MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome members of the Farm Industry Review Board. They are Martin Hammond, the chairperson; Violet Parsons, the vice chairperson. Members are: Wayne Ruth, John Dinn, Rita Legge, Connie Stewart and Merv Wiseman.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for Exploits; the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Town of St. Lawrence and its residents. The St. Lawrence Centennial Soccer Pitch has been designated as a Municipal Heritage Site by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The president of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Robert Parsons, presented a plaque designating the site during the St. Lawrence Soccer Association's annual banquet and awards night.

The Historic Places Initiative Program has designated significant sites in talents or municipalities as historical sites. The Town of St. Lawrence researched and applied for four sites within its town for designation under the Historic Places Initiative Program. Recently, the Truxtun Shipwreck Site at Chamber Cove was designated, as well as the Salt Springs Mine Site. The Soccer Pitch is the third.

The first recorded soccer game in St. Lawrence was in 1904 between the St. Lawrence Laurentians and a team from St. John's. The title, Soccer Capital of Canada was bestowed on St. Lawrence by the Canadian Soccer Association. The Centennial Soccer Pitch is culturally valuable because it reflects the importance the sport has played in the community over the years and the values that have been transmitted to children and adults.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Town of St. Lawrence and its residents on this latest recognition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two exceptionally young athletes, Mr. Nick Hayden and Ms Michelle Rideout, who were recently named the top male and female provincial players of the year, respectively, at the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Baseball's annual general meeting in Gander.

Michelle Rideout is a member of the Bantam Girls Selects who represented the Province at the Nationals in Alberta. In this tournament, she batted an impressive 364, and was the top pitcher, pitching twelve innings and striking out twenty-three batters. Incidentally, she also led the team in RBIs. Naturally, Michelle was named her team's MVP at the Bantam Provincials this season in St. John's.

During the 2006 season, Nick Hayden was a key player with the CBS Raiders team in the Mount Pearl Junior League. Mr. Hayden is a well-rounded player who has excelled in every aspect of the game, on the mound, in the infield and in the outfield, as well as being one of the most consistent and feared hitters in the league. At only sixteen-years-old, he is one of the most talented players in the Province, earning numerous awards.

Mr. Speaker, these two individuals have represented our Province well and made us proud. I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Nick Hayden and Michelle Rideout, Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Baseball's top male and female provincial players of the year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Matt Bramwell, a Carbonear native and winning pitcher who helped capture the American Softball Association's national championship this past summer.

Mr. Speaker, a strong arm in Carbonear softball has moved on to bigger and greater gains and he is doing it American style. Matt Bramwell, who pitched with local softball leagues while growing up in Carbonear, is currently playing ball with Circle Tap, a major fast pitch team out of Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Matt began pitching ball in Carbonear in 1992, the same year his team hosted and won the Provincial Summer Games. It was also the same year Circle Tap was founded. Matt was the winning pitcher for the team August 4, when Circle Tap won the American Softball Association's national championship. The team competes nationwide in the American Softball Association and the international softball congress.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first season Matt has played with the American League. After playing with Frankenmuth, Michigan, and Impact Signs of the St. John's Seniors Men's A League last season, who finished second in the Canadian nationals, the first base player and pitcher was recruited to Wisconsin in the off season.

Matt, who now lives in Halifax and works as a registered nurse in the Intensive Care Unit at Capital Health, travels to the U.S. on weekends to play invitational tournaments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Matt Bramwell, the winning pitcher who helped capture the American Softball Association's national championship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work and dedication of the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre Auxiliary.

Mr. Speaker, the auxiliary was formed at the old cottage hospital in 1986, and there are still eight dedicated members who were present at that first meeting: Doris Jerrett, Hazel Elliott, Pansy Yates, Hazel Waterman, Florence Hancock, Doreen Jewer, Melinda Sparkes, and Bertha Butler. These volunteers run the gift shop, hold fundraisers, and they also volunteer with activities for the residents.

Mr. Speaker, all funds raised go back to the Twomey Centre for much needed items for the residents. They have raised thousands of dollars since 1986, including recently the renovation of a palliative care room at a cost of approximately $15,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating these dedicated volunteers on receiving their Life Membership for twenty years of service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on November 25, I was delighted to attend the forty-first annual Charter Night of the Harbour Breton Lions Club. I was able to share an evening of celebration with District Governor Oral Clarke, President Leo Baker, local Lions and invited guests.

The highlight of the evening was the presentation of the Lion of the Year Award. Mr. Lloyd Blake, a twenty year member of the club, received this prestigious award for his years of dedicated service. Lloyd remains a very active Lion and is well known for his contribution to organizing the annual Speak-off and Citizen of the Year Banquet for the club.

Mr. Speaker, there were three Lion members who received the thirty year Chevron Award. They were: Stan Tibbo, Claude Rose, and Will Strickland.

The most remarkable part of the evening was the introduction of ten former Lioness into the Lions Club. Due to the economic situation of the community, the Lioness Club had difficulty with fundraising and membership within their club dropped; however, the remaining members were committed to continue their active participation in the community. They approached the Lions to join their organization and, for the first time ever, these ladies became members of the Harbour Breton Lions Club.

Mr. Speaker, the new members are: Vera Mullins, Georgina Ollerhead, Diane Mullins, Emily Grant, Nancy Snook, Patsy Snook, Charlotte Snook, Lillian Colombe, Lillian Hynes, and Marie White.

The Lions Club in Harbour Breton continues to be one of the most important charitable organization in that community. Their involvement includes operation of the community ambulance service, senior citizens' cottages, and local playground. They financially support local residents in need for medical travel, sponsor socializing events for seniors, contribute to local schools and sponsor the local cadet corps, just to name a few of their activities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Harbour Breton Lions Club for hosting a successful charter night. I congratulate the award winners and new members and extend best wishes for their continued service to the residents of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the achievement of a tremendously talented artist from Bonavista North.

Janet Davis, owner of Norton's Cove Studio, Brookfield, was recently recognized by the Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador for her efforts related to the preservation and advancement of our culture and heritage. Ms Davis received an award for Excellence in Craft in the category of Interpretation of Provincial History. The presentation ceremony took place at the recent opening of the Fine Craft and Design Fair in St. John's.

The award, sponsored by the Historic Sites Association, was presented primarily with reference to an eight by ten foot hooked mat entitled: Clifford's Education Fund. The hooked mat depicted salt fish drying on a constructed flake. The piece is currently being displayed at The Rooms Museum as a part of the Traditions in Transition Exhibition and can be seen until January 21.

Ms Davis is also an exceptional print maker, and her work reflects essential elements of our past in a very important way. Her work captures the beauty and strength of outport Newfoundland culture.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Janet Davis on her award and her continued efforts to preserve the culture and heritage of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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, I would like to inform my colleagues about the successes three clients of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development have enjoyed as a result of participating in our trade missions this fall.

Holly Howard Incorporated of Conception Bay South, creator of the popular Puff Baby clothing line, was a first-time participant in the department's recent trade mission to Florida. The company's goal for the mission was to determine if there was interest in the product line outside of this Province.

Holly Howard, the company's founder, says the mission greatly exceeded her expectations. After taking in nine meetings in Florida, the company has received three sales orders, with two additional leads for future sales. Also, the company is presently in talks with Walt Disney corporation about submitting design samples and possibly becoming one of Disney's vendors.

Pixecur Technologies of St. John's is a growing, dynamic company with an innovative vision. Pixecur's participation in trade missions to Florida and Ireland this fall marked the companies first foray into export markets, and their Internet-based data storage technology is capturing attention in these markets. After making eighteen promising international business connections, Pixecur is currently focused on the necessary follow-up and closing deals.

Tom Chalker, the company's owner, believes the missions to Florida and Ireland have resulted in a strong potential for international sales, and have given his company enhanced credibility in new export markets. Mr. Chalker says Pixecur is now better equipped to serve potential clients abroad, after participating in these missions.

Ewe Design, based in Trinity Bight, crafts traditional knitwear using 100 per cent homespun wools and novelty yarns. The company enjoyed great success during a recent trade mission to Iceland, signing a lucrative sales order with Iceland's largest wool store, ALAFOSS. The company also confirmed a second sales order as a result of the mission.

Company owner, Joan Kane, was equally successful in securing a supply of popular Icelandic wool to use in her companies creations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that all of Ewe Design's products are hand-knit in the homes of women in the Trinity Bight area.

Mr. Speaker, without the financial and logistical assistance that government provides, many companies would be unable to explore export markets or arrange these meetings on their own, making it difficult, if not impossible to penetrate new markets.

I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join with me in congratulating these companies and wish them continued success for the future.

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 statement today.

As I read the first paragraph, it said, "I would like to inform my colleagues about the successes three clients of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development have enjoyed ..." I immediately thought, he must be talking about Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream, but as I read down through, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - I recognized that there are three local companies. I want to congratulate those companies as well. Obviously, they have done very well, and being able to go on the trade missions spoke volumes, I think, for that success. I encourage them to continue to do the type of work that they are doing, because, of course, what it does, it puts on display the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does have some seconds left and if she wishes to continue I ask members for their co-operation.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that they do not like to hear the truth. If you want to talk about truth, let's talk about $15 million being spent on Persona. Imagine how many companies could get to go on trade missions if we took that $15 million and made it possible for other local companies to, in fact, go to different parts of this world. If you want to talk about waste of money, let's talk about your $15 million for Persona and then we will talk about what you are doing as a government in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. I, too, congratulate the companies who were chosen to be part of the trade missions. I am obviously very pleased to see such results and I would hope that we can involve many more companies as time goes on.

I would be pleased, though, if the government would also recognize that they just did not do this on their own, that our government is involved in the Team Canada Atlantic venture and that it is a joint effort of governments together, including ACOA, to do this.

MR. TAYLOR: It was only in Florida (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Only Florida, Mr. Speaker, but two of them were Florida, so I think it would be good to recognize the joint nature of this effort.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, for over a month now we have been asking questions about the fibre optic deal in which the Province and the taxpayers of this Province have invested $15 million. We have asked a lot of questions, but we have had few, if any, answers.

My question today is for the Premier, and it is simple and straightforward. Will you tell us, Premier, how much each of these partners, other than government - namely, Persona, MTS Allstream and Rogers - are putting into this deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this is all concluded, all of the information surrounding that will be laid in front of everybody. Mr. Speaker, right now we are in for approximately 30 per cent of the cost of this infrastructure and a private consortium is in for the remainder, approximately 70 per cent; $37 million will be put in by the private sector and $15 million will be put in by the government.

Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition want to look back over the deals that they have done on telecommunications, or otherwise, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am sure they will not find one example of infrastructure development in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador where 70 per cent has been put in by the private sector and 30 per cent by the public sector. Not even close, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about telephone contracts and telecommunications deals, maybe the Premier will get up one of these days and tell us about the one that he did with a government not too many years ago.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is absolutely ridiculous. We are putting $15 million of taxpayers' dollars on the table and he will not even stand today and tell us what percentage or what amount each of these individual companies are putting in.

I ask the minister: What are you hiding?

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, I do not know what he is talking about. What is he talking about, hiding? The EWA report is out there. We have already told them, told everybody in the Province, that the Auditor General can have full access to all of this. We are in the midst of trying to develop the terms of reference. We are in the midst of identifying the additional funds that the Auditor General requires in order to complete his evaluation and his assessment of the deal.

What is it they are looking for? Why don't they read some of the documentation that is out there, like, for example, Mr. Speaker, the report that was done by Industry Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on the broadband situation in Newfoundland and Labrador? Why doesn't he read the part that says, for example, in this Province the competitive marketplace is defined rather differently than the rest of Canada as true competition does not exist?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just said that we are putting in 30 per cent. The other three companies - and he did not even say that, the other three, he said the consortium are putting in 70 per cent.

Why don't you give us a breakdown of how that 70 per cent is divided. How much is Rogers putting into that, how much is Persona putting into that, and how much is MTS Allstream putting into it?

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 important thing for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador is that their money, $15 million of their money, is going in to buy an asset, an asset, Mr. Speaker, that Trevor Miller, who wrote the Leader of the Opposition, who runs a telecommunications company in Central Newfoundland, in Grand Falls-Windsor, who condemns the Leader of the Opposition and his party for the opposition that they have to this deal - maybe he might want to read out what it says here about the need for this infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe he wants to read what Mr. Harry Tucker says about the need for this infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he wants to read what everybody else in the telecommunications industry has said; and, Mr. Speaker, maybe he will want to review the deals that they did with Aliant and others in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: Why don't you tell the public why you constantly try to evade the question? Why don't you give the answers? You talk about the EWA, the Electronic Warfare Associates report. I have read it ten or twelve times. Mr. Speaker, in the EWA report it states that Persona requires provincial funds of $15 million. It states the Persona requires $15 million of government funds to implement this project.

I have a question for the minister: Are we funding Persona's share of this deal? Is that what we are doing here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't he go back and look at April, 1997: Government and Aliant partner on Network Newfoundland and Labrador. Was there a tender call? No, Mr. Speaker. Total provincial contribution: $750,000 on a $1.5 million project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Aliant. Listen, will you?

Mr. Speaker, updated Industrial Benefits Agreement with Newtel, was there any tender or RFP? No, Mr. Speaker.

Government contracts Newtel for long distance telephone service in December, 1999, $5.18 million. Was there a tender or an RFP? No, Mr. Speaker, there was not. What was the total cost, Mr. Speaker? One hundred per cent funded by the Province.

Let me go on down; let's go on down: SmartLabrador Smart Community contract awarded. Was there a deal with Aliant, Mr. Speaker? One million dollars, again, provincial contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, now that he is up talking about untender projects with the previous government, ask the Premier: The one that he received from the government, was that tendered or did it go to Cabinet? Ask him that when you get a chance, I say to the minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are putting 29 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Colleagues, the Speaker will recess the House if we do not get co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, who is putting a question.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we are, as the taxpayers of this Province, investing 30 per cent, as the minister just said, into this deal. He refuses time and time again to tell me if Persona is even contributing towards this project.

I will ask you again: Is your good friend, Mr. MacDonald, the CEO of Persona, and Persona, contributing anything to this project, and, if so, how much?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before - I do not know what rabbit hole he is trying to run down now, but anyway - $37 million between Persona, MTS Allstream and Rogers, that is the total between the three partners. That is what is being put in there in private-sector funding. We are putting $15 million in there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe he wants to explain to us the $250,000 they spent for the good things happening campaign. Maybe he will want to tell us about the $300,000 that they spent on the millennium celebrations down on the waterfront. Maybe they want to tell us about the $635,000 that they paid for the ad campaign to promote the Voisey's Bay agreement. Remember that infamous deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe they want to tell us about the $182,000 paid to Bristol for the Lower Churchill ad campaign, for a deal that did not exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe when the Leader of the Opposition gets up he can inform us on that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and I hope your answers are more substantive than those that the Minister of Innovation gave, rather than a bunch of fluff.

Anyway, Minister, I asked you yesterday for the information about the Bull Arm security building contract. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told me last week in Question Period that I could have it and would have it. You have been putting out press releases about it. You tell me we can have it, but we still do not have it.

I ask you again: When are you going to stop this sham, stop protecting Ms Cleary and your Tory friends, and give us the information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is our commitment to openness and transparency that allowed the process that did take place with Ms Cleary absenting herself from the process because of the involvement of their friends on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, that we find ourselves in this situation.

The Opposition House Leader asked yesterday that the documents be filed in this House. I agreed readily to that. They are being prepared as we speak, Mr. Speaker, and we fully expect to be able to table those documents in the House tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must think, and the government must think, everybody in this Province and in the media live in a bubble. People ask you straightforward questions and they expect straightforward answers and performance. You have to stop hiding behind these shams.

Minister, you admitted yesterday that someone overlooked - and that is your word - the core certification requirement when this work went to a second bid. A very convenient oversight, since that oversight permitted the campaign manager for Ms Cleary, a defeated Tory candidate in the last election, to then bid the project.

Who is responsible for seeing that these bidding requirements are complied with? Was it someone in your department? Was it the site manager? Was it the Bull Arm Site Corporation itself or was it Ms Cleary?

When will you stop covering up and tell us, please, who was responsible for making sure that this requirement is done, or ought to have been done? You have fired people for less than that.

I put it to you, Minister, that this was not an oversight but someone gave explicit instructions that core certification was not a requirement the second time around.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader can suppose as much as he wants. That does not make it right or true, what you are saying.

This government is absolutely committed to the policy of core registration. We will ensure that all our commissions and agencies and boards are aware of the policy requirement.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was followed and the security shed was completed, saving the people of this Province $51,000, Mr. Speaker, and that is the bottom line.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What an absolute sham. What a sham! Tell us the information, Minister. Who said that core certification was not a requirement the second time around? That is not a tough question. Tell the truth and tell the answer. Who said core certification did not have to be in there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody said that core certification was not necessary the second time around. It was an oversight, Mr. Speaker, and we are taking measures to ensure that does not happen again.

This government is absolutely concerned with safety, and we commit to safety requirements on all our projects. It is the reason why we were replacing the security shed in the first place, Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety of the people who work there.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The more the minister continues to refuse to give the answers to that question, the more the people of this Province know that the Bull Arm security building contract stinks to the high heavens and that it was done for one of your Tory buddies, the same as the Persona deal was done.

My next question - and then I will come back to that one because we will keep onto this core thing until we get at the truth. This is only one example of how this government completely disregards the policies and laws of this Province when it does not suit them. If you need to help a Tory buddy, or one of the Premier's friends, it is okay, forget about the laws and policies.

In the past three weeks, we have had three examples of where this government has refused to comply with their own policies and laws. One was, we put the $15 million into the fibre optics deal, contrary to the policy of the Department of Business; secondly, the minister admitted in her own press release last week that she did not file the proper forms under the Public Tender Act; and thirdly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to put his question directly.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The third one was the failure to put core certification in.

My question of the minister is: When are you going to remove Ms Cleary from her position at the Bull Arm site Corp. and stop allowing that corporation, a Crown agency, to be used as a feed trough for your Tory buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you something: I know what you call it when you are able to use the right hand as well as the left hand. It is called ambidextrous. I would like to know what you call it when you can use one side of your mouth as well as the other side because we can apply it to these people on a daily basis.

There was no miscarriage of any kind of justice here. The Public Tender Act was followed. There were two oversights. Ms Cleary was not involved at all in the assignment of the second tender. The security shed was replaced at a cost of $51,000 to the people of this Province, showing that the initial decision to reject the initial tender was the correct one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Transportation and Works department not prepared for the winter season. We hear reports of only one lane open on our Trans-Canada Highway, reports that the major roads were not plowed while traffic tries to beat a path through the heavy snow.

The minister committed that all operators and personnel would be in place by November 1, 2006. This is not the case. There are operators still waiting to be called and it is December.

Will the minister immediately recall all operators so that our highways are made safe, as they should be, in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, all employees of the Department of Transportation and Works have been recalled this year on the same schedule and according to the same protocols as they have been recalled in the past. The department has 450 pieces of equipment, 80 per cent of which is available on the highways. Transportation is working this year in accordance with the same schedules and call backs and hours of work that they have worked for the last number of decades in this Province. Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker. Everything is working according to normal this year as it did every other year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is good to see the minister is back in the Province because he should phone some operators who are still waiting to get called back. They are still not called back, minister. You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the closing of thirteen depots in our Province is having a detrimental effect on the preparation for the winter operations. We saw mechanics laid off this past summer and now our road equipment is ill equipped. Ironically, we heard the Minister of Government Services just this week promoting safe highways: You Are in Control. Perhaps we should educate the Minister of Transportation and Works, that safe highways include those that are snow free and ice free.

Minister, our roads are simply not safe. Workers are trying to catch up from the layoffs imposed by your government this past summer. Will you now commit the funds necessary to make our roads safe? Remember, minister, You Are in Control.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of a laugh to hear the Member for Bay of Islands talking about somebody needing to be educated. If there was ever a laugh, that is a laugh, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the transportation people have been called back this year the same as past years. The winterization of thirteen depots has nothing to do with the present situation. All of those depots are now open for the season as they were last year and the year before. People have been called back as necessary, as per the protocols, as per the collective agreements. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is swinging in the wind, haven't got a clue what he is talking about. He is lost, Mr. Speaker, even within the walls of this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious issue I would call the minister a bit of a joker. He should read the paper, Mr. Speaker. In this weekend's paper - I do not know if he is back yet from his junkets - heavy equipment operator, heavy equipment technician, mechanic. There are over sixty positions not filled in the department this year. He should look at the paper. He should ask the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we hear of horror stories where people travelling our roads between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. are doing so at their own risk. There are no snowplow operators on our highways at that time. Supervisors, Mr. Speaker, do not have the authority to recall road staff.

I heard of stories today where people travelling to Deer Lake Airport in the early hours - and the Premier should be concerned about this, it is on the West Coast, people from our district, Premier - travelled with snow covered roads not plowed, that are unsafe and dangerous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to put his question, quickly.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister immediately correct this departmental policy and allow the snow clearing equipment on our roads when there is snow, not trying to save a few dollars so the Premier can boast about the money his government is saving?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what a load of nonsense coming from the hon. gentleman opposite. Mr. Speaker, he hasn't got a clue of what he is talking about. He gets up and spends about two or three minutes on a preamble. He has to be forced by the Chair to ask the question.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing being done that is different this year than any other year. People have not been laid off. He talked in his long, wandering preamble about advertisements. A temporary list, Mr. Speaker, that is what was advertised. We have temporary recalls so that if people, long-term employees, permanent employees of the department, are sick or ill, have to go to the hospital, we have somebody to replace them with, Mr. Speaker. That is good management, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government is all about, good management. I know the hon. gentleman does not like it, but, Mr. Speaker, he can lump it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Health.

The federal cuts to child care meant that government scaled back its five-year child care plan by $53.4 million. Some of this money could have been used to develop a publicly funded, not-for-profit child care system. Instead, we have a patchwork of private and non-profit centres chronically short of resources for child development programming.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if his government will make a commitment to create a publicly funded, not-for-profit child care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, currently operating in this Province are a number of child care operators. Some of them are regulated, some of the operations are unregulated.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is - I mean, I will take the member's suggestion under consideration but the reality is - we are not in the business of providing child care as a government program in the Province. We are in the business, Mr. Speaker, of helping those who are in business, existing operators, existing businesses, to stay in business and to try to provide and to help those individuals and those operations to be more secure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to sit down any day with the minister and talk about how we can publicly fund a not-for-profit system without government having to be into the job itself.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of occupational standards for early childhood educators in this Province means that wages can vary from $7 an hour up to $12 an hour. Also, there is no official pay distinction between Level I and Level II certification, and few of the workers have health benefits.

What is this government going to do - and it must do this, it has to do it - to introduce acceptable working conditions for early childhood educators and a wage scale that reflects the level of post-secondary education necessary for the workers and the responsibility of the job?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to shut down private daycare operators, and if that is what the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: If that is what the Leader of the NDP is asking me to do, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, we are not going to shut down operators in this Province. We are going to try and work with them to make the operations better, Mr. Speaker.

We are working with the operators, Mr. Speaker. Government is providing additional funding to low-income staff with one or two years of training, working in the centres. The full amount available to those earning less than $25,000 will be on a sliding scale and, Mr. Speaker, we will be providing up to $2,000 per year, per staff member, to try and improve recruitment and retention within the existing operations, Mr. Speaker. We are also providing bursaries. We are also providing educational supplements to try and recruit and retain early learning and child care workers within the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, on a very brief supplementary.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not asking for things to be shut down. I am asking for a fully regulated, fully publicly-funded system.

I understand that there is now an industrial -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who has time for a very brief supplementary.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I want to ask the minister if he is going to ask for an interim report from the Industrial Adjustment Committee now looking into what can be done about the low pay and shortage of staff. I am interested in an interim report so that he will have it in time to set aside funds in the next budget to properly compensate early childhood educators, instead of waiting until March, 2007, for the report.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi certainly did indicate or suggest that we shut down the private operators by suggesting that we bring in a public system. That is not going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member opposite that we are only partway through year one of a five-year plan, a plan that was strongly endorsed by the child care operators, by the association, and I am asking the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to give it a chance to work, because it is already showing signs of success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this past month we have seen several schools around this Province close because air quality and other maintenance problems have made them unfit to occupy. Now that the number of serious problems in schools continues to escalate, I ask the minister: Will she do the right thing and carry out a comprehensive review of air quality, including toxic mould in all schools across the Province, and would she commit to make this report public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising, after fifteen years of neglect, that we have problems with the infrastructure in our schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the previous Administration did air quality testing in 1998; they spent $2.6 million testing air quality in 1998. In 1999, they approved less than $1 million to fix leaky roofs, which is the number one reason why we have mold in our schools. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, in their last two years in administration, they spent less than $2 million fixing leaky roofs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in the last two years, with this year not over yet, we have invested at least $11 million in leaky roofs, so we are putting our money into this procedure.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: I don't care if it was one year ago or fifteen years ago, the mold that is in our schools today should be corrected, and the minister knows the difference.

Mr. Speaker, people are telling us that problems exist in other schools. Parents and staff -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is asking a question. I ask members for their co-operation.

The Member for Port de Grave has the floor to ask his question.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection from Mr. Jelly Bean himself.

Mr. Speaker, people are telling us that problems exist in other schools. Parents and staff are concerned that they have a right to know the facts. Just this week, the minister indicated in the media that she would prefer to direct funds to maintenance rather than carry out a study. Does the minister not see that, in order to have each and every school safe and healthy in this Province, we first have to know exactly where the serious problems exist? As it stands now we do not know, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we do know where the problems are. What we are trying to do is, this year alone we have already awarded contracts of $6.6 million. We are ready to award another $12 million, with another $1.3 million outstanding. Mr. Speaker, that is $20 million in work this year. We have increased our base budget for renovations and maintenance in our schools from $25 million to $37 million.

In addition to putting money into our schools, into the capital and into the renovations, we have also been able to invest in the ABE program, we have a skilled trades program, we have eliminated school fees, we have invested in physical education equipment, and we are after putting a freeze on tuition at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has about 30 seconds for a question and 30 seconds for a reply.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is this: Can the minister tell the House if the amount required to build a school in Mobile is still within the original budgeted amount, or are there any overrun problems associated with this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is, with our capital budget for maintenance and capital in education, we have increased it this year by $12 million. We are doing the work out there, Mr. Speaker. There are schools that need to be replaced. There are schools that need to be renovated. We will work with all the schools that need the work done, and if there are cost overruns that we need to address in order to make sure we have adequate infrastructure in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we will do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

Tabling of Documents

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I wish to continue with the routine proceedings.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

Furthermore, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

Also, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

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

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today on a petition on behalf of the residents of Lark Harbour and Route 450 concerning the road conditions that exist. I know yesterday, when I was giving my words and I was getting leave, the Minister of Fisheries, one of the former, former Ministers of Transportation and Works, had denied me leave so I could not finish yesterday. So, I am standing here today - I know that was the same minister, when I was trying to get the road in McIver's fixed, who was singing out across the House saying: There's no problem with the road; no problem. I should tell the minister, the next time you want to see it you should look at it, instead of flying over on one of your junkets over in Russia looking at it from 20,000 feet above. You should drive it and see the problems with the road and stop just looking at it from the air.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Lark Harbour and all through the South Shore and North Shore are experiencing major safety road concerns; major safety concerns. I have been fighting now for three or four years with this here. It is unbelievable, some of their priorities. I will give an example, Mr. Speaker: $450,000 to open up some property up on Massey Drive because the Minister of Justice made a commitment somewhere to open up some property up on Massey Drive. It has nothing to do with any highway. Absolutely nothing! It is building a new road for a sub-development up on Massey Drive. Here we have roads in the Bay of Islands that cannot even get proper pavement, cannot get the gabion baskets fixed. We have major safety concerns.

Until the people and myself, this year, brought it to the minister's attention, the white lines were not even going to be put on the road going out towards Lark Harbour. It is a shame! It is an absolute shame! And here we talk about all the money being spent on the roads, Mr. Speaker. Last year there was $12 million not spent. This year, I would say, it will be about $18 million to $20 million not spent again. Here we see priorities -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I hear the former Minister of Transportation and Works. I have to give the Premier credit, he could not allow that minister to stay there with the road conditions over the winter that we had for two years in a row. I have to give the Premier credit, you got rid of him because of our unsafe highways. I have to give him credit.

We have the current minister right now who refuses - we had the former minister, the Minister of Fisheries, we had the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and now we have the Minister of Transportation and Works who absolutely refuses to meet with any town council to discuss the road conditions in the Bay of Islands. It is unheard of, it is unbelievable. Those ministers have to realize somewhere along the line that you are here to provide safety to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You should sit down with the council. You should come down and drive over the roads. You should listen to your officials in the department. You should establish the priorities for safety reasons and not give $450,000 because of a commitment made by a minister to open up some land development. As the mayor said: We are opening up land development.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's allotted time has expired.

Petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to give the House an update on the potty situation down on the South Coast, in Ramea and Burgeo.

I was up four times last weeks in petitions and the prayer was that we would have a proper washroom. In fact, we said we would be satisfied with a porta-potty as a short-term solution, but I am afraid that a couple of porta-potties perched out in the parking lot down in Burgeo and Ramea does not do much for providing what we call an adequate health care service. That is exactly what they got, but if this government thinks for one moment that this is acceptable and satisfactory, they can think again.

The Minister of Transportation and Works responded to that prayer last week only because of extreme pressure raised in this House and the fact that he and his government looked like fools over this issue. Well, I will tell you, putting two porta-potties down there as a temporary statement is not going to take away your title as fools in this particular case. We cannot have people on the Southwest Coast and visitors to this Island going to such a facility. Just imagine people - there was snow up to your ankles this morning. These people go to an unheated porta-potty on the side of a building in Burgeo and Ramea with no soap in it, no water in it, and you expect that to be acceptable. Not on my life and not on the life of anybody who has a stroke of decency in their body. Absolutely not!

I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Get your act together, send down the necessary manpower and the resources to do the job properly. We, on the South Coast, are not second-class citizens. We are not cattle who you drive out in the field whenever you feel like it. Give the people of the South Coast the proper facilities they are entitled to. What a joke and what a shameful action to put two porta-potties on two pieces of two-by-four down next to a wharf and expect that to be acceptable. I do not know if anybody else in this House or in this Province would expect such treatment, and the people that I represent on the South Coast and the Member here for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune will not stand for such treatment.

I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Get your act together and do the proper, just, humane thing for these people who use this ferry service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 61.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment. (Bill 61)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment," carried. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 61 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 Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61, An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 61 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move to the seven bills that were given notice today, with leave. I spoke to the Opposition House Leader, with leave, to move first reading so we can circulate these bills, so I will move first reading of Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

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 Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3," carried. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3, 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 Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move for first reading of Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce the 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, shall be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 64 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister 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 Liquor Control Act," carried. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the 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 Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister 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.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code," carried. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 66 shall 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 66 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move first reading of Bill 67, which is An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister 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.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act," carried. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 67 shall now be read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 67 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move first reading of Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister 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.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act," carried. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 68 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 68 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

Is it the pleasure of the Houses to adopt the motion that the hon. the minister 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.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour, and Employment to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 69 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: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 69 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 5, at 5:30 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 5, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call for second reading of Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sorry, I am going to call the other one first. They are both related, in a sense, under Municipal Affairs.

I am going to call for second reading of Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes." (Bill 52)

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased for a few minutes to speak at second reading to Bill 52, the Assessment Act, 2006. I am doing this on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates and streamlines the statutory requirements for property assessment that are presently contained in two acts into one. Currently, the City of St. John's conducts its assessments under the St. John's Assessment Act while assessments for all other municipalities are conducted by the Municipal Assessment Agency under the Assessment Act.

The bill, developed at the request of, and in consultation with, the City of St. John's and the Municipal Assessment Agency, ensures that the statutory requirements for all future property assessments will be the same for those conducted by the City of St. John's as those conducted by the Municipal Assessment Agency.

Mr. Speaker, while most of the provisions of the bill are the same as those outlined in one or both of the current acts, there are some specific provisions that are new that I would like to highlight for the House.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, ensures for the first time that any municipality, including the City of St. John's, which disagrees with evaluations of the properties in its jurisdiction, will be able to appeal these evaluations to an Assessment Appeal Commissioner. Under the current legislation, this right of appeal is limited to property owners only. The bill extends the time period that property owners have to file an appeal of their property evaluation from twenty-one days under the current legislation, Mr. Speaker, to thirty days.

The current Assessment Act requires property owners in each of the approximately 230 municipalities served by the Municipal Assessment Agency who wish to appeal their assessments to file their appeals with their respective municipality who is then required to notify the agency accordingly. Mr. Speaker, this bill streamlines this process by requiring that all such appeals be filed directly with the agency. This will serve to speed up the appeal process significantly.

The bill extends from fifteen days under the current legislation to forty-five days the period that property owners have to provide information requested by an assessor that may be required for initial evaluation purposes or for a review of the evaluation once an appeal has been filed.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, consolidating and streamlining the property assessment process, is the fourth major rewrite and consolidation of municipal legislation undertaken by the Department of Municipal Affairs in consultation with our municipal stakeholders in recent years.

Honourable members will recall that a new Municipalities Act was enacted in 1999, a new Urban and Rural Planning Act in 2000, and a Municipal Elections Act that consolidated and modernized the election provisions of four different statutes, that being enacted in 2001. These past legislative initiatives, Mr. Speaker, have resulted in this Province having some of the most progressive municipal legislation in the country, and this bill will ensure this for property assessment as well.

Mr. Speaker, with these few introductory comments at second reading, I now invite my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, as critic, to speak to second reading as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to speak on this particular bill, Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes.

One of the major contentions of the municipalities in this Province, and primarily the small rural communities, is assessment value. The amount that is being charged by the agency, as far as many of these smaller communities are concerned, is excessive.

I know, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, many, many times the smaller communities would complain about the fees that were levied on them; and, as many of us would know, it is not getting any better for many of these smaller rural communities - the town councils, communities councils, what have you - the population base is continuing to dwindle. The amount of commercial property that they would have in these communities is not improving, and numbers are decreasing, so it makes it even more difficult for these councils to make ends meet.

In many of the councils we have - and sometimes it is a fallacy in the Province that the rural communities, the small rural communities, do not pay their fair share when it comes to taxation. I want, for just a minute or two before I talk to the bill, to really dispel that myth.

I know in the district of the Member for Bonavista North, in New-Wes-Valley, for example, they charge some of the highest rates for water and sewer in the Province. It is not cheap. It is probably over $500 that the community, people served by that municipality, would pay for water and sewer. Many, many of the communities in the Province, the smaller communities, charge over $400 a year for water and sewer, so the amount of taxation - and that does not count, by the way, the property tax. Even so, in many of the smaller communities the mill rates are excessively high, properly twelve, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen, but the value of their property is much lower than what you would find in a community like Clarenville or you would find in Gander or Grand Falls or certainly within the urban areas here, CBS and the City of Mount Pearl and the capital city here.

The purpose of this act today is again to streamline, as the Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has already said, to bring in line the assessment of the City of St. John's along with the assessment for all of the other municipal councils across the Province.

Again, it is good to see, just as it was when, I guess, myself was minister, or other people were Minister of Municipal Affairs, that you work with the councils, because these are the people who are on the front line. It is the people who are there every day who do the services, and they see that many, many times it is cumbersome, a lot of red tape. They come to the department and ask for streamlining.

This is a particular case where it is done again, where you have the City of St. John's Municipal Assessment Act and the other municipalities across the Province having different terms, different acts, but now they have decided that they would have the one act for the City of St. John's and all the other municipalities in the Province. That is really a good thing to have, where you can have consistency and where you have the rules and regulations set out for all jurisdictions, and they know that.

One of the other things, too, that I see here in the bill, it is again to speed up the process and to help the property owners. Up to this particular point, when the town or the community council did their assessments, if there was some person in the community who thought that the assessed value was higher than it should be, then they would go to their community council or the town council, to the commissioner who would sit there, and appeal these assessments. Now that this particular act has, in a sense, streamlined this and fast-tracked the service where you do not have to do that any more, you can go directly to the agency that is set up.

Also, as the minister indicated, the number of days that a person has to file for an appeal has gone from twenty-one days to thirty, and that is good too. It gives the person a little bit more time to be able to look at their particular bill that they have, the assessment, and then be able to complete the defence that they would have for it, and obviously be able to probably do a better deal.

Also, the bill extends from fifteen days under the current legislation to forty-five days that the property owners have to provide information requested by an assessor that may be required for initial evaluation purposes or a review of an evaluation appeal that has been done. That is good, too. What it does, it gives the particular person who is doing the appeal the time to put forth a case whereby they can defend their particular proposition where they think that the assessed value is too high and they want to be able to put that particular case forward. So I think that, in itself, also is a positive move in this particular piece of legislation.

Again, as the minister indicated, the piece of legislation does improve the existing piece of legislation, and we are constantly doing that. There is no piece of legislation that is ever written in any government that is stagnant and does not move. There are always times when you bring in amendments, there are always times when you bring in changes, because under circumstances when the law was written and you look at it, there is a need to make changes and there is a need to make revisions. The whole purpose of making a particular law or, in this case changing the act, is so that the people who are in this particular situation see some of the inconsistencies, see some red tape that is unnecessary, whereby they can streamline the particular system here. That is what they have done and that is what we have here in this particular piece of legislation that is in front of the House today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that I agree with many of the comments of my colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. We will obviously be voting for this bill. I think having legislation that consolidates rather than increases language is the way to go. Consolidation is also better for understanding by the ordinary citizen.

I am particularly glad, as my colleague said, but I would like to pick up on the fact that most of the amendments are there for the benefit of the property owner. I think that is to the good. I know that here in St. John's, in particular, there have been times when people have noted that the twenty-one days, for example, for appeal was too short. I am glad to see the government recognizing some of the complaints that have been made by citizens over the past few years.

With that, I say that is the end for today, for this one anyway, for this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this bill today. Although it is An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not only St. John's.

MS JONES: St. John's and other communities throughout the Province for the assessment.

Mr. Speaker, municipal taxes affects all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that as we see an eroding of the tax base throughout rural communities in the Province it is becoming even more difficult for a lot of these municipalities.

As you know, there has been a tremendous amount of out-migration throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the recent number of years where people have had to move out of communities in search of work and employment in other provinces across Canada, or in some cases in the metropolitan areas within our own Province. As a result of it, it has left small municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador in a very difficult position because they do not have the financial ability to be able to maintain the services that many of them have in their communities and they certainly do not have the financial ability to be able to invest in new services that many of those municipalities need.

I remember just a couple of weeks ago on the front page of The Northern Pen, there was an article about the Town of Bird Cove. Now every member in this Legislature is familiar with the Town of Bird Cove and certainly familiar with its infamous mayor over the years, a lady by the name of Augustine Rumbolt, who for many years led the charge, I say to hon. members, for municipalities on the Northern Peninsula; led the charge towards government when we were in government, had no problems whatsoever showing up on the doorstep of any minister, any day of the week, for any issue that confronted their communities, and I trust that she did the same with the opposite members in their time in government.

Mr. Speaker, what I found very unusual when I was reading this article was that not only Augustine Rumbolt - who was one of the finest mayors in this Province, who had led the charge for small, rural municipalities on the Northern Peninsula - had to take her leave in Newfoundland and Labrador and move to Fort McMurray, but in fact most of the council in that community had actually left the region in search of employment; to the fact that one lone soldier was left, one lone councillor, to hold down the fort and guard the community until such time that they could rebuild it back up. I must say, it is an admirable task for this individual and I certainly wished him well.

The point of my story is this. Right now the community of Bird Cove is in a situation where they are unable to provide clean drinking water to many of the people and residents in their community. I think they talked about forty families who actually needed to have water and sewer connections in that community at a cost of about $400,000. I say it is a small price to pay to put municipal services in a community or to provide clean drinking water to residents in any community in the Province. I want to urge the government to look at those things very, very seriously because the answer will always be, we have municipal operating funds, we have municipal grants, it is on a cost-shared basis and communities can apply. Well, the reality is this, that many communities cannot pay the portion that they are expected to pay.

I notice that the Member for St. Barbe is listening intently because I am sure he agrees with what I am about to say; that in cases like this, Mr. Speaker, there always need to be exceptions made. There need to be exceptions made to ensure that communities that are non-viable in terms of having a tax base to commit to twenty, thirty or forty per cent of infrastructure money, that the ways and means be found within a government to provide those services to them. I think, not in every case, there are communities throughout this Province that have the ability to pay, but there are many that do not.

I know in my own district, in Black Tickle, a community that has no town water and sewer services, the extreme cost to the taxpayers it would be to put a water and sewer service in that community, and the cost of operating it, at that point, would be too great for the community to actually carry it forward. What did we do? We looked for a creative solution to a very serious problem. We put, in Black Tickle, $1 million almost in infrastructure that would provide clean drinking water at a central location in that community, because every single water supply in that community, every pond, every lake, whatever was there, was contaminated. It did not provide clean drinking water. Even with the infrastructure, the pipe in the ground, the water was still not clean drinking water.

In fact, what had to be done is, there had to be a water purification system put in this community so that the water would go through a fully treated process and, at the end of the day, when you went to get your water, it would be as purified as any bottled water you are going to buy in a store.

Yes, that required an investment of the government of almost $1 million to do that, but it needed to be done in order to provide drinking water in that community. Since then, the community has had to provide for the cost of operating this system, which is not cheap. It takes a great deal of electricity to run that system, and hydro rates in rural communities on the Labrador Coast under diesel operated plants are the highest electrical costs in the Province. So it was not a cheap hydro bill to run this purification plant. Nor was it cheap to provide for the chemicals and the materials and the filters and everything that you needed to run this water purification system.

As a result, we, as a government, decided to make a grant to this community on an annual basis. You, as a community, raise a portion of the money through your sale of water and we, as a government, will give you a grant to pay for the rest of it - and it worked fine. Do you know something? That grant was less than $20,000 annually.

The first year the Williams' government took office, they decided they were going to cancel that grant. They were not going to put $20,000 into a community in Black Tickle, on the Coast of Labrador, to give them clean drinking water. I was absolutely disturbed by the fact, Mr. Speaker, to the point that I actually went to see the minister and to discuss it with him; and, upon realization of how important that grant was in that community, the minister decided that they would continue with it for that year only.

Last year, we had to go back again. Last year, they decided: We will not give you the full $20,000 a year but we will give you a portion of that, and at the end of the day it was a $15,000 grant.

Now, this year, I have on my desk a letter that was sent to the municipality of Black Tickle from the government opposite, saying: We are no longer going to provide a grant for this water system.

Mr. Speaker, this is a community with relatively little or no tax base. Let me just give you some statistics. Seventy per cent of the people in that community of the working population this year were left without enough hours or weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. We alone, under job creation initiatives and through securing money under that program, ended up providing employment to sixty individuals in that community. Now, I do not have to tell you what your income bracket is if you get your EI eligibility under a make-work project. Your total EI income at the end of the day is going to be about $100 a week, which means their full income for a month is going to be about $400 a month. In some cases it is not as good as welfare, because you can go to the department of social services and get $550 a month, so in some cases they are even being supplemented with social services assistance. That is the kind of an income level that you are looking at in a community like this, and the government says: We cannot give you $10,000 or $15,000 a year.

It is the only cent of money, I want to say to hon. members, because you probably do not even realize that, other than operating the school and the clinic in that community, it is the only cent of money the government invested in that community in three years. Not one year, not two years, but in three years.

There was no money for roadwork or docks or any of that kind of stuff, no money for literacy centres and community centres, none of that kind of stuff. The only money going in there was a grant to this municipality to be able to provide clean drinking water.

Now, if there is anyone out there in this Province who does not see a problem with that, the fact that the government would withhold money from a small community like this, then I think they need to shake their head again, because it is a big problem and a huge problem, when we can look at expenditures of the government that are seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on social events because they are hosing Premiers from across Canada, but yet you can say no to these municipals.

I have a community in my district called Pinware which has no water and sewer; none. We have tried year after year to look at how we can provide services in this community so that people there can have drinking water. I am not talking here today about municipalities building $6 million recreation centres or municipalities putting up arts and culture centres or curling rinks or recreation centres over here off Torbay Road for the government. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about essential services in communities; not even roads and bridges at that. I am talking about water and sewer, the basic essential service that every single community in this Province should have today.

When I hear the government talk about, we have a deal on equalization, we have billions of dollars signed off in gas revenue from the federal government, but yet I do not see a willingness to deal with the real social problems that exist in communities, there is something wrong with that. In fact, I think that more people should be speaking out against it. In fact, there should be a lot more people - maybe if they did speak up more and put their proposal across more and take a shot across the bow of government every now and then, they might get some results.

That is what happened out in Deer Lake. That is exactly what happened out in Deer Lake. The government that bullies but doesn't like to be bullied got roped into $4 million by the people of Deer Lake, didn't they? These people did not give up. They needed a bridge in their community. They did not have the money to build it. They knew it was a necessity. They were in a place where they could capture the attention of the media and they were led by their own municipality and their own mayor who said: We are not going to stand for this. We are going to go out and we are going to take up the cause for the people of Nicholsville. Even if they did not, the people in that community were more than prepared to do it themselves. As a result, they got a positive response from the government. So, don't tell me it does not work when you go out there and start launching a protest for your cause and making your views known. That has to happen more in this Province in small municipalities because they are the ones who are dealing with the challenges.

I have talked to mayors and councillors in Baie Verte, in Springdale, in all of these small communities, that are not just in Labrador but on the Island as well, that are not just on the Northern Peninsula but they are on the Baie Verte Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula. Their struggles are great. They have less money to work with. They have more expenditure. They have infrastructure that is old and they cannot pay for it. They do not have the grants from the government that they could once depend upon. They cannot get involved in capital investment and expenditure because they cannot raise the proportion of funds that they sometimes need, and that is unfortunate.

Their big break comes when? With some gas tax money from the federal government, negotiated through the Federation of Municipalities, I understand, and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Well, that is great. We are getting the gas tax money, a portion of it going back into the rural communities, as it should, I say to you. Now we have a list of criteria that goes with all of that, criteria, Mr. Speaker, that does not give a lot of these towns the flexibility that they need to make the investments that they want. It is either one way or the other. It is either the money is allocated for your town and you make the decision on how you want to invest it. I think that is the way it should be, allowing them to invest in the infrastructure and the capital needs that are important to them and their community.

The other issue, the amount of money that was carved off the top by Municipal Affairs for waste management in the Province, let's look at that. Where is that money going to go? Where are those millions of dollars that were carved off the top by the provincial government, through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, where is that money going to go? Am I going to get the two waste management disposal sites that need to be built in my district? Is the money going to come out of that pot to do that? I would like to know, because the study has been done since 2003. The studies were completed since 2003. The plan was laid out and we have been waiting for three years for the government to address the problem in terms of building the waste disposal sites that need to be built. Are those two on the list?

What else is on the list? I understand Corner Brook might be on the list. I understand St. John's might be on the list. Maybe the member could let me know. Perhaps his district is going to get some money out of this. I do not know. Where is that money going to? Is it going to go to look after the waste management needs in the City of St. John's and the City of Corner Brook, or is it going to be used to look after the waste management needs in rural communities around this Province which do not have the tax base and do not have the investment dollars to address those problems? I would like to know the answer to that.

I went to the Federation of Municipalities meeting for a day. I did not get to stay for the whole weekend. I was there for a day, so I did not get to hear the minister do his address. I do not know, maybe he did say we are going to put some of that money up in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for sure. I do not think he did. I never saw the press release on it, but you know it is possible. He could be going to do that. I certainly never heard them say where they are going to invest any of that money. I would like to know that, because that money was signed off on behalf of all the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, they should have free access to be able to have that money invested in their communities and not see $10 million, $15 million or $20 million of it carved right off the top, right away, to go into a waste management site in the City of St. John's, where they have a tax base that can ill afford to contribute to a lot of those things on their own. I have concerns about that.

I would like to have an answer to that as soon as the minister gets an opportunity. Maybe in third reading of the bill, or when he closes second reading on the bill, he might want to get up and give me some answers to that, what he is going to do with that portion of the money.

The other thing I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is how much of the money that was signed off in the federal-provincial agreement this year between the federal government and the provincial government on municipal infrastructure was actually committed and spent. I would like to know the answer to that because I know of a number of projects that were committed to by the Department of Municipal Affairs for municipalities around the Province, that when they got their letter and realized they had to contribute 30 per cent or 40 per cent towards this project, they could not accept it. They did not have the money to accept it. The bank would not give them a loan. They had no way to finance it. They had to go back to the Province and say: Sorry, I cannot accept this money to do the water and sewer at this time in my community. That happened in a lot of municipalities. I would like to know how much of that money at the end of the day, that was committed, got spent? How much of it can be carried over to next year's budget and when are monies going to be made available again to those municipalities?

I know the minister, when he gets in Committee, will want to get up and give me the answers to all of these questions because he is a very intelligent minister, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. He does his homework. I know that, because I was his critic when he was the Minister of Health. He does his homework and I know that right there on his desk, at his fingertips, he has the answers to all of these questions for me, so I will be waiting for him to stand up.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when people apply to the Department of Municipal Affairs for money to do these things in their communities, they apply because there is a need, and there is an extreme need - not a want, but a need - and when they apply they expect that the government will look at that seriously and be able to do whatever they can to commit those funds to their towns to deal with the problems that they have.

I ran into a situation, actually, just a few weeks ago, a municipality in my district that had a sewage backup in their town, and this municipality has an operating budget of less than $100,000 a year, very small town. They have a lot of overhead, a lot of expenses. They have part-time staff and they try and make things work. Anyway, you run into a problem, you get into a situation where you have a sewage backup in your community and all of a sudden it requires $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, if you are lucky; if you are not lucky, it could be up to $70,000 or $80,000 to fix this problem. The first thing they did was, they called up the engineer in the Department of Municipal Affairs and told them their problem. What can I do? Well, you go talk to your own engineer and get a letter off to us, and do this and do that. They do all of those things. They follow process. That is one thing about municipal leaders and councillors out there in a lot of those communities, they follow the process. They follow the process that government puts in place, and they do so in good faith.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May I have leave to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member, by leave.

MS JONES: I want to thank the Government House Leader for the courtesy of giving me the time I need to clue up.

The situation I was getting to is this: They make an application to the Department of Municipal Affairs to fix this sewage backup. They are under the understanding that they are going to get $10,000 to $12,000 to fix what is a $15,000 problem. The town itself can raise the $3,000, which they do, and once they send their bills into the Department of Municipal Affairs they find out they are only going to get $7,000.

Now, that puts a lot of stress on a municipality, on a mayor and on a councillor, because not only are they responsible for servicing the people in that community and maintaining those services the best way they can, but they also have to be fiscally prudent and responsible to the municipal taxpayers. So, when you get a commitment from government that says we will pay this amount and then, at the end of the day, because of technicalities, they say we are only going to pay half of that, or 50 per cent or 60 per cent of it, it leaves them in a very difficult situation.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now, but the point I was trying to make, and I am sure all members heard it and listened attentively, is that more has to be done for rural municipalities in this Province because, unlike the urban and city councils, they do not have the tax base upon which to draw to do that important work that they need to do in their communities.

I ask that the Minister of Finance, as he is listening attentively to me today, that he make sure in his budget process this year that he makes more money available to municipalities and rural municipalities in this Province. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, being the Member for Bonavista South, would certainly agree with that comment.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank members opposite, the critic, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, obviously two individuals living in rural areas of our Province who are well in tune with municipal issues and how it affects our citizens on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, the act is the Assessment Act, 2006, and, as the former minister indicated, we are talking about an act which consolidates present legislation and helps streamline present legislation so that there can be an effective administration of assessment in our communities, and in this case in the Capital City of St. John's. From that point view, Mr. Speaker, that is the legislation that we are dealing with today. I thank hon. members for their commentary, and largely their endorsement.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 52, an Assessment Act, 2006.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52, An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes, 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 The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes. (Bill 52)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes," read a second time, ordered to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 52)

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I now call second reading of Bill 53, the City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's." (Bill 53)

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this, too, is being presented on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Bill 53 is a bill which outlines the taxation authority for the City of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the property assessment authority, the St. John's Assessment Act also contains the city's taxation powers. Since this act is being repealed by the Assessment Act, 2006, that we just debated, it is necessary to reconstitute taxation powers in a new act.

Mr. Speaker, the taxation authority outlined in this bill is the same as that in the St. John's Assessment Act, with the exception of three old taxing authorities which have been deleted at the city's request. Mr. Speaker, the deleted authorities from the current legislation provide authority for imposition of a fuel oil tax, a cable insulation tax, and an entertainment tax. These taxing authorities date back many years and, with the exception of a very limited application of the entertainment tax a number of years ago, have never been exercised. In the city's view, Mr. Speaker, these taxes will never be imposed and consequently they are not included in this bill.

Again, Mr. Speaker, with those few introductory comments at second reading, I now invite members opposite to make a few comments of their own.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this particular bill that we are talking about here is of a necessity because, as the minister said, we just did Bill 52 which dealt with the St. John's Assessment. Since the Assessment Act that is in the City of St. John's also has taxation powers, and because the old act was repealed, as the minister said, and we just did a new one, we have to make sure that those taxing powers are in the new act.

There are a couple of exceptions there that were in the old act, that have been itemized here and obviously have to be taken out, because once the city council, in this particular case, as the minister already said, does not have imposition of a fuel tax or a cable installation tax or an entertainment tax, since these particular taxes are practically impossible to impose, and if they were imposed - not impossible to impose, but if they are imposed it is impossible to be able to get taxes, so they are not included in it. This, again, as the minister has already said, is a matter of streamlining taxation for the city.

Since this is a taxation bill, municipal taxing in the City of St. John's, I would like to again, as the critic, continue just for a minute or two, not to prolong it for a long time, the ideas that were presented earlier by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

In the Province today, talking about clean drinking water; very, very important. I have a municipality in one of the areas that I represent where it is practically impossible for the people to even get a bath or a shower. Once they do, in many, many cases the bottom of the bathtub is covered with mud and particles. Yet these particular people pay close to $400 a year for that particular service. Obviously, there are ways that we have to find a solution to it. I am working with the minster in that particular case to find the most economical way, but yet be able to address the problem so that the people could have good drinking water in the community.

I remember a few years ago, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, one of the things that we had to deal with at that time was THMs. It was a real problem, and - do you know what? - it is still a real problem. There are a lot of communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that have THMs in their water. If you were to go to Municipality Affairs to the Water Management Resources there, you would find that there are probably more than 100 who still need to have the improvements made to their drinking water so that they can make the Canadian standards that apply.

When I was in Municipal Affairs, one of the things we did was to give to the communities. I think we spent something like $15 million or more. They were primarily smaller communities where we funded 100 per cent provincial dollars up to $100,000 to put in new chlorination plants or to improve the chlorination systems that they already had. Under the present government, it is my understanding, that particular program is not in place anymore, but there are other programs that no doubt would try to complement it. I do not know if there are100 per cent programs that these communities can avail of.

In many of these smaller communities, as has already been said - and many of the members on both sides of the House represent rural communities, small communities. As I was saying earlier, they pay $600, $700 or $800 a year or more into taxation in the communities, but when there is no real property they can assess, it is very, very difficult for them to make ends meet. That is why I think, after having some opportunity to do it - I never had an opportunity to implement it, never had time to do it - I think that the Municipal Operating Grants should be increased for the small municipalities. Many of the urban communities can probably do with a bit less, the larger cities like St. John's and Mount Pearl with the great industrial parks, and the larger communities that we have. Many of the smaller communities do not have that. The larger urban centres like Grand Falls and Gander, they do serve many of the smaller communities from the Baie Verte Peninsula, the La Scie area and over Harbour Breton way. These municipalities do enjoy the benefits of the business that many of the smaller municipalities bring to them and they enjoy the business taxation as a result of it.

To make it on a more even keel, I think there should be something done for many of the smaller communities that can address the needs that exist, because there are real needs. There is no doubt about it. As I said, many of us represent small, rural communities and rural, rural. Many of the communities that I represent - there are rural communities and then there are remote rural communities and some of us even represent remote rural communities. It is a real problem. Many, many times these small municipalities see even the Federation of Municipalities probably not championing their cause in some ways. Even though it might be done, they do not see it as their cause being championed and many times feel that they have nowhere to go.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks on this particular piece of legislation. As I said, it is minor but yet important because to streamline and consolidate services for the council makes it even more efficient for that operation to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs speaks now, he will close the debate on Bill 53.

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank my colleague for his comments. I simply wish to conclude debate and move second reading of Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 53, An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of St. John's, 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 Municipal Taxation In The City of St. John's. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, " An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of St. John's," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 53).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 55.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act." (Bill 55)

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

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

I am delighted today to stand and bring forward a bill seeking amendments to the Labour Relations Act, that is aimed at improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of this Province's Labour Relations Board.

Members will recall that in 2004 the Labour Relations Board released a public discussion paper with respect to possible amendments to the legislation and the rules of procedure which govern the board's activities. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, extensive stakeholder consultations were conducted with the employer and labour groups, and from the outset valuable feedback and input from the stakeholders has been integrated into this process.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the direct consultation, a detailed review of the legislation and rules of procedure that apply to other boards of Canada has been undertaken, and consideration of recent court rulings also impacting the jurisdiction of the board has being conducted.

Mr. Speaker, in a followup to this process, the Labour Relations Board submitted a proposal to government recommending a variety of changes to provincial labour legislation to make it a more efficient labour tribunal and to better articulate its jurisdiction in keeping with the best practices nationally.

Mr. Speaker, government has reviewed the board's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and it is recommending endorsement of the proposed changes. These changes to the act represent, by the way, a consensus position that has been achieved between all stakeholders. We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Labour Relations Board, government, the employers' council and the Federation of Labour have worked together so effectively to advance these important amendments.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments, I think members will agree, are proactive and positive steps that will provide the Labour Relations Board with needed enhancements to improve its efficiency, which in turn will modernize our labour legislation in a manner that is consistent with that of other Canadian jurisdictions and also with the decisions of the courts.

Mr. Speaker, this has come together, as a matter of fact, because of the co-operation and the collaboration between these groups. It is a consensus document. It is something about modernizing the Labour Relations Act, which is overdue, and I am pleased to bring forward these amendments today on behalf of all stakeholders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to rise in second reading on this particular bill, Bill 55, concerning the Labour Relations Act. We will be supportive of this bill. As the minister says, from time to time you have to do some housework, and that includes tidying up. Often you find, once you have made a law and you start to implement it, over time you find little pieces about it that do not deal with every situation that you require. Of course, you get feedback from the institutions involved - in this case, the Labour Relations Board. They tell you where you should or should not go and how to improve it. That is what we see here as a part of this.

I did note - I do not know if this is an appropriate forum to talk about it - in the local media, I believe it was yesterday, a case where the Labour Relations Board was not handled very gently by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to how a certain matter was dealt with involving a certain labour union in this Province. I do believe it was CUPE. I think the decision in that particular case, of the Justice, was: Albeit, the board may have made the proper decision back when, they failed in their duty, or the chairperson failed in his duty, whatever - I think he specifically singled out, according to the media, that it was a lapse on the part of the chairperson in question, that he did not do what he ought to have done. There was a six-year delay between the time when the decision was made, and the reasons for the decision were actually given to the parties involved, albeit the parties involved had requested the information. It got to be a point where it was a moot point. It went on for so long and the chairperson had moved on and whatever. It goes to show again that we have to constantly be on top of situations when we have agencies doing things in this Province, to see if they are doing it right.

I do not know if this particular bill - I doubt it - at all addresses the situation. I have not had, quite frankly, an opportunity to look at the act to see if there is anything built into our Labour Relations Act at the present time which says: thou shalt provide reasons within a specified period of time, because it certainly was not done in that case. The Justice in that case said it was deserving of a remedy. In fact, the remedy was, I do believe, the Labour Relations Board was ordered to pay the legal fees for everybody involved; for CUPE, I believe the City of St. John's was involved. I can just imagine what six years of legal fees are going to come to. We will probably be back here, I say to the Minister of Finance, with another supplementary supply bill or a special warrant because there is no doubt about it, once that comes in there is going to be a fairly substantial bill to this government. It comes down of course to, again, the board doing what it was supposed to have done.

I notice there is a clause in here which would amend the Act to provide that the appointment of a member of the board continues until he or she is reappointed or replaced. That certainly did not help the situation we had here where the board moved on and there was not, apparently, a replacement in a sufficient period of time and so on. That is important stuff.

I will not get into, today, who gets appointed to those boards, because, of course, we have had lots of discussions in this House as to who goes there and how they go there. In most cases, these people are eminently qualified to be there on these boards and so on. Usually, a list of names come forward and the minister makes a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and it would get made accordingly.

There was definitely a faux pas here somewhere, according to the Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this Province is going to be set back a lot of bucks because of it. I do not know what the minister needs to do in terms of amending the legislation or putting policies and safeguards in place to make sure that does not happen again because it has happened on both watches, this incident. If we go back six years, I think that takes in two Administrations. It started back in the former Administration and a decision came down on the current Administration. So, there is enough blame to go all the way around in terms of what happened or did not happen, if you want to look at it politically, which is not the right way to look at it.

What I am suggesting here is we need to make sure that our laws are up-to-date enough to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. I look forward in the future - and I will in fact make a special request to the minister in due course because I would like to know what that decision, that mistake and that delay is going to cost this Province. It is very serious when you have a union waiting six years for a decision in a city that has lawyers engaged; and we wait six years. I am sure the public would like to know what it is going to cost the Province for that mistake. We know what it costs for fur coats and all that kind of stuff, and conferences that we host. This is another example of maybe there was a bit of wastage here that should not have been.

We look forward to that information, I say to the minister, but in terms of your attempts here to clean up and clean house and do a bit of housekeeping here in this particular Bill 55, we, here in the Opposition, will certainly be supportive of this move.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand, as well, to have a few words on Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

Most of this Act is basically cleanup, amending things that need to be changed. There is no question about that. However, I look back to three years ago when this government came into power and the first thing they did was dissolve, do away with the Department of Labour. Now labour is a big component of this Province. We are the most unionized per capita across the country. When government decided to do away with the Department of Labour, it was natural to see that you are going to have all of these things coming up that need to be changed and there is no voice. As a result of this, you are coming into problems all the time.

When I think about, as recent as a week ago, the pharmacists across this Province having a deal for one group and no deal for the other group, and all under the guise of the board being able to resolve the problem, that is where the Department of Labour would have sensed that. I heard that during negotiations last August with pharmacists across our Province that they were not permitted to bring up the issue of wages. That was a non issue as far as the bargaining unit was concerned, that it would be dealt with at a later date. Yet, there was a crippling problem amongst the pharmacists in this Province. They had an issue of being overworked and under paid; not enough people to do the job. Even when the jobs were coming up they were not filled when they should be filled.

The minister stood in his place and said that he and his department were actively searching for new pharmacists, but when you have twenty positions vacant across our Province, that tells you that there is a problem. Here we had the Eastern Health Care Board come out and fix their problem. Now that is almost a marvel when you come to look at it, because what board around the Province has a million dollars to throw around? What board has a million dollars that they can find in their ass pocket to come up with money for pharmacists? There is no board around our Province that has a million dollars playing around that they do not have any need for.

It is clear to see that the boards were asked to fix the problem and that government would fix the board problem later. Government would keep a straight upper lip and say that they did not deal with pharmacists to do a one-off but the problem got fixed by the boards. So, they hid behind the boards.

I also heard it said that grievances are backed up by the Labour Relations Board. People have issues out there in the workplace and they have been on hold for months and months and months. They are not getting solved, simply because we do not have a Department of Labour. The current Premier does not see labour as being important. He does not see labour as being important. He said that in his first speech January 5, 2004. I remember that date specifically, when he said there will be no raises for public servants. He said that in the first speech he made to the public.

This government has no use for a Department of Labour and they want to suppress labour issues in this Province. They have done that by doing away with the department of labour, but there will always be amendments coming up in this House of Assembly because people who are working in the workforce today have issues and they need to be addressed.

While we are, on this side of the House, going to agree with this bill, we do not agree with the way that labour is treated in this Province and it needs a greater priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 55.

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

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

I certainly appreciate the comments from my colleagues opposite today. To respond to a couple of things, first of all, this is a consensus by all parties. That is what I think we all recognize, and I think both members recognize, that this was a collaboration and co-operation and that is why we have this piece of legislation before us today, and it will enhance the board and the act.

The fact of the matter is, the Employers' Council, the Federation of Labour, the board and government all came together with a consensus document which we see before us today. It not only makes it more effective, but it modernizes this across Canada in comparison to other jurisdictions across Canada, and also keeps it in line with the courts and so on. Mr. Speaker, on that note, it is good for all of us, it is good for labour in the Province. We are actually modernizing it and making it more effective.

I will make a comment. The member who spoke earlier, the situation of just a few days ago that was in the media about six years waiting for an answer, the fact of the matter, from my understanding, and I have only been in this department for about a year now, is that it goes back six years, and I understand it to be an anomaly, a glitch. Certainly, this piece of legislation does not speak directly to that, but I have to remind all hon. members, and the members who just spoke, that a full review of all labour legislation is coming in 2007. That is a chance and an opportunity - that was requested, and that was something that we were looking at - it will be an opportunity for any other opinions to come forward from the Opposition, from all stakeholders, to have an opportunity then to improve labour relations in the Province. That is what it is all about.

The other matter that the member brought up was on the cost. I can tell the member at this point in time I do not know, because at this point in time it is between the court and the board. I am sure that the costs will be coming forward and we will know them pretty soon, but over six years we can all imagine what the cost could be. Certainly, I can tell the member that when those numbers come forward I will let the House know specifically the cost for that particular incident.

Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that this is a consensus document. It is something that will modernize the act, and certainly I am looking forward to its passage in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 55)

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 Amend The Labour Relations Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 55)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," (Bill 56)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is to allow - the Canada Revenue Agency is doing a pilot project with the Governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Currently, the Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan now have the authority to be able to do what we are proposing here in this particular bill.

What it would do, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a pilot project in which, for the 2004 taxation year - there are no names going to be forwarded to any province but they are just going to do a pilot and check and see - in the year 2004, if people who move out of this Province and go to live in another province may be still using their MCP cards and charged back to our Province, or someone who comes here from outside of the Province, works here and resides here, might be paying taxes in another province.

One of the reasons for this, the Government of Canada wants to look at it, is because there are three provinces in this country that charge a health premium tax; British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario being those provinces. If you move into those provinces and you are bound to pay a health tax, there is a greater chance that you might use your MCP card from Newfoundland and Labrador rather than go pay a tax in that Province where you have to pay a fee. For that, they want to do a pilot project just to make sure, is there a problem here? If there is a problem here, obviously you need further approval to go any further, but just to do a pilot on it to see if there is any, I guess, truth to the suggestions that there may be certain problems with provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador getting impacted negatively by people going to B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, where most people do move to.

Under this, Mr. Speaker, nobody would access any personal information regarding the nature - if you used your MCP card, for example, on July 23, 2004, that would be noted, your name and your address, obviously, and you have to be able to know who basically availed of the service, but nothing, I might add - nothing, Mr. Speaker - would be provided beyond what is indicated here, and that would be your name and your address or identification number where you can access that.

I want to add that, at the conclusion of this pilot project, a report will come back to the provinces, and in this report to the Province they would not include any information on any individual in this report. This report would have no authority to go anywhere. In fact, it is just to gauge the government, whether there is a problem out there, if there is a problem with people working here and not paying taxes here, or there is a problem with working and paying taxes in other provinces and availing of our MCP system.

I repeat again, once that is done, a report will be issued to a province, not naming any individual, just a general report, saying here is the extent of the problem, or there is no problem, or the extent of it. If there is a problem, obviously, no authority is given to access anything else or go any further in that initiative. That is something for which we will have to come back to get government approval. So, that is something done here to see if there is tax leakage or MCP cost being incurred particularly by Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is already on the books in the other two provinces, and we want to be able to participate in this sponsored project by CRA to ensure that we are getting our fair share of revenues from any particular taxes by anybody working here. We do not want to see any leakage of that, and we certainly do not want to see any cost incurred by people using our medical care service here, using it in another province and getting billed back to our Province because they have an MCP card from another province.

On that issue, Mr. Speaker, and just concluding on that issue here on this bill, any information under this is protected under the Income Tax Act of Canada and none of this information can be used individually. The intent is not to use any names outside the CRA report. They will have access under privacy and they will just give us a report, and the provinces, without having any particular names, just as to whether there is a problem here or whether you close the book on it and the case ends there.

With that, I conclude my comments on second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to stand and speak on Bill 56. While I appreciated the Finance Minister's explanation, there are a lot of questions about this bill, and the privacy. I guess this bill can be called: You can run but you can't hide.

This is going to be a pilot project. Did you ever hear tell of a pilot project being a pilot project and not running into a full-term permanent project policy? I do not know if I ever saw a pilot project being cancelled after it ran. Most pilot projects end up to be full time policy in government.

I guess what is happening now that there are so many people travelling across Canada from one province to the other in search of work, this government and other governments involved in this project want to see if they are losing money, if there is any revenue not being collected from this Province. Of course, with our new MCP cards out now, I guess that might have been one of the underlying reasons why this Province just decided to print new MCP cards, so you can track people going out to Alberta. If somebody uses their MCP card more than once or twice in Alberta, I guess it is fair to say that they are out there for more than a weekend or a vacation. You have a good idea then that they are probably out there to stay. So this is one way for government to track and see how much it is costing us to look after people in Alberta who are out there working six months of the year. How much is it costing our MCP program? Are they paying the tax they should be paying? Are they really legitimately laid off, or what are they doing?

According to this bill, there is the basic information that you can get from this. Gee, it is your name and address. I think they would be able to get that without this bill anyway. You are going to find out the person's date of birth or his death, or her death, and the date of a person's registration or de-registration with a government department or agency.

I never heard the minister say how long this particular project was going to take, whether it is going to be a year or two. He said there is going to be a report made at the end of that project -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) next year (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Oh, I know it is the 2004 tax year, but you have to find the people who were involved in the 2004 tax year and find out where they are now in the country and what services they are accessing. Who is going to do the report on this particular project? Is it the Government of Canada? Is it the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the other provinces that are taking part in this project?

I guess it is another way to look at a person's privacy. There is nothing private in this life now because if you get provinces across the country trying to access the information of people who have left here, the people who are looking for work and the people who are out there using their

MCP card - because the MCP card works different in every Province, different things are covered. They want to get a handle on what it is costing provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would venture to say, that project is not going to be a temporary one. It is going to be full government policy.

About twenty minutes ago we discussed here in this House a bill on municipal taxes and also assessments. I would think that with the out-migration today, if there are any people out there across the country who are thinking about coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador to retire, before they settle in the rural parts of our Province they have a huge decision to make. We have heard it said here in this House today that rural communities do not have the wherewithal to look after the basic infrastructure in their communities, lighting, sewage and water, just the basics, and roads. If you were thinking about coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador to retire, you would really have to look at the situation in small communities in our Province to see if you were going to be taxed to the limit by coming back and moving home, or whether or not there would be any services if you decided to do that. I do not think there is enough research done by people who move into small communities in our Province.

If this government were doing what they should be doing, they would be selling rural parts of our Province to people who have gone away for years and are looking at coming back to our Province again. I can tell you, people who are thinking about retiring, they should not jump into a situation where they would be paying excessive taxes and getting no services. Government is not doing their job in promoting rural Newfoundland and Labrador for sure.

Last week in the news the big question was Gander airport. Gander airport is really essential to all of Central Newfoundland. We saw the federal minister, Loyola Hearn, come down and pull the same stunt that was pulled by John Efford, and he was taken to task and he lost his job for it. Loyola Hearn had no compassion, no concern for the people in Gander last week. He had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.

MR. REID: Who? Loyola Hearn?

MS THISTLE: Loyola Hearn.

Who is speaking for Gander right now?

MR. O'BRIEN: You're not.

MS THISTLE: They are in a decision - the Member for Gander says to me: I'm not. Well, I am raising the subject, which you have not been doing.

What is this provincial government doing for the Town of Gander? The international airport used to be, and still has wonderful infrastructure in there to be a great airport. It already is a great airport, it just needs a bit of federal help. Is this government going to take up the fight for Gander, or are they going to let Gander shut its doors? We need that airport in Gander. Every bit of activity that comes into Central Newfoundland - it is not only the airport for Gander, it is the airport for Grand Falls-Windsor, for Botwood, for Gander Bay, for all of Central Newfoundland, and we need that airport.

We need the Premier of this Province to take on the same enthusiasm for Gander airport that he took on for the Atlantic Accord. Some people would say right now: Where is that Atlantic Accord? I think the equalization is in jeopardy. Now, according to the Tory convention that was held this fall, there was a big racket out in Gander when Prime Minister Harper was asked is he going to keep his commitment, his pre-election commitment, to the people of this Province on equalization? He was pretty nonchalant, pretty evasive, not really answering the question. I thought the Premier had that in writing. He received a letter from Stephen Harper last January, I think, if my memory serves me right it was January 4, and Stephen Harper at that point was going to remove the non-renewable resources on equalization. What is he doing today? He is trying to get out of it now. All they did at the Tory convention in Gander was have a racket. They almost came to blows. They had to call somebody out in the hall to stop the fight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: What is embarrasing? Yes, you were embarrassed during the Tory convention. They almost had a fight out in the hall of the Gander hotel.

You know, we have the Atlantic Premiers in town tomorrow. I wonder what kind of a spread will we have tomorrow? Any mugs and jugs and sweaters on the go tomorrow, boys? Any mugs and jugs and sweaters? Any mink coats instead of the sealskin ones?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, I would say that it will be on a smaller scale, I am sure. I am sure it will be on a smaller scale than the one we witnessed the summer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) support the mink industry.

MS THISTLE: Yes, my colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace just said maybe we will look at the fur industry tomorrow, or the mink. Get a mink coat instead of a sealskin one.

Anyway, we have not heard much talk about that Atlantic Premiers' Conference tomorrow, so maybe that will be a smaller scale than the one we just saw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Skin the rabbit.

MS THISTLE: Skin the rabbit, hey? Who was it said that? They are going to have a rabbit skin coat tomorrow, according to the Member for Gander.

Seriously, this is about amending the Income Tax Act in this Province, and it is to allow a pilot project to go ahead where one Province can get information about the citizens of another Province. Now, whether or not there is going to be any confidentiality in that process, who knows?

Today, I looked at the Economic Review for this year, 2006, and I was kind of interested in what I saw, because I heard the Minister of Tourism stand on his feet here last week and, in my opinion, he gave an inaccurate statement. He gave an inaccurate statement. He said: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate a 6 per cent overall increase this year with non-resident visitors to the Province expected to number approximately 498,000.

Guess how much these non-resident tourists were going to spend in our Province in 2006? Can anybody wager a guess? Well, you know, they were going to spend $356 million, and that was supposed to be an increase, a record.

Now, if you go back to the Economic Review in 2004, it says that the non-residents in the Province this year spent $355 million. Now, two years later, he is expecting an increase of 6 per cent and they are going to spend $356 million, $1 million more. Now, there is something wrong. Either his officials are not doing their homework or the minister does not know what is going on in his department.

What they do is, they count everyone who is on a cruise ship. Everyone who comes into the Port of St. John's, if they are on a cruise ship, they are counted, supposing they never spend five cents. They are going to have all these bodies come into port, and whether they get off the cruise ship or go up around New Gower Street or Duckworth Street or Water Street, supposing they never spend a cent, they are going to be counted as new visitors to the Province, whether they spend a dollar or don't spend a dollar.

There is a serious pattern developing here and I am concerned about it, and I am sure if the people of the Province were aware of the situation they would be concerned too. When the Minister of Finance gave his update in November, he talked about a $40 million deficit this year, maybe. Maybe. In the same breath he said that more than likely we would have a surplus at the end of March.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yeah, but do you know something? That underlines and it says what kind of a Province we have here. We are dependent solely on oil. We are solely -

MR. SULLIVAN: Give us more oil.

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Finance says: Give us more oil.

You can do that. All you have to do it tell your Premier how to negotiate a deal on Hebron-Ben Nevis. That is all you have to do.

We have a serious situation here -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Minister of Innovation, what are you trying to say?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, it is a lot of dribble, it means nothing.

We have a situation here in our Province now where investment alone in our Province is going to decline this year by 7 per cent. We have a government that says, in their Blue Book, they are going to diversify our economy. They are solely dependent on oil, solely dependent on oil. Our fishery is not even talked about. Nobody on the government side mentions the fishery, and I can understand why they do not mention the fishery, because the Minister of Finance, in his own book that came out last month, said: Total landings are expected to fall about 350,000 tons in 2006, a decline of 4 per cent, and the total value of landings is expected to decrease by 10 per cent.

You know, that is a frightening prospect. Where is all of that taking place? It is not taking place, or very little of it, here in St. John's. If our fishery is in a slump, it is taking place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, these are the same people that my colleagues, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, talked about this afternoon as having to deal with municipal operating grants, or the lack of them. How do you expect a small community that is in a situation where their fishing industry is pretty much gone to take on the expense of running a community? This is supposed to be the best time in our history, and it is the worst time for rural communities in our Province.

The only bright spot in our economy is in oil and it is in mining. Now, this government does not recognize yet how much mining means to this Province. It does not recognize that the mining that is taking place in Central Newfoundland is going to give this Province a balanced budget this year, even though the Minister of Finance reported a $40 million deficit.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: How much do you know about rural Newfoundland? For the Member for Mount Pearl, who has never been outside of St. John's, never worked outside of St. John's, you do not know the problems of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. All you know is about an urban center. Get real, my son! Get out past the Overpass! Get real, and find out what is going on out there. You wouldn't have a clue.

Up in my own district, the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, where there is money coming out in income tax and services for the mining industry that is taking place at Aur Resources, Messina Minerals, and all the other drilling companies that are up there exploring - and the Member for Baie Verte would know and understand; he is probably the only one here who knows anything about mining, apart from the Member for Labrador City - what did this government do? It is a kick in the face. For all the money that is coming out of Central Newfoundland, Millertown, Buchans Junction, Buchans, what did they do with the road? It is disgraceful. I am almost ashamed to say what they did. Instead of fixing the shoulders on the pavement this summer, where there is heavy equipment and school buses and people going over it, guess what they did? They took a can of spray paint and they painted the gravel. Now, that is hilarious for members over on the opposite side. That is hilarious to see people with their safety vests on from the Department of Transportation and Works - they can almost envision a truckload of spray paint spraying the sides of the road on the Buchans Highway; spraying the gravel.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for this government to sit back and not give the treatment and the safety that the people of Central Newfoundland need and deserve. They should have a proper road. When there is a life and health and safety issue, they should respond. There is plenty of money for things that they want to spend money on, like mugs and jugs and sweaters, $100,000; $700 a head for wining and dining; and $8,000 for sealskin coats for the Kleins. There is nothing, though, for the Buchans Highway, is there? Not a thing, only a can of spray paint on the gravel.

This government is going to face a very strong problem if they do not get out and diversify our economy. In their own publication that came out two weeks ago they said manufacturing employment declined by 6 per cent, or 1,100 person years in the first nine months; 1,100 person years decreased in manufacturing alone. What does that do to all the companies in this Province, and particularly on the Northeast Avalon, that have been geared up for oil production and a possible new project, Hebron/Ben Nevis? The government's own material - they are saying that manufacturing employment was down 1,100 person years in the first nine months of this year. We are into a significant problem here in this Province. They have been trying to gloss it over, but I can tell you, if our oil production is down at all like it was this summer on the Terra Nova we are in deep problems.

When you look at the fact that a general indicator of the prosperity of a province is based on how things start, what do we see for this year? I could not believe it. Every other year we are looking at increases. Up to September of this year, housing starts are down 12 per cent in our Province. When you look at all the activity and the money that is connected around 12 per cent, all the people who would be working normally and they are not. They are not out there building houses or doing renovations. They have gone to Alberta so they can get their EI for the winter and come back, hopefully. Where are the building supply companies that would be selling the materials? They are probably going to go out of business.

When you look at the fact that housing starts are down 12 per cent, we have - none of these things are ever mentioned by this government. I asked the Minister of Finance yesterday - I said: I am looking forward to seeing your economic review book for November. I did not actually get it in my office but he told me that it was posted on the Web site, but the main thing is I do have it today. I do have it today. These are serious concerns that are in this book. There is a trend developing here in our Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The trend? Well now, I am sure the Minister of Finance cannot dispute his own figures. He cannot dispute the fact that manufacturing is down, construction is down, equipment purchases are down, and in the first nine months of 2006 car sales were down by 5 per cent. All of these things are down. So, if all of these things are down and you are solely dependent on oil revenue, there is something wrong with your economy. You have to diversify your economy so you do not have all your eggs in one basket.

It is interesting, when this government came to power three years ago they were saying how bad a deal Voisey's Bay was. The Premier was going to be the first one to get in a mack truck and drive that mack truck right through the Voisey's Bay deal. I am sure he is pretty glad today to have the revenue from Voisey's Bay or I can tell you, this financial picture would look a whole lot worse.

All of the projects that are creating revenue in this Province have been projects that were on the books when this government took power. There have been no new projects started by this government. In fact, there has been a few that have been cancelled.

A while ago the seniors across our Province had a convention. They had it in Clarenville in the centerfold for trust magazine, that District of Trinity North. They had that convention August 1 to 4. You know, you can always depend on seniors to give you a good account of what is going on in the Province. According to the government's own information too, currently 19 per cent of - even the Department of Transportation and Works, they are fifty-five. Isn't that interesting? Nineteen percent of the Department of Transportation and Works is fifty-five or older, and 29 per cent of those will be eligible for early retirement in the next five years. Within five years 23 per cent of the Transportation and Works employees will be sixty-five or over, they will be seniors.

According to Stats Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador will be the oldest province in the country by 2026. That is only twenty years time. In twenty years time half of our population is going to be fifty or older. Isn't that frightening? Look at the young Pages who we have here this afternoon in our House of Assembly, three young Pages attending MUN, I think. They are amongst the minority now, the young in our workforce. Because according to Stats Canada, in twenty more years half of the population in our Province will be fifty or over. That means all of us here in this House of Assembly, in twenty years time, will be fifty or older.

MS FOOTE: I want to be fifty in twenty years time.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I would like to be fifty in twenty years time.

It is a frightening prospect, and this government has not done anything about that because we have a problem here that has not been addressed. When our working age people, 9,000 of them, stand up in a lineup on Kenmount Road and they are looking for a job out in Western Canada, that is our young people who are going. Who is left here? Of course, according to the statement made by the Premier - I cannot remember the exact date. He said: We have turned the corner. When was that done?

MS FOOTE: Oh, it is in the 2006 Budget.

MS THISTLE: The 2006 Budget, last March. The Premier said in one of his statements, we have turned the corner. Now, I wonder would he give that speech up on Kenmount Road at The Capital Hotel. There were 9,000 people who turned the corner there on Kenmount Road. In fact, they were lined up all the way from Kenmount Road - try to look after 9,000 people on Kenmount Road. They have turned the corner all right. That was the comment the Premier made in his speech in March 2006. To see that photo of all those 9,000 people standing up - do you know something? They are our young people. I think the stats that are put out by Stats Canada saying that in twenty years half of our population will be fifty or over, that is wrong. I would say that is more like ten years from now. That is going to be escalated. I think those predictions by Stats Canada are even wrong.

That leaves a big question in the minds of seniors that are here in our Province. What is going to happen to them? They cannot afford to stay in their homes in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They have problems with getting people to look after them. There are no home care facilities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, or very few, not in every community, although I know there have been great advances by some entrepreneurs here trying to put up private homes.

It almost makes sense that, when the seniors had their convention in August, one of their resolutions that they wanted government to look at and react to was that government go to bat for them, deal with the federal government and make it a joint resolution, a joint change, that HST should be eliminated on home care. It is bad enough to have to pay out your savings for home care to keep a spouse or a loved one in their home, but when you have to go and find 14 per cent on top of that, I think that is a little too much. For a government last year that forecasted and had a $100 million surplus and decided to put it down on things like The Rooms and so on, certainly goodness they can look after our seniors and launch a campaign to reduce the 14 per cent on home care.

Another good resolution that came from that seniors convention that was held in August was the removal of HST on funerals. Now, there is not much we can get away with in this Province - death and taxes. You can never get away from death and taxes, but certainly goodness you can make it a little bit easier so that the last service that is done for a person leaving this world, HST on a funeral, certainly goodness we, as a Province, can look at taking that away. We can lobby our federal government to do the same, because when you look at the fact that seniors have paid, all of their lives, taxes for everything, they should have one final break in their lives. Certainly goodness, HST on a funeral should be removed.

You know, if you are even having a very modest funeral today, it is difficult to get by with less than $6,000 on just a very average funeral. I know, I talk to constituents all the time, and not too many prepare ahead, and a lot of them are faced with funeral expenses when they can least afford it. Just to have a very modest, average funeral today you are looking at $5,000 or $6,000, so you can well imagine the HST on top of that is pretty expensive. So, if government wanted to do something worthwhile for our seniors, they should certainly look at trying to remove the HST on funerals and also on home care.

You know, there has always been a big issue on home care, whether or not family members can actually be the ones who are being asked to take care of family members and being paid for it by government. In most cases, family members are the ones who can provide the best care, and government would probably be getting the best money for their investment. Family members are normally in the home twenty-four hours a day, and most times they will provide that care without ever putting in the right number of hours. There has been such a shemozzle, I guess, by government insisting that the care giver be someone other than a family member, that has been almost impossible in some situations for families to deal with. It is time now, with our dwindling population and the loss of services to rural communities in our Province, for government to go back and rethink that issue, because in many instances the family members are the ones who would be best equipped to take care of their loved ones. You know, it might even encourage younger persons to stay here in this Province. Home care in the home can be given a lot cheaper than if that particular loved one was put into a government-run institution or even a private one. So, that is something that should be taken care of.

Again this year, you know, seniors asked for a subsidy for those burning electricity in their homes, to heat their homes. Now, I remember quite clearly when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was in Opposition, and even the current Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, and I have them on Hansard records in this House of Assembly lobbying greatly, saying that, if they ever formed the government, the first thing they would do is give the home owners who burn electricity, low-income earners, a subsidy for those who heat their homes with electricity. What did they do when they became the government? They turned a deaf ear to it.

You know, in other provinces in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswick has been very creative. They provided the HST rebate, the provincial part of it, to all of the people in their Province who burn all kinds of heating fuels, whether it be propane, electricity or oil. There is something wrong here, where we cannot assist the people in our Province who burn electricity to heat their homes.

Over the past three years there has been a 15 per cent increase on home heat by Newfoundland Hydro. That is pretty expensive, when you put the HST on that 15 per cent increase. That is a lot to pay, and incomes have not increased to withstand that high payment, so it is time for this government - you know, their priority is maybe not with seniors, because they have not done the things that seniors are looking for. I know they have increased drug coverage. It is one thing to increase drug coverage, but you also have to look at the aspects of a person living in their own surroundings.

When you think about a person trying to maintain a home, pay taxes, pay municipal taxes, income taxes, taxes on funerals, taxes on every essential service, taxes on heat, taxes on light bills, taxes on cable, taxes on phone bills, you know, it is a lot to lay on a person for sure. That is something this government should look at in the upcoming budget: look at reducing or eliminating the tax on funerals and also look at reducing or eliminating the tax on home care. These are two very important recommendations that came up from our seniors convention that was held in August.

I want to talk about roads. I had an experience with the first snowfall last Thursday when I headed out to Grand Falls-Windsor. It was about 10:00 o'clock in the morning when I hit the highway, and I was surprised. I was glad that I had my four snow tires on, because I would not drive without them this time of year. I had just put them on the week before. I can tell you, from here to almost Clarenville, there was only one lane open. From St. John's to Clarenville, one lane open. That is really not good enough, when you look at 10:00 o'clock in the day and there are big transport trucks driving over that highway, and all kinds of heavy equipment. Here you have passing lanes and no ability to pass.

I heard the Minister of Transportation and Works, and he said his new motto for his workers in the Department of Transportation and Works was going to be, when in doubt put it out. In other words, he was going to tell his workers to put sand and salt on the road whenever they felt it was necessary. What he forgot to tell them to do was haul out the plows along with it. There is only one way across this Province and that is the Trans-Canada Highway, and when you have only one lane cleaned off there is no way to pass in the passing lane inside, and you have a major problem here. We heard it on the radio over the past two days, people trying to get to airports early in the morning, people trying to get to hospitals. The equipment is off the road nine-thirty in the night.

You know, when a Transportation and Works employee takes up the phone, phones an open line show and wants to remain anonymous in fear of losing his job, when he is concerned about the safety issue and says that equipment is taken off the road at nine-thirty and there is no more until the next morning at four-thirty, he knows that is not a good thing especially after a big snowfall.

The Minister of Government Services was on yesterday and she was talking about a new - what was it she was having? It was a new thing to put you in control at the wheel. You Are in Control. You are in control about the weather, you are in control about using your cell phone, you are in control about this, that and something else. No, we are not in control, because if you do not have a good road to drive over you are not in control. You are definitely not in control when you have one lane open on a two-lane highway, there is snow on both sides, there is slush and everything else to go with it, and there is nothing cleaned off. How can you be in control when you do not have a good, clean surface to drive over?

I would suggest that the Minister of Government Services and Lands get together with the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MS WHALEN: It is not lands anymore.

MS THISTLE: It is not lands anymore. It is definitely not roads. She is saying it is not lands anymore. Government Services. Excuse me if I gave your department and your portfolio the wrong name.

MR. SULLIVAN: Apologize now.

MS THISTLE: Yes, the Minister of Finance wants me to apologize for that. My God! There are more important things to do, I can tell you that, than apologize for that slight error.

I am concerned about driving over the roads in the winter. I look at the fact on the Buchans Highway that there are school children going to be picked up from Buchans Junction and Millertown. What are they going to do in an emergency, or people who need to go to the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor? You have a mine up there now that is working around the clock, twenty-four hours a day. Just say if somebody there gets injured on the job and they have to go in the middle of the night and try to get to Grand Falls and there is no snowplow coming up until four-thirty in the morning. Well, you know, you have a deplorable situation there.

This government should be compelled to leave the major arteries open and make sure that the snow is cleaning off the major arteries. When we have people who are getting off shift work from hospitals and paper mills or wherever there is activity being done in this Province - of course, there is not a whole lot of activity going on in this Province now when you have the slump in the fishery and you have the paper mill in Stephenville shut down. There is nothing going on in Bull Arm, expect a security shack being built without proper tendering process. That is the only construction that is going on in this Province now is a security shack out in Bull Arm without the proper tendering process, the proper due diligence being done.

The biggest industry that is on the go now is the fibre optic deal, whether or not government will get the go ahead to go ahead with that deal, and that is questionable, we have not seen a business plan for that yet. That is the only activity right now that is on the government drawing board in this Province, $15 million of the taxpayers' money to go into a fibre optic deal that is on a wing and a prayer. We have not seen anything there to justify spending $15 million, nor will we because they get up every day in this House of Assembly and they make reference to an EWA report, as if that were the gospel. That was something that was hurried up. Electronic Warfare Association, I think was the name of that report. That was something that was hurried up after the fact in a couple of weeks. They had nothing to work with, they had no figures, no business plan and they were supposed to comment on the viability of that particular project.

This is a government that makes its own decisions on the run and has nothing to back them up with, and cannot prove to us, who represent the taxpayers of this Province, whether or not the deal is a good one or a bad one. They are not the slight bit interested in providing the figures.

It was interesting -I watched Out of the Fog one night with the panel that was supposed to critique the fibre optic deal. They were all the people who were directly and indirectly working for government, so how could they say anything to the contrary? What we have here is a deal that is $52 million and the government putting in - I cannot say the government, it is the taxpayers of our Province - $15 million and they do not know what they are going to get at the end of it, and whether or not it is a good investment. Now, that is not the way to do business. If you are going to be accountable, be transparent, do all those lovely things you said in your Blue Book, you had better live up to what you said.

Mr. Speaker, there is plenty to talk about but I will give somebody else a chance. I will have another opportunity because there are several money bills coming up before this House of Assembly closes before Christmas, so I will have another opportunity later.

Thank you for the time.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I am sure members would want me to welcome in the public gallery a young man. His name is Jeremy Cross. Jeremy is a student at the College of the North Atlantic. He is doing a Business Course and he is the grandson of former MHA George Cross. He is accompanied by his caregivers Adrian Crocker and Melissa Wells.

Welcome, Jeremy, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 56. I have some concerns about this bill, and they probably are not going to be able to be taken care of before the bill passes.

The major one, of course, has to do with the privacy issues in the bill. When I first read the bill, based on the Explanatory Note that was there, and the bill itself, I really had to question what the bill was all about. Why was government, or why was the minister, going to need the information that is outlined in the bill?

As I read through it, I saw in one section, well, the first three areas of information that were being asked for would be information that would already be on somebody's income tax return. Then I read sections (d) and (e) under (2) and I really got puzzled. I could not understand why the minister would be looking for the date of a person's registration or deregistration with a government department or agency, or the date that a person used the services of a government department or agency, because there was nothing either in the Explanatory Notes or in the bill itself to explain that to me.

Then I read section (f) under (2) and see that, if I were the person being asked the information from the minister, I have to be willing to allow the information of a spouse or a common-law partner or dependant to also be released.

I was really confused and I actually called the minister to get an explanation for this bill, and I listened carefully to what the minster said. I got most of what he said here in the House today when he introduced the bill. I have consulted with a number of people who I think are people who have expertise in the area of privacy issues and human rights issues, and the more I read it and the more I think about it the less comfortable I am with this bill.

When I look at the Explanatory Notes, I say: Why don't the Explanatory Notes tell me exactly what the minister said to me on the phone and what the minister said here in the House? For the average person who would pick up this bill or see this amendment in the Income Tax Act, it is really not going to be clear why this amendment was put in the Income Tax Act. It will not be clear at all. Yet, any new piece of legislation, whether an amendment or a whole new act, but especially an amendment, is supposed to be covering some kind of issue or problem that the current bill does not deal with. Therefore, in order to agree to an amendment, I need to know in the Explanatory Notes, what is the problem that this amendment is dealing with? The general statement that is in the Explanatory Notes tells me nothing. It just says, "...to access limited personal information held by government departments and agencies for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Act".

Then, when I hear the minister speak, it goes way beyond that because it has to do with saving money under the MCP. I do not see that written in the Explanatory Notes and I think that the Explanatory Notes in the bill should have a full explanation. I think that our legislation should demand that. I think that people in the community will demand that, and I think that anybody in the community who is concerned, whether persons as individuals or persons as organizations who would read this amendment, read this bill, are going to have a lot of problems with what is being demanded here. I think we have human rights issues here. As a matter of fact, I am aware of a complaint being brought to the Supreme Court in Alberta which deals with a related issue with regard to information being sought from a third party about a second party. These issues are serious issues. They are not minor.

I appreciate the fact that the government is trying to save money with regard to MCP costs - I have no problem with that - but, you know, the end does not justify the means. We cannot deny people's right to privacy and we cannot deny people's rights to not be demanded to collude with government in providing information that goes against human rights. We cannot do that in order to deal with government's problem. Government has to come up with another way to deal with the problem that it has, and putting an amendment in this act that says I do not have the right to refuse information about somebody who is part of my life, when it comes to section (2)(d) and (2)(e), really is problematic for me.

There is a lot to discuss. It looks like a very, very small piece of legislation but there is a lot to discuss in this legislation. When we start talking about privacy issues and human rights issues, we have to take them seriously. It means that time has to be taken to discuss an issue.

I see this conundrum that I find myself in today as relating to something that I was talking about yesterday. You see, if we had a committee structure in the House I think this would be a bill that would definitely benefit from a full committee discussion, not just the structure that we currently have in place in the House, because different people with different expertise have different opinions on this bill, and whether or not this bill should be going into the Income Tax Act. If we had a committee structure, those people could be called into the discussion and we could hear the differing opinions.

I am not comfortable that, because of the way things are in the House, our discussions take place - yes, I get to talk to the minister and I get to talk to other people about this bill and get their opinion, but it is all one on one. We are not in a group together talking to one another and learning from one another. I think that is the benefit of a committee structure in a House, that we get to sit and listen to the different opinions and come to an informed opinion and an informed position.

It seems to me that, if this amendment is put into the Income Tax Act, the government is putting itself in a position to be challenged with regard to privacy issues and human rights issues, and I consider that, actually, unnecessary. I know the minister has told me and he has told the House that he has consulted all the way through and he has spoken to everybody whom he thinks he needs to speak to, and they do not see a problem. I have spoken to people also who do see a problem. That is the basis of my concern, that the more heads that get together and look at an issue, the more we come to the best position on an issue.

As I said yesterday in the House, I have proven that already with two other bills in the House, that even just one more person reading it, I came up with something that the minister involved said: Oh yes, I do not know why we did not think of that. We can only improve bills the more people who read the bills, especially when it comes to areas of special expertise and privacy and human rights. We all know that you can have so many different opinions, but if you put all those opinions together you eventually come up with the best legislation that one can come up with.

I have to say, that I am not going to be ready to vote for this bill. I do not think that it belongs in the Income Tax Act. I disagree with its being there. I disagree with what is being demanded. Even if the bill fit in the Income Tax Act, if we were to put it in, then I would not see sections (2) (d), (e), and (f) belonging there. Taking that out, I think, takes out the reason why this bill is here based on what I heard the minister say in the House and based on my private conversation with him. By private, I mean a one-on-one conversation with him. It is problematic, I wish this were not coming to us, and I will not able to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. Having looked at the explanatory notes and recognizing that there are some issues here, it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as I look down under section 3 under 84.1, where it talks about personal information and what it is being limited to and then outlines several items here, like a person's name and any identifying number, classification or symbol, a person's residential street address and postal code, including the date of a person's last change of province or residence.

I find that interesting, Mr. Speaker, given where we find ourselves today. Really, how relevant is that particular section when we have people who are leaving this Province in droves? Of course, a lot of them are going away and while they are away working the residential address might remain the same, but they are actually living and working outside of the Province. I guess it brings to mind what has transpired here over the last couple of months with so many of our people lining up on Kenmount Road looking for work in Alberta. That is such a sad, sad depiction of what is going on in our Province today. While it says we have turned the corner, I guess that is in reference to the Premier's speech in the budget or budget commentary back in 2006.

The reality of it is that indeed we have turned the corner, we have seen thousands of people, 9,000 to be exact, stand in a line waiting to be interviewed, waiting for jobs in Alberta because there are no jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, either because the skills that they have, there are no jobs available to them to fill that particular niche, or because they are looking for work which will pay them a reasonable wage. While people will say to us, well you know there are jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, unfortunately a lot of those jobs are in the service industry where they are paying minimum wage, and it is really hard to support a family today on minimum wage. I can understand why people would line up, 9,000 of them to be exact, to find work in Alberta. I think it just speaks again to the need for this government to do something about the minimum wage in this Province.

It is ironic, I suppose, that on the one hand - and I remember the Member for St. John's North speaking to the need to look at increasing the minimum wage, but on the other hand we have the Premier speaking to the employees of Fishery Products International, talking about why they should be prepared to accept $11 as a wage, that being $2 less than what they are making today. The irony there should not go unnoticed, Mr. Speaker, because we really do have to recognize that today it is very hard for families to make ends meat working for a minimum wage.

You know, these people who are lining up looking for work, it is a sad commentary on what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today, that there is so little happening with respect to employment opportunities where they will get paid a reasonable wage. We have food banks, we have numbers like we have never seen before of people wanting to avail of food banks, and it just goes on. We are in a crisis situation when you realize that people really do not know how to make ends meat in this Province today, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I hear it all the time in my own district, my District of Grand Bank, where people really do not know what the future holds and they are looking to move outside of this Province.

We are at a point now where we have parents moving to live where their children are and to work next to their children if they can find employment. You know what is going to happen, once the children are gone and the parents follow the children, then we know they are not going to come back, contrary to what the Premier has said at one point in time about Newfoundlanders being homing pigeons, that we always return. You know what I found really, really interesting? I read that same comment in a business publication recently. In fact, it was a quote by Dean MacDonald, and we all know, of course, and we have talked about who Mr. MacDonald is, the CEO of Persona, and Persona happens to be company that the government has chosen to give $15 million to, or as the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development says, to invest $15 million in.

Either way you look at it, that $15 million is going into a company, and we have to say a company because we have not heard anything different. If it is going into Persona or if it is going into buying the cable, we really do not know what is going on here. Mr. MacDonald is quoted in this paper as saying, we all come back, we are homing pigeons. It is going to happen, let them go. He is talking about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when he makes this comment. I have to question, who is parroting who here? Was this a quote that Mr. MacDonald of Persona and the Premier's friend came up with, or is it a quote that the Premier came up with and Mr. MacDonald is now parroting the Premier? Either way, it is not good. It is not good.

Here we have two individuals who are front and center in this Province, because we have heard how much the Premier respects Mr. MacDonald, now much he listens to him, and, in fact, takes advice from him. Here we have Mr. MacDonald saying the very same thing that the Premier said.

When I look at these 9,000 people standing in line looking for work outside this Province and then I read a commentary from Mr. MacDonald quoting or parroting the Premier that says, we all come back, we are homing pigeons, I am wondering where they are, what world they are living in? People are not going to come back. When you get to the point where not just the children leave, but the parents leave, and in some cases the grandparents leave, they are not going to come back.

Mr. MacDonald here, it really puzzles me, why he would even do the story, why he would even make those remarks. He says: In that regard, I am delighted that somebody else is willing to take our people and train them and pay them really good salaries so that we can get them back again. Well, they are not going to come back if the wages are not there. If they are going to go away and they are going to get trained and the salaries are good, why does he think they are going to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador and work for less, once they have gotten used to a good salary? They have been able to provide for their families, they can live a comfortable life, why are they going to come back?

Once again, it just puzzles me where Mr. MacDonald would be coming from and where the Premier is coming from when they make such comments. We all come back, we are homing pigeons. Well, I beg to differ. As much as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to live in our Province, because it is the best place in which to live, they are not going to come back if the circumstances are not right for them to come back.

What we are doing by letting them go, as Mr. MacDonald says - he says, let them go, they will be back. They will be well-trained and when they come back it will not be with their hands out but to buy a really nice house and buy all your goods and services. This is a man who is a CEO of Persona Communications, who is also the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, who has also been appointed to the Premier's advisory board. Is it any wonder that what we are hearing from the Premier is, let them go, they will be back because they are homing pigeons? That is exactly what we are hearing from Mr. MacDonald.

It begs the question: Why are we sitting back and allowing this to happen? Why are we not doing more to ensure that our people stay here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Why aren't we doing more to ensure that there is gainful employment for them? Why aren't we trying to negotiate instead of bullying people into believing or doing things your way? Because that is the reality of it, for anyone who is stuck in a position where they cannot find meaningful employment, where we do not, right now, have anything happening with respect to Hebron/Ben Nevis. The bullying tactics have not worked. People are leaving in droves. They are finding meaningful employment in Alberta and other parts of this country. We know that is not working. When something does not work isn't the onus on the person who is doing the bullying, isn't the onus on them to get back to the table and find a way to make things work, to compromise, instead of just holding fast on one position?

The same thing with this Persona deal. If it is $15 million that you are putting into a deal to make it possible for Persona to participate - and I do not know if it is, we cannot get an answer out of the minister. He refuses to let us know what the breakdown is. He refuses to tell us just how much of that $15 million is actually a contribution to Persona, or what Persona's contribution is to this deal. Because if you do the math and you break it down, there are four partners. As a government, they are in fact the largest shareholder. Well, wait now, they do not have an equity position so they are not really a shareholder. So, the question is: What is going on here? Fifteen million dollars for what?

We agree with competition, that is not the issue here, but if Persona has the money and Rogers has the money and MTS Allstream has the money, why does the government have to come to the table if it is all about competition? That is what I keep hearing day in and day out from the Premier and from the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, that it is about competition. It is about making things easier and cheaper for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Well the reality of it is, we do not know that. We do not know that this deal that the government has struck is actually the best possible deal that could have been had for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we are asking for the particulars. Give us the details. It is not like in giving us the details you are going to do something that is going to jeopardize the deal. The deal has been struck. We need to know because it is $15 million of taxpayers' money. We need to know if it is being spent responsibly. We need to know if it is a wise expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

When I read things like what Mr. MacDonald said in an interview he did here, when I read these things and it is so parroting what the Premier has said, it makes you wonder: How close is the connection? What did Mr. MacDonald say to the Premier to make the government cough up $15 million? It is a lot of money. What was the presentation? Now I know it's a so-called unsolicited proposal, but all we are asking here is for the details. That is what we are asking for.

When I read comments by Mr. MacDonald here in the paper where he says, we all come back, we are homing pigeons, the exact words that the Premier used and I am not sure who is parroting who, as I said before, but it just begs the question: Who is inside of whose head here? What advice is the Premier taking? Is he, in fact, taking advice from Mr. MacDonald? If so, then I am just a little bit worried here when I read comments like that because it goes to show that it is the Premier and Mr. MacDonald who are very close here - and not that there is anything wrong with having friendships, but at the end of the day, if that friendship is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province $15 million, than we need to know that. The taxpayers of this Province need to know that and they can judge accordingly. Getting answers on this issue is like pulling teeth. They just are not coming.

We have people who are leaving the Province, and I know the government will say: Well, hey, we have had out-migration ever since we have been a Province. I am not questioning that, but what I am questioning are tactics by a government, in this case, by a Premier who is not making it possible for people to find gainful employment, meaningful employment. That is the bottom line here. The approach has to be one where there is some give and take. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that with this Premier. It is either his way or no way. It is not just when it comes to the Hebron-Ben Nevis, but he has picked a fight now with the Prime Minister of Canada - not that I am going to defend the Prime Minister of Canada, and he happens to be a Conservative, but of course, he picked a fight with the Prime Minister of Canada when it was Paul Martin. It does not matter, the political stripe. This man just cannot seem to get along with anyone.

It begs a question, if that is your makeup, if that is the way you do things, then you are never going to make this Province be a place where people will want to do business, and in investing in this Province create meaningful employment. At the end of the day, it is about jobs. It is about work for people who worked all their lives and now find themselves in a position where there is no work for them. That is what is sad about this. That is what is so sad about the situation that we are finding ourselves in, in this Province today.

When I look at the Burin Peninsula and see that there is nothing happening there, we are holding our breath and hoping that Cooke Aquaculture will, in fact, go into Fortune because that town is devastated. The people there are devastated. Even though we know that the numbers to be employed, should Cooke Aquaculture go into Fortune, will not be the same as were employed when the fish plant was there, we will take the jobs. People are desperate. My question is: Are there going to be enough people left by the time the government and the company get around to establishing themselves in Fortune?

In Grand Bank we have Clearwater. Interestingly enough, the principal in both companies in FPI and Clearwater happens to be one John Risley. Do you know, in the negotiations now with Clearwater, Clearwater is asking the employees of their company in Grand Bank to take a $2 an hour wage cut in pay? Doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that precisely what FPI asked their employees in Marystown to do? And, because the Premier agreed to it, is it any wonder John Risley would try and do the same thing with Clearwater employees in Grand Bank? Because he set the tenor for the talks. He set the tone by saying it is okay for you in Marystown, FPI workers, to take a $2 an hour cut in wages. Then Risley, of course, did the same thing in Grand Bank.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a Premier who - I do not know if he speaks before he thinks, but for him to side with the company in this case speaks to his background, I think, in volumes. This is a Premier who, first and foremost, thinks like a businessman, and it is to the detriment of the little person, the person who makes their living day in and day out, who, in some cases, gets by on minimum wage, in other cases may do a little better than that, but at the end of the day they need a Premier who is going to stand up to business when that business is treating them unfairly. That has not happened in the case of FPI. It is not happening now in the case of Clearwater.

Then we move to Marystown and there is nothing happening at the shipyard and Cow Head facilities in Marystown. We have nothing happening at the fish plant in Marystown. Thank heavens we have the secondary processing plant in Burin, but right now, today, that is what is happening on that side of the Burin Peninsula.

We have a plant that is working in St. Lawrence, but that has a different owner. The Burin Peninsula is in a sad state of affairs. Everywhere I go down there, they are wondering what their future holds.

I went to a soccer banquet for the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of Fame. At that point in time people were saying, we are getting our children to be involved in sports, particularly in soccer, but our fear is that there are not going to be enough children left to carry on these types of programs.

It is all about understanding the needs of the people you represent. It is all about being a leader. It is all about understanding how people feel, how they need to provide for their families, and it is not about running a business. It is not about running a business. This Province is not about running a business.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) hospital in Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: The hospital in Grand Bank, where is it? A good point. My colleague from the Bay of Island just raised a good point. What about the hospital in Grand Bank? Guess what? A little over a year ago, the Premier went down to Grand Bank -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

MS FOOTE: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS FOOTE: 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 on this Income Tax Act, because we have had a lot of things going on in this Province in the last couple of weeks that involve the people's income, and it certainly has been taxing their patience, so I don't mind having a few words about this at all.

Maybe we would like to tell the people again about where some of their income tax is indeed going, because you put it all in a pot and the government gets to decide, of course, where it gets spent.

MR. REID: What about the trough out there in Bull Arm?

MR. PARSONS: That is exactly where I was going to head.

I asked a couple of questions in the House today of the Minister of Natural Resources. I asked him yesterday, too, as a matter of fact. I asked him last week as well, twice, and I have never yet, since I have been here in 1999, seen such obstinance, such obscurity, such refusal, to provide information. It is absolutely amazing.

The Minister of Industry gets on his feet for the last two or three weeks trying to talk about this fibre deal and nothing but fluff comes out of him. Nothing but fluff. It is like the EWA report itself, a piece of fluff.

I said today - and the people out in TV land and the media today - I even noticed today there were a few nods when I said to the Minister of Industry: Do you think you can fool all of the people all of the time? Because you cannot. Your course of action and your way of treating the people of this Province when you are asked legitimate, straight-up questions is becoming very noticeable and very evident.

I was out and about my district, and everywhere I went I heard about fur coats, I heard about lavish parties, but the question I got asked most often was: Isn't there some way that the person of whom you ask the question should be forced to give an answer? Who do they think they are fooling when you ask about one thing and they give you a bunch of tripe about something else?

The people are finally on to that, and they know that now. This is a government, for example - you talk about taking advantage of opportunities. Sure, this government takes advantage of the weather. We get a fire at Aliant and we end up with a fibre optic deal. We get a windstorm out in Bull Arm, we get a new security building. I woke up this morning and there was snow on the ground, and I didn't know what we were going to hear today. I figured we could end up with another $15 million deal or something today, because this crowd take great advantage of the weather.

Now, here is the minister of industry - again, you talk about people understanding facts - the deal is pretty simple, the deal is pretty straightforward. Now, the government members do not want to hear this. They do not want to hear this because they have been told to toe one line and listen to what is only good and reasonable from the Premier's perspective; but, folks, it ain't rocket science. It is not rocket science. There is a law which says if you are going to spend government money, you live by a thing called the Public Tender Act - pretty straightforward.

They go out with a contract saying, we want to put this building out in Bull Arm. Now, it so happens that the head of Bull Arm is a lady, Ms Cleary, who happened to be a PC candidate, who I believe is a nurse by training, who was given this $100,000-a-year-plus job after she got defeated. So, they put out this contract to build a building. The contract was for labour and materials. Four people bid on it. The lowest bidder on the contract, lo and behold, the minister says last week - we figured out after the bids came in that the low bidder happens to be a friend of the Member for Bellevue, and he is Liberal. They figured that out, so what happens? All of a sudden we did not have enough money to do that building in Bull Arm. We had to stop, because that was a waste of money. That was a waste of money, so we cancelled that contract, folks. We are not going to spend that money now. We did not need that building that we hired an engineer for, spent all of that money to get an engineer to do specs, all that money in advertising, all that money that these people spent to put in a bid. They got cancelled, so convenient, but there was a problem. Because there was a friend of Ms Cleary out there who wanted to put in a bid, but that friend could not put in the bid because there is a thing called a core requirement, core certification. Now, that person who is the friend of Ms Cleary got in touch with her, no doubt, I would think, and said: Whoa, just a minute. I cannot put a bid in on that because I do not have core certification. I cannot bid on it. That is money that I am not going to get. What did we do? Lo and behold, the tender is cancelled.

Lo and behold, there was a windstorm and after the windstorm we need the building again. That is just an excuse. That is like the fire at Aliant, that was another convenient excuse. We had the windstorm, so now we need the building that we just cancelled. Off they go again, but this time they did not go to public tender. They had the site manager, who I understand was a friend of the former Minister of Natural Resources, who got hired as the site manager after they fired the fellow who was there for years. Now, he happened to be the next door neighbour, as I understand it, of the former Minister of Natural Resources. They said: Don't you handle that Ms Cleary, that might be a bit too dirty and smutty. The site manager goes out and does a Request for Proposals, and guess what? This time around it was not for the full project, it was only for the labour. Guess what, again? They did not have to have this core certification -

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

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader can get up here and go on and on and slander people both inside this House and outside this House and accuse them of doing something untoward, but he has absolutely no proof that anything untoward was done.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that he goes on with that is because they had to pay out $5 million in the Trans-City scandal. They had to pay out $4.2 million in a lawsuit to Frank Ryan over the Murray Premises. They had to pay out over $1 million to the Cabot 500 Corporation employees, who are mostly Tories and they fired them. The fact of the matter is, that was the way they did business and they can't believe that somebody else does it differently.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The members will know that points of order should deal with the order of the House and the procedures that we are following. In this particular case, there is no point of order and I advise members that they should not use points of order to engage in debate.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All the years I have been here, not a lot, but anytime I have ever heard the Minister of Innovation stand up, I have never heard him have a valid point of order yet. It proves one thing, that when you hit close to home and when you hit close to telling the truth, they come to their feet to interrupt you.

I say to the minister of duct tape, he should not be coming to the heels of his feet to tell us what a point of order is, which is a bunch of tripe. If he got up and gave more substantive answers in Question Period here, the people of this Province will be a lot further ahead than they are today, instead of him being evasive as he is all the time.

I will go back to the point at hand here. My point at hand, again, concerns Bull Arm. I say to the minister, both ministers, again, if you have an issue with anything I am saying, that is why I ask the questions in this House. I invite you to tell the truth and give the answers and give the information. I sat here since last Tuesday -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to say this. He invites me to tell the truth - I believe this is a point of order - and I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I tell the truth as I understand it here in this House. I deal with the information that is put in front of me. I deal with it factually, I deal with it honestly and I deal with it in the same manner that I expect everybody else in this House to deal with the issues that are debated here; just like, I suppose, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader deal with their issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to sit here and have him accuse me of telling lies, speaking untruths and making false statements in this House with the self-righteousness that he goes on with and the indignation. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for it to be brought into order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will have to look at the transcript to find out the exact words. I just caution all members, that when we are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution all members, when we are engaging in debate, to show respect for each other, and that we always deal with the issues and deal with them on the floor of the House.

With that said, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

The Chair will rule on the point of order tomorrow.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Innovation, if he has a hangup with the word truth, I will retract what I said. I will definitely retract because I am not at all approaching on the subject of dishonesty here when I use that word. I am approaching on the subject of not being forthcoming with the information. Anytime I have asked a question in this House - and anybody over there or over here can attest to the fact that I have been here for eight days, the last eight days that this House has been open, asking questions and trying to get information. The Minister of Innovation sits here today and says: When we get it ready I will give it to you. Well, that same minister was outside this House in a media scrum last week handing out press releases, saying: This is what the deal was on the Bull Arm site.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stood up here last week and said: We have done absolutely nothing wrong, you can be sure of that. We comply with every law and policy in the book. Yet, I still do not have that information. I am told again today that we will get it when it is ready. Well, I have experienced that answer quite enough in this House.

I say to the minister, like I said again today, there are three instances we have had in this House in the last three weeks where government policy has been breached. Now, if anybody wants to stand up over there and question what I just said and say that I am not telling the truth, go ahead, because I will name them for you. Number one, you put $15 million into a fibre optic deal that is contrary to the policy of the Department of Business. Absolutely! Number two, the minister here admitted in her own press release last week that she and her department did not comply with a requirement of the Public Tender Act to file a form which needs to be filed -

MS DUNDERDALE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: At no time did I admit that anyone in my department did not comply with the Public Tender Act. The Public Tender Act was complied with. There is a policy of government around core registration that was overlooked in this case, and I assured this House that would not happen again. We would take all efforts to ensure that the Public Tender Act was followed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate your indulgence of the interruptions of what I am saying.

I remind the minister again, you just took us down the wrong path again, you see, because my reference to the second breach had nothing to do with the core certification. That is number three. Let's back up to number two. Number two, breach of the Department of Innovation's violation of their policy has to do with the fact that there is a form one must file if you do not go - for example, if you are supposed to go to public tender and you decide not to, there is a form that you file, and it appears here in the House every so often, where they tell you where these exemptions are from the Public Tender Act. Now that is the form, number two, that was not done. In the press release last week, it says: Oh, we had a little mistake. We did not do that, sorry. That is number two -

MS DUNDERDALE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is true that filing has to be done and it is true that it was overlooked, however, there is no time requirement on when that has to be filed. We encourage it to be filed immediately. It was not done in this case; it was overlooked. We said it was done, but there is no time requirement as to when that needed to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

Points of order should deal with the procedures of the House and should be contrary to the Standing Orders.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad we don't have a rule here like we do in baseball, because you just struck her out three times on points of order and she ought to be out of order to stay.

Now, I will come back to point number three, the violation and breach of government policy, and that is about the core certification. How convenient we have a windstorm, and how convenient we have the minster stand up and say, yesterday, when she is questioned and she gets under a bit of pressure: Oh, my God, we forgot to do that. That was an oversight.

That was an oversight that just cost us thousands of dollars, I guess, because presumably somebody bid on a contract. Is that an admission by the minister that your department allowed somebody in this Province to bid on a contract that they ought not to be bidding on? Is that the admission? Are you suggesting to us that the person who got this contract, the former campaign manager of Ms Cleary, put in an improper illegal bid?

If that is the situation, because that is the road we need to go down, there is no such thing as an oversight. If you made a mistake, you have to fix it, and you cannot say that we will fix it by doing it in the future. How do you deal with the aggrieved parties that exist because you made a mistake? What about the other three people who bid on this the second time around, who were core certified, who have lost this contract to the campaign manager because you forgot to do something? That is not only a violation; you cost somebody money. You cost somebody aggravation. You have cost some company big time in terms of money, and you know and I know, Minister, that you are going to find yourself and this government in court over it. Yet, when someone ask a question, we cannot give you the answers. We cannot give you the answers.

It is this evasiveness that people in the public are starting to see. You cannot get up and fool all of the people all of the time. There is only so much fluff and flack that you can try to spread around the airwaves of this Province. People eventually catch up to you. We have seen it in a lot of cases, and there is more to come. I tell you, there is more to come. This is only the start. There are lots of more incidents. The minister of industry, over there today, gets up and sites off from his list, oh, you did this and you did that and you did something else. I say to the Minister of Innovation, who was reading his list today: Yes, but the people of this Province were told that was not going to happen on your watch. The people of this Province were told in October of 2003, we do not break commitments. The people in this Province were told in 2003, don't worry about it, we won't waste money like the other crowd of riff-raff - but that is not what the people of this Province are experiencing. There are a lot of broken promises that are out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I have no problem with anybody making mistakes. We all make them, we all do, but - I hear the word self-righteous come across there directed at myself, as if it is self-righteous in some way to speak what you feel to be the truth. I am entitled to an opinion here, the same as the Minister of Innovation, and it gets galling and it gets very frustrating when somebody looks up and says: Oh, we don't do that.

Well, I am sorry folks, the people of this Province know, and the people in the media are starting to catch on, that you are not everything you tried to crack us up to think you were. You do break commitments, because that is reality. You cannot always perform like you would like to. I will be the first to admit, you might have all good intentions, but, like everybody, we are human beings and we are fallible, but that is not the approach that you take to the people of this Province. You are still acting as if you are infallible. Well, I am sorry, giving a fur coat to Ralph Klein does not cut it with me. It does not cut it with me.

I had your Minister of Transportation and Works tell me last week, in a letter, that we cannot cut the brush on the Burgeo road. According to the figures, to give you safety on the Burgeo road, it is going to cost $700,000.

Guess what he gave me out of the great Community Enhancement Program to cut brush on the Burgeo road, after admitting I would need $700,000 to do it? He says: Here is $25,000.

What an insult! Guess what? He sends the $25,000 and says to the Town of Burgeo, who, by the way, happens to be 144 kilometres from that brush: Here, go do it, and if you cannot do it for that, hire a contractor.

Well, folks, I do not know how something that costs $700,000, if the town were to do it, all of a sudden translates into being able to get it done for $25,000. I do not know how that works. Those are the kinds of answers that we have been getting. The minister stands up over there, the minute you start to question him, and says: Oh, don't accuse me of being untruthful.

I don't mean anybody is untruthful, but I mean a lot of people are evasive, and you people have been very evasive. I sat here the first session of the House after the last election, it was in the spring of 2004, and you people pummeled the Opposition with the fact that the books were fudged. You all sat there, you all did it, and you were all up on your haunches then giving your speeches about how such a group of do-gooders you were. I do not hear too many people up these days preaching and prancing about how good you are with the economy. Don't tell that to

to the crowd in Stephenville, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Education, I met with a group from your district two weeks ago. I met with the union out there. I met with the union, who told me that they watched their colleagues and their friends get on their flights to go to Alberta. They do not think you are such great managers of the economy. I think we are going to see a piece of legislation in this House in the near future as a consequence of what happened in Stephenville.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

You wonder why sometimes you might get upset and somebody says you get emotional. You get emotional when you are dealing with someone who does not tell you the full facts. I say to the minister of industry, I might be self-righteous and you might think me somewhat of a do-gooder, but you are not getting off the hook with the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: You are not getting off the hook. Until the people of this Province know the full story on Bull Arm, nobody is getting off the hook here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to the Opposition House Leader. I apologize if I have offended some of his sensibilities, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, he stands up there on his high horse on the other side of the House and he makes quite a few accusations. He talks in a very indignant way to everybody over here. He neglects, Mr. Speaker - while there is nothing in front of him today on the Persona deal to suggest that anything untoward has been done, not a thing, Mr. Speaker, the money has not been spent. We have invited the Auditor General to have a look at everything. We have released some of the papers associated with it, and we will release more, and if they find anything wrong with it, fair enough; get up and take a smack at me. Take a smack at all of us. Take a smack at the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, what they are doing in the debate as it relates to the Persona deal - that is the one I am going to speak about because it is in my department - is disregard everything that everybody in the technology industry and the research community in Newfoundland and Labrador have had to say about it.

What I find offensive, and the reason why I say so to the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, is because he disregards the facts. He talks about this being a violation of the Public Tender Act. There is no violation of the Public Tender Act any more than there is a violation of the Agreement on Internal Trade. Both of those - in one case legislation and the other one a trade agreement - require the government and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, in the case of the Public Tender Act, to file and to table the exemptions to the Public Tender Act. The Public Tender Act allows for these type of things to happen as long as you file, as long as you declare it.

Mr. Speaker, we are a long ways away from spending the $15 million, and to keep going on about putting $15 million into Persona - how many times do they have to be told that there is not $15 million going into any company, whether it is Persona, MTS Allstream, Rogers or anybody else? The fact of the matter is, there is $15 million being spent to buy fibre optic strands to support the telecommunications needs of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of that, yes, we will increase competition in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. They find that so offensive. They find there is a problem with that because we are making an investment that will realize increased competition in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have no problem, Mr. Speaker, with the tens of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years reinforcing a monopoly. Now that is really what I find bazaar about the tact that they are taking on this deal and this investment.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they talk about no tender. Well, I will go down through the list. I will remind the Opposition House Leader of what they did. In April, 1999, as I said earlier today, they did an update in the industrial benefits agreement with NewTel. There was no tender, no request for proposal. Government and Aliant partner on the network Newfoundland and Labrador. Was there a tender, an RFP? No, Mr. Speaker, there was not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and we can talk about that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair has recognized the hon. the minister and I ask for members co-operation.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I will say, the Opposition while they are speaking condemn this side for making noise and shouting across the House and interrupting them on points of order and otherwise. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minute I stand to my feet it starts over on that side. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, the last time I checked.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, in December of 1999 government contracts NewTel for local long distance telephone service. No tender, no RFP; $5.18 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that, Trevor?

MR. TAYLOR: That was in December, 1999.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MR. TAYLOR: December, 1999.

June of 2000, Converges opens in St. John's. A worthwhile initiative, Mr. Speaker. They are one of the bigger employers in the Province right now. A success, by any measure. Over a couple of thousand employees right now, if I am not mistaken. Was there a tender? Was there an RFP? No, there was not. They looked at it, they saw a good deal, they did it. I commend them for it. It worked out, and this will work out on the Persona deal. If not, there are a lot of people from Memorial University, to the College of the North Atlantic, to Telelink, to Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries, to Trevor Miller, who works in Grand Falls-Windsor, who is a part of a company that has over 300 people doing - they are involved with telecom, anyway. I cannot even see it here now, my eyes are getting a little glazed I think - a software company headquartered out of North Carolina and all of their design work is done in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who support this deal because they understand the deal. I do not know if the Opposition are just asking questions because they feel they should ask questions. If that is the case, fair enough, I understand that and we will provide the answers and we are trying to provide the answers, but you cannot provide answers to people who refuse to listen. Therein lies the problem.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to go down through the rest of it, but there is a long and fairly extensive list here of contracts they awarded over the years that there was no tender and no RFP on, but what I find really offensive is that they suggest that we are doing a deal with Persona because of the people of the parties who are involved. The only thing I can conclude from that, is that was the way they did business when they were in government. I can understand why they would make the accusation because the fact of the matter is, their record speaks for itself, and let's just go through the record.

Supposedly, there was about $5 million paid out in lawsuits for the Trans-City scandal. Now for anybody who cannot remember, the Trans-City scandal, if I am not mistaken, had something to do with three hospitals, if I am not mistaken, that were being built in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not going to go into it in any great detail. Anyway, because of the way they handled the tendering process, because of the fallout from it, they had to settle out of court for $5 million, supposedly.

What about the Murray Premises, Atlantic Leasing? Four point two million dollars paid out in a lawsuit to Frank Ryan. Who is Frank Ryan? If I am not mistaken, Frank Ryan is a fairly big Conservative here in this city. If I am not mistaken, a fairly big supporter of the PC Party and he did not get the contract. Why didn't he get it? I think it had something to do with his party affiliation, from what I can understand. What did they have to do? Four point two million dollars.

What about the $1 million that they paid out in lawsuits to the fired Cabot 500 Corporation employees? Why did they fire those people? From what I understand, again, it was because they were the wrong political stripe. They were not red, they were blue, so they fired them. What did they have to do? In excess of $1 million the government had to pay out.

What about Andy Wells? Six hundred thousand dollars they had to pay Andy Wells for wrongful dismissal from the PUB.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you put that against the other side of the equation, which is why they find it so difficult to believe that we would be doing this deal for anything other than the appropriate reasons. If you look at it - let's look at Bristol Communications, from 1999 to 2004 contributed to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador $254,297. What did Bristol get in return for that? Twenty million dollars in tourism contracts. That is what they got.

So, we have done this deal for all the appropriate reasons. There is not a court case pending on this. There are not people in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador saying that this $15 million should not be spent. To the contrary, everybody involved in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying that we should do this, with the exception of Aliant. What will we expect? Aliant is not saying very much. They have raised their points. The fact of the matter is, even on some of the points that Aliant raised about competition and about the CRTC ruling - well, as I said today in Question Period. We have here, setting the context for a federal-provincial broadband strategy. The current state of broadband data telecommunications infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Opposition has a copy of this. If they do not, I can get it for them, but it is on the government Web site anyway. So it is no problem for them to get it - released in February, 2005. I am just going to read a couple of excerpts from it, page 16. For example, in this Province the competitive marketplace is defined rather differently than the rest of Canada as true competition doesn't exist. It goes on. It says: In the absence of creditable competition some suggest that government consider collaborating with its public sector partners and create capacity, as was done in Quebec and northern parts of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly that; exactly what was recommended in a federal-provincial broadband study, completed by Industry Canada, ACOA, and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development in February, 2005. We are doing exactly what has been done in Quebec. We are doing exactly what has been done in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, again, other people outside - the only thing I can conclude is that the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader and others who are condemning this deal because of the Premier's relationship with some of the principals in the company, must figure that the Premier has such a captivating spell, Mr. Speaker, that he is able to cast it over everybody, the people who are in Industry Canada, the people who are in ACOA, all the people in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the people with EWA, the people with PriMetrica, and the people with a couple of other companies that were involved with EWA to do our assessment of this deal. He cast it over NATI. He has the glazed the eyes of the people at Memorial University. He has a spell put over the College of the North Atlantic. Cindy Roma down at Telelink, you know, she is under his spell as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wade Locke.

MR. TAYLOR: Everybody. Wade Locke at Memorial University, he is under the Premier's spell also. Everybody is under the Premier's spell, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have been able to avoid it.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what else to say about it. The fact of the matter is, the deal speaks for itself. The people in the industry speak for themselves. The deal is a good deal. We have invited the Auditor General in to have a look at it. There has been nothing untoward done. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, all of the information that can be released has been released, and the remainder of the information will be released in accordance with the requirements of the Auditor General and any other rules that we have to abide by.

We already told the Auditor General that he could have access to all the information. We have already said, the Premier has, that whatever resources, financial or otherwise, the Auditor General would require in order to do an investigation of this will be provided. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will have all of the information as it relates to the Persona deal. Unlike Frank Ryan, the Cabot 500 Corporation employees, Andy Wells and Trans-City, they will not have to go to court, Mr. Speaker, to get it.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before adjourning, I just want to take care of two things. First, tomorrow is Private Member's Day and there was a resolution given by the Member for Humber Valley. I notice in that, Mr. Speaker - and I spoke with the Opposition House Leader on this too - there is a reference in the two whereases to the Williams, and with consent, before it is printed, that should be removed. Because it is Private Member's Day and I would think there would be an agreement that it would read, whereas the government, as opposed to whereas the Williams' government; read in both of these.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remove Williams. Remove Williams.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the people will get a chance on that issue, I would say, in the future, Mr. Speaker. If that is in agreement on that. Also, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands there is agreement on that and we would -

MR. PARSONS: We do agree to remove the Williams' from government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But they did not say they agreed to remove the William's government. That is what he indicated there. There is a difference, there is quite a difference.

Also, seeing as several minister do have commitments tonight and we did think we were going to adjourn, I move per Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday and furthermore that the House not adjourn at 10: 00 p.m on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges you are giving notice of the motion, not moving it.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Ah, you are a bluff.

MR. SULLIVAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will find out if I am a bluff I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, he will find that out. That is one thing he will find out. He will find out that is one thing I am not, I can tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I live up to my word.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we have been sufficiently informed by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development for an enlightenment here in this House. I now move that the House do adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House now adjourn until tomorrow, December 6 at 2:00 p.m. of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock on December 6.

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