MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon, the Chair would wish to rule on a point of privilege raised on May 25 by the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. The incident reported has troubled the Chair. The Speaker has spoken to members and staff and reviewed all available sources of information, including video and audio tapes from the Broadcast Centre of the House of Assembly as well as the security camera tapes.

Having considered the information from all of these sources, and without calling into question the bona fides of any hon. member, the Chair has been unable to ascertain what actually happened. The Chair therefore rules that, while something may indeed have happened in the Chamber on May 20, immediately following the adjournment, there is insufficient, impartial and independent information to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

We will call the Member for Bay of Islands first. The hon. the member.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a group of young athletes from the Corner Brook-Bay of Islands area who recently competed in the 2004 Elevation Madness Tournament in St. John's.

The Herdman Huskies boys' basketball team recently took first place in this tournament. The team is coached by Steve Cave.

This tournament is one of the top two tournaments for high school basketball in our Province. It is a great accomplishment to see the west beating the east. I am sure the Premier and the Member for Humber East are quite proud of their accomplishment also. This team has basically been together for the last six years. Their hard work and dedication is a true sign of team spirit and dedication towards a common goal - winning the Provincial 4A Basketball Tournament.

I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to team members: Alex Fillatre, Max Fillatre, Aaron Flood, David Joyce, Josh Jacobs, Ryan Murphy, Chris Ogbuah, Adam Pike, Ryan Rose, Brian Walsh, Adam Warren, and Char Warren, on their accomplishment and wish them well in their future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of our colleagues. One of our colleagues in this House today, Mr. Speaker, is celebrating a milestone in the aging process. As we cast our eyes in his direction, to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, he is obviously not aging well but we are extremely delighted to be able to stand today and, on behalf of all his colleagues in this House, wish him all the best and a very Happy Birthday.

This year has been a particularly challenging one, and if it wasn't for his tremendous good state of health - state of mental and physical health - and a tremendous health system, we may not be able to extend such congratulations today.

I think, on behalf of all members of this House, I say to the member, a very Happy Birthday. We are delighted to have you continue to be with us.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two couples in my district who will celebrate incredible milestones over the Christmas break.

Joseph and Mabel Peddle of Spaniard's Bay have spent the past sixty-five years dedicated to each other, and they will celebrate this very special event on Christmas Day.

I would also like to recognize Arthur and Elizabeth Young of Upper Island Cove who will celebrate their sixty-second wedding anniversary on December 23.

Over the years, both of these couples have been active within their communities and, by example, they have shown that love, dedication, and commitment are important attributes for a long and happy life together.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. and Mrs. Peddle and Mr. and Mrs. Young the very best in the years to come, and I ask all members to join me in congratulating these two fine couples on their forthcoming wedding anniversaries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a statement on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Rick Morris, a prominent member of the social work community of St. John's, who passed away December 3, 2004 at age forty-six.

Rick was a most well-respected colleague of the social work fraternity, and was known for his compassion, sense of justice, and high ethical standards in the social work profession.

In addition to his family, his wife Susan Pye, and children Shane and Anna, and his many friends and colleagues, he is mourned by the many clients whom he counseled over the years, as counseling was an important part of his work.

The support and assistance he gave to the many former residents of abuse at Mount Cashel Orphanage, as they struggled with the memories and traumatic consequences of their treatment, was a significant part of the healing process for them, and he will be remembered by them as a true friend and counselor.

To die suddenly at the peak of his professional years, and to leave behind a young family, is sad, indeed, but to have accomplished much and gained the respect and admiration of all those who knew him is a true testament to his contribution as a human being.

I ask hon. members to join in offering condolences to his wife, Susan, their children Shane and Anna, and his family and friends on their loss.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I asked the Premier two questions related to communications contracts paid by government. One awarded to Ryan Research and Communications for $42,000 and another to Market Insights Incorporated for $100,000. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, was that the Premier committed to getting these details and tabling them in the House. I ask of the House Leader today whether or not he can provide any further information as to whether we can expect to see the information on these two communications contracts before the House closes today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not have the specific knowledge because the Premier did give an undertaking, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, but what I will commit to is to get an answer, once Question Period is over, to try to find out where that undertaking is and I will report back to the House before we close today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate - because I asked ten questions yesterday, got an answer to only one, which was from the Government House Leader - him giving me an answer again. At least, he is consistent. I guess the rest of them are consistent too, they do not give any answers.

Mr. Speaker, leaked documents sent to the Opposition in August month indicated that government has no strategy for rural development in the Province. The internal documents from the department of innovation, trade and rural destruction indicated a level of dissatisfied within the department and revealed a lack of any plan for rural communities. These are documents from the staff in their own department. The documents, Mr. Speaker, showed senior officials criticizing government's budget cutbacks, decisions that they believe damage potential non-profit groups and development projects in rural areas.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, when is she going to start taking her officials advice and start paying some real attention to economic development in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The document to which the Leader of the Opposition refers critique the fact that we no longer had a Community Economy Development Program that was funded at the tune of $460,000 by the former Administration that was used to leverage funding from other sources.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested $1.2 million this year in community-based organizations that has leveraged about $5.4 million in other funding from other partners, all of it invested in rural parts of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the election, the Premier indicated that his number one priority was economic development in the Province, particularly and especially in rural areas. We continuously hear stories and reports from groups based in rural parts of the Province that are being adversely impacted because of the funding cuts and lack of planning of this government.

On September 29, Mr. Speaker, almost a full year into the job, we received a response under the Freedom of Information Act that showed government has done nothing to secure a new comprehensive economic development agreement with the federal government. Not even write a letter to the federal government; it does not exist.

I ask the minister, again, Mr. Speaker: Why has she done nothing, not even to the point of writing a letter to the federal government, asking for consideration of a new or extended community economic development agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, federal-provincial agreements are an issue for Newfoundland and Labrador. They are also an issue for Atlantic Canada. The Premier, myself as minister, the department and other ministers have taken advantage of every opportunity to make the case for new provincial and federal agreements to be reinstated. Also, the Atlantic Premiers have undertaken the case, and at every opportunity have also put forward the proposal that federal-provincial agreements be reinstated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That obviously flies in the face of what we have received under the Freedom of Information request, that there has not even been a letter written to the federal government about this issue up to September 29.

I ask the minister: Can she table - because there was nothing done officially, not one thing done officially up to September 29 - in this Legislature any correspondence, any official documents, any proposals, anything other than maybe another telephone chat that somebody might have had, which shows that they have made a serious and concentrated effort to approach the federal government, government to government - not as a group with others, but government to government about a new community economic development agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Can she table the evidence of a concerted approach?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to table correspondence that refers to that matter. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I find myself here today defending the position of a government who is trying to repair a relationship that was totally eroded by the people opposite over there and that I am not doing it fast enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on a promise to put in place a plan to revitalize the rural areas of our Province. Since forming a government they have cut funding, closed offices, laid off workers and refused to use the authority they have under the FPI Act to stop FPI from destroying our rural communities. This government is in the second year of their mandate and still gives no sign of a plan to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: Where is the plan promised more than a year ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are well advanced in developing our rural strategy. The people of the Province have asked us to take into consideration a number of issues that they want addressed in that strategy and, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand in this House and apologize for taking in the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there are 2,200 new jobs in this Province over this time last year. All of those jobs are in rural regions of the Province. This government has undertaken a number of initiatives, such as the broadband strategy, such as our innovation strategy, and we will continue to move forward to make strategic investments in all parts of the Province, especially those in the rural regions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting it is taking fourteen months. When you campaigned, you campaigned on having the plan. There was no interest in consultation at that time. By the way, the new jobs - Voisey's Bay and Marystown - the result of actions taken by the previous Administration. So if you want to talk about jobs, that is where they came for them.

Mr. Speaker, one of the many areas of this Province has been hard hit by the cutbacks and neglect of this right-wing government, is the Great Northern Peninsula. Not even the Conservative Member for St. Barbe has spoken out about the economic and social hardships facing that area, will the minister tell how she plans to deal with the crisis facing the Northern Peninsula?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with my colleagues opposite taking responsibility for their role in the good, or taking credit for the good, initiatives that they started; but, when you do that, Mr. Speaker, you cannot take credit for a piece of it. You have to take credit for all of it. You take credit for the good things that you do, but you also take credit for the fiscal mess that we were left here to deal with now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: There are strategic initiatives, there is strategic planning that is being done, investments in all parts of the Province, including funding now for the Torrent River project in Hawkes Bay, Mr. Speaker. There are all kinds of opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are no easy answers. I expect our colleagues opposite would have found them, if there were easy answers, before 60,000 people left the Province. We will work with the people of the Province to find solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we will not take credit for laying off 4,000 civil servants or closing offices throughout this Province. In fact, we decentralized government to help out rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe it is time you looked at doing something similar.

Mr. Speaker, Regional Economic Development Boards were put in place to decentralized economic development in this Province. I ask the minister: Is this government committed to the REDB process in the Province, which has representation from all sectors, or do you plan to slash those the way that you have done health care and education boards?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

This government is committed to community-based community development and community-based businesses. Mr. Speaker, I have put in place a ministerial committee that consists of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, now REDA, which is the provincial body for the rural development boards, and ACOA. This committee is developing the parameters of the committee, but what they are going to look at is the mandate and structure of RED boards to make them effective in all parts of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Let me ask the question again, Mr. Speaker, because obviously she did not give me an answer. Are you committed to the REDB process? Are you going to continue to fund the same number of REDB boards that exist today, tomorrow?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only say again that this government is committed to regionally-based economic development. The ministerial committee which is set up in partnership with now REDA, ACOA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, will look at all of the issues surrounding REDBs and report back, and a plan of action will be formulated from that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we get an answer without an answer. Clearly, what she is telling us here is that they are going to slash the boards, and I guess Mr. Graham Letto has been put in charge of doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, this government has instituted hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts this year. The only announcement to come out of the department with respect to any kind of regional economic development project was $1.2 million over three years, less than half a million of which actually went for initiatives in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Is this the type of economic initiative that you are doing, and can we expect more money over the next three years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, broadband in 2004 is a critical tool to grow business and to create new business throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a broadband initiative from the federal government that needed some help from the proponents here in the Province, and were told by the former Administration to go away and find funding elsewhere. As a result, almost $16 million fell off the table. Thank God we came here when we did. We were able to salvage that program and $16 million invested in rural parts of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Minister, with all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. The broadband initiative was an initiative that we started, and we brought the partners together. That is why it is working. It was an initiative of this Administration!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Minister, are you still accepting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, to complete her question.

MS FOOTE: Minister, are you still accepting proposals for regional economic development initiatives? If so, what is the process for industry groups, and will you, in the spirit of openness and accountability, release the criteria that will be used to evaluate those proposals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One point two million dollars this year was invested in local initiatives. Mr. Speaker, in our new budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - we hope to be addressing, to have funds for community-based initiatives. Unlike the former Administration, this time the program will be advertised, the criteria will be published, and everyone will have fair and equal access.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I questioned the minister about Old Mill Road, which has been plowed since 1972, the minister said there would be no change in the classification of roads and the government would stick with its policy.

I ask the minister: Have there been any exemptions of class 4 roads from this policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge with this caveat. We were advised, after we made the announcement, that there was 1.2 kilometres or 1.3 kilometres of Deer Park that was on a registered school bus run with the school board. So we exempted that part, not all of it, just that part for the school bus run. I think there was point seven of a kilometre that was a school bus run on Beachy Cove Road, and that was exempted, but that is all that I am aware of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: It is nice to know in the Tory districts that there were exemptions, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: My question is to the Premier. The Premier was personally involved with the exemption and upgrading of a class 4 road to Big Falls in the District of Humber Valley. Government spent $150,000 in that district to upgrade a class 4 road and plow it because of the tourism potential, yet taxpayers of the Province are being cut off for the sake of $15,000 a year or less.

I ask the Premier: Will he now intervene with the minister, the way he did for the road near his own district, for the people of Old Mill Road and the people on Beachy Cove Road, or will these taxpayers be left to suffer due to unfair changes in government policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the two school bus exemptions were registered school bus runs that were registered with the school board and brought to our attention. I do not care where they are located.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Old Mill Road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Old Mill Road was never, and is not today, a registered school bus run. There has never been a school bus run on Old Mill Road. Never been!

AN HON. MEMBER: Had there been?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, there had not been.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the gist of the hon. member's question about Sir Richard Squires Park. That is just it, Sir Richard Squires Park is a provincial asset. It is a provincial park owned by this Province and we have a responsibility to make sure that the road to those parks are accessible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recognize the Member for Bellevue for one final supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to ask the minister: If the young people on Old Mill Road who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into their homes, and the people on Beachy Cove Road in Tors Cove who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into their homes, are they not a provincial asset?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the hon. member, who has been in this House since the 1980s, that he should know that when the Speaker stands the hon. member is supposed to take his seat. That is what we are all supposed to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Bellevue and now he has recognized the minister to make a response.

I ask the minister to complete his response rather quickly.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it once more. Hopefully, this time it will sink into the hon. gentleman's thinking, that Beachy Cove Road and the 1.3 kilometres of Deer Park Road was a registered school bus run, was registered with the Avalon East School Board for years. Old Mill Road is not a registered school bus run, was never registered, was not a school bus run when the hon. member was Minister of Transportation and is not today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I want to ask the minister a question concerning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have finished the exchange between the Member for Bellevue and the minister. I ask members for their acceptance of the rule of the Chair.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, my question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development concerning Newfoundland Hardwoods located in Clarenville, which has been involved in producing creosote timber used in construction. This company has been a profit-making Crown corporation, or was a Crown corporation, for more than fifty years. A few years ago it was sold, and to use a quote from the minister of the day, Chuck Furey, he said: "This is one of the few government entities that makes real money. We're going to safeguard against somebody purchasing it for the sake of shutting it down."

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the plant is being shut down, being dismantled, equipment being sold, removed from the Province, and the product is being shipped in from their plant in Nova Scotia.

I want to ask the minister what discussions she has had with the employer, Stella-Jones, and the employees, to find alternatives to the fifty-plus-year-old operation closing and the loss of high-paying jobs to that area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague is right, the company was sold by the government in 1995. It was resold again in 2003. The Stella-Jones company is a private company, so we have little or no influence. The United Steel Workers' Union, who represents the people who work there, are trying to arrange a meeting with the company, that they have asked us to participate in, and we will gladly do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Will the minister go so far as to try and find another operator to take over the plant in Clarenville, rather than letting the company ship their product into this Province from their plant in Nova Scotia? This is a classic example of a company coming in, buying a local company in this Province, closing its operations, and importing their product from another province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We commit to sit with the union, and with the company, and with the stakeholders in the region, to try and find whatever reasonable and sensible options may be available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.

First, I would like to say that there is a rural area in this Province that has been left high and dry when it comes to transportation. The single easiest way to corrupt any rural economy in this Province is to cut it off from access to the outside world.

In Southern Labrador, the marine services have been conformed to cause decline in economic growth, private airlines have given notice that they are terminating their services, and government is refusing to make appropriate the funds needed to clear snow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, will he get involved and commit to keeping the Labrador highway open between Red Bay and Lodge Bay for as long as the weather permits them to do so this winter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not have to get involved. The member knows that she took me aside out in the corridor only, I guess, a week or ten days ago, and asked me if I would give consideration to that.

I undertook, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to that, and we are, in fact, giving consideration to that. When we have all of the numbers and we have the Treasury Board stuff taken care of, then we will make a final decision and the member will be advised and the people of the area will be advised.

Mr. Speaker, the government is actively giving consideration to that proposal and I advised the member of that - it must be at least a week or ten days ago - that we were doing just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when questioned in the House on Monday, on Air Labrador's decision to withdraw services, the minister said that he would work with us to resolve this issue. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he refused to even have a middle-management bureaucrat from the Department of Transportation or Labrador Affairs sit in on a meeting with the CEOs of the two health boards that serve Labrador, Air Labrador, and myself, to discuss how medical travel could be continued in this region.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the minister today: How was that co-operation, and how was it helpful in trying to deal with such an important issue in rural communities in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we go out of our way to try to be co-operative and work with members on all sides of the House. This hon. member called my office - I believe it was yesterday; if not, it was the day before - asking if I could nominate a liaison person in the department for her and others to liaise with on the Air Labrador file. I did just that, Mr. Speaker.

Then, yesterday after Question Period, she comes to me and advises me that she has this meeting organized, and can I send this person, who happens to be an ADM, to that meeting. I said no, Mr. Speaker, we are organizing our own meetings, as a government. One of them is taking place this afternoon and, when we have information to report, we will report it to the House. If the House is not open, we will report it to the public or we will report to the member, but the member is not running the Department of Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think it is ridiculous when bureaucrats in departments are told not to meet with certain members on certain issues. Mr. Speaker, I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is this. The government has made a decision - and, again, I obtained the information from the minister's departmental officials just yesterday - their decision is to shut down The Strait of Belle Isle service, the Apollo ferry, on January 3.

Mr. Speaker, this is the earliest shutdown of that ferry that we have seen in five or six years. I ask the minister and I ask the government: In the spirit of Christmas, will you at least extend the ferry service until about ten days or two weeks into the new year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member, she is wrong on both counts. No official in my department has ever been told by this minister not to meet with a Member of the House of Assembly. What I did tell by Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Affairs yesterday is that he had no responsibility to have his schedule dictated to by the hon. member just a few hours before he was supposed to attend a meeting.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the officials -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members recognize that in Parliament, particularly in Question Period, there is going to be a lot of spontaneity and a lot of issues discussed across the floor of the House. The question has been asked and the hon. minister is giving an answer. I ask all members if they would give him the courtesy of addressing the House in his reply.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the second question posed by the hon. member, in terms of an extension of the Apollo schedule, I do not know who she was talking to in the department, but bureaucrats in the department know that I have signed off on an extension to the Apollo schedule, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the guiding regulations for fishing guides in our rural Newfoundland is a major disaster for the guides in our Province. The agreement on internal trade was signed in 1994, an Agreement in Principle where steps were taken to protect our guiding industry until now.

Will this government take immediate steps, not minimum qualifications, to protect their valuable guiding industry, or is this another step towards privatization of our outdoors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the member opposite may realize, Mr. Speaker, because they were in government last year, there were threats by other provinces for trade retaliation. There were threats for legal implications by other provinces. Those threats, Mr. Speaker, have come to our Province. This very issue had been brought to Cabinet on a couple of other occasions, as the Opposition Leader will verify. This is a very serious issue, and I understand the implication it has for guides. We had no choice but to allow guides from other provinces to come to this Province, because of the Internal Agreement on Trade, but we are investigating ways in which we can protect the guides in this Province and the livelihood that those guides have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The allotted time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on both sides of the House if they would assure that parliamentary practices can continue.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, who is presenting a report.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this is no exemption. I am pleased to table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Department of Transportation and Works.

As well, along with my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, I am pleased to table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

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

I am pleased today to table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

As well, I am pleased today to table the 2003-2004 reports on the following, Mr. Speaker: The Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council; the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation; and the Marble Mountain Development Corporation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

In accordance with government's commitment on accountability, I am pleased today to present the 2003-2004 annual report from the MMSB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to table the reports for the Department of Natural Resources: the Bull Arm Site Corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency, and Newfoundland and Labrador Livestock Owners Compensation Board. As well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier, I want to table the report, the Annual Performance Report for Executive Council.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 61.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want Motion 3 moved pursuant to Standing Order 47, as listed and read out on the Order Paper.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee refer to Motion 3, Standing Order 47.

All those in favour, ‘aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure I am correct in terms of process and the vote that was just carried, and to make sure that anyone who might be following the proceedings today is clear. It is my understanding that what was just carried by the government is a motion that says while we are in a Committee now on the changes to the Liquor Corporation Act to allow the opening of the liquor stores for the sale of wine and beer on Sundays, that normally at this stage of a bill, which is the Committee stage, we could speak as many times as we like back and forth for ten minutes each, but by virtue of the motion that was just passed, we are now restricted to one intervention each. Could I have that clarified by the Chair or the Government House Leader?

CHAIR: What we have reverted to is Standing Order 47, the closure motion, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. The difference in that particular motion is that instead of each member being able to speak as often as they want with intervening speakers, now each member of the Assembly will be able to speak once, and only once, for a total of twenty minutes each. That is correct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will try to use my twenty minutes with respect to this particular bill now that there has been a limit put on it.

I just wanted to make these few comments, Mr. Chairman, that in my view this is both a dark day, but I hope for the people of the Province, a very enlightening day in terms of a real insight into this particular government and how they operate. I hope I will make the point well enough so people will see what I mean.

We have a government here that - with respect to this debate, because this particular bill was never talked about publicly, this change to the liquor sales act, the Liquor Corporation Act, never talked about, admittedly by the minister, publicly in the Province. They have been the government for over a year and not one single soul, on behalf of that government, mentioned that they were actively thinking about opening up the government run liquor stores and the private liquor stores for the sale of liquor on a Sunday; wine and hard liquor. It was never mentioned. The minister, in introducing the bill, acknowledged that just two days ago, or three days ago, I guess, on Monday, when it surfaced here for the first time, unlike the Minister of Environment and Conservation who has, at least on several occasions, talked openly and publicly about the possibility of Sunday hunting.

I give him some credit for that, because if it is an initiative that a government is thinking about, a significant change, they should let the public know so that people can start formulating their thoughts and ideas and maybe getting involved in some consultation, at least being aware that a change is occurring.

Here, right out of nowhere, right out of nowhere, comes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board saying, we are opening the liquor stores on Sunday. It has never been done in the history of the Province. They never talked to anybody about it except the liquor board itself, and then came into the House and, as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans has pointed out, the very minute that the bill was presented to us for our consideration, he was putting out a press release saying, we are taking the House of Assembly for granted. We do not care about the debate, we do not care if there is any backlash, the stores will be open in January. So, he presumed an outcome. That was only three days ago - no consultation.

Then we said, I bet you will ram this through before Christmas. The Government House Leader got up and said no, no, no, we do not believe in that. We are a very open and transparent and accountable government; we just passed a bill about it. They said, we will give you all the time in the world you need to debate this.

What do we have today? We just had an acknowledgment by the Chair of the House that the government, two days later, has changed its mind again. Because, I can tell you, I have had some representation from constituents in my district about this. I have not had a chance to go out and have any public meetings about it. There has not been any extensive consultation or discussion about it, but it has been a pretty contentious issue in the past, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman.

What do we find today, now, just before what is likely to be the Christmas break for the Legislature, which means we might not be back here - if last year is any indication, we certainly will not be back here until some time in the middle of March to present a Budget and to debate a Budget. So, on what looks like the last opportunity, where we were guaranteed just two days ago that, well, we do acknowledge that you only saw this bill for the first time today, we do acknowledge that we have not even been talking about it publicly to get people to think that it might be going to happen, two days ago they said: We will give you every chance you want, under the rules, to speak to it.

The Chairman just acknowledged that normally the rules would say that at this stage of the debate we could speak back and forth as many times as we wanted, for ten minutes each, and we could be here two or three days or two or three weeks doing it, if we wanted to. Now, here is the government changing its mind again. After making a commitment to us, as members of the Legislature, just two days ago, that they would not stifle the debate, what do they turn around and do now, today, when they are hoping that there are not many people paying attention, because those who are not working are probably out doing their Christmas shopping? They are probably in the Christmas spirit already. They are thinking about the good things that they are hoping to celebrate with family and friends over the next few days. So, when they are hoping that nobody is paying attention, they will say we will break another promise now that we just made to the members. We are going to take away your right to speak to this bill. We are going to give you one more chance. You have twenty minutes, of which I have fifteen left, to say what I like about this bill, because what they have determined is they are going to do exactly what the Finance Minister said on Monday. They do not care about any backlash. They do not care about any concerns. They do not care about any public opinion. They do not care about a democratic process. We are going to get one chance to say what we want today, and then they are going to vote for it.

Well, I can tell you one thing, I will not vote for it. I will not be voting for it when the vote is called later today. This is my one chance to tell the world that I will not vote for this bill; but, more telling than anything is that we have a process which the government committed to us just a few days ago that it would not be brought to an abrupt end. For some reason - and I will just say this out loud, too, because this is my own understanding of it. I do not believe - because I have been here for most of the fifteen years in the same Legislature with the Government House Leader - this is his doing, because I believe he respects this Legislature and he respects the democratic process.

I believe that the Leader of their party, and the leader of their government, the Premier, has said, enough of that place. He has always said that he thought and thinks that the Legislature is a waste of time. As a matter of fact, he believes it so much, that is one thing he has said publicly in the last year since he has been the Premier. He did not say publicly that he was thinking about opening the liquor stores on Sunday, but he has said publicly, in a national magazine, Maclean's Magazine, that the House of Assembly is a waste to time. I guess he must have passed the word along to the Government House Leader.

We have been here, by the way, a grand total today of sixteen days. From time to time we get criticized as politicians, because there are many people who think if you are not in the House of Assembly you are not working. Now, that is not true. We know, as MHAs on all sides of the House, that there is a lot of work that we do on behalf of our constituents every single day, Monday to Friday, Saturdays, Sundays, daytime, nighttime, but there is one group in the public that often asks: Well, are you fellas in the Legislature? I said, no. Well, boy, pretty good, you are still off on your holidays are you?

Now, we know the difference but there is a school of thought in the public about the fact that if you are not in the Legislature and you got elected as a Member of the Legislature and if you are not in there, I guess, you are off. Guess how many days we have been in here? Sixteen long, long days, an opportunity to debate in a democratic, open House of Assembly, important and serious issues. But, I guess the Premier has decided, because it is all a waste of time, that I bet you he said to the Government House Leader: That's enough of that now. You have all had sixteen days. Don't be talking about that anymore. Shut it down. Shut it down because that whole place is a waste of time. Because he still believes, as a person, that he is the CEO of a company.

He has also said, by the way, publicly, the Premier of the Province I am talking about, when he was asked a question about his Cabinet shuffle, Mr. Chairman, the Cabinet shuffle, when the former Minister of Health and Community Services decided not to be a yes person, decided they did not like the management style, and was replaced; when the Premier was bragging about the fact that they had a wonderful new Cabinet now, an improved Cabinet because they had gotten rid of the Member for Topsail. He was delighted she was gone. He had to get rid of the person who was going to have their own mind and get another sheep in there. Bring in another one of the lemmings. Bring in the old yes man from St. John's East, who will say yes to anything to stay in the Cabinet with the Premier.

There is another one over there, the Member for Gander, out there bragging in Gander at their convention that he was appointed Whip and that he had leap-frogged a whole bunch of other people, like parliamentary secretaries and was on his way, sure and certain, the next step, he said, into the Cabinet. His poor old friends, the parliamentary secretaries from Mount Pearl, Trinity North and Lake Melville, who thought they had the inside track, and the parliamentary assistant from down in St. Mary's-The Capes -

MR. MANNING: Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. GRIMES: Placentia & St. Mary's, I apologize to him. They all thought they were on an inside track. Sure, the Member for CBS thought he was on the inside track before. He was the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, himself. He got bypassed completely, and here is the Member for Gander thinking that he has jumped ahead of the whole lot of them now because he is the Whip. I can tell you one thing, we know about the role of the Whip, on either side of the House. I can tell you one thing, the Whip has about as much authority over the elected member, in terms of real influence about what they are going to do and not do, as the man from Mars. I can tell you that, and it does not matter what side of the House you are on. So you have that kind of thing.

He is right anxious, all excited, the Member for Gander, because he might get a chance to go into the Cabinet and say: Yes, Sir. No, Sir. Three bags full, Sir. Do you want the House open today? Oh, yes, Sir, we will keep the House open today. Am I allowed to speak to the liquor bill today? Oh, yes, Sir. Do you want me to speak today? You don't want me to speak on Thursday? Okay, Sir, I will not speak on Thursday. Which way would you like me to vote, Sir? Oh, I will vote for that, Sir. Thank you very much. I can't wait to get into Cabinet so I can do that. Isn't that wonderful? He is really going to impress the people from Gander; really going to impress the people from Gander. At least when you are in the caucus and not in the Cabinet you have a scattered chance, like a couple of members did the other night, to stand up and say: I think I might be a little bit independent. I am not in that Cabinet. I can speak my own mind for a minute. I might even vote against something, even though all the rest of the crowd are voting for it.

Here you have it today - because I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, with every bone in my body, that what is going on here today is an affront to democracy, it is not the doing of the Government House Leader. I will go to my grave believing that, because I have too much respect for that man. That he would not stand here in this Legislature - and I can show you the copy of Hansard, Mr. Chairman, where he actually said: We will not stifle the debate. You will be given every opportunity to ask all your questions. You can move whatever amendments that you want because we believe in a democratic debate.

To be here two days later, putting a motion to the table that says: You get one more chance to speak before we vote, and that's it. I am going to let you have the courtesy of speaking one more time. By the way, when you are speaking you are not allowed to move an amendment, even if you want to. They are taking away that right, Mr. Chairman, because this is the stage where we would move amendments if we wanted to. So, on the record - but I can understand that even from time to time he has to say: Yes, Sir. He has to say: Yes, Sir, to the Premier.

The Premier has decided, enough of that democracy. Don't be wasting anymore of your time in that Legislature because that is a waste of time. That is his view. Never mind that there are some people out in the public who might like to have some time to talk about this Liquor Corporation change. Don't even give them a chance. Support what the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board said. He said: We don't care what people say? Now, that is why I am hoping that people will find it very enlightening, because that is the attitude. The media said: Well, Mr. Minister, what if there is a backlash? He said: We don't care if there is a backlash. We don't care about that. Well, a backlash means that the people of the Province that you are elected to serve might have some concerns about what you are doing. Now, I am not saying it has particularly surfaced or not but there was not even any opportunity to ask them if they had a problem with it. He said, I don't care if they have a problem or not. Think of the attitude that is embodied in that kind of a statement. We don't care what the people say.

Boy, did we ever see a lesson in the attitude and another example of it today with the Minister of Transportation and Works, when being asked about a group of people on a road in the local service district in Goobies, who have invested in their homes because they were in an area of that local service district, where regardless of the political stripe, governments for thirty-two years had serviced and plowed the road. Never mind what class you called it. Who cares what class you called it? If you had been there and ever since you had lived there, regardless of whether it was a Liberal government or a Conservative government, that the road had always been maintained and cleared, and for a budget reason only, money ahead of people - listen to it: money first, people second. The minister says: We can't do it anymore. That road does not count anymore; thirty-two years later. Then, when he is asked: Well, what about a road leading to a park though? - that nobody lives on full-time, by the way. Not one, single year-round livyer on the road, not the one. Cabins -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I am not talking about Deer Park. I am talking about the road into the Humber Falls, into the great falls in the Humber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big Falls.

MR. GRIMES: Big Falls. I have been there, by the way. I was a tourism minister. I have been up that road. Cabins going up the side of the road; cabin owners going up the side of the road. It was a class 4 road. The kind that in the budget they said: We are not doing any class 4 roads ever again. We are cutting them off. There was a bit of a protest, I guess, from the member to the Premier saying: Well, you know, the people up on that road would like to get back and forth to their cabins on a better road. The excuse you can give for fixing up the road is that there is a park in there. Well, the park has been in there for thirty years, too.

The most telling thing, what did the minister say today in answering the question as to: Why did the government decide to take $150,000? They stand up today, the minister of innovation, trade and rural destruction, saying: we had to clean up the financial mess that you left. We have no money for this, we have no money for that, we have no money for something else, but what did they have over in Humber Valley, that the Premier personally presented the cheque, $150,000, to take a road going to a park and upgrade it so that they could put it into another category so that they could clear the road for cabin owners?

I ask the Member for Humber Valley to read the newspaper reports from The Western Star about: the cabin owners on the road were very pleased to hear of the announced - and she is trying to say there are no cabins up there.

Mr. Chairman, the point is this: when asked to compare that road, which was a class 4, to a road that has been plowed every year for thirty-two years, where people have made their investments, raised their families, built their homes, because it was always taken care of - here is the most telling part - the Minister of Transportation and Works says: Well, we had to do that road over there where the park is because the park is a provincial asset; but, you know, the people who live on Old Mill Road in Goobies -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Beachy Cove Road

MR. GRIMES: I am not too worried about Beachy Cove Road. Them, too, but the ones we were talking about specifically were Old Mill Road. He said, they are not an asset.

Now, that is very, very telling. I ask the people of the Province to keep that in mind. That is a minister of the Crown, being asked a serious question, saying that a provincial park that some salmon anglers go up to and visit - all optional, by the way, and some cabin owners live on the road every now and then, good for them, but we invested $150,000 into that road so we could let people get to an asset that a few people might use once in a while. But a little road that would take less than $15,000 in any one year to maintain and service, they would not make that investment - less than 10 per cent of it - because the people were not considered an asset.

That is why I say, Mr. Chairman, I am always intrigued and I listen very carefully when members opposite speak, the few times that they do, and I hope other people listen as closely as I do because it is very telling in what you hear when they start to talk. You learn about their attitudes, you learn about their true beliefs, and all we heard today, there was another answer from the Minister of Environment and Conservation saying: Oh, we cannot help those guides because there have been a few comments about maybe some trade sanctions from other provinces. What a joke, Mr. Chairman.

The Agreement on Internal Trade was signed over ten years ago. We have always managed to protect the guides in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not want to protect the guides. Now they are going to use the Agreement on Internal Trade as an excuse to do nothing. Well, there have not been any trade sanctions for ten years and there will not be any.

Can you imagine the Government of Nova Scotia saying they are going to invoke trade sanctions against Newfoundland and Labrador because half a dozen people want to come over here and pretend they are guides on our rivers and take jobs away from our people, go and complain to the government, so they are going to stop doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador? How foolish! Nothing could be more ridiculous; and they stand up with straight faces, as if that is a legitimate answer, Mr. Chairman.

I know my time has run short with respect to this, and I know the group opposite would love to hear some more facts if I was given another opportunity to speak today, but I am not allowed, Mr. Chairman. I got elected to come in here and speak about these issues, but they have just passed a motion, they just voted for a motion, that says the Member for Exploits is not allowed to speak again today about this particular issue, because the Premier has sent out a decree saying: Enough of that! I want to go home for Christmas. I don't want to be in there, in that Legislature. Get out of there. Close that place down. Don't talk about that liquor bill. Don't talk about it. Go home out of it. That is enough. Shut them down.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the other day, was saying: Gag them. Well, I will tell you what we got today. He got his request fulfilled. He got his request fulfilled. We have been muzzled. Now, they can do it and they will answer to the people for it, Mr. Chairman, because it is very telling what this government is doing today. We will abide by the rules, and we will be officially gagged today, but I believe everybody in the Province will understand that the group that just passed the openness, transparency and accountability bill, and said you can have as long as you want to talk about it, just changed their minds again, just broke another commitment, and just told us to button up, go home, and stop talking about these issues.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak to the act, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

I guess my first question would be: Where did the amendment to the act come from? I know that is a question that I am being asked by my constituents, and the e-mails I am getting are that: Where did this come from? It has come out of left field. We know that when Sunday shopping was introduced, the people who now form the government, who were then in Opposition, were vehemently opposed to Sunday shopping. Now they are using the excuse of saying: Well, the government of the day did not go far enough. So they want to now make it possible for people in the Province to buy alcohol on Sunday in the liquor establishments and/or the private enterprises.

I am really indifferent to it, Mr. Chair, whether or not people are able to buy alcohol on Sunday. Whether they are, it really does not matter to me, but what I would like to have the opportunity to do is speak to my constituents, speak to the people I represent, and find out what they think about this. Maybe they care about it. Maybe they do not care about it. I am standing here today speaking to an amendment to an act, and I really cannot speak on behalf of my constituents because I do not know what they would like me to say. I do not know if they would like me to support it. I do not know if they would like me to not support it. So I am standing here not knowing how my constituents feel about this particular piece of legislation, and no opportunity to canvass them.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has said he did not feel the need to do consultations. Well, just because he did not feel the need to consult with his constituents does not mean that the rest of us do not feel the need to consult with ours. I cannot believe, standing here today and looking across the floor, that they are not members on the government side who would like to have the same opportunity that I would like to have, to consult with my constituents. I am sure they would like to consult with theirs. I know there are several over there who are also questioning where this amendment came from. I believe that they, too, are feeling that the government does not care about the concerns of their constituents, does not care about their concerns as Members of the House of Assembly.

We were elected to speak on behalf of our constituents. We were elected to represent them, to bring their concerns forward. If you do not know what they are, because the government has not given us the opportunity to go and consult with our constituents, we stand here today being forced to vote on a bill without having the opportunity to do what we were elected to do. I think it is a sad day, but it is just another example of how undemocratic this government is, how often they break promises, how often they make promises with one breath and then break them with the next.

Of course, I can stand here today and talk about the health care facility in Grand Bank, which was promised. Then, once the government formed, the promise was broken. I can talk about the FPI decision, and the fact that this government has the authority to tell FPI that they really should look out for the best interests of rural communities in our Province. I can talk about the closure of the HRE offices. I can talk about the fact that they are now using the new health care money to pay down on the debt. Forget about the waiting lists out there. Forget about the need for improved health care in our Province. What has become apparent is that this government cares only for the bottom line. Where is the social conscience?

Now, I know it is a right-wing government, it is a conservative government, but you all represent people, and people take precedence. You must know that people have concerns, whether it is health care, education, jobs. I guess the fact that you have slashed 4,000 jobs tells us really how much you care about employment in this Province. Today, I am standing not knowing how my constituents feel about a piece of legislation that I am going to be asked to vote on today.

I do know that I have gotten e-mails. Some are opposed, and some, like me, are indifferent, but I would really like that opportunity. As I said earlier, I cannot believe there aren't people across the floor who would like the same opportunity before voting on a piece of legislation that can be a significant decision for some people in our Province. There are people in our Province who believe that six days a week is enough time to purchase alcohol, and, if you want to drink on Sunday, buy it on Saturday, if you want to consume it in your home. As it is, if you want to drink it on Sunday, go to an alcohol establishment.

There are people out there who are asking the question: Where is this coming from? Why is the government so adamant on pushing this through in this sitting of the House of Assembly? It is not like it is a significant piece of legislation in terms of, it has to be done today. It is not like it is life or death. It is about whether or not we are going to open establishments to sell alcohol on Sunday, where the people can go to the liquor stores and buy it on Sundays or to private establishments where they sell it.

It is serious decision for some people and, unfortunately, those people are totally ignored. Their concerns aren't even being addressed, aren't even being considered. As the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is on record as saying, he doesn't care. Public backlash; I don't care. I am sure what he is thinking is that: we are in the second year of our mandate, we have two more years to go, people will forget about this. I really don't care. People do care, and I am hoping that people will remember the attitude of this government.

How undemocratic to bring in a piece of legislation and force it through when it really isn't significant in terms of the time frame of getting this done. Two days to consider whether or not we should amend the Liquor Corporation Act to allow those entities that sell alcohol from their private corner stores, or Liquor Corporation stores, whether or not they should be able to do that on a Sunday.

The irony, Mr. Chair, is that people can buy alcohol now. I mean, you don't need to have it open on a Sunday if it is going to offend people. I am thinking particularly about our churches and our church leaders. If it is going to offend people, why do it? It is available, people can buy it six days of the week, so why offend people?

I know why this government is going full force ahead with this, the bottom line which is the basis for every decision made by this government. Forget about the people, forget about their concerns, forget about their needs, whether it is health care, whether it is education, forget it. It is the bottom line, because there will be more revenue for the Treasury. That is why it is being forced through. The sooner it happens the better, the more dollars will come into the Treasury, and forget about those people in our Province who would prefer that this didn't happen. Unfortunately, they are not being considered, their concerns are not being heard.

I don't see anyone on the government side standing up and speaking out for them. I am sure, in your own districts, there are people who are questioning why you would force this particular piece of legislation through. There is no rationale for it, other than more money for the provincial Treasury. To date, I have not heard one person from government side stand and speak in support of it. So, I would assume that absence of any kind of comment means that you support it.

I would garner that you are, in fact, receiving e-mails like I am receiving e-mails telling you that this is not the right thing to do, or maybe just asking why you are doing it. I would love to know your answer. I would love to read your e-mails that are going back to your constituents about why the government is forcing through this particular piece of legislation and taking away my right, as an elected Member of this House of Assembly, to consult with my constituents about this particular amendment to the Liquor Corporation Act. You are taking away my right. You are taking away the rights of my constituents to speak on an issue that may very well be significant for people in our districts, people who will be offended by this decision. Did you not think, when you talk about Sunday shopping, why this was not included? Did you stop and think for a minute why the previous government did not include this particular amendment or include opening of alcohol establishments to sell alcohol on Sundays? There was a reason, and today we are here trying to understand why the government would insist on doing this, when there is absolutely no need, no need, other than the almighty dollar. At some point this government is going to have to put the concerns of people over the bottom line, and it is certainly not happening with this particular piece of legislation.

When you bring in closure on a piece of legislation, my understanding is that it is on a significant piece of legislation, but nobody could argue that with respect to this particular amendment. So, whether or not the members on the other side have been told: You must just stand by and approve this, vote in favour of this, because I do not hear any comment from the other side about whether you support it or you do not support it. I cannot believe that you are not hearing from your constituents, like I am hearing from mine, questioning why this is happening. Not so much that they care, but where did it come from? What is this government about? Why is it that you have to bring in legislation and force it through when it is not a significant piece of legislation?

I feel offended, and I know my constituents feel offended, to think that they are not even being considered. They are the people of the Province who are going to have to live with your decision, especially the people who will have to work now in these establishments. Obviously, it will mean that one day they had will not be available to them. There are people in our Province who still consider Sundays to be a special day, a day to spend with families. It begs a question, whether or not, by doing this, we are making alcohol more accessible to people? Because we are making it more accessible by making it available on seven days of the week and not just six.

Again, I repeat, I am indifferent to this but I really would like to know how my constituents feel. Again, I repeat, I am offended by an action of this government to try and make the decision for me, to take away my ability to make an informed decision here. The trouble we have, again, with this piece of legislation is that it is just not necessary at this particular point in time.

Mr. Chair, for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to so openly say he does not care about a public backlash speaks volumes about how they view the people of this Province. If there were to be a backlash it would mean that there are concerns, that there are issues which people have with this. Anybody in their right mind would have to be concerned about a public backlash because the only time members of the public speak up and speak out is when they are being negatively impacted. So, he should be concerned, I tell the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Just as I say to every member opposite, you should be concerned about a public backlash because it means that people have issues, that people are concerned about what is happening here with this amendment. To say that he does not feel a need for public consultations, anybody in their right mind would know that it is always better to consult with the people whom you represent. It is an opportunity to hear what they have to say so that when you make decisions, you make informed ones.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing here today is just another example of a government who, after only two years, or not quite two years in power, have just taken it upon themselves to ride roughshod over the rest of us, to tell the people how things are going to be, to tell the people of the Province it is this way or no way. We have become so familiar with that, because that is clearly the attitude of our Premier, his way or no way. Of course, if he does not get his way, as we read in this newspaper article about his disagreement over compensation with respect to the cable deal. It says: Williams, who had not seen the agreement between MacDonald and Henley and did not take part in their discussions, went ballistic - according to testimony. Now, I am sure the members opposite do not want to encounter the Premier when he goes ballistic. That must be a pretty sight. So, obviously, it is quite easy for him to do. But stand up, be an independent figure. Follow the lead of your colleague, the former Minister of Health, who, when she did not like a particular management style of the Premier and who knew that what he was doing was wrong, stood her ground, had the courage to stand up and be counted. She wasn't a follower. She wasn't his (inaudible) and I commend her for her actions.

We are in a situation today where, I think, a lot of the members on the opposite side are being followers. They are not standing and speaking to this particular amendment because they have been told: this is going through one way or the other, because that is what happens when you invoke closure. That is what happens when you invoke closure; you essentially tell the Members of the House of Assembly that you do not count, that we want this piece of legislation and we are going to get it one way or the other. If you are not going to give it to us in the time frame that we wanted, which is today, then we are just going to invoke closure. You have no say. It does not matter how you feel about it. It does not matter that you did not have time to consult with your constituents. Nothing matters, because this is the way it is going to happen.

It is an affront to those of us who were elected to come into this House of Assembly to represent the views of our constituents. We were not put here to just rubber-stamp whatever the government wants to put through, and you weren't, by the way - even though you are members of the government - elected to rubber-stamp whatever the government wants to happen. You were elected as an MHA. You were not elected as a minister of the Crown, and I think we should never lose sight that the important job is the one of an MHA. That is the job that is the prestigious one. That is the one where you get to represent the people who elected you. That is the job where you actually get to stand and fight for your constituents.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would remind everybody in the House, that particular job is a job that we should all hold in high esteem, and insist on having the opportunity to represent the interests of our constituents.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise today and say a few words on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

I have to say to the government, it is again another piece of legislation brought before this House, absolutely no notice, being passed in a couple of days without any input whatsoever from the people of the Province. I think it is a classic example of this government taking the route that it is easier to get forgiveness than it is permission. I think that is a philosophy that they have been following on a few pieces of legislation that they have passed through this House during this session.

Mr. Chairman, the idea or the concept of having liquor stores open on Sundays is not one that sits well, I would think, with a lot of people around this Province. We have six days a week now in which liquor stores in this Province are open. I cannot recall anyone from the Province lobbying hard or complaining or voicing their opinion in the public that six days wasn't long enough.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there will be people going to the liquor stores on Sundays, there is absolutely no question about that, once they are open, but I think this government should remember that Sundays is a day, probably the only day of the week, where a lot of employees have the opportunity to have a rest day with their families.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that many people do not have that privilege because of the type of work that they are involved in, because of the type of operation that they work for, where operations are going for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. In situations like that, Mr. Chairman, there is no alternative but to work Sundays when you are on a shift work rotation system, but in lines of work where the volume of business can be handled sufficiently on a six-day work week, then I really do not see the purpose of having a seven-day work week so that the same amount can be spread over a greater period of time, and impacting upon the lives of a lot of people.

Mr. Chairman, the liquor stores in this Province have been doing quite well on a six-day-a-week operation. I do not see any necessity at all for them to be pushing to have their stores open on Sundays. Who has this been driven by? It is not being driven by the public, Mr. Chairman. It is being driven by the Liquor Corporation itself, through the minister, to this Houses of Assembly, to pass legislation that would allow them to be open on Sundays.

It is almost a bit of greed, Mr. Chairman. It is almost like they feel they are losing something that they cannot get back unless they remain open on a seven-day-a-week basis. Who are they in competition with? Who are they losing to? There is nobody that I can see, Mr. Chairman, who has an unfair advantage over the Liquor Corporation in this Province.

I heard the minister talk about the number of establishments that alcohol can be obtained from on Sundays, but they are restaurants, bars and hotels in the Province that have been doing that for years. Nobody can sell liquor or spirits or wine by volumes of bottles on a Sunday. So, there is no unfair competitive advantage to anyone over the Liquor Corporation.

I have to say also, Mr. Chairman, that when Sunday shopping came to this Province, I guess that opened the floodgates, if you want, for a lot of other things to take place on Sundays that probably were not traditional up to that point in time. That was something that I vehemently opposed, Mr. Chairman, stores opening on Sunday. I am sure members opposite can remember the debates that they had, that took place in the House of Assembly at that time, that permitted that to happen. That was unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that legislation was passed in 1998, I believe, that would allow Sunday shopping to take place. As I say, that sort of set the trend for other things to happen on Sunday that prior to that did not happen.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that even though Sunday shopping is permitted in the Province, in my District of Labrador West there is no Sunday shopping taking place other than what always took place prior to the legislation passing through the House that allowed it to take place. None of the stores that were open six days a week prior to Sunday shopping coming into effect are open today. We have the corner stores, of course, the convenience stores and the gas stations, things of that nature, but other than that none of the major outlets or grocery stores are open on Sundays in Labrador West. That is something I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, because there was not a demonstrated need to have it take place. I am proud of the fact that the people in my district have chosen not to open their stores on Sunday and spread the same amount of money over a seven-day period rather than a six-day period.

I also want to ask the minister about the cost, because there will be extra cost to the Corporation in opening on Sundays. You have Sunday premiums in all the collective agreements, for working on Sundays. Many agreements contain the provision for double time on Sundays, when people are working, or time-and-a-half at a minimum if your forty hours are not in. There will be extra costs generated to the Commission as a result of being open on Sundays.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this question, because I do not think it has been asked yet and it has not been answered. The Liquor Corporation say that they want to have the right to be open on Sundays, and would allow liquor stores and agencies to sell wine and spirits on all days other than stat holidays. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could answer: If the Liquor Corporation decides that their stores will open, does that mean that all of the stores that they have under their control in the Province will have to open as well? Because, the liquor store owned by the Commission, by the Liquor Corporation, in my district is in the middle of a shopping mall. I wonder if they have looked ahead to see how they would get access to that mall when all other stores are closed on Sundays and are not open.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the government has met the test of proof that they should have to meet in a case like this, to change their operations from six days a week to seven days a week Not only that, when we say a six-day operation, we are not exactly talking about an operation that is open from 10:00 in the morning to 5:30 or 6:00 in the afternoon. They are open now late into the night, each day of the week that they are open, so it is not as if there are not enough hours in the week for them to sell the amount of alcohol that they want to sell to the public of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, this bill that they will pass today has not been well thought out, it has not been publicly debated throughout the regions of this Province. Nobody in this House of Assembly has had much opportunity to talk to anybody in the districts that they represent, in finding out how they feel about the liquor stores being open on Sundays, because the passage of this bill, in allowing liquor stores to open on Sundays, is making a fundamental change, a major change, in the way that we, in this Province, view Sunday shopping, and the ability - we are departing from a long-standing tradition of liquor stores being closed on Sundays, and to deviate from that solely because the Liquor Corporation wants to make more profits.

I do not know, Mr. Chairman. We heard a lot in the news a couple of years ago about all the money that was spent refurbishing offices. Maybe they want to refurbish again, and need the extra money to waste doing what they did a number of years ago, and the amount of money they spent in refurbishing offices up at the Corporation headquarters.

Mr. Chairman, I think this plan to open liquor stores on Sundays in the Province is ill-conceived, not well thought out, did not receive any input from the public of this Province, and the minister is acting simply on the greedy wishes of the Liquor Corporation, who want to improve their bottom line. They do not care what consequences other people in our Province face, as long as they meet the bottom line that they can, hopefully, according to them, try and improve things and compete with other businesses that do not exist in competition with them in order to make this happen.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the government, in future, when you are bringing in legislation, particularly pieces of legislation that change the way things have happened historically in this Province, it is important that the people of the Province be consulted in having a say on the issue, whatever it might be, and that government be governed by the wishes and the will of the people, not by establishments like a liquor corporation or somebody who has a personal view in Cabinet on what should take place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought today maybe that I would not speak on this because I had issued a press release on Monday, actually, when I discovered that Bill 61 was going to be brought forward. I must say, I expressed my comments, I think, pretty good on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, with The Telegram on Monday, because I was shocked and taken aback that this bill would just appear from nowhere. You know, there was no warning, there was no mention of it.

I reviewed the PC Blue Book, their battle plan, their action plan for the four years following their election. There was no mention of opening liquor stores in this Province. As a matter of fact, I thought it was the very least I would see come forth from this government, to open up liquor agency stores on Sundays, considering that they were a party who fought so adamantly about Sunday shopping. The Minister of Finance, himself, the other day, admitted: Oh, yes, I am opposed to Sunday shopping, but the government of day, he went on further to say, did not go far enough.

Now, does that make any sense, Mr. Chairman? Does that make any sense? The government of the day did not go far enough, but he was against it so he is opening up the stores to sell liquor on Sundays. You know, I don't know. I don't think this bill is just about An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. This bill is about: We are the government, and we are going to do what we want to do when we want to do it. That is what this is about. This bill was tabled in this House on Monday and, lo and behold, in Tuesday's paper, what appears? The minister responsible for this saying that the stores will open in January, 2005.

Well, I say, what about the people of this Province who might want to express some concerns over this? It is pretty convenient. It is the busiest time of the year for the people of this Province, there is no doubt about it. Christmas preoccupies everybody. The last thing people are doing in this Province today, I would say, especially on a Thursday afternoon, going into a weekend - they are getting ready to get their Christmas shopping done, their last-minute details, preparing for company, family and friends coming home, doing that. That is their priority, not sitting down reading newspapers.

I might add, too, that there are parts of this Province that have not gotten wind of this yet. There is no word on this, because I can tell you, there are parts or rural Newfoundland who are not privileged to a daily newspaper. They depend, I guess, on the limited number of newspapers that might hit them by Saturday, or by the local Robinson Blackmore paper when it is printed. I know my own paper - for instance, this bill will be passed before The Compass is even printed on Sunday. I know the editor, Mr. Bowman, is out there now in Carbonear doing the last minute collection for his paper. He will work most of the weekend to put together the information to put in Tuesday's paper when it goes to the householder.

I have already heard from a number of people who picked up some of the things from the various media outlets concerning this bill. I was not going to speak today. I say to the Member for Topsail - I bumped into her in the parking lot today and said: No, I do not think I will speak to it. I have already said what I had to say, but the more calls I received over lunch, the more I realized I had to, because many people thought the bill was something that I had something to do with, and it is not. The only thing I want to say, that I have had to do with this bill, is speak against it. Speak against it, not on the principle of what might be in that bill, but on the principle of how this bill is being pushed forward on the people of this Province.

Tuesday night we stayed here until after 12:00 o'clock. We stayed here to pass a bill on openness, accountability and transparency. That is what the bill was all about. Lo and behold, I find out that I am standing here today talking about something that was not covered in that bill; something that bill should have done away with. That is sheer arrogance of trying to jam a bill through the House of Assembly, thrust something down the throats of the people of this Province, in three days. I find it just too much to fathom. This bill has blind sided the public. As I said, there are places in this Province who will not even know about this until next week, that this bill was passed.

Now, we are dealing with rural communities, rural parts of this Province. We have existed for centuries without buying liquor on Sundays, and I am sure that we can go for another little while, another few weeks, or another few months until the people of this Province get an opportunity to put full input into this particular bill. I do not know what the rush is. I honestly do not know what the rush is to have this bill done today, other than the fact that it is to appease the Minister of Finance about his article that he had in the paper the next day saying that the liquor agency stores and the liquor stores will be open in January of 2005. That is the only reason I can see, or either that it is to appease the Premier because they do not want him to get upset and get riled up as he did with Chris Henley, when Chris Henley sent him a bill for his services regarding the communications deal.

Mr. Chairman, the government of this Province has a monopoly on the sale of liquor. There is no rush. It is not like there is somebody coming in - or at least I hope there's not somebody coming in from outside who is going to corner the market on liquor sales in this Province. There is no rush. We have not heard from the churches. I would say that many of the churches do not know about this, and there is a good reason why. I think a lot of the people who are attending churches are going to their choir practices for the Christmas services next weekend. You can be sure of that. I know that is where most of my friends were last night and Tuesday night when I was in here; not that I am a singer because I am not, unfortunately. I would love to be, but that is where most of the people are right now, in church practicing for Christmas carols and the Christmas service.

So, Mr. Chairman, I say again, there is no urgency for this bill to be passed here this afternoon, in a very limited period of time. You know, it is a case of lacing up the old hobnail boots, as some of the members from the other side used to say, and giving it to them. Kick this bill, we will drive this through. We do not need to let the people know that this is going to happen. This will be great. Nobody will even notice this until it is too late, when you drive past the liquor store some time in January and say: Oh, yeah, that is nice. That is open on Sunday; people on their way to church. I do not think that is appropriate.

I say, Madam Chair, this bill flies straight in the face of accountability and transparency. It flies straight in the face. I thought when we did this accountability and transparency, the bill on accountability and transparency would mean that the people would get a chance to know what the government is going to do, what their projections would be, what business they are bringing before the House. I remember last spring we sat here in the House and somebody questioned the Premier about his trust fund that he had established. He said: oh, no, no, no, I am at arm's-length to all of that. I have nothing to do with it. The other day, on November 2, in the Western Star, here was the Premier'‘s Executive Assistant - I think here name is Linda Roche - she was out there presenting a cheque, on behalf of the Williams Family Foundation, in Corner Brook. I have to ask: How can a political person, or an Executive Assistant to the Premier, not be involved politically with the family trust fund? Accountability - it just doesn't make sense, and there is nobody answering these questions. The members opposite must condone it. They don't see anything wrong with what is happening here. I am the fourth speaker from this side of the House today without any intervention from the other side. I just can't believe what is happening here.

I will tell you what it is all about. I will tell you how I figured this out, what this is all about, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you were a great advocate against Sunday shopping; a great advocate. I remember listening to your very passionate speeches about taking parents away from their kids, the great passionate speech that you used to make. As a matter of fact, we were here all night long - that was before I was elected, but I remember seeing you in the House here, getting on with these great passionate speeches about families being broken up. I have to say, families being broken up over buying a few groceries and a bit of clothes, that sort of thing - what about the families that might get broken up now over more liquor being sold on Sundays. That is no impact there at all! You know, it is amazing. Feeding a family, working six days a week, and the only chance they might have - I remember all the arguments to and fro. It is quite amazing how a year and a few months changes the whole scenario and the whole philosophy of how somebody thinks.

Do you know what this bill is all about? Very cutely, the spokesperson for the Newfoundland Liquor Commission says, it will add another couple of million dollars to our bottom line. That is what it is. That is what I believe it is. In the Minister of Finance's rush to get a few more dollars for the bottom line, the old hobnail boots are on again today, and this bill is going to get booted through. Never mind next week about the people out in Salmon Cove or Victoria or Freshwater or Carbonear or Harbour Grace or Perry's Cove finding out in their local paper that the government is thinking about - this is the cute part - opening stores on Sunday to sell liquor. Guess what I will have to tell them come Tuesday, when they read their paper? It is too late, the stores are already open. They will be open the first week in January. Bang-o! Right over the goal post go the people and their wishes. Don't let them see what is happening.

We talk about the bottom line, and we talk about people's wishes. My colleague, the Member for Bellevue, is trying to get some answers about his constituency, about a road not being plowed. I have a road not being plowed in my constituency. I have two of them, actually. On Noel's Road there lives a pregnant lady, Stacey Slade, and last night her big concern was, how she was going to get down that road if she had to go to the hospital when her time came to deliver her baby. I have two little girls who are going to school this year - Scott Young's two little girls - who live in Gadden's Mash. The plow went by them last year and got them out. These two little toddlers, little girls, have to climb out now probably about 800 feet because, quite interestingly enough, the plow goes in, stops at a point, comes back out, and goes in around to another house, and it is the same distance as if they went right around - but, no, no, we are not going to do that.

I might add, these are not cabin roads. These are homes where people have lived for a period of time. When we say class 4 cabin roads -

MR. BARRETT: They are not an asset.

MR. SWEENEY: No, they are not an asset. That is true, I say to my colleague from Bellevue - but, they are an asset. They are an asset in my books. They are an asset in my heart, to see those two little girls going through that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why, when I was minister, (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Exactly.

So, what about the people? Where do the people come? How do we ever get the people first and foremost in the eyes and hearts of this government? How do we ever do it?

I hear someone over there grumping: Boys, oh boys, oh boys! Well, I have a right to speak for my constituents. I have a right to speak for Stacey Slade, I have a right to speak for those two little girls, and I am going to do that. I have also a right for the people out there, to speak for those who do not want to have their liquor stores open on Sunday. I have that right. If they do not want them open, they should be heard; and, if they do want them open, they should be heard. Not in the format of a bill being dropped on us on Monday and, on Tuesday, in the paper, the minister saying we are opening - you know, the closure was invoked yesterday but, guess what? Closure was actually invoked on Tuesday, when the minister said that we are going ahead. What is a little flak? What is a little kickback? We are going ahead.

Now, what is the urgency? There is nobody else out there selling liquor on Sundays. There is not a liquor store, there is nowhere in this Province you can go, unless it is a government licensed agency store or the government store itself; you cannot buy liquor. So, what is the rush? There is nobody else out there. It is not as though we get one of these giant box stores coming in here and saying we are selling liquor January 1 and, government, you back off because we have the jump on you. That is not the case. Government has the monopoly on selling liquor in this Province, but it seems now they also have a monopoly on our freedom and on the freedom of the people, that we are not allowed to be able to bring back the concerns of the people here. Because I would like to have a weekend, at least, in my district to go home and find our for sure, instead of the few people who have contacted me either by e-mail or by phone over the past little while.

That is what this bill is all about. It is not like we are passing a health care bill here. We are not passing something of extreme urgency, where there is a disaster in some part of the Province. It is not about that. It is not about a part of this Island that is isolated, that cannot get food, get them in. It is not about that at all. It is about selling liquor on Sundays, and we have to do it in three days. It does not make any sense why this should happen. That is why I am going to speak against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, you were part of this debate in this House over Sunday shopping, and you heard the passionate pleas that were made; but, you know, the people then had time to get to their members and put this forward. Right now in this Province, most people, as I said, do not even know this is happening, do not even know that this is happening.

There is nothing else in this bill. It is not here about the Newfoundland Liquor Commission being short of funds. It is not about that. It is only to allow liquor stores and liquor agency stores to sell wine and spirits on all days other than statutory holidays set out in the Shops' Closing Act. Currently, it prohibits the sale of wine and spirits by liquor stores and liquor agency stores on Sundays.

Mr. Chairman, that is the way I would like to see it stay until at least we had a clear message from the people of this Province of what their feelings were, and not the feelings of forty-eight people, or even less - maybe one person or two people - on the other side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Call the question, Mr. Chair.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 61 is carried.

On motion, Bill 61 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 61 carried, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 61 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. (Bill 61)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 4 on the Order Paper, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, be now read a third and final time without any amendments, in accordance with Standing Order 47.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of Motion 4.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain matters pertaining to Bill 45.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I did move third reading - no, I did not. I am sorry. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought we had already moved third reading.

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

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

I apologize for the mix up, I only moved Motion 4. I do now move third reading of Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 61, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 61 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 61)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 45.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 45.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 45?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Pursuant to Motion 1 on the Order Paper, I move pursuant to Standing Order 47 that the debate on Bill 45, An Act to Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, shall not be further adjourned clause or clauses, section or sections, Schedule or Schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill 45 shall be the first business of the Committee at this moment.

CHAIR: The Committee has heard the motion as put forward by the Government House Leader.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to spend a few minutes to speak on this bill. I am doing it in kind of, as some people would say, a heavy heart, Mr. Chairman, because my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile - we discussed it today. It was almost a year ago today that I was served notice with papers to defend my winning of the election in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, as we all know now, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador said: Yes, you are the elected member. You can represent the people of the Bay of Islands.

So, I am here today as a proud representative of the Bay of Islands but for some reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot continue this debate and I cannot express the wishes and the concerns of the people that were expressed to me from the Bay of Islands. It is a sad day, Mr. Chairman. It is a sad day when someone like myself, who is very close to a lot of people in my area, the West Coast and the Corner Brook area, and they expressed concerns to me to bring forward to the government at the time and I cannot do it because the government, and in this case the Premier, who is the leader, says: We do not want you to express any concerns of the people. We have an agenda. We are going to go ahead with the agenda and the agenda is going to be what we want to do. Who cares about what people say? Who cares?

Mr. Chairman, the bill itself, in principle, is a good bill. I say to the Minister of Tourism, it is a good bill. In principle the bill is a good bill but there are a lot of problems with the bill, Mr. Chairman, a lot of problems with the bill. I made several amendments to this bill, several amendments to protect some people; people who traditionally use the outdoors in Newfoundland and Labrador, Corner Brook, Bay of Islands, and they traditionally use some of these trails. Some of these trails, Mr. Chairman, these people helped construct. They helped construct these trails and now, all of a sudden, without any consultation or any rights given to them, they are saying you have to pay to get on these trails. Even though you helped build them, we want to do it.

The other issue that was brought up during this debate, Mr. Chairman, is the Outdoor Bill of Rights. I spoke to Jim Morgan, probably about last Monday or Tuesday. I spoke to Jim Morgan, and Jim Morgan was a former PC Cabinet Minister. He said to me, in the meetings that they had and discussions they had with the Premier is that there will be an Outdoor Bill of Rights with no fees for the outdoors. Where is that Outdoor Bill of Rights? Where are the concerns that were expressed then to the people, that the Premier said: no, we will not do that? We will not shut down Newfoundland and Labrador outdoors to these people. We will not do it. You have my commitment. But, now we know the commitment of the Premier. We know the concerns that were expressed and at the time before and during the election. He turns around and says: Okay, that was election time. Now is the time we want something put through.

What the Minister of Transportation and Works said today, when he said parks are an asset - inferring that the people who live on the roads that are not plowed are not. It comes back to (inaudible) is that parks are an asset, implying that the people who live on the roads are not. I think if you are trying to consult with people in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want the true concerns of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, why are we invoking closure? Why are we invoking closure on it? Or are the statements made by the minister today a true reflection of the government? Is it a true reflection of the government?

I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said that he will hold public consultations. I believe that minister. I sincerely believe that minister. Now, if it was the Minister of Health and Community Services, the former Minister of Education, who promised to me in a meeting, with six or seven other people, that he would meet with the residents on the North Shore to discuss the raising of the roof of the school, I would not believe it. I would not believe it. Then the minister turns around, at the time, and goes out and arranges a meeting because the Premier may be confronted. Then the minister turns around, once the Premier gets out of town - the reason why he left town, by the way, was to go up and make the $150,000 announcement for the exemption of the Class 4 road up in Humber Valley. Once the Premier left town, the minister then called out and said: no, the meeting is off.

If it was this minister who was saying that, yes, we will have public consultations, I would not believe it. I would not believe it because I had first-hand knowledge of how this government works, how they will make a commitment, how they will stand up and say something, just for the moment with no real intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Ottenheimer?

MR. JOYCE: It is the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I was truly shocked when there was no meeting.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation says there will be consultation, but I have a bit of a problem with that, just from the government coming out and saying: We will have an Outdoor Bill of Rights. There is no Outdoor Bill of Rights. All of a sudden now we are saying, that you cannot express the concerns of the people, the traditional users, you cannot do that because we are invoking closure, because we want this now. Forget about everybody else and what they have to say, we want what we want, who cares what people think or say. We want it and we want it now. I just find it strange, I find it very strange, that this open and accountable government, all of a sudden now are saying: We are open and accountable as long as you do what we want, when we want it and how we want it. Mr. Chairperson, this is not the way to operate, this is definitely not the way to operate.

Mr. Chairperson, just to tell you how telling this bill is, and how much controversy surrounds this bill: Do you know that it was brought to my attention by four members opposite that I should ask questions about this bill, about traditional use on the trails? There were four members opposite who came to me on four different occasions and said they have concerns with this bill. Do you notice, Mr. Chairman, none of them are saying, name them? They are not saying name them, are they, Mr. Chairman? They are not saying name them, because there are people on the other side who do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say: We are rushing this bill, we should have public consultations. Not one of them are saying: Premier, how about your commitment for the Outdoor Bill of Rights that you made before and during the election? How about it? Yet, they are quietly coming over to people like me, who happens to be the critic for Tourism and Culture, and saying: You have to ask questions, you have to try and make amendments to take care of the traditional users.

I am talking about traditional users, Mr. Chairperson, somebody who had a cabin for forty or fifty years. They built the trail and all of a sudden now, to get to their cabin - they get out of their truck and drive forty or fifty feet on these groomed trails to get to their cabin - they have to pay $80 to drive forty or fifty feet to get to their cabins. To me, that is a traditional use.

We made some amendments for that; thrown out! It is not what we wanted. No way, it is not what we wanted, so we are not going to follow it. We had some guidelines from Ontario about traditional users. We do not have to go out and create a new template. We can put them down, table them and say: Here is the template that we can use. It works in Ontario. As the minister said, it took eleven years to develop, so why are we going to spend eleven years to develop it if it is already done, if it meets our use?

One of the groups exempted in that is trappers. I know several trappers in the Bay of Islands. They go along a trail, which they have been using all their lives, they have crossed the trail once to get to their traplines - the trapline actually runs across, and they have to cross it to get to the traplines and go another four or five miles into the woods, on trails that they cut, and they cannot be considered traditional users. Mr. Chairperson, they cannot be classified as traditional users.

When you sit down and look at the merit of the bill for tourism potential in Western Newfoundland, you have to look at the potential and the work that the volunteers have done. You also have to weigh out the traditional users.

I know the dilemma the minister is in and a lot of the snowmobile associations in this Province. I know the dilemma they are in. I still think we should have had majority public consultation. The Minister of Transportation and Works got up today and said, that park is an asset, implying that the people who live on the road are not an asset. It makes someone like me think: Are the traditional users the ones who are saying now, hold it government, you may be making a mistake here. Will you reconsider? Is the government turning around and saying to them, who cares? You are not an asset, so who cares what you have to say?

Even though in principle it may be a good bill, there are too many unanswered questions that must be asked and there must be answers given before everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador buys into this bill. You cannot take a portion of the Province and pit it again another portion of the Province, and cannot take residents in one portion and pit them against the residents in the same area, and pit them against each other. That is doing a complete disservice to the whole snowmobile industry.

A lot of people I have spoken to, who have asked that I bring up amendments, they stated they are not against mandatory trail stickers. They are not against mandatory trail stickers. Before you can be for something, you have to know the consequences, you have to know the parameters that you are dealing with, and you have to know why it is being implemented. You have to know. You have to be consulted. A lot of people I have spoken to said: Yes, okay, it is a great idea, but why is it being pushed down our throats?

Mr. Chairman, we were told that we have lots of time to debate this bill. We will go on as long as we like to debate this bill, but all of a sudden we are getting closure. Once again, we have a bill that - and I have to say, and I say it again publicly - I agree with in principle. The minister knows that I agree with it in principle. Then, again, I have the residents who do call me. I have the individuals, I have the groups that do call me and say: We need public consultation. We need some type of input so that our rights as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, in some cases, built the trails themselves - now are saying that if you do not pay your $80, you cannot get on this trail. You cannot get on this trail.

It is kind of a dilemma for me, because out on the West Coast I have people for it and I have people against it. When you look into the bigger picture of why a government is supposed to be so open and so accountable, why don't they go out in Corner Brook and have public hearings? They had a full year. I ask the Member for Humber Valley, why weren't there meetings in your area? I know the member for Stephenville West - the Member for Port au Port, I know there is a lot of controversy going on out in your area. Why didn't you ask for public hearings in your area? Why didn't you ask for a public consultation? If you are such an open and accountable government, I ask: Why didn't you ask for public consultations in your area? Do you know why? Because a lot of them never saw that bill until it was laid on the table in front of them. A lot of them never saw that bill until they said: Here is the bill. The pages walked around here and handed out the bill and said: Here is the bill.

We saw a prime example of that, where the Member for Topsail and the Member for St. John's Centre, the other night, had an amendment put in front of them. While they were sitting in their chairs, they had an amendment put in front of them. I have to give two of them credit. I will give the Member for Topsail and the Member for St. John's Centre credit. I have to give them credit, that they stood up and said: No, we are not going to agree with these types of tactics. We are not going to do it. We represent people. We want to consult people.

I have to give the two members credit, but I ask the four people who came to me and said: Ask questions on it. Ask questions. Get exemptions. We need exemptions. Get exemptions. Come out, we need exemptions on this here. This here is being rushed through. Four members, Mr. Chairperson. A few of them are over there now; I am not saying to name them. There is no one over there saying name them, because I may name them if they say it. I say I may name them if they push me long enough.

I have a commitment from the minister, that the minister will hold public consultations for traditional users in this Province. I want to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, people on the West Coast, people in the Bay of Islands in general, I have had a lot of calls in the last three or four weeks when this bill was introduced and people knew it was coming to the House. In the last week I was home - I was home last weekend - I was home for four days, Mr. Chairperson, and I got a lot of calls. Do you know mainly what the calls were saying? The calls were saying to me: Why are you holding up this bill? Why am I holding up this bill? What a bunch of malarkey! What a bunch of baloney! That there is as much baloney as much as the Minister of Rural Development has a plan for rural development. That is how much baloney that is.

How can the government who was defeated, with twelve members, hold up a bill with thirty-four members? I say to the people who asked me the question, the people who are watching today - as I said, the people who asked me, and the people who asked why are we holding up the bill, as I said, we cannot do it.

Here is a prime example today where this government, instead of going out and having consultations, working with the people, finding solutions, stop pitting groups against groups, is invoking closure. Invoking closure.

What they are saying is: Member for the Bay of Islands, you are asking too many questions. You are bringing up too many issues here that may cause embarrassment, so we are invoking closure on you. We are telling you, technically, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador can put you here, but we can try to shut you up in this House. That is what they are saying here today.

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Labrador West, yes, it is a shame that they are invoking closure, because it is an issue of this kind of magnitude, representing all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairperson, that we should have public consultations on. The only consolation I can take is that I have trust in that minister, not like the Minister of Health and Community Services who made a commitment in front of me, in front of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, in front of six or seven other people, which I related to the school councils and the school board, that he reneged on. The minister can stand up here now and say he never, but there was a meeting arranged.

I say to this minister, even though it is behind, even though we should have done it in the last six or seven months, I have confidence in you, Minister, that you are going to do it. I am not sure, though, Minister, that the recommendations you come back with, this government is going to go along with. I am not sure. Today, when I saw the Minister of Transportation stand up and say, but the park is an asset - how about the people who have used the trails for the last forty years. How about the people who use the railway tracks? How about the trapper who had a license of fifty years and now he has to pay eighty dollars to cross over about a one meter piece of track to get to his traplines, to continue with his traplines? How about that? How about a Logger's School Road, to give you a good example? There is no doubt it is a safer ride, but how about the people - Kruger build Logger's School Road, as a wood road. People have been using it ever since the wood road was in place. There are cabins built in there everywhere. Should they have to pay?

I say to the minister, and I say to the government, you would be surprised - a lot of the people who are opposing this bill now without being told to do it, would buy a sticker. They would buy a sticker. Without any rules to say you have to, they would do it. There concern is: Why should we be told what to do with no public consultation, with no input? That is the concern that is being expressed to me and it is my duty, as a member of the loyal Opposition, to express those concerns.

I say again, to the government, where is you Outdoor Bill of Rights? According to Jim Morgan and the other people whom I spoke to, the Outdoor Bill or Rights was supposed to go ahead and take care of this, and not have fees, that the government itself would take care of; the government itself.

Mr. Speaker, this is the dilemma that you have put a lot of volunteers in, because that Premier, who sits in that chair, said: There will be no fees for the outdoors. If there is any work to be done outdoors we will take care of it as a government because we know the contribution that you make to this Province. We know the contribution that you make to tourism in this area and we know the valuable people that volunteers are. Where is that bill? A lot of people are saying: why are we charging fees if the Premier promised that there would not be any and that it would be taken care of? Where is the bill?

Mr. Chairperson, we have a dilemma here and of course the government, as I told the people before, the government can do what they want to do and they are expressing their concern of what they can do. They are expressing their concern and the right - the people elected them.

Mr. Chairperson, in closing, I say it is a sad day that I cannot continue consulting with the people of Western Newfoundland, the people of Corner Brook, Bay of Islands, that I cannot consult with them on this major bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise today, actually, to make a few more comments on Bill 45. I have sat here in the House for the last couple of weeks, I guess, listening to debate over Bill 45 and I would just like to go way back, I guess, to a few years ago when there were investments made into the snowmobiling industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I have mentioned before, and it has been mentioned here before, there was $21 million invested in the snowmobile industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador by both the provincial and federal governments. Mr. Chairman, the Snowmobile Federations developed 5,500 kilometres of trails here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, there were many volunteers who invested into the snowmobile industry. They invested their time and their energy. They took time away from their families to go out and groom trails for several years now. However, the reality is that there is not enough revenue to sustain the infrastructure as it is today. Another reality is that there was no long-term plan put in place for the snowmobile industry when the money was invested back in 1996, when it all began. That long-term plan did not include looking at ongoing operation and maintenance of the trails and investing into groomers and such things as this infrastructure, which is very important to the snowmobile industry.

Mr. Chairman, the snowmobile industry has always been and remains very important to the people of Humber Valley. It remains very important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It remains very important to the outdoorsman who wants to go outdoors just to go snowmobiling in the country.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 45 is an investment into rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an investment into rural districts such as Humber Valley. It is an investment into areas such as Labrador. Mr. Chairman, for the last couple of weeks, and just today, I heard members opposite get up and talk about how we are not investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that mandatory stickers, implementing this bill, bringing it here before the Legislature, is an investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: I would like to talk about tourism. When I was growing up in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and when I lived in such places as Woody Point and Hampden and Great Harbour Deep, when we thought of tourism we thought about summer tourism. Well, the time has come, over the past few years, that we not only think about summer tourism, we think about four-season tourism in Humber Valley, and in all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know policies of past governments focused on summer tourism, but I think with pieces of legislation such as Bill 45 and change in policy, our government is looking at tourism as a four-season industry.

Mr. Chairman, we talk about summer tourism, we talk about how much money has been invested for summer tourism here in this Province. We can also talk about the money that was invested over the past few years, and it was invested by both provincial and federal governments, for sport tourism. We can talk about the outfitting industry, how much money has been invested in that. We can also talk about adventure tourism. When I say four-season tourism, it is not talked about very much here in this House of Assembly or out on the streets, but I recognize, and many people in areas in rural Newfoundland, talk about adventure tourism, and we talk about spring tourism.

I remember last year driving up over the road to Big Falls - and I am very pleased to say we invested in tourism by investing in the road up to Big Falls and maintaining that road - I remember driving up to Big Falls and a vehicle in front of me, in May month actually it was, was from the United States and had six kayaks on it. They were going kayaking in outback Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen over the past few years how federal and provincial governments have invested in summer tourism, adventure tourism, and sport tourism. Now it is time, I think, we invest in the winter tourism. We have invested the $21 million. We did not have any plan in place, but I think, Mr. Chairman, what our government is doing here today is investing in winter tourism and we are putting a long-term plan in place.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few weeks I have gone out into the district and I have heard several debates regarding mandatory stickers. Actually, I can go back to last year. I can even go back further than that and go back several years, and talk about the debates that took place in the lunch rooms in the hospitals between nurses, debating whether or not we should have mandatory stickers. I remember the debate going on about how great the groomed trails were here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and how we need to invest in such things as groomed trails and snowmobiling. I remember the debates going on at the kitchen tables, when I walked around during the election, about the snowmobile industry.

Mr. Chairman, just after I got elected last year, we saw a crisis out in the Humber Valley District. In the Humber Valley District the economy and jobs depend mostly on the tourism industry. Last fall, we faced a crisis with the increase in insurance, the increase in the price of gas and everything else. We saw a crisis with these snowmobile federations, the local snowmobile federations. Public meetings were called across this Province, not only in Humber Valley but right across this Province, in regard to it. In Humber Valley, in Deer Lake at the Deer Lake Motel, I went up to a meeting just after getting elected, walked in, and there were over 160 or 170 people at the meeting. At that meeting the debate took place and the debate that had been going on for years took place at that meeting. It all came at that time. We knew it was a crisis situation. Following that meeting, I did my research. I went out and I spoke to people. I went out and did my research and, yes, I did some of it on the internet, yes, I consulted various departments here in the government, and, yes, I went everywhere looking for my information. I debated it very well, actually, and some people can vouch for that out in the communities. We talked about mandatory stickers. The reality is, that this legislation is very important and it is critical. If we do not get this legislation here today, we are facing a crisis in the Humber Valley again this year. It is all about jobs, it is all about economy out in my district, and it is all about that in other districts too.

I think everybody here today recognizes how important this legislation is. However, I know there are issues. There have been issues brought forward to me. I have talked to members that are for outdoor rights. I have expressed my views to them, why I am supporting this bill here today. I have brought every issue forward to the department, to the minister, to discuss these issues. I understand that everybody has a right to go snowmobiling here in Newfoundland, but I think what we have done here today, with this legislation, is we have found a very good compromise. What we have done here, I think, is we have enabled snowmobile associations out there to get the revenue that they need and to further develop, so that we can reach full potential with snowmobiling here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, we have allowed for snowmobiling to occur here in Newfoundland, the same as it has for generations and generations here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who has lived in rural Newfoundland, and very small communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think what we have done here is we have looked at this and we have listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have listened to that snowmobiler who is a traditional snowmobile user who goes out to his cabin. We have listened to that. That is why I think this legislation here today is a very good piece of legislation and I fully support this legislation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise today to speak to Bill 45. I have to repeat a sentence that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, when she was questioned today in Question Period - one of her responses read like this, and that was at 1:45 p.m. today, she said she was not going to stand in this House and apologize for taking in the views of the people in this Province in developing an economic development plan. She said that, and I appreciate the sincerity in which she said it. I think what is missing from this debate today is the fact that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has put the people in this House and the people of this Province in an odd position.

I do not think you will hear too many people around the Province say that they are opposed to groomed trails. In fact, I have not heard anybody in my constituency say that they are opposed to groomed trails. I think that fact is known. The general consensus around this Province is, people support groomed trails. What they do not support is the fact there has been no public input in coming to this moment here today in the House. We learned yesterday that the government was invoking closure. That means it does not matter what we say, come hell or high water they are planning to get this bill today at all costs. It does not matter what we are saying. It does not matter what the people in the Province say. They are going to get this bill.

As I said in the House a few times before, when I had the opportunity to speak on this bill, I am sure the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation wishes right now, today, that he could go back and reverse the clock. He realizes that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are passionate. They are passionate about the outdoors, and you cannot take it away from them. They are passionate about the outdoors and they had the impression from the governing party of today, the PC Party, that they would be given an Outdoor Bill of Rights. They were promised that and it has not been delivered, and that is part of the platform for this Bill 45, or it should be. They were not given that.

A couple of days ago, we passed a bill on accountability and transparency. I am sure that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation realizes the dilemma and the mess people are in over this issue. I know, from being from Central Newfoundland, that outdoors is the key to recreation in Central Newfoundland. Everyone who I know of, their idea of recreation is a cabin up in the woods.

I also realize the tourism potential. The Member for Humber Valley has said that they are creating a tourism plan that would look after four seasons. I agree with that. How could I not agree with that? I agree with winter tourism, but I have been flooded by e-mails and phone calls and it is my job, as an Opposition member, to take in the views of every person out there in my constituency and all over the Province.

Now, we heard the Minister of Environment and Conservation in this House saying they are going to let guides in, from outside of our Province, to come here in this Province and go guiding. Now, what does that do to the guides in my District in Grand Falls-Buchans? They are going to cut in on their job. They did not go and consult with the people and do that, did they? No, by goodness, they did not do that. They are going to bring in outside non-resident guides to work here in this Province, without asking the people of this Province.

Now, there are a lot of questions regarding this legislation. Who decides what new trails are going to be constructed in this Province? What effects are they going to have on the existing users in that particular area? Is that going to be left up to just members of a snowmobile association? What are the rights of people walking on the trail? What are the rights of the trappers? What are the rights of the snowshoers? What are the rights of the cross-country skiers? Can somebody go moose hunting? Can somebody get a moose licence and, just because they are crossing the trail in their designated moose area, with regard to their permit, do they have to pay for a sticker?

These are pretty general questions, aren't they? Yet, when I stand up here in this House, I cannot get any answers to those questions. Who controls the money? Are all snowmobile associations going to have the same priority level? You know, you might have one snowmobile association planning on building a lot of lodges, or they might have a priority that would be conflicting to another association. There are seventeen snowmobile associations out there now. How many more are there going to be out there once this bill passes? Is there any control over that?

Who is going to look after the rules? It was already stated in this House that - the rule that was made this year is that they are not going to have a family fee for a sticker price. That is a concern for anyone who has a couple of machines.

There are all kinds of questions being asked here. I recognize the volunteers who are out there. I know they are doing a wonderful job, and I want to acknowledge that. They are doing a wonderful job. I know our particular snowmobile association, the Exploits Valley Snowmobile Association, are doing a masterful job, and I would be the first one to stand in this House and congratulate them, but are there any governance rules as to how they should operate?

I am not against paying for a sticker. I am not against paying for a sticker. People have said to me: Will there be a reduced price for people who only want to use the trailways probably on a weekend or two or three days a week or a week or whatever? I know there will be, and there already is, so that is not the point. That is not the point.

I think the minister has to acknowledge that he does not have his homework done on this bill. He does not have his homework done. Naturally, it is going to be a good learning experience for him, but I do not think it should be at the cost of the people who are out there and who use the outdoors and they want to know where they stand on this matter. How do the people out there know with regard to fees?

Now, government says that the next time there is going to be a fee increase they are going to look at the recommendation put forward by the Federation of Snowmobilers and they are going to decide, as a government, whether or not there is going to be a fee increase.

We also know that ATVs are being used on that trailway. We also know that ATVs tear it up. We also know that logging tears it up. We know that there are a lot of uses being made on that trail, and a lot of people are not paying for it. Do we know who is going to take care of that upkeep and maintenance? How about users who are going to be coming in on ATVs in the summertime from out of Province? Are they going to have to pay anything to get on the trail? What is going to be the requirement after the snowmobile associations get approval to enact fees? Where do they stand insurance-wise? Will everybody have to have insurance?

What happens to the traditional user of the system? Can there be an exclusion? We asked. We had a meeting - not myself, but my other colleagues, the critic for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. There was a meeting and we asked if there could be an exclusion for the traditional user. We asked if there could be some guarantee so that you could go out and consult with people before you ever decide to go and develop regulations. What did we hear? No, we are not going to give you an amendment. No, we are not going to consult with people before we draft regulations. That is not an open and accountable government.

You have put people here in a quandary in this Province. You have people who are out there wanting the groomed trails. I do not know of anyone who is not wanting a groomed trail and who are willing to pay for it, providing it is done right. Yet, you have let the people down by not even going to consult with them to hear their views on what the problems might be and the remedies they would present to rectify those problems.

How about the people who are up in the woods to just set out a few rabbit snares or something, who do not even bother to go on the trail, are you still going to go ahead and ask them to use the sticker? These are the kinds of questions that you have not asked people. You have not consulted with people, and that is the problem with this bill. It is okay to talk about the potential, and we all agree with these things. We all agree with the winter potential, tourism potential, the benefit of groomed trails and how much it is going to do for the people of this Province and the users of the system. What we do not know are all of the things I just asked you. There are too many holes in this whole piece of legislation. You have not answered any questions. You have taken the people for granted. The woods is near and dear, it is passionate on the minds and hearts of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. You have taken it for granted and you have rushed through the House with closure. You are planning to ram this bill through. We can get up here and say what we wish but you are not going to pay any attention to it. So, to hell with whatever is being said here today, we are going to do exactly what we want, rush over the people and run through. That is exactly what you are doing.

I would say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, you had a good idea, you brought the bill here, if you had done your homework you would be able to stand up today and be happy with what you are doing. I suggest you delay this bill and go out and talk to the people, the users of the system and you will have a good bill that we can all be happy about and support.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise this afternoon and say a few words on Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

Before I do though, Madam Chair, before I talk about the bill, I have to say sitting here I find it a bit ironic listening to all the debate about closure and forcing it through. I have been here since 1999, and hon. members on this side know that they have used closure as well. It is not something that is unique to this bill. All governments have done it throughout this country. Whether we agree or not, it is a way that you do things in the Legislature. This government has done it on occasions when I have been pretty upset as well. I just want to clarify that because to invoke closure on a piece of legislation may limit debate, but every political party in the country has been using that to their advantage since time immemorial or since we have had parliaments, I guess.

Back to the bill, Madam Chair. When this legislation was introduced, I certainly voiced my concerns at the fact that this bill was being passed and introduced into the House of Assembly without any opportunity for the public to have any consultation or to have any input into what the final bill and the regulations would look like. Now, by the real hardened ski-dooers in this Province - and I do not mean hardened ski-dooers. I should rephrase that, Madam Chair. The hardened snowmobile club members have accused me, on occasion, of having sort of blown the whistle on this and letting the public know. As an avid skidoo person myself and a member of the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Labrador West, I say I make no apologies for that because I believe the best legislation that you can get anywhere is by having the maximum public input into the final draft.

Madam Chairperson, I would like to say that some of the concerns I have raised - and I have had a lot of discussions with the minister on this. The minister has given an undertaking to myself and others in the House, that there will be a comprehensive review during the winter in order to try and do things better for next year. I know some of the quandary that some snowmobile associations find themselves in in the Province, in terms of being able to meet budget commitments or to be able to do their job this year. Indeed, the White Wolf Snowmobile association, which I have been a long-term member of, is one of the clubs that finds themselves in such a position. I would say to you, and say to anyone who might listen, that anyone who has used groomed trails in this Province do not want to go back to a situation prior to the groomed trails coming into place, when it took you an hour to go relatively short distances and to be shaken up when you got there because of all the (inaudible), towing your sled, busting hitches, losing shocks and everything else that went with it. Groomed trails are an asset, Madam Chair, to this Province and to skidoo enthusiasts whoever they might be or whatever part of the Province they may be located in.

I had some concerns, Madam Chair, and I spoke to the minister about them. I will say again, I have concerns about the lack of public input into the drafting of this act and the regulations that will follow. I have had concerns about buffer zones around communities not being subject to the trails themselves. I have had some concerns about affixed stickers to machines, where if you have an old skidoo down by your cabin that you use just to get wood in the fall or spring of the year, and you do not use it for trail riding, even though you will have to use a small portion of the trail in order to do that, I don't think that should be subject to the same scrutiny as someone who decides to go out for a twenty, thirty, forty or fifty kilometre ride on the trail and not purchase a sticker to do that.

I am hoping also, Madam Chair, that the enforcement this year for people on the trails, that some of the situations and examples that were given by previous speakers about someone crossing a trail to get from point A to point B, or might have to go up fifty feet or five hundred feet to access another existing trail that is not groomed, but they happen to be caught at the time on that section of groomed trail, I certainly hope that the enforcement is not so narrow-minded that they would come down hard on people who find themselves in that position. I hope the enforcement is done in a sensible manner that would take into consideration things of that nature.

I also have concerns, Madam Chair, that I have outlined to the minister, about uniform rates in the Province. I know, right now, in my district, we have a membership rate of $125 a year, while other associations in this Province, I think, pay $80 and have an early bird draw for $60. I know we probably have more groomed trails available, but still if we are going to be governed by a piece of legislation then it shouldn't matter how much you have available to use, the price should be the same, like the motor registration vehicle. When we had nowhere to drive, only around the communities of Labrador City and Wabush, we still paid the same registration fee for our vehicle as someone who lived in an area where they could drive across the country. I think that we should not be required to pay more, because the slogan, a little more in Labrador, is all too often becoming not only a catchy phrase, Madam Chair, but a reality of what we pay for things in comparison to other areas.

I would also like at this time to commend the snowmobile club in my district, the White Wolf Club, and the employees they have, Madam Chair. They do a fantastic job of maintaining the trails in our area. As a matter of fact, a lot of the people who come into Labrador West area, some of the comments they make are that it is the best skidoo trails they have ever ridden on. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that the trails are wide, they are well kept, they are well groomed, and the employees, it is not a job for them. It is not a job that they have to do; it is a job they enjoy doing, and they give over and above what they are paid to, in order to make sure that the trails are maintained in the best possible way.

Madam Chair, I expressed to the minister, as I said earlier, a lot of concerns. I expressed concerns to people in my district. I made sure that the public and the people in my district were aware of what was happening with the legislation in the House, as it pertains to the motorized snow vehicles, and I am hopeful that a lot of the concerns that have been expressed to me and that I have been expressing to the minister in turn are things that can be considered this winter when a review takes place.

I will say to the minister that, when a review takes place that is conducted by government, then I would be only too willing, I say to the minister, to be a part of that process and have input into some of the things that I am interested in seeing in the regulations, that reflect the views of the people in my district who have brought this to my attention.

Again, Madam Chair, I will conclude my remarks on Bill 45. I am certainly hopeful that the review that will be conducted by the minister is one that will seek fairness to everyone and, at the same time, allow the snowmobile clubs in this Province to maintain their operations because it is a valuable asset to areas of our Province where groomed trails exist.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few brief words on this particular Bill 45 concerning motorized snow vehicles.

There are two particular areas I would like to address. One is the fact of where I stand or do not stand on Bill 45 itself; and, secondly, the issue of the closure.

First of all, I am diametrically, no question about it, opposed to Bill 45, and I say so for the following reasons: There has been very little forethought put into the drafting preparation of this bill; this bill, in and of itself, is discriminatory to other users; by virtue of this bill, traditional users will be abused; this is nothing less than the government giving a taxation tool to a non-governmental body; this is another step towards privatization of our outdoors; government is breaking its commitment regarding the Outdoor Bill of Rights; this piece of legislation is rushed; it is poorly thought out; it is incomplete; it is inconsiderate; it is discriminatory; and, it is not in the public interest. I think that sufficiently outlines my fourteen reasons why, very succinctly, I am opposed to this bill.

This is the first bill that this Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has introduced in the House and, with all due respect, Minister, it is my submission that you have fallen short on this bill. It is poorly thought out and poorly organized, and ought not to be here in this House at this time.

On the second issue, I would like to discuss the closure fact. It is certainly not a piece of legislation that should be rushed through by closure. As anyone who is watching on TV knows, closure is a procedure whereby the government invokes a rule - it is a legitimate rule that you can use - to shut down debate, which, in essence, makes somebody shut up no matter how logical or legitimate your concerns might be with a piece of government legislation. The government sort of says: Sorry, you have had enough time to talk about this. We are going to shut you up now. We will give you one last chance to speak, and then home you go.

This is totally oppressive, the use of this rule. In fact, this government, just for the record - I gave a report card back in the spring when we had the first session of this government, and one of the things that I commented on at that time was this open, new, accountable government, with the new approach, used closure in its very first session last spring, back-to-work legislation, took it and stripped unions in this Province, public sectors unions, of rights and benefits, and rammed it down the throats of the unions and this House, and used closure back in the spring.

Here we are now, in the second session of this new government, closure invoked again, a great track record so far in terms of openness and accountability. This is a non-democratic process. Somebody referred to it in the past as the hobnailed approach. I believe it was the current Minister of Transportation and Services, who said: Hobnailed boots. This is when the government puts the hobnailed boots to the process and tells you to sit down and shut up - just absolutely not proper.

It is a perfect example of whether you are right or whether you are wrong, or whether your arguments have any merit, we are going to do it anyway. Taboo and ‘follyhoo' to you, we are going to do it anyway, no matter what you might think of it. This smacks of arrogance, the fact that a government would use this type of tool. It is absolutely inconsiderate behaviour.

I guess you can sense my frustration, my disappointment, and my absolute disgust that I find myself in the situation today of not being able to address properly this important piece of legislation. This government, by the way, had no mandate whatsoever, zero mandate, to deal with the two issues that we have seen before this House today, which is being shoved down the throats of the people in this Province. They had no mandate concerning the Sunday liquor law. That popped out of the dark here on Monday night, and they certainly had no discussions with anybody out there, as far as I know about, when it comes to this piece of legislation here. So, let's not say they had a mandate to govern when it comes to these two issues, because these popped out of the closet.

Their mandate, by the way, for this session was going to be openness and accountability. They had a big meeting and ballyhoo press conferences and announcements before the session started back in early November, saying: This is going to be the session of openness and accountability. That is our mantra that we are going with.

Well, it is great to start off a session with that, and what do you close it off with? You close it off with the big hammer. You know we are open, you know we are accountable, you know we are transparent, and now that we have told you we are all of those things, we are going to send you home, use this tool, shut up, sit down and get out of here. That is how open and transparent we are. There is something hypocritical in that type of behaviour. There is absolutely nothing open, there is absolutely nothing transparent, about what has transpired here today. There is nothing forthright about it. There is nothing equitable, nothing just and nothing fair about what we are seeing happen here today. There has been no consultation, none whatsoever, when it comes to the liquor piece, and none we see here as far as the traditional users' consideration in this Province when it comes to this snowmobile piece here today.

I guess this new government with a new approach, in twelve short months, is indeed showing its attitude, its arrogance, and its dictatorial approach to the people of this Province. The ramming of this Bill 45, I say, down the throats of our citizens, is clear evidence of this. Clear evidence. The people - not only will they not be fooled, because the people are observant and the people are wise. Nobody over there is fooling the people of this Province by using this type of approach; and, more importantly, the people of this Province will not forget what you have done, because they will not be allowed to forget that in two sessions, your spring and now in the fall, you have closed down both sessions by using closure and driving home the elected representatives of this Province. I say to the government on both of these events today: Shame on you!

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand again today, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to start off by saying this: I want to thank all hon. members for the last couple of weeks of their involvement in this debate and I want to thank people around the Province through e-mails, phone calls, discussions with members, which is what they were supposed to do, and the feedback that we received.

Mr. Chairman, all of that is the learning process, I say to some hon. members opposite who talked about that today. The learning process means improving as you go, in a lot of cases. In this particular case, I am very confident that this piece of legislation is the right thing to do. The more comments I have heard - and I have learned from comments, I can say to my hon. Member for Labrador West who made some very good suggestions, constructive criticism, which, Mr. Chairman, I understand. I have spent some time in the Opposition. I also understand, as the member said, about closure. It is nothing new in this House, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is, that thirty-four pieces of legislation have been passed in this session and we are at a time of year where the House is about to close.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell all hon. members, and anybody who is watching today, that closure is nothing new but in this particular case it is the right thing to do because, simply put - we will roll back the clock just one year, because one year ago, in my office as new Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I had a lot of phone calls - a lot more, I say to the hon. members, than I have had in this session - from people around this Province, e-mails, phone calls, continuous, Mr. Chairman, because there was a crisis situation when it comes to the snowmobile industry in this Province. That is the fact of the matter. There is nothing new. People talked about debate and consultation. This debate and discussion has been going on for a long time. The fact of the matter - it is right here in my hand - in 1996, by this previous Administration, consultation on the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Tourism and Recreation Strategy. I commend the former government for bringing that forward.

Mr. Chairman, for anybody who has read it they would see that back in 1996 people had a vision, that the snowmobiling industry in this Province had somewhere to go. The fact of the matter is that we know now, and we have always known, that we could and should and will have the best snowmobiling industry in the world, and we could talk about Labrador in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I know what the potential is. As the Member for Humber Valley talked about today, she saw it firsthand last year too when she attended those meetings, when the people from the public came in, had their view, discussed it back and forth. There has been lots of public debate in all kinds of ways, Mr. Chairman. But I knew last year, I made the commitment last year, and I did it publicly every chance I got, that I would pursue mandatory permits because I knew - especially after reading this report, especially after seeing what happened last year in Central Newfoundland with the rendevous, the participation and involvement of people throughout this Province.

I want to say this today, and I talked to the hon. Opposition House Leader across the way, Mr. Chairman. The people in this Province that we did not speak too much about in this bill - I know we brought up concerns, had some constructive ones which we will talk about in a few minutes. There are over 1,000 volunteers in this Province from Labrador West to the tip of the Avalon Peninsula, thousands, who have taken years, since 1996 especially, 1997, who have put countless hours and time - and I want to salute them today, Mr. Chairman. They are in my district and they are in all of your districts. People who gave their volunteer time for an interest that they saw, because they saw a vision of a snowmobiling industry in this Province.

The Member for Labrador West makes a good point. He said you talk to the people who have used those trails and think that they would go next year and not have it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is where we are at today. We took a full year to look this over, mandatory. We have discussed it, we have reviewed it across the country. Mr. Chairman, what I want to make sure that everybody understands, there is an exemption clause in this piece of legislation. As we looked across the country, so did they do that. The act has to be brought in for a mandatory permit but at the same time that exemption clause is there so we can grow as an industry. It allows all the concerns that were brought up through regulations, some real good suggestions, Mr. Chair, to evolve as this goes.

It will be the people who have taken this over, the volunteers across this Province, the over 1,000 volunteers that make up both snowmobile federations, who will now have the opportunity - as you buy your permit, you can have your say about family rates, you can have your say about what I agreed with the member, uniform rates across the Province. Those are the things that will evolve with this industry. That is why people in Ontario and New Brunswick, who do not have near what we have here, have been ahead of us when it comes to that, Mr. Chairman. They have done exemptions. I can tell the members opposite, right here, Ontario exemptions and amendments: 1990, 1997, 2000, 2002. In New Brunswick since 1985, amendments in 1985, 1990, 1997 and it goes on, Mr. Chairman, just like I have explained over and over in this House and with the media, that regulations will change. They will improve. They will get better and they are going to get better by people being involved and co-operating in this. That is what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute those 1,000 volunteers in this Province over the last six or seven years who through their support -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Through the support, Mr. Chairman, of the previous Administration who began a vision but did not finish it, because the fact of the matter is this, we built a $21 million infrastructure in this Province. We gave the volunteers the enthusiasm and the encouragement and we aided and abetted in the whole development of this industry. But, what we did not do, like was done so often by the previous Administration, let's build it and we will decide how we are going to take care of it after. Well, Mr. Chairman, it does not work because it takes $1.2 million to make sure that these groomers are on the trails, that there is insurance and there is gas to go in them. That is the bottom line.

What did we have as a choice as government, Mr. Chairman? We weighed the options. We said: Do we let this industry collapse, let the $21 million go down the drain? Do we let all the work that these volunteer people did go down the drain or do we make a choice? We had to make a choice, Mr. Chairman, and our choice was that people who use groomed trails pay for it. That was our choice. We think it was the best one. Is it right for us to come to senior citizens here in St. John's, Corner Brook or Labrador and say you should pay for the groomed trails? No, Mr. Chairman, but the fact of the matter is we made a choice that people who use groomed trails should pay for them. I think that is the balance that we could come up with.

The reason I stated earlier about the exemption clause, Mr. Chairman, is this. Now we will have a chance, as people buy their permits across this Province, you become a member. Last year, Mr. Chairman, almost 9,000 people volunteered to say yes, I will pay for my permit. Senior citizens, children in the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans' district last year - I was at Rendevous last year. I think 700 or 800 snowmobilers from all across the Province, all ages, all classes of the Province, came to Rendevous in Grand Falls, and the year before to Baie Verte to a small community. Do you know where we ended up? In Middle Arm. You should see the looks of the people of Middle Arm, in small rural Newfoundland, when they saw 700 snowmobiles come into their community. They were excited, and that is going to continue to grow in this Province.

I will end by saying this, Mr. Chairman. We have made the right choice. We finished what you started and we have done it right. We know this has to be paid for and we know that this is the right way to go. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, I have to say this today, that the exemption clause is there for a reason because I have listened also to the people in the Province who talked about their cabin lots, wood cutting and so on. That is why we are going to continue to review - I will commit today and commit it to members opposite, we are going to continue that review. It is not finished. Hopefully, it will be finished this spring - to look at those exemptions, give them a fair hearing and see how we can grow this entire industry. We will do it right for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call the question.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: "Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in Legislative Convened as follows:"

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

Shall I report Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 45 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 45 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill order read a third time, presently by leave.

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

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

I believe it is motion 2 on the Order Paper - you can double check - pursuant to Standing Order 47 related to third reading of Bill 45, standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I do now move third reading under the closure motion, under Standing Order 47.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader moves that motion 2 standing on the Order Paper relative to Standing Order 47 with relationship to Bill 45.

All those in favour of the motion say, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

MR. E. BYRNE: The bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are voting only on the motion now, not on the bill.

Third reading, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do now move third reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 45, An Act To Amend Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the whips ready for the question?

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Manning, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr Sweeney.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-eight ayes and eight nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snowmobile And All Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snowmobile And All Terrain Vehicles Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45)

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

The Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present pleased be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour bills for the appropriation of Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 51)

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 and For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No.2."

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: (Edward Roberts, Q.C.): Mr. Speaker, in the name of her Majesty, I thank her loyal subjects and I accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, may it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine." (Bill 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act." (Bill 42)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." (Bill 50)

A bill, "An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace." (Bill 49)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act." (Bill 47)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 38)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board." (Bill 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 52)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 56)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." (Bill 65)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security." (Bill 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 63)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2." (Bill 60)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." (Bill 59)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 66)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 62)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act." (Bill 68)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency." (Bill 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act." (Bill 53)

A bill, "An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People of the Province." (Bill 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act." (Bill 64)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For the Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act." (Bill 45)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: Mr. Speaker, I assent to these bills in the name of Her Majesty.

Before I leave, I gather the House is to adjourn, perhaps very shortly. I certainly shan't keep you but I cannot help but note that this is December 16. I have recollections of being here, I think, it was either Christmas Eve or the day before. The hon. the Minister of Finance has recollections and perhaps some other members do. All I can say is, obviously, either the House Leader has become more benevolent than in those days or the Officers are more accommodating. Whatever the case, I wish you all a very merry Christmas, you and your families the very best of the season, and all the best for 2005.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know it is tradition for some members to bring best wishes for the season, but, before we get to that, I do have one piece of business left to do, and it is to move the Committee membership for review of our Standing Orders. The membership of the Committee will be: the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, in his capacity as the Opposition House Leader; the hon. Member for Bonavista South, in his capacity as the Deputy Speaker; the hon. Member for Humber Valley; the hon. Member for Gander; the hon. Member for Port de Grave; the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and myself, in my capacity as the Government House Leader. I believe it will be all done under the stewardship and chairmanship of yourself, the Speaker.

I guess the point of this Committee is to conduct a review between now and the commencement of the spring sitting of the House, to have that review and report ready to table in the House with a view of looking at all of our Standing Orders from A to Z, sitting times, parliamentary rules, et cetera. We look forward to the work that Committee will do and look forward to the report that they will bring forward.

Under section 65.(f), Mr. Speaker, I do now move that standing committee.

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

MR. PARSONS: Consent, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are members ready for the question on the resolution?

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be as brief as I can. I know all members want to get home, back to their districts, back to their families, at this time. It is actually such a nice time of the year when we are all in a good mood, and all the debate and all the banter is over and we put all that behind us and we get ready for the festive season. I, of course, join with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in wishing the complements of the season to all hon. members.

I am not going to go through a complete year in review, but over the course of the past year it has been a tumultuous year in some respects in this House. We had a difficult spring, for all us, I think, but we managed to get through it. We did what was in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we made decisions, we hope, for the right reasons. We do not pretend to be perfect on this side of the House under any circumstances, but we judge them with our hearts and our minds to the best of our ability and we move forward.

I commend the House Leader and all members of the House, both House Leaders, and members of the New Democratic Party, for what we have accomplished over the course of the last year, with over some sixty pieces of legislation in total, thirty-four this session. That is a lot of legislation. That is a lot of hard work, and it is a credit to all members involved. I thank all members for the debate, and we welcome the debate in this House. That is really what it is all about. It gives us an opportunity to flesh out the issues, to look closely at the legislation that is being brought forward on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and at times to achieve amendments.

As I indicated when I was on my feet, it is healthy to have amendments to legislation in this House because nobody is perfect. That is what the process is all about, to try and get the best legislation, model legislation, that we can put together for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and something that we can work within. As government, at any time, I think, we are certainly prepared to look back at legislation, to revisit legislation, and if we can find a way to do it better and to make it more efficient and for the benefit of the people of our Province, then we are certainly prepared to do so.

I want to thank all members. We have had four weeks but we have done thirty-four pieces in four weeks. That is a lot of hard work and that is a lot of stress and a lot of strain on everybody, but we have it done. It is December 16. It is over a week before Christmas, so we are in a position to be able, some of us, to get home to our families. Others have work to do, of course, and we will find that time when we need the chance just to put up our feet and relax.

The Accord is an issue for everybody, and I think it would only be appropriate, everybody is hoping that we can bring the Accord home for Christmas, no one more than myself, and all Members of this House of Assembly. We are doing our very best to achieve that. We are

experiencing delays in the discussions. They have now been sort of put out for a few more days. The deadline is still, basically - if there is going to be a deadline - that this is to be decided upon before Christmas. I want the members of this House to know, though, that we are not bending on our principles. We are only going to accept an agreement and an arrangement that is in the best interests of the people of our Province. That is where we stand on this one, and I know we stand together in that common goal.

We are hoping to have meetings in the very near future. It was actually my hope, over the course of the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours, to have a meeting with officials of the federal government. That is not happening, but somewhere beyond that there will be a meeting set in the very, very, near future. We are still working towards that deadline and, as I have said to you, Christmas is our goal. I hope that we do have - I do not want to call it a present because it is something that we deserve, it is something that we are entitled to, but I hope that it can be delivered to the people of the Province before that time. If not, if it is not something that we can accept, then we will stand our ground, we will stand up for what we believe in, and we will simply say no. I want you to know that is ongoing. That is the latest that we can give you as an update on the progression there.

With regard to the legislation that has gone through the House, I would have to say the corner piece of our own legislation, our own legislative agenda, was the Transparency and Accountability Act. We are hoping to be more open, more transparent, more accountable. Sure, we have other things we have to do, and we will continue to do them. As we evolve as a government, as we become even more experienced in government, we will continue to bring in better legislation in order to accomplish those goals.

From my own personal perspective, as Premier of the Province - and I take no credit for this - it was quite an honour for me to be the person who was in the right place at the right time when the LIA Land Agreement was basically put before this House and the legislation was passed. I will be quite honoured in the new year to attend, in Labrador, for the signing of that agreement. Again, I pay tribute to all Premiers who have come before us. This goes back nearly thirty years when this process was ongoing. To all Premiers who played an even greater role than I did and, of course, as well to the minister who has certainly facilitated this, my compliments to you, Minister, for having brought it forward. It was a tremendous accomplishment. It was historic. It was nice to be a part of it. Again, as I said, as a government we take no credit for having delivered that. We are just part of a team that has done it.

I do want to thank all members of the Opposition. I want to, as well, thank the members of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, to you, it was a difficult year. As well, we were rookies, a lot of us on this side. I am certainly a rookie Premier. I have never been here before, but as a Speaker you had difficult times to conduct us through. You managed us through them well. You had to use your good judgement at times, and fortunately there were no instances of any significance in the House. We got through a period which was difficult for our public sector workers during that period. You have managed the debate in the House very well, and I thank you. I thank the Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chair of the Committees for the way that the House has been conducted. As well, I would like to thank the Clerks and the staff for the manner in which it has been conducted throughout the year.

As well, the unsung heroes, the people behind the scenes, the people who work for us in Hansard and provide the recorded transcripts during the course of the year, they are never seen but their job is not easy. Some of us speak very fast. Some of us can be difficult to understand at times. When we get angry, we can even be more difficult to understand, but they manage to transcribe it very well.

As well, we are live on television. Of course, that is a great service that we provide to the people of the Province. They get a chance to see us in action, some of the good, some of the bad, some of the ugly; but, by the same token, that is the process. That is the way it is in all democratic Legislatures throughout the world, and they have a chance to see it first-hand. The people who produce the broadcast and deliver that for us, I thank them as well.

I also thank the media representatives who attend here during the sessions and record. They get our messages out. They record very accurately what happens. They are very fair. There is no indication of any partisanship whatsoever. That is an invaluable service that is provided to us, and I certainly thank the members of the media for that.

As well, I want to thank the Pages of the House for the service they provide us. One of them, I believe, is not here today. I certainly want to wish you the compliments of the season and a very happy New Year.

Overall, if I can, just to wish everybody all the very best. It is a time to spend with your families. Enjoy it. It is a tough job we do. As politicians, some people may think we have an easy role to perform here; it certainly isn't. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for all government members, it is a difficult job. We have the weight of the world on our shoulders. We have a tremendous responsibility to act in the best interests to the people of our Province, and we do it to the best of our ability.

So, enjoy yourselves each and every one of you, and thank you very much for your co-operation. Thank you very much for the debate that has occurred in this House, and I certainly wish you all the best.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you this, in the spirit of full co-operation, I say again to the Premier, on behalf of everybody in our caucus, whatever it takes in anything you think we can do to help in terms of bringing to a final and successful conclusion your discussions with respect to the Accord, let us know. Drive it home. Anything we can do to encourage the Prime Minister to live to his clear commitment, that is what has to be done and we commend you fully for continuing the efforts.

In the spirit of Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: Some of the earlier things that the Premier said, we would debate as to whether or not some of decisions were taken in the best interests of the people of the Province, but I will not engage in debate. I have had lots of opportunities to do that in the last four weeks here in the Legislature, except for today, of course, but we made those speeches earlier on as well.

In any event, I think the Premier very adequately and appropriately thanked all the people who help us do our jobs in this Legislature, in the Chamber and outside, Mr. Speaker, and I would concur with him, on our behalf, that you would, too, thank all those people who provide the support to the forty-eight members so that we can do our jobs in this democratic Legislature.

For me, personally, I hope that everybody in this Legislature, the staff and the forty-eight members in particular, has an opportunity to enjoy to the fullest with their families, friends and loved ones the Christmas season and the holiday season that we are about to enter into and the very best wishes for the next year.

On a personal note, I would suggest and concur again with the Premier, a large measure of the ability of this House to get its work done under whatever circumstances, in my view, goes to the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader in terms of how they have managed to conduct this business (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Compliments of the season, Mr. Speaker, to everyone, and we look forward to seeing you in the new year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we, too, would like to wish a very Merry Christmas to you, to your staff, to the Pages, to the people in Hansard, the Broadcast booth and indeed, people throughout the Province. We hope that they have a very safe and enjoyable holiday season. We hope that all members here have a safe journey home in their travels. We certainly have a lot to be thankful for in this Province and I would say again, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone. It has been a pleasure to be a Member of this House of Assembly. Even though at times we may not always agree, we do have the civility, I guess, and the knowledge of knowing that we can disagree, where in a lot of countries that may very well be a death sentence to do that. At least we have the democracy in this country which allows us to disagree and voice our opinions in a democratic and free way.

I would also like to point out and say to the people of the Province, even though a lot of us feel fortunate and look forward to the festive season, there are a lot of people in our Province today not as fortunate and I ask all members and people of the Province to lend a hand to someone who may not be as fortunate as we are.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government House Leader for the session that we have had here, from a co-operative point of view. It has not been without ripples. There have been some times when we have had some things happen that we had to iron out as we went along but that is what co-operation and effort together, we have managed to work through it.

There has been an awful lot of work put through here in four weeks. We have had a few late nights and we have had a lot of controversial legislation that not everybody in this place happens to agree with each other on, but notwithstanding our differences and sometimes very ruckus opinions that have gone back and forth, we have been very successful. There has not been any obstructionist type of activities. There has been good, solid debate and, at the end of the day, we have, I think, succeeded in achieving some very substantial progress when it comes to legislation. There are some ripples, no doubt, and maybe the preparation of the legislation could be a bit more prompt to allow all members an opportunity to review it in a more timely fashion and so on, but as the Premier alluded to, there are learning curves for everybody here but as long as we get it right and get it done, I think that is fair comment. We will certainly progress.

So, with that note, I would like to personally thank the Government House Leader for the co-operation that he has extended. He has always kept me informed at all times. He has been very open and transparent about how we dealt with each other, and I appreciate that. I think it made the House work that much more efficiently.

So, with that note, to Your Honour and all the members and staff and everyone here, I wish you and your families a Merry Christmas and all the best in the New Year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am just going to take a very quick moment to echo exactly what the Premier said, to thank everybody associated with the House. He has named them all, from the Clerks at the Table to the Pages to the Commissioners and everybody else. He did say to me, though, make sure - because he wanted to do it and it slipped his mind - that we pay special attention to our Sergeant-at-Arms who keeps us on the straight and narrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House at the Call of the Chair, I am reminded of former Government House Leader Lush who - first of all, I should certainly acknowledge, I appreciate the comments by the Opposition House Leader. We meet everyday. Most people do not see that and we spend a lot of time together in the run of a day, sometimes behind your Chair and sometimes upstairs but we do, in trying to navigate the parliamentary process. So, I do want to wish all members a very Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year. But, in particular, to just acknowledge my colleague from across the House.

As I was going to say, I am reminded of former Speaker Lush when I asked him one time what his biggest regret, after twenty-odd years in politics, really was. He answered me, as dry as a bone, he said: Well, Ed, it was Hansard. I am reminded of that for one reason, because on a couple of occasions during the last couple of weeks, members opposite took out some words of mine and reminded me of some things that I said. But, in the spirit of that, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to play a role.

With that, I do now move that the House adjourn to the Call of the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House adjourn to the Call of the Chair.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

This House now stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the Call of the Chair.