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 Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend my congratulations to Qualified Petty Officer 1^st Class Jonathan Dunphy of 237 Truxtun Sea Cadet Corps of Lawn on receiving the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada Medal for top engineer on course this summer.

Qualified Petty Officer 1^st Class Dunphy spent the summer at the cadet summer training center Quadra in Comox, British Columbia. The medal reflects the Army, Navy and Air Veterans of Canada desire to promote excellence and awareness of the Canadian Cadet Organization.

Qualified Petty Officer 1^st Class Dunphy also received the Lieutenant Commander Klingle Award for Top Cadet and the Commodore Award for top engineer after the eight-week program and hopes to obtain a staff cadet position next year as an engineer instructor at HMSC Quadra.

Jonathan is the son of Craig and Cathy Dunphy of Lawn.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of Myles Burry. Myles is an eleven-year-old, Grade 7 student at Lester Pearson Memorial High School in Wesleyville. Over the past two years this young boy has shown ingenuity, creativity and caring that belies his age.

In 2003, Myles and his family were touched by tragedy when his uncle, George Tuff, lost his battle with a disease called Pulmonary Fibrosis. In the wake of this sad and unfortunate event, Myles decided he wanted to do something to honour his uncle and help others suffering from the disease. Being a creative person, Myles decided to put his talents to work and he sketched a number of drawings featuring Christmas scenes which he then had converted to Christmas cards. Myles then donated the proceeds generated from the sale of these cards to Pulmonary Fibrosis research. He is continuing his efforts this year and has already sold 1,600 cards.

Myles' family is part of the research project being conducted at the Health Sciences Centre under the direction of Dr. Bridget Fernandez. A large portion of the funding for this research has, to date, come from the late Mr. Craig Dobbin, whose wife's family has also been touched by the disease. The level of maturity, entrepreneurial spirit and most importantly, heart, shown by Myles Burry, teaches us all that we can do our part to make our world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Myles Burry on his efforts and offer encouragement as he continues this noble endeavour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during the past summer the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor held their 2005 Citizen of the Year Awards, and today I rise to congratulate Paul Hennessey and Albert Evans who were awarded the 2005 Grand Falls-Windsor Citizens of the Year.

For the first time, two people shared the honour to become Grand Falls-Windsor's Citizens of the Year for 2005.

Mr. Speaker, Paul Hennessey, Chairman of the Centennial Committee and Albert Evans, co-chair were jointly nominated for the award by a number of their fellow citizens and committee members. The duo were honoured for leading the organization through a full year of events and festivities. It was indeed a pleasure for me to attend this function at the Mount Peyton Hotel where I expressed to the nominees their valuable contribution to the town.

Mr. Speaker, the nominees for the Citizen of the Year were: Barbara Smith, Louis Alteen, Paul Hennessey and Albert Evans. All of these nominees have helped to build and strengthen our town and enhance the lifestyle of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Paul Hennessey and Albert Evans, the 2005 Grand Falls-Windsor Citizens of the Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Humber Valley, it is with pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today with great pride to congratulate and acknowledge the career of Darren Langdon. On November 5, a retirement reception was held at Deer Lake in his honour.

Mr. Speaker, Darren not only made it to the NHL, but he spent twelve seasons there, and with 521 NHL games played, Langdon leads all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this category, and less surprising, might be his penalty minutes for a total of 1,251.

Darren has proven to the young boys and girls of this great Province that if you work hard enough and follow your dreams, they will come true.

Darren now resides in his hometown of Deer Lake, where he is enjoying his family, operating his own business and currently playing hockey with the Deer Lake Red Wings, a passion he will always have in his heart.

I would ask that all hon. members join with me today to congratulate Darren on the wonderful career he had in the NHL and to wish him all the best in the years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to congratulate Ms Joyce Hancock, the 2006 recipient of the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case.

Mr. Speaker, the Persons award annually honours five Canadian women for their outstanding contribution to the promotion of women's equality in Canada and who have demonstrated leadership and excellence in carrying out that work. Only those recipients whose effectiveness and courage have advanced the cause of a quality for women in significant and substantial ways and who have enriched communities through their efforts are chosen for this honour.

Mr. Speaker, Joyce Hancock has spent nearly three decades as an advocate and activist for women's equality, equity and inclusion. She has led the way for women's equality in community development and social justice in Newfoundland and Labrador for more than twenty-five years.

An inspired feminist leader, Ms Hancock was president and chief executive officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Council on the Status of Women from 1996 to 2006. During that time, she also co-chaired the Coalition of Provincial/Territorial Advisory Councils on the Status of Women, helped guide the Minister's Committee on Violence Against Women, worked tirelessly with the Premier's Council on social development to develop a social audit and advise government on social and economic policy and regional decision making led a grassroots lobby effort, Mr. Speaker, which resulted in provincial funding to local women's centers throughout the Province.

She helped fund both the Newfoundland and Labrador Elizabeth Fry Society and the Women in Resource Development Committee, which works to increase women's participation in resource-based training and employment.

In 2000, under Ms Hancock's leadership, the Advisory Council brought together hundreds of women from all parts of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, thank you in appreciating that this is a woman of substantial accomplishment in our Province. I certainly appreciate the time to conclude my statement.

The Advisory Council brought together hundreds of women from all parts of the Province in a conference entitled: Exploring Common Ground. That same year, she also organized and coordinated participation by Newfoundland and Labrador women and women's groups in the World March of Women.

She was a founding member of the Bay St. George Status of Women Council and served as the council's executive director and as coordinator of the Bay St. George Women's Center in Stephenville from 1985 to 1996. In 1994, Ms Hancock was chosen by OXFAM Canada to serve as a peace-monitor and election observer in South Africa's first post-apartheid election.

She is a mother of two adult children and now resides in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues in the House to join with me today in congratulating Ms Joyce Hancock, who is a recipient of the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case and for her accomplishments in the Women's Movement in Newfoundland and Labrador.

She is joined with us today in the gallery by her daughter Robyn, her sister Bernice and her nephew, Marcus. So, I ask you to extend your congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring a special birthday greeting to one of the oldest residents in my district. Today, November 22, Mrs. Fanny Short is celebrating her 102^nd birthday.

Mrs. Short was born in British Harbour, Trinity Bay and later moved to Catalina and then on to Old Bonaventure. Currently, she is residing at Blundon's Personal Care Home on Random Island.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Short remains active and enjoys the company of her family and friends who are joining her today in a very special celebration.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Short has witnessed many changes in her lifetime, including the resettlement of her home community of British Harbour. She dealt with the death of her husband in 1953, leaving her to raise her family on $25 every three months. I am certain there were many challenges in her lifetime; however, she still cherishes the life she has had and she is proud to share the memories of her many life experiences.

I ask the members in this hon. House today, together with all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, to join me in celebrating the 102^nd birthday of Mrs. Short. We celebrate a great life of a great women who had made a great contribution to her family and to her community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statement by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of another new initiative to diversify the economy and create meaningful employment in our agriculture industry.

I am announcing today that government has agreed to assist Brookfield Dairy Group to expand its premium ice-cream production operation. The expansion will see Brookfield using industrial milk from our Province's dairy farmers to produce high-quality specialty ice creams.

We are investing $1 million under our Agriculture and Agrifoods Development Fund in the initiative, with Brookfield contributing the remaining $4 million. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Province is providing 20 per cent to assist in this industry expansion and our private sector partner is investing the remaining 80 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, government supporting this type of investment is important, as it works on so many levels.

Under this plan, Brookfield has committed to expand its processing operation in St. John's and to create forty-four new full-time, permanent jobs over the next five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: The Province is confident in Brookfield's plan, as the company has a proven trace record in the ice cream business, with eighty-seven full-time and twenty-three part-time employees.

Mr. Speaker, these are secondary processing jobs that add significant value to our milk production. Supporting the development of higher-level processing in this Province is a key element of our plan to diversify our economy and keep these jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As part of this initiative, Brookfield has committed to buying 1 million litres of industrial milk from our dairy farmers each year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Our dairy farmers joined the National Milk Marketing Plan in 2001 and were allocated an annual share of the national Market Sharing Quota.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: The goal was to produce 31 million litres of industrial milk annually by the year 2016. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we are on track to reach that goal. This year, the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador will produce 17.5 million litres of industrial milk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: While our farmers have been exporting the vast majority of that milk up to this point, this announcement and other initiatives currently being worked on are helping to ensure more industrial milk will be processed right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to our farmers and to giving them the tools they need to continue the work right here in this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where innovative farmers are building a future for themselves and for their communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Certainly, it must be a polling period again. Here comes the paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: It is very nice to see that we are finally having some public pronouncements from the Minister of Natural Resources when it comes to agriculture, because it has been very confusing to the public. We have the Minister of Aquaculture attending an agriculture convention in Belgium. We do not hear anything from the Minister of Natural Resources -

MR. REID: In Russia.

MR. PARSONS: In Russia, excuse me.

The Minister of Natural Resources finally comes out with an announcement today; yet, all we hear in the public is a certain individual involved with the Federation of Agriculture saying we cannot get a meeting with the minister. It is obvious that this is just a paper exercise given for a polling period again.

The other piece is, it is quite obvious that this money is a drop in the bucket to what is needed in the agriculture industry in this Province, and it is shameful what little attention this Administration is paying to the agriculture industry in this Province, and we have many, many more serious issues that are not being dealt with. For example, we have the Sprung property in Mount Pearl now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Will it continue to be used as agricultural land, or will it be put up for real estate? We have all of those serious questions out there. Where is our mink farming going, given the Minister of Environment's announcements about certain proposals that were put forward for here on the Northeast Avalon?

Let's not see this fluff stuff. Let's see some substantive initiatives from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture and dairy industries are very important to our Province, and any type of support they can get, I am sure they warrant it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Also, Mr. Speaker, the Brookfield Dairy Group has been a long-term employer in this Province, providing many good jobs over the years, and it is good to see them expanding rather than to see shipments coming into the Province from other provinces where things are produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is not more that needs to be done - I am sure there is - but any start, any initiative, is certainly welcomed by our Party while we acknowledge and tell government that there are many other areas that need to be worked on, but we welcome any initiative that may be put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to advise my hon. colleagues that today, November 22, is National Housing and Homelessness Day. It is a day to raise awareness and draw attention to the goal of eliminating homelessness in Canada.

As well, 2006 marks the tenth anniversary of the national Raising the Roof Toque Campaign. Proceeds from this year's campaign will go to local shelters and supportive housing providers, including: the Tommy Sexton Centre, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, Salvation Army, St. John's Native Friendship Centre, Choices for Youth, and the Stella Burry Community Services Centre. These are associations that we at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation have also supported, and I was pleased to join with them today as they launched their campaign.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005-2006, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, in partnership with the federal government, invested approximately $77 million in support of social housing programs throughout our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: The corporation also provides approximately $8 million in home repair grants and/or loans to more than 1,900 households annually which help keep low-income families in their own homes for as long as they can and prevent homelessness.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, through the 2006 Affordable Housing Program Request for Proposals we will also successfully increase the number of seniors and other supportive housing units in our Province by 125-150. Approximately $9 million was made available under this program to private and non-profit sector developers across the Province, who submitted fifty-eight proposals in total.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated leadership and a commitment to strong and meaningful social programs and services. We have implemented a Poverty Reduction Strategy with a commitment of over $60 million annually to improve the lives of low-income Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As well, our government has contributed to a home heating rebate to allow citizens more affordable and comfortable winters.

Further, Mr. Speaker, to improve the living conditions of those who need our help the most, we have increased Income Support rates by 5 per cent and expanded the Provincial Prescription Drug Program to include some 37,000 individuals and gradually increasing to 60,000 individuals. These are just some of the initiatives undertaken by our government to assist those who need help the most.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we are committed and willing to listen, learn and work with all community groups and levels of government to find the best possible solutions that will help us to alleviate homelessness and improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our most sincere congratulations and appreciation are extended especially to the St. John's Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness, and to all those involved in today's campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister, first of all, for the advance copy of the statement.

I want to congratulate the St. John's Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness. I want to say to the minister, and to the people in the House, I was there at the initial anniversary of that particular Raising the Roof Toque, and people like Jocelyn Greene from the Stella Burry organization have done tremendous work, and others who have supported it there.

Also, I want to say that this particular committee, when I had the opportunity to be Minister of Housing, were really supportive, and I am sure they will continue to support whoever is in office to improve the life of people who are homeless.

As the minister said, there is a lot that has been done, there is no doubt about that, over the years, but there is still a tremendous amount of work needed to help the homelessness in the Province and in the St. John's area. It is good to see additional supporting units made available through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and that is their mandate: to help those who are in need. There are still -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. LANGDON: There is still an urgent need for those who are at the lower rung of the social economic ladder to receive programs to improve the quality of life. The minister already talked about government expanding the drug program, but there is still an urgent need for expanding provincial drug programs for those who cannot help themselves.

When we think about it, when we live in a society like ours and there are times that we can help those who are unable to help themselves and are more vulnerable than us, we should do everything that we can, as a government and as a people, to improve the quality of lives of the people involved.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his speech today.

A couple of things: I am very pleased with what the government is doing around housing, and there is doubt that we have had a lot of improvements here in St. John's over the past ten years when it comes to shelters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: However, I have one concern that I would like to raise. Social housing, as we know, is extremely important, but NLHC, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, over the past few years, has sold off too many social units. This is an issue all over the Province, particularly here in St. John's, but in Labrador West as well. We still have too many people on waiting lists for social housing, so I guess what I want -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final statement: I look forward to the government improving on what it is doing so that we have nobody left on waiting lists.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier; I hope he is not in the suing mood today.

On a serious note, Mr. Speaker, on Monday in the House of Assembly, the Premier rose and said that he was surprised at the number of people who showed up on Kenmount Road a couple of weeks ago to look for employment outside of our Province. He said, as well, in the comments in the House on Monday, that he wasn't that surprised that they leaving because they were looking for higher wages.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year when FPI was involved with negotiations with the plant workers on the Burin Peninsula, John Risley asked them to take a cut in pay. The Premier stood with John Risley at that time and said that the plant workers there should actually consider that, that they should take a cut in pay.

How can the Premier say that when his colleagues - and himself, on occasion - are out saying that the reason people are leaving the Province is to seek higher wages, when he stands with Mr. Risley and tells plant workers on the Burin Peninsula to take lower wages?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has done more in the last three years to create and increase the number of jobs in this Province than they did in almost fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They don't want to hear the answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't want to hear an answer, Mr. Speaker.

We have 214,900 people working in our Province, the most in our Province's history, and in the two previous years we had the second and third most working in our Province's history, I might add. In fact, during each of the years from 1971-1972 up to 2004-2005 there was an out-migration number, net out-migration, that exceeds what it was almost three times during our three-year term. In fact, from 1971 to 1993, there was an out-migration of 3,800. From 1993 to 2005 it averaged 5,000 a year. For the last three years, even counting an increased amount this year, it has averaged one-third of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you should tell that to the people in the Stephenville area and on the Connaigre Peninsula and on the Burin Peninsula, and maybe you can go and tell it to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are now in Fort McMurray who want to come home.

Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported in the media that Persona and Rogers have contributed significant amounts of money to the PC Party over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the current Premier, the individual who sits across the floor from me, asked the then Premier Roger Grimes, and I quote: Do you think it's appropriate that you should solicit and accept donations from someone with whom you are entering into negotiations? Is that a conflict of interest? Do you see anything wrong with that, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do?

I ask the Premier: Do you still stand by these comments and do you see anything wrong with accepting donations from Rogers and Persona, two companies with whom you are currently negotiating?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, fundraising is part of the political process. The hon. member opposite knows. They had Mr. Graham in town last week, and he was there for a fundraiser last night. We had a fundraiser.

The way the system is set up is that we have to solicit corporate funds in order to keep our parties going. That is the way the system works in Newfoundland and Labrador. If at some point in time it has to be changed and the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to fund political parties, well then so be it, but right now there has to be a solicitation process. When I was in the private sector I donated to the Conservative Party, I donated to the Liberal Party, and I donated to the New Democratic Party because I believed in that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: It was not okay in 2002 when you were in Opposition, but it is okay today when you are in a government and you are negotiating with these people. That is what you are saying, that's fine.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recently invested significant amounts of money in an underwater fibre optic project to the Magdalen Islands.

I ask the Premier: If there was a need for this fibre optic cable in our Province and everything was so squeaky clean, as you say it is, why didn't the federal government invest money in this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that because, you know, I do not speak for the federal government. All I know is that Persona and Rogers actually asked us to approach the federal government to see if they would actually fund it, which we did, and they would not. They said: No. We have no control over what the federal government does in that particular situation. As a result, we stepped up to fill the void because this was a good rural Newfoundland and Labrador project that is going create1,650 person-years of employment, and $120 million in wages and it is going to save the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $400 million. That is why we did it, and it made good sense to me at the time, I can tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: So what you are saying, Premier, is you have no idea why the federal government said no.

Mr. Speaker, this morning in a technical briefing, officials from the Department of Innovation, Trade -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I get protection from the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition posing a question. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning, in a technical briefing by officials from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, it was confirmed that Memorial University pays little or nothing for broadband services. Meanwhile, the Premier and the minister have been out stating publicly that the university pays between ten and a hundred times more than other universities in the country.

I ask the minister: Will you explain why you have been saying that the university will save money when in actuality a federal government agency, called Canarie, provides broadband to the university free of cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition not only does not read but he also does not hear. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is the Canarie network is funded through federal and provincial funds. One-third of the cost of the connection from St. John's, Newfoundland, Memorial University, to Halifax; one-third of the national network is to cover the cost from St. John's to Halifax.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if the funding that is available to Memorial University to connect to Halifax was able to be funded, able to be spent in a competitive nature, consistent with what it is in the rest of Canada, we would have greater access to broadband. We would enable our researchers at Memorial University to have, as Chris Loomis said, connectivity comparable to that already in place in other parts of Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador should not expect or settle for anything less. This connectivity is absolutely critical for building and maintaining a competitive research environment on which innovation, the development of value-added products and services, and the creation of highly skilled jobs depend, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

You wonder why we are asking for an inquiry into this project, when we just came out of a briefing less than half-an-hour ago with my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, where the question was asked: How much does Memorial University pay for that service today? We were told by your own officials that they do not pay anything because it is paid by a federal government agency. Now you are standing in the House and talking like they are paying something.

Why is your story different from the story that was given to us half-an-hour ago by one of your own officials?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My story is not different from the rest of my officials, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is it costs ten times the amount to reach from Memorial University to Halifax, Nova Scotia, as it does for Dalhousie University to connect over a comparable amount of distance in the rest of Canada.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it will save money because if we want to have Memorial University on the same level playing field as the rest of the educational institutions in Canada then we have to find the rest of the money. Quite frankly, in Memorial's budget, which comes from the provincial government - and part of it comes from the federal government - they cannot afford that additional connectivity. As a result, Mr. Speaker, they will save money because they will have greater access to the research network. They will have increased bandwidth. They will be able to attract more than the $80 million in research funding that they have right now, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that you are not paying anything now, so I do not know how you are going to realize any savings.

The Minister of Business has stated publicly that with this $15 million investment government is never going to have to pay for the use of fibre services again. The report prepared by Electronic Warfare Associates quotes Persona as suggesting that with this increased competition government will see a possible savings of 50 per cent.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: What is it, will there be no cost or half the cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If they were light bulbs, Mr. Speaker, they would be about five watt, that is how bright they are.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the media had a technical briefing this morning for forty-five minutes to an hour and they got it. They understood the concept. They understood the facts. They understood the merits. They saw what was being presented. They understood the background to it, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition had a briefing for about the same period of time and they did not get it, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that they have not got it or they disregard it. I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that they have not got it because at the end of the briefing today they asked for a further briefing tomorrow so that they could maybe get it through their heads, what is going on here.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we did not say there would be no cost. We said that we would not have to depend on somebody else's carrier service for our Internet access.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, at least he gives me credit for being bright, instead of being a burnt-out light bulb going through three departments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is going by very quickly.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: By the way, Mr. Speaker, we had to ask for the briefing; it wasn't offered to us.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in announcing the establishment of a Business Advisory Board when he took office, said, and I quote: The newly established Business Advisory Board will report to the Department of Business and provide advice and recommendations to the government.

The Premier appointed Dean MacDonald to this board. I ask the Minister of Business: Was the Business Advisory Board asked for input on this unsolicited proposal?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say this to the Member for Grand Bank: It is a lot better to be going through three departments than to be a burned-out government and end up in Opposition like happened to them three years ago. With their performance on this file, and their leader sitting at 7.2 per cent, they will be there for a while yet.

The fact of the matter is, the people who are involved in the technology industry in Newfoundland and Labrador have been consulted on this. The people who are involved in advising governments, agencies, departments, and what have you, worldwide on this type of initiative have been consulted on it, and that is EWA and PriMetrica. All people who have been involved in a technology industry who know anything, unlike the Opposition who know nothing about telecommunications, have agreed that this is a good deal and should be supported by government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to get elected as a government; but, the thing is, you have to keep your promises, like to the people of Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, the government's own promotional material, which is available on the Web site, lists several activities as ineligible services for funding by the government. One activity considered as ineligible for government funding is, and I quote: To assist a business to gain market share from other local companies.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: How do you explain giving $15 million to this consortium?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will they ever, ever, ever get it through their heads that we are not giving $15 million to anybody? We are taking $15 million and we are buying an asset in the form of a number of fibre optic strands that are wrapped in tape, and duct tape, and whatever in the world it is wrapped in, whatever they wrap that stuff in, rubber, casings and whatever, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You need a lot of duct tape to hold that place together over there; that is all I will say, Mr. Speaker. I think you will need more than Red Green to put that one back together, and all the king's men won't put Humpty Dumpty back together either.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are spending $15 million to buy an asset that will enable government to meet its data transmission and Internet connectivity needs for the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are buying. We are not giving money to anybody, unlike the crowd opposite when they were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand why the pharmacists are leaving the Province and the government is buying $15 million of duct tape, by the sounds of it.

My questions today are for the Minister for the Status of Women. Taking Our Places has been an initiative of the Bay St. George Status of Women Council for the past seven years. They are now closing their doors and laying off employees. Their proposal for phase five of funding was rejected by the federal government based on a recommendation from the Minister for the Status of Women in our Province and the member for that district, who sent the message to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, that they could not support this proposal.

I ask the minister today: Why did you not support the proposal, and why did you shut down the important work of this group in the Stephenville area after seven years of programming?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to clarify that the Bay St. George Women's Council has received funding from this government, and actually has received increases every year since we took government, and we continue to maintain that money to the Bay St. George Women's Centre.

Mr. Speaker, there was a proposal put in to the Status of Women Canada for a project from the Bay St. George Women's Council. That proposal, certainly, was in conjunction with doing some work that is being done on the Poverty Reduction Strategy by this particular government.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal was put in; however, a copy was not given to the Women's Policy Office to review. I was asked for a letter of support and, Mr. Speaker, when I approached the Women's Policy Office in an attempt to support that project, we realized that we did not have a copy of the proposal.

When we dealt with the Women's Council, they felt that, as part of that proposal, they did not have to necessarily come and review it with us, and the Status of Women Canada and their local office here certainly submitted it on to Ottawa without consulting us; but, Mr. Speaker, what is important here is, when the federal government provides funding to the women's centres to do work, that is going to look at the work of this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard: the Women's Policy Office didn't have the proposal. The minister met with the group in August. She sat in their office for several hours. She was thoroughly briefed. She was given a copy of the proposal, and she made a commitment to write a letter of support. Instead, her office went to Ottawa, stopped the grant of $180,000 from going to this women's group. Minister: Why the about-face on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear that I did not receive a written copy of that proposal until after it was submitted to Ottawa and the Women's Policy Office had to track it down from the Status of Women Canada in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, what is important here is, when the federal government is going to provide money to assess and look at ways to improve provincial policies, and we have a Women's Policy Officer, I think it is incumbent on the federal government to recognize us as a partner and consult with us and look for our opinion. We do this work day in and day out in this Province and we deserve more respect from the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the response from the minister is: I was sooky and I didn't like it. They were bypassing my office, so I intervened and I stopped it.

Minister, let me say this; let me ask the minister this question: First of all, the Status of Women group in Bay St. George briefed myself and the hon. the Leader of the NDP - and she can speak for herself - that you were given a proposal, you were well-informed, you committed to a letter of support, and you did not deliver. Now, they have written you, they have written the Premier, they have asked for an apology, and they have asked for your department to ante up the $180,000 in funding that they have lost. Are you prepared to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we did not have a copy of that proposal. We asked from Ottawa to get a copy of that proposal.

When I was asked for a letter of support, I asked for a copy. I asked the Women's Policy Office to review the proposal. We were not given a proposal at that time and, Mr. Speaker, I will say that any time I am asked for a letter of support on any proposal, I don't know what the previous Minister Responsible for the Status of Women would do, but I will want to see that written proposal before I will write a letter of support.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to add that we will continue to work with the Bay St. George Women's Council. We are actually going to be meeting with them this weekend. We certainly want to support a proposal from them. We want to make sure that we clarify the process between the three levels, between the council, between us and the federal government. We have a commitment with them. We have been talking to them and we will continue to work with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister would know that any proposal that goes through the federal Status of Women office does not have to be approved by her office, does not have to be sanctioned or anything of that sort, Mr. Speaker. They only asked her for a letter of support as a courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question. On October 17, I listened to the minister on the radio denouncing the federal government's cuts to women's groups. Mr. Speaker, all the while she was interfering in Ottawa with a proposal by the Bay St. George Women's Center trying to get money.

I have to ask: Why is it that the Women's Policy Office, Minister, under your direction is now interfering with equality seeking groups in this Province that go outside of your government looking for money?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points. One, anytime we are identified as a partner in a proposal we are asked for a letter of support. The Women's Policy Office will review the written proposals before we write any letters of support.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I also want to make the point, as the hon. member made, we have no veto power over the decision making of the Status of Women Canada. Despite the fact that we wanted to see that report and we had not put in a letter of support, they still had the jurisdiction to fund that if they wished to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to recognize the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the member.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that any government or any minister would stop a non-profit group doing work around women, poverty and equality in this Province from accessing government funding which has nothing to do with them.

Let me ask the minister this question. I just learned this morning that the federal government is going to close the Status of Women Canada office right here in St. John's. They are going to, in fact, have three across Canada, one in Quebec to service Eastern Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the minister would like to intervene there and save that office.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of issues recently that, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women or the Minister of Education, we have addressed in Ottawa. One was certainly the funding for the Community Access Programming, or CAP. Another was the literacy cuts and the other was when we heard that they may be taking the capacity to do employment equity out of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we went to Ottawa, we spoke with our elected officials from Newfoundland and Labrador and we represented what we thought was right for this Province. If they are going to make a decision to remove that office, we have no problem, once again, making our views known to our elected federal officials.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Homelessness is growing in our Province. Agencies are seeing more people have nowhere to live and whose lives are in crisis. The federal government has not yet decided whether to renew the National Homelessness Initiative, which has provided shelter space in this Province, and good shelter space. If it keeps delaying, then some shelters will not get built here next summer as planned.

What are the minister's plans for continuing to pressure the federal government to renew the National Homelessness Initiative?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the member, I appreciate the question. She was at the event that I was at today on homelessness. As I said at the event, and I say it here in the House again, it is incumbent on this government - which I have written the federal minister. I have met with the federal minister. Senior officials from housing have met with deputy ministers in Ottawa. I ask the members opposite, including the member herself, Mr. Speaker, to talk to all their colleagues in Ottawa, because the fact of the matter is, we support it. I asked in my last letter that this be urgent for this Province. It is a no-brainer, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that it has to continue and that we certainly support it. I ask support for all of our colleagues in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, my question was asking what the minister would do further. I would like to say that the National Homelessness Initiative was designed for larger cities but homelessness is growing in rural locations, particularly in Labrador City, Gander and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Would the minister continue in his discussions with the federal government and ask them to expand the National Housing Initiative to include smaller and rural communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, because it the same thing I have said to officials in my own department, that we just cannot look inside the urban centres of St. John's and Corner Brook and so on, because we do have problems in Labrador West that I am quite aware of, and within our departments of government here we recognize how serious that is. We have to move outside the overpass, as we say, because the problem is throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I will be urging the federal government to look at the rural centres as well as the urban centres, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his reply.

In the last six months, over 150 adolescents had to be turned away from the youth shelter in St. John's because it does not have the capacity to do intake of youth after hours.

Will the minister commit to providing this and other shelters with the resources they need to adequately meet the needs of young people, no matter when they arrive at their doors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right and it is a very serious concern that we all have in this department.

I can tell the member that just today, as a matter of fact, before we went to the event today, I told the three social work students, who took it upon themselves just a few weeks ago - and I think most members know - to go out on the streets themselves for twenty-four hours and see exactly how it affects them. They reported back. I am meeting with those three students next week and we are going to work to continue to support these youth groups because we know that is a cycle that has to be broken with the youth in this Province. We are certainly committed to making that an urgent response to the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It became known to the media last week that the companies involved in the fibre optic consortium deal were not registered pursuant to the requirements of the Lobbyist Act. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, of course, being the lead minister on this file, I ask the minister if he can tell us: Have you followed up on this issue with the Commissioner of Lobbyists? If so, can we have a copy of whatever you corresponded to the Commissioner, and, if you haven't, do you intend to do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition House Leader would know, the legislation stipulates that it is up to the private enterprise, the lobbyists group or the company that may or may not have people engaged in lobbying, to determine whether or not they meet the requirement for registering with the lobbyists' registry and they must take the initiative to deal with that. I can only say that we contacted the lobbyists' registry to determine who was or was not registered as it related to this deal and telecommunications generally, and as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is as much as we are required to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite frankly, that does not tell us very much. When did you consult with the Registrar of Lobbyists to find this information out, and what was the form of communication? Was it in writing? When is very, very important. We are talking about companies here who have solicited the Province for $15 million, and it is your department, Minister, that is carrying the ball on this and has recommended the payment of this money. I would think it is an essential part of any due diligence check that this government would do as part of spending $15 million, that you would check to see if these companies are in compliance with our laws. Now, what did you or did you not do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as the Opposition House Leader knows, as a former Minister of Justice and a lawyer, he knows that legislation requires the companies to determine whether or not they have to register as lobbyists. There is no requirement of the minister, the department, the government or otherwise, to contact the lobbyist registry to find out who may or may not be registered.

I, Mr. Speaker, have not contacted the lobbyist registry to see if anybody from the Penny Group, for example, is registered in our deliberations on continental stone. I have not contacted the lobbyist registry to find out if anybody from Cooke Aquaculture is registered with the lobbyist registry; nor have I consulted on any other deal that comes in front of us. That is not the requirement of government. That is the requirement of the company. If they are found not to be in compliance, then it is a legal issue that must be taken up by the Department of Justice and the police.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole To Consider Certain Resolutions Relating To The Advancing Or Guaranteeing Of Certain Loans Made Under The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It looks like I might just get in under the wire. I would like to present a petition again on behalf of the residents of Ramea. Again, I explained yesterday the circumstances pertaining to why the people of Ramea are putting a petition through the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile as opposed to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. It is a joint effort by both of us, but the physical facilities they are looking for would be situated within the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

The issue is that people who use the ferry service on the South Coast from Burgeo to Ramea - they do not have any washroom facilities in Burgeo. So, if you come across from Ramea and you go and do your shopping or your business in Burgeo, or up to Stephenville or Corner Brook or anywhere else - or your medical needs - when you come back and you wait for the ferry, you wait, and you had better hope you do not need to use the washroom while you are waiting because your nearest washroom that you have access to is either home, across the stretch to Ramea, on the ferry when and if she gets in, or you have to go to some public place in Burgeo; and, by the way, there is no public place near the wharf facilities in Burgeo. It is not like in Port aux Basques or somewhere, where there might be a public washroom you can run into, someone else's place. If you want to use the washroom while you are waiting for the Burgeo to Ramea ferry, you physically either have to go and knock on someone's door and ask them to let you use their washroom, go to a hotel which is about two or three kilometres up the street, or, as often happens, of course, you have to do it right where you are.

That is what is the inhumane part of this, the health piece of this. The people are simply saying: Give us a porta-potty or put some kind of facility there so that we can, in some kind of human dignity and decency, have a washroom facility while we are there. They have expanded it and said, why not even have a little whatever, twelve by fifteen waiting room area, that we can put it there, tie in a washroom facility.

Look, just remember, these are not healthy persons all the time. These are sometimes handicapped persons. There could be people with small children. There could be senior citizens who cannot easily get about, and you cannot be expecting these people in this day and age to be running off up the road to the Burgeo Motel because they need to use the washroom.

So, I put it to the Minister of Transportation and Works, who is responsible for that service: Please, this is not a frivolous type of request. This is a very reasonable, humane request, and we would certainly like to see something done. I am sure the people of Burgeo will be very co-operative, as will the people of Ramea, to do something jointly, if we could, to get this matter dealt with.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave of the House, if we could just do first reading on Bill 47. We give notice today so it can be printed and circulated, if that would be okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are attempting to have a discussion between the two House Leaders. The Government House Leader has asked for leave to do first reading on a bill. It is 2:59 p.m. He would need some agreement to make that happen. I am wondering if he has leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: We have leave to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, the Loan and Guarantee Act, Bill 48.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, The Loan And Guarantee Act, carried. (Bill 48)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. (Bill 47)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act," carried. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now a read first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it being three o'clock or twenty past, we will call the Private Member's motion that was, I think, introduced by the Opposition House Leader under the name of the Opposition Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Wednesday, we now proceed to the resolution put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

I recognize him to begin his address.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding as well, that I have fifteen minutes to introduce the bill and fifteen to conclude it later on this afternoon. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to present a Private Member's motion calling on the government to

initiate an independent inquiry into this broadband initiative to which the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be contributing $15 million.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion into the record. It says:

WHEREAS $15 million in taxpayers money has been allocated for a project to bring two additional fibre optic cables to the Province in a deal which involves close personal friends and business associates of the Premier without a call for public tenders or a request for proposals: and

WHEREAS many significant concerns have been raised about the lack of analysis, the role of lobbyists, the disclosure of a benefits analysis, the exploration of other options and the procedures followed in allocating this money; and

WHEREAS the government majority on the Public Accounts Committee did not support the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee carrying out an investigation into this matter;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly now calls on the government to appoint an independent inquiry with broad and expansive terms of reference to immediately investigate all the details and circumstances of the fibre optic deal.

Mr. Speaker, I have to give a little history of this so that people in the Province will understand why we are calling for this inquiry and why we are doing it, because we have not received the answers to which we have questioned the government over the past three weeks.

Roughly, about three weeks ago, I think it was on a Friday night at around 9:00 p.m., we witnessed, I guess, what we refer to as a blackout of communications. For example, telephone, Internet service, cellphone services to a large part of our Province, especially on the Northeast Avalon and the greater St. John's area.

Many people said that the reason for this was the fire at Aliant, but the reason they said there was such a blackout was that there was only one fibre optic cable coming into this Province and that cable was supplied by Aliant. As a result, following the Friday night, there was an outcry on behalf of the people. They said what was needed was another company, other than Aliant, to have another fibre optic cable placed across the Province so that we would not experience this blackout in our communication services ever again. That fibre optic link, they were saying, should go from St. John's across the Province and hook into the mainland, across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This other line would also provide competition and, as a result, would result in cheaper costs to consumers of Internet, to government and institutions and the local population.

Shortly after the blackout, the government came out with an announcement - I think it was roughly eight or nine days after the blackout, the government came out without any public fanfare. I think the Premier was out of the Province at the time and the proponents, I think, from Persona and Rogers were probably out of the Province as well. Without any fanfare, it was announced by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development that the government would be putting $15 million of taxpayers' money into a consortium of companies made up of Persona, Rogers Communications and MTS Allstream, three companies that made up a consortium. We were going to put $15 million towards a $52 million project to a fibre optic cable from St. John's to Halifax. Actually, it was only in the last day or so that we realized it was going all the way to Halifax, because it was our understanding, first of all, that it was only going to go as far as Cape Breton Island.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the fact that the government never put out a Call for Tender for this project - they did not ask for proposals and nobody knew, actually, that Persona and Rogers and the like were companies who employ close personal friends of the Premier and previous business partners and associates - we started to raise questions. Why is the government investing $15 million of our money, the taxpayers, people out there who are watching us today, why the government is spending $15 million of your money to help a consortium run a fibre optic cable off to Halifax? If you had listened to the people who came out and spoke, like the Mayor of St. John's and the president of the Board of Trade, they said that this was required because we only had one fibre optic link to the mainland. So we started asking questions and we have been asking questions now for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Dillon from the Board of Trade, who happens to be an employee of Rogers Communication.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we started asking questions some three weeks ago and the more questions we ask, the more questions we find we need to ask. The more often we hear the minister in the House of Assembly and in the media, the more questions we feel that we should ask. When the Premier gets involved, we have to ask more questions.

Then, as late as 11:30 this morning, our caucus, the Liberal caucus, along with the NDP, met with a group of officials from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the officials who are taking the lead on this project. We met with them and, as a result of that, we even have more questions that we should ask and have to ask. Because a lot of the questions that we asked and we got the answers to were not sufficient in our minds to justify the spending of the $15 million, last week, or the week before, we asked that the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee hold public hearings. We asked the Auditor General to go off and investigate; but, in addition, we asked that the Public Accounts Committee hold hearings so that we could bring - because the Public Accounts Committee of government is somewhat independent and it has the authority to subpoena witnesses to come before it, so the Public Accounts Committee could have called anyone. It is almost like having to appear in front of a court. Even if you do not want to come, if the Public Accounts Committee subpoena somebody to come and stand before them or sit before them, that individual or group of individuals are obligated under the law to do so. So, what we wanted to do was for the Public Accounts Committee, independent of government, to establish a review of this and have the power to call people in to get to the bottom of exactly what was going on about this deal, because that is all we have been asking for, Mr. Speaker. We have been asking for the details, and those details have not been forthcoming.

As you all know, we have asked - I asked, I think, fourteen questions myself yesterday in the House of Assembly. My colleague from Grand Bank asked five or six questions. We have been doing this both in the Legislature and in the media now for three weeks and we have not been getting the answers that would satisfy in our minds why the taxpayers of this Province are subsiding three companies to the tune of $15 million to put an additional fibre optic line across the Province when we found out, since all of this started, that Aliant currently have two fibre optic cables across the Province, and if we put two more there it is highly unlikely that the blackout that we experienced some three weeks ago will be prevented in the future. There is no guarantee that, even if we put two additional lines at a cost of $15 million to the taxpayers, that is going to prevent that from happening again. We have asked a lot of questions and we have not gotten a lot of answers, which leads....

I don't think it is just politicians who have suspicious or inquisitive minds, but when you start asking questions and you don't get the right answers, or you get answers that you know there is something wrong with, and then you tie that to a group of individuals who have close personal and business ties to the Premier - of course, you get suspicious. What is going on here? Why are we subsidizing a couple of multinational companies to run this cable across the Province to compete with Aliant? Why don't they do it themselves? Why doesn't this group of companies do it themselves? Because, if they were to do it themselves we would not be debating this in the House of Assembly today. We would not be talking about it.

If a company or a group of companies want to come into this Province and invest their own money, do their own thing and compete against another company then we have no problem with it; but, when we are asked to subsidize companies like Rogers Communications, Persona and MTS Allstream, then we have a right to ask questions. We have a right to know if that is a wise investment that the people of this Province are making.

You have to ask yourself: Who are these group of companies? Rogers Communications, for any of you who do not know, is not a poor company. I do not think they need the poor taxpayers of this Province to subsidize their venture in the Province, because Rogers Communications is one of the largest cable providers in North America. Anyone who turns on a television, it is almost impossible to miss the number of stations that Rogers provides, not only in this Province but around North America.

They are not a poor company. They are an international, rich company. In fact, they are paying larger dividends to their shareholders than most companies that trade on the stock market. Rogers Communications also, Mr. Speaker, owns the Toronto Blue Jays. That is not a company that is short on cash; they own the Toronto Blue Jays. The Toronto Blue Jays' payroll last year for their ball players was $200 million, Mr. Speaker. They are paying their ball players $200 million. In fact, just recently, in the last few weeks, they went out and they wanted to pick up a new designated hitter for next fall, or next season's ball team. They just offered one individual, I think, $16 million to be the designated hitter on the Toronto Blue Jays. Yet, a company with such wealth is asking the taxpayers of this Province for $15 million to help subsidize an initiative that they are going to carry out in this Province that will compete with a company that already exists in this Province, that already employs hundreds of individuals in this Province, that being Aliant. That was one of the problems we had with it. That was one of the problems we had with it.

We had lots of questions and, because we raised all of these questions, the minister of industry thought that he was going to put a squash to all of this the other day when he said: Here, the reason we are doing it is because we had an independent company out there analyze this project to see if this was a good value for the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Here, he said, here is the analysis that was put forward by a company called Electronic Warfare Associates. The minister went out and paid them to come in and have a look at this proposal that was put forward by Persona and Rogers, two multinational companies, and say: Does the Province really need to put $15 million in that? So, the minister contracted that company to do it, Electronic Warfare Associates, and he presented their findings in the House of Assembly the other day.

Now, I thought that might be the end of it, after I read this report from Electronic Warfare Associates, that would be it, that would satisfy our quench for more knowledge about this initiative, that it would satisfy the people of the Province, that because this company, an independent company, the minister said, went out and analyzed it, that we would be satisfied, we would not have to ask any more questions.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have read it. The minister accused me of not reading it, because I asked him fourteen questions about it yesterday. I would suggest that he did not read it himself; because, once you start to read the report, it raised more questions than it gave us answers. It raised more questions than it gave us answers, because the minister has been out there talking about: We are going to be buying fibre on the line. When you are talking about fibre optics, it is cable. I think it is about one-and-a-half inches in diameter, and in that you have all of these little, tiny fibre optics. He is saying that we are going to be buying a couple of them. Even though there might be hundreds or thousands in that cable, we are going to buy a couple of these and, as a result of buying these couple of fibres -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) duct tape.

MR. REID: The one that he said today was wrapped up in duct tape, I might add.

He said: As a result of buying these fibers, we are going to be able to save a lot of money on what the university and the hospitals and the government pay for long-distance telephone charges, local telephone charges, and Internet access.

Then I read the report from the group that the minister commissioned to see if this was a good deal and right there in it, it says: At present, the government has no use for these fibres.

We are going out and spending $15 million to buy a few fibres when the government, according to this report, Electronic Warfare Associates, says we don't have any need for this at this particular time.

The minister and the Premier have been out there in a tirade in the last few days talking about all of the benefits that this project is going to have for the Province, when right in the report it states that - the people he has asked to do this report, EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates - they cannot quantify the benefits to the Province. They cannot quantify the benefits to the Province!

Another question that this group was asked is: Do Persona and Rogers need $15 million worth of taxpayers' money to do this project? Their answer was yes, but then they go on to say: However, we have not been given any financial statements by any of these companies. We do not know how much money Persona and Rogers are going to make from this project once it is installed. We do not know how much money they are going to make from it. In fact, at one point in this study, EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates, even suggested they could not even tell, with the information that they were given from Persona, if Persona was solvent.

Mr. Speaker, just imagine! This report says that we should give them the $15 million based on the information, but they did not even have enough information to know if Persona was solvent. In other words, Persona could be bankrupt, yet we are going to give them $15 million. It also says here, if there are any cost overruns on this project, they do not know if Persona can cover the cost of the overruns, yet we are going to give them $15 million. We do not know, for example, if -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have some protection from the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: He is going to have ample opportunity to stand this afternoon. I would suggest he read the report before he makes statements (inaudible).

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are at least eight-nine questions that I have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is expired.

MR. REID: Can I have a minute to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I am saying is I have at least eighty-nine questions that I would like to ask about this project. We cannot get the Premier and his government to agree to the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee looking at it, so that is the reason we are asking for an independent review of this, so that the people of this Province will have an opportunity once someone who is independent of government, someone like Justice Greene who is investigating us or our constituency allowance, comes in and look at this. If that individual or group of individuals says, listen, this is all above board and this is a great deal for the Province, I will certainly get up and say: Great! Go ahead and give them the $15 million. I hope they do not expect me to just say: Yes, this is all fine and this is all rosy. We are not giving you the information, we are not going to answer your questions, but trust me this is worth $15 million; trust me.

The minister is going to stand now in a minute. He has been telling us for two weeks that the University pays ten to a hundred times more than any other university for its internet access and we find out from his own officials today that the University, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, actually pays nothing - nothing! - for their internet access.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue at the end of the afternoon when I get an opportunity to speak for fifteen more minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the merits of the proposal I just have to go back at the Leader of the Opposition on some of his assertions here today, because he comes into this House and he goes outside of this House and he gets on the radio and he gets in front of a TV camera and he continuously makes misleading statements; continuously, continuously, Mr. Speaker. Now, I am not suggesting that he does it purposely, Mr. Speaker, but certainly the statements that he makes are inaccurate and he does it consistently.

I will just point out one. He is talking about the EWA report not having access to Persona's financials, Persona's complete balance sheet, solvency position, stuff like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes they did say that, Mr. Speaker.

He neglected to say that they identified in this - and he talks about potential cost overruns and how that should be dealt with. What he neglected to say, Mr. Speaker, is that EWA said: As a result we are unable to comment on Persona's solvency nor its ability to fulfill its comments to cover the cost overruns. It goes on to say - a very, very critical piece, Mr. Speaker: Our suggestion to solve this would be to require Persona to post a bond to cover both the completion of the project and any cost overruns that may occur which Persona has indicated a willingness to do. A very important piece, Mr. Speaker, but, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, that is not politically expedient to point that out.

He also neglects to say, which I have said also previously to today, Mr. Speaker, Persona has indicated their willingness to us to provide their complete financials on a confidential basis so that we can determine their solvency, Mr. Speaker. They will provide it to EWA but they will not provide it, Mr. Speaker, to the general public because they are a private company and that is the norm in any business, Mr. Speaker. That is the norm. It was the norm when they were in government, it is the norm while we are in government, and it will be the norm if the NDP get in government. It is the norm everywhere in this country and everywhere in the western world, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition needs to stick to the facts, and if he wants to debate this deal on the facts, fine, but at least stick to the facts and stop with the misrepresentation.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, he states there is no need for the fibre. What bunk! What bunk, I say, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is the report does not say there is no need for the fibre. The report that was completed on June 21 said that government had no intention to use the fibre, what we had articulated on the day that we made this announcement. Mr. Reid, of course - I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I apologize, the Leader of the Opposition. I know I am not supposed to mention people's names in here. The Leader of the Opposition chooses again not to hear that. I guess that is what it is, he chooses not to hear it and he chooses not to read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do not want to hear it.

MR. TAYLOR: That is right. They say there is no one so blind as he who would not see and no one so deaf as he who would not hear, Mr. Speaker. That certainly sums up the Leader of the Opposition.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, as we said right from the beginning, our intent and our absolute commitment is we are going to use this fibre. We are going to light this fibre, we are going to use it for government's network, and we are going to use it for our data transmission requirements, Mr. Speaker. There is no need for it. Forget what the government is saying. Forget what EWA is saying, Mr. Speaker.

As for this issue of Memorial University, well, Mr. Speaker, I do not speak for Memorial University but I know a couple of people who do and they put out a press release on this. The President of the University and the Vice-President of the University, what did they say? What did Memorial University say? "... a second fibre optic link would ensure Memorial's educators, researchers and students would have continued access to transmit and receive data. As well, the fibre optic link will have implications both for rural connectivity and distance education, both of which have great significance to this institution."

They go on to say, "For example, last year, researchers at Memorial brought in more than $80 million in external funding for their research efforts. These researchers depend on a stable fibre optic link on a daily basis."

"An additional fibre link has the potential for achieving this objective. The university's requirements for transmitting very large and complex data are related to research and state-of-the-art education."

I thought that is what we wanted in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is apparently what Memorial University wants. That is what this government wants. That is what the Minister of Education wants. That is what the people in the technology industries want. That is what the people who are engaged in research initiatives in the private sector, people like Dr. Wayne Gulliver, people like Siobhan Coady, people who are involved in transmission of comprehensive and large data files, Mr. Speaker, that is what they want. The people at Nati, Newfoundland Association of Technology Industries, that is what they want. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Opposition wants.

If you listen to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, the Outer Ring Road would have never been built. Although, they built it. If you listen to the Opposition - because there was a way of moving from the East End of St. John's to the West End of St. John's, but you build the Outer Ring Road and you opened up more area for development. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to them, the road up the Northern Peninsula would never have been built because you could get up the Northern Peninsula on a dog team, or you could get up the Northern Peninsula on a coastal boat, or I suppose, like Matty Mitchell did a hundred year ago with caribou for Dr. Grenfell, you could walk and you could take three months to do it. But no, we have advanced, Mr. Speaker, we are not going back there.

Modern societies and modern civilizations - communities that are engaged in research and development require this type of infrastructure and everybody who is involved and everybody who is on the leading edge of technology development and research in Newfoundland and Labrador have told us that we need it. Are they all wrong, Mr. Speaker? Is Memorial University wrong? Is Dr. Chris Loomis, the Vice-President of Research at MUN and Chair of the Canarie board, is he wrong? Is he wrong when he says we will have connectivity comparable to that already in place in other parts of Canada? Listen to this; quite the opposite of what the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition says. Dr. Chris Loomis says this: This connectivity is absolutely critical for building and maintaining a competitive research environment on which innovation, the development of value-added products and services, and the creation of highly skilled jobs depend.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the hon. crowd opposite every day talking about out-migration and we are losing our skilled workers and what have you - and what do you do, only talk to the Minister of Business about: What are you doing to attract business in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, ask him. Ask him if the people from BlackBerry, Research in Motion - but I mean, they wouldn't know who that is. If I said RIM, they would not know what it is because they probably have not turned over their BlackBerry to look at the back of it and see RIM written on it. If they did, they probably would not know what RIM was anyway, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, yes. You will have your turn, Kelvin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just raise a point here. We get carried away sometimes emotionally, and that is understandable, especially when we talk about things in the heat of the moment.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: You can have whatever time I take in the course of making this. I have no problem with that.

It is very disconcerting here in the last few days from this particular minister - and I refer you to Hansard of yesterday, when we heard about the stunned people, the nobodys across the way. Now today words like bunk. I mean, as much as he might think we are in some club or bar somewhere, I would think his language has been, on many, many occasions in the last couple of days, inappropriate. I would suggest that the Chair ought to bring him to his attention. Standing up and saying people do not know what RIM stands for. You can make your points, I would suggest, Minister, without having to be unparliamentary and without having to be totally, personally condescending towards anybody else in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has noticed that the intensity of language sometimes is common on both sides of the House at various times, especially in Question Period. I would ask of all members, to be respectful of each other, to be respectful of the House and to refrain from using language which members might find offensive or insulting.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that the Opposition House Leader is much more sensitive when the slurs are going that way than he is when the slurs are coming this way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: He is much more concerned, and as usual - I will say this, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is unparliamentary, but his self-righteous indignation is a little much to take, to be quite frank about it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will just continue on as I was saying. RIM, Research In Motion, who developed BlackBerry - Mr. Speaker, they just got up on a point of order, now I will just ask if they are going to get up and ask me to behave myself than just give me the time of day to say my piece without interruption.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Research In Motion is in the process right now of establishing a 1,200-person operation in Halifax, Nova Scotia as their technical service and support centre for BlackBerry worldwide.

If you want to ask a question, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, to the Minister of Business, ask him if RIM approached Newfoundland and Labrador. Ask him if, from a business attraction perspective, they were approached to see if they would set up that 1,200-person facility here. No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no, they were not. No, they did not come here. Why didn't they come here? Because they would not depend on a single carrier environment and it was cost prohibitive for them to put their facility here because of the rates that are being charged for off island connectivity from here to Halifax. The fact of the matter is, if you want to do business on a scale that BlackBerry is doing it in the world and you want to do it in Eastern Canada, you cannot come east of Halifax, as we currently stand.

I will go on, Mr. Speaker. What did Todd Hiscock, Chair of Nati, say? This will better position our Province as a place to invest in research and development, deliver new and exciting services to business and consumers alike and further our ability to compete globally in this knowledge-based economy. What did Sydney Ryan from Telelink say? I strongly urge the government to support this initiative. Phonemed: We ask you to strongly consider a dual system for both voice and data.

Mr. Speaker, the merits of this proposal, the evaluation that has been done, speaks for itself. I cannot help it that the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader and the rest of the people who sit in the Opposition, or at least in that end of the House, Mr. Speaker, do not understand or choose to ignore the facts that are put in front of them. The fact of the matter is, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who are engaged in the technology industry believe that this connectivity is required.

As for the Leader of the Opposition suggesting, well, there are already two lines, he did not know that there were two lines. You know, that boggles my mind. Anyway, he did not know that there were two lines. What we have always said, Mr. Speaker, is that there was one carrier. There was no carrier redundancy. We did not say that there was no cable redundancy. There is cable redundancy, but even if we did say that, which is beside the point - which we did not - but the fact of the matter is, that system has failed twice in the past couple of years. That system has failed twice. We need carrier diversity.

Another fact that needs to be put out there: It has been estimated that if we lose our connectivity to the outside world for one day, the disruption to government, the economy and everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador would cost approximately $15 million per day; $15 million per day in direct costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What will we do? What are we going to do, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to continue on the way that we have been going? How are the people at Telelink, how are the people at Converges, how are the people in Memorial University, who are trying to attract $80 million and trying to build on the $80 million that they have attracted in research dollars over the past number of year, how are they going to explain to the people outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, who they are working with, how are they going to explain another breakdown in this system? Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the communication system in Newfoundland and Labrador has to be restored. We are willing to work with Aliant. We are willing to work with Aliant as we have in the past. Aliant has had -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand I have a couple of minutes left.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, of all political stripes, has worked with Aliant in the past to build the infrastructure that they have in Newfoundland and Labrador and we see no reason why we cannot work with them in the future. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the world - while the Leader of the Opposition and others in the Opposition suggest that Rogers is not a small company; Persona is not a small company; MTS Allstream is not a small company, well, Mr. Speaker, Aliant is not Newtel. Aliant is not that little old Newfoundland and Labrador company that was kicking around here in the 1960s, 1970 and 1980s. Bell owns Aliant and, Mr. Speaker, Bell is one of the biggest companies in the world, too.

Mr. Speaker, what are we to do? If anybody owns an yacht, or if anybody is involved in something extracurricular outside of their business activities, we are not allowed to engage in discussions with them on fostering economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador? I guess, Mr. Speaker, we must pick up the phone, call Cooke Aquaculture and ask them to return our $10 million, because Glenn Cooke is not a small guy either. Glenn Cooke is the biggest aquaculture operation in North America. Maybe we should call Continental Stone, Mr. Penny and Mr. Williams, who are not small boys in the Newfoundland and Labrador context, nor in the North American context, Mr. Speaker, and tell them: No, boys, we are not even going to consider what you are proposing to us on an aggregate quarry development in Belleoram. Forget it. You are big and ugly enough to look after yourself.

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that. We are not going to say no to Brookfield. We are not going to say no to Continental Stone. We are not going to say no to them just because of who they are, how big they are or whatever. We are going to look at what they propose, we are going to judge it on the merits of the proposal and, Mr. Speaker, if it makes sense, we will work with them every day that we get the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whenever the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stands up, you never know what is going to come out of his mouth. I have to say, he says it boggles his mind that the Leader of the Opposition actually thought there was only one cable link across this Province. Well, he should also be boggled by the fact that his own leader, according to a story in The Telegram, thought there was only one line across this Province, and this is a man who apprized himself on having twenty-five years of experience in the communications business. Here, in a story, the October 27 edition of The Telegram, headlined, "Province ponders second line in wake of phone outage," - and, it says: Williams said Newfoundland is considering construction of a second fibre optic link to Nova Scotia.

It doesn't make sense that you would have the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stand up and say he is puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition didn't know there was a second line when his own leader obviously either didn't know or had a lapse of memory when he did the story that there was a second line. It doesn't take a lot to boggle the mind of the minister of industry.

The issue here, Mr. Speaker, is - there are two points here. One is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Grand Bank and I would ask the co-operation of all members so that we can hear what the member is saying.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the protection from the members opposite, who do not want to hear what someone else has to say because they think they have all the answers.

Let's talk about priorities here, and that is what this comes down to, priorities of a government who does not know but that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is good to eat. They certainly do not know what is going on in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when the Premier stands in his place in the last couple of days and says how surprised he was that 9,000 people turned out for a job fair, when people were recruiting people from this Province to go to Alberta. So, talk about priorities and talk about an understanding of what is happening today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other issue here with this whole project is how the process was handled, and the perception out there that all is not above board; and, of course, it has to do with the players involved who are personal friends of the Premier. So, this is perception and these are issues that need to be dealt with, and what we are doing here in saying: Let's hold the agreement up to scrutiny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please offer some protection from these members?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it goes back to the point that they do not want to hear the truth. They do not think anyone else has anything to offer to this debate because they have been told, obviously, that there is only one line to toe here, and that is that this is okay. Don't give it any scrutiny, don't debate the issue, just try and somehow attack the individual who is trying to put across other points of view.

Let's get back to priorities, Mr. Speaker, $15 million. Now, what could this Province spend $15 million on - taxpayers' money - other than making a contribution to a consortium who can well afford to do this project on their own? We are talking Rogers, we are talking Persona, and we are talking MTS Allstream, three companies who can well afford, if they want to come into this Province and compete with Aliant, they can well afford to do it, just as Aliant can afford to compete with them.

How else can we see $15 million being spent, other than making it possible - because, even though the minister said today, let's get it right, we are buying cable here - albeit, he said, this thing being connected with duct tape, I can tell him he can get a lot more duct tape at the dollar store for $15 million than he is going to get from this particular agreement.

Let's get it straight here. Even though he says we are buying fibre, by buying that fibre we are making it possible for this consortium to come into this Province and compete against a local company. When I say a local company, you can argue that, well, you are talking Bell Canada here, but you know there are hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working for this company. There are hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are retired and living in this Province. So, when the Premier talks about, you know, how can you pick on a local company like Persona? Well, Aliant is a local company. Let's have a level playing field here. Why would we turn around and give $15 million to a consortium to come in and possibly - possibly - end up taking away the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are presently working in our Province and making a contribution to our Province?

So let's talk about priorities. We have pharmacists who are leaving our Province. They met with the Minister of Health and they felt comfortable about that meeting. They thought he was listening to their concerns, and I don't doubt that he was, but when he took their issue to the Minister of Finance, I am told, whoa! Hold on a second now, we can't do one-offs. It doesn't matter how many pharmacists leave this Province, how many people in Newfoundland and Labrador are left without their services, we cannot do one-offs.

Paramedics: I have met with the paramedics in my district and I can tell you they are hard done by. These are individuals who work around the clock, who are expected to provide the kind of service that can be a life-saving service, in fact, but there is no continuity, there is no consistency throughout this Province in how these paramedics are treated.

I don't know how many of you heard the lady from Garnish on the Open Line show the other day, Mrs. Rideout. Mr. and Mrs. Rideout find themselves in a situation that is deplorable. It is humiliating, in fact. They work in the fishery, and Mrs. Rideout has MS and cannot afford to purchase the drugs. So, what are they being told? They are being told by government: If you want to give up work, sell your boat, anything that you have, if you want to sell it and go on social services, then we might be able to help you.

Can you imagine how humiliating that is to people who have worked all their lives to provide for their families and survive and make a contribution in a community like Garnish which is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a sad set of circumstances when this government does not see fit to provide the funding to ensure that people who require this particular drug can avail of it.

What about nurses? I am told they are not happy with their lot. Why wouldn't we be looking at that $15 million and seeing how we can do something in the health care sector? Because there are so many issues: pharmacists; paramedics; nurses; doctors; and the recruitment of specialists. I am told that in one part of our Province we have a board that, in fact, put up $20,000. I am told that they are not allowed to do that, but what else were they to do in terms of recruiting a specialist? People are being forced to do things because this government is not paying attention to what is happening throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the circumstances that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are finding themselves in.

We have hundreds of boil water orders throughout this Province; hundreds. People are living in communities who cannot drink the water. They have to boil the water. Heaven only knows -how do you teach a child not to drink the water? You know, how in a school when a child goes to drink out of the water fountain - how do you convince a little five year old not to drink it? These are issues that need to be dealt with in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I look at $15 million going into a consortium to make it possible for them to compete in this Province when the government's own guidelines with respect to financial help, there own guidelines which are on the website for anyone to see, say: Government will not assist companies to compete with a local company in the market. It is up, it is up on the website. That is exactly what is happening here with what this government is doing by handing over $15 million to the consortium. That is the problem we have here today. Priorities: government has them all wrong. Obviously the government has them all wrong and I think the majority of people, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, will send that message loud and clear.

Whether or not the Premier wants to admit it, the perception is out there that this deal smells. Even though he has said that personally he took this initiative off the table because he thought it could not stand the political test, I wonder what he did to sweeten it up to take off some of the odour so that it could go forward? I am assuming it went forward to Cabinet and it was approved by Cabinet. I do not know, I am assuming that is what happened here.

The reality is that we are looking at a deal here where we have to question the process, we have to question who is involved here and we have to question government's priorities. It may be a good deal. I do not know. We are not given enough of the detail to determine whether or not it is a good deal. We know we have this report from Electronic Warfare Associates, who I understand really looks at security issues and engineering issues. I am not sure why they were asked to comment on economic issues and whether or not it was a good deal economically, because that, from my understanding, is not what they do. That is exactly what they did, and anyone who takes a close look at that Electronic Warfare Associates report would have to have as many questions as we do about what has transpired here with respect to this consortium and government's involvement in it. I say involvement, because if you are going to take $15 million of taxpayers' dollars and make it possible for this consortium to compete with a local company, then you are in fact investing in this company.

Sure, you can say you are buying cable. Alright. But, you know, you must have thought or I think you would have thought to speak to Aliant and say to them, you know, do you realize that if we go down this path this is going to cost you money, Aliant. Because if what they say is true, my fear is that government is going to automatically just switch all of its business over to Persona. If that happens, what happens to the employees at Aliant? Are they not setting up a situation where all of government's work will be done by Persona, subsidized by the taxpayers of this Province?

Persona is on record as saying: With this deal, we can offer service to government for 50 per cent of the cost. But wait now, we are paying $15 million, so you should be able to offer services to government for 50 per cent of the cost. My heavens, upfront $15 million! Factor that into your bottom line, you should be okay.

There are so many questions being raised about this deal. Is it any wonder we would be standing here today calling for an inquiry. Why would government object to an inquiry? If it is so squeaky clean that the Premier can stand there and say there is absolutely nothing wrong with this deal, why would government object to an inquiry? I would think they would welcome an inquiry. I would think it would be a golden opportunity for the Premier, whose relationship with the business partners involved in this is brought into question. I would think that the government would welcome this inquiry.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Speaker, thank you.

I want to speak to this Private Member's Resolution today. We have heard a lot about the merits of the business case to be made for investing the $15 million, and I want to leave that alone. My colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, did a tremendous job of that earlier as he mapped out the benefits. I want to stick to the resolution itself because I think there is some merit, probably, in the resolution, particularly where it says: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly now calls on the Government to appoint an independent inquiry with broad and expansive terms of reference to immediately investigate all the details and circumstances of the fibre optic deal.

We heard the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile yesterday talk quite eloquently about the importance and significance of public inquiries and why that legislation should, in fact, be passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: As I listened to the members talk about this particular deal, I think, Madam Speaker, it is important for this House to reflect on some past experiences. If we are going to look at the fibre optic deal itself - and the members opposite think this particular investment, the purchase of an asset, warrants a public inquiry. I wonder how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the members of this House would want to look at some other things that have happened within this Province and whether or not we should lump them all together. I think, if we are going to look at this fibre optic deal, maybe we should look at the Apollo contract; maybe we should look at that one. Back in 2000, when the members opposite sat on this side of the House in government, about ten days before the close of a tender that had gone out through the Public Tender Act, a public document, they went out ten days before it closed and changed the criteria so that the existing boat that is owned by a company that was founded by a member of this Legislature, a Liberal sitting member of this Legislature at one time, a founding member of that company was able to be successfully awarded a contract with a boat that was deemed by the federal department of transit as being too large for the docking facilities. Maybe we should look at that.

Maybe we should also look at the fact that just prior to the last provincial election that same crowd opposite, while they were over here in government, took that same contract, a year in advance of its expiry, and automatically extended it untendered. What was so miraculous after that - this happened just several months before the election call, which the Premier had full knowledge of - the owners of that now company made a $5,000 donation to the provincial campaign of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; $5,000 just several months after their company was awarded a contract - not awarded, but had a contract extended. Maybe we should lump that Apollo deal into this inquiry as well. We could have an inquiry going on for years.

If we are going to add the Apollo one in there, what if we also look at CHC Composites? Why don't we look at that? My colleague for the District of Gander - obviously, a great company in his particular community and constituents of his are working there, but at the same time, I have to say, Madam Speaker, the members opposite, when they were in government, did not buy anything. They did not invest anything. They gave CHC Composites about 50 per cent of the total investment. Of a $20 million investment, that government gave them $9 million and did not own a thing, did not buy anything, not a thing. Then, just before - these people opposite had a busy June month in 2003, knowing that they were coming up for election. They extended the Apollo contract but they then gave CHC Composites another million in June of 2003. And, what was that? Just on the eve of an election, I say, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

So, if we are going to talk about inquires, Madam Speaker, why don't we be all encompassing? I mean, I might even support this resolution if we are going to be all encompassing, if we are going to throw all these sorts of things on the table for an inquiry as well. Maybe we will add Apollo Contract, we will add CHC Composites.

What about Bristol Communications? From the year 1999 to 2004 they had over $20 million of benefit from this government untendered; $20 million. It is ironic that Bristol Communications was the same company doing public relations for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. What a coincidence. Now, would you believe that? If we are going to be looking at investigations, I just wonder how come in 2004 Bristol Communications gave the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador $186,597? If we are going to be adding things to a list, why don't we add Bristol Communications?

Now we have Apollo, we have CHC Composites, we have Bristol Communications. Now we are starting to shape up. We should have a pretty good inquiry. Now we are going to have - as I listened yesterday, with a great deal of interest, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile really stretched the limits -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - of relevancy when he got up to talk. In fact, he spoke for an hour and he said he now has two minutes left. He talked about a piece of legislation, an act dealing with public inquires and he spent his entire hour talking about the fibre optic deal. I just happen to wonder - I mean, I pose a question. It is ironic that this fibre optic cable is going to run through the south coast, in his district, out into Port aux Basques, all along the south coast, including the communities of Burgeo, in his district? It is going to be a major benefit to his particular district but he actually spent an hour yesterday condemning the deal because it was not beneficial. I pose a question. I do not know, but I wonder: Does it have anything to do with the fact that Sunset Solutions, a company in his district owned by his family, have a relationship or are into this business? The question is: Does it impact that business? Maybe we should ask that question. Maybe it is something we should ask an inquiry to look into. Would it have an impact? Would the protest be as strong if it wasn't? I mean these are all questions.

Just like the Opposition said yesterday, there are many unanswered questions. I am not suggesting for a moment there was anything untoward here, but as the Member for Grand Bank - and I think her words were perception. Maybe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Liberal Party supporters getting contracts for boats, nothing wrong with Liberal Party supporters getting 50 per cent investment in their company, nothing wrong with posing the questions. It is a perception, but inquiries, as the members opposite said - members opposite said inquiries get to the bottom of all that. If we are going to ask for an inquiry into a solid investment decision, if we are going to be inquiring about situations or instances where government is buying an asset, if we are going to be doing an inquiry on superficial things like that, then we definitely should be looking at things where there is a real perception of wrongdoing, where public funds are, in fact, getting money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Trinity North, and I am having trouble hearing him.

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Speaker, the list goes on.

As I listen to the members opposite rattle over there now, and particularly the Member for Bay of Islands who is the Chair of Public Accounts - I mean, why would we want to allow Public Accounts under his chairmanship to have people from the business community of this Province come in and subject themselves to that kind of harassment by the Chair of Public Accounts? I mean, it would be like a kangaroo court. What we are seeing exhibited here today in the House, I say, Madam Speaker, is a classic example of the behaviour by members of the Opposition when they have nothing substantive to talk about, but really, really want to create an illusion that there is something actually wrong taking place here. They just cannot acknowledge that there is something going right here.

The list goes on, Madam Speaker. Like I said a moment ago, we can have an inquiry established here that could get a pension out of it, it could be so long.

Madam Speaker, let's look at the Lower Churchill deal; the deal that wasn't. All the promotion was done, pictures taken, ads developed, videotapes done. The whole thing was done. Consultation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, we have Reid and Associates, the brother of the current Leader of the Opposition, former minister of a former government, doing consulting business. A question was: How much money was involved? The question is: Was he involved with, as a resource consultant, the Lower Churchill project? Did he receive any money for that? Was it tied to, in some fashion, the $14,000 donation made to the Liberal Party in 2003? Was there any connection?

Just a perception. Just a question. Members opposite can float the words out, their questions, their perceptions; I am posing the same thing. These are questions that are legitimate questions. Maybe if we are going to have an inquiry, maybe we can throw them all in there. We should create a list of all the things that have happened in the last five or six years in this Province that fall into the same category, the exact same category; in fact, many circumstances much worse than the situation and circumstance being described here. If we are going to be having an inquiry, why don't we create a list? Why don't we establish a permanent inquiry? These things are substantive pieces of work, I say, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: When we start looking at the Apollo contract, that, in itself, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair sits in this House session after session after session and complains about ferry service in Labrador, complains about it. It begs the question: Where that particular ferry lands in Labrador, does it have any relevance or have any impact on the member's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask for order in the House. The Chair cannot hear the Member for Trinity North speaking.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I think it is a testimony, Madam Speaker, to the sensitivity on the other side to the history that they had in this Province when they sat here.

I was about to say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, when she has been asking questions in this House about where the ferry lands, I wonder, Madam Speaker, where the ferry would land on the South Coast of Labrador, would it have any real direct benefit or negative impact on her family business if it lands in Cartwright versus somewhere else? These are all interesting questions when we start talking about conflict of interest.

The problem here, I say, Madam Speaker, if you look at this resolution, the substantive part of this resolution is right in the first paragraph. The fact that the Premier of this Province has had a successful record in business, through that process has surrounded himself with competent and capable people who have gone on to be successful in business themselves, because they are now doing business with government, the fact that they now are continuing to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is some question about it. There is some question about it, I say, Madam Speaker. They are raising questions about successful, competent business people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They sit here in this House and criticize the Premier for taking a strong stand and making sure there are no more giveaways, and getting our due investments in those kind of industries. They are talking about a situation where, in fact, we are buying an asset from a group of people who have proven that they make an investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They have proven a successful track record of investment in this Province, creating employment, stimulating the economy - the kinds of people we want to attract and retain in Newfoundland and Labrador - and that is the substance of this.

This resolution is all about gutter politics. Gutter politics, I say, Madam Speaker. When there is nothing else - and the irony of this is when the Leader of the Opposition stands and says: When you can't deal substantively with the issue, you attack the personality. What is he doing here? The exact same thing.

There is nothing wrong with this particular deal. The members of the Opposition cannot find anything substantive wrong with the deal itself. What they are looking at here is: What are the personal relationships of the Premier with successful business people in this Province?

I say, Madam Speaker, if we are going to be discussing this resolution today, let's throw all of these other things on there. Let's throw the Trans City deal on there. Let's go back to the Trans City deal. What about Atlantic Leasing? Let's throw all these things on there, I say, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak to this private member's motion. I have a few ideas, some of which I have not heard spoken about yet, and I do want to speak about them. I am going to talk about the process itself, the whole idea of the inquiry second. First, I want to talk to some of my concerns. I think there are some broader questions to be asked than I have heard from either side of the House at this moment.

Government is being asked and wants to put $15 million into a private consortium to compete with another private company. We learned this morning, in the briefing that we had with the officials from the department, that the consortium said and proved, apparently, to the government, that it needs that $15 million in order to get an adequate return on its investment.

Now, that is quite valid, and I do not have a problem with companies wanting to get a return on their investment, but they are asking government to play that role. So, then, the question for me becomes: Is that government's role? Again, there are two sides to the answer to that. It is quite possible that it is government's role if government is also getting back an adequate return on the investment, and that becomes the issue.

So far, in the briefings that we have had, and in the discussion I have heard here in the House, I am not convinced yet - I am not saying I cannot be; I am not convinced yet - that return is adequate, and it very well may be. What I am concerned about is the $15 million that the government is putting in is $15 million of the people's money. Therefore, what is the return on the investment for the people in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hundred million.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I need more information, Madam Speaker, than what is being shouted out to me from across the room, that it is $400 million. This is why an inquiry would help us and help me decide on whether or not I want to support this project.

The people of this Province need to know that the return on the investment is there for them, not only in five years, not only in ten years, but in the thirty-five or forty years that this project is in place, that it is still working. They need to know that the return is there for them, and the government has the responsibility to assure that the public know that. The government has the responsibility to assure that the public interest is always going to be met by this project, and that is something that I do not have enough information on yet.

I don't know what agreements are being suggested. I do not know what demands the government is going to make of the consortium to assure that the public interest is always going to be number one with them as they continue to run this fibre optic project, that as long as this structure, this system, is in place, that the decisions that are being made by the companies that are running this system, that they are making decisions for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - emphasis on the whole of our Province. We need a lot of assurance that the government is having the discussions that look to the future to assure that government does not lose control. Government has a right to make demands if we are putting $15 million in.

We have legislation in place, for example, to assure that FPI is supposed to be there for the good of our people. Even with legislation I am not sure that has really been effective. As a matter of fact, we have lots of examples that it has not been effective.

I have a concern that when government is putting money into something that is not even covered by legislation that the future of it, and the good of the people in the future, is not going to be considered. We have to make sure that at all times this is working for the good of the people in this Province or else the money is being wasted. I am going to want some assurances to show me how that can happen. That is why, I think, an inquiry will be a good thing, because I think we can have those kinds of questions discussed in an inquiry.

Yesterday, we had a very good presentation on Bill 40, the Act to Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, by the Minister of Justice who did an eloquent job of spelling out the benefits of inquiries and what can happen in public inquiries. Going back to that discussion, let's think of some of the words that were used. A process of a public inquiry means that you have transparency, that everybody who has interest in a public issue can have their voice heard, they can find out everything they need to know about this issue of public concern: that it helps with accountability of the government back to the people of the Province; that it helps with the people feeling that they really do know that their interests are at the heart of the decisions that are being made in their name. This is our responsibility, it is all of our responsibility here, to be sure that we are accountable back to the people.

It seems to me that the briefings that we had today were very good even if it had to be asked for. I am glad that it happened and we will continue tomorrow morning because we did not finish the briefing this morning. The media had a briefing, but the media had a briefing where no electronic devices were allowed to be in the room, so they were not allowed to record in any electronic way what was said in the briefing. My question is: Why should briefings be private and secretive? The inquiry will get at that. When I go into a briefing I want to believe that the information I am getting I am going to be able to use again and use it with security. The media have to go out using their memories after their briefing this morning, and I think an inquiry will be another way for the public to be fully briefed. I do not think government should be afraid of that. If this is a good process that has gone on - and I am not saying it is not, I do not know - but if it is a good process isn't it to the benefit of government to have an inquiry so that everybody will know it is a good process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: I learned a lot this morning about how government works with groups, with industry, with people with interests and projects that government is interested in. I learned a lot and I have some questions about some of it and some of it was good, but I think the public needs to learn that also. I think they need to understand how government operates, how government sits with people of interest and how they justify decisions that they make. That is the right of everybody in this Province, not just the right of those who have been elected by the people.

I stand here in a privileged position, as I said in my first speech to the House on Monday. I stand in a privileged position, not to have the position to feel like I have the power and we can take care of it here in this room. There are times when something may be of such interest to the public that it has to move outside of this room, therefore then my responsibility is to speak for that, to speak for the discussion to move outside the room so that the public can have their say, so that they can put their questions to the House and not just depend on me bringing the questions in their name. That is what a public inquiry is all about.

I think, in the interest of allowing other speakers to speak, I am going to leave it at that. Just to finalize by saying, let's not be afraid of a public inquiry. Why should we be? Why should the government be? I think we all should be voting for the public inquiry. I think we all should be voting for this motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the Private Member's Resolution brought forward here today in regards to government's investment in the new fibre optic link, telecommunications link.

Madam Speaker, the investment in the installation of a fibre optic link is good for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is good for the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the bottom line. It has nothing to do with who knows who or whether the Premier had personal business relationships or personal relationships with the advocates of this proposal, the proponents of this proposal, or the individuals involved with the proposal who are behind this link. In fact, the personal relationship between the Premier and the proponents that brought the proposal forward ensured that an extraordinary amount of scrutiny was applied to this proposal. Not only was it scrutinized within the department, within government, but we had a private company review the proposal and they said it was a very good deal.

The Opposition continues to cast aspersions on the character of the Premier and on the character of some of the proponents of this proposal, people who have put their own reputation and their own good name on the line, Madam Speaker, for the public good of this Province. Now I try not to cast aspersions, as I see happen here every day from members of the Opposition. I try really hard not to assign motive, but I mean, everyone in this Province is well aware of the relationship between Dean McDonald and members opposite around the Lower Churchill deal. Mr. Dean McDonald, in the stand that he took in the public interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not make any friends with anybody on the other side of the House. You know, if there is a smell around here, sometimes you have to wonder from which side of the House it is coming.

In this proposal we have experts and specialists in this industry, and people who benefit from this industry have all agreed that this is a very, very good proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: It will provide competition for our telecommunication services and result in better access to products and services at more competitive prices. Now, who can be against that? Only the members of the Opposition.

Government is investing $15 million over the next two years in the installation of the link which will see a private sector investment of $37 million, $37 million of private investment in telecommunications in this Province creating jobs and other services in the maintenance and expansion of that system. The link is important in instilling confidence that we have a reliable telecommunications system that is competitive and comparable to anywhere else in the world.

When we had the 9/11 breakdown, we had the breakdown with Aliant, the Leader of the Opposition was on Open Line and a direct quote, he said: I think that obviously in this day and age, especially in the capital city region, we should have backup in place for emergencies alone if nothing else. We should have backup, and this is what this proposal is partly about, is ensuring that we have that backup. The Leader of the Opposition has taken back some water since then. He said that he did not realize that Aliant had two fibres. Well, the first thing that shows is how very little he knows about telecommunications in the Province. He also did not realize, in making that statement, that there have been at least two occasions when those fibres have been down at the same time.

This network is consistent with our commitment to bringing the same level of service and telecommunication standards to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that exist elsewhere in the country. This has been a vision of this government since we took office in 2003. It is also consistent with our broadband initiative to bring information and telecommunications and technologies to rural and remote communities in this Province, so that these communities can benefit from access to Internet services, video-conferencing and other communication technologies that can enhance and strengthen and create employment opportunities in these areas.

The fibre optic link will bring Newfoundland and Labrador's critical infrastructure to the same level of telecommunications access and capability as we have elsewhere in Canada. Why shouldn't we pursue the same level of service that other Canadians enjoy? Surely, not because the Opposition has decided to play politics with this important link rather than embrace it for what it is; an important economic step in this Province and for the people who live in rural communities of this Province.

This Province has all the elements that we want in telecommunications for the people and for the businesses in this Province. It will provide more options to our residential and business customers. It will connect people in rural and remote areas of the Province, such as the South Coast. It will provide greater opportunities for our schools, for our colleges, for our university, and health care institutions to partner and improve services.

The link, as my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development has pointed out, has been endorsed by a long list of groups and associations. The Board of Trade, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries, the City of St. John's, all of them agree that this is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Maybe the Opposition should have listened to Open Line this morning. Now, we know they are all good at phoning into Open Line, but I do not know how good they are at listening anymore than they are in here. This morning the host questioned why there is even a debate, given that the deal will save the government $400 million over forty years. He said there is no debate at all. Even if the savings are half of that, there is no debate at all, he said. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see this, but the members of the Opposition cannot. The Opposition absolutely refuses to acknowledge and support the valid opportunities for economic development that are going to be created in the Province by this fibre optic link. In the whole of this debate, 100 per cent of their energy has been focused on why we should not do it rather than any discussions of the merits of the proposal.

The Opposition likes to portray themselves as defenders of rural communities. Yet, clearly in debate after debate they show a total lack of understanding for the needs of our rural areas. Our rural communities need to have infrastructure in order to diversify and grow their economies. Right now, 40 per cent of the Province is serviced with infrastructure serving 80 per cent of the people, but we still have 60 per cent of the Province not serviced and 20 per cent of our people still do not have access to IT. We are concerned about that on this side of the House. We are concerned.

We are putting investments in place to ensure that the people of this Province have access to investment tools, that they have access to investment funds, and that they have access to technology so that they can have the same opportunity in rural parts of this Province as we do in the more urban places of this Province. That is why we want to say that we have confidence in the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and this consortium has confidence in the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why they are prepared to put $37 million of their own money on the table to provide these services.

The link will allow more reliable and enhanced products and services to Newfoundland and Labrador telecommunications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: It will save us $400 million over forty years. How many roads can we build? How many schools can we build?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. minister. There are some conversations which are occurring across the floor of the House. I ask members if they need to have these conversations, they could do them outside the Chamber so the rest of the members here can listen to the presentation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is making a multi-million dollar investment in a new fully redundant fibre optic telecommunications link into the national networks and we make no apologizes for that and how we handle the decision to make this investment. We do not mind scrutiny on this side of the House, and we are committed to accountability and transparency.

We do not get up to the shenanigans that we saw in the Public Accounts Committee last week when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair moved a motion that this proposal be sent to the Auditor General for study. When the vice-chair, the Member for St. John's Centre, was endorsing the motion and speaking 100 per cent in favour of the motion, only then, when they realized they had full support of this side of the House, that they withdrew the motion, amended the motion, and changed it to a public inquiry. Pure politics, Mr. Speaker. We are not afraid for anybody to have a look at what we are doing in this proposal.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by the Member for St. John's East, the following amendment to the motion. That the resolution be amended as follows: after the expression, House of Assembly, add the words, ‘in the spirit of openness and accountability', and delete the expression, ‘appoint an independent inquiry with broad and expansive terms of reference to immediately', and insert the expression, ‘to ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House of Assembly to', so that the amended resolution would then read: Be it resolved that the House of Assembly, in the spirit of openness and accountability, ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House of Assembly, to investigate all the details and circumstances of the fibre optic deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will call a brief recess so we can examine the amendment. If we could have it presented to me so I can examine it in my Chambers.

This House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources, seconded by the Member for St. John's East and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. After consultation with the Table Officers, it is ruled that the amendment is in order.

Debate should now continue on the amendment.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources, if she wishes to make any concluding comments.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in the beginning, the investment in the installation of a fibre optic link is a good thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the communities for Newfoundland and Labrador. We stand to save over $400 million over forty years. How many industries can we grow in that time with that money? How can we diversify our economy with the use of that money over forty years? That amount of money will go a long way to providing health care equipment, repairing aging infrastructures in schools, adding more medications to the drug program, helping the homeless in our Province.

The Opposition would forego every one of these things. They would see all of this lost for the sake of launching a personal attack against the Premier and principals - good, solid business people of this Province. If there is anything scandalous happening around this proposal, Mr. Speaker, that is where the scandal is.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about this issue. It is quite obvious by the government moving the amendment they have, to have this referred to the Auditor General rather than to a public inquiry, that exactly what they are trying to do is deflect people understanding what the truth is.

The public already know, for example, that the Auditor General cannot delve into Cabinet confidences. People in the public already know that the Auditor General is limited by the provisions of the Auditor General Act. That is why they are putting this forward, because they want this to be buried, obviously, and hidden from the light of day, but the people will not stand for these types of shenanigans where you try to use technical arguments here in the House to deprive the people of knowing the truth. The truth will come out. It is like we had situations in this Province for years and years where the truth did not get out, such as Mount Cashel, but eventually, after determination and continuation, issues were brought out and it was investigated as it should have been.

The reason we called for a public inquiry, of course, was because we want answers. I say to the Member for Trinity North, for example, my comments here yesterday when I talked about the deal, I, at no time, I don't believe, said that I did not thing it was a good deal. As a matter of fact, I said, if we could get all the details on this we might even conclude that it is a good deal.

The public inquiry - we are trying to get information out here that this government refuse to give us unless we pull teeth. Every time you try to get a bit of information, they deflect from it - we can't give you that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this resolution does not call for a public inquiry; it calls for an independent inquiry. The Auditor General is as independent as you are going to get in this Province, and that is completely in line with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a public inquiry. It is not called for, nor is it there. The Auditor General is independent. They are getting what they called for, and we are specifying it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. PARSONS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious again that the Government House Leader here is trying to use up my time and deflect things here.

It is like Winston Churchill said one time to Stanley Baldwin. He said: Every now and then, Lord Baldwin, you happen to stumble over the truth. You have a look at it and then you move on.

That is exactly what this crowd are doing. Every now and then they try and stumble over the truth. They have a little look on it and then they say: No, no, that is not what we want to hear, that is not what we want to see, and we move on, but the people of the Province will not stand for any Administration giving away $15 million dollars of people's money without knowing that it is being properly spent. Was due diligence done? What are the details of the deal? Was anybody in a conflict of interest in the processing of this deal? That is what the people want to know.

The Member for Trinity North is a great one to be talking about character, investigating and inquiring stuff. This is the fellow who sat in one caucus for six months knowing he was going to cross the floor, and then he crossed. That is a good fellow to take the word of, no doubt about it.

The truth has to come out here. You can hide it. You might hide it here by saying no to the public inquiry today. You might hide it by making resolutions in the Public Accounts Committee, saying we want the Auditor General to look at it, but you can rest assured that the people of this Province will ultimately get to know the full truth of this deal.

We have a minister of industry, for example, who goes out today to the media - this is the minister, by the way, who carried this file, the minister of industry and trade - who gets here today, when somebody asked him a question about what this was about, and says: Oh, you take a few fibres and you wrap them in duct tape.

Now, this is the same person who told the media today, by the way: I wasn't there when the decision was made, because I was down in Florida. I got back and it had been approved, and there was a rush to do a public presentation on this. I had to go to a news conference the next day and I wasn't hardly ready.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Again, a total misrepresentation, Mr. Speaker, of what was said.

He was not, for one, in the media presentation. He was not in the scrum that we did with the media, Mr. Speaker. What was said at that time - the question was asked: Why wasn't a technical briefing done? The technical briefing wasn't done, I say, Mr. Speaker, because the decision was taken on a Thursday. I left for Florida on a Team Canada Atlantic Trade Mission shortly thereafter. I returned on a Wednesday and we did a press conference on Thursday. If he is going to stand up here and talk about this deal, deal with the facts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There may be a disagreement between hon. members, but there is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And the people see again that this is stonewalling. They just do not want the truth to come out and any kind of disruptions that you can throw across the House to interfere with my time, that is what is happening here.

I say again, at the end of the day - and all forty-eight members in this House can hear it now because you are going to hear it later - the truth will come out, whether this is a good deal or not. What are the facts of this deal? Will there be savings to this Province? Was there any conflict of interest? The truth will come out. Now, if you want to keep putting layers and layers and covers over this so that it will not come out until sometime later, later after the next election or whatever, or when the deal is done and cannot be revoked, that does not change the fact that the truth will come out.

I am amazed that a bunch of people who claim to be open, who claim to want to be accountable - as my friend down here, the Leader of the NDP, says: What does anyone have to fear from wanting to know the truth? She stood up here today and she said: I agree with a public inquiry, we should have one. A very unreasonable request, I guess, that the people of this Province should know what the truth is. I cannot understand why everybody is trying to deflect from it and want the facts out there. I would love nothing better than somebody independent and absolutely above reproach say: Great deal! No conflicts here by anybody. Good investment of $15 million. I would agree with that, but that is not what has happened here.

We have a situation that was deemed by nobody else other than our own Premier when he saw it, to say: This smells. He said it twice. We did not come out and say it made a smell, this might smell. This was the very Premier of the Province who said: Whoa, just a minute. We are talking about doing a deal here for $15 million that involves some of my buddies. This smells. He sent it back twice. He said he took it back twice off the agenda because it did not pass the smell test. We can get semantical if we want with words, but when somebody says, my God, that don't pass the smell test, there are concerns. Now, when the very person, by the way, who all of a sudden catches that whiff, smells twice, sends it back twice, I would like to know what happened to take the smell off it? Not once, but twice. And what happened? We still ended up with it, it still smells and nobody still wants to get at the truth. Is it too much to ask that we be allowed the facts so the people of the public can decide if it is a good deal? Why can't we do that?

I enjoyed, by the way, the technical briefing this morning, very good. I appreciate the fact that we were given a technical briefing. The gentleman, Mr. Robert Parsons, who gave the information was very informative but there were lots of questions he could not answer. I said: How do you determine that $15 million was needed to go in? Well, he said, they came to us. The consortium said: This is going to cost $51 million, we have $37 million, can you give us the rest, basically? I said: Whoa, just a minute. So you went off to decide if you could come up with - if that was a reasonable request, to ask you for $15 million. Where does that come from? That's a fine way to do a business. That is all I have, so that is all I can do. You give me the rest. You do not throw around public monies like that. You do not make decisions on spending $15 million of peoples' money with that kind of action. Let's find out what the merits of the proposal are.

I enjoyed, as well, the comment of the Minister of Natural Resources about Mr. Simms and the Open Line shows. Great stuff, because people like Mr. Simms need to inquire. He does not have all the facts. A fine fellow, very inquisitive, very intelligent, but he does not have all the facts. He made comments that he did not have this proposal, for example, from Electronic Warfare. He asked the minister today: Send me down a copy. He is going to and so he should, because we need that type of probing. We need the journalists of the Province - we need the people of this Province to understand the facts. More importantly, that is why we want somebody who is not a politician, who does not have a vested interest of being a Liberal or a PC, who is not grinding any axe in the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: We need someone who is above reproach, who can look at all the details of this transaction and tell us if it is good or not.

For example, one of the members opposite mentioned about: Would this be beneficial to Burgeo? I do not know if it is going to be beneficial to, or harmful to Burgeo, which is in my district. What suggestion is that, because it might or might not be good for Burgeo, which I do not know, that I should keep my mouth shut about it? That is a great way to operate. I do not know what this deal is all about, therefore I cannot determine if it is good or not good for a town in my district and therefore I should sit down and keep my mouth shut because I might hurt the people in my district. Well, folks, I think I have an obligation, not only for the people of Burgeo but everywhere else, to find out if we are spending taxpayers' dollars properly. This is not about the politics of it. That is what is missing the point with you people over there. This is about finding out the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will need some direction. Under Standing Order 63.(6), at 4:45 p.m. the mover of the motion has the right to close the debate. I need some direction as to whether or not the mover of the motion is going to exercise that right or whether he is going to transfer it to the hon. member.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I am through. The Leader of the Opposition who moved the motion in the first place, which has now been amended, is back to do the conclusion on the debate.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I put forward a private member's motion at about 3:00 this afternoon calling on government to have an independent inquiry set up into the deal that we have been talking about, fibre optics. We all remember, it was only about three weeks ago that this whole issue came to the forefront, even though from behind the scenes it appears now that the government has been dealing with this for some eighteen months.

It came about three weeks ago when there was a fire at an Aliant building here in the city. We were all led to believe, following that, in a day or so, that there was only one fibre optic cable linking us to the mainland, and as a result of the fire, that we needed another cable across to the mainland in order for this not to happen anymore. The government, shortly after that, announced that they had a proposal from a consortium of companies, some of which had close personal and financial ties to the Premier in a previous life, that they were going to pay $15 million of taxpayers' money to put this cable across the Province and hook us onto the mainland. Well, when we started to question that, we found very quickly that there was more than one fibre optic link to the mainland. There are actually two fibre optic cables and they were both owned by Aliant.

The Minister of Natural Resources got up here today and said that I did not even know there was only one cable across the Province. Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that 99.9999 per cent of the people in the Province thought the same thing, including the Premier, I might add, because it was printed in the newspaper recently that the Premier himself only thought there was one line across the Province. As a result, there was a great need to push another one across. We had no problem with that. If another company wanted to come in an put another line across the Province and hook us up to the mainland, or if they wanted to put fifty across, we had no problem with that as long as they were going to pay for it themselves, because the two lines we currently have in the Province were paid for by Aliant, with no government help.

When government is starting to invest in a company or a group of companies to compete with a company that already has done that type of work themselves, that raises a question. In fact, the Minister of Business, in his own department, says that the Department of Business cannot give money to a company that is going to compete with an existing company in this Province. So, he is breaking the rules of his own department by voting to accept this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, when we started to peel back the skins, or the layers of the onion as my colleague says, more and more questions began to arise, like the Premier's connection to the individuals. Then, why are we putting $15 million into a private company or a group of private companies who are worth billions of dollars? Again, the answers were not forthcoming.

As my colleague said in a meeting this morning when we asked the officials from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, why are we putting in $15 million instead of $20 million or $30 million?, the only answer we could get from him is because that is what the company has asked for. Is that a sufficient reason to give them $15 million?

We went on, then, to ask other questions like: If Aliant could do this without a subsidy from government, why can't Persona and Rogers? Rogers is one of the largest telecommunications companies in North America. Why can't they put it across?

There were other questions about: Why are we subsidizing Rogers and not Aliant? We asked the question: Why do Rogers and Persona need the money? Why do they need the money? The answer still hasn't been put forward. Why do they need the money, these companies that have lots of money? How much are they going to make off the deal?

Let's face it, Persona and Rogers are not doing this for nothing. When they have these cables across the Gulf - and not just across the Gulf but to Cape Breton Island and on to Halifax - they are going to pick up customers. They are going to pick up customers not only in this Province but they are going to pick up customers on the mainland. They are going to pick up customers en route from Cape Breton to Halifax.

For example, I asked this morning a question of the officials in the minister's department: As they drive that line across Halifax, might some of the universities on Cape Breton Island, like StFX, hook on to that line? He said: Yes.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is continuing to misrepresent this situation. The fact of the matter is, he has no idea, nor does anybody else, until the CRTC rules on an application that may or may not be made en route from Cape Breton through to Halifax, whether or not the Persona, Rogers, Allstream consortium will be able to access any customers there.

Right now EastLink, as I understand it, have access to that marketplace, as well as Aliant, and it will be up to the CRTC to determine if or if not they will get access to that marketplace.

Again, he knows not what he is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. REID: No.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point or order.

There may be a disagreement, but there is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I say, the minister does not understand what his officials are telling him, because I asked that question point-blank - and he talked about EastLink - and I said: Could a university on Cape Breton Island hook on to this line? The answer from his own official was: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Could.

MR. REID: Yes, they could, and if they connect on to that line that Persona and Rogers are putting across Cape Breton to Halifax then they are going to have to pay for it, so obviously they are going to make money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I asked another question, Mr. Speaker. I asked another question of the officials from the minister's department. Persona and Rogers are talking about a project that is going to cost $52 million, that is going to take a couple of cables from St. John's to Halifax. I asked, what portion of that $52 million was going to be spent in Nova Scotia. What portion of that $52 million is going to be spent in Nova Scotia? Because, according to the EWA report, Electronic Warfare Associates, at least half of the cable that is going to be transported overland in these two provinces, almost half of that is going to be in Nova Scotia. So, I asked the question: How much of the $52 million is going to be spent in Nova Scotia? His own officials could not tell me. His own officials told me they would get back to me tomorrow with the answer.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is a simple calculation. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to borrow a calculator from the Minister of Finance, he can gladly have it. He can look at - in the EWA report it tells how much it costs for overland cable, it tells how much it costs for subsea cable. He can easily do the kilometres from Cape Breton to Halifax, Mr. Speaker. He can calculate how much it is going to cost to do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not want to hear the truth. He talks about how stunned I am, and the fact that I cannot read, but I would suggest that he go back and maybe fire the employees that he sent over to give us a briefing this morning because they could not answer those questions. When I asked how much of the $52 million was going to be spent in Nova Scotia, none of his employees, including his Assistant Deputy Minister, could give me that figure, and they are going to find it for tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we know very little about how much money this group of companies are going to make off of this deal, but we are quite prepared to step in and subsidize it.

Mr. Speaker, I have realms, realms of questions I could ask about this deal but obviously the group opposite do not want to answer those questions. They do not want to have an independent public inquiry into this, because the facts might get out. As the Premier said, when he took a sniff of this a few months ago it smelled. As a result of that, we continue to think that it still smells because we cannot get some simple answers.

For example, I asked a member of his own staff this morning how much is Memorial University paying today for Internet service. The answer was zero. Absolutely zero! Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because, the tab for the Internet at the University is picked up by the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the intensity of the debate but we do have to have cooperation.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition making some concluding comments.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again they want to disrupt, so that they are going to close down this debate in two minutes and again we are not going to be able to get to speak about it, we are not going to get answers to questions about it. That is their intent. That is the reason that the minister has been told to jump up and down like he has been doing all afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Premier have been on the airwaves of this Province saying that Memorial University will get a reduction in the rate they are paying, anywhere from ten to one hundred times. The fact of the matter is, Memorial University is not paying for any service now, so I do not know how they are going to get a reduction of ten to one hundred times.

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for basically is quite simple -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: There are lots of questions to be answered. This deal smells, as the Premier says it smells. We are asking for an independent inquiry and obviously they are not going to permit that, because obviously, if you are not willing to let the truth be told, then there is only one other conclusion you can draw, that you are hiding something.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will first -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will call the question on the amendment. The amendment put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources and seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is as follows, that the resolution be admitted as follows: after the expression House of Assembly add the words "in the spirit of openness and accountability", and delete the expression "appoint an independent inquiry with broad and expansive terms of reference to immediately" and insert the expression "ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House".

All those in favour of the resolution, please say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In the Chair's opinion, the ayes have it.

The Chair will now call the amended resolution.

The amended resolution will now read: Therefore be it resolved that the House of Assembly, in the spirit of openness and accountability, ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House of Assembly, to investigate all the details and circumstances of the fiber optic deal.

All those in favour of the amended motion, say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In the Chair's opinion, the ayes have it.

This being Wednesday and it being 5:00 o'clock, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.