MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon the Speaker would like to make several rulings. The Speaker wishes to rule on a point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday, April 21, relative to comments made by the Premier in the House of Assembly on Wednesday, April 20. At that time, the Premier was commenting on security arrangements in and around the Confederation Building Complex.

To constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, there must be some improper obstruction to a member in the performance of his or her parliamentary work. Maingot, Second Edition, page 14, states, "To constitute ‘privilege' generally there must be some improper obstruction to the Member in performing his parliamentary work in either a direct or constructive way, as opposed to mere expression of public opinion or of criticisms of the activities of the Members...".

Again, to quote Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, in the Canadian House of Commons in 1971, he said, "...parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons..." - Debates.

The Speaker rules that the Leader of the Opposition did not establish a prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege. While the Leader of the Opposition may disagree with the comments of the Premier, there is nothing in the records of Hansard on this issue that obstructs the Leader of the Opposition in the performance of his parliamentary work, including his right to free speech.

The Speaker also wishes to rule on a point of order raised on Wednesday afternoon, May 11, by the Leader of the Opposition relative to his disagreement with comments made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture during Question Period.

The point of order was raised on a timely basis; however, points of order must deal with matters concerning breaches of Standing Orders, a breach of the rules of relevance or repetition, unparliamentary language, lack of a quorum, or some other matter relating to the interpretation of the rules of procedure. In this instance there was disagreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and disagreement is a matter of debate rather than interpretation of the procedure rules. The Chair rules there is no point of order.

Before the Chair proceeds to another decision, he would like to comment on a ruling made yesterday on a point of order raised by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The member rose on a point of order and the Speaker ruled there was no point of order. The member then stood on a point of privilege on the same matter and the Chair ruled that the matter raised was a disagreement between two hon. members and did not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

For the general guidance of all members, the Chair would like to further clarify that, when a ruling is made on a point of order, members should not raise the same matter as a point of privilege, and vice versa. To quote Marleau and Montpetit, page 543, it states it this way, "A Member may not rise on a point of order to discuss a matter which the Speaker has already ruled was not a question of privilege or to raise a matter as a question of privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order."

I just mention that for members' clarification, and no reflection at all on the comments made yesterday, or decisions of yesterday at all, but so that members could have that commentary for their general reference.

The Speaker wishes to rule on a point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, May 4, with regard to a decision of the Deputy Speaker on Tuesday, May 3.

It has been the tradition and practice of all Parliaments under the Westminister model that the Deputy Speaker, or the Deputy Chair of Committees, when in the Chair, have all the powers and duties ascribed to the office of Speaker. Marleau and Montpetit, page 298, states, "Every action of the Deputy Speaker, when acting in the Speaker's place, has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted...".

Standing Order 7.(1) of our Standing Orders clearly states, "The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order...." No debate shall be permitted on any decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.

Again, Marleau and Montpetit, page 523, "Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers.... Only by means of a substantive motion for which... notice has been given, may the actions of the Chair be challenged, criticized and debated. Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker or other presiding officers have been ruled to be breaches of privilege."

Thus, the Speaker rules that the matters raised on Wednesday, May 4, relative to decisions taken by the Deputy Speaker on Tuesday, May 3, 2005, stand in their own right, and the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition does not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has members' statements as follows: a statement by the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; a statement by the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; a statement by the Member for St. John's West; a statement by the Member for the District of Grand Bank; a statement by the Member for the District of Topsail, and a statement by the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Froude Avenue Community Centre's twenty years of community achievement and development. Last week, the Centre's staff, volunteers, community residents and invited guests celebrated this milestone with a community breakfast.

The Froude Avenue Community Centre was founded on the fundamental belief and community spirit and a positive social environment, and it currently serves a population of approximately 450 adults and children. The Centre's mandate is to meet the needs of the community through the provision of recreational, health, educational, social and vocational programs.

With the help of tremendous community involvement and support, the Centre is able to provide a wide variety of community-based programs and services to individuals and families of the neighbourhood. Among these programs and services are breakfast, summer, play group and after-school homework programs for the children, as well as a neighbourhood enhancement association, community clean-up, and recreational gym nights, just to name a few.

The Froude Avenue Community Centre provides an invaluable service to the residents of the community, and I ask all members to join me in recognizing and commending the Centre on an amazing twenty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Boyd Cohen of Grand Falls-Windsor, who will be inducted this evening into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame, an award established by Junior Achievement to honour individuals who have contributed significantly to the growth and development of business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Boyd Cohen fits the profile of this award to a tee. In 1953 he built his first furniture store in the former Town of Windsor, and this was soon followed by an even bigger store in 1956, as well as expansion into Gander, Springdale, Baie Verte and Clarenville. Before long, the Cohen's name was established as a leader in carpet and home furnishings industry, in fact, Mr, Cohen was the first furniture dealer in the Province to offer a no interest sale. When he decided to sell the business in 1985, he owned thirteen furniture stores province-wide, and another three preparing to open. He remained as managing director until his retirement in 1994, and since then he has continued to be active in numerous other businesses around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, despite the success of his business, Mr. Cohen has kept his roots in the community that gave him a start, and his compassion and generosity is well known and appreciated by all who know him. Boyd Cohen is an outstanding citizen and he remains active in various community initiatives to this day.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. Boyd Cohen on being recognized for his many years of dedicated service to the citizens of Grand Falls-Windsor and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I wish him continued success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate three youth in my district who recently were among the recipients of the first annual Premier's Athletic Awards.

Mr. Speaker, these include: Victoria Thistle, who was selected for hockey; Kendrick Au for tennis; and Julie Woolridge for soccer.

I had the pleasure of attending the awards ceremony, Mr. Speaker, and was delighted that Victoria, Kendrick and Julie were selected from such a large and competitive field of athletes.

I know, firsthand, that these particular athletes and their families have worked very hard over the years and have dedicated a great deal of time, energy and resources to their respective sports. I also know that they are all very deserving of such prestigious recognition for their athletic accomplishments. It was equally pleasing to learn that they each received $500 grants to help offset the costs associated with their training.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of these individuals and proud of this new awards program that recognizes our athletes. I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Victoria Thistle, Kendrick Au and Julie Woolridge on this wonderful achievement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I extend congratulations to three students from my district who have been recognized for their educational achievements.

Three students from St. Lawrence have been awarded millennium bursaries from the Millennium Scholarship Foundation for the 2004-2005 academic year.

Khyla Murphy received a scholarship valued at $3,000. She is currently completing her fourth year of an Animal Science Degree at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Truro, Nova Scotia. She is the daughter of Grace Kearney.

Ryan Slaney received a Millennium Scholarship valued at $2,000. He is a second year arts major at Memorial University. Ryan plans to enter the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. His is the son of Howard and Elizabeth Slaney.

Alaina Slaney, is in her third year at Memorial University and plans to pursue a career in teaching. She also received a scholarship valued at $2,000. Her parents are Adrian and Aggie Slaney.

Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of these three students speaks well of the education they received while students in St. Lawrence. Obviously their education prepared them well for post-secondary studies and the fact that they are doing so well in those studies bodes well for their future. These Millennium scholarships help ease the financial burdens of students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador who incur additional expense when studying away from home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Khyla, Ryan and Alaina and wishing them continued success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am very pleased to stand in this House to recognize an individual from my district who recently received an award for his outstanding contribution to his community, Mr. George Hutchings of Conception Bay South.

George joined the CBS Lions Club in 1972 and has been an active member ever since. As a member of the Lions Club he has helped accomplish many things for his community. He served as President in 1976-1977 and received the President's 100% award. As a Lion for thirty-three years, he has served on too many committees to mention.

George was chosen Lion of the year in 1974 and again in 1989. That same year he was presented the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award, the highest award from Loins International. In June, 1998, he was presented with Life Membership in Lions International.

In 1973 George was instrumental in setting up the Conception Bay South Volunteer Fire Department and served as Assistant Fire Chief for a period of nine years and is now honourary life member. He is now on call for cancer patients who are in need of transportation to the cancer clinic in St. John's for treatment.

In 2001, the Year of the Volunteer, George received the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal for the electoral District of Topsail.

Because of his strong will and passion to help his fellow man, and no doubt with the support of his wonderful wife, Nora - who, by the way, came second in her age group in the Tely 10 last summer - George was recently named Citizen of the Year for the Town of Conception Bay South for 2004.

I ask all members of the House to join me today in congratulating George and Nora Hutchings from my district for their outstanding contribution to their community.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour many of Bay Roberts most distinguished citizens who were recently honoured by the town. On April 21 the awards were passed out at the Christopher Pratt gallery.

This year's Citizen of the Year was Mr. Eric Mercer of Bay Roberts. He was nominated by the Royal Canadian Legion for his volunteer work for the Legion and the Canadian Cancer Society. Mr. Mercer was a member of the organizing committee for the Relay for Life, which was held for the first time last year, raising $30,000 for cancer research. He is also a member of the Bay Roberts 50+ Club, a member of the St. Matthews Church Vestry and also a member of the Orange Lodge.

The famous son or daughter award was awarded posthumously to Rachel Francis. She is the only known Bay Roberts native to be awarded the Order of the British Empire, presented to her by King George VI.

Curler, Andrew Mercer, was selected male athlete of the year. He was a member of the provincial junior men's curling team for the second consecutive year, and was awarded the Joan Mead Legacy Award sponsored by CBC for volunteerism and academic standing.

Samantha March was the female athlete of the year. She participated in basketball, hockey and volleyball for her school. One of the many highlights of her athletic year included receiving gold and silver medals with the Bay Roberts Sea Lion's swim team at the provincial meet, and she was also a member of the gold-medal winning softball team at the Newfoundland and Labrador Games.

Mrs. Agnes Butler was selected as the recipient of the Community Service Award. Over the years she has been very active in the community, involved with the Minor Hockey-Moms, the Director of the Board of Management for the Minor Hockey Association for ten years.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Conception Bay North Lion's Senior B Softball Team were presented with the Sports Heritage Award for capturing the area's first ever provincial men's title at Stephenville in 1954.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House to join with me to recognize the tremendous work of those people over the years.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon. members about the success of a rising local high tech company, Cathexis Innovations Inc of St. John's.

Cathexis Innovations recently formed a strategic partnership with Sapago of Florida, which will allow retail shoppers to research products and read product reviews as they shop.

Cathexis provides Radio Frequency Identification pen readers that will be used in conjunction with Sapago's handheld computer personal shopper systems.

Customers will be able to scan Radio Frequency Identification tags on items, and information on the product will be displayed on the handheld devise.

The company's Radio Frequency Identification readers are being used in other applications as well. In New Hampshire, visitors to an art gallery use the pens together with handheld computers to learn more about the works of art on the walls of the gallery.

Cathexis President, Mr. Steve Taylor, recently addressed the National Association of Fleet Administrators at the 2005 Fleet Management Institute and Law Enforcement Conference in the United States on the uses of his technology in fleet management.

Cathexis Innovations is a client of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. We provided the company with $50,000 in seed equity to assist in marketing the company's wireless technologies for real-time tracking of assets and seamless integration with existing IT systems. My department has also provided business counselling service to the company.

Since March, 2001, when the company was formed, sales have grown 1,700 per cent. The company now employees sixteen people. This is yet another example of the tremendous amount of talent and creativity we possess in Newfoundland and Labrador, and is a further illustration of how we can successfully compete in the global marketplace.

I congratulate Cathexis Innovations on this achievement and we wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of her statement today and agree, actually, with her assessment of the importance of Cathexis Innovations and how important it is to support companies like Cathexis.

I recall, as Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, in fact, working with this particular company and helping to support them. It just goes to show what can be accomplished in Newfoundland and Labrador if the support is there for companies like Cathexis to grow and expand.

I would love to see companies like Cathexis look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador too, Mr. Speaker, given that we now have access to high-speed technology. Again, it speaks to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our people, and I congratulate those involved with Cathexis on this tremendous success.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that Cathexis is doing very well and has a strategic partnership with a company that will help to develop their product and see it marketed.

These are three or four young engineering graduates with a great idea that they decided - they were bold enough and adventurous enough - to try to market. It seems to me that their product of inventory labelling looks like it could be a real success story. I think the fact that the government has been able to assist in this project is a very good thing. I hope that we do see some success coming out of labour-sponsored venture capital fund that this government brought into the House last year that will also provide opportunities for new ideas like this to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of good ideas, a lot of smart ideas, coming from very bright people in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they do need assistance to get their projects going, and anything that government can do to assist that process is greatly appreciated.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform hon. members about a recent meeting senior officials with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs had in Ottawa regarding the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. Our government is committed to strong policies that will result in a better future for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and this infrastructure program is an extension of that commitment.

I am very pleased to report that this second important negotiating session on this infrastructure program was very successful. Officials from my department were able to secure a draft agreement that all parties can work with and aim to finalize in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, this meeting was also an excellent opportunity for the Province to express some concerns we have in implementing this program. We have significant concerns about whether this program can be delivered to small municipalities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador due to the high environmental and health standards that are required. A major obstacle is the definition of rural. This program is meant to fund infrastructure for populations under 250,000 people. That is what Ottawa considers rural; however, in this Province that would be considered urban as that figure is comparable to the population of the Northeast Avalon.

For this reason, we committed to work with our federal counterparts to see if we can find alternative ways of addressing some of the unique needs of our small municipalities where conventional infrastructure may be difficult. Every town cannot afford a lined landfill nor a sewage treatment plant, and yet changing environmental standards require we become better stewards of our environment. At this meeting, we agreed that we will work with Infrastructure Canada and Environment Canada to assess the impact of some of our practices on the environment and to try to find new and innovative ways of achieving new technologies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the federal government clearly articulate the objectives and limitations on the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund to municipalities of this Province. My officials had confirmation that the Minister of Infrastructure Canada, the hon. John Godfrey, will be in the Province in June for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. I will be seeking a meeting with him at that time to further discuss the requirements of this program as well as the gas tax initiative. I will also ask the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities to attend so that they can provide up-to-date and accurate information to their members.

It is very important that we start to finalize this agreement as soon as possible. We want to have an agreement in place by mid-fall so that we can get projects approved and ready to construct in 2006. In order to do that, we will need to have accelerated discussions. Based on this meeting, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we can achieve this goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, but I have to say that it is a statement with so very little substance in it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, all it is, it is another example of this government trying to convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they truly are concerned about rural Newfoundland, when we know differently and the people of the Province know differently.

In fact, it is the same government who put in place a multi-year capital funding program that only certain communities can access, because there are small communities who cannot afford to participate in it, and still they look at the federal government and suggest that the federal government do not know how to deal with rural communities.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, would be that, in any meeting that the government would have with Minister Godfrey, if they were going to give a definition of rural Newfoundland, which they say is a problem with this program, then I surely hope that the definition does not come from the members opposite.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his optimism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: He has a great deal of optimism in the face of a heckuva lot of negatives.

He talks about what a successful meeting he had, and then he goes on to say what was wrong with it: that the federal government does not understand our situation, that they think that rural is less than 250,000, and they do not understand our unique needs. He is also optimistic in expecting that Mr. Godfrey is going to be here in June and he is going to solve all the problems.

We all know that the chance of Mr. Godfrey being here in June at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference is very, very slim. We are likely to be in the middle of an election. Nevertheless, the minister seems to be very confident that everything is going to go his way without -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: And leave has been denied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

Government talks about reducing the number of video gambling machines in the Province, while the Atlantic Lottery Corporation increases its lotteries and its advertising. In addition to this, the youth of our Province are being bombarded with messages encouraging them to dream about the big wins and achieve wealth by one form of gambling or another.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that schoolchildren on the Northeast Avalon are losing money playing poker in school. I ask the minister: Are you aware of this, and, if so, what are you doing about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly, when we look at the gambling issues that are in our society, I would be only too glad to agree with the hon. member, that they can be very debilitating for society in general, but to suggest that there is gambling being taught in schools - is what I hear, right? Again, I would have to say that you would have to clarify for me exactly what it is that you are talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, if the minister would get his head out of the sand he might know what is happening in the schools of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the game of choice - and I am talking about poker in schools, I say to the minister, poker in schools - the game of choice in our schools today is Texas Hold'em. This has become a popular fad amongst our young people. It is of concern when high school students begin playing at such a young age and during school hours. We have been advised of several incidents where these games are taking place at recess time and at lunch time in classrooms.

I ask the minister: Has your department adopted any adolescent gambling prevention activities or policies targeting high school students that will prevent this type of activity from taking place in our schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would be clear to the hon. member that there is no condoning of gambling going on from this government, from my department, with regard to what goes on in schools. There is a responsibility on the part of school boards. There is a responsibility on the part of teachers and staff who are in these schools to make sure that any activities such as this are addressed, and are addressed in the sense of curtailing them, of stopping them, and addressing, I guess, the consequences of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I never said the minister was condoning it. I asked him if he knew about it, and obviously he does not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you call the principal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion regarding the impact that VLTs are having on our communities. If teenagers begin gambling at such an early age, what will this mean to gambling addictions in our Province in the future?

I ask the minister: Is he willing to make the necessary investment to ensure that young people understand and receive information, even possibly develop an awareness program, regarding the issues relating to the gambling addictions?

Before you get up to stand, I say to the Minister of Finance: Yes, we have contacted the principal.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I realize the seriousness of, I guess, the situation if indeed what has been described is happening. I will make a point of saying that I will certainly follow up on this because I do take this seriously. I will follow up on it and review it. Certainly, if there are some difficulties there, they will be addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources met with the Mayors of Grand Falls-

Windsor, Bishop's Falls and Botwood, who were pressuring him to take a strong stand in relation to linking future power developments on the Exploits River to a two-machine operation in Grand Falls. The Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor told me that he got that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, even the Member for Windsor-Springdale felt compelled to call into the Open Line show last night and he implied that government should not proceed with the power developments unless they got a commitment to a two-machine operation.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will you state in this House today, for the people of Central Newfoundland, and for the public record, that you will halt discussions with Abitibi on power developments on the Exploits River unless you get a commitment for a two-machine operation in Grand Falls? Will you send that message to the company today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to take any lessons from the former government about power purchase agreements, and here is why.

Let me ask the member herself, and maybe the Leader of the Opposition, when they signed power purchase agreements with Abitibi, did they, Mr. Speaker, tie those power purchase agreements to the manufactured cost of wood in the Province? Did they tie those agreements to the manufactured cost of the Grand Falls mill? The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, they did not. Do you know the result of that? Abitibi could leave today, and on one particular power project, for the duration of that power purchase agreement, they would continue to make money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Unlike the former government, this government is not going to give away the resources to any big company in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me also say this, Mr. Speaker: We will continue to work with the municipalities in this Province, both in Stephenville and in Grand Falls.

Just in case the member has not heard what the Mayor for Grand Falls-Windsor said, let me remind her: We were encouraged by the meeting with him yesterday and we feel the government, the Province, is doing everything it can to keep our operations going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke to the mayor yesterday, after we got out of this House, and that is what he told me personally.

You have reneged on your promise that you made in this House on May 3 and May 4. This hardship that you are bringing on Grand Falls-Windsor has a lot to do with delivering on a campaign promise that this Premier made.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. Yesterday all unions at the Grand Falls mill got a letter from Abitibi giving them a warning that if they did not work overtime when called, even if it was their scheduled day off, they would be fired. This is the same company that laid off fifty-six workers Monday, with just the bare minimum notice required by law, no offer of an early retirement package.

Minister, you have an obligation to the workers and to the communities in Central Newfoundland who depend on these jobs. Go out to Grand Falls-Windsor with your officials and make sure that the rights of these workers are protected. Minister, your involvement is long overdue. Will you commit to this today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has mentioned, it is a very serious situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. Under Section 57 of the Labour Standards Act, the company did notify the Labour Standards Division of the Labour Relations Agency. Any time there is a mass layoff we have to be notified and we will make sure that everything was done in accordance with the act.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that the union in Grand Falls-Windsor with Abitibi Consolidated are certainly bound by a collective agreement and any deviations to the collective agreement are certainly subject to the grievance and arbitration process. Mr. Speaker, that process will have to follow. If there are any problems, both the union and the employer can use that process.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, if the Labour Relations Agency is requested to mediate or provide any type of services, by both the employer and the union, we will respond. Mr. Speaker, we are not walking away from this situation but we will make sure we follow our role.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Minister of Government Services announced another piecemeal plan to reform automobile insurance. These reforms will provide some short-term benefits to consumers while finally dealing with age, sex and martial status discrimination, eighteen months later than promised -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I am asking members on both sides for their co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace who was placing a question. I ask all members to give the member the courtesy of being heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister now admit that while these reforms may have some short-term benefits, she has no long-term plan to deal with insurance rates and that consumers will be faced with rising rates again because of her refusal to act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member would recognize this, but this is the platform that they had for ten years and never implemented. His reforms that he talked about - we have been only in government for eighteen months. We have implemented this plan. We have made it better. Your plan was a basic one which took away rights from the people here to be compensated for their injuries. This will give the people their rights.

Just to point out here, you said you wanted fairness, you wanted accountability and you wanted accessibility; we have done that. You wanted to eliminate the rate based on age, gender and marital status; we have done that. Our reforms here will see young drivers in this Province have up to 46 per cent savings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: The overall average for the consumers of this Province will be 20 per cent. We have done a balanced approach here that will benefit everybody without taking away anybody's rights.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing the minister should be aware of is that accuracy, when dealing with facts, is very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, government's inability to deal with the insurance issue in a decisive manner will continue to cause instability in the industry for consumers. This latest reform package will likely see the end of discounts given by companies to seniors and other experienced drivers. Why is government bringing forward legislation that does not protect the discounts given to seniors and other drivers who have earned the right to these savings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in these new reforms that we are bringing forward we are not eliminating the discount for seniors. We are permitting the companies to give the seniors their discounts. We do not want to take anything away from our seniors. Our seniors have worked and contributed to our society or they are fixed incomes, some of them. We are not taking away discounts from seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a feeling this is going to go down the path of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner, where the oil companies will have to decide whether or not there are going to be any discounts, because the government hasn't ensured that they get them.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to be back here every June passing insurance legislation if the minister doesn't get her act together. Every other province in this country have made accident benefits coverage mandatory except Newfoundland and Labrador. These benefits are very important to people who have been involved in car accidents.

Can the minister tell the House why her government rejected the recommendations contained in several reports, including our own I might add, that accident benefits should be made mandatory?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our government is here to protect the innocent. We do not want to be making mandatory accident benefits, asking people to take that option. They have the right to have that option. We don't ask them to insure themselves, we ask them to look after the innocent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, if we did what the hon. colleague would like me to do over here, everyone in this Province, about 50,000 drivers, would see an increase anywhere from $75 to $100 a year more on their premiums. This government is not about to do that.

Thank you.

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 Finance and acting Health Minister.

During the recent Budget, your government announced money for gambling addictions and education, and a reduction of 15 per cent. The minister stated today, only 6 per cent of VLT users have addictions. That is an outrageous number. Three other province's studies indicate 40 per cent of revenues from gambling come from these 6 or 7 per cent.

It didn't take long, I say to the minister, for the Lottery Corporation to get around this. They are now installing 125 free TVs and hookups and introducing a new game called electronic Keno.

Why is your government, Minister, allowing them to bring electronic KENO into our Province with draws every five minutes of every day? Instead of lineups at a machine now everybody in the club can play at once or they can simply buy tickets in advance and have them validated at a later date. Why, in spite of what we are facing in this Province, Mr. Minister, are you allowing that to happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What he is referring to is a game called KENO. KENO is the oldest game that is known to man. In 1989 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1989; a game of KENO called Atlantic Choice was introduced in our Province in 1989. In the year 2001, when other jurisdictions were calling it KENO, they changed it to call it Atlantic KENO. That was since 2001. This year - in fact, last fall ALC had planned on doing a more revised revision of KENO, and there are plans for some time in the future - I do not have an exact date - that they are looking at implementing that as still a fun, low stakes game with no jackpot game.

Those pull tab tickets are instantaneous. They can be taken every second and opened. It is every five minutes, and what the specific time is, I guess Atlantic Lottery will reveal that in due course, but I have been noticing since last fall there are revisions occurring in numerous games of chance over the past number of years, and that is just the continuance of a game that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a ridiculous answer by the minister. I say to the minister, it may be low ante. In B.C., in three years the electronic KENO took over higher profits than the Lottery Corporation by selling Lotto tickets. That may be low ante, but it gives an indication of the problem.

Mr. Minister, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have both said no to electronic KENO, and they did that based on expert opinions. Addiction experts in that Province told them they could expect six to seven new suicides per year if this was brought into their system.

Minister, your government, without any research whatsoever into the problems of gambling, will surely follow should this be allowed to occur, even prior to an announced study that your government is going to commence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, this form of gambling is scheduled to start within the next couple of weeks. Will the minister tell the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to shelve electronic KENO until, at least, the study that their own government commission determines the extent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, first of all, it is important to get certain facts on the table. The Public Accounts Committee in Nova Scotia called the Nova Scotia Gaming Commission in before the Public Accounts. There was one individual who was employed, who made statements to that effect from other jurisdictions.

Nova Scotia is reviewing, it is looking at further work on this and a decision will be made if they will implement it. P.E.I. has made a decision to implement it. New Brunswick is reviewing all of its gaming operations (inaudible). That is why they are not acting at this time and maybe they will not act, I cannot speak for New Brunswick. I do know that there are numerous jurisdictions in this country - B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, the North West Territories, the Yukon, and states in the United States - who are using this. It is to be a low-price, fun, non-jackpot game. You can wager, on a spot, $1, $2, $3, $4, $5 or $10, and the games do work. If something is addictive in nature, we don't have research that substantiates what the Member for Labrador West is saying on that issue there, and we have had discussions on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, by the minister's own admission he doesn't have any research or data on what is happening here.

We didn't ask the minister to give us an update on how Keno evolved and how many states have it. What we are telling you, Mr. Minister, is that this game is causing problems, and what I am asking you, in simple words, is whether or not you will instruct the Atlantic Lotto Corporation to shelf this until the study that will currently take place in this Province determines to the extent that gambling is a problem right now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a study going on in this Province, a prevalent study. The hon. member, two days before, told me they are now going on in this Province, you can go in and play the games now. I indicated that is not the case, and he was going to get back to me and let me know. I said: Please let me know, because I am unaware. In fact, that game is not being played in the Province. That is what my information has told me now.

First of all, if you are going to bring something to the House let's get the facts straight, and then we will deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has confirmed in this Legislature that plant workers in other parts of the Province, like Trinity-Bay de Verde, will lose weeks of work due to the issuance of a new crab license to Mr. John Risley in St. Anthony.

I ask the Premier: Why is his government now willing to participate openly in what the minister has described as the redistribution of poverty amongst plant workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on many occasions in this Legislature over the past two and a half months, and outside, the bottom line on the St. Anthony license is we issued a license to St. Anthony based on an order by the Court of Appeal in this Province to reconsider the decision - and I will say it again - the patently unreasonable decision that was made by the former minister, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Patently.

MR. TAYLOR: Pa-tently or pat-ently. Whatever the word is it still means the same thing. I will spell it if it doesn't work any other way, if it can't get through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Maybe that is the problem. Maybe that is the reason the message is not getting through to the Leader of the Opposition, because my pronunciation is not right.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, he can read the court decision. The court decision said that the former minister made a patently unreasonable decision. The Court of Appeal said that the proper facts - to use the terminology of the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace - were not considered appropriately. That is what was said, and we were ordered to reconsider. Now, how do you deal with it without fixing it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is clear is that the court did not order the government to redistribute poverty by issuing another licence.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell us why he and his government promised both a crab licence and a crab quota to Mr. John Risley in an effort to open the fish plant in St. Anthony? Why, I ask, was a guaranteed quota included in the promise to Mr. Risley?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there is nobody here cutting deals with Mr. Risley. The only person who might have cut a deal with Mr. Risley might be the person who is asking the questions. Maybe that is what was going on some years ago; but, I can tell you, there is nobody here on this side of the House cutting deals with John Risley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I sat in the minister's chair, as I said yesterday, for twelve months and did not issue a licence to the crowd in St. Anthony, and if the court had found in the government's favour there would not have been a licence issued to the people in St. Anthony. Those are the facts. If we wanted to issue a licence to John Risley, and cut a deal, we would have done it within twelve days of being the government, not twelve months, not sixteen months after becoming the government. Those are the facts of the matter. There is no need of casting aspersions or trying to taint my character over here because of a patently unreasonable decision by a very ineffective minister in the former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what he is getting so upset about. All I am doing is asking some straightforward -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: All I am doing is asking some straightforward questions. If he wants to suggest there is some motive in it, I guess he can suggest it himself.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that government was concerned about having to pay compensation to Mr. Risley if they did not issue the licence in St. Anthony. The court decision clearly states that a licence did not automatically follow from that decision; thus, no compensation would have to be paid.

The question I have for the Premier is this: Isn't it really true that the only compensation the Premier is worried about is a potential court case in the future from Mr. Risley suing government for their broken promise to give him both a licence and a quota for St. Anthony?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you this. I sat - and there are enough witnesses around - in the fall of 2001, when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was the Minister of Fisheries and reactivated a crab licence in Twillingate and issued a shrimp licence in Twillingate, I sat on the steps in the fish plant in St. Anthony and was asked point-blank by a number of plant workers and management people: Would you issue a crab licence in St. Anthony? I said: Absolutely not. That is what I said, and there are enough people who were there in attendance at that time to vouch for it.

I have to ask him - I will ask the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker - how much money was given to him by John Risley in his leadership campaign? If he wants to slander me, why doesn't he answer that question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Minister of Fisheries, any time he wants to revert to being an Opposition member and ask questions, I am sure the people of the Province would welcome the opportunity to see it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the minister want crab harvesters to take comfort in their verbal commitment that the government will accept and implement whatever Mr. Cashin recommends - a verbal commitment to accept and implement whatever Mr. Cashin recommends.

I ask the Premier: How does he seriously expect anyone to believe that verbal commitment when the same government verbally promised a year ago to accept and implement whatever Memorial University recommended about the ferry service to Labrador, only to turn around and reject the main recommendations of that report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government and this Party made a commitment to the people of this Province back during the election when people were taking a closer look at his government and what he had done. We said that we were going to make real change in this Province, and we made several commitments to the people of this Province.

One of those commitments was that we would tackle the fiscal situation and the mess that you left us with. We tackled the deficit, Mr. Speaker, and in eighteen months we have turned that around to a point where we balanced our books in one year with a very, very slight deficit, and we have increased our credit rating in just twelve months. That is the first thing we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That was a commitment; we delivered on that commitment.

The second major commitment that we made to the people of this Province was that we were going to do something about our offshore revenues, that we were going to get what we were truly entitled to, that we were going to be 100 per cent beneficiary of our resources. We made that commitment to the people of the Province. We went up and we fought long and hard for the Accord, and we got $2.6 billion. That is commitment!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In all that blunderbuss, he did not go anywhere close to answering the question that I asked because they broke the commitment they said about accepting and implementing the recommendations from the university.

Mr. Speaker, one final question for the Premier. I ask the Premier: How does he expect, and why should he believe, that people would accept his verbal commitment about accepting and implementing Mr. Cashin's recommendations when, as every single day passes by, he and his government are continuing to break a written commitment to have consultation before any crab plant quotas were introduced? Why should anybody believe a verbal commitment when you are breaking your written commitment day after day after day after day? Now, answer that one.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to read about commitment he can read the Blue Book. He can go back to a document that we submitted during the election, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the people of the Province took a closer look at what you have done and what did they find? They found a Province that was in a mess. They found a leader who had giveaways. He gave away everything. He was prepared to give away water and nickel and the Lower Churchill. Whatever is out there, he was going to give it away.

With us, no more giveaways in this Province. We are going to implement change, and the people in rural Newfoundland will be better off for it at the end of four years, and we will see you, if you are still around, during the next election.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one last question.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries.

In recent months, this minister is on public record stating that FPI has taken fish traditionally landed and processed in Newfoundland and shipped it to China for further processing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair has recognized the Member for Twillingate & Fogo who is attempting to ask one last question for this session.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months this minister, the Minister of Fisheries, is on public record stating that FPI has taken fish traditionally landed and processed in Newfoundland and shipped it to China for processing. Can the minister tell us today what species of fish were exported, and in what quantities?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Because we have permitted the question to be asked within the time limit, we will let the minister answer the question in about thirty seconds.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are probably four or five species of fish in this Province that go out in pretty much an unprocessed state - much of it from the late 1980s probably. Turbot being one that has gone out in a whole frozen state; continues today.

AN HON. MEMBER: FPI (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Listen now, FPI does that too. FPI does that and a number of other companies. Gray sole goes out in an unprocessed state, some of it, which has been the case since the late 1980s. The only thing that is different in this past year are two authorizations that I did sign off on for small red fish coming out of 3O where there had traditionally been a very small fishery, and for yellow tail less than 400 grams, which was traditionally going into fish meal or cat food. Both of those things, we have contacted the FFAW, we have contacted the processors, we have contacted DFO and we have been trying for about two months now to arrange a meeting between all parties to decide on how we should manage those small fish exemptions going forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for oral questions has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister persists in talking about the licences in Twillingate. Yesterday he said that I reactivated a shrimp licence and issued a new crab licence to Twillingate. Today he said I have reactivated a crab licence and issued a new shrimp licence for Twillingate. I say to the minister, that both the crab and shrimp licences were issued to Twillingate in 1997, four years before I became the minister.

Mr. Speaker, after leaving this House yesterday afternoon I called officials in the minister's own department, asked for confirmation, and I would like for him to table that here today so that the minister does not have to stand and mislead the people of this Province anymore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member will know that when you rise on a point of order it should relate to the procedural rules of our House. We have had several attempts lately when members have attempted to engage in debate by way of a point of order. The Chair rules there is no pont of order, but there is a point of debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize, under the rules, a point of order should be kept until after Question Period rather than interrupt Question Period.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at 2:19 p.m. in response to a question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The minister said that maybe the person asking the question might have cut a deal with Mr. Risley. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is certainly unparliamentary. The person who asked the question never made any allegations whatsoever about cutting any deals, impugning any motives to anyone. It was quite clear from the minister's response that he was certainly impugning motives to the Leader of the Opposition by using that phrase: Cutting a deal with Mr. Risley. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is unparliamentary. The context, the tone in which it was uttered is quite clear, and I would request that the Chair ask the minister to unequivocally withdraw that remark.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We will live by your ruling. Whatever you rule in this matter will be a ruling and we will live by it, and I am sure the minister will. But I will hasten to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister asked a question of the Leader of the Opposition and the question he asked was in the same context that the Leader of the Opposition asked just before when he asked why we cut a deal with Mr. Risley. So, let me say this, what will be sauce for the goose will be sauce for the gander on this one, and we appreciate and look forward to your ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To this point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, so that it is clear as you make your ruling or if you do a review, that the language I used had nothing to do with cutting a deal. It said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Let me repeat the words, Mr. Speaker, because these are the exact words that I read into the record. The only thing that the Premier is worried about in potential compensation is a potential court case in the future from Mr. Risley suing government for their broken promise to give him both a licence and a quota. I did not say anything about cutting a deal. Suing the government for a broken promise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will obtain the proofs from Hansard, hopefully within the next hour and, hopefully, come back this afternoon or, at least, the latest on Monday with a ruling. I would like to be able to read the transcripts before I make a ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to accountability, I hereby submit the 2003-2004 Annual Performance Report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This report was prepared under my direction and addresses the Advisory Council's outcomes from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 34)

Mr. Speaker, I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 33)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry, no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from a number of residents of the Province who are concerned about the recommendations of the Dunne report and the fact that government, to date, is still convinced that it should implement this plan of production quotas without agreement and without some face-to-face negotiations even with the FFAW.

The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended in the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make reference to all of the provisions of the Dunne report, but we hear everyday, both in this House, on the Open Line programs, in the news reports and on the media of the difficulties that are being caused around this Province by the fact that this government is about to impose, or plans to impose, something upon fish harvesters and plant workers that they do not agree with.

I talked to a man yesterday, who was out here in the lobby, a sixty-one-year-old gentleman who is a fish harvester. He told me that the day the minister announced the proposal, the value of his fishing enterprise, his quota that went with it - according to a fish broker who is involved in the selling of licences, this man is about to retire in a couple of years - but, the day that the announcement was made he was told that the value of his enterprise went down by $250,000. The value of his enterprise went down by $250,000 because his ability to negotiate and deal with buyers was affected to that extent. We are talking about a large boat owner in this case, a guy who owns a boat, who has a substantial quota. That quota has a value based on the amount of (inaudible) that they have and the enterprise is based on that. For a fisherman, for a fish harvester, the way that they can pass on their licences is by selling them to another fish harvester. They have a value based on the size of the boat, based on the obligations that go with it, based on the quota that is assigned to it, but that was the affect of a decision being made by this government without consultation.

Mr. Speaker, that is only one individual who is all of a sudden being affected to that extent by this plan without any consultation, without any plan in place that could be negotiated. There could be lots of ideas that might come from the fishermen's union if this group would sit down and negotiate face to face.

We have something going on, Mr. Speaker, there is paper going back and forth, but until they sit down face to face and say: Here is how we intend to operationalize what we are going to do - the government has not even been able to explain how their plan is going to work, let alone modify it to deal with some of the problems being caused.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Just one minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there may have been some significant movement by the government offering to put Mr. Cashin in place, and - what I heard yesterday from the Premier - an unequivocal statement by the Premier that they would accept whatever recommendation Mr. Cashin comes up with, but that has to be in a plan and a scheme that is agreed to by the participants in the industry, Mr. Speaker, by the fisheries union as well as by the government. That may be a way forward - we do not know - but there need to be some face-to-face negotiations in order to make it happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Are we moving to Orders of the Day? I know that some business -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that if the government calls the Orders of the Day then that takes precedence over all other business at this stage.

Are you calling the Orders of the Day?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not have any hesitation in allowing more petitions to go ahead. I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, if you have a petition to present, that is not a problem, but I will say this to you: I was standing as well, and it is up to the Speaker to decide who he recognizes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognized the hon. the Government House Leader first. We had been on this side of the House and then we moved to this side. If the hon. Government House Leader gives his leave then we can go to another petition.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to stand up, because I have a petition on a very important issue to a number of residents from my district. Again today this petition deals with government's handling of the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, the Dunne report recommended the development of a raw material sharing system only when processors can satisfy the minister that there are and will be no substantive and reasonable objections from plant works and harvesters. Mr. Speaker, that obviously has not occurred.

I listened to the Minister of Government Services this afternoon, in an answer to me, and she said that her government is there to protect the innocent. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from the innocent of this Province on a daily basis - the people who are caught up under a way of trying to make a living, trying to survive and feed their families because a government will not say: Wait and we will look at this later. Go back fishing. Go back to your plants. Provide for your families.

That is what I am hearing, Mr. Speaker. The minister had the ideal opportunity to stand yesterday and protect those innocent, but that did not happen. Instead, today my phone is busy again with hardship cases that are coming in from people who are caught - hearing from families who are planning trips to Alberta, people who are trying to get qualified with Flagperson courses and so on, so that they will have a chance to get employment on the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, surely to heavens everybody in this Province cannot be wrong except the government. It is like the old saying: There goes my Johnny in the parade, but everybody is out of step except Johnny. Johnny, in this case, is the government, when everybody in this Province is saying: Hold up; what is the crisis for three months?

It is interesting to note that the Premier today jumps up with his great Blue Book in his hand, the great Blue Book that led him and his people to victory in the last election, but that Blue Book, and the road to that victory, is full. It is filled with broken promises. There are more broken promises in that Blue Book than there are potholes on the Trans-Canada, Mr. Speaker.

There are people in this Province, and there are faces to these people. These are real people out there, trying to provide for their families. It is sickening and disheartening when you hear of someone who does not know what they are going to eat next week, cut back their weekly food bill to $50 a week, trying to provide for a family of five on $50 a week.

I do not know if everybody in this House has lost all sense of presence. I do not know. Anyone with any presence of mind at all can realize that $50 a week, the way prices are this day, you will be lucky to get Carnation milk and Kraft Dinner out of $50 a week to feed a family of five people.

My God Almighty, I ask the hon. members opposite to rethink this and to put some human peril to this, because there is something drastically wrong when we have people in our Province this way. I have never seen so many people in my area making plans to exit this Province. Many of these people are our youngest and our brightest, never to return again. They will go to the mainland, find a life there, and they are gone. The devastating effect of this ill-planned report, and trying to implement it on the backs of the misery of our people, I think it is cruel and inhuman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes other speakers, the Chair would like to recognize some young people who just arrived in our galleries. These students are from Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits. They are Level I, Level II and Level III students, and their teachers are Glenda Young and Mike Dwyer. I do understand they have chaperones Mrs. Ball, Mr. Witcher and Mrs. Lundrigan, and they have their bus driver who, I believe, is Ivan Winsor.

On behalf of all members, we would like to welcome you to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

I recognize the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the government on behalf of a number of people in our Province - it concerns VLTs and gambling - and to call for this government to cause a referendum to take place in this Province in conjunction with the municipal election in September to find out whether or not people in this Province want to have VLTs as part of a money-generating revenue to be used by government.

The havoc, Mr. Speaker, that is caused to people who have problems with gambling in our Province is astronomical and now, from my question today, there is a new game being brought in by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, with the approval of government, called electronic KENO.

I am sure, when the minister responded and said KENO is the oldest game known to man, I am sure he was not talking about electronic KENO and the damage that can do. I doubt very much if the people who played KENO back centuries ago - if what the minister indeed is saying is true - that they lost a lot of money in doing so; but, today, the public of this Province should be given an opportunity to have a voice and have a say in such an important social matter.

This government should allow the people to express their opinion, by way of a vote, whether or not this is something that we want to continue. We have had suicides in this Province. People have taken their own lives because of problems with gambling addictions.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also talked about how this is in place, electronic KENO, in British Columbia. Let me read you a quote from British Columbia from a study that was done. It says: Indication of British Columbia continuous electronic KENO was introduced two to three years ago. The lotto gaming market, lotto tickets in B.C. has operated for decades and is one of the most mature markets of its type in Canada. But get this, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the minister to pay attention as well. In a few years, revenue from KENO market in B.C. has overtaken and surpassed the lotto program. That is alarming! Here we are in this Province, with this government about to commission a study on the effects gambling is having on our residents, the addiction that is taking hold of people from gambling, right on the eve of that study being commenced. After taking out, over the next five years, 15 per cent of the VLTs, putting three-quarters of a million dollars into education and for people to receive treatment. This government, in spite of all that, is allowing a new form of electronic gambling to come into our Province that will negate any of the good things that people may have seen from their Budget measures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to make some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

I just want to say in cluing up, that, again, I ask the Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Health to tell the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to shelve this venture, at least - I would like to see it shelved for good - until a study has been conducted in this Province to determine the current problem that gambling creates before we extend into new measures that will create even further problems. I ask the minister to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition of behalf of in excess of 3,000 people who signed one, again calling on the government to live up to the commitment given by the Premier with respect to the continuation of a health care facility that is under construction in Grand Bank.

This is a facility, Mr. Speaker, that $3.5 million has been spent on it to date. We have the steel standing. All the groundwork has been done. Now we are waiting to see the facility completed. All that people, who have signed this petition, are asking is that government live up to the commitment that the Premier gave, that, in fact, he would see the facility completed in Grand Bank. It is a facility that serves eight communities. Contrary to what is being said on the Open Line show and in some letters to the editor by one of the members opposite, by the Member for Burin-Placentia West and by other PC supporters, it is not a hospital. It is a clinic and the replacement of an existing seniors' home, both of which are in a deplorable condition and really do need to be replaced.

It is misleading, for those who are PC supporters, to get on the airwaves and write letters to the editor suggesting that there are three hospitals on the Burin Peninsula. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is one hospital, a regional hospital in Burin where you get the major diagnostic tests done, that doctors send you there to get done; which if it cannot be done there than people have to go to St. John's.

What we have in Grand Bank is a clinic. It is holding beds only. All we are asking to have replaced is the clinic and we are also asking to have the seniors' home replaced. It was all agreed to, the same professionals that the government opposite says they are going to listen to when they go ahead with any plans for health care facilities in the Province. These are the same professionals who recommended that the facilities in Grand Bank be replaced. Again, it is misleading to suggest there are three hospitals.

In St. Lawrence we also have a clinic and we have acute care beds. We have twenty beds there that are still not open. The plan was, in fact, that when the new facility was built in Grand Bank they would have fewer acute care beds, and the twenty acute care beds in St. Lawrence that are presently closed would be open. It was a very thought out plan. A lot of effort went into it. All the professionals were involved, including the health care board of the day, including health care professionals in the Department of Health and Community Services. Anyone who needed to be involved was involved, and the decision was made that, yes, these two existing facilities need to be replaced.

We are calling on the government and the in excess of 3,000 people who have signed the petition - and while the petition was circulated in my district only, I can assure you that if it had been circulated in other districts as well, where people from those districts actually go and become residents of the Blue Crest senior's home, that they, in fact, would have signed it as well because it impacts on them and their families.

The need is great, and I am calling on the government again to be responsible, to live up to the commitment and to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I am asking the government to do is to keep a promise, in keeping with a promise is a promise.

Thank you.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 400 or 500 people on the Burin Peninsula calling on the provincial government to have a CT scan and a dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula hospital.

I presented this petition many, many times before. It seems to be falling on deaf ears within this government and there does not seem to be any concern whatsoever for health care on the Burin Peninsula.

This particular petition outlines the drastic need for this particular service. As a matter of fact, we had a motion in this House of Assembly that was not supported by the Member for Burin-Placentia West. There were savings from the Budget last year that the money could have been allocated for these two particular services, but the member rose in his place and voted against that particular resolution.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have great concerns about what is happening with Burin Peninsula health care. I have three communities in my district, Grand Le Pierre, English Harbour East and Terrenceville that do not have the services of a doctor. I met some time ago with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Health. There was supposed to be a meeting called but there has been nothing done to address the issue.

I had calls today from my district where a ninety-two-year-old person, just to get seen by a doctor, had to get in an ambulance and travel to Burin. I think it is ridiculous in our day. The ambulance fees are gone up by $50. It is disgraceful what is happening with health care on the Burin Peninsula. Right now we have one member on the board. It seems like we are continuously downgrading the health care services on the Burin Peninsula.

I am asking the Member for Burin-Placentia West to make representation in his caucus, to get up, make the point and make sure his government is listening to what he has to say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Little Bay Islands, King's Point and Upper Island Cove who are asking the government to shelve the production quota plan that they have on the table until the government lives by the recommendation of the Dunne report, and that is only to proceed, if and when, production quotas are agreed to by the FFAW and the fishermen of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, rather than do this, the Premier of this Province is trying to starve fishermen in the Province into accepting production quotas. I say starve, Mr. Speaker, because there are number of people out there today who are experiencing severe hardships as a result of the Premier's stand and that eventually, I guess, they will have to fish or starve. That is exactly what the Premier knows and that is exactly why he is continuing to push it down their throats.

Mr. Speaker, what we see is a Premier who wants to crush these individuals, crush their spirits, crush their union so that he can exercise more control over them. I would say he is behaving like an individual who suffers from what is called the Napoleonic syndrome. Then, a few days ago, he said he would establish a committee, led by Mr. Cashin, and he would live by the recommendations that Mr. Cashin would make at the end of the fishery this year.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a vast number of people in the Province who really do not trust the Premier to live by that commitment because they have witnessed commitments that he has made in the past that he has not adhered to. One is that he would consult with fishermen and members of the FFAW before he implemented production quotas. Mr. Speaker, his minister, the Minister of Fisheries, wrote the FFAW and told them that last fall. He did not respect that recommendation. He did not even respect the letter that the minister wrote him.

Mr. Speaker, he also says that he would live by the recommendation of Mr. Cashin, when he will not even live by the recommendation of Mr. Dunne. Mr. Dunne said, only implement this when it was agreed to by fishermen and harvesters in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries talks about the recommendation of Mr. Vardy. Well, Mr. Vardy recommended that the only way production quotas should come into place is if they were negotiated in the collective agreement between the fish harvesters of this Province and the processors.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stood in the public in this Province and told the people of the Province that he would live by the recommendation from a group that he hired at the university to examine the ferry service in Southern Labrador. What did he do, Mr. Speaker? They recommended the service go one way, and he did not abide by the recommendation but did exactly the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, why would these individuals today believe that the Premier is going to live by any recommendation that is not his own? So, I say to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has lapsed.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted for some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the Premier's stubbornness and his inability to accept the fact that no one only himself wants this, we have people leaving rural areas of the Province.

I had a fax come to me today from the community of Summerford, on New World Island, telling me that thirty-two fishermen on New World Island have just completed a power saw safety course and are moving to Red Deer, Alberta, because they know that this season could be lost, or is going to be lost, because of the Premier's stubbornness.

Mr. Speaker, I also hear that residents of New World Island have already left for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to work in fish plants - just imagine, Mr. Speaker - and they will probably end up working in plants that are processing our own crab.

Mr. Speaker, I beg the Premier - because it is no good to ask him, it is no good to order him -

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave is withdrawn.

MR. REID: I beg him to take this off the table!

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We do not mind providing common courtesies to each other but, before I move to Orders of the Day - I understand this is an emotional issue, it is a petition - I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, let's try to abide by those common courtesies. When taking a couple of feet, let's not go for the mile.

Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through a number of motions that -

MR. REID: You are talking (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just talking between ourselves, in terms of the petitions, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: You are talking into a camera. That is not (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. REID: You are talking into a camera. That is not (inaudible) -

MR. E. BYRNE: I will give you time to talk about it if you want.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to suggest is, I have a number of motions to put forward, or to call, that would give first readings, which would allow us the opportunity to distribute about fourteen bills. Would it be, I think, most appropriate if I just referenced the motion and bill numbers all at one time and then you can call them individually after? Would that be acceptable?

MR. SPEAKER: If that is acceptable to the House, then I do gather that there is consent.

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

Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry about that.

Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, under my own name, the hon. the Government House Leader, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province. (Bill 16)

Motion 3, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 21)

Motion 4, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, myself, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. (Bill 22)

Motion 5, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

Motion 6, under the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. (Bill 23)

Motion 7, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For The Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

Motion 8, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

Motion 9, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

Motion 10, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

Motion 11, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

Motion 12, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

Motion 13, in the name of myself, the Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

Motion 14, again in my name as the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

That is it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the following ministers shall have leave to introduce bills entitled as follows:

Bill 16, in the name of the hon. the Government House Leader, An Act Respecting The Management Of Government Information For The Province.

Bill 21, in the name of the Minister of Health and Community Services, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province.

Bill 22, in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act.

Bill 19, in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

Bill 23, in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities.

Bill 24, in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly.

Bill 26, in the name of the Minister of Government Services, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.

Bill 27, in the name of the Minister of Government Services, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

Bill 28, in the name of the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

Bill 29, in the name of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and the Municipal Elections Act.

Bill 30, in the name of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999.

Bill 31, in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, An Act To Amend the Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act (Bill 31)

Bill 32, in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that these hon. ministers shall have leave to introduce these named bills?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Management of Government Information For The Province," carried. (Bill 16)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice of Medicine In The Province," carried. (Bill 21)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act," carried. (Bill 22)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," carried. (Bill 19)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities," carried. (Bill 23)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act," carried. (Bill 26)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act," carried. (Bill 27)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act," carried. (Bill 28)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and the Municipal Elections Act," carried. (Bill 29)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend The Law Society Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 30).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act," carried. (Bill 31)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the Forestry Act," carried. (Bill 32)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting the Management of Government Information For The Province. (Bill 16)

A bill, An Act Respecting the Practice of Medicine in the Province. (Bill 21)

A bill, An Act to Amend the Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. (Bill 22)

A bill, An Act to Amend the Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

A bill, An Act to Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities. (Bill 23)

A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 24)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 26)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 27)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and the Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

[Technical difficulties]

MR. SPEAKER: These bills have now been read a first time. When shall the said bills be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Some of them on today, Mr. Speaker, and some of them on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Some will be later today and some will be on the parliamentary tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 4, Bill 11, second reading, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, in the name of my colleague the Minister of Government Services.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board." (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 11. This bill is to establish a single financial services appeal board to hear appeals of licensing decisions in the insurance, the securities, the real estate and the mortgage broker industries.

During our process to streamline regulation in the financial services sector and reduce duplication, we identified the need to create a single appeals board to hear licensing appeals. Currently, only the insurance industry has a mechanism to hear appeals outside of the court process. The other three sectors currently have to make appeals to the trial division. The establishment of a single appeals board will bring consistency to the appeals process and provide for a more timely decision than going to court.

The appeals board for the insurance industry is rarely used. Although, providing the option for a more timely appeal is what we are looking to preserve here and to extend to all financial service industries.

It is important we are prepared to allow challenges of the licensing decisions we make in a timely manner for all involved. We do not expect a high volume of appeals, only a total of about three or four a year. We still think it is important to have a timely and affordable way to appeal licensing decisions. This is an internal process for the sales people of financial services, with no impact on consumers. The financial implication is minimal. The board will be remunerated on a per diem basis to hear appeals and we are providing legislative authority to make regulations for partial recovery of the cost from the unsuccessful appellant. We feel the single appeals board will be well received by the financial services industry and is an important service to retain.

Thank you, and I ask for your support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems kind of strange that this government would be bringing forward a bill to create another board at a point in time where it is patting itself on the back for eliminating health care boards and educational boards. All of a sudden, we are creating what appears to be another level of bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with something here, I guess, that when we get into Committee I will be asking more questions about. When we see another board appearing at a time of attrition, I guess, where the government is trying to eliminate levels of bureaucracy, cost saving measures and so on, I just find it very, very strange that the minister and this government would bring in another level right now, and another board.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few more comments which I will reserve for the next level.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly support the financial services appeal board. It is good to see that people have the right to appeal decisions that are made when organizations, such as these mortgage brokers or whatever, make decisions they don't like. We support that.

I wonder out loud, Mr. Speaker, while I am supporting this appeal board for financial services, why, for example, people who are being dunned by the Minister of Finance for taxes that are thirteen and fourteen years old and being given interest rates of 1.2 per cent per month, compounded monthly for the past thirteen years, why they don't have a right to appeal; why people whose taxes were forgiven by the Minister of Finance, who are now having their income tax taken from them by this government, why they don't have the right of appeal. Why is it that mortgage brokers, insurance companies and financial service companies have a right to appeal decisions that are made that don't suit them, but individuals who are being chased down by this government, that has given themselves the power to charge compound interest on a monthly basis to people who didn't even know they owed the tax, and reaching back thirteen years to do that, even if they had been forgiven, are still being charged and having their money taken. Why don't they have the right to appeal, Mr. Speaker?

If this government is so concerned about people's rights and people's ability to appeal decisions that are unfavourable to them and not have to go to court - as the minister said: You know, you don't have to go to court to do this, you can go through an appeal board and have the decision heard, and you can hopefully get some kind of redress. Yet, people whose taxes are being taken - we are not talking about financial services, obviously. They are not quite on the topic, but it is related, Mr. Speaker, to the willingness of government to recognize that unfavourable decisions that are made by government should be subject to some -

MR. WISEMAN: That is a stretch.

MR. HARRIS: It is not a stretch. I mean, if the Member for Trinity North wants to know what a stretch is, he should stick around for a few more years and he will see a few stretches.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about the right of appeal for one group of people, then it is perfectly relevant and legitimate to say that is something, that is a principle, that should be applied more widespread in this Province, particularly when we know and we are hearing every single day, and maybe the member - because I know a lot of members over there are hearing them, because they are coming to us and saying: I cannot get any help from my member. They are coming to us and saying: Look, I had this forgiven five years ago and now they are after me for this tax. What can you do about it? I called my own member but I haven't been able to get any help.

Mr. Speaker, if we had an appeal board, if we had a right of appeal - there is an appeal board for student loans. If you do not get a student loan, I say to the Member for Trinity North, if you apply for a student loan and you get turned down, you can appeal to a student loan appeal board. In fact, there are some students on it. They are appointed by the Memorial University Student Union, as is right. If we have a mortgage broker who is denied a licence, he has a right to appeal. It is the right thing to do, so I am supporting this bill. I am supporting that it is the right thing to do, but I am saying that if it is the right thing to do for students who are denied student loans, if it is the right thing to do for people who are mortgage brokers operating in the financial service industry, then it is the right thing to do for taxpayers who are being unfairly ripped off by this government, even after their taxes have been forgiven, and they do not have a right to appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister's department says that they are looking at things on an individual case-by-case basis, but that is not enough. That is not good enough, when we are seeing case after case and time after time of people coming forward and saying: We have a serious problem here. I didn't know about this tax.

There is nobody being forgiven thirteen years' interest because they say they didn't know about this tax. I have not seen that in any of the documentation coming from the Ministry of Finance.

I would like to say that we support this bill. We support the need for a Financial Services Appeal Board, but we would like to see that individuals who are being chased down by this government, with eight new positions being created to continue to chase them down, 27,000 people, it turns out that some of them - we do not know how many; it could be thousands of them - were already forgiven by this government of having to pay the tax, and now this government is collecting them through some bureaucratic method, through additional special powers given to them by the Government of Canada, to actually take the money, take the income tax returns that are paid. When they are supposed to get money from the Government of Canada as their income tax rebate, this government is putting a hold on them and people are having to fight it out individually and do not have a right of appeal.

I would ask the minister, because we are seeing dozens and dozens of these things, new cases every day where people are complaining to us - and these are the ones who obviously know they have some right to complain - coming to us and asking for some assistance.

I mentioned a case the other day of somebody who owed $2 in back taxes, after he had finally had it out with the Minister of Finance's officials, and the ministry wanted $86, because $84 of that $86 was going to be interest. It was going to be interest going back thirteen years. There should be a right of appeal for those kinds of decisions, as well as the right of appeal for people who are in the mortgage broker industry, or other financial services that are getting protection here by the minister going through the trouble of passing legislation and a whole act to ensure that people have some rights of appeal without having to go to court.

Real estate traders, mortgage brokers, people selling securities, these are the people being protected here. Insurance adjusters are able to appeal to this board. So, we have insurance adjusters, we have mortgage brokers, we have real estate agents, we have securities vendors, all of whom are going to have the right to appeal when their rights are being challenged by a decision of various bodies, and we have a situation where 27,000 ordinary citizens are being subjected to what we regard as an unfair tax and an unfair method of collecting it.

As I have said before, there are many people - I have not heard one person yet come to us and say, I don't want to pay the tax. It is probably fair that they pay the tax. Other people were charged the tax, who owed it, and if these people have not paid the tax for whatever reason, whether they did not know about it or whether they have been away for the last fifteen years, or whether the government has not found them, any of these reasons - not a problem, collect the tax. If somebody owes $100 from 1993 - you know, there may be some statutes of limitations. That is another issue; I am not even talking about that. Why impose an interest rate that approaches a criminal interest rate at this point in time when you start adding up all the compounding over the last thirteen years? Why would you do that, Mr. Speaker, in an unfair way to people who did not even know they owed the tax in the first place?

I support the bill for the financial services, but I would also urge this government to apply fairness to people who owe school tax as well, through establishing an appeal board so that people can feel they have some objective opportunity to see their taxes, and particularly the interest, gotten rid of. At least they have someone to go to, who could listen to their concerns and be in a position to apply a fairness rule, particularly if people did not know that they had this tax, or, in many cases, even if they did know, the Province made no effort to remind them, or they did not know where they were.

That being said, I support this bill at second reading. I think it is important that people whose livelihoods are affected by decisions made by governing bodies or licensing boards, that they should have a right to appeal. I think that is a reasonable step to be taking, and I support this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been called.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board. (Bill 11)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 11)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act". (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce this bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. This bill provides for an increase in the fee for filing of a deed with the Registry of Deeds. The fee to register a deed document will go up to $100, from $75, to finance phase four of the Companies and Deeds Online system.

We allotted nearly $2.9 million in the Budget for phase four of the system, and this fee allows us to recover this investment. This phase of the Companies and Deeds Online system will provide for the conversion of deeds microfilmed to an electronic format for the years of 1980 to 2004, allow for the on-line searches for deeds for these years, allow individuals to search for mechanic

liens on property on-line, and it will also allow for a business requirement analysis to determine the feasibility of on-line deeds registration and on-line licensing in the insurance, real estate, mortgage broker and collection agency sector. In return for the increased fee, users are getting a better system.

This is a simple amendment. It will delete the $75 dollar figure and replace it with $100. Government is proceeding with this amendment because it is consistent with our commitment to provide more on-line services. This makes dealing with government easier and less time-consuming. It also provides for better access to some services across the Province through the Internet.

We look forward to the support of all members of this House for this bill.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words in second reading here about this bill to amend the services charges act. It amazes me how anyone could possibly stand up, under any circumstances, and say that they are pleased to bring in a bill which increases a fee to people. You might be pleased that you want to improve services, you might be pleased that you want to make something come into the technological world in which we live in and accept the advances that we all would like to have, and make things more progressive, useable, effective and functional, but I do not know how anybody could attach the adjective to it: That I am pleased to bring in this bill which is going to increase your fee.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you supporting it?

MR. PARSONS: I definitely am not supporting it, I say to the Minister of Finance. You have heard of the phrase nickle and dime somebody to death. I am sure everybody out in TV land have heard of the phrase nickle and dime people to death. We have seen enough of this Administration not nickle-and-diming people to death, but loonieing-and-toonieing people to death, because if we could get for a nickle and a dime what these people have imposed upon the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the last eighteen months we would have a lot.

I suggest the Registry of Deeds, which already brings into the coffers of this government millions upon millions and millions of dollars, already pays enough to do the technological advances that you want to have done or you claim to be getting done from this dollar now. These monies will go into general revenues, I would suggest, and we will probably never, ever hear about how much was taken in because of this little fee that the minister is so pleased to bring in. She says it is a simple amendment. I guess it is all pretty simple if you amend 100 pieces of legislation to bring in simple little increases of $75 to $100. They all might seem simple and they all might be pleasing, but there is somebody who has to pay for them out of their pockets. I do not know how you could possibly be excited and pleased with anything that has this effect. You might be pleased with the end result of seeing our Registry of Deeds that is up-to-date and online, but I certainly would not be too pleased about having to bring in another fee.

You talk about the use of words and how cute they are and when you use them. We had the Minister of Finance stand up here on the day he delivered the Budget, and he was quite truthful: We are not increasing any fees in this Budget except one on the tobacco, one cent on a smoke, that is the only fee we are increasing. That is true in the Budget, but he did not tell us about this thing that was going to come down on us through legislation, another fee. That is why the people out there have some difficulty with accepting this Administration's way of operating. You say one thing and then it appears that you try to sneak through the back door something else. If you are not lily-white, do not proclaim to be lily-white, and then to have a minister stand up and ballyhoo that she is pleased with this simple amendment. We are very pleased, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we are going to inflict another fee upon you. Yeah, take this with open arms, enjoy, I am sure.

Anybody who buys a home, buys a piece of land and goes and gets a mortgage in this Province, from this day forward, or whenever this receives Royal Assent, do not worry about. It is only another twenty-five bucks. Well, I would not think there are too many people out there pleased with that. I say to the Minister of Finance, absolutely, we are not in favour of this piece of legislation. Not on your life.

Now, we talk about improving the Registry of Deeds. Great! All the lawyers in the Province are going to love it. I am associated with a firm that will probably benefit from it as well, for the use of customers, but I would like to see a commitment from this government, at the end of the day, how much this simple, pleasing amendment is going to bring in, over the next two years even, just take a yardstick of two years, how much this $25 increase is going to put into the government coffers versus how much government is going to give to the Department of Government Services so that the Registry of Companies can, indeed, improve the technology that is currently useable in the Registry of Companies. I will bet my bottom dollar that at the end of two years we are going to see a lot more that has come into the coffers of government through this pleasing $25 fee than we are going to see go into the Registry of Companies. I bet we will not get such an undertaking from this government. There is no connection, no connection whatsoever, I would submit, between the $25 fee increase and the amount of money that is going to be put into the improvements in technological advances in the Registry of Companies.

We have good examples of why that has not happened. We had the same minister we asked some time ago: What about all the money that has been taken on the other fees that were improved in the first Budget this government brought in? Because that was supposed to improve the technology in the Registry of Companies, as well. That was going to provide adequate funds to do it. Would you believe that this Registry of Deeds that everybody, all of us in here have used, probably at some time or other, to register our land deed or to register a mortgage - and I raised this question with the Minister of Justice, for example, who is quite familiar with this as well - you cannot use today, in this building, in our Registry of Companies, in the vault where you go in to do your work, you cannot, if you are a searcher of title in this Province or anybody, a private citizen who goes into the vault of the registry of companies, use a cell phone or a BlackBerry to get the results out. Now, that is technology! We are going to put all this on line, so that if I am sitting in Port aux Basques and I want to go on line, I am going to be able to go in and find out the title history on anybody's property. Great! If I want to find out what the Government House Leader has in Kilbride, in terms of property registered or mortgages, I am going to be able to do that when this technology comes into effect.

MR. E. BYRNE: When you do, will you pay it off for me?

MR. PARSONS: Not a problem.

The problem is, if I happen to walk downstairs in this building now - talk about the technology! - if I walk downstairs inside of this building where it happens to be located today, and look up information on Minister Byrne's property and I decide I want to open my cell phone or my BlackBerry and relay that information to Port aux Basques via my cell phone or BlackBerry, I can't do it. You talk about technological advances! If I am in Port aux Basques, I can internet in, get it and take it out, but if I am downstairs in this registry I cannot look at the paper and call it out or e-mail it out. Now, that is a simple technological advance. There is not even a fax machine down there.

We have people down there every day who work at it. In the City of St. John's, for example, there are at least forty to fifty title searchers who make their living from searching title and providing this information to lawyers and credit companies and banks and whatever, to conduct business. If I am in line, for example, I have to lose my place in line. If I want to use one of the computers down there and I go in and look up that title information and I have ten more to do but I have to get that one back to my office, sorry, I have to leave the line, lose my place, go outside, make my phone call or send my e-mail from my laptop or my BlackBerry, and when I come back I have to stand in line again and start the process over. Now, that is technology!

I say to the minister, don't give us this sham about the technological improvements until we fix some of this very, very basic stuff, and don't suggest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this is a nice piece of legislation, that you are pleased to inflict another fee upon them. Surely people out there are questioning this administration anyway about fees. Don't try to sugar-coat it. As I say, you are not even nickel-and-diming people, it is much more serious than that. You are loonieing-and-toonieing them to death. You cannot go anywhere in this Province without a fee and here is another one.

We will have more to say about this when we get to the committee stage, but I guess you gather from my comments right now that we, in the Opposition, certainly are not too pleased, as the minister is, with another fee.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this legislation which effectively increases the fee for the registering of documents, in the Registry of Deeds, by 33 per cent. In fact, that is the second increase in the last couple of years. Two years ago it was $50 to register a document and now it is $100. So, we have had two increases since this government came in office. One, to go from $50 to $75, and now we are going from $75 to $100.

The Member for LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, talked about some of the issues that are affected here, but it is not just a person who buys a property, Mr. Speaker. There may be four or five different documents related to a transaction. If you have a mortgage - one is being paid off and another one is being put into place, there is a fee related to a release of mortgage. It could be registered for $50 two years ago and now it is going to cost $100. So, someone who has discharged a mortgage, paid all their money to the bank, they have finally gotten rid of their mortgage - and it is document called a release of mortgage that is sent out by the bank or the mortgage company and they have to go register it at the Registry of Deeds - and this minister wants $100 just to register the deed to show that they paid off their mortgage.

So, it is not simply a real estate transaction because a real estate transaction might involve three or four documents. It might involve a deed. It might involve a separate affidavit or declaration. It might come from someone else. You might have to get a separate deed of confirmation if there is some difficulty with the title. So, you could have a deed of conveyance. You could have a deed of confirmation, if the title needs to be straightened out; that is another $100. You could have a release of mortgage because you are doing a refinance; that is another $100. You might have a mortgage, as well; that is another $100. These things add up. It is not simply one fee for one property transaction.

What the minister is saying here is: Yes, we have one fee. But that one fee could apply to three or four documents in one real estate transaction. So her increase of $25 is not $25 per transaction. When I say transaction I mean a real estate deal because the transaction might be a conveyance, it might be a mortgage, it might be a release of mortgage, it might be in other cases a release of a mechanics lien or some other lien that was placed on the property, and on each of these documents the minister is charging now $100 for instead of what used to be, two years ago, $50. These fees are paid regardless of the ability of an individual to pay. I think the government thinks that they can do this sort of stuff because they get buried in a lawyer's bill somewhere along the line. They are showing as a disbursement that the client, the individual, ultimately has to pay. The money might come from a lawyer's office to pay the Registry of Deeds, but the person who is supplying that money is the individual client who sees that increase, who has to bare that increase in cost when they are paying these fees.

There have been complaints about this registry for many, many years. I do not blame it all on the minister. The registry has been a backward place, from a technology point of view, for years. The computer system that is there - I do not know how many years old it is. It is probably fifteen years old or more. There has been some upgrading done, but the system is rather antiquated. The kind of computers that people are using today in high schools - young people or anybody using - they are not compatible with any of the equipment down there. There is an absolute need for a major, major upgrade. There is no question about that.

I know some work has been done in the last year, but what I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, do the upgrade and then increase the fee. If you are getting something that is more efficient, that takes less time to process, that someone might be able to save money on - because if you have an efficient electronic system that, as the hon. member said, if his colleagues in Port aux Basques can access through the Internet and pay a fee for, well maybe the services that are being provided by his colleagues in Port aux Basques can be done more cheaply for the consumer. I do not have a problem with the government taking a bigger fee if they are providing a better service and that could be passed on to the consumer. I do not have a problem with that.

What we see happening with fees, the Registry of Deeds in particular, over the last decade or more is that the fees are going up but the service is not getting any better. I would like the minister to give us a breakdown on what we are going to be getting. What we, as consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to be getting for our extra $25. We know it costs money to run these operations but my understanding is that the Registry of Deeds makes money for the government, some $20 million a year.

When I look at the revenues that come from the Registry of Deeds, I think it is in the order of $20 million a year, I venture to say it does not cost one-tenth of that to run the Registry of Deeds the way it is right now. Maybe the minister can enlighten me on that. Maybe the minister can enlighten me and tell us what it costs to run the Registry of Deeds. I understand from the Estimates that the fees that are received for registration of documents at the Registry of Deeds of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the order of some $20 million; around $20 million. I do not know what the costs are. Perhaps the minister can inform us as to how much of that $20 million actually gets spent in operating the Registry of Deeds and how much money, in addition, she expects to receive by charging an extra $25, and are people going to be getting a better service if they are paying this more money. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing is seeing revenue increases, or revenue taken in by the government but nothing in return for it to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now she will close the debate at second reading.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have Companies and Deeds Online. This is Phase IV of CADO, our computer system that we improving and enhancing our services there. The stakeholders have been very happy with this, to be able to get a deed online. Right now they can go in and search. In November, this will be up and running and they will be able to go in and search for a deed online. We are working towards Phase V where you will actually be able to register a deed online. This today, the service charge of $25, the people are pleased with the level of service that they are going to get with the companies and Registry of Deeds online when we enhance it with our new technology changes.

I say to hon. members, that companies registering deeds in the Province will have a better service. It will be enhanced with technology and we are going to meet our commitment that government has said, more e-commerce online.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 10)

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 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, and Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

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 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, and Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board.

A bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board." (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 17.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 17. Shall clauses 2 to 17 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 17 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 17 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 11 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 and 2.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the minister responded to some of the concerns in her closing comments at second reading, and she talked about the Registry of Deeds and Companies. I would inquire, with respect to Companies, as to what state we are in right now. I know that anybody in this Province or anywhere across the country can go online and examine the Nova Scotia corporate registry and find the name of the corporation, when they were incorporated, who the directors are, what the addresses are and any changes to their officers and all of that; a very efficient system that is available, open to the public. There are no fees associated with that. It seems to be an open and transparent system, Mr. Chair, available at large on the internet.

Are we going to have our corporate registry, the Registry of Companies, similarly available online to the public? Is that the intention of government here? Are we along that road? Have we got anything done with respect to putting that stuff in computer form or available for reading on a computer, and what is the time line on that? Is the minister planning to have that available publicly or will there be fees and accounts associated with it, the same way the Sheriff's Office have set up their operations now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Phase IV of this program will be up and running in November. Actually, what you will be able to do, you will be able to go anywhere in the Province online to search for a deed, but you will not be able to register a deed online until we do Phase V.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about companies?

MS WHALEN: Companies are online as well, companies and deeds.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a few comments and an inquiry to the minister.

Again, this particular bill must have escaped the Minister of Finance when he gave his statement here, that there would be no fee increases in his Budget. It is a cute little way of doing it, I guess. What you do not do through the front door you do through the back door; you bring in a bill to amend the charges.

It is quite interesting to note that there had been 171 service fees introduced in last year's Budget, and it is only now that they are starting to have a ripple effect on the people of our Province, especially those, Mr. Chair, in rural Newfoundland. There are many people facing hardships in trying to pay these fees. For instance, to license your car, $180, a $60 increase in a short period of time.

My impression of all this is that the government is trying to maintain its debt reduction agenda, but unfortunately it is happening on the backs of rural Newfoundland. For a person, and I have had calls even from the minister's own district, to have to leave Bell Island to access some of these services, to take a ferry in the worse kind of weather in the wintertime to go over to get a driver's licence renewed - the only thing that I ask the minister is: Will there be an effort to make sure that the service charges are going to be well met by improved services?

You know, we look at a board that was just created a few moments ago and my fear, of course, with that one, is that it will be filled up with political appointments as well. If these service fees are going to be used to help pay toward the cost of some of this stuff, like Mike Monahan, for instance, being appointed Vice-Chair of NLC - because I know the fee is going to the general kitty; the department does not get it for their own use, I understand. All revenue that comes in goes to the Newfoundland Exchequer, so there is no guarantee that these fees will ever go to the department for better services. John Sweetland being appointed to the Labour Relations Board, all these people, the Glenn Tobins, the Len Simms, the Nina Bordens, all these appointments come with price tags, so we just created a board a few minutes ago for another seven or eight people.

If the fees are going to go towards that, then I have a problem with it and I will speak against that, any increase to the taxpayers of this Province. I think it is time for the government to sit back a little tiny bit until we get past the hardship that is being encountered right now in this Province and stop these fees, because we have had everything. Somebody made a comment to me the other day, that this government has increased every single fee from the minute you are born to the minute you die, from the cradle to the grave. Tax grabs, it is called. From Pampers to caskets, no matter what you come into the world in, or what you go out in, you are paying taxes right through, and there are fees grabbed right through on the whole works of it.

Many people are saying: What is after happening to the increase in fees that we had for our car licence? There is no evidence of that being used on our highways, the Trans-Canada Highway, at least the portion I drove over. Nobody saw where it went. Not a soul in my area has seen it.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Not from Carbonear to St. John's.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Government House Leader, there is nothing silly about raising concerns about the conditions of our highways, and being inquisitive about how the fees that we are raising in this Province, how we are increasing fees on the taxpayers here in this Province, and where their money is being spent. There is nothing silly about that, I say to the Government House Leader. It is very critical, as a matter of fact.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) twenty years in terms of (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The Minister of Finance wants his two cents' worth. Unfortunately, there is $25 worth here, Minister of Finance. It is not two cents.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: It is nothing silly, I say to the minister. You had your opportunity when you were down there. You tried to pave a private road down there in your area, a cabin road. That was what you recommended to the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I recommended to not do it. In fact, when (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: That is the reason, because of the irresponsible attitude with which this government is handling the finances of the Province under the cloak of being financially responsible. It is terrible, what is happening. There is no rural renewal program planned for this Province. We have people moving out of communities in this Province without any hope for the future here. We have fisherpeople out there, as I said earlier today, doing Flagperson courses, just trying to find a way to feed their families, trying to create a little bit of an extra opportunity for when they go to Alberta or Nova Scotia in another fish plant. There is just no sense to all of this.

There were 171 service fees introduced in last year's Budget and now, all of a sudden, there are no service fees, very cutely said by the Minister of Finance. All of a sudden, through the back door, we get a service charge increase. That is why myself and my Party, the members opposite over here, are not supporting this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, this new increase fee of $25 is for the $2.6 million that it is going to cost to do the enhancement to this initiative that we have undertaken to give a better service to the public and to our clients. Also, we will be able to search for mechanic liens on-line and deeds on-line, so it will access throughout the Province, through the Internet, and it will improve the services greatly.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: If I understand the minister correctly, the money that is being raised through these increased fees will be given directly back to the department and not to the general coffers, if it is going to be used?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: So, will the fees be reduced after this service is paid for, this $2.6 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 10 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 that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 10 and 11 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, and Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, have passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted; bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave; Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Bill 11, I believe, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 or Bill 10.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I didn't catch what you said earlier.

I do now move third reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached to proceed.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board by now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11, An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board. (Bill 11)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 10 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 10)

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 Services Charges Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 10)

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

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

Order 6, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. (Bill 17).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, " An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation." ( Bill 17).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to have some opening comments on this very historic piece of legislation, the Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, a short history, I guess, of 1999, when this announcement came with the previous administration, December of 1999, if I am not mistaken, to the date we have now which everybody is quite familiar with, that on June 29 of this year The Rooms will officially open. Mr. Speaker, I say a short history, but, of course, a longer history to come with respect to arts and culture in this Province. Certainly it is short from 1999 to now, its opening date, especially with respect to last year. As everybody in the Province knows, this government, when entering office, decided to have a delay of one year before opening The Rooms.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly was an interesting year of hearing different comments from different people throughout the Province, through my hon. colleagues in the House of Assembly and so on. As I look back at that year, and as one artist said to me during the consultations and when we were speaking to the different groups throughout the Province, when we decided to delay the opening of The Rooms, was that one year is a short time, really, when you look at what this is going to bring to the Province.

It will be a new state-of-the-art facility, Mr. Speaker. There has been much debate, discussion, and comment throughout the last four or five years about The Rooms, Mr. Speaker, and what it would bring to the Province. I have certainly had some interesting discussions right from back in Estimates last year when, of course, the delay was in place for The Rooms. The group from VANL came into the gallery and sat here through the entire Estimates. Of course, I have had many meetings with them since, Mr. Speaker.

I had an interesting interview just a few days ago with a reporter about VANL, the Visual Artists of Newfoundland and Labrador, about this past year and the relationship that I have had with them, and, of course, that the department has had with them. Now that they see how government has worked through this past year of delay and what we have to look forward to, I think we have had a strong relationship. I have really appreciated their comments and certainly getting to know them better and what they are all about for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have so much talent in this Province that I think a lot of people will see that even more and more as we move into this new era of a facility that we have now for the Province.

Of course, The Rooms Act will provide a clear legislative framework for the management and operation of The Rooms and its divisions, keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, our provincial museum, our archives, and our arts, will all come together under one.

I think, as we look through this - and I am sure we will get many comments as I just begin discussion on this particular piece of legislation today - it really is historic as we move forward into the state of the art facility.

I heard different numbers across the floor and so on, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify and make sure it is concrete, I have heard different numbers about what the total cost of The Rooms would be, but it is a $48.8 million, the facility that is now built, constructed. As I said earlier, it was delayed for one year in opening. As I look back, Mr. Speaker, when I think about the conversations and discussions we have had with various groups and even members in the House, in that one year delay, I think the time we took to delay that made me have a better understanding of what that whole facility holds for this entire Province.

As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, many times, that facility is not a St. John's facility and never should be looked at as such. It should be looked at as something that will move forward the arts and culture of this Province, especially our cultural heritage, that we can put on a stage for the world that hopefully will visit this Province, Mr. Speaker, to see what that facility holds.

June 29 is shaping up to be a very interesting opening. We will have more details. We have a committee in place and we will update the House very soon, as a matter of fact within the next couple to three weeks, on how the opening is shaping up. It is going to be an interesting day for a lot of people in this Province who put so much hard work into it, and the board that has put so much time and effort into this. I have to commend them today, Mr. Speaker. I think we have developed a very good rapport, a good working relationship, with myself and the entire department. People in my department who have been working with this for so long, I want to thank them today for putting so much effort into this; the initial transition team, before the delay came on stream, Mr. Speaker, that worked so hard and now, of course, more work has to be done.

I am looking forward to some comments from my colleagues. The bill is basically broken up into six parts. We will go through them one by one in more detail, I am sure, as the discussion continues here today.

I want to say to everybody, Mr. Speaker, who put so much time and work into this, the understanding of how important this is to the Province as we move forward. I know we have gotten comments from throughout Canada and even from Ireland, France and so on, that are looking forward to coming to see this facility and how we stage our own culture and heritage in that particular facility.

I am sure some of the members have seen it from the outside, and there have been many comments. Some people have seen it from the inside, Mr. Speaker, with some events that have taken place there. I am sure that a lot of people are looking forward to the actual opening of The Rooms, when we can walk inside to see exactly what it is all about and to really get a feel for the description; the whole history of The Rooms, why it was called The Rooms, and so on, and I guess as more people learn about it, why it was started, why the initiative was taken by the previous administration, why we had to delay, right up until the time it opens, and more importantly, Mr. Speaker, what it holds for the future of the Province, especially our arts and culture community, our museum, our archives and so on.

Mr. Speaker, those are my opening remarks on this piece of legislation. I am looking forward to comments from my colleagues, and certainly more discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, say to the minister, it will be a proud day for Newfoundland when The Rooms is open. When the previous government, our government, started this concept it was going to become a world-class facility, and obviously it has.

There was some disappointment that The Rooms didn't open last year. As the minister is well aware, I met with several of the groups at the time. My recommendation at the time was, let's go up and sit down with the minister and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. When we met with the group we said, let's sit down with the minister and try to work this out, because this is too big an issue, it is too important for the Province, to try and take snipes at. I am glad that things worked out for the groups, because they are going to be the ones who are going to be using The Rooms, more than any of us.

I will have a few more words to say in the Committee Stage, but I would be remiss as a member for the West Coast if I didn't bring up the exhibition centre that was committed to during the election. We had $300,000, water and sewer already completed. It was a commitment that was made during the election to complete the exhibition centre. As the minister informed me during the Estimates, now it has been totally cancelled. The exhibition centre in Corner Brook has been totally cancelled.

I understand the importance of The Rooms for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the exhibition centre with the fine arts in Corner Brook - Corner Brook city council itself was going to move up the archives from the City of Corner Brook. Again, that was going to be a centre for all of the West Coast and I would be remiss if I didn't bring that up.

I will have other things to say about The Rooms. I didn't get my invitation yet, I say to the minister. I have the date but I haven't got my invitation to speak at The Rooms, at the official opening. I am sure that will be forthcoming, because, as the minister said last year, when we worked together with the committees, he said I will be getting an invitation. I will be sitting at and speaking at The Rooms. I look forward to the minister at The Rooms. I will have more to say at Committee Stage.

I understand this itself, setting up the board, is a procedural thing that has to be done to get it up and operational. There are some things I will bring up as we are reading through it, that I will discuss. The minister may be able to explain it or just give the government's position or their point of view.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words at second reading on the bill, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. I am not going to say a lot about the legislation itself, the legislation obviously establishes the structure by which The Rooms should operate.

I think, I do not know, maybe the minister can let us know when he concludes debate, I am not sure there is anywhere else in legislation where the goals, duties and objectives of the archives, for example, are covered and spelled out in such a way as they are here in this act; as equally with the museum and the art gallery. I think this may be the first time that the purposes, duties and responsibilities of the various arms of The Rooms are actually spelled out, so that we do have a set of goals and a set of objectives for the operation of these various entities. Because within the entities of The Rooms Corporation we do have three separate operations, that is: the archives, the museum and the art gallery. I do not know if any of these organizations are incorporated at this point.

We have a Historic Resources Act, for example - and some parts of it are repealed as a result of this - but when we look at the legislation itself, we have a fairly detailed set of objectives for the provincial archives, for the museum and for the art gallery. I see on the legislative agenda we also have a new piece of legislation for the preservation of public records, which will obviously go to the archives. This seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a very important step forward by this government in terms - or this government and the previous government, our government in general. I am not being partisan when I talk about this, but for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador it is a significant step forward in terms of the preservation of public records, in terms of providing a place where public records can, in fact, be maintained in a safe and climate controlled condition, for example, and with respect to the museum, the archives and the art collection that the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador has. These are incredibly important, cultural objects, Mr. Speaker, and part of our cultural history.

There have been complaints in the past, and very legitimate complaints, about the state in which many of the Province's physical part of the material culture of the Province - here I am talking about physical objects, but is known, obviously, in cultural circles as material culture - going back many, many years. In some cases centuries and centuries and millennia, archival objects that are in the possession of the museum, archeological treasures and (inaudible) going back to the Maritime Archaic Indians and the group called the Dorset Eskimos, Dorset people, I think they call them now. All of these things are tremendously important and valuable cultural objects that are part of our material culture of the past that need to be preserved.

We have seen situations where - and maybe the ministers had the tour of some of the buildings, the public buildings where these artifacts have been stored with leaky roofs and mildew and mold and incredible disrespect for these cultural objects that has happened in the past. Our art gallery, for example, was unable, in many cases, to have travelling exhibits come to be used in our art gallery because the people who own these exhibits were not happy with the ability of the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador to actually exhibit these in a proper climate, to have the proper security, to have the proper protection for these valuable art objects that we want to see travel around through displays.

For our archives, in the sense of documentation, it has also been a concern. You know, we need to preserve old records. We need a proper climate control. We need proper environmental protection. We need, I guess they call them vaults, Mr. Speaker, that do have ways of preserving these documents, preserving them from fire, preserving them from the effects of even light and oxygen; after time they deteriorate. So, a big and important part of The Rooms is something that the public will never see. The public will never see many important parts of The Rooms that are buried underground - and that is another topic. We will get into that in a minute. But many important aspects of The Rooms, as a facility, are, in fact, the vaults that preserve the cultural objects, the artifacts at the museum we want to see preserved, the documentation and photographs that our archives need to preserve and our art collection. That has to be preserved, as well, because otherwise it could deteriorate seriously over time.

So, this is a very important step forward. I was very pleased to be present, in fact, at the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador when the former former premier, Premier Tobin, made an announcement, I think to the surprise of the then Finance Minister, to make the verbal commitment to the assembled group that the government was committed to building a new cultural facility. The minister mentioned the exact price - I think the talk at the time was $40 million. It probably cost closer to $50 million when it was all said and done, but nevertheless, I am not going to quibble of whether it is forty-eight or forty-nine. Whatever it cost it is worth it, because it is an important statement that we have made about ourselves as a people. It is an important statement we have made about ourselves as a people about our pride, in our history in our culture, in our past, in our artistic merit, in our cultural values and in our future because we intend to be around for a long, long time to come. If we are able to preserve our past and our culture, we are also able to build on it and go forward with pride into the future.

This is a very important cultural and political statement, as well as a piece of architecture. People can argue about it. I have my own opinions, but my opinions do not matter very much. The building is there, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we should all be proud of, and we should look forward to the opening.

There has been a great dispute about the location of where it is put. Everybody, again, has an opinion about that. I would be a lot happier if we could preserve, underneath this building, the previous architectural fortifications that were there from the old Fort Townsend. I understand some of them have been preserved. I have yet to have a pre-tour of the building. I am looking forward to the openings to see what, in fact, has been done to expose and make available for view some of the aspects of the previous fortifications. There are those who said it should have been left alone and turned into some sort of Louisbourg in the middle of St. John's. Whether or not the hundreds of millions of dollars to do that sort of thing would have been available, I do not know, but these controversies are in the past. We now have a completed structure which is going to be opened very soon. I would have preferred to see it open last year. I am very sorry it was not open last year. I think that this government made that decision as a political statement rather than a real statement that needed to be made because of the Province's finances, but that is again another debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to concentrate today on the pride that I feel, and that I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will feel when they see this facility in operation and see the presentation of our history, culture and visual art in this facility.

I, too, am very concerned about what the Member for Bay of Islands has raised. What about what was supposed to happen on the West Coast as part of this facility. I know we have programing, and one of the important things that has yet to be seen is what level of programing is going to be associated with the art gallery, with the museum, and with the archives. That is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. There has to be a lot of money spent on what I call programing. Programing is, how is this cultural facility going to be integrated into the community; not just the artistic community, Mr. Speaker, the artistic community I have a lot of respect for. A lot of people make significant contributions to this Province through their art, through their creativity. They are the contributors. They are the people who produce the art and produce the cultural values that we have. There has to be an outreach program that ensures that people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador have an involvement, have a piece of the action, have a place in our cultural exhibition center, that involves them in participating themselves in this cultural activity.

What about the archives, Mr. Speaker? There has been some controversy about that. Why should there be a charge, a fee, for people to go to the archives? The Archives Association has made public their concerns about this, and that this is something that generates the archives. I know the minister probably knows this, I am sure he has been told, that there are people who come to this Province - I see that the Speaker's watch is winding down. I would ask if I may have leave to go on for just another few minutes to talk about this important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: There is a concern about people coming to St. John's right now. They come to St. John's, they spend weeks here, looking up their family trees, using the genealogical resources of the current archives. They are staying in bed and breakfasts, they are staying in hotels, and while they are here, they are taking a side trip off to perhaps the community where their ancestors came from. They are coming here from the United Kingdom, they are coming here from the United States, they are coming here from Australia, to search their family trees. Then they will take another week and they will go out to Hants Harbour, or they will go out to Baie Verte, or they will go out to the Burin peninsula, and visit the birthplace of their ancestors, because that is why they are coming here. This is a very significant generator of tourism value, of revenue, of visitation, of people who are here to spend money because they care about this place, or they have some connection to this place.

There are a lot of important things that will go on because this Rooms facility is going to be in place. I know the minister talked about some of them. There are visiting art exhibitions, international art exhibitions, museum exhibits. We see places like Toronto advertising across the country that a certain exhibit is visiting Toronto. People actually travel from this Province to Toronto to see a Tutankhamen exhibit or some other exhibit that might be of renown, that is important enough that people want to go and have a look at this sort of thing. I think that is the kind of facility that we have here. I do not want to use the term world-class. It is a bit shop worn, it is a bit self-conscious.

We have a culture - I will quote Andy Jones. I think he called it a big, huge, gigantic culture. A galoot of a culture, I think he called it, here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a kind of culture that deserves to be exhibited, Mr. Speaker, and is one that we can exhibit through our museum, through our art gallery, through our archival displays, through our historical artifacts, or whatever program that can take place here to draw people who are interested in these things. Cultural tourism, I think, is the word that gets used. We hear about adventure tourism. There is also a high degree of cultural tourism.

A lot of people travel around the world, Mr. Speaker, not just to go to the sun, not just to find places to lie on a beach, they travel to places that are interesting, that have something unique to offer. That is why people go all the way up to the Northern Peninsula to visit L'Anse-aux Meadows. They go all the way to Mistaken Point. They go to Red Bay on the Coast of Labrador. They will travel north to Nain on a coastal boat because they are interested in different places, in different cultures. If we have a proper kind of programing at The Rooms through the minister's department we can generate even more visits to this Province, people interested in our culture, people interested in coming here, because we have something to offer and they have an opportunity to see it, if they come here, through a display in a place like The Rooms.

It is a very exciting situation. I, in some respects, envy the minister's direct involvement in this terrific cultural advance for the Province. He is a lucky man to be able to participate in this to the degree that he is able to do it. I see the smile on his face now when I am looking at him. I think he knows that he is a lucky man in the history of this Province to be able to be the person who is going officiate at the opening of The Rooms. I think it is a very positive event for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am going to leave some of the politics aside, Mr. Speaker. We can always carp at the government for what they did or did not do, but I think I do want to recognize that it was something very positive that Premier Tobin left behind when he came here for his five years, or his four-and-a-half years, as Premier of the Province. One of the most positive things that he did as Premier was to take the decision, as a government, to bite the bullet on the cost, to say that we needed to do this - 500 years.

There was a lot of talk at the time. I remember, at the time, there was a lot of talk about what the federal government was going to give to Newfoundland and Labrador as a gift for fifty years of Confederation. Well, we did not get that gift, Mr. Speaker. We did not get any gift. We had to give ourselves recognition. We had to do it ourselves, right here. We had to make a decision, Mr. Speaker, to do this, to build The Rooms, and to make our own statement about our future, and I am prouder of the fact that we did that, Mr. Speaker, than if it was given to us by someone else - someone else to recognize us. We have stood up on our own two feet and recognized our own value, our own culture and our own future, and I support this effort, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage the minister to go forward and demand more from his colleagues in terms of what this operation can do for the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador throughout the Province, not just here in St. John's.

It is important that it is here; this is the capital. I do not have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker. I am obviously from St. John's, but I do not think any government should ignore the fact that we have a capital city that is important to all of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we do have to go out of our way to ensure that this is a facility to which every citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador has access, can be proud of, and can participate in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just have a few comments at the second reading stage.

I want to thank both my colleagues for their comments. Certainly, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stated already how important this is to our culture and our well-being, and how many people in this Province want to make sure that our culture is exhibited not just in The Rooms. I say to the member, he mentioned about the education outreach. I can assure the member, in discussions I have had with the board and people at The Rooms, that will be a big part of The Rooms.

As I said earlier in my statement, Mr. Speaker, it is not just about a facility in St. John's or the capital city, as you have rightly said, but it will be a part of Newfoundland and Labrador from tip to tip, when you can visit The Rooms and see exhibits that describe the Inuit of Labrador to the Dorset Eskimo site in Fleur de Lys, to L'Anse-au-Meadow, down through Port aux Basques, through our Beothuk Indians, all of those cultural parts that go throughout our entire Province, when you walk into a facility called The Rooms and you can sense the culture and heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, Mr. Speaker - and I agree with the member - that will be a big part of what The Rooms is all about: not just a structure, but about the education. I have had seniors' groups come to me already, who have also made some representation to The Rooms board and so on, about the use they will have at the facility, seniors' groups throughout the Province, students and groups who are ready to come in to see The Rooms.

I am sure, as this develops and grows, that Newfoundland and Labrador has become a part of it. That is why it is going to work so well. We will not be able to answer every question today about the Rooms, but as time goes by, year after year, we will, of course, make improvements and work with different groups to make sure that it is for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. On that point, I agree with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and my friend from Bay of Islands, that this is a facility for all of Newfoundland and Labrador, and hopefully we will work to make it better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. (Bill 17)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 17)

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 17, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation.

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 17, An Respecting The Rooms Corporation.

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 this 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!

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation." (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 38, inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 38, inclusive.

Shall clauses 2 to 38 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 38 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 38 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 17 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 17 passed, 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 17, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

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

I move third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. ( Bill 17)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

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

Order 3, right at the top of the Order Paper, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, Bill 7, in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act." (Bill 7)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are three clauses here. I will just briefly give an explanation of each one.

The first clause, it says, would amend section 10 and 11 of the Executive Council Act. What it does here, Mr. Speaker, is that the Executive Council Act now permits a minister to enter into agreements which are necessary for the operation of departmental programs, but it does not reference the Financial Administration Act with any agreements with liabilities with reference to the Province. All we are doing here now is we are trying to link the two pieces of legislation so that the Executive Council Act will make reference to the Financial Administration Act. That is what it is doing in clause one.

In clause 3, the second clause in this bill, right now the Executive Council Act in section 16, what it does is provides for a minister to require the Minister of Finance to make a payment under an agreement for departmental administration, but the Financial Administration Act gives that authority to the Deputy Minister to do that on departmental, and for payments to be issued by the Comptroller General. We are going to delete that section in the Executive Council Act, where it gives authority to the minister, and that means the Financial Administration Act will deal with it. The Deputy Minister will have responsibility and report to, we will say, the Comptroller General.

In other words, the two pieces conflict. You remove one, and it has been sitting there for some time. One is saying one thing and one is saying another. In other words, responsibility for the financial transactions rests with the Deputy Minister, accountable with the Comptroller General on that aspect. This is just to clear up that aspect.

There was one other part there in the third particular clause. What it does here, in clause 4 of the Bill - clause 1 and 2 dealt with the first one. All it does: It amended to provide for just a couple of basic things. When the level of detail that facilitates a particular unexpended appropriation has to be done by Treasury Board after appropriate consultation, that required information has to forwarded to the Comptroller General and then the timing for that to occur has to be set by Treasury Board. That is to allow the proper transition of any funding and so on in case of any movement there. It has to be done in compliance with legislation to make sure it adheres, and that is clearly set out. That is what it does.

They are more or less housekeeping to clarify some things that have been there, where there were conflicts and that. It is very straightforward, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and speak on Bill 7, An Act to Amend The Executive Council Act.

The Minister of Finance has been fairly clear in stating what this act is all about, in giving clarity for minister's position in Cabinet and the authority that holds in relation to a department.

One thing I would like to ask the minister, though, particularly as it relates to the Department of Business last year: There was $1 million in a budget set out for the Department of Business last year, and, in fact, there was only $277,000 of that budget allocation used by the Department of Business. I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance where the balance of that money was transferred. Would you like to answer that now, or shall I continue on?

MR. SULLIVAN: You can continue on. I will speak to that after.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

That was curious, because I know that in this year coming up for the Department of Business there is $1.4 million indicated for use by the Department of Business this year. What is alarming in the salary section is, when you go to the Salary Details there is no indication in the Salary Details at all as to how many employees are going to be hired. That seems to be a bit odd, because when you look at every department of government in this government, they indicate how many employees will make up the salary budget. For the new Department of Business - it is not really new. This Department of Business is not new. It was part of the Budget of 2004. Yet, for all of that, there was a mystery surrounding it last year because there was no indication as to the number of people who were going to be working in that department and the budget was not used. Only one-third of the budget was used. Even when you go to this year, 2005, it is still not clear who is going to be hired for salaries. It says TBD. In language in government TBD is To Be Determined.

It seems a little odd to me, that after two years, with appropriations in the Budget for the Department of Business, there are entirely no details on salary, and entirely no details on how that money will be spent. That is one question that I would like for the minister to answer.

I would also ask him: Last summer, when the Premier decided to come up with money for the VON, there was no approval from Treasury Board on that very announcement that the Premier made. I asked the minister in Estimates Committee and he said it was taken from the Health and Community budget. There was money to use in the Health and Community budget. I am sure the general population of this Province knows and understands that you just cannot say on a whim that you are going to make a donation, or approve a project, or approve a loan, or guarantee a loan, without that matter having first gone through Treasury Board. That is definitely a serious omission. It is a breaking of the rules of the Financial Administration Act of this Province, when a Premier goes out at the beginning of a golf tournament for the PC Party and decides to settle a strike for the VON without ever getting this approved through Treasury Board.

The process for the public, who may not be aware of this: Any expenditure of monies, of government funds - there are limitations, I guess, there are certain amounts that can be authorized by the Deputy Minister within the approved budget. For projects not included in the Budget, and new projects, the proper ruling is to have a Cabinet Paper prepared by the minister and the deputy minister of a particular department. Then, that is sent to Treasury Board and is reviewed by all of the members of Treasury Board to make sure this is in order.

You know, when the Premier issued a settlement for the strike by the VON workers he had no approval from Treasury Board, there was no Cabinet Paper in the system. For that reason the Member for Topsail decided to quit her post as the Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Health. That is why she sits on the very last row of the nosebleed section on the government side towards the end of the door, today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It is not terrible, because you did it. You had a choice. You could have sat the Member for Topsail in any seat in your government. You decided to give her the seat on the end of the row. She is so capable. She decided she did not want to be a part of anything or any government that was not following the Financial Administration Act. I guess, part of this bill that you are bringing to the House today might clear some of this up and give a minister authority to do those things in the future, to sidestep Treasury Board.

Whatever happened that the Secretariat from Treasury Board decided to quit a month before the Budget came down? Was that over an issue? Was that over an issue like this? I wonder, was that over an issue like this, where the Secretariat - in other words, considered to be the Deputy Minister of Treasury Board, the one who approves every expenditure in government and also advises the Premier. It is clear that the Premier had a disagreement with Ms Florence Delaney. If he did not, she would still be here today. She was very capable. She was a woman of principle, and it is clear that she was making a recommendation to the Premier that the Premier did not like. She was pretty straightforward. Black was black and white was white with Florence Delaney and there was no grey in between. Absolutely no grey in between. So, for her sudden departure a month before the Budget was brought down, leaves a lot of questions.

So, what I would like to say to the minister today about this Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, the Executive Council is Cabinet and Cabinet is supreme. In fact, the ruler of Cabinet is the Premier. The Premier does not need any of his members of Cabinet to be around to make a decision. He can write the cheque, in other words. The buck stops with the Premier. So, what we are doing here, I guess, is we are allowing a connection now from this particular act to the Financial Administration Act. I would like to hear what the Minister of Finance decided to tell us about why the Department of Business did not use all of their money last year and where did they transfer the $700,000?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An Estimates Committee met and questions on Business to ask - that was the Estimates Committee on line items in a Business budget. I mean, what happens with any budget in any department, you cannot transfer, according to the Financial Administration Act -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) in Business.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. From one particular department to another, you cannot transfer from one department to another. It will contravene the Financial Administration Act. What happens when a department does not spend, it is, what is called, a drop balance. I am sure - the member should know what that is. She was in Treasury Board, as President of Treasury Board before. These questions could have been asked in the Business meeting but they boycotted it and would not go, and would not ask questions on the expenditure of public money. In other words, we spent $277,000 out of $1 million. Did she want us to spend it all? Did she want us to go out and throw it away? I mean, that is not responsible. That is not a responsible thing. So, there was an opportunity.

There is an Estimates Committee to deal with those things. You can spend three hours - I spent four here in Health, came back a second day. I was here in Finance for two or two-and-a-half hours answering questions. They had an opportunity to ask all these questions. This is unrelated to what is happening here. This bill is entirely unrelated to what she is asking. I answered the questions on VON here in this House on the Estimates. I think she was here, I am not sure. The members opposite asked it. Money goes out to community boards and health boards, they make expenditures to provide services in their areas. If they over expend, it has to be recorded as an expenditure. It does not contravene the Financial Administration Act. It was not money flowed out to the boards for that purpose. It came out of the boards budget that was appropriated here in this particular House. That is how it works and that is what happened in that case. I made that clear. I answered it here in this House on that day.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, at second reading?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act. (Bill 7)

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently. (Bill 7)

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

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

Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 18)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very brief one. It is just a one sentence thing.

What happened with the Shops' Closing Act in the fall when it was introduced in the House, the agency stores in our Province, the privately owned stores all over our Province, were able to open on holidays, like the May 24 weekend before that. When we applied the Shops' Closing Act in the fall, and then there was closure invoked, we could not do an amendment at that time. Closure was invoked, which means that those stores now cannot open on the twenty-fourth weekend or Good Friday, or whenever they want to, those private businesses - not the Newfoundland Liquor Stores now. Our own liquor stores will not be opening on these days. When the Shops' Closing Act passed, it took away something that these stores already had. Therefore, we are just giving it back to them now to allow those stores, whether it is in a Foodland building, or a corner store out in Lewisporte, or Corner Brook, or in Labrador City, whatever the case may be, those agency stores can open on a holiday now. They could always do that, but the legislation in December took that away. We want to give them back what they had. We found out about it, the concern was raised, but with coming on Christmas, and there were numerous bills, there was a closure motion on it, and we couldn't do anything about it. We brought it back here to this session to correct that mistake that happened inadvertently in December.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I got a kick out of the minister introducing his bill. He said it was a brief explanation of this bill, and it is, but it is not a small amount of money that this Province collects from it all the same. In fact, last year there was $105 million collected from alcohol sales in this Province. I don't know why he is lowballing the figures this year, because we have an increase in price and he is saying he is going to collect $99 million this year. I don't know if there are going to be less people drinking. Of course, it could be, because there are a lot of people leaving the Province. I forgot about that. Maybe you knew that was going to happen when you made up your budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: Our population went up in the last quarter by 189.

MS THISTLE: Is that right? Well, there are 4,000 people extra out of work compared to this time last year. They are not drinking.

Anyway, I would like to ask the minister another question. Can he tell this House what extra revenue has been collected since the liquor stores have been able to be open on Sundays, starting in January of this year? It is a small act, it is only allowing liquor stores to be in compliance with other public holidays, but I want to ask the minister: Would he tell this House how much money he can expect to receive in revenues this year from the opening of liquor store agencies on Sunday?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about this act, To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. We have had this argument before, and I know the minister is now just trying to legalize something that has been happening anyway, I guess, because the minister hasn't seen fit to prosecute people. I don't think either the Liquor Corporations themselves should be open on Sundays or holidays under the Shops Closing Act, nor the agency stores. I guess, just for completeness, they both should be closed. There is a situation where we ought to respect the point of view of many people in our communities with respect to Sunday and the position of Sunday.

Equally important, if not more important, are the workers who work in the liquor stores. I don't think it makes much difference to the agencies, but in the Liquor Corporation people whose work week was over in six days, it is now over in seven days. People who are trying to plan for a Sunday dinner or a Sunday get-together may now be interfered with by having a family member required to work on a holiday or on a Sunday. You know, the public has, for many, many decades, been used to the idea of, if you want to have liquor for a holiday occasion, you buy it the day before. Not a big hardship on people, Mr. Speaker.

I made joking reference in the debate last fall about the fact that the only people who may need this legislation - need it - are people who do not have the self-control to keep liquor overnight. Whatever they have on hand, they drink on the day they buy it, so they need the liquor stores open every day if they want to have liquor for a holiday - or wine or beer. I was being facetious, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that most people accommodate themselves, have accommodated themselves, to these rules, and to have liquor stores open, whether they be agency stores or stores owned by the Liquor Corporation itself, is not necessary. In fact, it is a backward step when it comes to the working lives of people who are employed in the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I notice we have our first annual report from the Liquor Corporation, with its new board, Annual Report 2004, under the new Chairman, Glenn Tobin, a former member of this House, a well-known former Tory member of this House, I should say, but one thing I did notice is, this is the first time I have seen the Liquor Corporation report without the names of the board of directors in it. On every previous occasion, on the back page, there would be a list - some of them even had their pictures, Mr. Speaker - a list of the members of the board of directors. Other than the name of Glenn Tobin, which had to be signed to the letter to the minister - signed by Mr. Glenn Tobin, Chairman of the Board - you wouldn't know they had any other members of the board. No list of their names, nothing there from the Chief Executive Officer. Even Deloitte & Touche, chartered accountants, just signed Deloitte & Touche. They do not sign their individual names, not that they should. I know that is the practice for auditors all over, but, for some reason, and I do not know - maybe the minister can enlighten us - the board of directors are not showing their names or faces to the -

MS THISTLE: They are on Open Line every night, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: They are on Open Line every night, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans says. I don't know about that. I don't even know who they are. Maybe there is a way of finding out, but you certainly won't find it out from reading the annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, which you could do every other year that I have been in this House. Perhaps the minister can tell us why that is. Is he keeping their identities under wraps, Mr. Speaker? It is public information. I am sure, if I phoned the minister's office, I would get a list, but why, in producing an annual report, have they omitted the names of the board of directors?

I noticed in the back - maybe it is my reading - it seems to be written on the back page: We are a socially responsible retailer, manufacturer, exporter, and employer. I do not know if I am colour-blind. Maybe it is a different colour that I cannot see, but you can hardly see it there at the back. That is normally where you would see, in the back of the book, the list of the board of directors, who they are, what their involvement is, what committees they are on, of the board, and what role they play.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are too shy.

MR. HARRIS: They are too shy? Well, they may be shy but they are probably not shy enough to refuse their director's fees and their fees for participating in board meetings.

I think it has been the custom of this House that corporations of the government, Crown corporations, when they table financial statements and annual reports to this House of Assembly, that the board members identify themselves, that they stand behind the work of their board - not just the chairman - that they stand behind the report, that the report is a report of the board and not a report of the chairman. Just because he has to put his name there, because someone's name has to be there, the whole board should stand behind this report and should have their names available to the House of Assembly, reminding us who is looking after these interests on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Maybe the minister can tell us whether or not he authorized that change, whether this is a part of the new regime, whether it was his authorization that did it, or whether they did it without his permission, without his knowledge, or without his consent. Perhaps he can tell us about that when he rises to close debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker..

I will address a couple of things that are not related to the bill, that were mentioned.

I did not even realize, until the member mentioned, that they were in last year's or the year before that, or any of that. I completely was not aware of that. I did do a news release, because they report to my department, and I said I wanted somebody in there, and the deputy minister went of the board. I released publicly all the names in a news release. On two difference occasions they were released publicly. They were done at two different times. One was done last September, early in September, I think it was, and the other one around October or November. It was announced who the members are, publicly, with backgrounds and so on. That was done in a public forum, no attempt to hide anything whatsoever.

I did ask somebody if they could get last year's report for me. I do not even know if they were in it or not. I am going to have a look now, while I speak to the member. Maybe they are. If they are, I certainly apologize for any change because I did not suggest any change and I am not aware of any change. I am looking at a group of individuals here, sitting in the front, and it does mention - it shows a picture on page 4 of last year. It does, and I think I released this report last year, too, about a year ago, and I tabled it here. It does show them, and there is a picture on page 4 of last year's 2003 report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It shows their picture with their names on the side, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

Last year, I think, I am pretty sure, I tabled this in this House; it reports to my department. If it was done this year, I do not know why. I will certainly check on it. If you would like to see their pictures and names showing in a nice glossy there, I will see if we can arrange a photograph. It is probably a bit cheaper without a photograph, but if he thinks we should do it I am sure we can arrange that.

The other point I just wanted to mention, I do want to mention another point just to clarify things. The purpose of this - and, by the way, I will not go into the Sunday shopping issue but I will mention, just very quickly, that I, for one, and a lot of my colleagues, did not agree with going to seven days a week. I just wanted to say that for the record. It has become a publicly accepted thing. When we looked at liquor stores going to seven days, it was discussed with the union and they did not have an objection to that from the workers point of view, because everybody else is out there now and it has gone so far it has become an accepted thing. That was one of the discussions on it.

I will say, my final comment on this, this is from the stores out there, the small stores, the privately owned ones around the Province now, who, on holidays and long weekends, get an opportunity to make some sales and help their private business all over Newfoundland and Labrador. There are hundreds of these stores all over our Province. There are only about twenty-five Newfoundland and Labrador liquor stores. They are going to be closed on holidays, but it allows those other businesses to do what they were doing for the last number of years that got taken away in December here. We are restoring it back to them, to allow them an opportunity - if you are in Musgravetown, for example, you can go to the store on a particular day, on Sunday. They could do it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they had that right before, on holidays - not Sunday's, now, holidays. That is what it is doing; it is just changing the holiday one here. You see, the Shops Closing Act ordered them, basically, to be closed on holidays. They could always be open on holidays, providing it was not a Sunday. If the holiday is not on a Sunday, it took away that and we are giving it back; which is, I think, only fair, and it helps those businesses in that regard.

With that, I think I have clarified that. He is nodding, which seems like the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi is in agreement with that there, and I think most people are, so I will move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 18)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 18)

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 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, and Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

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 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, and Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act." (Bill 7)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 4. Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 7 is carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee report Bill 18, 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'.

Bill 18 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that Bill 7 and Bill 18 pass without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act, and Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, pass without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I guess we will move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Executive council Act be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 7 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act. (Bill 7)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

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

Third reading of An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, 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 18 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 18)

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 18)

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

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

Order 7, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act." (Bill 13)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, government and myself, as Minister of Environment and Conservation, take the issue of salmon poaching very seriously. We are committed to reducing or eliminating salmon poaching in this Province. It was clearly demonstrated by the Premier last year when he brought in enhanced enforcement programs to protect our salmon rivers. It was further shown again this year when Budget 2005 had a sum of $800,000 to go towards enforcement on our salmon rivers.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government have really fallen down on their responsibilities to protect our salmon rivers and enforcement of our salmon rivers, and therefore this Province had to step in. The fact that the federal government has ignored this issue is no reason for us to ignore it as well. We have stepped in with enhanced enforcement capabilities, enhanced patrol capabilities, but more needs to be done to curtail illegal salmon fishing practices in our rivers, and that is the reason we are bringing in changes to the Wildlife Act, which will allow for stronger penalties, stronger fines, and those will come into effect this season, Mr. Speaker. We are hoping we can eliminate the reckless and irresponsible and illegal salmon fishing practices of some people who have little or no regard for our salmon resources.

We will continue to push the federal government, Mr. Speaker, to put additional resources and additional funding into the protection of our salmon rivers, but while that is happening, and until that happens, we see the need not only to have additional enforcement capabilities, additional resources for enforcement on our salmon rivers, but also for stiffer fines and stiffer penalties, combined with those enforcement capabilities. We will continue to have zero tolerance for those who illegally fish salmon and poach salmon on our rivers. That is the intent and purpose of Bill 13 that we are announcing or introducing here today. As I said, the enforcement measures that come into play with this bill will be brought in this fishing season.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 13.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a comment regarding this Bill 13, to say that we are in favour of the bill. Anything that advances the cause of enforcement in the protection of our wildlife is certainly admirable and we certainly do need it. We have conservation officers, of course, but there is little value to having the officers if we do not equip them, not only with the necessary guns and things that have been talked about in terms of protective devices for themselves, but we also have to give them the laws once they do come upon an offence to see that things are done and that they have the authority to do it. Once it gets down to a courtroom later on, that it does not get thrown out because some definition is not adequate and not proper to make sure that a conviction takes place. So, the definition changes that are being brought about by this act, plus the suspension and cancellation of licences and so on, and to being able to stop vehicles and so on is very important as well.

We have had lots of cases where a conservation officer might be on a woods road back in the woods and he sees someone in a truck, or whatever, and he may have all the reason in the world to suspect that an offence has taken place, or is about to take place, yet that conservation officer has no authority to check the vehicle or to check the occupants of the vehicle. This will provide that right to do that. It is basically, I believe, bringing the authority of our conservation officers provincially inline with what already exists for fisheries officers, for example. That is certainly admirable, and we would have no objection to making our laws adapted so that the officers have the ability to perform the tasks that we expect of them.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act.

I want to compliment the minister on bringing this forward because changes were needed and are necessary if we are to preserve wildlife and salmon stocks in this Province for generations to come. There is quite a large amount of money spent by tourists to this Province, as well as local anglers, in salmon fishing our rivers.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the minister and the government that last year the measures that were taken by government were positive ones, although it is a shame that it had to be done. The federal government - even to show how serious they treat this as a problem, the people in the Province who are responsible for enforcing this are contracted out, not employees to the federal government and they are good people. However, the federal government has seen fit to contract out the enforcement and the policing of our salmon rivers to security firms in the Province. So that gives us an idea of how seriously the federal government takes this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there has been all kinds - and I do a fair bit of fishing myself. I know, and I have seen cases where fisheries officers had to rely on the goodwill of the general public to get a ride across a pond to go to another pool because they simply did not have a boat to use themselves. They had no boat, they had no motor. They had to rely upon other people to get a ride. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. When things like that happen, when support is not given to the people who have the responsibility to enforce rules and regulations concerning our rivers, our salmon and our wildlife, then that leaves a very desirable position that poachers find themselves in. Mr. Speaker, this Province, sadly to say, we have our share of poachers. We have seen many examples, from wildlife to fisheries, where nets just decimated local salmon stocks in some rivers around this Province.

So, I think this is a good step for the minister, to bring in this legislation that will give more power, that will give more ammunition to the people who have the responsibility for enforcement because we do have a large responsibility to generations that are coming after us, our children and grandchildren. We have a responsibility to them to leave this place as good or better than we inherited it. We inherited a pretty good set of rules and regulations and pretty good properties. However, that has certainly gone downhill in the last twenty, twenty-five years and it is time that we take control back and get a handle on what is happening. The only way to do it is by bringing in stronger measures for enforcement so that people in the Province are aware that if they do decide to poach, if they do decide to do things illegally with wildlife in the Province, then there are going to be huge penalties to pay for that. I encourage the minister to keep reviewing this year after year, because if what we are doing today does not work then, obviously, that means next year stronger measures again will have to be taken until people get the point that it is not just worth poaching or netting salmon for sale or for otherwise.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will have a chance to say a few more words in third reading, and with that I will conclude my comments now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Environment and Conservation speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Labrador West for their very positive comments on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last year we saw the seizure of a number of vehicles, ATVs, hundreds of salmon, numerous nets. With this bill, and the additional funding that was put forward in this year's Budget, I anticipate that we will see an even greater number of seizures of trucks, vehicles, ATVs, nets and salmon and so on.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very positive bill and I thank the Opposition for the support of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. (Bill 13)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Between now and 5:30 p.m., Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 13)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by leave, we have agreed to do Bill 22, which was read for a first time today. It is, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. I want to move second reading of that now.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act." (Bill 22)

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

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

This is a bill coming from the Agrifoods Division within the Department of Natural Resources. Essentially, the spirit and intent on what is eventually going to be the practical outcome of this piece of legislation is simply this, right now, within the department we have an Agricultural Products Marketing Board, which has a membership requirement. We also have a Farm Practices Protection Act and Farm Practices Review Board, which is another board that deals with issues related to the agrifoods and farm practices within the Province.

Government made a decision, in consultation with industry - and I do want to say that the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture are generally supportive of this piece of legislation, and they were consulted in terms of the makeup of this legislation. Essentially, what is occurring is that we are collapsing the Agricultural Products Marketing Board and we are collapsing the Farm Practices Protection Act and the board associated with that, and we are creating a new one single board. It is more of a streamlining than anything.

Within the legislation, it talks about: The board shall not consist of any less than five members or no more than seven. To ensure that the spirit of the Farm Practices Protection Act, which was a joint government and industry appointed board, still remains intact with respect to this piece of legislation, there is a clause within the bill - and we can debate that clause by clause, certainly, and I will be prepared to do that - but there is a clause in the bill that allows for the industry, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, to make its own appointment to the board, independent of government and independent of industry. That, essentially, will provide industry's viewpoint, an independent viewpoint - the process allows for the independent viewpoint of the industry to be operative and prevalent on the board.

The issues that this board will deal with will be wide and varied. It could be issues related to complaints from municipalities with respect to agricultural practices. It could be issues related, for example, like the debate that is occurring federally right now and internationally with WTO negotiations with respect to supply management within the Province. Any and all farm related, agrifoods related, complaints, practices, commodities, the development of agricultural policy, that anybody wishes to have an independent look at, or the board wishes to have an independent look at, this is what this board would do.

Essentially, it is a streamlining of the departmental boards, while at the same time protecting the spirit and intent of what used to be, if this legislation is passed, the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, protecting what used to be, again if the legislation passes, what the Farm Practices Review Board was about. Again, it is piece of legislation that is being received fairly well by industry. It has been about a year and a half since we became government, we made no appointments to this board, and once the legislation is passed and the new board structure is passed, the associate regulatory framework is also gazetted with that, then we would move forward to make the necessary appointments to the board.

With that, I will conclude my remarks at second reading.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a note to say we are in favour of this bill and will be supportive it. It makes sense to combine what were the duties of the Agricultural Product Marketing Board and the Farm Practices Review Board. We agree that it is a streamlining method and it ought to be done, and it is nice to see as well that the industry involvement will be continued through the newly established board.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say here at second reading that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that I am able to speak in silence so that the minister actually can heard what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi be heard in silence.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Can you hear me? If you can hear me, I do not care about the rest of them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, so that members can be heard in silence.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say just a few words about the legislation to amalgamate the Natural Products Marketing Act with the former Farm Products Marketing Act and the Farm Practices Board. It is very important that we maintain our supply and management system in our agricultural industry because that is the only way that our industry in this Province is going to be protected, and maybe the only way it can continue to exist.

I think to combine that with the Farm Practices Protection Act is probably a positive thing from the point of view of international trade aspects of world trade because it involves other aspects of the industry and not just marketing. I think that is a positive step from that point of view.

I will say one thing - and maybe the minister can address this. He talked about representation on the board. The Farm Practices Board was also designed to protect complaints from municipalities, from individuals, about how farm practices may affect their neighbors and other aspects of community life. I know we have had situations in the past - and some of them are wrong-headed, Mr. Speaker - where people who move into an agricultural area and then all of a sudden expect not to have to put up with the smell of manure. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they should not have moved there. The Farm Practices Board is designed to provide a means of resolving issues of that nature to ensure that as long as proper farm practices are being carried out then that is okay.

I would ask the minister how he plans to ensure that the public interest, as it affects those kinds of disputes, is protected. That, presumably, would be by way of the appointment of a certain person, or one or two persons, who may be representative of municipalities, perhaps, or someone from a field other than agriculture who could ensure that, not just the needs of the agricultural industry are being protected but the public interest outside of agricultural. Not necessarily someone from the government department, but someone, perhaps, suggested by the Federation of Municipalities or by some other public body.

Does the minister have a plan to ensure that type of representation is there on this board in perpetuity, not just his own appointment. I am not suggesting an amendment to the Act at this time, but perhaps the minister might consider how that could be ensured, not just by his own appointments but in the future by way of a policy that could be established in the department to ensure that is the case.

We supported the Farm Practices Act when it was brought in, because I know these disputes were causing difficulties for farmers in the Province, and the Lord knows that farmers in this Province have enough difficulties, enough barriers in their way, to be successful. I think this measure of establishing the farm practices board was a positive step in ensuring that the voices of those who were complaining were heard, but also that the voices of farmers were heard as well in these practices. I still think, that if we are going to have these boards merged that public interest, that interest of neighbours of farmers, if we want to call them that, is protected. Perhaps through some municipal representative that may be the way to do it. Maybe the minister can address that when he closes debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

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

I appreciate the support from the Official Opposition. It is an important piece of legislation.

To the point made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the enshrinement in legislation for the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture to be able to appoint one member is there to ensure that the protection of the industry from a one membership point of view is there. I accept and appreciate the support on that front.

To your other point, in terms of do we also have considerations and what plan does the department have in terms of ensuring that broader interests also have the opportunity to have their point of view debated in a way in terms of the plan, this board truly will be a more public sort of entity. With respect to participation on the board, I would think that we would canvas broadly. I would invite the member opposite, that if he has any considerations of people who he may believe would be able to play a role, for example, and would have an interest and would be able to bring something to the process of this, I would encourage him to send those along to me.

This new board is meant to be a truly independent board with guaranteed representation from the industry to ensure their point of view is there and is maintained. One would hope that, with respect to the other representatives, there would be broad industry representation or broad interest or broad representation from the public.

I take your suggestion with respect to the Federation of Municipalities seriously, to be honest with you. I would like some time to get that some consideration. It may be a fairly legitimate suggestion that you have made, but I would like some time to consider it without making a commitment up front..

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now close debate on second reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. (Bill 22)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently.

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 13, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, and Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act.

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 22 and Bill 13.

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 these said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act." (Bill 13)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 6.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 6 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 6 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'

The title carries.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 13 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'

Bill 13 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act." (Bill 22)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 5.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 5 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause carries.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Contra-minded, ‘nay'

The title carries.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 22 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 22 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 13 and Bill 22 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, and Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall these bills be read a third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now, with leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 13 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 Wild Life Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been 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 Wild Life Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

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

By leave, I move third reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 22 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. (Bill 22)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

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

I think we have just one small piece of business left to do for this afternoon and for the week, and that is Order 9. It is second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

My understanding is that, based upon agreement, the minister will introduce the bill, adjourn debate and will return to it on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act to Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know this bill expands on legislation that is already, I guess, law in the Province, to extend the smoking ban to all enclosed public places in the Province, including bars and bingo halls. So, what it does, it expands on current legislation to make us one of the most progressive in the country, along with several other jurisdictions now, in banning smoking in those places.

The reason it is done is because it is injurious to health. We have information from just about, I guess, every organization that have concerns, in particular with the health of people in our Province. I will not go into these today because of the limited time frame but I did want to mention that there are fines for individuals who violate that, between $50 and $500, and an owner of a business who permits smoking in his or her business could face fines from $500 to $5,000. These are premises that are licensed under the Food and Drug Act or under the Liquor Control Act.

The Member for Bellevue said it is a money grab, but it is important. I think it is important that there be a deterrent for anybody who injures the health of other people in our Province and it should be an appropriate amount. A colleague, a member on the other side of the House, I understand, had a private member's motion that is doing what we are proposing to do.

It is fine, I might add, to make comments. I realize the time of the day and I will adjourn debate on this. I know I will have an opportunity the next day to continue on second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there an agreement that the debate be adjourned?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement is reached.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Before we go, I want to move, in accordance with Standing Order 11, that on Monday the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and I do further move that on Monday the House not adjourn, in accordance with Standing Order 11, at 10:00 p.m.

With that now, Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn, report back on Monday. Before I do, I want to thank my colleagues for a great afternoon's work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Just for the record, I do believe that the minister wanted to give notice that he would move the motion on Monday, not to move the motion now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I give notice, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion has been made that this House do now adjourn until Monday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.