhere with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: With regard to the telephone contract, that contract was awarded by that gentleman's government, and some of those people opposite happened to be in Cabinet and part of that government when that was awarded, when that contract was awarded. When that contract was awarded, we saved the provincial government $2 million over the competing bid. That is what was saved to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also, in that particular contract, created between forty and fifty new jobs. As well, a competitive telephone service was provided to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so small- and medium-sized businesses could get cheaper telephone service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I may be allowed to finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is cognizant of the fact that there are many interruptions occurring, so it is interfering with the normal flow of questions back and forth.

I ask the Premier if he could finish his answer in about another ten or fifteen seconds.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very legitimate enterprise, a very legitimate contract that provided a competitive service, that employed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that was awarded by the hon. gentlemen and women opposite, all done above board, and this person is trying to smear my reputation, my company's reputation, the people who work for me, and the people who got benefits. Sir, that is even beneath you. I am really surprised you have stooped to that level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be intimated from asking legitimate questions of anything at any time, and if he wants to talk about the issue, send it to the Public Accounts Committee instead of hiding it from the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could pose his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Today in the media, the Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Corporation says that they asked government to open their own government operated liquor stores on Sundays so they could make an extra $2 million to $3 million in profit.

I ask the Minister of Finance, would he table in this Legislature either the cost-benefit analysis that shows that will happen, or the business plan to show that will happen, when we know there are increased costs to operating the stores and no guarantee that there will be any extra purchasing done of liquor.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are 132 outlets affected by this legislation, and 108 of them are private operations. They will decide themselves, those 108 private, if they want to open. The twenty-four Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation stores, there will be a decision made by the Liquor Corporation, by the president who sits on that board, and the board. There will be a decision made in a business mind. They may open some, they may open all, or they may open none. It will be a business decision and I, as minister, will not be in any way participating or interfering with that operation of business under that Liquor Corporation in that manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the answer is that he was never presented with a business plan or a cost-benefit analysis. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, today we also have media reports related to the development of the Duck Pond Mine in Central Newfoundland. The proponents, Aur Resources, are stating that the project will move forward in the new year. They are holding a press conference, actually, in the next hour.

Mr. Speaker, last year the company stated publicly that this project would not proceed without a requested investment of $10 million of government assistance and financing. I ask the Premier, or the minister responsible: Is the announcement today including the commitment of government financing that has not been disclosed or discussed in this House, yes or no?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Aur Resources came to us a year ago looking for, actually, $8.9 million. In June, they were subject to a takeover bid and they pulled back their request from government. When that takeover bid by another company did not occur, they were back the end of July, early August, saying they wished again for government to look at potentially assisting Aur Resources with the development of Duck Pond Mine. There is a request before government. We have not made a decision on that request.

I was advised this morning that the Vice-President, Mr. Edmund Stuart - I listened to him, actually. I think he has already held some sort of press conference because he was on the radio saying that the project was proceeding.

I have left a message with Mr. Stuart today, to seek clarification, because it is uncertain to me that a company would make an announcement about proceeding with a development and, at the same time, looking for a request from government when they have said to government that they could not proceed otherwise. I am looking for clarification from Aur Resources

Directly to the Leader of the Opposition's question, Mr. Speaker, there was no government money involved in his announcement today. Government has not made a decision. Once, and if, we do make a decision with respect to that development, we will be informing the people of the Province, the Cabinet, obviously, and the caucus, about what potentially could be an exciting development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate a straightforward and direct answer to a straightforward and direct question. I thank the minister for answering the question in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is this one: Government had approved funding to upgrade a private road in Tors Cove, in the District of the Minister of Finance, to ensure it received snow clearing and maintenance this winter, while dozens of other class 4 roads in the Province lost their snow clearing and maintenance in a budget decision.

We submitted an FOI request, Mr. Speaker, to get information related to the issue, and the response from the government was: No information exists in this department about that road. In other words, according to their own information, the road did not exist.

My final question is this: In the spirit of openness, accountability, transparency, the new dawn of that era, can the Premier tell us how, in his government, does a private road that does not exist in the records of the government get approved for $500,000 of financing in the Minister of Finance's district while other class 4 roads are ignored in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what we did not do. We did not do what the former Minister of Transportation did a couple of years ago, and take the member, his colleague there from Port de Grave, do a tour of Conception Bay North, adding on roads that were never in the department's inventory, as he went around the bay. We did not do that.

Mr. Speaker, before we do up our roads - and they are going, don't you worry, they are going - we ask MHA's for requests. That is how that got on the list. When we found it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The member admitted that.

When we found it wasn't our road, Mr. Speaker, we did the right thing, we took it off and spent the money on roads that we own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Bellevue. The hon. the member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

The government announced in their Budget this year that they would not be maintaining or clearing snow from cabin roads. As part of this policy, the department incorrectly included Old Mill Road in Goobies as a seasonal road, a road where sixteen families live and have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to build new homes. The minister told the residents to form an association, he said, to collect fees, to clear and maintain the road they live on. No other local service district in this Province is expected to do this. Why the double standard, Mr. Minister, for Old Mill Road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any double standard about class 4 roads, it is the double standard created by the hon. member when he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He told the residents of Old Mill Road that he would reclassify their road to class 3. If he had done that, that road would still be cleared to this day but there is not one scrap of evidence, Mr. Speaker, other than the hon. member's word, that he ever lifted a pen to reclassify that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it has been clearly established that the Old Mill Road is within the local service District of Goobies and it has been plowed since 1972. Why is this road not being maintained as the other two roads in Goobies are? Furthermore, why is it not being maintained in the same way as roads in the other 184 local service districts in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what has been clearly established is that the piece of road known as Old Mill Road used to be the access road to the Burin Peninsula and when that road was no longer required for that purpose, under the classification procedure in the department, that was there when the hon. member was there, that he promised those people he would change which he did not change, that piece of road automatically became class 4. That is why it cannot be done. We are sticking to the rules for everybody, not for some, not for our own districts, not exclusively the districts on that side of the House. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be treated the same, Mr. Speaker, whether that crowd likes it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time allocations, we move to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and regards the deplorable education system amongst the Innu people of Natuashish. A report by a Memorial University professor indicates the deplorable state of schooling in Natuashish, particularly in relation to curriculum, services and achievement levels.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third report. The 1993 report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Professor McCrae, and a 2002 followup, indicate that the state of education in the Innu communities was little short of disastrous. What is even more disturbing is that in 2003, $1.5 million was given to the Province to resolve specifically some of the problems there.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that those problems have not been resolved and that the needs of the Innu people of Natuashish are not being met by this government under the terms of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this was an issue that was raised on CBC yesterday, and as well, when I was in the scrum it was a question that was asked of me. I am equally concerned. I have not seen a copy of that report. I am very, very concerned about the situation. As the hon. member opposite knows, it is a longstanding problem. It is a very complex problem. It is a problem that has to be addressed with human resources and financial resources. The $1.5 million that he specifically refers to, I will have to get more information on that because I am not aware of the exact amount and the terms.

However, I do plan a meeting with the Minister of Education and other ministers who are going to be involved in that particular issue. It is an issue of huge importance for us. I got to see it firsthand when I made the trip with the member for the district, the Member for Lake Melville, and the minister when we went up. So it is a priority for us. With everything that has been on our plate in the last twenty-four hours I certainly have not been able to get to it, but I will certainly undertake, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that we will be dealing with it very, very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems attended to by the Human Rights Commission is the lack of Innu involvement in the schools themselves, in choosing the curriculum and having responsibility for the education of their children.

Will the Premier commit to putting an end to the patronizing approach of the provincial government and involve the Innu directly in determining what is going to happen in those schools, what curriculum is going to take place, and what programs are going to be available for their children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. With regard to dealing with this particular issue, I would like to remind the member that the government is in partnership with the Innu, with regard to the federal government, and that we do certainly sit around the main table and that main table has commissioned this assessment. That main table has commissioned this assessment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the members - I do not wish to name members but if I have to, I shall.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education to complete his answer.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, with the reaction from the people on the other side, I do not know, but this is a very serious issue and I certainly would like to respond to the question from the member opposite.

Again, in saying that we, as a government, are in partnership with the Innu, with the federal government and we are dealing specifically. We are trying to move along to the development of a culturally, relevant curriculum and we have been for a number of years. As a result of that - it is a process that is ongoing right now and that process is where we are. That assessment is part of the process and I am waiting for the results of those findings so we can move forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 3 of the clock on a Wednesday, the Chair is obliged to either move directly to Private Members' Day or to see if there has been a consensus reached by hon. members to do other business.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We made a request dating back a couple of days ago, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition gave leave last night and confirmed again today, that this would normally be Private Members' Day for government members. We have asked if it would be possible to use the time that is normally allotted for that, between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, to be used for government business - in other words, legislation. I have talked to the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and it certainly is my understanding that consent has been provided for us to do exactly that.

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

MR. PARSONS: That is correct, Mr. Speaker - consent.

MR. SPEAKER: We shall continue, then, with the routine proceedings.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today and table the reports for 2003-2004 for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Municipal Assessment Agency.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2003-2004 annual report for the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table for hon. members the five reports from agencies reporting to my department, namely: Memorial University of Newfoundland; Memorial University of Newfoundland Pension Plan; College of the North Atlantic; Provincial Information and Library Resources Board; Literacy Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in my district with regard to government's decision not to clear snow on the road from Red Bay to Lodge Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I presented petitions similar to this on this issue a number of times in the House of Assembly, only because it is an important issue to the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, government, through the Minister of Transportation and Works, have decided that, as of January 5, they would no longer plow the roads between the communities of Red Bay and Lodge Bay; in fact, cutting one half of the district off from the other half of the district.

Mr. Speaker, this is an area of Labrador that has no connections to the Island during the winter months. The ferry on The Strait of Belle Isle service, as I understand from the Department of Transportation this morning, will be taken out of service on January 3 - one of the earliest times that it has come out of service in probably the last six or seven years, because normally it runs an extra week or an extra two weeks per year to provide services to the people in that area.

In addition to that, they are not going to clear the roads, so therefore the people in one part of the district cannot access the services of the other end of the district, and that is unfair. That is combined with the fact that a private company, Air Labrador, which is the only airline that provides air services to communities on the Southeast Coast of Labrador, has also given notice that they will withdraw their services simply because they feel it is not profitable for them to continue to operate in that region.

So, we have an area right now where air services will be withdrawn, where ferry services will not be available, and where government is insistent on not clearing snow off the roads. Mr. Speaker, in my mind, that is totally unacceptable. I have not heard of any other region in the Province that has a main highway trunk that connects a number of communities, that government will not plough snow off. This is the only section of road that I know of in the entire Province that is being affected and impacted this way.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unrealistic for government to think that they can save money by causing suffering to communities and to people; because that is, in fact, what will happen. That is, in fact, what will happen, Mr. Speaker, because when you have no access to the outside world, when you have no mechanism of travel available to you, then I think it is the time when government should intervene, when they should provide the supports that communities and people need to have essential services.

Mr. Speaker, transportation is an essential service, no matter where you live in this Province. Once you have a road that has been built, $300 million invested in highway construction throughout Labrador connecting these communities, and now people are being told that access will be cut off because the snow will not be cleared.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 600 residents mostly of the Portugal Cove-St. Phillips area, but some are also from visitors to the area, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners say:

WHEREAS the present Seascape Systems 2000 Ltd. facility - which is a facility on the breakwater in Portugal Cove - destroys the scenic beauty and historic value of the 500 year old settlement, transportation hub and fishing harbour of Portugal Cove; and

WHEREAS the town council did not inform the community of the nature of the facility, and did not consult the community about its impact prior to granting a building permit; and

WHEREAS the role of provincial and federal officials remains unclear expect for the fact that none of them consulted the community; and

WHEREAS the structure prohibits public access to the waterfront that local residents, fishers and visitors previously used, and will interfere with local inshore lobster fish harvesters' livelihood; and

WHEREAS this facility is built next to a very busy ferry terminal and fish processing plant, and is subject to serious traffic congestion....

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking the Assembly to direct the government to immediately order Seascape Systems 2000 Ltd. to remove the facility and restore the breakwater site as soon as it completes the contract to test its lifeboat launching system. Mr. Speaker, that was supposed to be completed by the end of December of this year.

Mr. Speaker, when this facility was being proposed, the town council put an ad in The Telegram, that was about an inch by an inch-and-a-half, with no town crest on it, supposedly advising the townspeople. It said as follows, "Council has received an application for a Seascape System Business; the Seascape systems will operate from the breakwater at Portugal Cove. This proposal falls as discretionary use within the town's Municipal Plan."

Mr. Speaker, this does not meet the minimum requirement of community consultation that one would expect a municipality to do.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips who signed this petition are not opposed to the kind of activity being carried out by Seascape Systems, or testing a lifeboat launching system that could be very important to the offshore, but we do have facilities in this Province that are more appropriate to this. Mr. Speaker, we have a facility at Argentia. We have the Bull Arm site. We have Marystown. We even have a sea base in Bay Bulls that could conveniently locate a system of this nature for testing. I think it was turned down by St. John's, Mr. Speaker, because they were going to put it out on Fort Amherst. Now it is down in Portugal Cove, and I understand that they have just been given an extension for a further year.

I do not know how this could happen in the district of the minister of works and services, when the minister knew, the Department of Environment knew, that there was significant opposition by the local community to this activity. They want this government, Mr. Speaker, to order Seascape Systems Ltd. to remove the facility and restore the breakwater site by no later than the rest of the year, and to prohibit Seascape Systems from converting its use of the facility from a temporary test site to some kind of permanent training site, because this seems to be in the offing, Mr. Speaker, and the residents of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips do not want this to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to deal with Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on certain bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, begin debate now, or, I guess, start the debate again. The issue before us: I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has an amendment. Just to that point, Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that we have passed all the clauses of the bill, with the exception of that one, and we will go from there.

I do now take my seat and let the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General move forward with debate on that bill.

CHAIR: Clause 4, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise once again to deal with this act that is going to raise the bar with openness, transparency and accountability in this Province, in terms of lobbyists dealing with public-office holders, and it will provide for appropriate conduct for lobbyists.

We are dealing specifically today with the amendment that was moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who is recommending an amendment to the legislation to exclude trade unions from the coverage. The intent of the amendment is to have trade unions exempt from having to comply with the legislation. I think it might be helpful to look at the purposes of the legislation. I want to look at the four of them but I will look at two of them, in particular. The purposes of the act is that it is desirable that public-office holders and the members of the public should be able to know who is attempting to influence government as government goes about its decision-making process.

The second purpose of the act is that when someone lobbies a public-office holder, we recognize that all lobbying is a legitimate activity when it is appropriately conducted. So, in order to accomplish these purposes, the legislation sets up a public registry that calls for public disclosure of certain information. Secondly, the act calls for the implementation of a Code of Conduct, which will set out how lobbying should be conducted and the fact that lobbying should be conducted in an appropriate manner.

Now, the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is that trade unions should be exempt from this legislation. Of course, in order to give consideration of that, it is important, first of all, to give consideration to the fact of what people are caught by the actual legislation. I will do this in the context of talking about labour unions or trade union organizations, labour organizations because that is who the amendment deals with.

There are two types of lobbyists set up under the act. One is the consultant lobbyist. So we could have a situation where a trade union might hire a consultant lobbyist in order to lobby the government on their behalf, and that consultant lobbyist would, in fact, be paid for providing that service. In that situation it is not the union that would have to register under the act, it would be the consultant lobbyist.

The second situation is the in-house lobbyist. That is a situation where an organization - an organization would include a trade union - would have an employee, a person who is being paid to work for the union and part of that person's duties, or possibly all that person's duties, would be to lobby public-office holders. If that person is spending more than 20 per cent of his or her time in lobbying government, then that person would have to arrange with the head of the union to register that organization or that union under the lobbyists legislation. They would have to provide the information in the public registry. They would have to disclose, to the members of the public, who they are lobbying and what they are lobbying about.

Now, a review of the act indicates that trade unions have not been exempted from the provisions of this act, and that is what the hon. member, in moving his amendment, is suggesting. I have looked at other legislation in other jurisdictions that have enacted lobbyists legislation. We have looked at the feds, the Province of Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C., and none of them have exempted trade unions from their legislation. But, on a closer view of the act, section 4.(1), it outlines people that the act does not apply to. Although trade unions are not listed there, when you look closely at 4.(2) you can see that activity, which is the normal activity of a trade union, that they would carry out for their members - I can call that, maybe, core union activities - it is already exempted. It is the activity that is exempt.

For example, 4.(2)(e) exempts core union activities, such as negotiating collective agreements and representing members and former members. I think that would apply to grievances, for example. Under 4.(2)(e) it also refers to employees under the Public Service Commission Act because they would work for government. We have to remember, in this legislation we are talking about people who are lobbying or communicating with public-office holders, and that is why I think the act deals with collective agreements through the public service as opposed to collective agreements out in private industry.

Under section 4.(2)(e) core union activities are exempt. If a union, furthermore, wants to make submissions about matters related to its organization that falls under other labour relations statutes, section 4.(2)(b)(i) exempts them from registration once again. Moreover, subclause (ii) has a broad exemption that trade unions can use when making submissions to government on the implementation or administration of any policy or program that might apply to a trade union.

So, what other union activity is there? I do not believe there would be a need to be exempt when a trade union might lobby government on broad public policy issues that are not limited to union members. As I said earlier, there is no other lobbying legislation in Canada that specifically exempts trade unions, yet very few unions have seen the need to register in those jurisdictions. So why? There may be other reasons but, first of all, possibly they communicate with government mostly on labour relation matters and therefore they are exempted under clause 4.(2), and possibly their staff spends less than 20 per cent of their time on lobbying activities.

I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries, who formerly worked for a trade union, and he said: Union workers are so busy looking after issues for their members that they did not have enough time or a lot of time to spend a great deal of time lobbying government on broader public policy issues. In general, Mr. Speaker, I think we can say that a person who is a union member, who wishes to lobby government on his or her own behalf, is exempt under the legislation. We know that.

Secondly, we know that if a union member - who is not paid to lobby - wishes to lobby on behalf of the union and they are not paid to do so, then they certainly can lobby all they wish and they are exempt from their requirements of this legislation. If a Newfoundland trade union wants to lobby government on issues that relate to their major activities, the unions major activities, they will be exempt from registration. If the trade union wants to lobby government on matters that are outside the scope of its major activities, then there is a 20 per cent rule. So, if a union staff person, who is paid, spends less than 20 per cent of his or her time lobbying government then there is no need to register.

Finally, if a union employee is to spend more than 20 per cent of their time lobbying government on matters that do not relate to court union activities, well then in that case I would say, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't they register? What would be the problem? Fees would be minimal, perhaps even non-existent. The time required to register will be measured in minutes, not hours.

Mr. Speaker, if any organization wants to lobby government on broad public policy issues, I say: Why not be open and transparent about it? If a union wants to lobby government on issues that are outside their labour relations mandate, that is fine, but why should it not be part of a transparent public process?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition last night had a little fun with me because of a comment I made about going on the Internet to seek additional information. Now, he got it partially right but of course he had lots of it wrong. The Leader of the Opposition said that I went on the Internet to look up my own legislation. Of course, that is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. We all have the legislation. The legislation is right here. It is on everybody's desk. No one would have to go on the Internet to look up this legislation. What we did do, is that officials in the department went on the Internet for the purposes of accessing the public registries in the other jurisdictions that have public registries in which lobbyists are required to register. We did that for the mere purpose of seeing if any unions were, in fact, registered under those registries, to see if they were or if they weren't.

That, of course, is one of the beauties of our legislation, we are going to set up a public registry. Lobbyists who are lobbying public-office holders, in other words the government, will have to disclose what they are doing. They will have to tell the world what they are lobbying about, who they are lobbying, who is giving them the money to do the lobbying, what techniques they are using to do the lobbying, and who they intend to lobby. That information, I think, the people of this Province are entitled to know. That will be available, Mr. Chairman, to everybody, it will be a public registry, it will not cost anybody any money to access that registry, and I think that is certainly a sign of open, transparent and accountable government.

We looked at similar registries in other jurisdictions and we found some interesting information, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we looked at Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's lobbying Statute has a provision that is identical to Section 4(2)(e) of our bill. Here is what we found out: That there are no public sector unions registered under the Nova Scotia act. There are no private sector unions registered under the Nova Scotia act. We are advised by officials in Nova Scotia's Registry of Lobbyists, that during the public consultation process leading up to the passing of the Nova Scotia legislation, some unions did make enquiries but were satisfied that their core activities, as unions, were exempt under the act. They have not, therefore, registered. Our act has the same provisions, so that the activities of unions, as unions in carrying out their core activities, are exempt under this legislation.

If you go to the Ontario government's Registry of Lobbyists and if you look up organizations - remember, under our act organizations includes labour unions - you will find in Ontario very few trade unions registered. In fact, there are only two organizations listed that deal with only labour matters. Out of the dozens, possibly hundreds, of unions that operate in the Province of Ontario, we could find only two that registered their in-house lobbyists. This situation in Ontario exists even though the Ontario lobbying Statute does not contain a specific exemption for core union activities as our bill does, in Section 4(2)(e).

We also checked, Mr. Chairman, with the federal Registry of Lobbyists. If you go to the website for the federal registry and you search in-house lobbyists for organizations, you will find a list of over 300 organizations which have registered in-house lobbyists. There are few large trade unions registered. The Canadian Labour Congress, Teamsters Canada, and the United Steelworkers of America are registered. Again, the federal Statute does not have a specific exemption for core union activities. Our bill is more union-friendly than most lobbyist legislation in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with some of the comments that were raised in a letter from a prominent Newfoundland and Labrador union that wrote to the department in response to the consultation process. I believe that most of the arguments in the letter were raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill. I would like to deal with those points and provide him with what I hope will be a reasonable answer.

The union represents thousands of working men and women throughout the Province in several sectors of the economy. They state that they fundamentally disagree with the possibility that their union will have to register under this bill, and I would like to summarize the issues they raised in the letter.

The union felt that they are different from paid lobbyists because they are certified under provincial labour legislation, that they have a duty to represent their members and, in that regard, they may have to make representations to government departments and agencies on behalf of their members either individually or collectively. Our response to that, Mr. Chairman, is that we agree wholeheartedly. That is why we have the broad sections in section 4.(2)(e) and section 4.(2)(b).

The next point that was made by the union is that the lobbying bill must not hinder the union's role in the democratic process. The letter makes a comment that many non-profit organizations are short-staffed and have limited resources. We heard that from many of the people who responded to the consultation process. They fear that the process of registering and updating returns may be quite cumbersome for small organizations and thus may prevent them from participating in the democratic process. Our response is that we agree again. That is why the fees will be very low for these organizations. Perhaps there will be no fees at all. The Registrar will have authority under the act to reduce or even waive fees entirely. Subsection 34.(3) of the legislation provides for that. As for the time it will take to register, Mr. Chairman, that will be measured in minutes, not hours, and I think that is a small price to pay for promoting openness and transparency in the democratic process.

Another point, Mr. Chairman, is that unions are like many other volunteer organizations and they represent a broadly-based group of citizens. In many cases, unions deal with the issues of public good versus private interest, and our response is: Of course they do. We welcome union's participation in the discussion and debate of broad public issues. The unions have a proud history in this Province, and government welcomes their participation -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General that his time has lapsed.

MR. T. MARSHALL: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

It will not take me very long to finish.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We welcome the participation of all unions in the discussion and debate of all broad public issues, but if you are part of the public debate, Mr. Chairman, why not be open and transparent about it?

The next point is that most of the union activists and leadership are unpaid, and our response to that is that unpaid lobbyists do not have to register under the bill.

Another point is that unions advocate on behalf of their members, and that includes letters to MHA's, meetings with public-office holders and other government officials, and that is part of their job under the Labour Relations Act. Our response is that, of course, that is absolutely right and that is why we included section 4.(2)(b) and section 4.(2)(e) so that the core union activities, the things that people expect unions to be involved with, the things that they are required to do under the Labour Relations Act to protect their members, would not be cut by the bill.

The next point, Mr. Chairman, that the bill will require updates, there is a quote here that, that could mean that every time we write a letter to government on behalf of a member or an issue that affects our membership, we have to notify the register and possibly re-register. Our response is that, when a union is acting as a union, for and on behalf of the union, it does not have to register at all, much less register every time it writes a letter.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this addresses most - I know my time is limited. I think I will stop there. I do want to respond to the hon. Member for Labrador West, who had a question to me on section 6.(6) of the act, and I will do so at some other time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Chair would like to recognize a former minister and former member, a long-time Member of this House of Assembly, who represented the District of Burin-Placentia West, Mr. Glen Tobin, who is in the gallery today.

Welcome, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If this debate has done one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if I could have some silence, some assistance from the Chair so I can hear myself. These family-friendly hours are having a toll on my voice, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: If this debate has achieved nothing, Mr. Chairman, at least it has achieved the opportunity for the Minister of Justice to participate more fully in the life of our House of Assembly by getting on his feet many times to defend his legislation; but I will have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe he really understands the role of unions in this Province. If he does, he has not really indicated that by his speech because he thinks it is up to him, or the government, to define what the core role of unions is, and I believe he is actually misinterpreting the sections of his own act, because the section that he referred to, section 4.(2)(b) and 4.2(e) deal with, in the one case, in the case of 4.(2)(e), representing individuals in relation to administration or negotiation of a collective agreement. When somebody goes to work on behalf of a union member for a workers' compensation claim, that has nothing to do with the collective agreement, nothing to do with the collective agreement.

Under 4.(2)(b), when they are seeking to influence government on behalf of the enforcement, interpretation or application of an act or regulation in relation to their own organization, that has nothing to do with the activity of representing, broadly speaking, members' interests in relation to government.

Let me read, if I may, from the comments of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation, Mr. Chairman. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation represents twenty-eight different unions with a total membership of over 65,000 workers. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour is mandated to promote the interests of its affiliates and generally to advance the economic and social welfare of workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Within this mandate, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour works to promote the interests of workers, both unionized and non-unionized, in a wide range of areas, including labour standards, labour relations, health and safety, and workers' compensation. We also have an interest in other issues such as economic and social development, education, life-long learning, equality and human rights.

Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the labour movement in Newfoundland and Labrador who would say that these are part of the core activities and values and efforts of trade unionists in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have specifically to do collective agreements in many cases, and they do not have to do with being concerned about their own legislation - for example, how the Labour Relations Act affects unions and organizations, although they may make representations on that from time to time. What the minister is saying is, if they want to do something outside what he calls their core area, i.e., if they want to do something about education or social development or health and safety or labour standards or human rights or the minimum wage, then they should go and register as lobbyists.

Mr. Chairman, what they are saying is, they should not have to register as lobbyists because they are doing what everybody understands they are doing. In fact, one of the pieces of legislation before the House today, which deals with the labour-sponsored venture capital funds is another one of these activities that they have done to promote economic development in the Province by encouraging government to pass this legislation, which I am assuming and I hope we will do, because it is actually beneficial to the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the minister will want to suggest that is lobbying activity which should attract and require registration. I think that is totally unnecessary, because, once again, would you call a lobbyist, who is taking money to promote a particular activity, someone like the Federation of Labour that is going down to the Board of Trade tomorrow and outlining all the reasons why they want to see the labour-sponsored venture capital fund being developed by the Province? This is not lobbying government in the way that this legislation is attempting to contemplate, in terms of looking after a client, for example, such as a paid lobbyist might do to get some advantage from government for their company or for the client they represent. This is a public policy organization of workers who are working for the social and economic advancement of workers in Newfoundland, their families, and society generally. They are not lobbyists, they are advocates, and, as such, they should not be included in this legislation.

I thought - the pause that refreshes - when we pulled this bill last night, after hearing the representations from this side, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for Labrador West, the Leader of the Opposition and myself, that the minister was having second thoughts and he was going to come in here today and say: We have listened. We have listened and recognized that the trade unions and labour organizations are not lobbyists, they are, in fact, advocates. They are social policy advocates, they are social justice advocates, they are advocates for the Rights of Women, they are human right advocates, they are not lobbyists. If they are not lobbyists, Mr. Chairman, we should not include them in the act.

The minister's attempt to suggest that the activities of unions are exempted from the act is feeble at best.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We have been for some time on one clause, and for some time on one amendment, going on over several days. I appreciate and respect, I guess, what members must do and what they perceive they must do.

This legislation in no way, shape or form, in no context, or in any context, whether real or perceived, categorizes whether public sector or private sector unions, whether that be the building trades council as a group, called the building trades council, their umbrella organization, whether it be the ironworkers' union, the labourers' international union, whether it be the operating engineers, whether it be unions representing the loggers in the forest industry, whether it be the retail workers' union, whether it be the united food and commercial workers' union - this act provides all of the necessary exemptions for them with respect to the unions core activities.

The minister has outlined clearly today, for example - yes, the members opposite can shake their heads. We can agree to disagree, if that is the case, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There is no intention on our part to try to categorize trade unions in this Province as lobbyists. I mean, it would be foolish and absurd for us to even contemplate it. Number one, inherently that is the role - and the member is right, in terms to advocate. Secondly, it is their obligation to the membership that they serve. We understand that, we respect that, and that is why this bill provides for, as every other lobbyist bill across the country, the opportunity, if you are a union, to have all of your core activities exempted from this act the minister has just outlined.

As he said, the Leader of the Opposition had a bit of fun with him last night, talking about him out surfing the net. He did it for a very good reason. He wanted to provide the most up-to-date information to the House and the registry on, were there any, I guess, unions based upon the advocacy of the members opposite, in particular the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, were there any examples whereby a trade union had to register as a lobbyist under the act? The minister has gone through the provisions, and has explained, I think very well, how those provisions reflect other jurisdictions. I believe he even cited the Province of Nova Scotia, if I am not mistaken, which is identical.

Under section 4(2)(e), that provides all of the allowance for that to be done, for exemptions to occur. You know, we are not out on a leap of faith here. We are out on a particular section that we have competence in because it has been borne out to be true in another jurisdiction. That is the truth and reality of it. While the members opposite have their view, I guess, we have our view, but we believe, as members opposite believe, that unions should be exempt. We believe that we provided the necessary provisions in the act for that to happen because, I think, we all want that.

With that, Mr. Chair, just to add my voice and support of the legislation, the Registration of Lobbyists Act, we believe this is an important piece of legislation. It never existed in this Province before. It provides for anybody who wants to lobby, that they must register so people can see whatever happens with lobbyists. We are not down on the lobbyist profession. We believe it has a role to play. People have an absolute right to start their own businesses or call themselves lobbyists or consultants or whatever the case may be. All we are saying, with this legislation is, that being case, government has an absolute right to ensure that their activities are public. There is a provision in how you make it public and that they must register, so that if person A is lobbying on behalf of company A to minister A, then everyone knows what is up and what the story is about it. Essentially, that is what this act is about. I support it and my colleagues support. It is a commitment we made and we believe it is a commitment we are following up on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, again, speak to this bill today, because I think there is some confusion here.

I just heard the Government House Leader say that all core activities of the unions - and last night I was speaking specifically of the FFAW and the fish processors association, ASP, in the Province. The way I put it last night, with regard to some of the actions of the FFAW when I was minister, when the Minister of Justice sat down afterwards, he said: Well, that is simple. They can register as lobbyists. Right now we have the Government House Leader saying, basically, all core activities of unions are protected under this act, when the Minister of Justice told me last night, basically, that the FFAW, Mr. Earl McCurdy, would have to register as a lobbyist. He said that right here in the House last night, I say to the Government House Leader. If you get the Hansard, just before he was sitting down, he said: Then he should register as a lobbyist.

The problem I have with this - I will try to explain it simply - is this: A lobbyist, for the most part, is an individual who gets paid by a company or an organization to lobby government, to go and try and convince government to do something on behalf of a company or an individual or an organization. That individual - who the lobbyist is, the one who is doing the lobbying, the one who is trying to convince government to do something - is getting paid for his efforts. He is getting paid.

Now, that is my understanding of what a lobbyist is, and I see the Minister of Justice shaking his head over there in agreement with me. I have no problem with legislation governing lobbyists in this Province and I agree that there should be legislation governing lobbyists but, go back to the example I gave last night. Simply by the nature of the organizations that I spoke of last night - the FFAW, which represents fish harvesters and plant workers in this Province, and the ASP group, the Association of Seafood Processors. Just by the nature of those two groups, I do not see the individuals who lead these two groups when they come to speak with a minister - and under your legislation, I think, you say if they spend more than 20 per cent of their time in a given period they would be considered a lobbyist. I cannot see it, and the reason I cannot see them being considered lobbyists is simply the nature of the fishing industry and the nature of the fact that government regulates that business.

Government, for the most part, regulates that business, whether it be the federal government or the provincial government. I gave the example of a few years ago, when there was an impasse in the shrimp fishery for two three or three weeks and me, being the Minister of Fisheries - when there is an impasse and boats are tied up, plants are closed, then, obviously, it not only affects the union and the processors, it affects most of the people in this Province. Like I said last night, it is our most important industry and affects more people in the Province than any other industry.

As I said, some two or three years ago when there was an impasse in the shrimp fishery, I spent most of my waking hours with either Mr. Earle McCurdy, who was the President of the FFAW, or Mr. Alastair O'Reilly, who was, at that time, the spokesperson or the Chairman of the FANL group, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador who represent the processors. Now, under this piece of legislation both those gentlemen would have to be registered as lobbyists. In other words, they would have to come in and register with a government agency and in so doing, once they registered, what they are telling their membership, what they are telling the world is that they are being paid to come in and lobby the minister or try to convince the minister to do something either one way or the other. I say to the minister, I do not think that should be the case.

All I am asking is - like my colleague, the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - that we exempt trade unions from that because, I say to the minister and the government, it is very important that the minister meet with these individuals on a regular basis, even when things are going well in the Province, because I do not think any Minister of Fisheries would espouse the belief that he knows everything about the industry. It is an industry that is constantly in flux. There is something always - as the current Minister of Fisheries knows, even on a good day, as Minister of Fisheries, you have severe problems in the fishery, and that some group or organization associated with the fish harvesters and the plant workers or the processors in this Province want to meet with the minister to either give him advice, to ask for advice, to try and convince him to do one thing or the other. I do not think that we should have to attach the word lobbyists to these individuals who speak on behalf of the individuals who make up our fishing industry because it is far too important.

I say to the minister, all I am asking is that you exempt groups like that from this piece of legislation and not have them required to be registered as lobbyists. Personally, while the Government House Leader says there is nothing wrong with lobbyists - and I see nothing wrong with lobbyists - the word lobbyist out there has a negative connotation attached to it; something that basically says that you are skulking around after dark, strong-arming a Minister of the Crown or the Premier into doing something that he does not really want to do. That is my impression when I hear the word lobbyist. That individual gets paid for doing that. He actually, in some cases, gets a bonus if he is successful in convincing a minister or a government to do that which he wished him to do. All I am saying is that I do not think we should be attaching negative connotations to people who are of such importance to the fishing industry in this Province and to the well-being of the Province in general. What we are asking for is that you change one little clause to exempt unions from this piece of legislation.

The Government House Leader, who probably knows as much about the legislation as anyone in this House today, probably more than all of us, says that the core activities of the unions, such as the FFAW, are protected under this act. I say to the minister, that is not what the Justice Minister told me last night just before he sat down, when I went through the exact scenario that I just went through, when I talked about how both the Leader of FANL, Mr. Alastair O'Reilly, and Mr. Earle McCurdy were meeting with me for three weeks, almost on a twenty-four hour basis, lobbying me to do this thing or that thing. You said: There's no problem with that, just tell them to go out and get registered as lobbyists.

The point I am making, Minister, is that I do not think they should have to be registered as lobbyists and that you should make that simple exemption. Then I would have no problem, I would sit down and sign off on this bill today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we first reviewed this piece of legislation - and I have to say in all honesty, I share some of the concerns that were just articulated by my critic, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and some of the concerns that were brought forward over the past couple of days by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Labrador West and others, about how this piece of legislation might impact on trade unions in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, one of the very specific questions I believe I raised at the time was - as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just said, I am the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, even on a good day, which are few and far between in the Department of Fisheries - even on a good day there are quite a few issues in the fishing industry that requires consultation, debate and discussion between the department, the minister, the FFAW, the Association of Seafood Processors and so on, and I did not think it served anybody's best interest for them to have to register as lobbyists, or I to have to declare that I had met with them as you would under the lobbyists legislation. I felt that there was potentially an issue here. So, I raised the question, read through the legislation, did not completely understand it at the time, just saw it for the first time, read through it, had a look at it, had the discussion, and certainly it was clarified for me, comfortably enough I thought and I still believe so, that trade unions, while representing their membership, are exempted from registration under this lobbyists legislation.

Certainly, in section 4.(2)(b)(ii), "the implementation or administration fo any policy, program, directive or guideline by that public-office holder with respect to that person, partnership or organization...", if a trade union is representing people based on that to a public-office holder, it is exempt.

Mr. Chairman, I think the legislation is quite clear on that. I think that, given the experience that we see in other provincial jurisdictions across the country where this has worked, and the same type of clauses are in effect - there have been no unions registered in Nova Scotia, for example - this legislation serves our purpose and serves the purposes of the union in allowing them to represent their members.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong debate on this but I want to make one final point.

While the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Justice and the Government House Leader say that under this piece of legislation unions such as the FFAW are protected and will not have to be registered as lobbyists, the Leader of the NDP is also a lawyer, himself, and he said he has looked at this piece of legislation and he cannot see where they are protected under the act. I cannot see where they are protected under the act. I do not profess to be a lawyer and, as the minister says, he does not want the leader of the FFAW or the ASP group coming in and committing some illegal offence because they have not been registered as a lobbyist.

The Minister of Justice, when he was sitting down last night - and I have no reason to lie here - he did look across to me and said: Sure, if that is the case, have them register as lobbyists.

That is the point that we are making. We should not have to have them registered as lobbyists.

With that, that is my final word on the bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not intend to make another long speech. I have made my points about this, and I suppose if people accept the legal interpretation of the Minister of Fisheries, and the legal interpretation of the Minister of Justice, they probably will not have to register at all, and I guess the trade unions should be encouraged not to bother to register under the act. I hope that the interpretation of the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Justice will be a good defense to them if they decide to seek to give them grief for not registering under the act.

The kind of comfort that the minister has provided by suggesting, from his Internet search, that unions do not seem to register, they do not seem to need to bother to register, if I can pass that along to the trade unions that I talk with, that government does not seem to be too concerned about the registering regardless of my interpretation of the act, the interpretation given in the House by the minister and the Minister of Fisheries and the government officials, in seeking to get the act passed, seem to indicate that they do not really want to concern themselves with your activities, and we have laid on the table all of the activities that unions get involved in.

If, I suppose, for greater comfort, they want to register for the sake of doing that, the minister says he is going to reduce the fees or have no fees at all. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, if it is as simple as that, maybe they should all register and say, well, we are lobbyist, that is it, as long as they do not have to file reports every week, Mr. Chairman, saying who they talked to and who they wrote letters to, and who they spoke to at various meetings.

The real problem here, Mr. Chairman, they do not call themselves lobbyists. Even lobbyists do not call themselves lobbyists. They call themselves something else. They are government affairs consultants, or they are something like that; they have some other names. They do public relations or whatever else they are doing. They do not call themselves lobbyists; they just carry out their activities.

If the trade unions are going to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman, without registering, self-policing, carrying on and conducting their own interpretation of how much time they spend at various things, then I am afraid it is going to be too loosey-goosey. If that is the kind of legislation that this government wants to pass, when they really think they are trying to get at the real mischief of paid lobbyist out there - we have had some abuse of this in the past - I hope that all of this debate about the people who are not really lobbyists is not disguising the fact that there is a real intention here that people who are engaged in the business of lobbying are in fact covered by this, and file reports so we know what is going on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is an amendment to clause 4. The amendment reads: To amend paragraph 4(1) of Bill 43 by adding immediately after subparagraph 4(1)(l) the following, "(l.1) an officer, executive board member or employee of a trade union or labour organization."

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 4?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 43 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Committee has to back up a little bit here. The Committee called for Bill 43 to pass without amendment, and it has been brought to the Chair's attention that there was an amendment introduced to this bill in clause 4(1), and it was passed, so the Committee calls for a vote to pass clause 4 as amended.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration of Lobbyists, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 43 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I guess, to ensure that we are technically and procedurally correct, that is why we had to come back and do what we had to do, or why the Chair had to come back and do what he had to do. In keeping with that, I do now move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 43 passed with an amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, pass with amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

Carried.

CLERK: The first reading of an amendment to Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of an amendment to Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 43, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time. It is ordered this bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 43)

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

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits." (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits Act.

This legislation fulfills the commitment of the Blue Book to improve incentives for those who make long-term venture capital investments in medium and small enterprises. This legislation will enable a venture capital corporation to seek registration to operate as a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation in the Province, if the corporation meets various program requirements.

The corporation would raise equity capital from residents of the Province with the support of a 15 per cent provincial tax credit matched by a federal tax credit of the same amount. Investors must hold these shares for eight years. The monies invested in the corporation will go into a pool fund which will then be reinvested by the venture capital corporation into eligible local businesses needing access to capital.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is dedicated to improving the economy of our Province, and one of the best ways to do that is to help businesses to become successful. Businesses provide jobs, they create wealth and they pay taxes. Provinces with a strong business base tend to be strong economically.

Approximately 95 per cent of the businesses in this Province are classified as small businesses. That is, they employ less than fifty people. My department provides a number of programs to help start and expand businesses, but there are still challenges for any business wishing to establish and grow. One of those challenges is risk capital.

Mr. Speaker, starting and running a business is risky. For business people, there are few guarantees that they will continue to exist or to grow. Businesses are impacted by unpredictable international forces. Business people often take great risks to ensure their businesses are successful and are able to provide jobs for the people of our Province.

Fortunately, we have a dynamic community in Newfoundland and Labrador that continues to develop new and innovative ways of starting and growing businesses. While our traditional resource-based industries of fish, lumber and minerals continue, there are companies that work every day to expand those industries into new directions. For example, we are a Province of seafarers, and new companies in this Province are using leading edge technologies to find new ways to catch fish and track the progress of marine vessels.

We have to build on the momentum of these companies and the great amount of intelligence local companies and organizations have in this field, and through co-operation with our partners position the Province as a worldwide leader in the marine technology field. To help meet this goal, just last month I announced the provincial government will invest a total of $1.5 million over five years to help implement an aggressive marine technology development strategy for the Province.

We have, in recent decades, grown entire new industries such as high-tech manufacturing and software development. These are just a couple of the industries we will consider in the development of an innovation strategy for the Province.

Throughout the course of developing the strategy, we will interview and hold focus groups with key stakeholders to feed into the process of development of the strategy. The innovation strategy will take into account all regions of the Province and will help stimulate innovations in all sectors of the economy.

In addition to helping the Province advanced technology sector, the innovation strategy will help other companies and organizations, whether they be in traditional or new industries, to identify new and innovative ways to pursue new business opportunities; however, Mr. Speaker, new industries bring new challenges, particularly in financing. Traditional industries have been financed by traditional lenders. These have been institutions such as banks that have secured their loans against the assets of the company. What businesses in this Province require, Mr. Speaker, is access to a new source of capital. This is not a new need.

A 2002 study by ACOA, a 2003 study by the Council of Atlantic Premiers, and a 2004 study by the National Research Council of Canada, all concluded that there are gaps in the funding available for small- and medium-sized enterprises. The department has heard from the private sector that access to capital is a serious issue, and that banks are increasingly more reluctant to provide commercial loans to small- and medium-sized businesses which present any form of risk.

Mr. Speaker, venture capital is readily available in many provinces. In 2003, over $22 billion in venture capital was under management in Canada, but only .05 per cent of that total was invested in Newfoundland and Labrador. Across Canada, labour-sponsored venture capital funds play a significant role in the venture capital market. Currently, there are no such funds registered in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, no legislative authority exists to register such a fund.

I have risen here today to speak to a bill that will provide the legislative framework that a labour-sponsored venture capital fund must meet in order to register in this Province. In this regard, officials have consulted widely across this country and have examined existing legislation in other provinces.

The proposed bill before the House today would provide government with the legislative ability to register a labour-sponsored venture capital fund and provide a 15 per cent provincial tax credit to individuals who invest in that fund. This is comparable to most other provinces. As well, investors can also avail of a 15 per cent federal tax credit.

In the past year, government has held discussions with several proponents with respect to venture capital, and there is currently one company actively pursuing the establishment of a labour-sponsored venture capital fund. This proposal looks very promising, and we are hopeful that this proponent will be successful.

Today we are discussing a bill that will provide us with the authority to register the fund in Newfoundland and Labrador should it meet the criteria proposed in the new legislation. It should be noted that if a fund is registered in time for the 2004 RRSP season and tax year, the provincial tax incentive will not be able to be implemented until the 2005 year.

Mr. Speaker, government's overall goal is to create an environment where Newfoundland and Labrador investors are encouraged to invest in the growth and expansion of small and medium sized businesses right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Specifically, our objectives are to retain private investment capital in the Province and make it more accessible to small and medium sized businesses in all regions of the Province, to assist in their growth and development as a means of creating new jobs, to target funds at growing and emerging sectors of the provincial economy that lack venture capital, as a means of diversifying the economy, to promote and encourage a stronger investment culture among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to nurture and strengthen entrepreneurship in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that governments do not guarantee any investment by investors in a labour-sponsored venture capital fund. Investors should carry out their own due diligence in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in our Blue Book, government committed to improving incentives for those wanting to make long-term venture capital investments in small and medium sized businesses. Today we are moving forward with that commitment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to speak in second reading on this bill here today, Bill 58.

I notice the minister started off her comments about this being a Blue Book commitment. We have heard a lot about openness and accountability in this session, and I will just preface my comments by saying that one of the parts of openness and accountability is to give credit where credit is due, to be open about all of it, to be open about the background and where something comes from. For example, this didn't start with any Blue Book in the 2003 election. I am looking, Mr. Speaker, at a news release put out by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, October 30, 2000. I think the department, at that time, was even called the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. At that time, there were two tax credits announced, I will tell the minister. It did not start with any Blue Book. This was long before your Blue Book. One was called the Direct Equity Tax Credit and one was called the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit program. That was some four years ago, I do believe. That is where this was started and that is when the announcement was first made.

At that time, the minister of the day, Minister Mathews, when he made the announcement, made it quite clear that as far as the actual legislative framework for the labour-sponsored credit program, there had to be more consultations. Now, that is where I do give the previous administration and this administration the credit, because that consultation process was indeed continued. I, for example, as minister myself for a year over in Industry - and very important, this labour-sponsored piece. You had to, number one, do your consultation with labour. That is where the biggest stumbling block came in the first incidence, was allowing labour to have their input into where you wanted to go with this, because if you did not have their input it was not going anywhere.

That consultation has indeed been done, and we find ourselves, today, where we are now in a position, after that consultation, to go ahead with the legislative framework. We are supportive of this, it is very important. Any leg up or any opportunity that small businesses, developing businesses or growing businesses in this Province, can have an opportunity to avail of, any source of funding to help them in their businesses, by all means they should.

As the minister quite rightly said, venture capital, as opposed to going to a normal lending institution such as a bank, is different, it is high risk capital. It is people, for example, quite often in new technologies and new industries of aquaculture and so on, eco-tourism ventures, banks do not want to touch you. People have some great ideas but the banks do not want to touch you. You have not got a track record, you have no history of your investments, you do not normally give a good rate of return in your first number of years, you have to get set up, and you have to be proven. No history is the problem.

What this is doing here, it is another little piece to allow these investors to go into a venture capital fund where people understand when they put their money into it, number one, that their money is at high risk, and that the ventures that the money will be leant out to probably will not be returning much money in the very near future. It allows those entrepreneurial type ventures to at least get a leg up and get started.

That is why we support this, because it is going to be particularly beneficial to rural Newfoundland. Most of these high-tech things you see, a lot of them, if we are going to ever salvage some of the places in rural Newfoundland, I would submit, we are going to need to be creative and inventive. That is where you are going to need for the people in those areas to be able to avail of any funding source that possibly can be made available.

The other neat thing about it is, not only does the Province, once we establish this legislatively, have the legislative framework in place, it also will trigger some tax credits from the federal government, 15 per cent, I believe, as a federal tax credit as well.

The person who is sitting there with a chunk of money in his bank, who maybe is not satisfied in today's current interest rates to get a return in his Bank of Nova Scotia or Bank of Montreal or Mutual Fund of 5 or 6 per cent, he might say: Well, this is great. I can invest in this Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital program and I can get myself some good tax credits. I can get a 15 per cent tax credit, and I get some provincial tax credits. It is high risk but, at least, I am taking a chance on getting a better return on the money that I have. It is an encouragement and incentive to let people put their money in and get a better return, if that is what they wish to do.

I noticed the minister quite directly said again: We are not promising that the ventures you put your money into are going to be productive or successful, and caveat emptor, as they say in law, buyer beware. The incentive is at least there for people for this chance to make a better return than you would in your chartered bank and, at the same time, do something for those entrepreneurs in the Province who want access to more funding.

We will, Mr. Speaker, be very supportive of this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to say a few words at second reading on Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits.

I listened to the minister, Mr. Speaker, when she was speaking to the bill, and I have to say that this is a piece of legislation that I will be supporting.

I heard the Official Opposition House Leader talking about how there was a lot of work done in 2000. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this had its beginnings long before even 2000. In the early 1990s, I chaired a committee that looked at labour-sponsored venture capital funds for this Province, and we had a huge conference at the Delta Hotel, the Radisson then, I guess, with the Federation of Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives, myself and another person, who, at the time, were doing some work for the Economic Recovery Commission under the leadership of Doug House. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is where the beginnings of Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits and labour venture funds had its humble beginnings.

If we look around the country, Mr. Speaker, we will see the other provinces that have success with this type of venture. In Manitoba, for instance, you have, if I recall, the Crocus Investment Fund. In Ontario you have the First Ontario Fund. BC has the BC Venture Capital fund. I guess, the most successful of all would be the Quebec Solidarity Fund which has enjoyed tremendous success in the Province of Quebec.

I think it is going to be a useful piece of legislation that will enable people in this Province to invest in the Province. I think, Mr. Speaker, more of that should be done. When we look at the amount of monies, as my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, has mentioned on a number of occasions in this Province, about the tremendous amount of pension assets that we have in this Province that are being invested elsewhere when they can be invested within our own Province for our own growth, to create jobs in our Province and create wealth for the citizens of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much time today on second reading, but I can say that this legislation is certainly a piece of legislation that will receive my support.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to add a few words to the comments of my colleague from Labrador West on the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits.

This legislation is something that is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to look to the Blue Book for this idea. It has been around for a long time, being promoted by the union movement in this Province for a number of years. We are certainly glad to see that this government has accepted it because it is an important potential source for jobs and economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the kind of pension money that stays in the Province because it is RRSP type money that people will get an additional tax credit from over and above the tax credit currently received. For people who put money into an RRSP, they get, normally, about 20 per cent of the value of that as a tax credit. This will add another 15 per cent and provide an additional inducement to people to invest in RRSP type of funds into a labour-sponsored venture capital fund. We see a lot of potential here, and we see that there is an awful lot of room for growth.

The minister talked about this Province having .05 per cent of the venture capital in Canada. Let's put it another way. In this Province, the per capita amount of venture capital is $23.10. For every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, there is $23.10 available for venture capital. In the Province of Quebec, for every person living in Quebec, there is $1,562 per capita. In Newfoundland and Labrador there is $23.10. The all-Canadian average is around $700 per capita. So, when people in this Province say we cannot get any money to engage in business enterprise, they are right. They are absolutely, totally, right.

What do we do with the $2.5 billion that we have in our pension funds? We probably have it invested in Nortel, in Bombardier, in Enron perhaps. Although Enron is gone now, I would not be surprised if we had money in Enron from our pension funds - $2.5 billion of public pension funds that are being used to support economic development and economic activity elsewhere.

When we can see that this Province - these figures are good, solid figures, $23.10 for this Province. Even Nova Scotia has $130 per capita. Ontario, $630, not a high as one might expect, but it seems the Province of Quebec has made a tremendous effort in making venture capital available within the Province of Quebec to support economic development activity.

I want to endorse this legislation. I think it is very positive legislation. I also know that the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour put a lot of work into this, and want to see this legislation passed. The primary reason that they want to see it passed is because it is going to enable the development of a new venture capital fund that is being announced, that will be an Atlantic Provinces venture capital fund. What is very interesting about this is that every dollar someone in this Province invests in this venture capital fund will, in fact, be reinvested in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the conditions - 100 per cent.

If we could look at our pooled pension funds, the pension funds of this Province, the NTA pension fund, the Public Service pension fund, or even the Memorial University pension fund, I would venture to say that very little of that pension fund money is invested in economic activity in Newfoundland and Labrador, and something should be done about that.

This is a good start, but we have a long way to go. There are some local pools of capital - not many. One interesting one - and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you yourself, being a former teacher, are probably a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, with now assets in excess of $200 million, all of which is reinvested in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is invested in mortgages, invested in loans, invested in economic activity. They now do commercial loans and commercial accounts. All of their money, in excess of $200 million, belongs to the members, who are people in this Province, and it is reinvested in this Province. They establish a very good example for the kind of thing we need to do to protect our economy and to build our own economy with our own savings and resources.

That is what the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union does. That is what the venture capital fund being proposed by the Federation of Labour - I think it is called Growth Works Atlantic Venture Fund - which was announced just a couple of weeks ago in Nova Scotia, is the one that is being proposed to be launched, that they are going to promote and be a part of, and all of the money invested by people from this Province in that fund will be reinvested here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a start. It is not going to change things overnight, but it may help to change attitudes, and maybe, just maybe, government will start looking seriously at finding ways to see if some of our pension fund money can be used to help develop economic activity on a commercial basis. I am not talking about subsidies; I am talking about investment. Just maybe we can start redeveloping our culture in terms of how we use our savings, how we use our investments, and this notion of a labour-sponsored venture capital fund will help to do that, so we fully endorse that.

We welcome the government taking this step, and we wish good luck to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour in their project to encourage people in the Province, not just union members, but to encourage investors in the Province, to take advantage of the generous tax credit that is available for longer-term type money that can be used for economic development and job creation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank hon. members opposite for participating and supporting this bill. I do now move second reading of Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 58 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits. (Bill 58)

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

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 58)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a certain bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move now that we begin to move through the clauses of Bill 58, step by step.

CHAIR: Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive.

Shall clauses 1 to 18 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 18 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 18 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 58,. An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 58 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 58 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 58 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 58)

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

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

Yesterday I believe debate was adjourned on Bill 61. So I move Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 61)

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to have a few words on Bill 61. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of openness and accountability this was a huge shock to this side of the House, when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board dropped this bill on the table on Monday and expected it to be passed the next day.

It is a bill that is a huge change for this Province. It is An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, which would mean that once passed, liquor will be able to be sold in the agencies and liquor corporation outlets as early as January, 2005, should this bill pass. I think that was the part that shocked this side of the House so much, knowing that the bill was put on the Table on a Monday and the next day we were expected to pass this bill. This is only Wednesday today, and normally this would be Private Members' Day when we would not be discussing House business, but there was a general consent today that we would forego Private Members' Day and discuss government business today, House business, and that is exactly what we are doing.

It displays a matter of arrogance for this Legislature, and not only for the Legislature but for the people of this Province, because it is a radical change in the way of doing business, making liquor available on Sunday. It does have an issue connected to social conscience. I think it would have been well-advised of the government to give this issue a matter of time to be heard and responded to by the people in general around the Province. Most people today are busy hustling and bustling, getting ready for Christmas, and they are not focused on anything hardly that is happening in this House of Assembly. It is a major piece of legislation that is going to be passed because the government side has the majority, and the government has not given the general population of this Province an opportunity to respond.

To see, the very same day, that the legislation - no, the next morning. I will give the government the benefit of twelve hours. The very next morning there was a news release put out by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board advising that once this legislation is passed, assuming that it was going to pass - and he knew full-well they had the majority of members in the House to complete the vote and make it pass. He had the audacity to come out the next morning, just twelve hours later, and say that stores would be open Sundays, starting in January, to sell liquor. Now, that is taking this House for granted and it is taking the people of this Province for granted.

Earlier today the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board stood up in this House and, after repeated grilling from myself and others in this House asking for a financial update of this Province, he decided on the eleventh hour that he would give this House a financial update. It was a disgrace, actually, to stand up and just lay a piece of paper like this - this is the actual statement - on the Table and let him get up, himself, and actually speak to the issue. I thought we would get much more detail. He neglected today to advise this House, and the people of this Province, what money was going to be saved as a result of paying less interest on our provincial debt because of the strengthening of the Canadian dollar.

The Minister of Finance is fully aware that most of our borrowing for the Province are in U.S. dollars. Yet, he neglected intentionally to leave out that very important information because simply, he did not want to let the people of this Province know that it is not all doom and gloom. There was one glaring example today, and I do not think I have seen this in any financial statement of the government in recent years. This government lost $64 million in retail tax revenues. Retail sales are down by $64 million in provincial revenues this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am talking about the revenues. The revenues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: The revenues we receive from HST on provincial retail sales are down by $64 million. Now, what does that say to the people of this Province? I guess it prompted the Finance Minister to probably bring in this bill, Bill 61, to amend the liquor control act because he is desperate to prove that he needs to generate new money in retail sales. He is so desperate that he is bringing in this Bill 61 on the eleventh hour and asking this House - not asking, telling this House that he needs this passed within a day because he already put out his news release and he is planning on $2 million extra in revenue from sales of liquor on Sunday.

When you look at a financial statement, a mid-year - well, really almost two-thirds of the financial year of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is over. They close their books on March 31, 2005 and today is December 15 and we are getting our mid-year report. What he is telling us is that the financial picture of the Province is better. Why is it better? There are two reasons. The two reasons are: one, is an increase in oil prices. Now, did the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have anything to do with the increase in oil prices? Not one iota. The next reason is, all the new money from the federal Government of Canada, equalization payments, health and social transfers, $34 million in offset money from these transfers. Now, was that money created by the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Not one cent. These are two external factors that created new revenue for this Province's bottom line. Did it come by economic development of this Province? No. Did it come by any new investment in this Province by business, or the Premier's new Department of Business? No. Did it come from the new Department of Industry, Trade - oh, I am sorry about that; it is Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I think.

MR. E. BYRNE: Rural renewal.

MS THISTLE: Rural renewal, the Government House Leader tells me.

There has been no economic development plan, and that is what is demonstrated by a loss of revenue to this Province of $64 million. I have never seen that before.

In this Province this year, there has been a loss of revenue of HST in the government coffers because there has been a slowdown in retail sales. Now, what would cause a slowdown in retail sales in this Province? What would cause that? The general population have decided to keep their wallets in their pockets. They have no confidence in this government. The government has come out with a doom and gloom scenario and painted a dull picture. As a result, people have decided to keep money in their pockets and not spend it. It will be the same from the business community; they take the lead from the Premier. As a result, we have lost revenue here today. I can say to the Finance Minister, that is nothing to cheer about.

I would like to talk for minutes and hours, but it is not there today. So, with this, I will close my portion of the response on this particular debate as I know the clock is ticking, but I know I will get an opportunity at a later date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to take just a few moments to speak on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

I guess to go back to the comments that were made during the introduction of this bill by the Minister of Finance when he said this is basically just a one-clause bill, that is correct, but I say the one-clause bill has a lot to be desired when it comes to the impact that it will have on many people in this Province.

I know that he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that six years ago when the Shops' Closing Act was brought into effect he had opposed it. I respect anybody's opinion on whether they oppose anything or not, but he went on to say that even if the clocks were turned back today he would still oppose the Shops' Closing Act, that they would not be open like they are today on Sundays. I find it very ironic that the same gentleman, the same minister, would now want to put this legislation forward to extend on what was done six years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister made the comments that Bill 61 would not force liquor stores to open on Sundays, and that may be so, but when we read the articles that we see in the local media, how the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, they are hoping to garner anywhere between $2 million and $3 million from the stores being open on Sundays. I say there must be some consultation and some thought gone into it. They are not going to remain closed, for sure, if the Corporation is expecting to get $2 million to $3 million.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I read with interest how NAPE President, Mr. Leo Puddister, said that the unions were reluctant and they would not stand in the way of this move. Then, a little later on, in the same paragraph, he went on to say that he soon would be negotiating additional Sunday benefits for the employers, and rightly so, but I say, Mr. Speaker, this is probably going to cost more than what we think it would.

I have a general feeling of how the majority of the people in my district would feel about the opening of the liquor stores on Sundays, but I believe there should have been more time put in place for those people to express, not only to me but to the government, how they feel about this piece of legislation. Because what we hear - and the bill was passed last evening - of the openness and transparency of this government. I say, Mr. Speaker, by not having this bill put forward the same as other bills that we have seen, and giving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the opportunity to pass along to their elected officials how they feel about those various issues - openness and transparency, Mr. Speaker. We only saw this bill a couple of days ago, and the very next morning we saw the public release stating that it would come into effect in January, 2005. I say, Mr. Speaker, there must have been a lot of thought put into it by somebody outside the minister to make that decision so quickly.

I am sure, and I honestly believe, that if anyone wishes to go to any outlet, whether it is the Liquor Commission or the outlets, if they cannot purchase what they need in six days a week - and I have no problem with anyone going there, that is their choice - but I think you can buy a lot of it within six days, without having to open the stores on Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic again that this government would stand in the House until the wee hours of the morning, when they were in Opposition opposing the opening of the stores. I am sure there are many members here who took part in those debates. Here we are now, standing again on another issue in relation to the same topic, and I guess we are going to see Bill 61 brought forward and passed before this hon. House closes.

Having said that, having Bill 61 passed so that the liquor stores can open on Sunday, I know it has been said back and forth across the House, and I have heard it, the members over here in the Opposition say to us: Your government, your party, your government of the day, brought in the Sunday shopping.

I say, Mr. Speaker, two wrongs do not make a right. The members opposite, when they were in Opposition, were against it then. By extending on that today, to me, does not make it correct.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of others being able to speak on this issue today, I will close by saying that I took notice in The Telegram how they mentioned that it would be a wonderful thing now because, when you open the outlets on Sunday, the people of this Province would be able to purchase imported beers like Moosehead and Heineken.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are lots of outlets in this Province where they can purchase and drink the local products, without having to go to the Legislature to bring in Bill 61 so that it can accommodate products being brought in from the outside.

Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that I am opposed to Bill 61, and to assure you that I will be voting against it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that there are only eight minutes left in our debating this afternoon, so unless we are going to continue the debate into tomorrow I do not know what the intentions of hon. members are. Perhaps if we could go beyond the 5:00 p.m. period to allow me to make my speech, I do not have a problem with that.

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

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

Certainly, the member, I believe, has his time and he wants to use it. We do not want to be perceived as interfering with that. If I might suggest that we allow that. Normally, on Wednesday it closes at 5:00 p.m., this being Private Members' Day, but it is an exceptional day because consent has been given to do government business. You can do it right now and if we can agree just to stop the clock at 5:00 p.m., do what we have to do and we should be out of here by 5:15 p.m. or 5:20 p.m. if that is okay with members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that the clock will stop at 5:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to speak either today or tomorrow, and today is very convenient for me. My voice may not last until tomorrow, so I will have to do what I can today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to hear the enthusiastic response that got, Mr. Speaker, because I hear rumours that we are going to be invoking closure. Maybe that is one way to shut her down, by making sure that members voices are gone.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation in relation to the Shops' Closing Act is very reminiscent of the debate that we had here in December of 1997. So far, all we have heard by way of defense - well, we have heard a few shifting sands over there from the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. First of all, he said: Well, there are 3,000 outlets that sell liquor on Sundays and there are 137 of them that cannot, so we are going to level the playing field.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: First of all, that is a totally, totally misleading statement, Mr. Speaker. A totally misleading statement because there are different kinds of establishments. There may be many establishments that sell alcohol on Sundays, if you include beer. There are convenience stores who have the right to sell that. If you include alcoholic drinks sold by the glass, there are restaurants who - if you have a meal you can have them and there may be bars and hotels. If we are talking about the distribution of alcohol, Mr. Speaker, normally we are talking about what activity is conducted by the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, which has a monopoly, and their agents which are part of that monopoly. There is a monopoly on the sale of liquor in the Province that is conducted through the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation and its agents. Mr. Speaker, that is the 137 that he is talking about but it is really only the Liquor Corporation. They happen to have agents, but they are, in fact, part of the Liquor Corporation's sales.

We have had, since Confederation, a law that says you cannot sell alcoholic beverages by the bottle on a Sunday. I do not see the harm that has been done with that legislation. That seems to have worked, Mr. Speaker. People who want to drink on Sunday or have a bottle of wine, most of them are smart enough to buy it on Saturday. You see lineups at the liquor store on Saturday when it is 9 o'clock Saturday night or 10 o'clock, whenever the liquor store closes, people going in to get their bottle of wine for a Sunday dinner or whatever they want to get. Nobody has a problem with that.

Now they are talking about increasing sales. Well, let's listen to the logic of the Minister of Finance himself when he made a speech as Leader of the Opposition. Here is what he said on page 2018 of Hansard, December 18, 1997. "By opening seven days a week, is it going to increase sales? Numerous studies have shown - and I will make reference to some of these - that if you are open seven days instead of six there is no increase in sales. There is a short-term period in which you might have an increase and then it bottoms out again. There is no long-term increase in sales. What happens when you open seven days? You have an increase in your variable overhead costs, driving up the cost of doing business which means it cuts into the profit margin."

"So they have two things to do, they have to drive up the price of goods that once again affects the consumer or there is a downward pressure to keep wages where they are. That is the result, because businesses operate for profit and that is fair game. That is what businesses should operate for, profit. I spent over twenty years in business. Businesses want to get a certain profit and if they can't get that profit because of higher overheads, they will either jack up the price of goods or try to keep down the cost of labour and have a lower than normal increase in labour."

That is what the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said in 1997, and there is a logic to that, Mr. Speaker. That same logic should apply here in this House today when the minister jumps on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of cynicism in this Province about politics and you kind of wonder why sometimes, and I am looking at the Member for Trinity North who popped across the House back and forth a couple of times. He is now back there again. But, you know, the people in this Province seem to think -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I have been on this side of the House for nearly fifteen years, I say to the Member for Trinity North, and I am very happy to be here. If to get on the other side means I have to change my colours and give up my party and not support the party that I have been supporting for the last fifteen years - Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to be over here speaking out of the same side of my mouth all the time and saying the same things. But, the cynicism in this Province is because members when they sit on this side of the House say one thing and they criticize the government for what they do and when they get on the other side, all of a sudden they are saying exactly the same things that they were criticizing when they were over here. That is a perfect example, Mr. Speaker, of that type of justification that was used by the minister to oppose the Shops' Closing Act in 1997 and he is now using the opposite to try and justify it today.

The other thing that he said, Mr. Speaker, and this is very bazaar. This is an example of - I was going to say ‘Sullivanian' logic but I am not allowed to use the member's name. The Member for Ferryland, the President of Treasury Board, his logic goes as follows: We opposed it, we were opposed to Sunday shopping but the members opposite did not go all the way. They did not go far enough. They were opposed to Sunday shopping but they did not go far enough so we are going to fix it. That is the logic behind the minister's bill before this House today. That is what he said: We are still opposed to it but you did not go far enough so we are going to fix it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is really going to encourage members of the public to understand the logic and ethics of politics and government in this Province. That you go into office, you take public office, you take the reigns of government and the things that you opposed in the past you take them even further because the people who did what you opposed did not go far enough. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support that. I cannot support that because it is not logical. It does not make sense and there is no need to open liquor stores on Sundays.

I want to back to the argument that was presented again - not just by me, Mr. Speaker, although I presented that argument in 1997. It was before the Member for Labrador West had joined me in the caucus, but there were lots of people over here. The current Member for St. John's West was very eloquent on this topic. The Member for Kilbride, and I have some of his speeches here too but I will not go into all of the detail. He remembers them well. He knows. He was a very good speaker on both sides of the House, but what he said on this side of the House was very much like what I am saying now.

What about family time for people who have to work in stores and retail outlets? I know about this, Mr. Speaker, I have relatives who work in one of the liquor stores, and it is difficult to organize social events when someone happens to be working shift work various times of the week. Sometime you cannot get together on a Saturday night because someone is working. Now that Saturday night can become Sunday night. What is the advantage, Mr. Speaker? No advantage. People are not going to drink more. Is that the hope? Is that the hope of the new chair of the Liquor Corporation, that people are going to drink more booze? Is that why they want to open the liquor stores? Is that the hope, that they are saying: If we open the liquor stores on Sundays, people are going to drink more? Is that what the government wants to encourage. They are already encouraging VLTs by having five of them in every bar and allowing bars to have two or three licences to be able to have greater access to it. We even have people advertising. The Member for Labrador West talked about a place in Mount Pearl - although he did not say that, it was Mount Pearl though - a bar business, offering, as part of its advertisement: Come and buy this business because we have fifteen VLT machines and the profit on them is $250,000 a year; come and buy the bar. Why are there three bars in the one bar? Because the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Licensing Board allows that kind of abuse, Mr. Speaker. There is a bar downtown in St. John's with three bars in it. It is probably one-tenth the size of this room, and the only reason the other two bars exist is so that they can have three more machines, or is it five more? Each bar is allowed to have five machines.

I sat here back in 1992, Mr. Speaker, when the government of the day was introducing the idea of having video lottery machines, and they said they were doing it to stop the maffia, to stop the organized crime. What has happened since then? At that time, there were no VLTs in the Province, and now there is one for every 150 people. The organized activity, which is pretty close to criminal, is being conducted by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and we have the Liquor Licencing Commission cooperating in that by issuing phoney liquor licences. That is what I call them: Phoney liquor licences. They are phoney bars. They are not bars, they are gambling facilities that exist solely for the purpose of having five machines. You have a bartender who is like the Maytag repairman, sitting there passing out quarters or changing money for people, doing nothing because they are not selling any booze. All they are doing is standing by so they can have a liquor licence.

Now, if the government wants to do something about that, Mr. Speaker, they should issue instructions. I am going to ask the minister responsible for the Liquor Licensing Commission, to issue instruction to them to do something about that, go around and get rid of those phoney bars, take away those licences, find out how much booze they are actually selling in those phony bars. If they are not selling booze, take away the licence because it is not a licence to sell booze, it is a licence to print money and to take money from vulnerable people who have gambling addictions.

This legislation is in the same category. We want to sell liquor on Sundays so people will drink more. Well, Mr. Speaker, the government makes lots of money on booze. There are lots of high taxes. People drink and there are some people who are quite religious who are against drinking as part of their religion, and we respect that. There are some people who think that Sunday is a day in which you should not be selling booze, and I respect that as well. We do allow it in restaurants where people are eating. We do allow beer to be sold by special brewer's agents. They don't buy it from the liquor corporation, but we do have the liquor corporation that is designed to control - it used to be called the controllers one time, the board of liquor control and you had to have stamps. I do know if anyone remembers those stamps. Did anyone ever see a book of those stamps? If you wanted to buy a bottle, you had to have a stamp. You were told you were only allowed to have so many per month or whatever it was.

MR. BARRETT: On Water Street.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue talks about it on Water Street. I remember there was a time you could not even go into a liquor store, you would go to a counter. You would never see the bottles. You would go to the counter and you would ask them: Do you have a bottle of this, and they would go get it for you and pass it to you.

MR. WISEMAN: You must be some old.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Trinity North says I must be some old. I tell the member, I was born before Confederation, that is how old I am.

Mr. Speaker, we do have changes. We have seen changes in our laws, but we have seen more tolerance about a lot of these things. We do not have to open liquor stores on Sunday to become a modern society. We have managed to survive very well without this. We do not need to put the people who work in liquor stores, who work for the liquor corporation, through the inconvenience and uncertainty and lack of family time that is associated with having liquor stores open on Sunday.

Mr. Speaker. I do not know why this government is so insistent on these things. They brought this legislation in, in an unseemly haste. In fact, what is very interesting is that back in 1997 one of the complaints of the then Opposition Leader, the current Minister of Finance, was that they had brought this legislation - I think the words he used to complain about it were: Why are they trying to sneak it through? Why are they trying to sneak it through, is what the Minister of Finance said at the time. His complaint was, this was on December 15, that the legislation had been tabled and circulated on December 3, some twelve days before. He said: Why are they trying to sneak it through?

Using his logic, if we are talking about - what is today, the fifteenth? It is exactly seven years ago today this speech was made and what he said was: Why are they trying to sneak it through? It was tabled December 3. Now, when was this bill circulated?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Monday night, so that is the thirteenth. We have had ten days less notice of this bill than the House had in December of 1997, and the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as Opposition House Leader, said that the government was trying to sneak the bill through. Well, if that was sneaking it through, Mr. Speaker, this must be ramming it through, because the public has not been consulted. Nobody knows much about this except that the minister has told the press that it was going to be passed before Christmas, and the Chairman of the Liquor Corporation said he is going to be selling booze on the first of January and hopes to make $2 million or $3 million more.

The other thing that the Opposition House Leader said - and maybe we will, I do not know, the Member for Topsail seems to be exercising her free vote, democratic right. The minister said in December of 1997: I think this is a piece of legislation that members should be able to stand in this House and vote on, a free standing vote without having to cross any party lines. I hope that members opposite feel that they have an ability to do what the Minister of Finance said should be done on the issue of Sunday shopping in that debate back in 1997.

The third thing that the Minister of Finance said, that I agree with, back in 1997 was: I think it is an important piece of legislation. I think it deserves an opportunity to be discussed. I think the people of the Province deserve an opportunity to have their say even if it is a committee here, even if you just make representation to a committee. What he suggested was that there should be some public consultation on a bill of this nature. and I think that is the case, Mr. Speaker. There are people in this Province who have strong feelings on this. There are people who are concerned about selling liquor on Sundays.

The Member for Humber Valley, I am sure there are people in Deer Lake who have views on this. I am sure there are people in that area who are concerned about the fact that liquor stores are going to be now open on Sunday, as well as bars and other establishments. I am sure there are people who are opposed to that.

It is not something that is necessary. It is something that offends certain people, and it is also something that serves to decrease family time for people who work for the Liquor Corporation. That is something that is worthy of consideration, Mr. Speaker. It is important for consideration. If it is important enough for Members of the House of Assembly to have family-friendly hours, Mr. Speaker, surely it must be important enough for people who work for the Liquor Corporation to be able to have a Sunday where they can be sure they are going to be with their family.

I see the Member for St. John's West, who is a big, major advocate of family-friendly working hours. She was opposed, opposed, opposed; she was one of the leaders of the pack across here, Mr. Speaker, in the opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: She stayed up all night.

MR. HARRIS: She stayed up until 6:30 in the morning to vote on this. I did, too, and the Member for St. John's West did, and so did her son - so did the Member for St. John's South - and voted against this legislation because they were concerned that Sunday shopping was interfering with family time, and families spending time together.

I want to tell this minister, I want to tell this member, that this legislation is going to do exactly the same thing for people who work for the Liquor Corporation. It is going to do exactly the same thing, and interfere with their ability to have time with their families.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allocated time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank members for an opportunity to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that this legislation is being brought in for the wrong reason in terms of the explanation of the minister. It is being brought in for illogical reasons. It is unnecessary, it is harmful to the people who are working in the Liquor Corporation, and it will do no good to the bottom line of the Province. It will only increase the cost of operations of the Liquor Corporation, interfere with the family lives of people who work for them, and offend many people in the Province who have not been consulted, who have not had an opportunity to debate the issue and make their views known, and have been told by the minister on a Tuesday morning in The Telegram - the legislation having been introduced the night before - that we will do this, we will pass this.

I hope that hon. members opposite are prepared to stand up for what they believe in, and have what the Minister of Finance wanted in 1997, a free vote, to exercise their own opinion on this, and not some caucus solidarity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I do now move second reading of Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 61)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain matters related to Bill 61.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 61?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 61)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

According to Standing Order 47, Madam Chair, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 61, entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury, shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole respecting Bill 61 shall be the first business of the Committee when next called by the House, and shall not further be postponed.

Madam Chair, I do move now that the Committee rise itself, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report progress on Bill 61, and have asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed her to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

In keeping with the notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 47 that I just moved for the Committee stage of Bill 61, I want to give notice as well that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 61 entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board, and any amendments to that motion for third reading of Bill 61, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any amendments relating to third reading of Bill 61 shall not be further postponed.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I will give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 45 entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, standing in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to the debate in Committee of the Whole respecting Bill 45, shall be the first business of the Committee when next called by the House and shall not be further postponed.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with that notice, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 45, entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act standing again in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and any amendments to that motion for third reading of Bill 45 shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any amendments relating to third reading of Bill 45 shall not be further postponed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn and we return tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Wednesday, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 16, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.