The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the hon. Members of the House of Assembly with an update on the status of the Gulf ferry service.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what to know the status of the review of the ‘On Deck and Below' recommendations. Newfoundlanders and Labadorians want to know about the types of new vessels being considered for the Gulf service and we want to know how far along a new vessel is in the approval process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: It has been over eight weeks since the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a series of twenty-four recommendations for improvements to Gulf ferry service to the Minister of Transport and to Member of Parliament, George Baker.

It has been over a month since independent traffic studies conducted by both the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Marine Atlantic confirmed a serious capacity deficiency on the Gulf ferry service. Travellers, truckers and tourists continue to be subjected to the existing inadequacies of the Gulf ferry service.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working in consultation with Mr. George Baker, our federal Cabinet representative, and other members of Parliament, and have their cooperation and support on this matter. They are as anxious as we are to see Newfoundland and Labrador provided a ferry service that will adequately meet our needs. They have assured me they will continue to work on behalf of the Province until a satisfactory conclusion has been reached.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador requests that the federal Minister of Transport immediately announce the details of the new ferry vessel for the Gulf and that he immediately respond to the recommendations put forth by the Province in ‘On Deck and Below'. We urge Minister Collenette to take all necessary actions to provide a ferry service which meets year 2000 standards in the provision of service to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's cap it all off. Then, Minister Baker, our representative in Ottawa - the one who is doing all the cooperation on this issue, when she said: How long will it take? Oh, it shouldn't take too long. I am not sure how long it takes to get through Treasury Board. I have only been up here twenty-five years. I don't know how the process works yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is so blatantly ridiculous. I am only new to Cabinet. I am just learning the process now.

The truth is, this is long overdue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: This is profusely indicative of what Minister Collenette has done to this issue over time. It is long overdue. Yes, get on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, let me take you back to last spring when the Minister of Municipal Affairs was speaking on behalf of this issue and said in this House of Assembly that everything was all under control, that he had a meeting with the federal minister and everything was under control. Well, a week later he was talking about how we were being treated as second-class citizens by Ottawa.

This government has not been able to do anything about that issue ever since then, and they are reduced to making statements in this House of Assembly instead of getting their counterparts in Ottawa to take action and to take action now.

That is what is needed, Mr. Speaker. Let's see what kind of influence they really have in Ottawa with their Liberal cousins. Instead of just singing each other's praises, let's see if they can get some action out of them.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Acting Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked questions with respect to Marble Mountain dealing with the rental of a condominium project, or the condominiums at the base of Marble Mountain. I asked him directly: Could he confirm that a decision had been made to rent the condominiums at the base of Marble Mountains, which would in effect be in direct competition of hoteliers? The minister said in the House that he could not. He left the door wide open to the possibility.

Last night I spoke to people involved in the industry in Corner Brook, and they told me that the decision to rent on a daily basis was made two days ago. In fact, management officials at Marble Mountain were talking about it on Friday publicly. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance: Could he confirm today, in view of the information that we have put forward, that in fact government made a decision to get into the hotel business and into the daily rental business of those condominiums?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the pieces, or part of one of the pieces, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is missing is that in the construction of the condominium units in Marble Mountain we have not simply taken money and thrown it down a black hole. What we have done is we have built some infrastructure that has value today to the extent that we invested in it, and will continue to have value for many years to come.

The value that resides in that particular development- while it may not be moving in terms of sales as quickly as we would all like to see - the fact of the matter is that the intention is to put a facility there that -

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) dollar for (inaudible).

To the extent that the hon. member is trying to suggest that we are going into the rental business with hotels, let me reiterate for him again the answer that the Minister of Finance and the Premier gave yesterday. We are not going into competition with the private sector on a regular and routine basis, but if at some point there is a need for excess capacity, and if every last room in the area is maxed out, then I think the hon. member would suggest that we would be derelict not to use these units in that particular circumstance.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are not going into the hotel business. We are in the sale of units business and we intend to pursue that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Acting Minister of Finance, hang in for the next ten minutes and I will inform you of all the pieces that obviously you do not have, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The next question is for the President of Treasury Board. The President of Treasury Board is responsible for the spending of government money and the accounting for government money. In May 1998 the Minister of Finance stood in the House and said that the Marble Mountain Development Corporation had secured a loan from a chartered bank at that time without government guarantee to do this development. I would like to ask the minister today: Can she inform us when the loan was made, with what bank it was made, and the details surrounding that? Was it a mortgage, was it a loan, et cetera?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure whatever took place regarding the financing of condominium units at Marble Mountain was quite in order, and I would be prepared to bring that forward to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the record, the President of Treasury Board did not know what loans were secured.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on. I would like to ask the minister this. The Minister of Finance said in this House in May 1998 that Marble Mountain had secured a loan at the time. Now, just one month ago a demand debenture for $3 million was issued between the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Marble Mountain Development Corporation. Was this for the condominiums or was this another loan, minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in the course of running this government there are loans, debentures, financing and funding done for many ventures in this Province. It would impossible for any minister or member to stand in this House and have an account of each and every one. However, I will take the question under advisement and I will be prepared to answer that tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is something. The President of Treasury Board does not know about $3 million. I could understand her answer if it dealt with $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000, but $3 million? Really, minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that had Marble Mountain Development Corporation negotiated a mortgage, for example, they would get a much better interest rate, paying both on the interest and principle alone. The demand debenture, which operates like a line of credit, requires that they only pay interest.

I would like to ask the minister this. Bill 22 is An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. If you take the interest, prime plus 3 per cent, take that amount on what the monthly payment would be on $3 million, it would come up to somewhere between - depending on the fluctuations and variables of the prime plus 3 per cent - $225,000 and $300,000. An act before the House, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, says that Marble Mountain was advanced a loan guarantee of $300,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, this government acted in proper faith, proper requirements as set out by the bank that we are conducting the affairs of the Province with. I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is the first time in the past fifty years that this government or any other previous government has been able to balance the books of this Province. That says a lot for this government. This government carried out all the requirements of borrowing as set out by our banker. Regarding the details of that borrowing arrangement, I will be pleased to provide you with them, and I will take that under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

We have a minister at the Cabinet table who says: Because we balanced the books, who cares about $3 million when they get about an extra $40 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Next week when the Minister of Finance comes back - because we are going to get an extra $25 million to $40 million in equalization because the economies in Ontario and Alberta are doing better; New Brunswick got $69 million - maybe she will say: So what about that, because we balanced the books!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister this question. Minister, you used to be in the banking business. Even you would recognize that a mortgage rate on $3 million could save the Province hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even you would recognize that.

The question I have is this: Isn't it a fact that one of the reasons that condos have not been sold: one, because you have not tabled a market study to even see it; but, two, that the Province has not even registered the condominium complex for condos and they cannot sell one until they register it. So, why haven't you registered it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member knows a little bit about financing, and he would know that a floating debenture is, in a sense, a form put in place to secure interim financing. The fact of the matter is that we are attempting to sell these units at Marble Mountain. So, in the circumstance that we are in, with the intention of selling those units, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to put in long-term mortgages on these units while they are on the market. That is simply not what happens. Once a purchaser makes a purchase, he determines how he is going to finance and then, of course, he mortgages it or otherwise pays for it in some other fashion.

While I have not seen the document that the hon. member has, I am assuming that it is a fixed and floating charge over an operating line of credit, and that traditionally is at a higher rate of interest than long-term financing, say, over a period of twenty-five years.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is amazing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are again to the President of Treasury Board. In 1996, the day-to-day operation for Marble Mountain was transferred to a Crown corporation called Marble Mountain Management Corporation. Accountability, Madam Minister, is an important aspect of the use of public tax dollars. Yet, there has not been a single financial statement filed in the House of Assembly or with the Auditor General for the management corporation. Why has the management corporation failed in its responsibility to file a financial statement for each of the past three years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raised that point in terms of the filing of financial statements on behalf of the Marble Mountain Corporation last week in Question Period, and I responded then that I would get the information. I answered it the next day - although not at the appropriate time on the order paper - that, up to the end of the fiscal year 1998, the Marble Mountain Corporation financial statement had been tabled in the House, in fact, as a part of the consolidated statements for the Department of Finance on behalf of government. The 1999 statement, of course, obviously would not be available yet; but in due course, when it become available, it will be tabled in the normal fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that the Marble Mountain Development Corporation has indeed filed a financial statement with the Auditor General, but in 1996 the day-to-day management was transferred to Marble Mountain Management Corporation, a different corporation altogether. I say to the minister, that particular corporation has not filed a single statement.

I also want to say to the minister: When will that be filed? Why has the management corporation failed to file a single statement in the past three years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If, in fact, it is the case that these statement have not been filed, and on the assumption that they were not a part of the consolidated statements that were filed and included in the tabling in the House, then I will undertake to get him the answer.

It could be - I cannot be unequivocal - that the information in the financial statements that the hon. member alludes to may have been incorporated in and been part of the statements that were filed on behalf of the Marble Mountain Corporation. If that is not the case, I will clarify it for him tomorrow; but, in the event that might be the case, that might be the answer you are looking for.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two completely different corporations, I say to the minister. I have the development corporation's information here in front of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the volunteer.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, there is a lot of public debate around this whole issue of the development of Marble Mountain. There is a lot of need for transparency, a lot of need for accountability. Will the minister today agree to have the Marble Mountain facility, including the market analysis to establish the need, the financial arrangement, the current management arrangement, thoroughly and immediately investigated by an independent officer of this House, namely the Auditor General?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: The Auditor General of this Province is well able to determine and decide where it is she should be doing her work and to bring forward an analysis o f the results that are appropriate in the circumstance.

The Auditor General of this Province, I have every confidence, will, in due time, do what she thinks is appropriate not only on behalf of the issues regarding Marble Mountain but on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province and with respect to any issue that involves even the most finite amount of money. Every dollar in this Province that is spent is subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General, and I have confidence in her. I hope you do. too, hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, yesterday in the House I raised concerns about a critical shortage of nurses in Labrador, and this shortage is severe right across the Province and especially on the Burin Peninsula. Minister, just over -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his question.

Just over two weeks ago, I say to the minister, numerous beds were closed in the Burin hospital and the surgery ward was closed due to a shortage of nurses. I ask the minister: What are you doing to ensure that the people on the Burin Peninsula can get the health care that they need?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker, and I would say there is not a nurse in this Province who wants to work permanent hours who is not doing so; unless, of course, they are outside the bargaining unit and then they would have to wait until those 26,000 internal applications are processed before they might have a chance to apply for a new job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The nurses who have gone out of this Province, that is the problem, Minister, because you are not paying them enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: One year ago, there were thirty-nine casual nurses in the area. Today, there are only twelve casual nurses there and most of them are working scheduled shifts. Nurses are working overtime, Minister, and they are stressed.

A woman who was in the Burin hospital, on an obstetrics unit, went into labour and, because of a shortage of nurses, had to be taken from the obstetrics unit in a hospital and sent to Clarenville by ambulance under very unfavorable weather conditions to be able to deliver a baby. Do you consider that acceptable health care for the people on the Burin Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would say to the member opposite that the reason the number of casuals in this Province is of a short supply is because - and he hates to admit it - this Province has spent over $14 million in conversions of casuals to permanent.

As much as he would like to think, Newfoundland does not have the monopoly on the issue around nurses. In fact, last Friday in Ottawa I met with nurses from across the country, representing all facets of nurses, and the issues are similar, although the member opposite would hate to admit it, right across this country. The casuals who are working in this Province are doing so for the most part by choice. Any nurse who wants to work in a permanent position, again, I would have to say, there are permanent positions available. When you have a process in one organization, 26,200 internal applications to go outside -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I would ask the member opposite to work with this government to encourage the Nurses' Union to allow us to hire every graduating nurse in the class of 2000. We are waiting for a response from them that was written the middle of November. We want to put more nurses into the system but we need their support to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You will not even meet with the people in Labrador representing everybody in the area there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Grand Bank once had a hospital. Today it has a twenty-four hour clinic with only one nurse, one LPN, and one doctor per shift on duty. There are no casual nurses in the area, I say to the minister. If a patient is sent to Burin now, a doctor has to accompany them because there is no nurse to accompany that particular patient to Burin. The Blue Crest Home often calls Burin hospital to get help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: When is she going to do something to address this area here in Grand Bank before they loss their clinic altogether? What do you plan to do about it?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the member opposite only likes to talk about all the negative stuff. I have not heard him welcome back the nurses who have come back to the Province from Texas and Florida.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have not heard that, Mr. Speaker, but then, we would not want to put out anything that was positive because that would put off the whole train of thought.

I think it is also important to note that the Nurses' Union have been invited to come back and sit down and talk with government. They have also been invited to come back and speak to this government in Treasury Board about the issues in Labrador. If they want to negotiate, we are willing to negotiate with them. If they want to abrogate their rights, let them give them to somebody else. We are ready to deal with the problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism. I would not want him to get too comfortable in his seat over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: The Minister of Tourism is also responsible for sports and recreation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, an area which has been devastated by government cuts. They have seen their budget go from $7 million in 1990 to $1.8 million in 1999. Provincial sports governing bodies have been making massive cuts.

I ask the minister today if he will tell the people of this Province and this House exactly what his government's policy is with respect to sport and recreation in this Province.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that Sport Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador High School Athletic Federation and the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks Association have watched their provincial grants get cut by somewhere between 50 per cent and 80 per cent. I would now like to ask the minister: How do you expect these organizations to provide adequate services to the young athletes of our Province?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at the waterfront, (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I would like to say to you that because we brought all these things into the Province, you, as Minister of Tourism, should recognize more than probably any other minister over there that sport and recreation is a very large contributor to sport and recreation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: They bring one awful amount of money into this Province.

Minister, I say to you today that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that sport and recreation not only contributes to building one's self-esteem and character but it helps keep many children off the street, and I can provide many examples where sports organizations have helped mold individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. FRENCH: I now ask the minister: Will you consider putting more money, and will you ask your Cabinet colleagues to put more money, into the sport and recreation budget in the next provincial budget in this Province?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. FUREY: - for the maintenance of sports facilities throughout the Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but in a jest of time I will direct a couple of quick questions to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

Minister, some time ago we heard Minister Mifflin announce $81.25 million, then we heard your new minister, Mr. Baker, announce that same funding again. Some of it has been allocated. I ask the minister, when can Zone 15 - the area that takes in the district of Bonavista South, Trinity North, Terra Nova; an area that has been hit hard by the fisheries moratorium, probably harder than other areas in this Province - of the economic zonal board expect to get funding to put much needed work in that particular area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that, indeed, shortly after George Baker was appointed the minister in Ottawa responsible for ACOA and responsible for Newfoundland - the minister for Newfoundland - we immediately signed, I think it was practically within a week of his becoming -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it? (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will restrain himself over there I will get to it.

We signed off the $81 million agreement which had been delayed for some time. Since that time there has been, I think, some $26 million or $27 million that has been allocated out of that agreement. I would remind him that it is a three year agreement that you have to spread over three years. I would also remind him that many of the zonal board priorities have been done. Specific to Zone 15, I do not have the details in front of me of exactly where does -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. TULK: - that their priorities play a very important role in getting this done.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

Today is private member's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The last time I looked, I say to the Member for Bellevue, I am a Member in the House, and I am a private member besides being Leader of the Opposition!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, Mr. Speaker. My colleague for Bonavista South is right, that the only difference is that this member is in the loop.

The second aspect that people looked forward to and there was much debate around certainly dealt with the notion that it would bring royalties into the Province, generating again much needed revenue, creating more of a culture of independence than dependence on fiscal transfers or transfers from Ottawa, a move that each and every year, as a province, as elected members, as a government, we must move towards.

There was tremendous hype at the announcement. We have asked today through our private member's resolution basically to affirm what, as I understand it to be, is the existing policy positions of all parties in this House.

There has been speculation this fall about the tentative agreement or possible agreement that the Minister of Mines and Energy has been negotiating. The Premier speculated in Wall Street that they were nearing a deal. A week later, he speculated again in Toronto that there was an interesting proposal and that an agreement possibly could be reached.

What we have asked for today is very straightforward, it is very clear, it is not ambiguous. It is the position that has been stated publicly by every party in this Legislature. It is the position that every member, to my knowledge, has taken when dealing with this issue. It is clear. It says:where all parties in the House of Assembly have agreed to this position that full and fair benefits must come to this Province. It also says:

“Therefore be it resolved that this hon. House affirm that a Voisey's Bay development agreement shall be acceptable only if it meets the following four conditions in addition to general revenues from a competitive regime of royalties and taxes; namely: (a) that it shall involve a long-term mining operation of 25 years or more years in duration.”

We have talked about twenty to thirty years, but we picked twenty-five years as a mean, as the middle ground, that has been talked about publicly.

The second condition reads: “(b) that it shall involve the concurrent, blended extraction of ore from both the ovoid and underground.” This is an important condition, because in meeting this condition the company itself, in saying yes to that condition, guarantees the life of the mine. It guarantees that its interests are beyond the ovoid. It guarantees that its interest are longer term, that they go into the eastern deeps and other aspects of underground mining.

Conditions number three and four read:

“(c) that it shall involve complete processing in this Province of all the nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a finished nickel metal product; and

“(d) that the technology Inco uses in mining and processing the ore must meet appropriate environmental standards and must be applied in way that fully comply with the first three of these four conditions.”

Finally, it says in the last therefore be it resolved: “that any agreement that is reached between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco be fully debated in the House of Assembly before it is final and binding on the people of the Province.”

It is not too much to expect. The people of this Province do not find it too much to expect that if an agreement is reached that it be precipitated on the fact that, or will go ahead only if, an opportunity to debate it in this House is provided. We are not talking about an opportunity that would last weeks or months. We are talking about a very legitimate realistic timetable to debate the agreement so that the focus of the debate could be done in a very public, transparent way.

I am not saying it will not be debated through the normal channels. Government may buy advertising if they reach an agreement. They may go on the road, they may, through open line programs and interest groups, become involved. That is their right, but the House of Assembly is the place where important public decisions are made. It is where important public decisions are taken. It is where the direction of government, the Opposition and other parties in the House are seen for what they are in a very open, very transparent and very accountable way. If government reaches an agreement that is supported by all members of government, surely the debate in this House should not frighten them. They have the numbers in the House. They put a resolution forward to be debated and it is a good deal, then why not?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the private member's resolution put forth by the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Official Opposition, concerning the very important project of Voisey's Bay in Labrador. I want to speak in support of the resolution and in support of the issues that are raised there, principally because it is time that we had a more open discussion about more of these issues. I mean, the general principles that are here, most of which have been discussed, have been part of the political debate in the Province for the last year. There is nothing new about that. There was nothing new in the election when the Premier wanted to be the boy to do the negotiations with Bouchard and he wanted to be the boy to do the negotiations and sit across the table with Voisey's Bay Nickel.

That was the proposition that he put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the way he tried to craft the election last February. I know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the Minister of Fisheries was jealous because he wanted to be leader.

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to do with respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: He would rather be the person doing it.

That was the proposition put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but there was nothing new in that, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing new in the issues. It was all about the issues, many of which are spelled out right here, along with the report of the Environmental Assessment Panel, that there would have to be a long-term project, that they were not going to be allowed to high-grade the development and high-grade the mineral.

There was a concern expressed in this Province for the last year that we want to make sure they do not just go after the ovoid, and that they develop a long-term underground mine and make the investment up front. That was what was expected.

There was the whole issue of an investment up front by Inco into the development to ensure there was going to be an investment up front that would commit Inco financially to a project that involved an underground mine from the beginning, not to start with the ovoid and spend six, seven or eight years high-grading the mineral and then decide four, five or six years down the road that the price of nickel made an underground mine uneconomic. We wanted to see the investment in the underground mine up front so that we have, in fact, a commitment on the ground, underground, by the principals to develop a long-term mine.

The fourth listed here is an obvious one, one that we would expect for any project. That is that the mine processing and any other technology used by Inco meet appropriate environmental standards and be applied in ways to comply with the conditions of this agreement.

These conditions that are here have been pretty well fully debated in the Province, pretty well fully known in the Province, pretty well generally agreed. I think is important that we affirm them here today.

I recall back in the spring of 1996, when the Premier made some comment in the paper about the possibility of trading royalties for jobs; we might have to give up royalties to get more jobs. I remember that reported in The Telegram. When it was raised in this House by me to the Premier, he tried to back off that statement; but he was quoted in The Telegram as saying that.

In other words, are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through royalty concessions, in fact going to be making up for the losses that Inco might sustain for having overpaid for this resource when they bought it for $4.5 billion? These are all questions that have yet to be debated. They have yet to be debated because this government has not put on the table the nature of the royalty regime to be used in mineral development in this Province since the 1994 legislation. That question has to be asked and answered.

The result of all of this presentation to the Environmental Assessment Panel was that the net benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through their government, the benefits to the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury were $417 million. That is all, $417 million for the twenty-year project and development of Voisey's Bay Nickel.

I want to make one final comment on this resolution, and that has to do with the last part of it. The last part of the resolution refers to whether or not any agreement reached between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador be fully debated in the House of Assembly before it is final and binding on the people of the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you agree with that?

MR. HARRIS: I think it is very important, and I will go further. There ought to be a resolution in this House of Assembly to be debated and voted on. Let the debate take the form of a resolution of improving in principle the project based on whatever agreement is reached. That would provide a full opportunity for a debate to take place and for this House to vote on it one way or the other.

A resolution is not unusual. We have had resolutions in this House before for major development projects. We have had them on the Come By Chance oil refinery. In fact, I recall seeing and reading about John Shaheen on the floor of the House of Assembly answering questions, with his spats and all - John Shaheen with his spats and all.

MR. J. BYRNE: Spats?

MR. HARRIS: He wore spats. Do you know what spats are?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Were you there?

John Shaheen, on behalf of the Come By Chance oil refinery, was answering questions before the Bar of the House of Assembly, and there was a vote taken. There was a vote in this House on the Churchill Falls deal, and there is no reason why there ought not be a vote in this House on a resolution about an issue that has been debated in this Province so publicly and regarded as so important to our future.

I support that; I support a full debate in this House of Assembly. We do not have enough debate in this House of Assembly where we have the information, where the information is put before the people. We are presented with done deals, and then a public relations campaign to try and sell it as the best deal we could probably get. That is what we have, a done deal and then a public relations campaign.

That is not what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect or deserve. The government is responsible for governing, but government should not be a public relations exercise. On an issue as important as this, it ought to be laid before the elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly for a full public debate with all the facts before them. If they want to justify it, let them justify it here and let all the facts be before the people before it is final and binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The government has talked about the fact that we do not need to change any laws, so therefore we might not have to come back to the House of Assembly. If we are going to have a royalty regime that exceeds the requirement of the Mineral Tax Act, is that going to be a contract?. Are we going to have royalties by contract, or are we going to have royalties by law?

The fact of the matter is that when we want to collect royalties or economic rent for our minerals and our resources, they ought to be a matter of law and of regulations, not something that is not being able to be debated in this House of Assembly.

I support the resolution, and indeed would go further and ask that the debate in this House be in the form of a votable resolution for all hon. members in this House to either vote for or against. That would then give the people an opportunity to hear a full debate, not through the media -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a moment to finish this sentence?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Not a debate through the media, through the paid media, through advertising in a public relations campaign, but a debate in this House of Assembly where all Parties and all representatives have a chance to make their say and be reported in Hansard, on the record, for part of a public debate. That is the way this matter should be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution and I would like to see the government members support this and also support the notion of a votable resolution before any deal is made binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to spend just a few minutes to participate in the debate of the private member's motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride, and just to put a few points on the record before we move to a vote on the particular motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to listen, as I always do very intently, to the debate as it goes on, because the Leader of the NDP, in just addressing the same resolution, indicated that the four principles that are laid out in the private member's motion - and I think I am using his words fairly accurately, because words are somewhat important -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Notice, there is a qualifier on it today; they are somewhat important.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, indicated that the four principles - and I believe I have the two key phrases noted - the four principles outlined in this private member's motion have been fully debated in the Province and are known throughout the Province. I believe I am quoting him accurately in suggesting that.

The principles being referenced, of course: the notion that we all want full and fair benefits and that it should involve long-term mining operation, there should be a blending of ore from both ovoid and underground operations, there should be finished nickel leaving the Province, and that the technologies that are used should meet the appropriate environmental standards.

Mr. Speaker, I think the spirit and intent of the resolution is reflected in the voice of the two speakers to date, and I concur that there is agreement in this Legislature. I do not believe there is a voice of disagreement at all with respect to those four issues; however, if we were to leave the motion as it were, worded as it were, then we would have to deal with some specific words and phrases, because words are very important.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the very first of the BE IT RESOLVED, it talks about: “...BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House affirm that a Voisey's Bay development agreement shall be acceptable only if it meets the following four conditions...” - which I just talked about - “...in addition to generating revenues from a competitive regime of royalties and taxes...”.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not luck.

MR. GRIMES: No, it is by luck. I have always acknowledged that it is by luck, because you have to be lucky sometimes. There are a lot of people who have gone to the polls thinking they were going to win and, when they finished, they were no longer a member of a Legislature. A lot of people have done that, so there has to be an element of luck. By luck; I always acknowledge that it is by luck.

We try to make sure that we do some things that improve and enhance our chances to be lucky, but always acknowledge that at the end there is a bit of luck involved in it. We are lucky enough to have convinced the people of the Province four times in a rows that we are making pretty good decisions, and that we can actually probably do some pretty good things that usually reflect the general tenor and tone of what is going on in the Province, but there would have to be a debate. So, if you automatically then agree that we are going to do this, then we would say: Well, we would have to have a bit of debate over what competitive means. Who determines, at the end, what competitive means? Because that comes down to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said we need to have a full debate, which is the second part of the resolution, that it should be fully debated before it is final and binding upon the people of the Province.

Now, in suggesting that there be a full debate, and in knowing that the principles that we have talked about - and I guess he agrees with the Leader of the NDP - that the principles upon which this agreement will be built are already fully debated and known in the Province, and that if the government does not achieve either one of those principles we know that we will be condemned, and rightfully so, not only by politicians in this Legislature but by people in the Province, because we agree that those are the fundamental underpinnings of any agreement with Inco about this particular development, but in even saying that there should be a full debate in the Legislature - and it is the only thing that I, personally, ever objected to, is to say before it is final and binding, that there has to be a pre-condition.

There has already been lots of debate about this issue, inside and outside the Legislature. There will be lots of debate about this issue for years, because we might be talking - right now, Mr. Speaker, we might be speaking for years about why we do not have a deal. How come we don't have a development, because we certainly don't have one today. So there is really not much to talk about, other than wondering why it is that we do not have one.

I can tell you the reason we don't have one. It is because the basic principles on this paper have not been achieved. They have not been achieved. The government is not bringing anything forward for debate because we have not achieved the fundamental principles that are there.

In looking at why we should have a full debate, the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged the following things, and I tried to make notes. He said: We are asking for a full debate before it is final and binding, knowing full well, and acknowledging and accepting that the debate is pretty meaningless anyway because the government has the numbers - his own words; I think I wrote them down correctly - the government has the numbers in the Legislature.

To suggest now, in total contravention of a view put forward by the Opposition last year when the act was amended - the act under which this deal will be consummated, if it ever is - the act was amended last year to give the Cabinet, the government, the right to put a requirement in demanding full processing with no economic means test, no qualifiers, just that if the government demands it, the government has the right to do it.

The representative, the critic for the Official Opposition at that time, the Member for Baie Verte, spoke up in Hansard - and I will just make a couple of quotes - a year ago, saying: Mr. Speaker, that opens it up to the whims of the government of the day. He said: Are we going to leave it up to the whims of the government, because it is going to make the investment community very nervous. It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. That is the scary part of the bill, that you might actually put a requirement upon someone who wants to invest money in Newfoundland and Labrador, to get the permission of the Cabinet.

He spoke for almost a full hour last year on the issue that it is scary. The words of the Opposition, it is scary that you would ask somebody to get the permission of the Cabinet. Now we are saying: Before you get any deal with us, we have to commit to a full debate in the Legislature. Think how that is going to be seen. Last year it was described as draconian, Third World, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of problems and we want to give an opportunity to vote in the affirmative. So, to make sure that we can vote in the affirmative, we would recommend and I would move a couple of minor amendments.

MR. TULK: Seconded by the Member for Bonavista North.

The amendment that I would propose is that, first and foremost, the motion would read with the first recital:

WHEREAS all of the Parties represented in the House of Assembly have affirmed their commitment to the general principle that a Voisey's Bay development agreement will be acceptable -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he can have a copy, and if others would like to have them right now for scrutiny.

The first recital would remain unchanged. I will ready it again, for the record:

WHEREAS all of the Parties represented in the House of Assembly have affirmed their commitment to the general principle that a Voisey's Bay development agreement will be acceptable only if it brings full and fair benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador...

And that we should add a second recital which would give us the current circumstance. The second recital would say, AND WHEREAS. So the amendment would add this one:

AND WHEREAS Inco has not given a firm commitment to full processing in the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED...

In the resolution, the suggestion is that we would take out the current THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED - the first one - replace it with these words that I will read for the record, that do incorporate the four principles:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House affirm its full support for the government to negotiate a development agreement that accomplishes several important objectives, namely:

(1) a long-term mining operation in line with the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Report - that we not put a particular time limit on it, but the report itself said twenty to twenty-five years or more; that it be in line with that report;

(2) that there be both an open pit and underground mining operation - because there is a recommendation number two in the Environmental Assessment Report that says exactly that, but it does not put any particular time lines on it; it leaves it to a normal mining operation if you get it started;

(3) that there be full processing in this Province to a finished nickel metal product;

(4) that the technology Inco uses in mining and processing the ore must meet appropriate environmental standards.

Then, that the second THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED clause be deleted.

If there is ever a government, at any point in time, whether it be now or in the foreseeable future, or years into the future, the record would show that if anybody outside the Legislature or elsewhere agrees to an arrangement that does not incorporate these four principles, that they would actually be violating the spirit and intent of all parties of this particular Legislature at this point in our history.

So I would like to move that amendment, and maybe I would pause, Mr. Speaker, just to have a ruling as to whether or not the amendment is in order. Then I would have a couple of comments, and I will certainly finish my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

Certainly the Chair, as is the practice here in the House, will adjourn for a few minutes to determine whether or not this amendment is in order. Prior to that, if someone would like to intervene prior to our leaving to consider the amendment that we have before us -

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think we have agreement among us that today the Leader of the Opposition, who is the proponent of this resolution, would introduce it and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would speak, and then the Minister of Mines and Energy would speak. I do not believe we had agreement for the hon. member to sum up, but that is not a problem. In terms of our intervention, I think we are prepared to leave it to the Speaker to adjourn without any comment from us and to decide whether in fact the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: We will adjourn for a couple of minutes until we can take this matter under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has examined the amendment and determined that it is in fact in order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the record would show that it may be the first time that anything I have done in the House has been ruled to be in order. In any event, it means someone else probably wrote the amendment for me.

In any event, the amended motion which I would commend to the House for its passage today provides an opportunity again to use some of the words of the Leader of the Opposition. He did make a good plea at the beginning that we should use the Legislature to strengthen the hand of the government, and I would expect that a vote in the affirmative for this amended motion would do exactly that. It would strengthen the hand of the government to attain and obtain a development agreement that does accomplish these very important objectives. It would show again that this Legislature at times, on important issues, can rise above just normal party politics and agree that all of us together want to make sure that we get the best possible deal on this natural resource encompassing these four principles, and that we do not necessarily want to have a debate.

If there was a real issue - and this is the only negative comment I would offer, in the spirit of Christmas- if they were really serious about a meaningful debate in this Legislature as a precondition of having a deal with Inco with respect to Voisey's Bay, they would be suggesting - they would be because I would be, if I were over there; and I will remind them again that I am never going over there. I may end up not being over here, but I will not be over there. You can rest assured of that.

The issue is this. If I was over there, I would be saying we need a full debate. I would be saying that it is so important, and that the government should feel so strongly about it that they would want to have such a good deal, that we would all vote for it, and that they would be so confident in the deal that they would demand that the vote be unanimous, and they would drag it into the Legislature and say: We will not sign a deal with Inco unless it is unanimously voted upon in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

I think the Opposition House Leader is out with the media or something. If we could just have the bells rung for three or four minutes to alert people that we are going to have a vote? We will wait.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

He talked about, from my point of view, that I have already admitted they have the majority, that I have already admitted debate has taken place publicly on what the principles are, and why even need to come to the House because we have already admitted that. That is true, but he is splitting hairs, because there is no agreement. What we have asked for is that when there is, this House have an opportunity to debate the agreement, not the principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So that we have the opportunity to take the principles that we agreed to in the House, that have been agreed to by all parties, and apply that to the agreement to see if they match. That is what we have asked for. We are not going to get it by this amendment.

The third thing he said was that last year, and the bill and the amendments that we put forward and supported - and we did support them, because we understood, as every member in this House understood, the importance of that legislation. He has quoted my hon. colleague for Baie Verte out of context when he talked about the impact on the investment community and mining industry. The minister was told that himself. Recently he was told that himself, what impact that had. He was also told, and his officials were told, that if it had not been for their $2 million contribution on a 50-50 basis to junior mining companies coming into the Province, that this year the mining industry would have collapsed.

So my colleagues words were correct. They were correct in this sense - because he talked about it in this sense - that when it came to the junior mining industry that nobody in the junior mining industry, or where we raise capital in the financial centers in the country, would understand the importance and the context of those amendments because it was directly made towards Inco. That is what was said.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not in the amendment.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which it does not speak to in the amendment. This amendment will allow that to be developed first and only, and at some future point. It could be interpreted as that. That is why we said in our resolution that it must be developed concurrently. That would ensure the longevity of the mine.

He has talked about a long-term mining operation in line with the recommendation of the environmental assessment report where it says twenty to thirty years. I do not have a big problem with that. In my opening remarks on the bill we said we took the mean, twenty-five years. It could be twenty to thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, we will not support the amendments because they take away from the spirit and intent of the resolution. Number three, the last -

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, words are indeed important. Now to the third condition. The amendment the minister has made is: full processing in this Province to a finished nickel metal product. A finished nickel metal product, and that is very important. What we have said is that it shall involve complete processing in this Province of all of the nickel concentrate. That is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put forward this today. Words indeed are important. Yours are, mine are, his are, and the words of all of us are. All the words that we speak in this House are there for the record, transparent, accountable. That is all we have asked for, full, open, transparent, accountable debate. We will not get it with the amendments put forward by the Minister of Mines and Energy, but we will get it if our resolution was supported wholeheartedly today. Unfortunately, it appears that government are not willing to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we ready for the question?

First of all, we are voting on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affair, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Oldford, the hon the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Ms M. Hodder, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, twenty-two ayes and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now voting on the resolution as amended.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think we need the bells.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I admire the enthusiasm of some of the hon. members, but you should wait until the question is called.

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Oldford, the hon. the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Ms M Hodder, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-two ayes and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The ayes have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we are going to continue the debate, I would ask the hon. the Government House Leader if there is something he would wish to call at this time. Or are we going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do we have the count on this?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we have. It has already been announced.

MR. TULK: If I could be so bold as to suggest to the Speaker, I think today is the day when the motion to adjourn is automatically in front of the House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is 3:45 p.m.

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Before you adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we will begin second reading tomorrow on An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act, Bill 30, and continue down the list from there. We may do some third readings as well, I am not sure.

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