November 28, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 31


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, on Friday night past, I had the privilege of being invited to a fundraising dinner put forward by the Lethbridge and Area Volunteer Fire Department, and at that particular dinner there were four Governor General award pins for exemplary firefighting services provided to: Mr. Jake Barbour, Mr. Randy Diamond, Mr. Wesley Holloway, and Mr. Ewan Palmer. Those four individuals have put forward in excess of twenty years of service for the Lethbridge and Area Volunteer Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, the Lethbridge Fire Department is a little bit unlike most fire departments in the Province in that they represent an area with no form of local government, no local service districts, no town councils. Those particular individuals, like the rest of the volunteer fire departments, have to raise money not only to provide the services of repairing equipment, but also to pay for such things as the light bill on the building, insurance on the building, repairs to the fire truck.

After twenty years of going out and providing not only firefighting services, but raising funds in order to carry out this service as well, I am certain that every member in this Legislature joins with me in saying a sincere thank you in appreciation to not only the Lethbridge and Area Volunteer Fire Department but for every other fire department and every other firefighter in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to a number of residents on the Burin Peninsula who were inducted into the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of Fame at an event I attended this past weekend in Burin.

The Soccer Hall of Fame recognizes the excellence of players, coaches, teams, officials and builders of the game. Anyone who knows about life on the Burin Peninsula knows only too well how much soccer is part of everyday life in the communities throughout the Peninsula. In my own district, the St. Lawrence Laurentians have won the Provincial Challenge Cup twenty-one times and represented the Province at the National Senior Men's Challenge Cup.

New members inducted into the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of Fame this past weekend include: Kevin Pittman of St. Lawrence; Brendan Slaney of Burin; Colin Edwards of Lawn; Leonard Edwards of Lawn; Frank Pitman of St. Lawrence; Frank Haskell, formerly of St. Lawrence; Cindy Inkpen of Burin; Ray Warren of Burin, and Betty Pickett of Marystown.

Randy Douglas of Grand Bank and Don Hannam of Marystown both received recognition for their long-time service, but the highlight of the night, Mr. Speaker, was Newman Bartlett of Grand Bank receiving a lifetime membership, the second person to ever receive such recognition. The first was the late Fred Tessier of Grand Bank.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to congratulate Karen Froude, a local musician who was joined by family, friends and the whole community last night to celebrate the release of her new CD, Grace for the Journey. Karen lives in Deer Lake with her husband Raymond, where they both teach at Xavier Junior High. She holds a Bachelor of Education, a Graduate Diploma in Fine Arts, and a Masters Degree in Education.

Karen has been involved in vocal and instrumental music since her early school days and she truly has a unique and enthusiastic style. She has released four gospel recordings and her latest release, Grace for the Journey, features three of her own songs.

I would ask that all members join with me today to congratulate Karen on her accomplishments in the music industry and to wish her continued success in her musical career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Eric Thomas and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au Clair, who have been honoured with lifetime membership awards from the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. In addition, a certificate of appreciation was presented to Marcel and Alma O'Brien of L'Anse au Loup.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary presents volunteers with lifetime membership awards in recognition of their years of service and dedication. Each year in Newfoundland and Labrador, nearly 1,000 members of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary respond to more than 100 calls for assistance from mariners who are in trouble. They also donate more than 6,000 hours of support to maritime research and rescue activities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, a certificate of appreciation that was presented to Marcel and Alma O'Brien who are recognized by their regional and national counterparts in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary for their continuing outstanding contributions to the organization. They were specifically recognized for their hard work in 2005 in planning an execution of the twenty-seventh annual general meeting of the seventh annual Search and Rescue Competition, which was held in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in L'Anse au Loup.

Mr. Speaker, many of the individuals of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary have been involved in this organization since 1978 and 1979. By bestowing the coveted honour of lifetime membership in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary on Eric and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au Clair, the organization says it provides an opportunity to recognize these men for their outstanding contribution to the organization, but also for their contribution to the safety of mariners at sea.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues today to join with me in congratulating Eric and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au Clair, and Marcel and Alma O'Brien of L'Anse au Loup, who have been honoured for their work with awards from the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Ms Lori Clarke, a special education teacher at Prince of Wales Collegiate. Ms Clarke has been teaching special education for just seven years at PWC and last month she was honoured by the Learning Disabilities Association as the National Educator of the Year for students with learning disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, once again a resident of this Province, one of our own, has achieved a recognition on a national level and I think that is just tremendous.

As Head of the Department of Special Services at PWC, with a team of six teachers under her, Ms Clarke has demonstrated exceptional leadership ability. However, her real strength seems to be in the fact that she is very focused on identifying and supporting students with learning disabilities. Indeed, it was one of her own students, James Hickey, who nominated her for this award and that fact speaks volumes in terms of the respect that this teacher has earned from her students at PWC.

Additionally, Ms Clarke offers support to her fellow teachers as they work towards finding the appropriate strategies that can be used to assist students with learning disabilities to reach their potential.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating an exceptional teacher, Ms Lori Clarke, National Educator of the Year for students with learning disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Laura Riggs, a Level 3 student at Carbonear Collegiate who has been awarded first place in the National Concours French public-speaking Competition.

Mr. Speaker, this event is hosted annually by the Canadian Parents for French and is a national public-speaking competition. This first place prize comes with a $20,000 scholarship from the University of Ottawa.

Laura, sixteen-year-old daughter of Boyd and Cheryl Riggs of Carbonear, has been busy in 2006. She placed first in regional and provincial French speak-outs and also participated in a number of public speaking competitions for English.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to public speaking, Laura takes part in a wide variety of activities. She is heavily involved in music, both voice and piano. She also participates and instructs in dance classes and is a member of Carbonear Collegiate's cheerleading team.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Laura, who has been awarded first place in the National Concours French public-speaking Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of fifteen young entrepreneurs from ACE Memorial, who recently represented Canada at the International Students in Free Enterprise Cup in Paris, France.

This world-class event brings together teams from universities around the globe to showcase their outreach projects and the impact that they have had on their communities. More than 1,000 people attended the competition hosted by Students in Free Enterprise, which is a global non-profit organization that mobilizes university students to create economic opportunity for others while discovering their own potential.

The ACE Memorial team won the right to represent Canada in May, 2006 at the ACE National Exposition in Toronto, where the group from ACE Memorial was named the Most Enterprising Campus in Canada. The competition included forty-two teams representing all ten provinces, and groups were evaluated on their success at creating economic opportunity through the projects they carried out.

The international competition held in Paris, France, included teams from forty-eight different countries, and a judging contingency that included some of the world's top CEOs. The ACE Memorial team represented Canada extremely well, making it to the semi-finals, where they were edged out by China, the team that went on to win the championship.

Mr. Speaker, since its inception in 1992, ACE Memorial, which stands for Advancing Canadian Entrepreneurship, has grown to be one of the strongest teams in the ACE organization nationwide. ACE Memorial encourages young entrepreneurs to create brighter futures for themselves and their communities by practicing and teaching others the principles and values of entrepreneurship and market economics.

The provincial government was proud to provide financial support to this exceptional group of young adults, assisting them to compete on both a national and international level.

In particular, ACE Memorial had over sixty active members who have contributed 4,397 volunteer hours to twenty-one different projects in the past year, helping elementary, high school and post-secondary students, new Canadians, at-risk youth and small business owners.

Key projects ACE Memorial completed when preparing for the competitions included "STEPS - Shifting to Entrepreneurial Power and Success," which was a day-long conference, delivered Bell Island high school students, aimed at inspiring young adults to create opportunities in their communities. Another project was called "Transatlantic Consultants," where ten Newfoundland-based businesses teamed up with students from Memorial University Harlow Campus to assist with conducting market research, developing partnerships and researching potential mergers.

I would like to acknowledge the team from ACE Memorial for the hard work and dedication they exhibited when preparing for competition. I am very pleased to congratulate the team for representing their university, their Province and their country extremely well on an international stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his Ministerial Statement.

I, too, of course, and the members on this side, want to congratulate the young entrepreneurs from ACE Memorial. Given what the minister has read here, obviously they have done a good job and will continue to do so, but what I find really ironic about this statement, Mr. Speaker, is that: it is one thing to talk about trying to control the Open Line shows, and putting people up, and you know why they are trying to control them and how they are trying to control them, because, of course, everyone that gets up, if we are criticizing an issue, they are coming up and attacking the person, it is so obvious, but today I get a Ministerial Statement from the minister and it says: Potential headline. Potential headline. Now you are trying to control the print media.

Whoever heard tell of trying to tell the print media what the headline should be in a story? Mr. Speaker, this is the bottom of the barrel. Obviously the polling period is not over, and now we have the government trying to tell the print media what the headlines should be. I have never heard tell of this in my life, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what the minister or the department is up to, but obviously the department does not have very much good news to tell when it has nothing that it can talk about from a Department of Business perspective other than to congratulate our entrepreneurs at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Where is the good news, Mr. Speaker? The potential headlines -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, want to congratulate the ACE Memorial team, but I would like to pick up on a bit of good news that is indirectly referred to here.

I was pleased to see that the team went to Bell Island, where they took part in a day-long conference delivered to Bell Island high school students aimed at inspiring these young adults in the entrepreneurial spirit.

The reason I want to speak to this is that, over twenty years ago, about twenty-four years ago, Bell Islanders formed a community economic development co-operative and learned together, as a community, how to work together using their entrepreneurial spirit. They built a new bakery. They got senior citizens' housing going. It was that spirit that led to the miners' museum, B & Bs started, so it was a wonderful place for this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Just to add that it was a wonderful place for them to be, because the people on Bell Island have learned, through a very strong community development process, that entrepreneurs do not have to work in isolation from one another; they can work together. I hope this team learned that as they worked on Bell Island with the students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in the House today to update the residents of our Province on our re-registration of the Province's Medical Care Program, known as MCP.

In May of this year our government launched the re-registration of MCP, asking all residents of the Province to complete a re-registration form on or before March 31, 2007, to receive their new MCP card.

Mr. Speaker, my department has witnessed a tremendous response to this initiative from the people of this Province. Since May, over 80 per cent of the Province has completed their re-registration forms. To date, we have received forms from over 420,000 people and over 240,000 new cards have been issued.

Mr. Speaker, in his 2004 report, the Auditor General found an estimated 80,000 more beneficiary numbers issued than there were residents in the Province. By undertaking this initiative, our government will strengthen the monitoring of medical care claims to ensure that only eligible beneficiaries permanently residing in the Province are able to avail of coverage under MCP. The end result will be greater accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The new MCP cards contain the individual's name, gender, MCP number -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services. I ask members for their co-operation to permit the minister to make his Ministerial Statement in relative quiet, please.

The hon. the Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new MCP cards contain the individual's name, gender, MCP number and birth date to provide additional security to ensure that only the person to whom the card is issued will be able to use it. In addition, the cards have an expiry date to allow the Department of Health and Community Services to periodically update the MCP database to provide an improved mechanism for accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for their co-operation, and the patience of all individuals in the Province as we process the large volume of applications. I also ask those who have not yet sent in their re-registration form to do so before March 31, 2007, when old versions of the MCP card will become invalid.

Individuals may obtain a form to fill out by contacting their local MCP office, by visiting www.gov.nl.ca/mcp, or by e-mail at mcpreregistration@gov.nl.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I say to the minister, there may have been 80,000 people who had exited the Province when he started this program, but I would think there are a lot more than that right now. It is a good thing there is an expiry date on those cards, so that they can be renewed on a regular basis, because, at the rate that people are leaving, your numbers are going to keep going down.

I want to say to the minister that all of us on this side of the House have filed for our re-registration MCP card, Mr. Speaker. We do not plan on leaving the Province any time soon, for work or any other purpose. We plan on staying here, Mr. Speaker, right here, for at least the next four years, so I will let the hon. minister know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: What I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that he is on the ball with the pre-registration of MCP, but it is unfortunate that he has not been on the ball with the pharmacy situation in this Province. It is unfortunate today that there are still pharmacists out there in Newfoundland and Labrador, that in 1999 the Minister of Finance wanted them all on wage parity with Atlantic Canada. Well, not only today are we not on wage parity with Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker, we are not even on a wage parity within our own Province. From the East Coast to the West Coast, from Central Newfoundland to Labrador, there is that kind of wage disparity that exists with pharmacists. The minister and his government are refusing to deal with this issue, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate because what we are going to have is a continued number of pharmacists leaving the medical -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

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

The figures are quite high, the beneficiary numbers who are residents outside the Province. There was obviously a lot of red tape involved in getting the new cards, which is far from being over yet. I will be looking forward, when this process is finished, to learning that it really has been a saving for us, going through what we are going through in getting the new cards. I trust that the minister believes it would have been or they would not have done it. I presume that in the next Auditor General's report we will find what the cost savings were and I look forward to learning what they will be.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the Department of Finance was asked earlier this year to do an analysis of this recently announced fibre optic deal. To date, government has not released or referenced this report.

I ask the minister: In the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability, will you table that report in the House today?

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, the Department of Finance and the Department of Innovation Trade and Rural Development have been involved with discussions on this fibre optic link to the mainland for the quite a period of time; I guess, Mr. Speaker, probably about a year. We engaged, as I said on numerous occasions, outside consultants, namely EWA, PriMetrica and two other firms that I really cannot recall the names of right now, but it is in the back of the EWA report, who assessed this proposal, looked at it from the cost of the infrastructure, the cost benefit analysis, and looked at it from the perspective of the return on investment. They did the analysis. The report has been tabled. The report has been released publicly. All information, as it relates to it, has been provided to the Opposition. The information that is required to determine whether or not this was a good deal has been evaluated, and we have been told that $15 million is an appropriate investment and we will get value for our money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister about an analysis that was conducted by the Department of Finance which, according to our understanding, did not paint such a rosy picture of this deal as did the EWA report.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development stated that other companies could have bid on the fibre optic project, but they did not have regulatory approval under the CRTC. Minister, that contradicts the information given to us by your own officials and others which states that there are other companies out there that are already approved by the CRTC and could have bid on this project, and there are still other companies who would have received CRTC approval very easily in a very short period of time.

I ask the minister: Why are you once again putting forward another smokescreen with no basis in fact instead of dealing with the real issue? Why did this not go to a public tender or Request for Proposals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In section 2, page 3, of the EWA report, the last sentence: Given the limited market in Newfoundland, the number of potential investors are limited to the existing partners, the province, the federal government or the competitor, Aliant.

Now, I will say this right now to the Leader of the Opposition, all of the Opposition, the NDP, anybody in the gallery, anybody in the House, anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is a company that they know of who are willing to partner with us, who are willing to provide us with the fibre optic strands that we require for our broadband initiative, Mr. Speaker, then let us know who they are because this has been on the go now for - in a day-and-a-half, it will be four weeks since we made the announcment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my number is 729-4728. My phone has not been rung off the hook with companies who are involved with the telecommunications industry in Canada or internationally looking to be a part of this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, it was your job to determine if anybody else out there wanted to bid this, but obviously you did not want anyone else to bid this contract.

To go back to my first question. I asked for a copy of the analysis that was conducted by the Department of Finance, and to this point in Question Period you have not even referenced that analysis.

Mr. Speaker, we are constantly hearing different stories from government regarding this deal. This is the reason why questions need to be asked. Government ministers, officials and the companies involved are all giving contradictory stories; they contradict each other. Officials told us yesterday, from the minister's own department, that this $52 million would only cover the cost of putting the fibre optic cable across the Province and hooking it up with Nova Scotia. They also stated that an additional $200 million will be required to establish the necessary laterals, the actual connections to the communities and the rural communities in this Province, and that no rural communities will have immediate access to this so-called cable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if you would put his question immediately.

MR. REID: No problem, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Who will pay the additional $200 million required to connect rural communities to these fibre optic cables? Is government committing today $200 million to extend this fibre optic service to rural communities that are not immediately connected, or will not be immediately connected to this trans-Island link?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, the Leader of the Opposition either does not understand or does not want to understand the information that is presented to him by officials in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development or by anybody else who wants to provide him with the information.

The fact of the matter is, what he was told and what his party was told, and the NDP, and the media when they were briefed by officials from my department, was that we will be going forward with a Request for Proposals once this infrastructure is in place and what is referred to as the backbone of the fibre optic network for government is in place. We will be going forward with a Request for Proposals for somebody to manage that system and to do a lateral build out into rural communities to expand the network and to manage it, potentially, over a ten-year period. That could be in the order of $200 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful in that - obviously, there are costs associated with government's data transmissions, and as a result of this lateral build we hope that we will extend -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has expired.

I remind members to keep their questions and their replies to sixty seconds or less.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a bunch of malarkey. You are going to an RFP in part two, but they did not see fit to go to an RFP in part one. You should have done it months ago.

Continuing in the vein of looking after ones friends and ignoring the Public Tender Act, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, in September of this year the Bull Arm Site Corporation, which comes under the Minister of Natural Resources' department, called for public tenders to construct a building on the site. According to the information we have received, four companies bid but the bid was cancelled, supposedly for financial reasons. Three weeks later, the Bull Arm Site Corporation solicited bids for the labour portion of the same project. No public tenders were asked for. One of the principals of the company who was awarded the contract was the campaign manager for Joan Cleary, the current President and CER of the Bull Arm Site Corporation and defeated PC candidate in the last provincial election. That company was not eligible to bid the first time round when the public tenders were called because it was not board certified.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to put his question.

MR. PARSONS: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why did the Bull Arm Site Corporation change the scope of the contract and not call for public tenders? Was it to help the campaign manager for Joan Cleary, the President of Bull Arm Site Corporation? Can you tell us if this apparent circumvention of the Public Tender Act is, indeed, true?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I can say with a great degree of confidence that there is no circumvention of any law or any procedure or any proceeding that ought to be undertaken by this government.

With respect to the specific question, I am not aware of those particulars. As you can see, the minister is unavoidably absent. Mr. Speaker, I will certainly endeavour to pursue further information with respect to the question that has been asked, but I say, as a minister of this government, that I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no breach in any way of any government policy or procedure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can check out his facts before he starts making statements like, there has been no circumvention of the act. This appears to be another example of government doing things to help their friends.

Why minister are you allowing the Bull Arm Site Corporation to scrap the requirements of the Public Tender Act to help political cronies? Will you investigate this and put a stop to these sort of underhanded actions that are taking place in agencies that report to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act is an act that is regarded in a very real, genuine and important way. In fact, there was legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was put forward by this government, or this particular party, approximately thirty-five or forty years ago. This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, and a piece of legislation that this government takes very seriously. As I have indicated to the hon. member opposite, I will certainly undertake to review the details and the specifics; however, I repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker: I am confident that there in no way has there been any breach of any provincial legislation, any statute, any regulation, with respect to the issue being raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Bull Arm Site Corporation seems to be a feed trough for this government's friends and cronies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Ms Cleary was made president and CEO at a cost of more than $100,000 a year.

Minister, do you have any influence with this board? Are you in charge of these appointments, or are you just a lackey to ensure that the Premier's demands are carried out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the individuals who serve on this board are responsible, credible individuals, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who see to it, to ensure that the best interests of the people of this Province are protected. To suggest otherwise, Mr. Speaker, to me, is an indication that the member opposite does not understand the role of this board and the serious responsibility that is undertaken by members who take it upon themselves to work diligently on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the closed mill in Stephenville is another broken promise by the Premier and this government. We heard the Premier state: It will not close on my watch. The unions heard him make a personal commitment to them, that he would expropriate the mill. He also stated that there would be no stone left unturned to find a solution.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: If the Premier was at all serious about his commitments and his intent in Stephenville, why doesn't government commit the funds necessary to have the consultant, which the union itself found, review the possibility of an operator for this mill rather than letting it be demolished?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have had a meeting with the consultants, and with the union as well. Prior to having the meeting with the consultants, there was a report done by Dr. Mo Nazir, where he looked at future possibilities for the mill in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that, to be able to expropriate the mill in Stephenville, there would have to have been a new operator there to do it.

The consultants who came in, there were some issues in setting up the meeting. They wanted government to pay for them to come and do the meeting. They also indicated at that time that they were looking for $150,000, not that they had a proposal to submit but to develop a proposal.

Mr. Speaker, we did meet with them. We did hear what they had to say. We have also had an extensive report done regarding the future of the Stephenville mill. As I said, that was done by Dr. Nazir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, this government commissioned a report by Dr. Mo Nazir, as the minister just stated. It was a key government commitment in its Blue Book that all reports be released in thirty days, another broken promise by this government.

Number one, the consultant has asked for this report; and, two, the union had to apply, under the Freedom of Information, to get access to this information, and when it was released over 90 per cent was blacked out of the report.

I ask the minister: Was it recommended in this report to expropriate the mill, and will the minister do the honourable thing and release this report in its entirety to the union and to the consultant, as the Premier committed in the Blue Book?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, any reports that we release certainly have to be done according to the legislation, as was done in this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, when we say that reports are going to be released, and there are guidelines under our legislation, we are required to follow that, and we did just so in that case.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I ever heard that the union had to apply to the Freedom of Information to get a report - if the minister is so honest about helping out the union.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister, and the Member for Stephenville East, told the union that there were eleven potential operators for the mill. The union has asked the government for $150,000 for the consultant who has a potential operator. The union executive are very competent and willing to try every possible route, unlike the minister. They have committed today $10,000 of their own money towards the consultant fee. Minister, this is a real commitment by the union.

If the Premier wants to live up to his promise that no stone will be left unturned, then will the minister support the union initiative and commit the remainder of the funds needed to explore this option, because they have put the money where their mouth is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the consultants will develop a proposal - there is no proposal from the meeting that we attended with them, that there is a proposal on the table that they are not submitting - they would develop a proposal.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, the mill in Stephenville has been idle now since last year and, in fairness to any company that may be looking at operating that mill, we are still open for business. They can still contact the government; they can contact Natural Resources.

We have never said that a company cannot come forward. If a company does explore options with us, we will certainly be more than glad to meet with them. If there is a potential company, they do not necessarily have to wait. They can come forward and certainly meet with us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, these people, hard-working citizens of Stephenville from the union, are putting up $10,000 of their own money to show the commitment to Stephenville.

I am asking the minister: Would you please show the same type of commitment to these people and to the region? If this government really feels that their commitment was met in Stephenville, the union in Stephenville and residents that we spoke to in Stephenville are asking: Will you hold a public meeting in Stephenville, a full public meeting that was held before, to explain your position to the people of this area, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to almost give the impression that we have not been working in the community in the Town of Stephenville or the Bay St. George area since we have gone through this crisis last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we have had a significant presence in the area. We have certainly established a task force, which is being chaired by Mr. Cyril Organ, who is doing a great job of trying to help us diversify the economy. We also have included in that task force the Mayor of Stephenville Crossing, the Mayor of Kippens, the Mayor of Stephenville. We have representation from the union, we have representation from the Chamber of Commerce, from the business communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

Recently, both airlines servicing Labrador substantially increased their fares from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province, where now the best fare anyone can get with advance booking is nearly $1,000. Obviously, this will make it impossible for many Labrador residents, most of whom have immediate family ties with people on the Island portion, to fly, which for the most part of the year is the only real travel option.

A number of years ago, I say to the minister, this Province had a 25 per cent rebate in place for air travel between Labrador and the Island. Will the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs, given the high cost of travel within the Province, bring back the air subsidy program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for Labrador West for the question.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is certainly a pressing issue for not only Labrador West but for all people of Labrador, the high price of airfares. I will say that this is an issue that is being dealt with, with the Northern Strategic Plan. As I spoke with the member yesterday, I would like for him to certainly put his input into the Northern Strategic Plan, as it is in its final stages right now.

There is no question that, in the conversations I have had with both airlines, they felt that they had to up the airfares over Labrador West. One of the issues that our department has taken on, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We certainly are looking into the issue of airport fees in Wabush, which we understand are certainly larger than those in Seven Islands and some other locales in Quebec. I had just written to the minister yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has spent his allotted time.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

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

Will the minister commit to bringing back the air transportation subsidy program for travel between Labrador and the Island, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to wait until he is recognized.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, certainly we will review it, I say to the Member for Labrador West, and I look forward to working with you in looking at that particular issue.

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

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

Again for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs. We are hearing a lot about the $15 million investment by government to improve communications on the Island portion of the Province. In Labrador, along the highway, we only have satellite phones to rely on. As the minister knows, these phones are, at best, a hit and miss system, with which residents have experienced many problems. This is a very important public safety issue.

Given the fact that $15 million will be spent on improving communications on the Island portion of the Province, will the minister commit to the people in Labrador that, in conjunction with a hard surface going on the Trans-Labrador Highway, an investment will also be made to provide for cellular phone coverage along that highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, the issue of communication along the road, the Trans-Labrador Highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West, is certainly an issue. We have been working with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and we are committed to cellphone service in the Churchill Falls area, which will start next year. We are also working with Aliant to look at the tower systems between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West. Certainly, as the fibre optic expands into Labrador, that will be another option we may be able to have available to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House of Assembly, in questioning the Minister of Transportation and Works about a budget estimate in his department, he responded using incorrect and untrue statements.

The minister says, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "when she - referring to myself - was part of a crowd that took $90 million out of the Transportation Initiative Fund and put it in general revenue, while her and the Member for Torngat and the Member for Lake Melville saw it happen." This is completely false. The minister knows that every cent is accounted for in his own report, the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which was released in his department in June.

I ask the minister today to do the honourable thing: Will he rise in his place, withdraw his comments and apologize to the House of Assembly for providing misleading and untruthful information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is raising things - the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up by the former government of this House. I raised issues on that in the past. There were funds used out of that. Significant amounts have been used for ferry terminals and so on that are not -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: She does not want an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been used for a variety of things, for, I think, to build a shed in Southern Labrador to deal with where it drifts over in an area; a significant depot, to build a depot there. It has been used for marine infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, do you want to hear an answer? I will tell you what else it was used for, $140,000 to fly people in and put a platform in Labrador to make an announcement by the former government; $22,000 to write a speech for the Premier at the time. All these are Labrador (inaudible). That is what it was used for!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Colleagues, we are in the middle of Question Period. I ask members for their co-operation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely appalled by what I am hearing here today. The minister, in citing the examples that he did for this fund, were both commitments that were made under his Administration, I would like to remind him, the terminal facility on the highway, as well as the money for the marine facility in Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works who provided misleading information in the House of Assembly yesterday. According to his own document, his information was false and untrue. I ask him to rise in his place today, do the honourable thing, apologize and withdraw his statement.

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

MS JONES: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the member refuses to apologize to the House of Assembly for providing that information.

Maybe he can clarify another falsehood, Mr. Speaker. The minister, in a phone conversation with Nick McGrath, the President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, in Labrador City last week, indicated that he had a deal signed with the federal government on the Trans-Labrador Highway on his last trip to Ottawa. In fact, the signed deal was in front of him in his office on that day. Yet, in the House of Assembly yesterday the minister said that, we are negotiating. I quote, he said: We are now negotiating with the federal government on this deal. Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of Transport has said that there has not even been a business proposal submitted.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: Why is he misleading the public on this issue? For God sakes, come clean and give us the proper information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no misleading the House, Mr. Speaker, none at all.

Mr. Speaker, this government, as I stated yesterday, is working with the federal government on a deal to hard surface the Trans-Labrador Highway. I will tell you, I will tell the people of this Province, what is going on here today. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, along with her cohort there, the Member of Parliament from Labrador, has been doing nothing on the file regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway. They now know that we are near to having a successful agreement on the Trans-Labrador Highway, now they want to get onboard and make the people believe that they were the ones who got this. Well, they did nothing, Mr. Speaker.

We saw what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair did when she was with the Transportation department. We saw the proof of that in the rock cuts in Southern Labrador. We had to put a $1.2 million depot in Souther Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I could stand up here and remind the minister today that it was his government that took the ferries out of Cartwright and moved them back to Lewisporte, leaving the people of Labrador with inadequate service. I could remind him that it was his government who closed down the highway the first couple of years they were in power, in my district, and the people could not travel it, but I am not going to do that because we have an important issue in front of us today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nick McGrath was quoted in the 53 North newspaper in Labrador City, saying that: I was just talking with Minister Hickey this morning and was told by the minister they had recently inked a deal during his last trip to Ottawa, and that this deal was in front of him as we speak today.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the minister told me that he is only negotiating with the Department of Transport.

I ask the minister again: Can he find it somewhere in him to provide proper information to this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we are providing information. We are also providing progress, I say, on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are also providing progress, Mr. Speaker, on a lot of different projects in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the minister and asks him to complete his answer.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said here in this House, they do not like hearing the truth. They do not like seeing the successes of this government and this minister.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: We are working with our federal counterparts and I have every confidence - every confidence - that we are going to see hardtop on the road between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West, and we are going to see that in June of 2007, I say to you and the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Yesterday in this House, I tabled the report of the Provincial Court Salary and Benefits Tribunal and today I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution. The resolution reads as follows: Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice on May 26, 2006, except for its recommendations respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges which will be submitted no later than March 1, 2007; and

WHEREAS the report of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal was tabled - as I said - in this hon. House yesterday, November 27, 2006 under section 28.2 of the legislation; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under section 28.2 of the legislation to approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House of Assembly to accept all of the recommendations of the tribunal as contained in its report of May 26, 2006;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the report of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure at this time again to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Burgeo and Ramea concerning the lack of toilet facilities to service the users of the ferry service on the South Coast.

We had the Minister of Transportation and Works up here earlier in Question Period and - in fact, we did not have him up sometimes when he should have been up. When he was asked for an apology, he cowered behind his mike and would not stand to even say he would not apologize. In any case, I hope we can get his attention one way or the other, because so far we have it.

He committed across this House here last week, to myself, when I raised this issue, that he would have somebody immediately check into this situation. Now, I do not know when immediate falls under the minister's watch but, to me, it would be somewhere - timely would be a word, and we have had about a week. Now, maybe he has done it but nobody that I know of - and he certainly has not had the courtesy to tell me that he has done it, which I think would be an obvious.

Now, regarding this issue, the people know, here we are with $15 million being put into fibre optics that is not justified, we get fur coats being given to Ralph Klein, but yet we cannot get enough money to put a toilet down for the ferry users on the South Coast.

We have had the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation up in this House, and going around this Province and the country and the world, touting: Come see Newfoundland. Well, I just hope that they do not have the misfortune to be waiting for the ferry in Burgeo or Ramea while they are here visiting, because we will find them out amongst the rocks and up the back of someone's shed the same way the poor, unfortunate people who have to use the service find themselves now.

This is not too much to ask. This is a government that applauds itself on bringing back $2 billion from father Ottawa, and we cannot get a toilet. We are not even fussy, that it be some modern architectural piece like The Rooms. We would just be satisfied if we had something that they could use in the case of dire need, human basic needs, a toilet facility. That is not too much to ask.

Again, if the minister who prides himself on knowing everything could take the time to please have someone go and check out the circumstances that I am talking about here, in both Ramea and Burgeo, and see if we can scrape up enough money from somewhere to be able to put a washroom and toilet facility down there, that would be very, very nice for anybody who lives there, uses the service, or anybody who might visit.

It is absolutely demeaning to have human beings subjected to this type of treatment in this day and age, and I do not know how often I have to stand up here and ask the minister to please get involved and ask someone to check it out. Please check it out. The people should not be treated - we had former references here to cattleships and everything else on the Gulf, but we cannot be expected to tolerate this.

Now, this may seem small to some people but this is very important. This is very, very important to the people who have to use these facilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The minister might think it is a funny matter, to be laughing, but it is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, November 28, 2006.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Order 3, Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." ( Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this Bill 49, I am pleased to move it. It is An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. This is a piece of housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, and the purpose of the bill is set out in the explanatory note.

The explanatory note that is set out on page 2 says, "The purpose of this Bill is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in the statute law that require legislative correction as a result of amendments or enactments made in previous sessions. The amendments contained in this Bill have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice and are technical amendments not involving matters of policy. Each amendment is explained by reference to the clause of the Bill by which it is proposed."

This will fix technical amendments such as - recently we amended the Public Inquires Act, so now it has a different name. There may be ten other acts that refer to the old Public Inquires Act, so legislation such as this would amend those ten acts to put in the proper name.

I will be happy to answer any questions which may arise in accordance with the debate. I therefore am pleased to move second reading of Bill 49.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. This, of course, is a housekeeping piece of legislation, we would call it, because over time with a whole bunch of laws in the Province there are minor amendments that come about. There are circumstances that occur which means that a law as currently written might not apply anymore because you have made some changes. From time to time the legislative draftsmen responsible for these laws go through all of the Statutes and laws of the Province, pick out these so-called anomalies, they do not exist anymore, and put it all under one bill to come back here, through the Minister of Justice - because this falls under his purview and responsibility - and ask to make these corrections that are no longer necessary.

I noticed, and, of course, people who look at this - and you can access these bills by simply going onto the Web, anyone who has access to it, and you can see exactly what is being discussed here in the House. If you want read this legislation, it is put up on the Website of the House of Assembly and you can actually read these if you want to know the written word. People are sometimes interested to the point that they want to know that.

For example, we have instances under this act today, the Attorney General's Statutes Amendment Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the Court Security Act. There are a whole pile of things that might not necessarily fall to the Minister of Justice but fall under other ministers and other departments, but they all get lumped together here. I would notice - and maybe the minister, when he gets up, can give us some explanation of this - I note, in particular, clause 10. It is referenced in the explanation section and it talks about the Lobbyist Registration Act. Of course, we have had a lot of talk recently in the Province about the Lobbyist Registration Act. The reason I raise it is because we have had the concern over the fibre optics deal. For example, a group of persons or companies, namely Persona, Rogers and the Allstream people, came to government, unsolicited proposal, and said: We would like some of your money to the tune of $15 million because we think we have a great idea.

We find out, of course, several days into the process, that neither of these companies were registered under the Lobbyist Act. Now, there are certain people out in the public who do research, have blogs and things on the Internet, of course, and they raise these issues from time to time. It appeared in The Telegram one particular Friday morning, and said: Whoa, just a minute. How come this group of lobbyists - they obviously lobbied, it was unsolicited. I do not know what you would call lobbying if it is not making an unsolicited proposal. That sounds like a pretty good lobby to me. When you lobby government you want somebody's ear, to say: I have a proposal, we have a proposal we would like to put to you. The question was: Were they or were they not lobbyists? Were they lobbying and should they have been registered?

I would think, first and foremost, if you are very up to snuff as a corporate body doing business in this Province, you would have somebody in your company, your legal counsel or your administrative personnel, who would have had the forethought and the foresight to see that we are in compliance with all the laws in this Province. Lo and behold, it comes back that neither of these companies that are involved in the fibre optics matter are registered in this Province.

We heard Mr. MacDonald come out in the media and say: Whoa, just a minute. We are not lobbyists. We do not spend 20 per cent of our time - he got into the percentages and the figures. The act does not require us to register - or government said, rather: We are not required to go out and make sure they register. That was government's take: It is not our responsibility, it is up to the companies to register.

Mr. MacDonald said: Well, we do not have to register because we do not fit the 20 per cent bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Mr. MacDonald?

MR. PARSONS: This Mr. MacDonald happens to be a very good friend, of course, of the Premier. He is, I believe, the Chief Executive Officer of Persona, one of the companies in the consortium on the fibre optics deal that wants $15 million of the taxpayers' money to put into this fibre optics deal. He comes out and says: No, we are not lobbyists.

Now, there are two definitions under the Lobbyists Act. One is called an in-house lobbyist and another one is called a consultant lobbyist. According to Mr. MacDonald, of course, we do not fit the bill on either one of these; our companies that walked into government and asked for this $15 million. We do not fit the bill there. We do not need to comply.

What the Leader of the Opposition, of course - just because Mr. MacDonald said it, we did not take it to be absolute gospel. We said: Now, just a minute here. Let's go back and ask the Commissioner of Lobbyists. Of course, the Commissioner of Lobbyists - the first thing somebody said was: Whoa, just a minute now. We are talking here about, potentially, taxpayers' money being given to friends of the Premier without the Public Tender Act having been followed and a possible conflict of interest and so on. Is this squeaky clean or does this smell, as the Premier thought it did the first two times it popped on the agenda.

We have some issues with, I believe her name is Montgomery, because somebody said: Whoa, how far do you take this? She was also appointed by this Administration as the Commissioner of Lobbyists. It is almost like asking her - you know, you are putting this complaint that you might have about registration of these companies into the hands of someone who might have similar type questions. In fact, somebody had information in The Telegram as well, in the media, that this same person, who was the Commissioner of Lobbyists, had made contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party that formed the government that appointed her as the Commissioner.

In any case, not withstanding all of that, the Leader of the Opposition, I understand, wrote to the Commissioner and said: Would you investigate this? By the way, to be quite clear from Mr. MacDonald's public statements as well, that he called the Commissioner. He heard this or read this in the media. He called the Commissioner and said: Whoa, just a minute here. Now I do not know the full details of the conversation. I do not know what he told her. I do not know what she told him. Anyway, I would think that the Commissioner, on a go-forward basis, will be letting everybody and anybody who has some insight into this, have their piece and have their say, rather than just Mr. MacDonald, who was the party in question here and his companies, have some say with her in a phone conversation. I would think there ought to be some kind of public process whereby everybody gets their say and checks this out, because my reading of the act - and I am sure I can be told a thing or two, have been over the years - my reading of the act is that it is not for the Commissioner to decide whether or not there has been a breach of the act. That is the perception out there in the public, and that is what some people would have you believe, that it is up to this commissioner to decide whether there has been a breach of the act. That is not my read on things.

My read of that act, and several other people who are familiar with legal type documents have confirmed my understanding, is that all the commissioner is responsible to do is decide if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there might have been a breach, not that the commissioner do the investigation and determine that there was indeed a breach or not. The only role of the commissioner is to decide: Were there reasonable grounds?

If that commissioner comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds, she must then refer it off to the investigating authorities in the jurisdiction. So I would think that all this person, the commissioner, has to do here is conclude that there are reasonable grounds to think that Rogers and Persona and Allstream, the proponents of the deal, might reasonably have been actually lobbying this government. I think to come to any conclusion other than that, on the surface, on a reasonable person basis, would be to defy logic.

When you march into government and say, I would like to have $15 million unsolicited - you did not respond to some government asking you to respond through an RFP, or a public tender. You just walked off of the street with a proposal, got into government's head somehow, through the Minister of Business, who happened to be the Premier at the time, or through the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, however, you got into government's head. In any case, you are in there. Now, what did you do when you got in there? You told them you had a great deal, you had some kind of a proposal, but a part of that proposal was that you wanted $15 million.

Now that, to me, fits the common man definition of: I am asking you for something. I am lobbying for something. I am lobbying my proposal. I am lobbying you to get some of your money. That would be my reasonable man approach to that question.

So, once the Commissioner of Lobbyists has made that determination, which I would submit is unavoidable - unavoidable - then it gets turned over to the investigating authority in the jurisdiction, which I would think would be the RNC. Maybe it is somebody else, but within the city, at least, where this activity took place on the Northeast Avalon, it falls under the jurisdiction of the RNC, so I would think that is their call, then, to go and do the investigation as to who did what, where, and see if there was a breach of the act. Because this is a government that prided itself on openness and accountability but whom, I would submit, have been anything but. This is a government, for example, that releases reports back to the people of Stephenville about their mill closure only when they had a freedom of information request put to them, and then 90 per cent of it was blacked out. That is the kind of openness and accountability we have seen here.

Back to the issue of the lobbyists. I would like to know, and maybe the minister can tell me, why do we now, all of a sudden - under this bill we are dealing with here today, it says, "Clause 10 of the Bill would amend the Lobbyist Registration Act...", and in part (b) it says, "to align reporting requirements for a consultant lobbyist with those for an in-house lobbyist." Part (a) says, actually, "to clarify that is by way of regulations that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may exclude persons from the application of the Act. The Act is currently silent on..." those issues.

So, I am just curious that it happened to pop on to the legislative agenda of this House about two weeks after we have all of this furor about whether or not these companies complied with the Lobbyist Act. Very, very curious, it happens more and more every day. It seems like we get answers and responses. The more you peel this onion back on the fibre optics, the more you peel it, the more it makes you cry, and yet we see this kind of stuff happening and I just wonder. I do not know if this is such a trivial issue, an anomaly that we are dealing with here at all, and I would like for the minister to explain that to me. It seems very fortuitous to me that we have all this controversy about lobbyists and now we have this amendment popping across here on this usually obscure type of act that we would deal with in this Legislature.

I notice, too, you talk about this reasonable man person and reasonable conclusions that the lobbyists would have to draw about, should the person, maybe - is there reasonable possibility that the consortium companies, Rogers and Allstream and Persona, might have been in breach of the act?

I think one of the criteria you would look at is that you would compare it to who else in similar types of industry, or in an identical type of industry, what they might have done. What were their actions? Lo and behold, another company in this Province that is in the same industry, identically, as Rogers and Persona and the Allstreams of the world, was a company called Aliant. So, you go over and you check the Registry of Lobbyists and say: Was there anybody on the registry from Aliant?

Now, I am not here defending Aliant, I will guarantee you that. I am true believer in competition. I have no problem with that, none whatsoever. Free enterprise, capitalism to the backbone, I believe in that, absolutely, but when you look over on that side of the sheet, I think they had twenty-odd registered.

I am saying to myself: Now, here is a company in the same industry with twenty, thirty, registered people just in case they might - might - do some business with the government. Now, I don't know, I have not checked the registry myself, but I wonder: People like Fortis, for example, might they have people registered under the Lobbyist Act? They do negotiations from time to time. They approach government. They are a pretty prudent company, a pretty responsible company. I would think they have lots of people registered. I have not checked that out. I do not know that; I have to check that out.

Here we are with the very same industry, we have one company that has just about everybody who might possibly speak to anybody in government all signed up under the Lobbyist Act. Lo and behold, here we are with the boys with their hands out for $15 million: No, we didn't think to do that. We didn't think we had to do that. They come up with some story, explanation: Well, we didn't think we fit the regulations. We didn't think we fit the regulations.

I think that is a pretty shallow explanation. I would have thought there were about $15 million good reasons why you should have thought about it. There are $15 million good reasons why you should have had, or somebody should have had, the foresight to see: Should we possibly be registered?

I think this is indicative of what is happening here. It seems to be not so much that we did not think we complied or were required to file, I get the impression that it is more a case of: Do laws, or do they not, apply to everybody equally and fairly in this Province any more? That is the concern I get. I sense a theme, an unwanted theme, happening.

It is not a case of: Should we check out what the law is? It is a matter of coming back after and saying: Well, that does not apply to us. We didn't think that applied to us, so we didn't bother it

That is not good enough, RFPs not necessary when you are going to spend $15 million. No, we do not have to use the Public Tender Act. Let that go out the door. We decided we do not need that. We are not even going to bother to check to see if there is anybody else out there who might want to do this. We are just going to let this go. We are going to make the decision.

Rather than play it safe - and I say safe because that is what it would have been, totally, absolutely, proper and safe. If for no other reason than that the Premier knew these people, that would have been the very prudent thing to do. The Premier, himself, acknowledged that he had problems with the deal. The prudent and safe thing to do would have been to say: Look, no ifs, ands or buts about this, if there is nobody out there, as the Minister now of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development professes after the fact, who is interested in doing this - it is fine to say that now when the horse is out and the barn door is shut and, as the Minister of Transportation and Works says, the deal is inked. Now that the deal is inked and we have the Cabinet decision made, we are going to put the money into it, gee, maybe we are not so sure.

I can assure you, I attended a meeting yesterday morning with what I believe to be the top bureaucrat of the minister's department dealing with this deal, and I put it to him: Is anybody else out there in Canada capable of doing this? Oh, yes, he said, a number of people out there are capable of doing this. Telus was the name he mentioned to me. Telus for one, T e l u s. He said they could do it. I said: Well, that is interesting. Did you ask them? Well, no, I do not think anybody thought to ask them. Anybody else out there? Oh, yes, there are a number of them.

What do we hear then? Once that question came out, of course, the minister yesterday had another spin. Oh, yes, but they do not have CRTC regulatory approval to do it here. They do not operate here in the Province right now. Well, I did not think Rogers operated here all the time either. I do not think Allstream was here before. Yes, they were here on some phone contract. I believe they were. I do not think Persona operated here for all of its inception. I do not know, but that is irrelevant to the point. The point is, you should have done the due diligence and checked it out. Do not come back later with some frizz and frill.

The Member over there for Topsail, for example, former Auditor General, I mean she must think this smells to the high heavens. I mean there is person who, in my time even in government, when she was the Auditor General, I knew her to be somebody who dotted the i's crossed the t's and said, look, if there is any way possible that you can make this thing be done proper, we are going to have it done proper, and told governments about it when they did not do it proper. It is the prudent thing to do.

We still have a lot of unanswered questions here. It just seems so coincidental, is the word I would use. We are here now in the midst of the fibre optic piece. We are getting the minister saying one thing and we have his officials out there saying something else. It certainly does not seem to be straight. I did not know, for example, until yesterday - I had a little clue into it last week when we had our first meeting with this official of the department, the top bureaucrat. I had a little inkling that maybe we are talking about something here more than one contract. So, I asked him: What is this about the branches you are talking about going on this trunk line, the backbone that you are going to put across the Province for $52 million. He said: Yes, there are all kinds of branches going to go off for that. We are going to service rural Newfoundland. Everybody who wants their Internet high speed and all that stuff, we are going to have all that service available because we are making an investment in these fibres.

The first question I asked: How many fibres are you getting? He said: Well, I cannot tell you that. I said: Excuse me, you are going to spend $15 million of our money and you are not going to tell us how many fibres you have? He said: Well, I cannot tell you that. I said: When does it start? When do you get them? When are you going to light them up, as you call it? He said: Well, I can't tell you that. I said: Oh, that is fine, you can't tell me that. Then I asked a big question again, I thought. I said: How much is it going to cost us to run the branches you are talking about up to the Northern Peninsula, up to the Baie Verte Peninsula, down to Grand Bank? Are you going to run all these branches you are talking about? Yes, he said. I said: Well, how much is that going to cost? Oh, we don't know, but that is extra. That is plan B. That is going to cost somewhere over $200 million. I said: Well, that is pretty good; $200 million dollars. I haven't heard that figure bandied about in the public. So, we are not only talking $15 million now to do the backbone, the trunk, we are talking about a potential $200 million that this government is going to, supposedly, invest to service rural Newfoundland some time in the next ten years.

Now, I will put it to you: We do not have enough money to put a porta-potty in the Burgeo area to service the people of Ramea and Burgeo who use the ferry service. We do not have enough money to pay our pharmacists, a fair deal equally all around this Province, and you are trying to tell me in order to sell this fibre optic deal, don't worry about it, plan B. We are definitely going to have $200 million to stick into the branches on this backbone, this trunk line, we are putting across the Province with this $52 million. Don't you worry about it. We are expected, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to take that in, hook, line and sinker.

I think somebody over there has been eating too much fibre, way too much fibre. Absolutely! It goes to show again, that it all detracts, all of this debate you have had on the Open Line shows and TV, and they send out all the forces - the proponents of the deal are taking out full-page ads in The Telegram, I noticed on Saturday: The president of MUN says this; The president of Nati says this. That is not the issue, whether a great, new, alternate fibre optic system is a good thing to have. I do not think there are very many of us who would disagree with that. I do not think anybody disagrees, as I told the top bureaucrat when we met with him, about the technology piece of it. I do not think there was any dispute about that.

The problem people are having in this Province is, is it a good deal, not whether the technology is right. Is it a good deal? Is it a proper investment for this Province? That is when people start to get the smell because they say: Whoa, just a minute now. First you tell me I have a new car, but you are not telling me how we are going to pay for it. You are telling me I have to invest in it. That is where the problem is. When people say: Well, how come you did not go to find out who else was interested, by the law? How come you did not follow the law of public tendering? Well, nobody else wanted to do that. That is not true. That is absolutely not true. This government cannot say that there is nobody else in Canada who did not want to be a part of this deal. You cannot say it. If you tell the people of the Province that, you are misleading them. You cannot do that. You know, and your own officials know, that you did not go and ask everybody because you did not ask for a Request for Proposals and you did not use the Public Tender Act. That is the fact of the matter. Don't try to cover it up and fudge it. You did not do the due diligence you should have done.

I read the EWA report that the minister stands up and talks about. A piece of fluff! An absolute piece of fluff! You went out and asked a bunch of consultants to do a report for you to justify your expenditure of $15 million and they were asked to cast an opinion without even having the information they needed to do it. They said in the statement of their report: We cannot comment on financial matters because Persona would not give us any of the books; would not let us see the books. We cannot comment. We cannot quantify the benefits that this is going to have for the Province, we do not know. We cannot get you certain information because we do not have time to get it. Now, that is pretty good. That is foresight and due diligence and a good, smart, prudent way to spend your $15 million.

What was the rush to justify this expenditure? That is what is trying to be foisted on the people of this Province. I would say there is hardly a member over there who knows the full details, other than what they have caught piecemeal coming off the Open Lines and stuff, don't have an understanding of it.

The Minister of Business, for example, how could he sit in his seat here in this House and go out in the public airwaves and talk about this deal being great, and it is good, and it is a good expenditure? He has policies in his own department that say you should not put money into stuff that competes with existing businesses. Where is that? I am hoping the Auditor General is going to go down that path. That is one he should go down.

Not only do we have the Public Tender Act being told we are not going to let it apply, not only do we have this being done under the guise of economic development to get around the Public Tender Act, and avoiding the Request for Proposals, I would like to know where the Minister of Business stands. He is sitting over there reading his book. He has been the minister since July. The Premier was the minister before that, by the way. The Premier was the minister before that, when the deal was being talked about ever since last year. Here they are, both of them, the Premier and the current minister, having their policy manuals in front of them saying you cannot put money into a project that competes with an existing company in the Province. Cannot do it, that is the law. I would think it is the law; it is your policy. What happens? We do not hear anything about that. Willy-nilly out the door, under the rug, don't mention that to anybody. Don't mention that to anybody because that might make this smell a bit more.

So, what do we have now? We have the Auditor General coming in and that is one of the things he smells, don't you have any fear about that. The Auditor General smells that piece, that we have an existing government policy written, black on white, and this government says: No, we are not going to do that. We do not need to abide with that.

He smells the fact that there was no tender, no Request for Proposals. He is going to smell all of that, all right. He is going to get his nostrils right full of the whiff of this, don't you worry. I am looking forward to what his terms of reference are going to be. I understand he has been given the resolution of the House asking him to go in. I have had that confirmed. I do not know of any defined parameters yet of where he is going to go, but I am certainly hoping that he will assume the responsibility to do it. I understand he has been asked. I hope he does assume the responsibility, and I hope this does not get put under the covers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: No, no, just a second now.

- put under the covers and delayed because he is so wrapped up with other stuff.

He is going to come back, I would think, to this House, if he accepts the task as put forward in the resolution, and he is going to say - there is no question in my mind, he is going to say - thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I received your correspondence. I will agree to do this. I have one problem: I do not have the staff. I need the resources.

Now, the Premier has committed to that so I am hoping that we are not going to see any delays here. I say to the Member for Trinity North, I have no worries about the Auditor General putting anything under the rug from the point of view of non-disclosure. Oh, no, I have faith in him. I have faith in him there, there is no question about that, but I hope it does not get delayed because he is so busy and we see stumbling blocks being put in his way because he does not have the resources. Let's see how fast this gets done, because I am sure he will ask some of the right questions. He will ask some of the right questions, no doubt about it.

This bill that seems so innocuous, I guess might be the right word, this little anomalies bill that the minister stands up and took all of thirty seconds to tell us what it was about, there is a lot into this.

In second reading this is the point where you say you either agree or disagree in principle to the piece of legislation. That is only one clause I have looked at so far, clause 10. I cannot say I disagree necessarily with the bill because I do not know the intent of where this government is driving and want to go with this clause 10. I, for the life of me, just cannot accept that this is just a minor change in the Lobbyist Registration Act.

You call me suspicious, you call me what you want, but I am very - suspicious, yes, I guess that is the right word. I am very suspicious that we have all this controversy going on about fibre optics and the lobbyists, and all of a sudden the government is coming back to us saying we want to make these changes about in-house and consultant lobbyists. I would think that is going to be within the very parameters of where the commissioner has to go but, more importantly, where - which I assume she will make the finding that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a breach - the investigating body is then going to go.

I do not know if it is proper and prudent for us to be tampering right now, because it might be said, if I did such-and-such on one day based on a law that existed, but by the time it gets investigated that law is changed, somebody might say: Well, okay, we realize you have changed the law since, now, and we have to go out and do that. We realize now that we have an onus on us to report it and we have to do that.

I cannot say, really, if I am in favour of this full bill. Those are just the questions I have had the opportunity to raise right there now. I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to vote fully in favour of this. I am sure some of the things are just redundant provisions and anomalies, as the minister says, but there are a lot of things there that might not be so redundant. There might be a lot of things there that are not so redundant; because, when you talk about giving regulatory approval on a go-forward basis to make regulations and changing things, particularly when it is a hot and heavy issue in the public, it makes one curious as to what is happening here.

Maybe the minister can give us a more detailed explanation when we get into second reading as to what the intent is of this clause 10 and, I mean, really flesh it out for us as to maybe even what he thinks the current definitions of in-house and consultant lobbyist mean, because we have had a lot of debate about it in the public. I would be interested in hearing the minister's take on this, as to whether he thinks the definitions need to be changed or lined up or whatever.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say at this point in time on this particular bill. I appreciate an opportunity to have spoken and I will, of course, have my comments again when we get to clause 10 in particular in second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair apologizes. I did not notice that the Leader of the Opposition had risen in his place, and I apologize.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to address this bill, and one particular part of the bill which refers to the Lobbyist Registration Act, because this is a relatively new act brought in by this government and we have an individual who has been appointed to this by the government, or by the Premier, and we all know who the individual is.

The problem I have with it is that, again, we do not know how they want to amend the Lobbyist Registration Act, because that act has come into question in recent times, during the recent few weeks, as it ties into this fibre optic cable deal; because, under the Lobbyist Registration Act, any individual or group of individuals who come to lobby government about a project that they want to do, that individual or group of individuals has to be registered as lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you an example. Aliant does business with the government on a regular basis and, as a result of that, their employees, whether they be high management or low management at Aliant, these individuals have registered, and Aliant has a number of individuals registered as lobbyists, because every time they come to government to present an idea or proposal then they want to ensure that they are not breaking the law because the Lobbyist Registration Act is a law. It is a law! All these bills that we pass in the House of Assembly are law, just the same as there is a law pertaining to the speed at which you can drive on the highway. As a result, the Aliant group of companies or the Aliant company wants to make sure that they are not breaking the law, so they have registered - I do not know - some ten or twenty people as lobbyists in the event that they come to talk to government at any time during the year about a particular project that they are doing.

The strange thing about this is that the three companies involved with this fibre deal, that being Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream, none of these companies have individuals who have been registered as lobbyists with the Lobbyist Commissioner. That strikes me as being rather strange because, let's face it, at some point some individuals involved in either of these three companies or all of these companies must have come to government to at least discuss this proposal; because it was an unsolicited proposal, by the way. It would not have even been as bad if the government went out and asked for the proposal or went to public tender. They refused to do that. This was an unsolicited proposal that came to government by all three groups involved: Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. Not one of the individuals employed with those companies was registered as a lobbyist.

When we asked the questions - my colleague, the Member who represents Burgeo & LaPoile asked that question in the House of Assembly last week, how many of the individuals in those three companies were registered as lobbyists, because obviously they have had, over the period of eighteen months, some discussions with government pertaining to this fibre optic cable deal. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development got up and said: Oh, no, they did not need to register, because they spent so little time discussing this deal; the individuals involved in these companies spent so little time discussing this deal.

In fact, the minister even went so far as to say, during Question Period one day last week, that he did not know who they met with in government. He was not aware that they met with anybody in government to lobby on behalf of the deal that they were putting forward unsolicited. Then the next day, the minister stood in the House of Assembly and said that he met with them. Now, the day before he did not even know that he met with them himself, but then he said not to worry about that because they only met with government four times. This group, this consortium, only met with government four times. Guess what happened the very next day after that? The minister stood in front of his chair over there and said: Wait now, they met with government eight times. I think Mr. MacDonald, one of the proponents of this deal, even said on one of the media outlets in this Province that he had met more than four times. The minister contradicts himself. I just cannot believe, Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Straits & White Bay North, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to speak on the fibre optic deal, then at least reiterate what I said as opposed to misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, what I said last week was that I cannot speak for what Dean MacDonald said in the paper about how many meetings he had. Before I had a chance to finish the rest of the answer, with the racket that was coming from the other side, the Speaker stopped me from speaking. So, I could not continue to say who met from my knowledge of who met, when they met and what have you. The next day, when I had an opportunity to deal with it, I dealt with it. I laid out there who met and when they met, from my knowledge of who had meetings. That was well articulated here in this House, who met and when they met.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, is this. I did not say that they did not have to register as lobbyists. I said that under the legislation it is up to the company to determine if they should register or not. The registrar of lobbyists is the person who has, in the Department of Justice, to determine whether or not the companies were in compliance with the act, Mr. Speaker, not I.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a point of information.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was a good ruling, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult. The minister gets up and talks about what he said and what he did not say. The problem we have over here is that it is extremely difficult for us, or for anyone who is trying to follow what the minister is saying out there in the general public, to determine exactly what he is saying because he changes it everyday. I can stand here for an hour and list the examples of how the minister changes his story everyday.

It is like saying that the university is spending, I do not know, millions of dollars a year for its Internet service and then getting up the next day when we find out, for example, the university is not paying anything, it is being paid by a Crown Corporation in Ottawa. Ottawa is paying for the Internet service, but I am not going to get into that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I say again, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to talk about this, he can at least deal with the facts. If he is not going to deal with the facts than I suggest that he not deal with the issue at all, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, I have never ever, nor has anybody on this side of the House, suggested that Memorial University was paying millions for their Internet access. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have said that there are two components to Memorial University's cost associated with their Internet access. One is the Canarie advance research network, which costs them $400,000 or $500,000 a year, which is paid for by the federal government. The other one, which is roughly an equivalent cost for Internet access, is paid for completely by Memorial University.

The last time I checked, Mr. Speaker, the bulk of that funding comes from the provincial government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is just a point of clarification again.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hazard to guess that the minister is going to continue to disrupt my speech for the next forty-five or fifty minutes.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Now, when I mentioned millions of dollars, maybe the minister did not say that they were going to spend or save millions of dollars, but he did make reference, as did the Premier -

MR. TAYLOR: He did not say it (inaudible).

MR. REID: Can I have some protection from the honourable member, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, what he did say - and the Premier backed him up on it because he said it both publicly and privately in this House of Assembly - is that Memorial University pays anywhere from ten to one hundred times more for their access than other universities in the country. Now, how can you spend ten to one hundred times more for your access when the federal government is picking up the bill? We are not picking it up and neither is the university.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to what we are discussing here. We are discussing the legislation as it pertains - or at least I am - to the Lobbyist Registration Act. The fact of the matter is - and he can get up and contradict this if he wants - none of the employees of any of the three groups that are involved in this fibre optic deal has been registered as a lobbyist in this Province. That concerns me greatly, because if they are meeting with government officials, whether it be the minister or the Premier, the Minister of Business or their officials, for any period of time whatsoever, then it is incumbent upon them to register as lobbyists because if they do not, and they spend more then a certain period of time doing that, then they are breaking the law. The Minister of Justice just nodded his head and said yes, I am right.

The question that I have to ask is: If what the Minister of Innovation is trying to say today is that the proponents of this fibre optic deal met with government on such few occasions that it did not warrant them being registered as lobbyists, if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that they met so few times that they did not have to register. I laid out that they met, I believe it was eight times, with officials and Cabinet ministers. I know I was involved with two meetings, as I recall. The Minister of Business did not meet, the Minister of Natural Resources did not meet, the Minister of Finance did not meet, the Premier did not meet, with any of them. I met on two occasions, and officials met with them on a number of other occasions, which totalled eight, Mr. Speaker.

I have said that it is up to the company and the Registrar of Lobbyists to determine whether or not they are in compliance with that. I have never said that they were not in compliance, I have never said that they are in compliance, because I am not the judge. Nor is the Leader of the Opposition, nor is the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Leader of the Opposition has been recognized, and I know it is probably trying when people hear things that they may or may not agree with. I would ask members to kindly hold their thoughts and be recognized by the Chair to make the clarification when they are recognized to speak.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: That is fair enough, Mr. Speaker, because the member opposite can have all the time he wants after I sit down. He can make some notes and he can get up and contradict everything I say, but the fact of the matter is, I am telling the truth. Regardless of whether the minister wants to believe it or not, or if it is not politically expedient for him to believe it, or advantageous for him to believe it, I am telling the truth. The fact of the matter is, none of the individuals involved in these three companies are registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act.

MR. TAYLOR: Now, that is true.

MR. REID: That is true. Even the minister, himself, agrees, but here we are talking about doing a $52 million deal, of which the government and the taxpayers of this Province are contributing $15 million, and, listening to the minister and the other minister behind him down there, the Minister of Business and the Premier, you would swear they never talked to any of the proponents of this fibre optic deal. That is what you would almost be led to believe. Just imagine.

You know, they had eight or fewer meetings on this over a period of eighteen months, and yet we are willing to fork out $15 million of taxpayers' money. I wish money was so easy coming to my constituents who look for a few dollars from government. I certainly wish it would come that easy to the councils and the community leaders in my district, that they could hold fewer meetings and talk to government less and still get $15 million, but the fact of the matter is, none of them are registered as lobbyists.

I have a problem with that, because I actually believe there was a fair amount of time spent with government officials and politicians pertaining to this contract that we are doing with these three companies. That is my sense.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Now, the minister can suggest anything he wants. He is over there -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

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

Listen, I will gladly, when I am finished speaking, sit down here and listen to him, or I will walk out of the House so that I will not have to interrupt him. If that is what he so desires, I will at least offer you that privilege, but I would beg that you would listen, because sometimes when you listen to people you learn something.

Mr. Speaker, again what I am saying is that it is hard for an individual or any group of individuals to understand that a group can come forward with an unsolicited - the government never asked for it, never asked for it, were not even talking about fibre optic cables. Then you have a company that comes forward, a group of companies that come forward, and hold fewer meetings, according to the minister, than would require them to register under the Lobbyist Act, and yet they walk out with $15 million - especially when you consider the connections that some of these individuals involved with these three companies have with government, not only on a personal basis with some of the individuals opposite but also on a professional basis on boards and committees on which they sit with this government.

One of the proponents, for example, is the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Another one of the individuals involved in this sits on the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. These same two individuals are also on the Premier's Business Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that these individuals have the ear of the Premier and everyone in government, and also they have an open door access policy granted to them. Now, that is just two of the individuals. There are many others. To me, it just defies comprehension that they can actually say that these companies should not have registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act, but they have other ways, I suppose, of doing it.

Besides the professional relationships they have with government, they also have personal relationships. We know the history of some of the individuals, who they worked for, and what type of personal friendships they have with some of the members opposite, including the Premier, so I have a grave concern.

The minister says it is not up to government to determine whether or not these people should be registered as lobbyists. The Lobbyist Commissioner, I think, says that unless somebody comes and tells them that they are lobbying then she has no way of knowing if they are lobbying. If that is the case, I am hoping that what the minister is proposing to do with this Lobbyist Registration Act is to tighten it up so that when there are $15 million deals being discussed in government with a group of individuals, that someone is taking track of the number of times that they met, and with whom they met, and call up the Lobbyist Commissioner and at least inform her of what is doing. Because, if that is not happening, if the government says: Listen, you can come in and meet with us all you like, we are not going to tell the Lobbyist Commissioner that you are meeting with us - that is what they are saying. You can come here and meet with us until you are blue in the face; we are not going to tell the Lobbyist Commissioner.

The Lobbyist Commissioner says: Well, it is not my duty to go out and find out who is meeting with government and who is lobbying government. Then, whose responsibility is it? Why are we even discussing a Lobbyist Commissioner when that individual has no way of determining with whom government meets, and how long and how often they meet? That is the problem I see with your legislation: that you can, to use the Premier's own words, drive a Mack Truck through it.

Now, the Lobbyist Commissioner is aware that at least we think there is a problem with the act and that she should investigate whether or not the individuals involved with Persona or Rogers should have registered as lobbyists with her, because I have written her and asked her to investigate that, and to find out and determine how many times these individuals met with government and whether or not they defied or contravened the Lobbyist Registration Act.

I doubt very much if I will get a positive response back from her. I doubt it very much. I have one saying that she will have a look at it, but I doubt very much if we are going to get a ruling that they did break the Lobbyist Registration Act, for a couple of reasons. Number one, Mr. MacDonald, one of the proponents of this deal, a friend of the government, a friend of the Premier's, on two or three boards here in government, has already called her. He has already called her, before we had a chance to write her, to say: Listen, do not worry about that because we did not break any laws.

Just imagine, he called her and said that they did not break any laws, so that will be good enough. That will certainly be good enough for the Lobbyist Commissioner one of these days to write me back and say: Listen, no one broke the law here, no problem.

Let me tell you why I think that will happen. It is the same reason why we are up talking on a daily basis about this deal. When we asked officials in the minister's department yesterday, or last week - because we met with them twice - how do we know that there was no one else out there who could have bid this project? Because we were told by officials at Persona.

We read the EWA report, the Electronic Warfare Associates report, and in it, it says: We were provided information by Persona - and that is the only information we have to determine whether or not this is a good deal.

Even in this - and this is what strikes me strange, the contradictory statements that the individual who wrote this report makes in his own report. One minute he says right there, that: Persona will make a modest profit. Persona will make a modest profit on this deal. Then in a further statement in the same report, the same individual says: Well, we have so little information about Persona's business interests, that they cannot even tell us if the company is solvent. For those who do not understand what the word solvent means, they cannot even determine whether the company is bankrupt or if it is not. Given that information, EWA can come out: Persona said it was a good deal. They gave them the information to say why it was a good deal. Then you call that an independent assessment of the contract! Based solely on information provided to it by Persona, the EWA reports says: Oh, that is fine. It is a good deal.

I guess, when Mr. MacDonald calls up the Lobbyist Commissioner and says, listen, we did not break the law, we did not meet the required number of times that would require us to register as a lobbyist, so you do not have to worry about that, write Gerry Reid back and tell him that he does not know what he is talking about again, we are not investigating this, the fact of the matter is, if we have a Lobbyist Commissioner sitting somewhere in this city, and I do not know if the individual operates out of her own house or if she has an office - can you inform me about that, Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You will inform me. I do not know if she is sitting in her own house this afternoon or if she is sitting in an office somewhere in the Province, or how much she gets paid, or if she gets paid anything. The fact of the matter is, if she makes a statement that she cannot - it is not her duty to go out and determine if someone is breaking the law. The minister says it is not their duty, as government, to tell her that someone is breaking the law, unless they are trying to do one of their enemies in, but they are certainly not going to call and rat out their friends. Who's duty is it to inform the Commissioner what her duties are? Is it us?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: It is everybody. The minister says it is everybody's duty to phone her up and tell her that. Have you? I ask the minister to answer this question - keep note out there anyone who is looking at this this afternoon, keep note - has the government, or you as the minister, or any other Minister of the Crown, or the Premier, written the Lobbyist Commissioner and asked her to investigate whether or not Persona, Rogers or MTS Allstream has broken the Lobbyist Registration Act?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Is the minister rising on a point of order?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: I really, seriously have to ask a question here of you, Mr. Speaker. Is it appropriate for any member of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, to stand up here and defame individuals who hold positions of trust in government, and outside of government in Newfoundland and Labrador - people like the Lobbyist Commissioner, for example, that he references, who he is suggesting will take a call from Mr. Dean MacDonald, or take a request from the Leader of the Opposition, and will treat it without due process and send back a response to the Leader of the Opposition based on little or no investigation? He stands up here and casts aspersions on internationally renowned corporations, like EWA, whose head office, internationally, is in Langley, Virginia, across the river from Washington, D.C., who do work for the Central Intelligence Agency, who does work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who does work for the United States Military, who does work for a wealth of organizations, governments and government agencies worldwide. He stands up here in this House and continues to defame these people and suggest that they do not do their due diligence.

Mr. Speaker, what he is doing inside this House he could never get away with outside of those doors without having a substantial lawsuit smacked in front of him. Mr. Speaker, I really ask you if he can get away with doing that inside this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no way of knowing whether the statements that are put forward by any member of this House are accurate or inaccurate. The Chair can only refer to the fact that all members are hon. members and the statements that they make here are statements that are true as they believe it. The Chair has no way of knowing whether those statements are true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate. So, I say to the hon. minister who raises the issue, there is no point of order.

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to continue with his time as allotted by the rules of the House.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, with the comments that the minister makes he is trying to intimidate me in the House of Assembly this afternoon, by saying that I will not go outside the door and say what I am saying here because I am defaming people's character and I will be sued. Well, I can tell the minister, everything that I said in this House of Assembly this afternoon I will say outside that door.

I did not defame the character of the Lobbyists Commissioner and I did not defame Mr. MacDonald. I quoted what Mr. MacDonald said himself in some media outlet in this Province just last week when he said himself, personally, that he had called the Lobbyists Commissioner and told her that he did not contravene the Lobbyist Registration Act. I did not defame the lady in question. In fact, I had a fairly lengthy conversation with her at a social gathering just a week or two ago.

MR. TAYLOR: Did you register as a lobbyist when you did it?

MR. REID: The minister asked me if I registered as a lobbyist to talk to the Lobbyists Commissioner a few weeks ago in a social context. Now, there is the bright bulb over there, Mr. Speaker. Now there is the bright bulb, Mr. Duct Tape himself.

Mr. Speaker, I did not defame a character. I am stating the facts, and this individual, like his leader - I must say, he is a great follower, because every time you start to get to the truth and ask the questions that are required, the first thing you hear said is: Come outside the door and say it and I will sue you. He thinks by following and spouting off and reiterating and aping the words that the Premier says, that I am somehow going to feel intimidated and sit down and not release the facts to the people, but I am still again going back to the fact that none of the individuals in this group or this consortium are registered.

He also talked about the EWA report. This reputable company who had their office in Virginia, across the river from Washington, as if: How could you ever question a company that was in close proximity of the White House, geographically? There is a stretch, as if to say that everyone who works in Washington and the White House and the Parliament buildings in Washington are all honest and above board.

I do not know if the minister is old enough to remember, but maybe he should check into the Watergate affair in Washington and remember the words of Richard Nixon when he said: I am not a crook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development constantly refers to me as a crackie. I ask him, what is he trying to prove this afternoon and what does he resemble or sound like?

Mr. Speaker, to get back to this thing; if the report came out of West Virginia or Virginia, and it is across the river from Washington, that everything that was in that report has to be honest and above board. Simply, I questioned what was said in the report, then somehow I am defaming the characters that are located in Virginia.

Well, I can tell the minister now, I do not think much of the report. I think very little of the report. If you want me to go out and say it in front of the media right there I will say it again. I never did think much of the report when 99 per cent of it is based on information that was given to it, or them, by Persona, who happens to be one of the principals who want this deal done.

You can yap, scream and bawl all afternoon, I did not say anything that defamed the characters of Mr. MacDonald or the Lobbyist Commissioner. I will not even mention her name unless you want me to. Now, all of a sudden, this faceless EWA company, all of a sudden I am defaming this faceless Electronic Warfare Associates company located in Virginia, across the river from the capital in Washington.

Personally, I will say even this, Mr. Speaker. I will say to the minister, I will walk outside the door and I will say that I do not think the report is worth the paper it is written on, let alone the money that you have spent to have it commissioned.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am talking about this, this afternoon, because of the Lobbyist Registration Act; it is mentioned in this bill. I do not know exactly - and maybe the Minister of Justice will enlighten us later on - what he intends to do with the Lobbyist Registration Act, because what I would like for him to do is to strengthen it in some way so that we could at least find out who has to tell the Lobbyist Commissioner to check into whether or not there is someone breaking the law. Whose responsibility is it?

The minister said it is everybody's. Unfortunately, Minister, how is everybody out there, like the people who are watching this on television this afternoon, going to even know if there is someone lobbying government, let alone breaking the Lobbyist Act, unless you tell them? When I say you, I mean you in the plural, you in government tell them.

You want me to be standing out in front of the Premier's office - by the way, I cannot get on the eighth floor, where it is located, to find out every day who is going in to meet with him, what they are going to be talking about, and time how long they are going to be in there. For one thing, I cannot get on to the floor where the Premier's office is. Number two, if I ask some individuals who are going in there: What are you going in to talk about?, I am going to be told: It is none of your business.

How are we going to find out who is lobbying the government at any given time if you do not tell them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Finance Minister himself. If you have something to say, go down and get the report that you commissioned on this deal and table it here this afternoon. Go down and get the analysis that your officials prepared for you on this, that you would not release.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly, you do not know either, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development does not know, and the current Minister of Business does not know. Do you know why? There is only one individual in this House of Assembly who knows all of the details on this, knows how many times he met with the proponents of this group. He knows how many times he met with Mr. MacDonald and all the other proponents. Guess who that is? The Premier. He is not here today. He is not here today, so he is not going to answer the question as to how many times he met with his personal friends to discuss this deal, whether it be on a river in Labrador or whether it be on a golf course here or a golf course in the United States.

How are we going to determine how many times the Premier meets with his friends and discusses an issue? I mean, it is just simply impossible for me to be in contact with the Premier night and day, in the office and outside, and in his living room and on the golf course, to determine if someone is lobbying him or not. So, whose responsibility is it to ensure that the Lobbyist Registration Act, the law pertaining to lobbyists, is broken or not?

 

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, your Lobbyist Registration Act is not worth a lot when the Lobbyist Commissioner herself tells me that she cannot investigate unless someone complains. The government says it is not their role to complain, and you are telling me it is the general public's role to complain.

Well, I am complaining. I am complaining on this one. As I said, it is impossible for us to know how many meetings you have with individuals, or what those meetings are about, so I hope that is what you are going to strengthen in this, I say to the Minister of Justice.

All of a sudden, now, I am going to sit down and let the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who has been yapping across the floor all afternoon telling me I do not know what I am talking about, and calling points of order to disrupt my speech so that I can sit down, well, I am going to sit down now and I am going to let the minister stand up and tell me all he knows about the deal, which I think is very little, because - and that is no disrespect for his intelligence. The reason I say that I do not think or I say he knows very little is because he only became the minister in July - I think it was on July 5 - because, prior to that he was the Minister of Transportation, and prior to that he was the Minister of Fisheries.

You have to remember, by his own words and those of the Premier, this deal has been going on behind the scene for eighteen months, even though nobody was talking about it or lobbying. Nobody from the company is talking to the government about it, but the officials in the department tell us that this has been an active file for eighteen months. The minister only became the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development in the last four or five months, but all of a sudden - he pretends he knows a lot, but I know the reason he does not, because he was not there for the eighteen months that this file was being worked on.

The current Minister of Business only became the Minister of Business on July 5. He did not know what was going on with this deal, but if you stop to think about this EWA report that they are talking about, this EWA report was already presented to government, guess when? Guess when the report came to government about the analysis of the deal? So obviously the guts of the deal had to be presented to government at some point in order for them to ask EWA to do an analysis of it. Guess when they gave the analysis?

Now, they had to have it. This group that sits across the river from the capital down in the United States had to have someone in government call them and say: We want you to do this report.

This group down there on the river had to find out information -

MR. PARSONS: The Potomac, is it?

MR. REID: The Potomac, yes.

I drove over it last year. Not much of a river, actually, half the size of the Terra Nova.

What I am saying is, here are the two ministers, who were not sworn into their portfolios on July 5 when the deal was already done and the analysis was asked for, and guess when the analysis of this deal was done and passed to government? On June 20.

Who was the Minister of Business on June 20? Who was it? It was not the current minister, the Member for Gander. It was the Premier. It was the Premier, the Minister of Business at that time. The deal was done.

EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates, was asked to do an appraisal or an assessment of this deal some time prior to June 20. They did their assessment, passed the report to government on June 20, and guess what? The Premier said it still smelled, still could not pass the smell test, so what do you do? Switch the ministers. Take the Minister from Transportation and Works, who knew nothing about the deal, and stick him over in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, because he does not know anything about the deal. Take the backbench MHA from Gander and stick him in - the Premier takes himself out of the Department of Business and sticks the Member for Gander in there. He did not know anything about the deal because it was already done, and the analysis was done on it before he became the minister. Maybe that will take the smell off it.

If it was such a great deal and there was no smell to it, and the current minister of industry knew all about it, why was he in Florida, on October 20 or something, and was called back to the Province to make the big announcement? To make the big announcement: We are doing this deal. He had to cut his trade mission short, fly back to St. John's, make the announcement that we are giving $15 million to this project.

Now, the question is: Who told him to cut his trade mission short in Florida? Anyone who has been in a Cabinet knows that there is only one individual who can overrule a Cabinet minister, or there is only one individual who can pick up the telephone and say: You get your rear end out of Florida and back to St. John's.

There is no one in the Department of Industry or Business can do that. Do you know the only person who can order a minister to do anything? It is the Premier. Obviously, somebody ordered him back out of Florida to do the big announcement on this deal. Sometimes what is conspicuous - did you ever hear of the words, someone or something is conspicuous by their absence or its absence? Have you ever heard of that phrase? What was conspicuous about the absence in this case is that here we have a Minister of Industry who knew little about the deal, had spent little time in the department and was off to Florida on another trade mission, called back to St. John's to do an announcement on something which he knew little about; and who is missing? The Premier, who is a telecommunications expert himself, who had been dealing with this. The Premier is missing and so are the principals in the three companies that are partners with us; those being the principals in Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. Why was the Minister of Industry called back to do it when he probably knew less about the whole affair than the individual who knew a lot more, and that was the Premier?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to get up and explain to us, or answer some of the questions that I have raised, he is welcome to do it. I do hope, Minister, that you are going to change when you talk about the anomalies in legislation. That is certainly an anomaly, that we have a privacy commissioner whose authority is vested in the Lobbyist Registration Act, yet she has to wait in her house or in her office, whether paid or unpaid, because I do not know that, and wait for someone to phone her to investigate whether or not someone is contravening the act, when you have already said that it is not the responsibility of government to do that. Well, whose responsibility is it? Maybe you can answer some of those questions. I do hope that, at least, you are going to correct some of the anomalies that I just pointed out in the act to you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now, he will close debate on Bill 49.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, from about a couple of hours ago, when I stood up and said that this was just a housekeeping bill to deal with minor amendments to the legislation, a piece of housekeeping legislation that is presented, I believe, probably every year, if it is not presented every session, for Joe and Jean - the Opposition House Leader likes to refer to Joe and Jean and to explain to them what is going on here. I am sure that Joe and Jean, or Joe and Martha, are wondering how the heck we went from that to this lengthy debate here about the Persona deal and discussion about lobbyist registration, but in particular the Persona deal and conflicts of interest and so on. I think it is important that I point out, that in the legislation which is being debated here today, it deals with a number of different pieces of legislation in which there are a number of housekeeping errors. Of course, it is permissible for any of the speakers, any of the Members of the House of Assembly who wish to do so, to get up here, to get up on their feet and stand at their desk in the House of Assembly and talk about any one of those particular pieces of legislation.

I think that Joe and Jean would also be interested to know something else which they may not understand that is happening here, and that is the desire on this side of the House, it is the desire on the government side of the House, to pass this legislation. Government, of course, has a legislative agenda which it wants to get passed through the House of Assembly. Sometimes that means that ministers on this side of the House do not have the opportunity to speak as long or as often as our hon. friends on the other side of the House can do because government wants to get its bills passed and there is always a time limit. Sometimes when I am up here speaking and I go on too long, I am reminded by the Opposition House Leader to hurry up and sit down because we have three more bills to deal with. When I got up to speak on this bill I was reminded by the Opposition House Leader - I am sorry, by the Government House Leader, that we were anxious to move on with our legislative agenda and not to say too much when we discuss this pretty innocuous piece of legislation that we are debating here today.

There was a lot of discussion about lobbyists, about the Lobbyist Registration Act, Mr. Speaker. Of course, that is a piece of legislation that comes under my responsibility, in my capacity as Minister of Justice. I think it is important to point out that up until last year there was no legislation in this Province that regulated the activities of lobbyists. You know, people in this Province lobby Members of the House of Assembly and they lobby their Members of Parliament all the time. I think we all know that we are stopped, I do not know, fifteen or twenty times a day by people who want ten minutes with us or five minutes with us to discuss a particular thing that interests them, to discuss a bill that they would like to see passed, or discuss an amendment that they would like to see passed, to advocate for a particular position, to recommend that a bridge be built somewhere, to recommend that someone get a job and so on. We are lobbied all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that. Lobbying is communication. It is active communication by somebody with a public office holder, with a view to influencing what that public officer, namely a Cabinet Minister or a Member of Parliament or a Member of the House of Assembly, to influence that person into supporting the proposal being put forward by the person doing the lobbying. As long as the lobbying is done appropriately we, of course, have no problems with that, no problems whatsoever.

I mean, I remember before I got into politics, I was involved in a business proposal with some associates of mine, and I think there was a building involved, and the federal government, the Department of Fisheries, I believe it was, had put out a tender for some office space. Myself and my associates said that we would put in a tender to bid on that office space, to try and get the lease from the government of the time. I was told that, well, if we expected to get the lease, we would have to hire a lobbyist. I said: Why? Why would we have to have a lobbyist to deal with our own government? My attitude was that you could write - everyone is entitled to write - a member of the Cabinet, to write a Member of Parliament, to write a Member of the House of Assembly, and you do not need anyone to do it for you. You do not need to pay anyone to have to make your representations to your own government.

I was told that with some governments that is the way it had to be, so I vowed, and I was delighted to see Premier Williams do it when we got into office, that we would bring in legislation that would take this lobbying by paid lobbyists, by people who were friends of the government of the day, where you would have to hire them if you wanted to see a Cabinet minister or you wanted to get your proposal before government.

I think that is wrong, so I am delighted that we brought this legislation in, because it did not exist before and I think it is important to bring this activity, this lobbying in the sense that the regular person understands it, to bring it out of the shadows so that the people of Newfoundland will know who is lobbying the government and will know why they are lobbying the government, will know how they are lobbying the government, so this legislation was brought in.

MR. PARSONS: Who checks it out?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I hear the Opposition House Leader saying: Who checks it out?

This was a good piece of legislation, and I will quote the Opposition House Leader. When we were debating this legislation in the House, he said that it is comprehensive - referring to this legislation - it is detailed. He said: I compliment the minister for the detail here, actually. He said: It is saying where you want to go, and the proper direction you want to go in.

So, not only the government but the Opposition did recognize that this was important legislation that had to be brought in to take lobbying out of the shadows so the people of this Province would know what is going on.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am pleased that the minister acknowledged that I did think this was a piece of comprehensive legislation - because indeed I did - but, lo and behold, I was wrong. I was wrong, because we have found out in the last several weeks that there is a big loophole here, and my question now to the minister is: Now that we have found that there is a big loophole and there is a big problem about who enforces this act and who makes sure that the openness and transparency is being done, what does he intend to do to fix it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is no point of order.

I do not know, since I have been in this House of Assembly, have I heard any point of order being a valid point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that when people lobby their Members of Parliament or public office holder, that is permitted as long as it is done appropriately, but there are certain people who make their living as lobbyists. There are certain people who are paid to lobby, and these are the people who we want to register.

We do not want the average person - if they want to write their Member of Parliament, if they want to write their MHA, if they want to write their government, if they want to call, they are allowed to do so, and they should be allowed to do so, and it is appropriate. In many cases, they educate us. There are many things that we MHAs do not know anything about, and we hear from our constituents and they educate us on an issue, and they influence public policy and program decisions as a result, but people who are paid to lobby, people who make their living as lobbyists, they are the ones that we want registered. They are the ones that we want to file documents in a registry that will tell the people of this Province who they lobbied, why they lobbied, what government officials they talked to, and what they lobbied about, so that the people of Newfoundland will know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, similar to legislation in other jurisdictions, refers to two types of paid lobbyists. One is a consultant lobbyist, and that is a person who hangs up a shingle and lobbies full time; they make their living by lobbying. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they do it appropriately and as long as they follow the law. They are required to register in a public registry which is available on-line.

In addition to consultant lobbyists, there are also in-house lobbyists. In-house lobbyists are people who are employees of a company. They work for the company; they get paid to work for the company. There may be a few who are full-time lobbyists, and they have to register. Other people who work for a company, Mr. Speaker, may lobby but they do not spend all of their time lobbying. They may spend 50 per cent of their time or 10 per cent of their time lobbying, and the legislation recognizes that people who work for different employers, whether it is a for-profit company or whether it is a non-profit company, they will lobby from time to time and they should not have to register unless they spend a certain amount of time lobbying.

The legislation defines an in-house lobbyist as being an employee whose lobbying activity on behalf of the employer organization, either individually or when counted with other employees, amounts to 20 per cent of one staff member's full-time work assessed over a three month period. This would apply to both individual employees and groups of employees who are conducting lobbying activities.

Now, to give an example: Given a five-day work week, an employee group would qualify as an in-house lobbyist by spending twelve working days on lobbying activity over a three-month period. Two employees working six days each would also meet these requirements. These are the types of lobbyists who have to register. Whether or not a person is required to register as an in-house lobbyist, the legislation requires everyone in this Province to self identify and to register as a lobbyist if the law applies to them.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation also contains very severe penalties if a person who is required to register fails to do so. If a person is required to register as a lobbyist and they fail to do so, the fine for a first offence is up to $25,000, a very severe penalty, a very severe sanction. For an offence beyond a first offence, Mr. Speaker: If a person is required under the act to register as a lobbyist and fails to do so, the fine is up to $100,000. In addition, the lobbyist who has failed to register could also - and I will get the actual wording here, Mr. Speaker. "In addition to the penalty..... the court may, where a person is guilty of an offence under this section, confiscate the proceeds of lobbying which were improperly obtained...." If someone obtained monies from government as a result of lobbying, and they were convicted of not registering or convicted of an offence, then they would forfeit - not only pay the penalty of up to $100,000 or $25,000 for a first offence - but also forfeit the proceeds they realize.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk by the Opposition of the fact that three companies allegedly didn't register when they were required to do so. The Opposition House Leader when he was speaking said that neither of these companies were registered under the act, and he posed the question, should they have been registered. Mr. Speaker, I saw some comments made by the Opposition House Leader on an open line show. I didn't hear the comments, I just read what he had to say in a transcript prepared by Newfound Media. This is a transcript, I didn't hear what the Opposition House Leader actually said, but I will say what Newfound Media said. This is a transcript of the Opposition House Leader on an open line show, VOCM Open Line, November 17, 2006, at 11:26 a.m.

He said: It is obvious from today's story in The Telegram that there is another perspective to this, that is the lobbyist piece, and the fact that the people who lobbied the government on this, the Persona's of the world and the Rogers people who are going to do the fibre, of course, did not comply with the lobbyist law.

That was the first indication I had that there was concern in the community that there was a suggestion made that there should have been compliance with this legislation.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Bay of Islands - I think Joe and Martha should know that the hon. Member for Bay of Islands is yelling out across the way there.

I think it is very important to know that the law says, when the Commissioner of public Lobbyists, when the Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that a provision of this act has, in fact, been violated, the Commissioner has the right to conduct an investigation. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if any citizen of this Province feels that a law is being broken, if they feel that there is unlawful activity, there is a duty to pass that information on to the appropriate authorities. That could be a police officer or that could be, in this case, the Commissioner of Lobbyists, because a process has been put in place here to deal with this thing. A government official, a public official, the Commissioner of Lobbyists, has been appointed under this legislation to, where he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a provision of this act or the Code of Conduct under the act has been violated, she may investigate that violation. She has authority under the act to appoint inspectors to conduct the investigation, and these investigators have the powers to go on people's property and to gather information.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important also to note, it is very important to note, that section 27 of this very effective piece of legislation says that where the Commissioner believes there is sufficient reason to do so, she may proceed to conduct an inquiry. In conducting such an inquiry, the Commissioner has the same powers and privileges and immunities that exist under the Public Inquiries Act. If any citizen here is concerned, or feels that this law is not being followed, then a complaint can be made to the Commissioner and the Commissioner will investigate, or a complaint can be made to a police officer at any time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place and that process could be taken advantage of. When the Opposition House Leader and the Opposition Leader indicated that they had concerns about the fact that possibly people who were lobbying the government should have been registered and were not, there was a process. They could complain to the Commissioner of Lobbyists, which is, in fact, what they did.

I discovered that my office, when we read the item in the paper - when we heard the item on the Open Line and we looked at the paper and saw the article being referred to, the office contacted the Commissioner. I understand that one of the people whose name had been mentioned on behalf of one of the companies had also contacted the Commissioner. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that he notified the Commissioner. So, there is a process in place, and if the Commissioner deems it necessary, the Commissioner will conduct an investigation. The Commissioner can conduct an inquiry and the legislation further requires that in addition to - it says, the Commissioner, if she believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed offence under the act, the regulations or the code of conduct, she shall, not may but she shall, advise a police officer having jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence.

That is the process that should be followed. That is the process that should be followed by all citizens. I receive correspondence from time to time alleging improper activity. The proper procedure for me to then follow is to pass the information on to the authorities, on to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or on to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and let them investigate. It is the police who enforce the law. We have officials under legislation that enforce the law. The police enforce the law. It is their job to do an investigation and if they have evidence that an offence has been committed, they would then lay the charge. Then it goes over to the Crown prosecutors, and if the Crown prosecutors believe that there is enough evidence to make out the offence, there is a prosecution and then the judge - where is the hon. Member for Bay of Islands - and the court will make the appropriate decision. So, Mr. Speaker, the process is there.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to say, and I want to raise it here, is that sometimes it is important for Joe and Martha -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay.

Well, Mr. Speaker, now that I have answered, I think, the questions raised by the Opposition concerning the Lobbyist Registration Act, I will move second reading of the bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 49, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 49)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 49)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Bill 38, second reading, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38 entitled, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market, be now read as second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market." (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

It is my pleasure to introduce the Flea Markets Regulation Act because we want to restrict the market in which people can dispose of stolen property in this Province. We want to prevent groups that are involved in shoplifting activities to have an avenue to dispose of their goods. That is one of the reasons we brought forward this particular piece of legislation.

Now flea markets are enjoyed by many, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I know my wife and I are certainly amongst that group. We enjoy going to flea markets. We enjoy purchasing baked goods. We enjoy purchasing handicrafts that are made. We also enjoy, from time to time, buying secondhand goods or used goods, because as they say, one person's trash is another person's treasure.

When it comes to the sale of baked goods, when it comes to the sale of work, as my wife calls it, or craft items, the sale of these items will not be impeded or affected, or adversely affected in anyway by this legislation. Also, when it comes to the sale of used goods, when it comes to the sale of secondhand goods, this legislation will not prevent the disposition of those goods as well.

Also, it is important to note, that this legislation will not affect the great majority of people in this Province who engage in flea markets, either as vendors or as buyers, who obey the law and follow the law. They have nothing to worry about from this particular piece of legislation.

I should also point out that the legislation expressively excludes from its provisions any flea markets that may be carried on by a group whose objects are a religious purpose, or a charitable purpose, or an educational purpose, or a community service purpose. Most flea markets that are carried out appropriately and properly, and the people involved in that, will not be affected by this legislation.

There is another group that the legislation is meant to affect and that is people who steal goods, who shoplift and who then attempt to dispose of those goods at flea markets, whether they are commercial flea markets or other flea markets.

The legislation refers to two types of flea markets. It defines flea market, and then it defines a commercial flea market. The only difference is that - well, the definition of a flea market is that it is an event organized for the sale of goods and includes an event commonly known as a flea market or an operation designated in the regulations as a flea market, and then it excludes the events, flea markets operated by bodies who are organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, charitable and community services purposes.

A commercial flea market would be - I guess it would be best by giving an example. I understand the Avalon Mall here has a commercial flea market on Sunday. I know in the malls in Corner Brook, usually on Sunday, there is a commercial flea market. When you have a commercial flea market, you have the mall operator who leases the tables to the vendors who sell their wares from tables there.

What the legislation is going to do is, the legislation will say initially that we are going to prohibit certain goods from being sold at a flea market. The prohibition, with one exception, is absolute. A vendor - this is section 3.(2) - "A vendor shall not sell or offer for sale at a flea market goods designated by the regulations as prohibited goods."

There are certain types of goods that we do not feel should be sold at a flea market. The classic example would be drugs, and things that are normally sold under regulation. I am told by the RNC that from time to time you can go into a commercial flea market and there might be a table set up with somebody who has opened a set of pills and the pills are being sold individually. We do not know whether the capsules have been opened, we do not know if the capsules have been documented, so, for public health and safety reasons, we think it is totally inappropriate for anybody to be selling these at a flea market, whether it is commercial or otherwise.

There are other types of goods as well that people should not sell. For example, I know in Nova Scotia, under their regulations, razor blades are, in fact, a prohibited good. I understand that there are retailers who have been robbed, or they have had their goods shoplifted, they have been cleaned out, and as a result they have had to put certain types of razor blades under lock and key. Then, these retailers will see at a commercial flea market these razor blades being sold in packages of ten or twenty at prices cheaper than the retailer could get them from the wholesaler.

Those are the first goods that are going to be prohibited, and they will be known under the regulations as prohibited goods, and no one will be permitted to sell those prohibited goods, with the exception of a person who may be the authorized sales representative of the producer and the manufacturer. So, if the representative from Tylenol wants to open up a table in a flea market they would be permitted to do so; but, apart from that, no one else will be permitted to sell those goods, those prohibited goods. The regulations set by Cabinet will indicate which of the goods are to be prohibited.

In addition, under section 3, an operator shall not operate a commercial flea market at which goods designated as prohibited goods are sold. So, that would be an offence as well. If the owner of the shopping mall should lease tables to somebody who is selling prohibited goods, there is an obligation on the operator to go around, or to have his employees go around, from table to table to make sure that these prohibited goods, make sure these drugs and what have you, are not being sold, and, if they are, to make sure that person is forced to stop the sale and move out of the mall and not come back.

Mr. Speaker, there is a second section of goods that have a restriction on them and again, as I said before, this does not include baked goods, it does not include handicrafts, it does not include second-hand goods which you would normally expect to be sold at flea markets. A vendor who has a table at a flea market shall not sell goods that would be set out in the regulation as prescribed goods unless the vendor has on his or her possession, and provides to the operator of the flea market, certain information, information that can prove to the operator and prove to a police officer that in fact the goods that are being sold, goods that are described in the regulations as commercially manufactured unused goods, as opposed to second-hand goods. Just simply show where you got them. Just be able to give information to show that you are not selling stolen property here.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations will set out what information the vendor has to maintain, and it also places an obligation on the operator to not operate a commercial flea market in which prescribed goods are sold or offered for sale unless the operator of the flea market obtains from the vendors the information as to where the unused commercially manufactured goods, as opposed to used manufactured goods, have been obtained.

Mr. Speaker, a number of requests have come into the Department of Justice from people who have been asking us to bring in legislation to do something about it. In the year 2000, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote the department. Mr. Peter O'Brien, who is vice-president for the Atlantic Region, said: We recognize that it is impossible to completely eliminate shoplifting, but we believe that if flea markets were limited to the sale of crafts and used merchandise, which was the original intent, we would see a dramatic reduction in the incidence of shoplifting in this Province.

I will read from a letter from Moor-Crafts and Gifts Inc. from Gander. This was a letter to the Department of Justice some time ago, where a petition was presented to the department where a number of citizens were concerned about the selling of goods, that may have been stolen or shoplifted from businesses, at flea markets. She referred to the fact that other provinces have had similar concerns and they changed their laws to deter those kinds of acts from occurring through a flea market venue. She pointed out that if flea market vendors were required to show some kind of proof of purchase for the goods they were selling it would be a great deterrent. She pointed out that flea markets were becoming an easy way for stolen goods to be sold. There was also correspondence from the Town of Lewisporte as well.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no legislation or regulations in place that deal with this particular matter. That is why we have followed the example of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is the only province that has brought in legislation to this effect, and it has been suggested to us by members of the Federation of Independent Business, by the Retail Council of Canada, and by many business people in the area, that we should bring in legislation, because they say that stolen products from Nova Scotia are being shipped out to other jurisdictions and if we do not want to become a haven or an avenue for the disposition of stolen property, we should bring in this legislation as well.

As I said, the bill does not interfere in any way with the sale of homemade goods, handicrafts or typical garage sale items or second-hand goods. They are not affected. Nor will it apply to the not-for-profit organizations that I mentioned earlier who hold, for fundraising purposes, an annual flea market.

Recently, the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick have contacted Nova Scotia and they have expressed interest in enacting similar legislation to ensure that their provinces do not become a dumping ground for organized crime at flea markets.

This legislation will not unduly cause any increase in cost in terms of its enforcement. Nova Scotia has the largest retailers who contract private security firms to police the flea market legislation in that Province, not by making arrests but by simply observing where flea markets, or where operators in flea markets or vendors in flea markets, may be selling prohibited property or selling prescribed property without the required information. It is anticipated that the large retailers in this Province will follow suit. If they notice a violation, they will notify the police authorities and the police authorities will come and if they feel that the property is, in fact, goods that are prohibited or prescribed and the information is not available, make the appropriate seizure of the goods. The offence under the act is the offence of selling goods that are prohibited. The offence under the act is selling goods that are prescribed without information. If you have the information that proves where you bought it, there is no problem.

Mr. Speaker, we are told from Nova Scotia that before this legislation came into effect, they were noting four or five violations per flea market every weekend. We are told that since the regulations came into effect they are down to just a couple of infractions each year. In the view of the Nova Scotia officials, the act alone has been a successful deterrent in regulating goods of questionable origin in that province.

I believe that this bill is a positive one. Will it stop shoplifting? No, it will not. Is it a panacea? No, it isn't. But it is another tool. Our government has been attempting to provide additional and effective tools to enforcement agencies to help them do their jobs better, to carry out the functions they have to carry out.

The family violence legislation was a good example. That was a piece of legislation that gave another tool to victims of family violation. It was a civil remedy, not a criminal remedy - this law as well. One of the problems we have now is, because of the evidentiary requirements under the Criminal Code of Canada it is very difficult for the police to regulate flea market sales, because of the fact that there may not be enough evidence there to meet the burden of proof of thief or possession of stolen property. This legislation will enable those enforcement officials to deal with this issue which affects all of us. It affects consumers. Because of the fact that retailers have to raise their margins and prices to cover the shoplifting laws and to pay for security, consumers have to pay higher prices. Governments lose the revenue from the goods that are sold, and, of course, governments lose revenue from the taxes they would earn on the sale of those goods if they were sold. Also, because government loses that revenue, government cannot do the things that government wants to do to help people who are poor, to build schools, to build hospitals and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience and I am pleased to move second reading of the flea market regulations act.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments in regard to this flea market bill, we call it. I notice of course it is under the purview of the Department of Justice, because we are talking here about a regulatory type scheme that would hopefully stop some crimes that have been occurring in the past. In fact I acknowledge that again the minister made reference to Mr. O'Brien of the Independent Business Association who came forward some years ago. I would concur that this has been a very serious and ongoing problem and other jurisdictions have grappled with it as well. How do you bring in a system whereby you are fair to the legitimate type operators but at the same time you try to get at the negative behaviour that is occurring?

We have had people in this Province, as has happened in other provinces, who steal a load of goods, and, of course, once you steal them you need somewhere to offload them. Unfortunately, flea markets at times, particularly large commercial flea operations, have been a favourite venue for these stolen good to be sold through, and there was no way to control it. What you are trying to do here, of course, is put a system in place whereby if someone commits a crime, steals a back load of goods from somebody and then tries to offload it through a flea market at least now there are going to be controls put on the operators of the flea markets to make sure that those goods were not stolen. There has to be some paperwork put in place so that the operator just does not take fifty sacks of razor blades and put them on the shelf to be sold, that they must document, where did they come from, is it a legitimate purpose and so on.

We have no problem with it. In second reading here you express your agreement or disagreement with the proposed legislation. We feel this is a positive move. We acknowledge, and I am sure the minister will acknowledge, that it is not going to be perfect. It is going to be like a lot of pieces of legislation that you take the first kick at the can and you realize that as time goes on you will have to tweak it. There will be things that you will have to come back here. We will have another one of these anomalies bills and more amendments to this legislation, because quite frankly people of a criminal bent will look at the piece of legislation and find ways to get around it. There is no law right now, so we are going to put a regime in place hopefully here that at least puts up some barriers and prevents it, and it is going to force the criminal mind to think a bit more seriously if he plans on using this type of activity, and certainly flea markets, as an offloading venue for illicit goods.

Just a couple of questions I would pose for the minister, and I do appreciate the fact as well that contrary to most times when we discuss legislation in this House - you never, of course, see the regulations because the way the system works is you pass an act first, you usually have a provision in the act which says that the government and the department thereafter can make regulations to help give some further teeth and implementation to that act, but, in this case I was actually provided with a copy of the draft regulations. That is helpful because there are a lot of references in the Act to prohibited goods and so on and you leave yourself wondering, saying: Okay, what goods down the road, in the regulatory scheme, are government going to prohibit? In this case they have obviously put some forethought into this and given a list of prohibited goods and so on. We have been provided with that and it has been very helpful, I say to the minister, in helping in that consideration of this piece of legislation. Too bad we could not do it all the time, but I realize again, quite often you need to get the basic framework in place before you can get at the regulations that you want to put around that piece of legislation.

Just a couple of questions, and I do not know if the minister might give some thought to it. I just throw this out to initiate thought, basically. It is not being critical or whatever. I do not see anywhere in here - I am just wondering, maybe it is here - the issue of the individual. We talk here, for example, about commercial operators, people who set up in the Avalon Mall and what is going to be the onus and requirements on them. We also have it in here who it does not apply to. I think that is helpful. It says, "...but does not include an event operated by a body organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, charitable or community-service purposes."

That tells a lot of people who do not have to worry about this - they said, you people do not have to worry yourself about it, you are not covered. I am wondering about the individual. I do not know if there is some way we could be more explicit that the individual - for example, Jim and Jane are moving out of their residence, they are shipped off to Alberta and they have a whole back load of stuff in their backyard and their shed and their garage. They have a yard sale, a pretty common activity. Every now and then pack rats, some people like myself who are a bit of a pack rat and you save stuff up for ten or fifteen years, and all of a sudden the wife says, clean it out, get rid of it, what you do is you have a flea market out on your front step.

I think the definition of flea market here, which says, "...an event organized for the sale of goods..." - pretty broad - would take into that activity that I just went out and had a flea market on my corner, on my lot. Yet, I am not excluded under that activity that appears under the exclusion piece. I am just wondering if, for clarification purposes, the individual - because an individual would not necessarily fit under the religious, educational, charitable or community service purposes definition, because I do intend to keep the money that I make from the flea market for myself. So, I would not fit there. I think we might need to plug something there, if it is possible to do it, while we are at this now, when we get to the committee stage, that maybe there is something we can draft here to put around that piece since we are at it.

The other concern I had - and I do not know if there is anything we can do with that either - is, what if, for example, we have exempted here a religious operator or a charitable operation from the act, but what if the crook who got the back load of razor blades that he stole from Shopper's Drug Mart, what if the crook goes and buys a table for $10 at the Kinsmen's Club flea market, and the Kinsmen who comply with the act and whatever have sold a table to Joe Blow Crook, and Joe Blow Crook who has all these razor blades, which are prohibited goods, comes in and sells them at his table? I am just wondering here how the act would apply and the regulations would apply? We have excluded the charitable group from the act, therefore the person who is running the charity, the Kinsmen Club for example, they are not going to bother themselves about this act. No regulations apply to them. So they say: Thank you very much. Then the fellow walks off the street and says: Oh, by the way, I have 1,000 packs of razor blades that I have not used, I wonder if you would sell them? Or, in fact, they do not even tell them what they are selling. They just say I want to rent a table, here is your $10. The Kinsmen Club is worried about the fact that they got their $10 for the table. They are not worried about what the crook sold at the table. Even if they saw it on the table, the Kinsmen Club is under no obligation to report it. It is something like the Lobbyist Act again, we have that little quirk there.

I am just wondering, I put that to the minister, if maybe - those are a couple of things, I think now while we are at it, we might be able to get some thought put into. Maybe there is a way to plug it, the loophole, before it becomes a loophole.

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to speak to this bill, Bill 38, An Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

I am very pleased that we have this legislation coming in because flea markets are playing an important role in our economy in a Province that has the highest rate of poverty, in a Province where we have the highest per capita use of food banks, in a Province where, provincially, whatever about St. John's, but provincially, we have a very high unemployment rate. Flea markets are very important to people who do not have the money to buy things new.

I see this legislation as a way to protect the buyers. We do not want to be a depository of stolen goods, but I think the buyers need to know that when they are going to a flea market they are not in danger of buying stolen goods. Obviously, there are probably some people who do not care if they buy stolen goods or not, but I think the majority of people do care that they are not buying stolen goods, that they want to buy goods that they need, but they also need protection. I see this legislation as a way of protecting the buyer, and I think it is extremely important from that perspective.

Still looking at it from the perspective of the buyer then, I have a couple of questions also to ask of the minister. Again, it could be something that could be discussed in Committee with the possibility of inserting these ideas. I do not know because I do not go to flea markets, and I could not get an answer to this question. I did ask, I do not know: What is the practice right now with regard to people's awareness of what is going on in a flea market? I think it is really important for the public to know that this bill exists, once it comes into play, and that they need to know the regulations. I was thinking that it would be really important for every flea market to have to post a list of prohibited goods, that way people know that if they do go to the table with the razor blades, or they go to a table that has toiletries on it, that they are taking part in an illegal action themselves. I think they need to have that information. I do not see that covered at the moment in the legislation, so I think a discussion on that in Committee to see how that might happen would be very good.

I did have questions about who was going to police all of this legislation, and the minister did speak to the role of the large retail operators and that they seem to be the ones who do the monitoring and do the reporting. It seems a bit inadequate to me, and I think I may want to hear more on that. Are we assuming, for example, that if a flea market is taking place in the Avalon Mall that the owners of the mall are going to be out checking, or they are going to have somebody from Sears checking on the flea market in the Avalon Mall? It just does not seem to answer the question for me. I know it would be nice to say that it is not going to cost any money to see that this legislation is adhered to, but it would seem to me that we may need to think about either the role of police, who are already in existence, or inspectors; especially in places where something is fixed. We know it is always there on Sunday morning, or Sunday afternoon. It does not mean an inspector has to be there every single Sunday to that area but if there were random checks that were done and people have no idea when there are going to be inspectors turning up. It just seems to me, leaving it to the retail operators does not seem to be a good way to make sure that the legislation is adhered to.

I think these are the main issues for me. I think the legislation is good. I think it is really great to have it. I think that recognizing the role of the flea markets is very good and if we make sure that everything is there to protect the buyers, then I would be satisfied. Those two points I would like maybe to discuss in Committee.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

When the minister speaks now, he will close debate.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

I appreciate the comments made by both the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am pleased to see that both parties are supporting this legislation because I agree that it is important.

The suggestion from the Leader of the NDP that the operator should be required to post a list of prohibited goods, I think is an excellent one, and I am very surprised it is not in here. That is why I think it is helpful for us to discuss. When it comes to the drafting of the regulations, I would invite suggestions and comments from the Opposition and from the community as to what we should put in the regulations to ensure that the legislation does work effectively.

In terms of supervision, in addition to the security firms that these large retailers will hire to go around and monitor the various flea markets, there is a sanction on the vendor that the vendor is not supposed to sell prohibited property. When I say vendor, I mean the person who is at the table actually selling the goods. The vendor cannot sell the prescribed goods unless they have the information showing where they bought it, and that is the commercially manufactured new goods or unused goods.

There is one other person, and that is the operator. The operator has an obligation to check with the vendors to see what they are selling, because if the operator carries out a sale or permits a sale in which these prohibited goods are sold, the operator is subject to sanction as well and there is an offence. I guess the security firms will monitor it, the operator will monitor it, and when complaints are made to the police, the police will come up and actually take the goods and make the charge; but I think by posting the list of prohibited goods, members of the general public can also play a role as well. I think it is an excellent suggestion.

The Opposition House Leader talked about the issue of the individual. He talked about Jim and Jean having a yard sale, people who are moving to Alberta, he said, and they are going to have a yard sale. Obviously, yard sales would, in fact, be covered by the act, but, in fact, it is the goods that they are selling that would determine whether the act is going to apply.

If Jim and Jean are selling years of accumulation of, I don't want to use the word junk, but unused goods, or used goods, I should say, if they are selling baked goods, if they are selling handicrafts, those things can be sold and no one is going to bother them. It is only if they are selling commercially manufactured unused goods that they will be covered by the act, and they will simply have to have the information on hand to give to a police officer if a police officer should show up, which I highly doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unused goods?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Commercially manufactured unused goods, you have to have proof of where you got them. If they are used goods, no problem, second-hand goods.

I do not think there is a problem there with garage sales. The only problem that you would have would be - an example was given to me of a couple who may have received, as a wedding gift, three toasters. They use one of the toasters. The other two toasters sit in their house and what happens if they want to get rid of this at a flea market?

Well, the answer will be that they will either have to have information as to where they got it or they will have to go to one of the flea markets that are undertaken by a group that is a charitable group or a community-minded group, a community service group or religious group, and they will have to donate the two toasters to that group and let them have the money from them.

The other one was the question, if there is a charitable organization such as the Kinsmen Club which runs a flea market and sells a table to a criminal - but I believe the purpose of those flea markets is that the money that is raised will go to the charitable organization, not to the criminal, so I really do not think that is an issue.

I do want to say that the legislation is not meant to get somebody who is selling their goods at a garage sale, and it is not meant to get the person who got the three toasters at a wedding. The legislation is there to crack down on those organized rings of shoplifters and try to put a stop to what they are doing.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I now call for second reading of Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services.

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services." (Bill 50)

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to speak to this particular bill today. This particular piece of legislation will do a number of things, in fact, particularly pertaining to the provincial drug program that we are expanding in January.

Right now, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada that does not have legislation to guide the operations of its provincial drug program, so this will allow the provincial drug program to come under legislation. Enacting the legislation was recommended by the Auditor General, as well, in 2005.

What this particular bill will do for us is to provide clarity and transparency with respect to eligibility for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. It will allow for appeals process under the program, and for decision-making processes for coverage of new drug therapies. It will also provide support for information sharing between government, pharmacies and physicians, and as well reflect transparency and accountability by allowing for independent review and adjudication of programs pertaining to pharmaceutical services.

Like I said, it is certainly a pleasure to speak on this particular bill. It is a very comprehensive piece of legislation, and I certainly welcome comments from both parties on the Opposition.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and have a few comments with regard to this bill. I have been doing a lot of talking today, so I think my voice is starting to go on me.

No doubt Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, would establish the Newfoundland and Labrador prescription drug program, and I think the minister already gave an outline of what that entails. Certainly, it is an important piece of legislation because it needs to be able to regulate important programs and services, and I think this is certainly a very important one within the medical auspices of the Department of Health and Community Services.

Madam Speaker, I guess whenever you talk about prescription drug programs, we are always reminded, in particular, about the number of people out there in our Province still today who require prescription drugs but yet cannot afford to access them. It is always sad when you get calls from your constituents or from other people throughout the Province who are impacted in that way. There are a number of them. A lot of people who suffer from chronic illness and disease, in particular, as you know we don't have a catastrophic drug program in Canada today that covers a lot of these medications.

I remember dealing and talking with constituents in my own district and people in other parts of the Province, especially those who suffer from diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, where they have a very difficult time in accessing medication simply because of their ability to be able to afford those types of medications. I have one woman in my district, in particular, who is married, her husband is a fisherman and she is the mother of two beautiful daughters, who suffers from this disease and every month has to deal with the challenge of being able to come up with the money to buy her medication, medications that often cost her up to $1,500 a month, leaving on many occasions the total family income of only about $600 or $650 a month for them to support their children and provide for their family. It is a really difficult situation and circumstance to find yourself in.

I don't think that people who suffer from diseases like MS or other diseases should have to have the stress and the strain of worrying about where the money is going to come from for their next lot of pills or medications. In fact, they should have full coverage of those types of drugs so that they can access it when they need to in order to not only help them in their day-to-day dealings with this disease, but also not to prolong any negative effects or impacts of the disease over a period of time.

I certainly want to say to the minister, that while you regulate the Prescription Drug Program in the Province, while you go out and renew the MCP program in the Province, always keep in mind that there are still a lot of gaps in the system for many people in our Province who need to access medications.

I want to talk about diabetics for a few minutes, because I think myself, along with a number of other members in the Legislature, had the opportunity to attend a function at the Holiday Inn last week that was hosted by the Diabetes Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I found it to be a wonderful learning opportunity, and I thought it was very innovative on their part to be able to bring everybody together from all parties, into one room, and to not only have dinner and socialize but to do so in a very educational way, in that at every one of our tables there were people who were suffering from diabetes, or people who were volunteers with the Diabetes Association, or employees or people who worked in the medical field, and throughout the experience of having dinner with them they provided us with information and life stories of what they were dealing with and what the challenges were for diabetics in the Province.

We also listened to a keynote address from Dr. Carol Joyce from the Health Sciences Centre, who did a tremendous amount of work around diabetes in Newfoundland and Labrador, and she gave us a very thorough educational synopsis of this disease and the people it impacts. We also heard from an individual who, I guess, is a sufferer of diabetes. His name is Jim MacDonald. He is an RNC officer here in St. John's, and he was able to give his own life experiences of suffering from a chronic disease like this, how it impacted him but also how it had impacted his family.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that one of the key things they did stress to us in this informal gathering that we had was the need for diabetic pumps to be available to as many people as possible. I think, in recounting their own life experiences to us, they told us how they had difficulty getting their diabetes under control prior to going on the pump, and how this pump had actually helped regulate the disease, had helped them live a better quality of life, and things like this. They certainly stressed the importance, and I think they would know, as users and as people who suffer from this disease, that it is a tremendous impact that it can have on some people if they had access to it.

Madam Speaker, they also made us aware that a diabetic pump would cost about $6,000 to purchase, and it is not covered under the Prescription Drug Program. They would certainly like to have it added to the formula, to ensure that the coverage is there for people who need it. I want to support that because I think it is very important.

In my family, not unlike a lot of families in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are several people who suffer from diabetes, so I am very familiar with the disease just from living, I guess, in and around and amongst the people who actually suffer from it. I have a cousin who has been diagnosed as a diabetic since she was about eight years old, who is now fourteen. I know how difficult it has been for her to regulate this disease before she was able to have the pump. I know, as well, that in her teenage years having this pump has allowed her to be able to maintain a better quality of life and a healthier quality of life because of it.

I certainly want to support them in being able to do that, and I want to encourage the minister and the government, when they are doing their budget this year, that they certainly do whatever they possibly can to try and ensure that this pump is affordable to those people who suffer from diabetes out there in our Province.

Madam Speaker, I just talked about multiple sclerosis and diabetes today, but I should also mention arthritis, because arthritis, as well, is a disease that a lot of people in our Province suffer from. In fact, the statistics are very high for arthritis, and different forms of it. Again, it is one of those diseases and illnesses that people suffer from that often they cannot afford the medications that they need. The medications for a lot of these patients can run anywhere from $400 to $500 to $1,000 a month, depending on what type of arthritis you have, depending on what type of medications you are on.

Last year, I remember getting calls from a lady down on the Burin Peninsula, and another lady out in Harbour Breton, in fact, who did not have coverage. In fact, the lady in Harbour Breton, I sympathize with her so much because she was an FPI plant worker. The fish plant that she had worked in for twenty years or so had just gotten closed down. As a result, the company withdrew their medical insurance; therefore, she no longer had coverage for the medications for the disease that she suffered from, which was arthritis. Because of that, she had to go to the Department of Health to try and get medical coverage for her medications and was rejected because her husband had just left home, moved out of the Province to take a job in Fort McMurray in Alberta. She all of a sudden found herself in a situation where she had no job, no drug card, and her husband had to leave the Province to go to work. I do not have to tell you that, when you have that kind of stress on you and in your life, it certainly does not help in dealing with the health issues that you have, and dealing with the disease that you have.

Madam Speaker, there is lots that can be said with regard to prescription drugs in this Province. I think the main factor here is that there are still a lot of people out there in our Province, hundreds in fact, who suffer from diseases like multiple sclerosis, like diabetes, like arthritis, like schizophrenia, who still do not have the proper drug coverages they need simply because they cannot afford it and the government, in its new-found wealth, has refused to provide for the additional coverage of many of these drugs.

That is really unfortunate, because I do not think any patient anywhere in this country, or in fact anywhere in the world, although we know it happens on a daily basis, should have to go without the proper drug coverages. I think they should have the medications that they need on a day-to-day basis to ensure their disease is being counteracted in the way that it should.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity - we are talking about a bill that is critical to health care in this Province - to speak a little bit about pharmacists as well, because what has happened in the last number of weeks as it relates to pharmacists in this Province is probably unprecedented in many cases.

You know, we have a situation where we had nineteen pharmacists in the Province, in the St. John's region, who had vacated their positions, and in other regions around the Province. The reason they have been vacating their positions is because they were not being paid at a level that they felt they should be paid for the kind of work they were doing. So, because pharmacists could leave Newfoundland and Labrador and easily find a job anywhere else in Atlantic Canada, or in the private sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, or in another province in Western Canada, where they could earn a lot more money for the same amount of work that they were doing, they were opting to leave the Province and resign from their jobs. As a result of that, Madam Speaker, what happened was we had a number of positions vacant in pharmacy in our hospitals in the Province. I do not have to tell you what the implications of that was.

First of all, you had a situation where the pharmacists that were left on the job had to work more than the hours that had normally been required. They were on overtime. They were being called in. They were not getting days off and so on and so forth. In addition to that, patients themselves were left in a bit of a dilemma because in some of these labs, as we have been told, there were a number of chemotherapies being mixed every single day to provide to these patients. Patients needed the assurance that because they were short staffed in the pharmacy at the Health Sciences Centre, that there was not going to be a problem, there was not going to be a mix up. I can guarantee you, these pharmacists went out of their way. They worked day and night. They did whatever it took to try and ensure that security and stability was there in providing these patients with the medications that they needed, and at the same time, still being able to do their clinical responsibilities and prescribe the medications that were required. It was not easy, and because of that stress, and because of that workload, we started to see more and more pharmacists resigning for positions elsewhere.

It got to be such a dilemma that even the health board, the St. John's Health Care Corporation, approached the government, approached the minister looking for additional funds to try and counteract this problem. It was a serious, desperate problem in the hospitals and they could not allow any more pharmacists to leave and still be able to function properly. They made their plea to the minister and to the Department of Health, and basically, wanted a one-off situation where they could pay out extra money to the pharmacists to keep them there. The union got involved. Sharon King from the Association of Allied Health Professionals got involved, took up the cause, had a number of meetings with the Department of Health and a number of meetings with the St. John's Health Care Corporation trying to find a way to mitigate the number of people who were leaving this profession, going to the private sector, or going to other provinces to work.

They made a very honest pitch, they provided very substantial and factual information, but at the end of the day the government said no. The Minister of Finance was the messenger in the media who came out and said: Absolutely not. We are not going to provide any additional money; no one-off deals for pharmacists in the Province. I think probably the people most taken back by all of this were the pharmacists themselves, because in 1999, when the current Minister of Finance was the Opposition critic for Health on this side of the House, he stood in his place several days in a row questioning the then Minister of Health as to why they were not giving more money to pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, Madam Speaker, I have the full transcript of what he said; a full transcript of what the minister said at that time. He got up in the House and asked consistently that pharmacists be given a wage rate that was on par with the other Atlantic provinces in Canada. Oh, he was fully convinced that this needed to be done. He was asking the government of the day, because he was an Opposition member then, to do a one-off agreement with pharmacists, saying: You have done deals before. You should do this with the pharmacists in the Province because we cannot have this. I think they were a little bit taken back that a few years later, when that same member finds himself in the government, in the Minister of Finance position managing the money of the Province, that he would do a complete turnaround and say: Oh, no, now we are not going to give you the money.

What we have today, Madam Speaker, is a situation where, because the government would not give the pharmacists the money they needed, would not give the St. John's Health Care Corporation the money it needed, it forced the health corporation to take matters into their own hands and go out there and deal with this problem. What they have done is they have given the pharmacists in the St. John's region, and those who fall under the St. John's Health Care Corporation, an extra $12,000 a year in wages. That $12,000 a year in wages will cost this board $1 million this year. So, it begs a question: Where does the $1 million come from? We know that the St. John's Health Care Corporation have been known to run deficits year over year. We also know that boards in this Province have accumulated debt of about $10 million a year; $10 million over a period of time. Madam Speaker, where does the $1 million come from in the St. John's Health Care Corporation to actually pay for these pharmacists? I do not know that yet.

I do know that the St. John's Health Care Corporation did close twenty-three beds at the Harbour Lodge Protective Care Unit in Carbonear this year. I know that happened over the summer. Maybe they saved $1 million when they closed down those twenty-three beds in the Protective Care Unit in Carbonear. I am not sure. Or maybe they have to cut another service before the end of the year to make up that $1 million. I do not have the answer to it yet. I have asked the minister, I have not gotten the answer to it, but we will have to see.

As a result of this, let me tell you what has happened. What has happened is that we not only have a situation where pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador are not on wage parity with the rest of Atlantic Canada, but we have a situation now where we do not even have wage parity between one end of the Province and the other. The pharmacists who work in Central Newfoundland, or on the West Coast of Newfoundland, now make $12,000 a year less than those who work in the St. John's region. There is something wrong with that picture, Madam Speaker, because it is those boards that provide the services in the most rural areas in the Province that often have the most difficult time in recruiting professionals, especially medical professionals, to work in those communities. Now they have to go out and compete in the same pool for pharmacists to come and work in Western Newfoundland and in Central Newfoundland but they have to do so with a board that is paying $12,000 a year more than they are. If you do not see a problem in that, I think you need to take another look because there is a serious problem here. Not only do we now have wage disparities between Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces, but we have wage disparities within our own Province and with -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just a couple of minutes to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: One minute.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I did not realize that I only had twenty minutes, I thought I had an hour. I do apologize. I would have kept my comments briefer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got about an hour. You have an hour under the rules of the House.

MS JONES: Okay, thank you. I am glad you clarified that because I was under the assumption that I did have an hour. All right.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In that case, I will take my time to finish the point, the important point that I was making.

What I was saying is that we now do not even have wage parity within our Province for pharmacists, and that is a problem. Out in Central Newfoundland today there are five vacancies in pharmacy; five vacancies. Now, the people who are still working in pharmacies in Cental Newfoundland can apply for a position, one of the dozen or so vacancies in the St. John's Region, they can now apply for those positions, move here and make $12,000 a year more. I have a big problem with that, because I think in this Province where you work at the same job you should get the same pay. I think, Madam Speaker, other than in cases where you receive Northern allowances or Northern benefits, which is a standard process throughout the Province and throughout Canada, other than that I don't think a pharmacist working in Corner Brook today or working in Gander today or working in Grand Falls today should be making $12,000 less than one who works in St. John's.

I think the government are the people who need to step up to the plate and correct this problem. They created it by the mere fact that they refused to deal with a critical situation that was developing in our hospitals in the Province and now they have created a wage disparity amongst workers in the Province. They are the ones who need to step up to the plate, do the one-off deal with pharmacists and make sure that they are all on an even pay scale throughout the Province, so that we don't have the St. John's Health Care Corporation out there soliciting applications and receiving applications and hiring workers away from these other boards that are providing services in the more rural and remote areas of our Province.

It is a very serious issue, and it is unfortunate that the government has chosen not to deal with it, but in fact has tried to brush it under the rug and leave it to the health care corporations to do the best that they can with it.

Madam Speaker, that was my take on the pharmacy issue. I can say to the minister, that is an issue that is not going to go away. It is an issue that is there and it is going to have to be dealt with sooner and later. Whether the other two boards go out and negotiate one-off deals for pharmacists in their health boards I guess will remain to be seen.

At the end of the day, these boards still have to find the money somewhere, and they are not finding it from this government, I can say to you, because they have accumulated -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and is having difficulty hearing the member. Hon. members who are carrying on private conversations, if you wish to continue would you take your conversations outside.

Thank you.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I know that this is a very serious issue and some of the members are getting testy over it. I know that the Minister of Finance doesn't like me to get up here and quote what his perspective was in 1999. Oh, he would like to make a speech, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In 1999 my statements were very factual. There have been three agreements reached since 1999, agreement with these. It is water under the bridge, the signed agreements in 1999, I think, and two subsequent, most recently this year. What she is saying there, the statement is factual but is way irrelevant. There have been voluntary agreements reached three times since that.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I certainly would welcome the Minister of Finance to stand up and make his views known on that subject or anything else that I say in the House as soon as I sit down.

The truth of the matter is, as he says, what I read is factual, and the other side of it is that the pharmacists out there certainly do not think that this is water under the bridge. In fact, it is still a very current and critical issue for most of them. It is not water under the bridge for them, I can honestly say that.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to talk a little bit today about paramedics in the Province, because if there is a group of people out there, professionals in our healthcare system, who are delivering a critical service to people on the frontlines it is paramedics. But let me tell you it is in disarray; absolutely disarray. I have never seen a profession with so much discrepancy between what pay scales are, what benefit scales are and what working conditions are, in my entire life. What we have is we have paramedics out there today, all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who work for private operators, which I do not necessarily have a problem with. What I do have a problem with, Madam Speaker, is that 100 per cent of the salaries for these paramedics comes directly from the provincial government, and most of them are under paid and not on par with unionized or other paramedics in the Province that provide the service on behalf of the government.

How can the government have one lot of paramedics out there on the frontlines getting paid this amount of money and another group here, which is getting paid through grants from the government, getting paid far less? I have a problem with that. I know right now that the provincial government is negotiating and renewing contracts with owner-operators in the Province, ambulance owner-operators, and I know indeed, Madam Speaker, that many of these owner-operators also have a number of expenses that they have to incur and certainly need as much money as they can to keep their services going. I do not know how many people know how these contracts work, but a lot of them are remunerated based on the distances that they cover, the amount of runs that they do and so on and so forth.

You would know that an ambulance service in a community of 300 people is as critical as it is in a community of 3,000 people, probably more so in many cases, Madam Speaker, because those who live in the communities of 300, 400 and 500 are usually the ones who are farthest away from a main hospital or from the central medical services that they require. More importantly than ever, they have to depend upon ambulance services and paramedic services.

These services do not come cheap for the people in those communities. Anybody who needs a road ambulance or an air ambulance in this Province, the service does not come cheap for them. In fact, the government opposite took the liberty of increasing, actually, all the road ambulance rates in the Province just a year-and-a-half ago or two years ago where they jacked up all the rates for every person who needs to get an ambulance in Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Speaker, the service to the people that need it does not come cheap.

Let me get back to my original point, and that the owner-operators of ambulance services. Many of them are serving areas that are low population, that have probably the worst quality of roads throughout the Province because they are in the most rural, most remote areas and they are the ones that are probably farthest away from the hospitals. When they come in to negotiate with the government to renew their contracts they have several issues which they need to have addressed. One is the maintenance on their ambulances, one is the remunerations they are paid for every run, every kilometre that they make, and the other thing, of course, is their standard renewal contracts that deal with purchasing of their vehicles, equipment, training of their workers and meeting all the different standards that are outlined by government.

When they come in to do their negotiation, like any good business person who is trying to provide a service out there, getting very little profit in return, their first issue with the government is on what it is costing them to provide the service in terms of maintenance, replacement costs, training costs, insurance costs, the price of fuel and all of these things. First, those things get negotiated with the government.

Then we get down to the workers. Now, there are no workers at the table to negotiate their wages. They do not have a voice at this table. This is being done through their owner-operators whom they work for. They have to rely upon the good graces of their employer who has all this list of expenses that need to be met and the government, whom also has an agenda of many expenses that have to be met. Quite often, Madam Speaker, they are the ones who, at the end of the day, end up with the least benefit from all of this.

I have talked to a number of these paramedics and many of them work nonstop every day, on call every night, no days off, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, and they have told me such. They work hard at what they do. They have no clothing allowances, they have no sick days, they have no holiday pay, they have none of these benefits that go with the job. Yet, they have to carry a cellphone and pay for it. Many of them work for a lot lower wage than any paramedic who works within a provincial government system. I find it unacceptable; I really do. Many of those people have told me that when they went to work they even had trouble trying to find the money to buy the uniforms they needed to have for their job. I do not think that should be the case; I really do not. These people provide an invaluable service on the front lines of health care in this Province. I think if there is anything that the minister can do in the Department of Health in terms of providing a better quality of health care services to people out there, it is to look after those on the front lines.

In many of those communities out around Trinity Bay, Bonavista Bay, down in Placentia Bay, down on the Burin Peninsula, all of these places, the paramedics, the ambulance operators, are the ones who are going to the homes, picking these patients up and taking them to their hospital which could be many miles away in some cases. These are the people who live farthest away from the medical services that they need.

These paramedics are not only trained, qualified and dedicated to the job that they do, but they are doing it under some of the most difficult working conditions of any publicly employed person delivering a service in Newfoundland and Labrador, without a doubt. I cannot stress their case often enough or strong enough in this Legislature to have this addressed. I think what the government needs to do is to have streamlined paramedic services right throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, not a two-tier system for people who work in one part of the Province or in another part of the Province, not a two-tier system for those who work for government directly or those who are supplemented by government wages. I think that the people who work on those front lines should be getting the same benefits, no matter where you are or who your employer is, as long as the government is paying for those wages; and they are.

I know that officials in the minister's own department have said that 100 per cent of the wages that go to paramedics who are employed through owner-operators in the Province comes directly from the government. If that is the case, then they should be employed at the same standard and the same level as everyone else.

That does not mean that you cannot still contract out the services to owner-operators for their ambulances, and for the use of their equipment and all the rest of it. It does not mean that you cannot do those contracts for service, because you can. You can do those contracts for service with the owner-operators but at the same time provide the same standard of employment and working conditions for paramedics all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to leave that with the minister because I think it is somewhere where the government can make a change that will be a lasting change that will be of tremendous benefit to those who require health care services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that I could talk about this afternoon but I know my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, would certainly like to add to this debate before the end of the day. I am going to conclude my comments, sit down and listen with tremendous intent as she gives her remarks on this bill.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just want to move second reading of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want to speak?

MR. R. COLLINS: (Inaudible) speak to the bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, if someone else needed to speak on it, I was not aware. No one rose, so I rose to move second reading, as the alternate on Health, in the absence of the minister. If they wish to speak, we have no problem with that.

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

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

I would like to rise today as well, Madam Speaker, and say a few words on Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services in this Province.

I want to talk a bit, Madam Speaker, about the people in this Province who suffer from diseases such as MS, diabetes, people who need hormone enhancement drugs, and other serious treatments that people require where the drugs to do that cost a lot of money.

It is not uncommon, Madam Speaker, as you know, for people to be paying $1,800 to $2,700 to $3,000 a month to purchase the drugs required to treat an illness that they did not bring on themselves. They did not ask for this. They inherited it, and are having to deal with the consequences of being diagnosed with these diseases.

I, on many occasions, Madam Speaker, as you well know, presented petitions in this House over the past seven or eight years - I would say probably hundreds of times - asking government to expand the provincial drug prescription plan. While they did so during the last Budget, it still falls far short of what is required by the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I met this summer with a representative from the Atlantic MS Society who had a lot of concerns about what is happening, or I should say what is not happening, in this Province regarding the coverage of drugs used to treat MS.

It was interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that this Province, as I said on many occasions, is the only province in this country, the only jurisdiction, who do not provide any type of support whatsoever to our residents if they are not on income support or sometimes under the seniors' drug plan, but the people in this Province who are working and are not covered by a private insurance plan, or are covered, in some cases, by an insurance plan but certain drugs are excluded, namely they are the ones that are necessary for the treatment of MS or diabetic supplies or other diseases that people need treatment for.

It is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, when you hear, and there are many cases, where people have left this Province to move to other provinces and, by the way, I might add, took a big reduction in the wages that they were earning here compared to what they would earn in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, but at the end of each month they were financially better off simply because the drugs that they needed to treat their illness were covered in these provinces but were not in our Province.

There are many people, Madam Speaker, in my district, and I am sure every member in this House has people in their district, who require catastrophic drugs to treat their illnesses. It is not uncommon, and I think again every Member in this House of Assembly knows somebody who has spent any RRSPs they may have saved, who has spent money that they have saved up for their children's education, for the purchase of drugs. They have to reduce themselves, Madam Speaker, to income support levels before this government will help out.

The thing is this, Madam Speaker: It is not a situation where government cannot help. It is a situation where government will help, but first they require people to destroy themselves and their family's lives financially and then government will step in to help. If all of the people who required these drugs quit their jobs tomorrow, government would cover each and every one of them.

That is unfortunate, Madam Speaker. It is unfortunate for a lot of families in this Province today who are really faced with those realities, where they are working hard each and every day only to find that the money they earn has to go towards the purchase of a drug rather than saving for their future or for their children's future.

Again I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that this is the only province, the only jurisdiction in our country, that has such an outrageous lack of coverage for their citizens.

Madam Speaker, I think what is important here, and I think the point that government is missing and have been missing, is that, rather than looking at helping people who suffer from these diseases, instead of looking at helping them with the drugs that they require to control their illnesses, instead of looking at that as an investment into the long-term health care and what it will cost governments down the road if they do not receive the treatment today, instead of looking at it as an investment, they are looking at it as a liability today rather than an investment in the health care of tomorrow. I think that is the wrong way for government to look at it, but until they change their view, until they take the necessary action that is required to assist people in the Province, then I am very much afraid that people who are afflicted with those diseases do not have a lot to look forward to in the near future. It is going to take a more serious commitment from government than what they proposed last year in order to assist people in the Province who need their help today.

Last Wednesday night, Madam Speaker, as the previous speaker, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair noted, we were at a function with the Diabetes Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and again it talked about the value and the benefit that people have experienced from using an insulin pump. Again, this would go a long way to helping diabetics in the Province in order to lead a more stable and constructive lifestyle. These pumps are expensive, as was pointed out at the function we attended. One of the main reasons why more people are not using the insulin pumps is because of the fact that the cost is prohibitive to them acquiring them to enable them to lead a more and better fulfilling life.

One of the other things that factors into this as well, I would say, is the cost of pharmaceutical drugs and the protection that is offered to the major drug companies when they carry out their research and develop new products. Now, there is nothing wrong, and I do not think anybody in this House or in this Province would have anything against a company that is spending a lot of money in research and development, and invent a drug that is of benefit to people in our society. Nobody would have anything against them recouping their investment and, indeed, making a healthy profit along the way. The coverage that is extended to them, Madam Speaker, the coverage that is provided, enables them, for many years, to have a monopoly on this drug, preventing the use of generic drugs at lower costs and providing the benefit to the people of this Province and, indeed, of this country.

Consumers should have a right to benefit, and at the earliest opportunity avail of drugs that will help them, at a lower cost. Until the rules are changed, until the legislation is changed that will reduce the number of years that these large drug companies have a patent on the drug that they research and develop, then I am very much afraid the cost will continue to climb in the purchase of drugs.

We are talking about health care. I want to tie in some things on health care during this debate as well, Madam Speaker. I want to talk about the provincial transportation medical fund. Last year, government made great moves in the area, especially for Labrador travel for medical. They changed the rules. They did away with the $500 deductible to the person and provided that government would pay the first $500. That was only a year ago, Madam Speaker. While that was good news at the time, what has happened in the interim period, in the period of less than a year? Airfares have shot up dramatically so that the protection and the subsidy that was offered by government is not the same value as it was even less than a year ago. This creates a problem, Madam Speaker. It creates a problem because many people who live in Labrador cannot afford to front the money, to have the money to pay upfront to purchase the tickets that are required to travel. There are cases, I know, where people have told me they came home with a letter from their doctor referring them to a specialist here in St. John's. They took the referral letter and crumpled it up in their hands and threw it on the counter top, simply because they knew it was not a reality to believe that they were going to be able to afford to come out and see that specialist. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, Madam Speaker.

We need to have a program in place where there is more, closer collaboration with the airlines and government for medical travel. We should have a program in place where any subsidy that is offered by government is negotiated with the airlines and is deducted at the source so that people who need to purchase a ticket for medical transportation need only to pay the amount that it eventually will cost them in the end, rather than have to pay it all upfront and get a rebate.

For example, Madam Speaker, for a parent and a child who have to travel now from my area of Labrador to St. John's, which is, for the most part, where people are referred, the total cost is about $2,000. It is not uncommon for people to have to make two and three trips a year, and I do not know too many people in this Province who would have the ability to do that. It creates a problem and the problem is more complicated and harder to deal with the further you are away from St. John's or the Avalon Peninsula. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in the area of the subsidy. I can only hope that the Minister of Health and the Minister Responsible for Labrador are listening because they know the hardships that people have to endure to seek medical treatment in this Province when they live not in close proximity to where the major health care centres or the hospitals are located.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister Responsible for Labrador, this area of medical transportation is one that he should be dedicating himself to, on behalf of the people in Labrador whom he represents, and make it much easier and accessible for people who have to travel to be able to do so. On the $2,000 airfare alone, the first $500 of that would be deductible, but the parent who is travelling with a child, their airfare is tacked onto the child's airfare. It is not two separate $500 deductibles, so the cost to them is much higher than it should be. There can be a great deal of benefits enhanced under the present system by some fine-tuning of the rules and regulations as they now apply. I would ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs to make sure that this is an issue at the Cabinet table and to try and have this problem rectified so that people in Labrador, in particular, do not have to go through anymore undo hardships than they have to undergo in trying to obtain the medical treatment that they, or their children, require.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. I think if nobody else wants to speak, I am sure that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi certainly wants to say a few words on this bill.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I have two or three points that I would like to make on this bill. The first one has to do with something that I was really pleased to see in the bill, but it brought up a big question for me. Section 11 of the bill is named delivery principles. The whole of that section describes the principles that apply to the delivery of programs and services under this act. I was quite pleased to see all of these principles outlined, but it really raised a question for me. It begs the question, actually: How come it was acceptable to have principles in this bill on the pharmaceutical services when it was not acceptable to put principles into Bill 23 on the Health Research Ethics Authority?

Not in relationship to this, but earlier today I did speak to the Minister of Justice about wanting to meet with him to talk about putting principles into bills. Now, today, I see this. I say, if it can be in one bill it can be in another bill. I once again have to raise my deep concern that we were not able to get a statement of principles into the bill on the Human Research Ethics Authority. I think the statement of principles was absolutely essential for that bill and I am delighted that there is one in here because I think it is essential for this bill also. I am very, very disappointed that we passed a bill last week without a statement of principles in it.

I guess, I am giving notice once again that I am certainly intending to have further discussions with the minister to try to see if the House cannot be consistent with regard to our rules around how bills are written. I do think, as I said last week, that principles should be in the bill. I have samples of bills from other jurisdictions where principles are involved, where statements of principles are there in bills that are quite recent, not bills that are ten or fifteen years old. It is not a modern phenomena, I do not think, to take principles out. If we have principles in this bill then we should have principles in other bills as well. I want to make that point. It is very disappointing to me. I guess it begs the question of how the decisions get made around how bills are written, and I will be wanting more information on that.

In the interest of time, I have made that point, so I want to go on now to look at the principles that are here in this bill and just speak to a couple of them from another perspective. The first is really important, that the first principle applying to the delivery of programs and services under this act is, "...access to the program and services shall be provided in a timely manner with appropriate consideration of a person's unique circumstances and needs, as departmental resources, including budgetary appropriations, permit..."

I read that and I think it sounds great, it sounds wonderful, but when I think of our prescription drug plan, for example, I wonder how accessible the programs and services are. I was very pleased with what the current government put into the last budget, it was great to see things improving, but we are still so far away from where we should be with regard to our prescription drug plan.

The fact that we have a co-pay arrangement for people, for seniors, for low-income people, really that, to me, is totally unacceptable. If we are going to have a prescription drug plan, and initially even if it is only for the four components who are outlined in our current prescription drug plan, then I think it should be 100 per cent right across the board. Families, for example, who are earning $22,000, for them to have to pay 25.6 per cent of their drug costs tells me how much the government is not in touch with the reality of people; something that I talked about yesterday. If we are really in touch with the reality of people we know that families who are earning $22,000 do not have any money to put to drugs. If we just think about our own situations and we think about how much it takes to pay rent or pay mortgage, we think how much it takes to buy food, we think how much it takes to have our children in school, then for us to say that it is acceptable for a family who earns $22,000 to pay 25.6 per cent of their drugs tells me we are not walking in their shoes. Let us think about our own situations, our own families, and we know that we are not walking in their shoes.

Families who are earning $30,000 having to co-pay 70 per cent of the drugs; let's think about that. Think about a family with two children, two parents and two children earning $30,000 and they have to pay 70 per cent of their drugs. That is totally unrealistic. They still are not going to be able to make the choices that we would want them to make. They are still not going to be able to afford their drugs.

If we are talking about our programs being accessible and people being able to fully access what they need, then we are going to have to revisit the prescription drug plan, which is inherent to this bill that we are discussing here today. We are going to have to look at that prescription drug plan, and if government is not ready to move forward and to have a comprehensive drug plan, if government is not ready to do that yet, I would ask government to, at least in the next Budget, have a drug plan where all people under the drug plan - with the four components that we now have in the prescription drug plan - be covered 100 per cent, because they do not have the money to pay for any of the drugs.

I sat in this House as an observer in June when the former Leader of the NDP brought forward a private member's bill asking for a three-party committee to look at, to study, what a pharmacare program for the Province could look like. The two opposition parties voted for the private member's bill and the government side of the House voted against it. At that time, the Minister of Health said that he found the proposal good. He thought it was a good idea, but that this was not the moment for doing it. You know, I have to ask the Minister of Health, and I have to ask government: When will be the appropriate moment for putting a committee together to study? I think we are way past the time for putting a committee together to study. At an appropriate moment, I am going to revisit that proposal that came from my predecessor because we have got to do something about it. If not, we are going to be doing it piecemeal.

My colleague from Labrador West and my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair have both brought up pieces of what needs to be covered, and we can add pieces and pieces and pieces to that here today. I could add more, we all could. I think what we need to do is to really sit down and seriously look at what a full pharmacare program looks like and to plan how that can get put in place over a period of time. That is the kind of planning I am talking about when I say we need plans in place; to look at, okay maybe in four years it could be a complete program, what are the blocks that lead up to that plan for four years time? I think that we need to recognize that we are way past the time that we still have people with Diabetes who are not getting the correct treatment, that we still have people with MS who are not getting fully what they need, that we have people with all kinds of diseases. They have been named, I am not going to name anymore. The list is endless, but people should not be living without help for those diseases.

Because this is related to health, there is one issue I would like to raise in the House that I have not raised up to now, in the six days that I have been here, but I would like to raise it and give notice that for me it is something that I will continue to bring up in the House, at opportunities when I get them, and that is the need for us to recognize, and for the government to recognize, the essential role of home care as part of the health care system. We have people who leave hospitals after very serious surgeries to go home to take care of themselves, very often without even a family member in the home to be there with them. Nobody in the hospital asks how they are going to take care of themselves. You know, I know too many examples of this in my family, with friends, and I know everybody in this House does too. They do not even get asked: Who is going to take care of you when you go home? They have to figure out themselves, number one, if they can find home care, if they can pay for an hour a day, where they go to get it. Nobody helps them find it. Then we send them out of the health care system to recuperate, to continue their healing process sometimes two and three days after major surgeries, and we do not consider them needing health care. They are still sick, they are still recuperating. Home care is an essential part of the health care system.

That is short-term care. What about long-term care? We say that it is so much better to have people who need long-term care to be in their own homes. We say that it is so much better for them not to be in institutions, that it would be better for them to have the care of family. However, we do not give them money to do that. We say it is cheaper for people to be in their own home. Well, yes, it is cheaper for government. Government does not give the person in their own home a cent towards the person's care. I am aware of many people going through that. I am aware of elderly couples where the spouse who is supposedly not sick is taking care of the one who is, and it is really hard to tell sometimes which of the two spouses should be taking care of the other, and we do not have home care for them because their income is just slightly above that line, because they do not get the GIS, for example. They are just maybe $1,000 above that GIS, and yet they are paying for this home care that is essential. We have to start seeing that participation in home care is an essential part of our health care program.

These are issues that are very dear to my heart. I know they are dear to other people as well. You know, I am going to keep pushing them. I am going to keep finding the opportunities to speak to them, and I think the minister is listening. I see the minister responding. As I said, once again I will be bringing up the notion of my predecessor. We have to get serious and work on this together. I think we all have good ideas and we need to work on it together.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

It is certainly a pleasure to close second reading on this particular debate. Before I do that, I would like to thank the individuals across the House for their comments, and I will take their comments into consideration as we move forward.

I would like to say, on the provincial drug program, that we are expanding this year. Prior to last year, prior to this announcement, somebody making $20,000 paid 100 per cent of their medication costs. We are moving in the right direction.

Yes, I agree, we would like to be able to cover 100 per cent of those costs, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is, we are moving in the right direction, and for somebody who is making $20,000 to pay 25 per cent or 30 per cent of their drug costs is a far better cry than paying 100 per cent, which is what they were paying prior to this announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, we would like to see drugs for MS, drugs for arthritis, drugs for cancer, drugs for other conditions, covered 100 per cent, and we have been working on that, and I have been dealing with my provincial counterparts, the Ministers of Health in all other jurisdiction in Canada, and we have gotten a consensus from the ministers provincially and territorially. We have not yet gotten a consensus from the federal Minister of Health, but we are still working on that, Mr. Speaker, to reach a National Pharmaceuticals Strategy which will have, as a component of that - a key component of that - a catastrophic drug program for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, has now been read a second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38, Bill 49 and Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38, Bill 49 and Bill 50, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I call Bill 50.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services." (Bill 50)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 58.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 58 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 58 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 58 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 50 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I call Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CHAIR: Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In the Statute Law.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, Clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 21.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 21 carried.

On motion, Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive, carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 49 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I call Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, Clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 11.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive carried.

On motion, Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 38 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

 

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 38, 49 and 50 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to referred and have directed him to report Bills 38, 49 and 50 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking with the Opposition House Leader, too, I move that, with leave, to move third reading of Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to proceed with third readings.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 50 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50, An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services has been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Pharmaceutical Services," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, too, with leave, third reading of Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 49 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move, with leave, Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker understands leave has been granted.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 38 be now read third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 38, An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Sale Of Certain Items At A Flea Market," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider Bill 48, a guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider matters relating to Bill 48, a supply bill.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye,

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

MS MICHAEL: I have a question.

MR. SPEAKER: On the matter of the bill? The bill has already been passed and -

AN HON. MEMBER: She was standing when (inaudible). She just wanted to ask a question (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Can I ask the minister a question?

MR. SPEAKER: If we have leave we could revert to it, but leave has to be granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member wanted to ask a question, I am sure the minister could just discuss the response with you after - if you wanted to get your question on the record he could certainly do it, seeing the bill is passed, if that is agreeable.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement among all hon. members that the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi could make her comments at this stage?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I had to step out. I missed the fact that we passed it. We went through Bill 38 in Committee and we did not discuss the issue around the listing of prohibited items. I could talk with the minister about that afterwards, about how that can be deal with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Regulations, yes.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister can speak on that later. It is officially passed, so I am sure the minister can speak with her afterwards on that particular issue, or any particular questions pertaining to it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider Motion 1, Bill 48.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee of Supply is now ready to hear debate on Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, and the resolution that accompanies that bill.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is pretty self-explanatory what is in the bill. It is a normal standard. Annually, we have to bring to the Legislature certain guarantees there. So, I think they are self-explanatory. I do not think it needs any further comment.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issues by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issues by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution pass?

All those in favour, "aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 48)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 3 in Bill 48.

Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 is carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 48 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that the resolution now be read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution now be read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 48 be introduced and read a first time.

I think you need it from the Clerk first.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that we should revert. I believe that the Clerk is supposed to read the resolution a second time.

The hon. the Clerk.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Loan and Guarantee Bill, Bill 48, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," carried. (Bill 48)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 48 be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 48 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 48 be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 48 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been an agreement reached with the Opposition, the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that on Thursday the Official Opposition have asked that the House not sit, to be able to respect their right to be able to attend a national convention. Hopefully, we can straighten out that national party there and straighten up the mess that is there in Ottawa. We wish them well in that endeavour.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) is going to be campaigning before the next election.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is even more so. They should be guaranteed a victory, I will say to the member, then. They should be guaranteed a victory.

Mr. Speaker, it was further agreed that on tomorrow, Wednesday, instead of Private Members' Day, we would do regular government business. The House would reconvene at 2:00 p.m., on the normal time for Wednesday.

Just to give a little heads-up, where it is, I guess, a different than normal course, we will bring for debate tomorrow Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Securities Act No. 2. Also, we will debate the resolution introduced by my friend, the Minister of Justice, today dealing with the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges' Salary and Benefits Tribunal, so we can deal with these tomorrow.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 29, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried and this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, November 29, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.