MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome in the public gallery thirty-four Grade 6 students from Villa Nova Junior High School in the District of Topsail, together with their teacher, Ms Darlene Moulton, and a number of parents.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements by the following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a family physician from my district who was recently honoured by the Department of Health and Community Services for forty years of medical service in the Town of Deer Lake and surrounding area. Dr. Duncan MacDonald was awarded with this special certificate of achievement at a recent meeting of the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. MacDonald came to Deer Lake in 1964 and since then, along with his wife Margaret, he has provided a family clinic service and, until last year, did regular house calls and twenty-four hour on-call services.

His dedication to his profession and his love for helping others has extended over five decades. He has seen many changes since he came to Deer Lake, and has been a part of helping this town grow. Even at eighty-two years of age, he still practices and remains active in community affairs.

Dr. MacDonald continues to be an inspiration to many and to his profession. For some, he has been a part of their lives for many years. For myself, he has been there a lifetime. He was there at birth, as I was one of the first babies he born when he came to Deer Lake, and he continues to be an inspiration at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS GOUDIE: It is on the Web site.

It is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to such a wonderful man.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join with me in honouring Dr. Duncan MacDonald for his forty years of service to the medical profession in the Deer Lake area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a team in my district who recently won a provincial championship.

The Holy Name of Mary Academy Mustangs, of Lawn, captured the provincial 3A boys provincial soccer championship, defeating a team from Mobile High, 3-1 in the final. Scoring for the Mustangs were Sean Edwards, Robert Lambe and James Grant.

Mr. Speaker, the Mustangs had advanced to the final with a 1-0 double overtime victory over another Burin Peninsula team, the St. Lawrence Academy Blues. They also defeated teams from Springdale, Doyles and Goose Bay to win this prestigious championship.

Also honoured at this tournament were players who showed tremendous sportsmanship. Awards were presented to Travis Edwards of the Lawn team, and to Sean Slaney of St. Lawrence. The coach of the Mustangs was Colin Edwards and the teacher-sponsor was James Rogers.

This is just one more soccer team from the Burin Peninsula that is continuing the tradition of excellence in the sport of soccer. Mr. Speaker, I hope their interest in this sport continues and we see more of the tremendous success in soccer on the Burin Peninsula that we have come to expect because of teams like the St. Lawrence Laurentians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to pay tribute to a very special lady originally from Bay Roberts, the place of her birth. In her early years, she moved away to Toronto where she was employed for many years. On her return home, she took up residence in the very beautiful valley of Shearstown.

It was in Shearstown that I became aware of her compassion, her dedication and love for all residents as she assisted her husband in operating the local post office. Everyone would agree that whether she was assisting a child, a senior citizen, or any member of the community, Annie treated everyone the same and with respect. In return, she was loved and respected by all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending greetings to Mrs Annie Earle of Shearstown, who now resides at the Interfaith Home in Carbonear as she celebrates her 101^st birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two young students from my district who have recently won awards in a national competition.

Mr. Speaker, Amanda Rose and Shannon Clark Howell placed in first and second place in the national competition known as Write To Read.

Mr. Speaker, this competition is open to all youth across Canada. It asks students to write about the best things, historic and otherwise, in their community. It asks about things such as community landmarks, special geographic features, or the special people who reside in their area.

The first place winner, Amanda Rose, wrote on her hometown of Forteau in the Labrador Straits and the second place winner, Shannon Clark Howell, wrote of the historic community of Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud that the writing skills of these two young girls have been recognized across Canada and we are sure that we will hear more from them as they continue with their studies.

I ask my colleagues today to join me in congratulating these two young writers in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform all members today of the proclamation of the new Income and Employment Support Act and Regulations. They will replace the outdated Social Assistance Act and Regulations which have been in effect since 1977.

The new Act better reflects the two major areas of responsibility of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment: providing income support in a stable dignified manner to eligible individuals and families and delivering programs and services that support individuals in achieving their employment and career goals.

Mr. Speaker, the Act and Regulations were developed after an extensive consultation process with clients, advocacy groups, community partners, departmental staff and other government departments. I would like to thank all those who took part in this process. I would also like to recognize the work of the former Administration on drafting the new Act and passing it here in the House of Assembly. Since then much work has been done to develop the new regulations and these two are the result of much thoughtful debate and input.

The Act and Regulations have been written for the people we serve. They use plain language with a focus on transparency and include clear explanation of the department's service principles. In addition, the Act introduces regular rate reviews every three years and legislative reviews every five years. This will ensure income and employment supports and services remain current.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made a commitment to be open and accountable. This is reflected in the new review process and in the clear, transparent language of the Act and Regulations. Steps have been taken to ensure clients, community agencies and advocates can easily access information on our programs and services. The intent, Mr. Speaker, is to clearly inform clients of the departmental service standards and of programs to which they may be entitled.

Mr. Speaker, the Income and Employment Support Act and Regulations help further this government's commitment to providing basic financial supports to those who need them. It also provides the legal framework to assist people in gaining independence by addressing and overcoming employment challenges.

I am sure my colleagues will agree this is a significant milestone that will have a positive impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, too, want to, first of all, thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement and to say that we are very pleased to see the proclamation brought forward today with regard to the new Income and Employment Support Act - Bill 23 it was at the time, Mr. Speaker - and wanted to say that even though we were on the government side at that time, when this wonderful piece of legislation came in, I remember very vividly members on the government side now, who were then in Opposition, bringing forward amendments and -

MR. E. BYRNE: We saluted it.

MR. BUTLER: Saluted it, yes, you saluted it.

We had wonderful debate on it. It took some time but we did get it through Royal Assent back in December, 2002.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the minister at the time, I say to the hon. member opposite, was the hon. Mr. Ralph Wiseman.

I, too, want to thank all those who were involved because there was a considerable amount of consultation that went on throughout the Province and brought before the people's House. I guess one of the main things that I saw into it was where it is now stated in law that the people will be reviewed - the rates will be reviewed every three years.

I note where the minister stated that this government has made a commitment to openness and accountability, but I was very impressed to note that we also knew about the word transparency way back in 2002, Mr. Speaker, because it was then that they say the special laymen's language was used in this bill. So, I guess we knew what transparency was back at that time and it only just did not come on the scene.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister: yes, it is a significant milestone and we commend the government for bringing it forward today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are pleased to see that this act has finally been proclaimed after having been passed in this House in December, 2002, together with the new regulations.

What is really needed now, Mr. Speaker, is a significant review of the rates of income support given to people in this Province. They are pathetically low. They leave people way below the poverty line and provide a very inadequate support for people to provide the basic necessities of life and must be significantly increased. I urge the government to do that with the basis of what the actual cost is of people surviving in various parts of this Province. So, an entire review should be done as a priority for this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to inform my colleagues about the significant advances in Newfoundland and Labrador's educational standing, both nationally and internationally, as indicated in the 2003 results of the Program for International Student Assessment, commonly known as PISA.

PISA is an international, school-based assessment administered in OECD countries. The tests are designed to measure performance of fifteen-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science. In 2003, forty-one countries participated - up from thirty-two countries in the year 2000.

The 2003 assessment results show that students in Newfoundland and Labrador achieve far above the international average in all three testing areas. Most significantly, Mr. Speaker, is that our students are now achieving at the Canadian average in reading and science. Our mathematics scores have also improved significantly over the 2000 assessment and, while we are not as yet at the Canadian average, our improvement in mathematics leads the country. It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador leads the Atlantic provinces in all three testing areas.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our performance in relation to other Canadians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are now fifth in Canada in reading, up from ninth in 2000. We are also fifth in science, up from seventh in the previous PISA assessment. In mathematics, our improved performance saw us move from ninth in the country to sixth. This is excellent news, Mr. Speaker, for all of us who care about education in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we fully recognize these kinds of assessments do not measure everything that is happening in our schools. We know that learning is more than just test results. However, these results measure the skills and knowledge that individuals bring to their post-secondary studies, to their jobs, and to society. These results give our students and their parents the secure knowledge that the education they are receiving in Newfoundland and Labrador will ensure they are well prepared to meet the challenges of post-secondary studies and the labour market.

Several key factors can be credited for this demonstrated improvement. For the past several years, the Department of Education has had a renewed focus on assessment for the purpose of improving student achievement. As a part of this process, follow-up with schools, school districts, and intensive teacher involvement has resulted in the more effective use of test results for instructional planning and greater attention to the details of the curriculum, much of which has been reformed and improved in recent years.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also acknowledge former Ministers of Education, including my hon. colleague to my right, and hon. colleagues opposite for the work they did after 2000 to raise the profile of the PISA assessments within our education system.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, this improvement is a testament to the dedication and hard work of educators throughout the Province. Their diligence has produced results which instill confidence in our education system. While there are still areas for us to improve, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to PISA 2006, knowing that we have professional educators and administrators with the dedication and expertise to help our students continue to achieve.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I, too, would like to congratulate the students for their improved scores on the international testing. As the minister said, we again this year have seen that we are above the international average, but we still fall behind the Canadian average, especially in mathematics, I say to the minister, something that we seriously need to work on.

What I find ironic about the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, is that he attributes the success that the students have had this year to the educators in our Province, and this is the same minister who applauded a budget back here in April that saw the firing of 475 teachers in this Province.

I say to the minister, if he is serious about improving the test scores of the students in this Province, and if he is serious about improving the lot of our students in this Province, that he hire more teachers rather than fire them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words in response to the Ministerial Statement. I think that the students and educators in our Province certainly can be commended for the great strides that have been made, as pointed out by the minister, in recent years.

That is good on the provincial scene, Mr. Speaker, but on the federal scene I think there are some areas of concern, where Canada, between the 2000 report and 2003, dropped from second in rating down to third, from sixth in math to seventh, and in science they dropped from fifth to eleventh. Canada is also ranked nineteen out of thirty developed countries for funding of primary and secondary institutions. So, I say to the minister, there is need to keep a watch on what is happening in the country and in our Province, and we have to ensure that adequate funding is made available for our primary, secondary and post-secondary educations to make sure that they meet the changing curriculum needs and that we have proper teacher ratios in our classrooms.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have been raising questions about the deplorable situation that continues to worsen at social services offices in this Province. I ask the minister: Has your department farmed out switchboard operations for some of its offices to a private call centre?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have had concerns about the telephone service, and we have a pilot project of three months to get some data so we can make some firm decisions about the telephone service that we need in our downtown office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I guess, Mr. Speaker, so much for telephone technology.

Would the minister confirm that she has rewarded a call centre which carried out a number of polls for the Progressive Conservative Party, and has Telelink been given an untendered contract to carry out switchboard operations for the St. John's office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at a three-month pilot project with Telelink to get some hard data on the telephone service in our downtown office so we can offer the best service possible to our clients.

Mr. Speaker, the contract with Telelink dates back to 1992, when the previous Administration contracted with Telelink to provide after-hour services to the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get some information to improve the telephone service, but the connection between HRLE and Telelink dates back to 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, clients are divulging sensitive personal information to these call centre employees. Provincial government employees must sign an oath of secrecy. What provisions have been put in place to ensure the security of sensitive personal information being processed by these call centres employees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the concerns that have been brought forward. The Telelink service right now is providing us with some data so we can make the necessary changes to ensure that we have the appropriate telephone service available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, they are answering the phones and providing services to messages to our workers. They are providing no further services and far less intrusive services than was established with the previous Administration in 1992 when they took over our after-hours calls.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister, the calls that I am referring to are from eight until five. One day these call centre employees are assisting callers with a warranty information on a toaster, the next assisting people in desperate needs of assistance.

Minister, are these call centre employees receiving any special training to assist in dealing with the special needs of your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House and I will continue to say, we are very concerned about the quality of client services that HRLE provides to its clients.

Mr. Speaker, we have engaged Telelink for three months on a pilot to provide us with data so we can provide the best telephone service available; and, Mr. Speaker, to address the specific concern, yes, we have engaged in training with the Telelink staff who will be answering the phones so they provide accurate information. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that any information on anyone's application for income support or their services is provided by the Client Services Officer. This is a telephone answering service for three months, to provide information, and it is not the staff at that centre that is providing any services with regards to applications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members on the opposite side of this House, before they pound their desk, call this number: 729-3982, and see what wonderful service you are going to get for your clients in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this past week -

MR. REID: Call it right now. Not after four o'clock; call them right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave District, who was putting a question, and I ask him to get to his question now.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this past week the RNC were called to deal with a violent situation at the St. John's metro office. These kinds of incidents are becoming more and more commonplace, because staff and clients are frustrated with the cutbacks and the unmanageable workloads. Will the minister stand up for her department and tell the Premier to stop those cutbacks and hire additional staff to correct this situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, and I will continue to say, the quality of client services is very important to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. The policy that we brought in to provide the telephone service on a three month basis will help us determine what telephone service is the best for that office.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, that office serves over 8,000 clients. So, if there are issues with clients who come into that office who act out, our staff have to deal with that on a daily basis. We have a very professional staff who deliver a high quality of service. When they need services from security or the police, they call on those measures at that time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister. Her staff has always given professional service, but there is nobody in that office who can handle 500 calls per day with the cutbacks they have there.

Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is this. As part of the program review process your officials have been told the bottom line is to find cheaper ways to deliver service. What other private sector partnerships have your department embarked on, I ask the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear, that as we go through the Budget process or any process in this department the quality of client services will remain very important. How we deliver those services will change in the next few years as we introduce the new computerized pay system across the Province. In bringing in this new computerized pay system, it will allow our CSOs, the people who serve our clients on the front line, to be freed up and put more time into employment and career services, which will help our clients move from income support into the labour market.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask: Will the Minister of Health table the proposal he received from VON on the palliative care program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the VON issue and the very important palliative care project that is in place, that particular program deals with the very important issue of palliative care. There will be a teaching module; there is a learning module. The program is going to be used as an example for all of Newfoundland and Labrador and, as the hon. member knows, Western Newfoundland, in particular the City of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, was a leader in palliative care and, in conjunction with VON, was a leader in palliative care. I am confident that when this particular project is complete, and it will be completed in April, we will have a precedence that will be of benefit to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: No proposal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, will he table the Terms of Reference for the VON project he announced two weeks ago? Yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to table the Terms of Reference. They were announced publicly in a press release some two weeks ago. It deals with a needs assessment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the responses; the questions have been asked. I ask the minister if he could complete his answer now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have just indicated to the hon. member, the very question that she is asking was answered publicly in a press release that was released approximately two or two-and-a-half weeks ago, and therein lies the answer to her question because the Terms of Reference were specifically spelled out for the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What was the total funds given for the VON project and what amount of those funds were given for wages to settle the strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, that question, too, was also addressed and answered in a press release that was issued approximately two, two-and-a-half weeks ago. In fact, I believe the exact amount was in the range of $120,000; perhaps $140,000 was the total amount.

Mr. Speaker, the very questions that are being asked today by the hon. member were issued publicly for every, single resident of this Province to see. It has been fully disclosed. The information is on our Web page, it is on our Web site. In fact, my guess is, it is probably in her files.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the VON fiasco, the Premier fired the Deputy Minister of Health without cause. How much did this cost the taxpayers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not have the exact number at my fingertips, but let me say clearly and unequivocally, it probably was about one-tenth of what court costs were when they fired many, many public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It probably was about one-tenth of the cost of what the Leader of the Opposition did when he laid off the entire Cabot Celebrations crew without reproach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, and as his first alternate, if I can get the information for you, I will. But let me be unequivocally clear, Mr. Speaker, there will not be any court case coming from it because we treated people very fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us when the new Access to Information and Privacy Act will be proclaimed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government is firmly committed to open and transparent accountability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: This government will bring in legislation to control lobbyists. We will bring in transparency and accountability legislation and, Mr. Speaker, before the end of this session, this government will cause the proclamation of the Access to Information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was passed in March of 2002 by the previous government, and eighteen months later they left office without proclaiming that legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the new government has reviewed the matter. We have given it very careful consideration. We have listened to requests from the united municipal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Minister of Justice is so forthcoming today with his information, can you tell us, Minister, how much it will cost government as a result of your firing of Mr. Wayne Mitchell, the Privacy Commissioner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when the new government came into office and reviewed the matter of the Privacy Commissioner, the government decided that it had to make sure that the Commissioner's office had the resources it needed to do the job that needed to be done. As a result of that, we decided that the Commissioner would be a part-time Commissioner and put more resources into investigators and staff and to properly resource the offices. As a result of that, Mr. Mitchell decided to leave the position and the government is now giving careful consideration to the naming of a new Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Mitchell was not fired, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Social Plan Secretariat for the Northeast Avalon released a final report to government called a Poverty Profile of the Northeast Avalon Region. In that document, the group identified two rural areas, communities, and six urban neighborhoods in this region which were specially singled out for low income and employment levels, low education levels, and a higher proportion of groups at risk for poverty, Mr. Speaker. These neighbourhoods need special services and programs from the government.

I want to ask the minister: What specific programs is her government prepared to institute in these areas to tackle the problem of poverty in these specific neighbourhoods and communities identified by the Strategic Social Plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the study that the hon. member refers to does highlight certain communities and neighbourhoods that have higher levels of poverty in the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to addressing poverty in every part of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are doing, specifically from Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is, we are bringing in the computerized pay system so that staff can be freed up. So many staff will work at the Income Support; however, staff will be freed up to work on an individual basis, one on one, with clients who have the potential to move from income support into the labour market.

Mr. Speaker, information like the information that has been generated and in the report that the hon. member mentioned, provides us with specific details and gives us the latitude that we need to know, where we need to focus our services, particularly in employment and career services, so that we deliver these services where they are needed most.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, now that specific communities and neighbourhoods have been identified, can the minister say that her department and her government will take a community-based approach and put in sustainable programs that will work over the long run to deal with all of the problems related to poverty? Even if they are employed, people at the minimum wage are living in poverty.

Will this government act to target the specific problems that have been identified here, or is she just going to say that we will have programs for everybody, and everybody can hope for the best with individual services? There need to be targeted programs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question, because poverty is not an issue that can be addressed with one single policy or one rule or one way of changing things, and it is information like contained in that report that gives us the data so that we can make evidence-based decisions when we are dealing with poverty, and this government is committed to reducing poverty.

It will happen in the long term, but that type of report gives us the information to know where we need to target certain populations, and our policies that we bring into play, Mr. Speaker, will have to have a broad base. It will have to deal with housing, it will have to deal with education, it will have to deal with health care, it will have to deal with Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and issues like minimum wage.

In order for us to be able to deal with poverty, we have to do it in a holistic fashion and, Mr. Speaker, we will bring in policies that will reduce poverty throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

I will say to the minister, even though it is only December, I am getting calls concerning the Labrador Ferry Service for next year because it is a form of transportation people use a lot. I want to ask the minister whether or not the ferry service will remain the same in 2005 as it was in 2004, and whether or not people will be able to make reservations in a timely manner, generally February, rather than like last year when it was up in May month?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The answer to the first question is, by and large, yes; the configuration will be the same next year as it was this year. Whether the number of trips will change, say, between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay or so, I am not certain yet. We are certainly looking at that possibility. In terms of a reservation system, Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in a position to announce the schedule and the 1-800 number certainly before Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance committed to giving the people of this Province a financial update. Where is it?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was asked this question last week. He committed -

MS THISTLE: He didn't give an answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you would like an answer - you have asked the question and I would like the opportunity to answer it. Now, whether you want the answer or believe the answer is quite another matter, but you are going to get one anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The Minister of Finance stood in his place, when asked a question, and made a commitment that before the fall sitting would be over and done with, that he would be giving an update or a mid-year financial statement. Nothing has changed with that. Just because you do not have it today does not mean you are not going to get it. The government has committed, the minister has committed, and when he is ready to give the update members' opposite will be given appropriate notice and, at that time, it will be plain for everybody to see.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much extra money will the Province collect in tax as a result of high gas taxes this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is an important question in terms of the increase on gasoline tax because of the increase in gas prices because of world oil prices. Another question that would be a good question and appropriate: What has been the increase in oil revenues, for example?

The fact of the matter is, in due course - what the member is really asking is for me to out-scoop the Minister of Finance before his mid-year financial update. The fact of the matter is that neither me nor anybody else is going to do that. The minister will give his financial update when he is ready to give his financial update and all revenue matters, including gasoline taxation, including oil revenues, and anything else that has affected the public treasury will be brought forward immediately, will be brought forward on behalf of the people of the Province for everyone to see, not only the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much money will the government save this year in interest charges on the provincial debt because of the increasing value of the Canadian dollar?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, I can only reiterate what my former answer was. The member is asking - it is pretty clear what is on the go here. She is trying to accomplish through the backdoor what she could not through the front.

The fact of the matter is this, that before the fall Legislature, before the fall session closes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want an answer you will get it, but if you want (inaudible) go ahead and do it on your own (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how much money will the Province receive from the Health Accord this fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can only say this again for everyone so they will clearly understand, more importantly, for the people of the Province who are truly interested in what the financial situation of the Province is, not like the members opposite.

The Minister of Finance will deal with every issue next week, or when he is ready in terms of the financial updates. My understanding, he has made a commitment to the people of the Province that before the House closes this session, he will give a mid-year update on the Province's finances. Now, all of the questions that the minister has asked are an attempt to find out exactly that.

I say to the member opposite and all members but, more importantly, to the people of the public, that when the minister stands before this session is over and gives an update, it will be abundantly clear what the financial situation of the Province is, where we have had an increase in revenue, where there has been a decrease in revenue, and people will be able to judge for themselves on how we are managing prudently and effectively the finances of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will we, before this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members on both sides for their co-operation. A number of questions are being asked and it is difficult for the Chair to hear both the question and the answer.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will we, before this House breaks for Christmas, have a free vote in the House of Assembly on the sale of FPI's assets in the United States?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated, publicly, that in the event it was necessary to bring this issue before the House, that the process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) at all.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is correct. There might not be one at all.

- that if, in fact, it was necessary to bring this matter before the House that it would be conducted by a free vote so that all members would be free to vote as they see appropriate on this very, very important issue. Right now, it appears that the company is not proceeding with this. We have asked a lot of questions. Unlike the previous government, we continue to ask more and more questions. We continue to be in the light rather than in the dark, as the member was when he was a former minister. As a result, it appears that the company is now second guessing as to whether they want to proceed with that. So, if, in fact, they do decide they want to proceed and if, in fact, it is something that needs to be considered by the people of this Province, then we will certainly bring it before this House and we will have a free vote and it will be quite open as we are. We are open and we are accountable and a very transparent government and that is the way we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, will the Premier commit today that FPI will not be permitted to continue with this sale until there is a free vote in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have already indicated to the company that we have a legal opinion - we had several legal opinions, actually - an opinion that indicates that there is a problem with them proceeding with that particular issue because it could be in contravention to the act. This government is not going to do anything that is in contravention to the act. That is why we asked the questions. That is why we sought the opinions, because we had serious concerns about what was going on, and we, as a government, had concerns that a major asset, the whole marketing arm of that company, would be sold off and would diminish the value of the company, weaken the company, and affect all of its operations, especially its operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have had a legitimate concern. We have been truly all over this. We have asked a lot of questions. We have asked them, if they do proceed and they do comply with the act, to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador several very, very important concessions in order to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That has been our position from the start, and that is still our position.

We presently have an opinion that indicates that they could be in contravention of the act. If they are, they will not be allowed to proceed - as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will you table those conflicting legal opinions before we are asked to vote on this in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell the hon. member - and it is a very good question - clearly and unequivocally, the purpose of a free vote in this House of Assembly -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would not mind, I am trying to answer a question that was asked by his colleague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell you, clearly and unequivocally, that if a free vote is put to this House, all available information will be available to all members, including legal opinions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services tell the House if high gas prices are causing school bus companies to delay necessary inspections and repairs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I do not understand the question that he has posed to me right now because I do not know what gas prices have to do with repairing buses. Maintenance is expected to be kept up on the buses, and it is not in relation to gas prices.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, that is not all the minister doesn't understand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Gas prices affect the profits that the companies are making when they are running their buses. That is what gas prices affect. Therefore, it filters down to keeping the buses on the road with improper maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, trucks carrying contaminated soil are travelling across the Province without being inspected. Can the minister explain why this is happening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The incident that he is referring to, I am assuming, is the leak that was in the truck that was transporting contaminated material from Gander. It comes under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, but our officials were made aware that they were transporting HazMat materials, and our officials were there at Pynn's Brook. The truck in question was checked and inspected. There was no problem. It proceeded on to the ferry, and when it got to the ferry they detected a leak. That has been rectified, and Transport Canada have put firm guidelines in for those trucks in future, that are going to transport that material.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Public Tender Act Exemptions Report for the Month of October.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

Notice of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the residents of not only Southwestern Newfoundland, but actually from across the ribbon that we know as the Trans- Canada Highway, and it relates, in fact, to the closure of the weigh scales and inspection station at Port aux Basques.

I am very pleased to see the minister just address this issue of contaminated soil, because that is exactly what this issue was about. I forewarned in the spring that these type of incidents would happen. This was not just dirty materials we had going across this Province. This was PCB, which, anybody who has lived in this Province is well aware, is very dangerous.

The minister refers to it as a hazardous material. It is indeed very hazardous. The very precautions that we warned about in the spring about the closure of the weigh scales in Port aux Basques, now we are seeing the effects of it.

We have a truck that travels across this Province from Gander, and gets on the ferry, that was not inspected - which would have been inspected when it got to Port aux Basques before it ever got on a ferry. Now, what if something had happened after it got on the ferry and the ferry had left? Well, it is not our problem; it is Transport Canada's problem?

Well, I am sorry, the people who travel this highway and expect safety are not going to accept the minister's answer that it is a Transport Canada issue. It is safety travelling. Do not tell me, when I get out in the middle of the Gulf, that this is a Transport Canada issue. It should have been picked up at the inspection station in Port aux Basques.

Again, in terms of proper information, there is a big sign when you come outside of Port aux Basques, about four kilometres, which says: Inspection station. It is written there in plain English. Yet, when inquiries are made of the minister's department about the inspection station and inspection services that were conducted at the Port aux Basques station, the director of communications comes back and says: Well, they do not do inspections there. They do weight scales.

If you do not do inspections there, why are these people certified as inspectors, and why do you have a sign up saying, inspection station? You either are or you are not. It comes back again to the so-called openness and accountability, in particular, of this government.

We advised in the spring we were going to have problems with safety on our highways if that inspection station was closed. There are 80,000 commercial vehicles a year that go through that station - 80,000 vehicles - everything from bad tires to carrying contaminated product, to there not being secure loads. That is the purpose of having it there. I forewarned in the spring again: We hope nobody dies as a result of this attempt to save money at the expense of protection and safety.

The minister is well aware, as well, we had an accident outside of Corner Brook this fall between two tractor trailers that never would have happened if those vehicles had been properly inspected. They would not have been on the road. Fortunately, nobody died in that particular case, but I do not want to be standing up here in six months time or twelve months time and sending sincere condolences to the family of somebody, when we get to that point, for the sake of a few measly dollars that this government will not spend on the necessary inspection services.

Again, this petition is grounded based upon safety, based upon the protection and lives of the people of this Province. Surely, we have to see past the god almighty dollar sometimes and put things in place to make sure that the safety and precautions are there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on highway safety in the Province, the closing of the inspection stations.

Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted last week when I heard the minister, on a question from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, say there is no evidence that the closure of inspections stations is showing any undue safety on our roads. I was flabbergasted, Mr. Speaker, when, about a week before, all headlines in Corner Brook were about a truck, a flatbed truck, that was 5,000 pounds overweight that caused the accident in Corner Brook. The reason? Because there is no inspection station anywhere. If you leave Pynn's Brook and you are in Corner Brook, you can leave three or four or five o'clock in the morning, load down the truck because you know there is no inspection station on the west side of Corner Brook. There is none in Port aux Basques.

This truck was almost 5,000 pounds overweight, according to your own officials, Madam Minister, according to your own officials. So, if you can stand up here, and you can stand over there and laugh at that, and say to the member here that there is no undue safety on the roads because of the inspection stations, I ask you to go and speak to your officials in Corner Brook. The roads are unsafe in Western Newfoundland because of the number of trucks that are violating these regulations, because there are absolutely none.

I heard the minister give an answer, that the number of tickets issued is down. I scratched my head when I heard that in Corner Brook. I scratched my head and said: If you take the police officers off the road in Corner Brook -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: If you take the police officers off the road, the number of speeding tickets has to go down. They just have to; there is no one to give them.

I say to the minister, if you want proof that the roads are unsafe because of the cutbacks to the highway inspections, phone your staff in Corner Brook or phone the RCMP in Corner Brook. Do not take it from me. Do no take it from the media, who have pictures of a truck 5,000 pounds overweight. Do not do it. Phone your staff or phone the RCMP. It is a major highway concern. There is a safety issue that must be addressed, and we know the bottom line. I could say to the members opposite, because of the lack of enforcement on the roads, if it is unsafe in Western Newfoundland, it will soon creep all across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if it hasn't already.

I urge the government to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, are we into Orders of the Day now?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, Sir, if you call them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you. Orders of the Day.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to move motion 3, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act," carried. (Bill 57)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill, An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act - no, this is (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Clerk informs me that there is a mistake on the Order Paper, that it should read that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would give notice. Where it says on the Order Paper, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that should read the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister responsible for Labrador Affairs. If we could make those corrections, it would be appreciated by the Clerk.

Is it the wish of the House that I recall the entire thing and do it according to what should have been on the Order Paper?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we will begin from the top again, then.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 57)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Fish Inspection Act," carried. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 4, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 7.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 7, 2004.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise today to introduce Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act.

The purpose of this act - and I do not think we can underscore the importance of what this piece of legislation is ultimately about. During the election, and even the lead up prior to the election, the party which I represent and the party which I am a part of and proud to be part of, we made a commitment during the election that should we form the government that we would introduce legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could protect me from members opposite? All afternoon they are shouting and bawling. If they want to talk, the opportunity is going to be provided for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Right now, I have the opportunity to introduce a piece of legislation and if they have difficulty with that, well, then, I do not know what else to do about it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The hon. the minister is introducing a very important piece of legislation and I think we should be able to hear what the minister is saying.

The hon. the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are three parts to this bill. First of all, it deals with fixed-term elections. I think it is an important piece of legislation from a variety of points of view and I can speak to some from my own experiences with respect to what I believe this amendment to the act will do for all political parties, what it will do for people in the Province, generally. I think, really, it is a feature of what the House should always stand for, something a little more democratic than what we have been used to.

When this bill passes this Legislature, committed right up front, right in this piece of legislation, we will know today when the next election will be, and it will be the second Tuesday of October 7. That is a commitment that the government made in terms of - October, 2007, I apologize. So, we know today. Now, what will that effectively do? Whether you have been in government or on the outside of government, whether it has been in the past a Conservative Party in power or a Liberal Party in power, the call of an election ultimately came from one person and that was the Premier of the Province.

I will give you my own experience. I remember in August of 1998, there was the potential of an election, a snap election. Now, I happened to have found out exactly what the story was and the story, I say to my colleagues, was simply this. The story occurred in August when then Minister of Mines and Energy, Chuck Furey, had a Cabinet meeting in Stephenville, did an interview with Debbie Cooper on CBC Here and Now. I recall every moment of it. Chuck Furey said, and I will quote - he talked about the notion of shipping ore out of Voisey's Bay. He sent a flag up the political flagpole, a litmus test, I guess, to see what the public of the Province and how they would respond. They responded very negatively. They responded harshly but they responded, unequivocally, in one voice: no, they did not want that.

The last week of August, about a week later, out came then Premier Brian Tobin and said quote, unquote - and I have the quotes if anybody would like to challenge me on them - said: Not one spoonful would be shipped out of Voisey's Bay. Not one spoonful. Not a spoonful of ore would leave Voisey's Bay. Now, at that time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask my colleagues to bear with me because it is an interesting story. It is pertinent and particular to the piece of legislation that we are dealing with here today, Mr. Speaker.

It became abundantly clear, I say to members opposite, abundantly clear to me that there was about to be a snap election called in September. I got a call one night, and I will not say from whom, but it was from a former colleague and a former minister, who was then a minister of that Opposition, notifying me the election did not happen. It is not going to happen this fall, Ed, and here is why it is not going to happen. A number of people in caucus were too skittish. There were a number of people around the Cabinet table who said that it was too early, that we might pay a bit of a price. As a matter of fact, as a result, it did not happen. It happened in January, two-and-a-half years into a mandate.

What this legislation is essentially going to do is eliminate the snap calls of the past. It is going to provide an opportunity.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There were thousands of students camped on the hill is right, I say to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Part of that election ploy as well was not only that but they needed to get ahead of the potential nurses strike that was going to happen the next fall, which was the biggest piece of information that they had possession of but not necessarily the rest of us at the time.

What this legislation does, with respect to that piece, is that it says to every political party of every stripe, that the election will be a certain time, it will be at a certain date. So you can judge yourselves and plan yourselves accordingly. Who is going to be the winner of all of that? The public of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the winner of a fixed-term election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Provide the opportunity, as of today, to say we can begin the process of policy development, we can begin the process of candidate selection and identification. People who want to run for political office, not knowing when the next election will be coming, like some members or some people in the past - and I would suggest to you, some members, and I am looking at some of them now who are sitting in the House who put their own personal, private and professional lives on hold for in advance of a year because they thought, and other people thought, that an election was coming, at great financial jeopardy for themselves.

So, the process wins and hopefully the people win. Any of us, or anybody outside of the forty-eight seats who aspire to have the absolute privilege to be represented , or to represent a constituency in this Legislature in one of these forty-eight seats now, have the opportunity to plan themselves accordingly in conjunction with, and in co-ordination with, the political party for which they wish to run, or even as has been in the past. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, for example, in 1996, ran as an Independent and sat right up behind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for a term, as an Independent.

The point of it is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very good piece of legislation. It exists in other jurisdictions. It works well in other jurisdictions. Policy development, the public - and anything and all associated with elections, the only victors can be the public, because they now understand when the next election will be.

It stops what has happened in the past. It stops people fooling around with a budget to try to make it look a little better to get through twenty-one days. It stops the notion that if there is a ticklish public policy issue coming up, like a nurses strike which occurred in, I guess, March 1999. It does not allow a Premier or a government to try to hoodwink the people of the Province to get ahead of a ticklish issue. It provides an opportunity for the government to look squarely in the faces of the people and deal with it and say how they did it in the best fashion for the people of the Province.

It takes that sort of notion, that one person in the Province can decide what the agenda will be, when the circumstances are right, and call it quick without even consulting anybody else, not only this Legislature but in the Province.

The question that I put to all member of the House: Is that a feature that we believe is important? We believe so. That is why government is advancing it. It has worked in this Province for many years. Every four years, on a fixed time, municipalities right across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador go to the polls to elect their municipal leaders. It is done in the fall, it is a good opportunity, but it has worked effectively and it has worked well for the communities in which municipal leaders get elected.

One of the second features - there are three features, I said earlier, to this bill. The second feature deals with the notion if a seat becomes vacant in this House. If, for example, the Member for Exploits were to resign, or the Member for Cape St. Francis, God forbid, or any other member in this House, for whatever reason, or if a member were to pass away, or for health reasons, or for personal reasons, whatever the reasons may be, that should the constituency they represent become vacant because that member happens to leave, then we are changing the law, or suggesting that we change the law today, to shorten the time up of when that by-election must be held. Right now I believe it is six months. What we are saying is, if a seat becomes vacant, that with ninety days the election must be called and must be over with.

The purpose of that, that used to be a feature in this House before. Actually, I believe it was introduced by the former Premier Wells, if I am not mistaken, I say to my colleague opposite, if I am correct, but it was an important feature. We have, I guess, recommitted in this legislation to ensuring that, if a seat becomes vacant, the people who reside in that area, irrespective of where they live, if their district is not represented in the Legislature, then a by-election must be called in a timely fashion, for one purpose and one purpose only, Mr. Speaker, ultimately to ensure that they and their interests and the constituents in that district do not go unrepresented in their House of Assembly for an inordinate period of time. We believe a ninety-day period is sufficient in terms of when to call an election and when to have it done by in order for that area of the Province to be effectively and physically represented in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the third and last feature of this piece of legislation is also important. I believe it is the one that will probably generate the most discussion in the House. The third feature deals with, essentially, that should a sitting Premier leave the seat of government and effectively resign as Premier of the Province, then what this legislation calls for is that, upon the election of a new Premier - Premier and leader, they would both be the same, I say to my colleague - in the House by his or her party, that individual must, within a twelve-month period - not may, but must - within a twelve-month period, go to the people of the Province to seek their own mandate.

Now, what is important here - here is the process. I want to take time to explain the process. We look at when former Premier Peckford left, or when former Premier Tobin left, for example, here is what occurred: The respective parties went through a leadership convention, participated in their own parliamentary or democratic process, which both parties have, or any party for that matter, a leader is elected, of the party, and then, by being elected leader of that party, that individual also becomes Premier automatically.

What this bill is saying is that once that person is elected as leader, and once that person then becomes, in law, the Premier of the Province as result of that election, that person, whether it be on this side of the House or that side of the House, must go and seek their own mandate within a period of twelve months.

Now, there are some questions that surround that, and I look forward to answering those in the Committee debate, but it is another feature, in our view, of accountability. It is another feature by where an individual or a party cannot continue to govern - say there are three-and-a-half years left in a mandate, or three years, or two-and-half, whatever the situation, as it exists, there is an obligation, in law, a statutory obligation, for that person to move ahead and call an election or to seek their own mandate.

There are situations that will present themselves from time to time in Legislatures, and these are: What happens if there is a minority government? The question has been asked: What would happen if there is a minority government - I say to my colleague for Placentia & St. Mary's - in this situation, and government was defeated, for example, on a budgetary motion, which means a Finance bill? Obviously, if government were defeated on a Finance bill, or a budgetary motion, it is a motion of non-confidence and an election must be called immediately. That would remain the same. There is no way that you cannot let that continue.

Other questions have arisen, and members opposite, I am sure, have questions. We are looking forward, and I am looking forward, to debating some of those, whatever they may be.

I guess, ultimately, if there is a take-home message that I would like to leave with this particular piece of legislation, while it is not a thick piece of legislation, it does not contain many clauses, it contains just a few, but the few it does contain will revamp how politics in Newfoundland and Labrador is carried out. It will revamp how people get ready for elections, and ultimately how people are prepared on policy documents, on candidate selection, on candidate identification. It will provide a fairer opportunity, no matter - and this is the most important thing: It takes the advantage away from government and it puts the advantage squarely where it belongs, democratically, with the people of the Province. It takes the advantage - I sat in Opposition for ten years, and I know all about what that advantage can do.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it was, but it was a fun time, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. It was a fun time.

The point is this: I understand full well what the advantage to being government is, when you have a Premier of a Province who has the ultimate authority to call a snap election. To our Premier's credit, to the credit of the leader of our party, in our own discussions within our own caucus in the lead-up to the election, this is one of the things that he was adamant about pursuing.

We believe, fundamentally, and I believe others will too, that in fixing a term - like today, if we pass this legislation today or whenever we pass it, and we believe it will be passed. We believe it has the general support within all members of the House - that we can begin today to tell people, we can tell people immediately that the second Tuesday in October, 2007, will be the next provincial general election; the second Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, unless there are - and those are the questions we will get to, but generally speaking, that should things remain constant that this is what will happen.

So, we are very proud to put forward this piece of legislation, introduce a fixed term. We are very proud that part of this legislation involves shorting up the time for if a seat becomes absent, wherever that seat may be, that constituents in that riding or district will not go unrepresented for an unwarranted amount of time. That is shortened up.

We are also very pleased and supportive of the notion that if a Premier resigns, as did former Premier Peckford, as did former Premier Wells, as did former Premier Tobin, that should that occur no one person who gets elected leader of the party and subsequently as a result of that become Premier, can carry on with a mandate for more than twelve months without going to the polls to seek their own mandate. We believe those are all essential features of the democratic process in our Province and we believe, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally that this piece of legislation enhances everybody.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A pleasure again to see this particular bill on the Order Paper for the House of Assembly. An issue in principle - and this again, just so we all remind ourselves that this is the debate in principle as to whether or not we agree with the concept, the notion, the idea. No question, that the Liberal Party and the Liberal Opposition as the Official Opposition fully supports and concurs in the concept of a fixed-term election. It was clearly a part of our mandate and our Red Book that we put forward to the people in an election, as well. I am glad to see early action taken by the government with respect to this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I will say about it and there are some possible amendments that we are considering to move at the committee stage to try to strengthen this particular bill to guarantee that it does, in fact, do what we all agree it should do in principle. That being, unless there are some extraordinary circumstances, that the people of the Province should know when the next election is; just like they do for town councils, school boards back when they used to be elected. I guess they are going to be elected again some time because one of the things that this government did when they became the elected government is they did away with the elected school boards. Abolished them! They took it upon themselves to wipe them out. They decided that even though they were elected through a legitimate process, that they should be abolished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, members opposite, I am sure a number of them will want to speak to this because this is a very important democratic reform. Rather than just yap from the seats, like is want to happen sometimes. I am sure they will want to be on the public record as to why they support this important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, people would know, I think, in Newfoundland and Labrador, politics and elections, the people of this Province take as seriously as anywhere in the democratic world. They guard the right, they protect the right. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say that there are an awful lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who love politics. They really do take an interest in politics. They take an interest in their politicians. They take an interest in what is happening in their Legislature. They take an interest in the kinds of things that once we get elected, that we are as the government empowered to do and as the Opposition challenged to do on their behalf in raising issues. There is a very vibrant, political culture alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador and I think there is some real interest in this issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will probably move, and we have had a preliminarily discussion of it because this is one of the pieces of legislation that we have had, in my view, for a reasonable period of time. We were given this some days ago, well over a week ago, maybe two weeks ago, so this particular piece of legislation, in my view, is where it should be.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, by the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

First of all, right up-front, whatever time my point of order takes I would not want it to come from the Leader of the Opposition's time and he can certainly have that back by leave.

Secondly, I am not going to stand in this House and listen to any member make an accusation against this government in saying we are not providing legislation in the appropriate time when, in fact, it is not true.

I offered that Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, nine days ago, a briefing on any piece of legislation, any time, make any staff available, and I am not going to sit down and listen to the Member for Twillingate make an accusation that is false, because that is the fact of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And I am not going to listen to anyone else suggest that we are trying to ram stuff through when we are not. We have provided legislation in a more timely manner than any government before us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, I will continue to do it above the objections of that member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order.

MR. REID: I am, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, and I don't know why the Government House Leader is getting so hot under the collar and yelling and screaming here today.

He talks about giving us access to legislation in a timely order. The Minister of Fisheries rose yesterday afternoon in this House and gave notice that he would be, on today, bringing forward a bill from his department, the Department of Fisheries. I asked the minister at the time, yesterday afternoon, and I asked the House Leader, and the Premier was also listening, if I could have a copy of that piece of legislation, and I haven't seen it yet. What have we got left in this session? Four or five days left in this session to debate that piece of legislation, and yet it hasn't been forthcoming. I say to the minister, if he wants to live by the words he says, present it to me right now here in the House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is how the parliamentary process works, for the member. You give notice on one day. We can't give it, Mr. Speaker, until first reading is read. We gave first reading today, the member will have the legislation today. We will not debate it until the member is absolutely ready, Mr. Speaker, to have the appropriate time to do his own consultations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final presentation to the point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he should know the difference. We have one week, after this one, left in the Legislature in this sitting according to his rules and regulations. If he is going to give me all the time I want to read this bill, then I suggest that it probably won't be done this session.

MR. E. BYRNE: The appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Points of order occur when there is something offensive to the Standing Orders. While these points that have been made by hon. members are interesting, they do not constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, continuing debate.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean -

MR. E. BYRNE: You have no idea what you are talking about.

MR. REID: Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, you don't.

MR. REID: You don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask Kelvin.

MR. REID: You don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask Kelvin. Did he tell you that I was going to provide (inaudible) every piece of legislation.

MR. REID: I asked you for it. I asked you for it. Whatever you want, you said yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask hon. members for their co-operation. We have dealt with the point of order.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) is what you are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have dealt with the point of order. I ask hon. members now if we could continue with the debate.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Government House Leader seems a bit agitated today. He caught me completely by surprise with a point of order. I was just standing here in the House complimenting the House Leader on the timely presentation of this piece of legislation and he got up on a point of order saying that he was being accused of not giving us timely legislation. If he checked the record, usually a point of order is, Mr. Speaker, as you described appropriately, about some breach of the rules and usually directed at something that the currently recognized speaker, which is me, was saying. I was saying that this is a perfect example of us having received the legislation in plenty of time to prepare ourselves for an informed debate. The House Leader for the government jumped up on a point of order saying: I am not going to stand here and say to people you are not giving it to me on time.

I just finished telling him we had this in lots of time. We had this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, in lots of time, and we appreciated receiving this piece of legislation in lots of time. If he wants to make an issue of it, which he obviously did, by rising to a point of order, then maybe I can refer back to yesterday where they passed us Bill 44.

As he points out, here is what we are debating today, Mr. Speaker. For those who may be viewing us in the Legislature - because I indicated there are people who are interested - here it is, a couple of clauses on this page. As a matter of fact, there is one clause on this page and there is one clause on this page. In its entirety, it is two pages long, it contains two clauses, and we received it several days ago, over a week ago, I would suggest, so we could prepare for the debate.

Yesterday, we had this bill which contains twenty-six pages in the first part - and right now I am over 300 - it is 327 pages in the second part, so over 350 pages of an historic piece of legislation with respect to Inuit Land Claims in Labrador, and when did we receive this bill officially?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday.

MR. GRIMES: Yesterday afternoon, about five minutes before we had one of the most historic debates ever conducted in the history of the Province, Mr. Speaker. That is an inconsistency. I was not intending to bring that up today, and I will not dwell on it, but the fact of the matter is, you are expected to deal with this in an intelligent fashion on behalf of the people who sent us here. People on the government side, Mr. Speaker, received this bill yesterday. The first time it was ever laid on the desk in the Legislature was yesterday afternoon. As a matter of fact, by Friday afternoon when I went looking for it, it was not printed. It was not printed.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader got a bit hot under the collar, because I know he is under a lot of pressure. I know he is under a lot of pressure, and he blew off a bit of steam for the wrong issue. I can understand him blowing off a bit of steam yesterday if we complained about this, like we did. Today, I tried to compliment the man. I tried to say this two-page bill, which is significant, Mr. Speaker, we had it in lots of time. If they would only give us all the legislation in the same timely fashion, we would not even discuss the issue.

Here you have the Government House Leader jumping up, all indignant, talking about the timeliness of this particular crowd. Timely, yes, I guess. Two-hundred and sixty pages of legislation put on the Table at 1:30 p.m., expecting us to have it passed by 5 o'clock. Now, I am a pretty good reader - I am even a speed reader - but I could not read that. In four hours, you couldn't possibly read that. You could not read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) signed off on it.

MR. GRIMES: There were members opposite yesterday, by the way, who signed off on it, the Member for Port au Port says, signed off on it. He raised his hand yesterday and stood in the House to vote for it, having never read it. Bit of a John Crosbie with free trade, I would say. A very important document, never read the document in his life, followed like a sheep what the Premier and the government decided to do, stood up when he was told to stand up, sat down when he was told to stay in his seat, and never said a word in the debate. That is what we have over there, Mr. Speaker. Now, they have me sidetracked. Let me get back to what I am trying to say here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for straying slightly from the topic. I know the Speaker was just looking at the rules of order, suggesting I may be straying a bit. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were speaking to the point of order.

MR. GRIMES: The point of order was ruled, as it was, no point of order. Indignation by the Government House Leader for no good reason.

Let me start again. I compliment the Government House Leader and the government for giving us this legislation in a timely fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, absolutely compliment them. I would like for them to use this as a model for what we should be doing for all the rest of the legislation.

Now, my friend and colleague from Twillingate & Fogo points out that yesterday there was notice given about a Fish Inspection Act. It was given first reading today, and absolutely the Government House Leader was right on this. The normal tradition inside the Legislature is that the actual piece of legislation would not be presented in the Legislature until after it gets first reading; because, in our rules, it does not really exist until then, but that does not preclude the government, any member of the government - the House Leader, the Premier, the minister responsible - from giving us a copy of the bill so we can study it.

That was what was asked for yesterday, by the way. What was asked for yesterday, of the Premier - the minister said the Fish Inspection Act, in the spirit of openness and accountability and transparency, which is also here, by the way, Bill 39, a new bill, saying this government is going to be open and transparent.

The simple question yesterday was, in the spirit of openness and transparency, since you have told us we are going to do the Fish Inspection Act, could you please send me over a copy so I can get ready? Yesterday, what did he say? Oh, yes, no problem. We are open, we are transparent, we will give you a copy of the act. What did we get today? The Government House Leader, all indignant, saying: Sure, I cannot give you the bill; we did not do first reading yet.

Sure, they might not do first reading until some time next week, but they told us yesterday they were going to do the bill; we are assuming it is printed. It may or may not be printed; nobody here has seen it. Nobody has seen it yet, and no one in that caucus has seen it. The government caucus has not seen it, Mr. Speaker, but there was a commitment made to provide it to the Official Opposition, and of course today they are backing off from the commitment because they are not nearly as open and transparent and accountable as they would lead people to believe.

Now, back to Bill 40, Mr. Speaker, fixed election dates. I fully concur and, as the Government House Leader said in introducing the bill, there are sometimes extraordinary circumstances in our parliamentary traditions which prevent that from happening. One of them being, for some strange reason, even in a majority government circumstance, there could still be a vote of non-confidence in the government because the rest of the members of the caucus may decide on some particular issue not to support the Premier and the Cabinet. So, you should not assume that a non-confidence vote in our democratic tradition is only possible in a minority government circumstance. It is not. It is possible under any circumstance. There could be a non-confidence vote at a point in time and then, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of the people of the Province, as the Administrator, has a constitutional responsibility to decide whether to offer someone else the opportunity to govern or to call an election.

The idea that is here in subsection 3 about having the Lieutenant-Governor maintain the ability to call an election under an extraordinary circumstance is absolutely essential and we will talk about, not definitively but maybe, an amendment to make that even a better provision and to make sure that, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does do that, it is because he is acting completely independently and not because of any advice received by the government or the Premier. We will talk about that issue. It is an issue that needs to be addressed and it should be in the bill, and we are glad to see it in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about setting the date: This government has chosen the second Tuesday in October. That is entirely up to them as to when they want it to be. The last election that we had, a year or so ago, was the third week of October. The government, obviously, is signaling to us in this bill that they think October month is the best time of year to have an election in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some other government might think maybe it should have been the spring. Most people would think probably not in the middle of the summer. It is too short and too precious to have it done with an election.

There was a Premier a little while ago who used to love February months. There was a Premier a while ago who loved February month and called two elections in February - two majority mandates.

MR. COLLINS: He did not live in Labrador.

MR. GRIMES: He did not live in Labrador, but I can tell you that being the Member for Exploits district, the strangest thing happened. This is just a little history. In Exploits district in communities like Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Leading Tickles and Fortune Harbour, in the middle of February, two different times - only three years apart, not four - there was no snow. The temperature was in the teens and people were going to the polling stations with shorts and T-shirts on. Absolutely amazing! Some people suggested that Premier, that leader, had a bit of a lucky star or something over his head or whatever, but I will tell you one thing, the weather sure co-operated in February.

Now, I take it this government is signaling that they cannot count on that kind of weather in February. They think there is a much better chance of having that kind of weather the second week of October, but it is their decision to take. We do not have any particular quarrel with that, they are the government. They are deciding that it should be the second week in October and that is fine with us, one way or the other. They are the majority. They will decide that, and we will live with that.

Mr. Speaker, then there is the other issue. The idea of what happens if the leader changes. What happens if the leader changes before the four years are up? Now, there has been a long tradition of this in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is one of the issues that led our caucus to concluding that there should be fixed terms because the leaders had changed fairly frequently during Conservative governments, in the time of Moores and Peckford and another former Premier, who is here in the Legislature with us, the Member for Lewisporte. Also, in Liberal times, where in the last few years that I was here we had Premiers Wells, Tobin, Tulk, and Grimes. So, the leaders have changed more often than the government has changed.

There was quite an issue made with respect to: If the leader changes, does the government that got elected as a collective group have the mandate to continue on for the rest of the four years? Now, I have always contended that, yes they do. I have always contended that. That was a point of contention, obviously, with the Opposition, but I have always contended that we do not have a separate election for the Premier in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our parliamentary traditions have always been you elect your forty-eight members and whichever party has the most members, the leader of that party is asked to form the government. The leader of that party then becomes the Premier by virtue of that.

We do not go out like some town councils and cities do, elect their councils and have a separate election for the mayor. That is not our process. We do not do like the United States does, have an election for Senators, have an election for Congressmen but elect its President and Vice-President separately. That is not our tradition.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have an hour. I do not plan to take it. So I would suggest to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I know he is anxious to speak, come back in a few minutes, you will get your turn and I will gladly listen to you.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have that tradition. I understand that what the government is signaling is that they believe there should be more authority, more autonomy, more importance put on the role of who the leader is than who the collective group is. That is what they are now saying they will put into this legislation. That is their right to do so. They are saying that a government does not get a mandate, the leader gets a mandate. They bought into that argument. I do not subscribe to it. I understand that some members of my own caucus might even subscribe to it. I certainly do not, never did. I have always respected the parliamentary traditions that a government is elected by the rules that have been sustained in western democracies for a century. Well, actually several centuries, almost a millennium in terms of elections. They have served people very, very well; certainly since the 1600s for sure. That is a tradition that is carried on, being maintained and being sustained.

Now, I would suggest one thing. Again, they are the majority, if they decide it is more important that the government change every time the Premier changes, that you cannot continue on, that the other people in the government caucus did not get elected with any mandate, only the Premier got elected with a mandate. That is what they say they believe in that clause, that the whole government got elected on the coattails of the Premier. That is what this says, that none of them got elected on their own merits. They were no good. They meant nothing in the vote. The Member for Gander, insignificant. What this says is that he only got elected because they had a particular leader at a point in time and if that leader changes the whole government must be re-elected. That is what is says.

Now, I am saying, as a matter of principle, that I, as one elected member and having been a parliamentarian for fifteen years, disagree, fundamentally, with that concept. I would be very surprised if this government does anything other than vote for what is here because we know who wrote this. The Government House Leader - it is here in his name - did not write this. We know where this came from. It came from the eighth floor in this building from the Premier's office. The Government House Leader did not write this. There might have been some little preliminary discussion with him before they decided to put his name on the bill to put it in the Legislature.

So, the fact of the matter is, I disagree with it. They are going to, most likely, agree with it because they have been told, as per usual, this is the way it is going to be, folks. This is what I want you to support and this is the way it is going to be. I am not sure there was even a question asked as to whether people agreed. I am positive there was no debate in their caucus as to whether or not the principle, that I am now talking about, was sensible or not. I would bet every penny that I own in this world, that debate was not held in that caucus, and I am not wasteful man. I would like to keep my money. I think I am pretty safe on this one, Mr. Speaker.

Now, on the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, I will throw in my pension and my RRSPs, too. The whole works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The house, yes, the car, the works; a bit of farmland I got, too. I shouldn't have said that. Maybe I did not disclose my farmland to the Commissioner. Then, again, the Premier has been elected for over a year and he hasn't declared anything to the Commissioner. So, I guess we can all decide to declare nothing these days. A new set of rules.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, one other serious point about that. I think I have adequately addressed, in principle, why I disagree with the concept, but I believe the government is determined to vote for that new concept and that new idea. My question, then, would be this: If they believe - because that what this says - that if the leader changes the government no longer has a mandate to stay in office - that if the leader changes the government does not have a mandate, then why would you leave that new leader there for a year? Why would you give them twelve months? Why would you want that new leader who does not have a mandate, to use their words, and that new government - the government with the new leader who is not legitimately elected because their leader is gone, that is the only reason. Why would you leave that circumstance for twelve months? If you agree that it is wrong, if you agree - which I don't - that if the leader changes you have all lost your mandate, why would you stay there for twelve months? Why? We are saying we can run by-elections in sixty days notice, and thirty days to run the by-election. It might take a little bit longer than that, but why would you take a year? Why would you give the person - because the concept and principle is, you do not have a mandate anymore. That is what you are buying into. You are buying into the fact that if your leader leaves, the rest of the thirty-three on that side do not have a mandate anymore.

It is a little tongue-in-cheek and it is a little two-faced, Mr. Speaker. They are willing to say, we accept that we do not have a mandate, but guess what? We are going to keep one anyway for a year. Now they have it refined, so maybe they do not believe in the principle that they do not have a mandate. They do not have a mandate but we are going to have one anyway for a year. So, if you believe, as a matter of principle, that you do not have a mandate if your leader changes, then I think you should bring forward amendments to reduce that time to much less than a full year. I think you should bring it down to six months, four months, those kinds of things, but this is the law. We are talking about the law. Good sense has reduced it many times in the past, and the Member for Lewisporte knows it. They reduced it in his sense to forty-four days, and he ended up in Opposition, so good sense does that. People spoke the last time and we fully acknowledge it.

You either understand that you believe in the principle or you do not; but, again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we believe in a principle that says we do not have a mandate, but we are going to have a mandate anyway for twelve months if we want it. Either you believe in something or you do not believe in something. This is a matter of principle we are debating today, and we will see what principle they espouse when we get to it.

The other thing is this: The other clause on the second page of this bill - it is two pages long - talks about guaranteeing that by-elections will be called within sixty days and held within thirty days of that, at a maximum, done within ninety days. No disagreement. Again, as the Member for St. John's North would say: Good sense has dictated that in any event.

By the way, the Government House Leader would know this. The change that was made when the Liberals formed the government in 1989 was to bring in a ninety-day limit for the calling of it, and guess why? The Member for St. John's North might be interested in this. Guess why it was changed in 1989? Because there was no limit in the legislation before, when you had to call a by-election, and the Premier of the day, who happened to be Premier Peckford, had a leader elected for the opposition party - a leader was elected for the opposition party - by the name of Clyde Wells. A member who was sitting in the Legislature for the Liberals resigned and vacated a seat and the Premier of the day did not have the decency to call a by-election for over six months. Then, when he called the by-election, guess when he called the by-election? For the day before Christmas Eve, when there was hardly going to be a soul wanting to go out and vote for anybody. He tried to make sure that nobody showed up, tried to freeze the person out, left a seat vacant in the Legislature for well over six months, so the rule was then changed, to make sure you call it within thirty days.

There used to be a thirty-day limit, or within ninety days, and it used to have to be held within thirty days. Then the thirty-day limit on holding it disappeared in a subsequent amendment, and I think it is the right thing to bring it back. I agree fully and completely and totally because, as the Member for St. John's North said, good sense will take care of that. Well, good sense did not take care of it then, I guarantee you, and good sense might not take care of any leader who wants to stay around for a year, when you have acknowledged -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I will be glad to here your representation about the choices I made, because I do not believe in the principle. You believe in the principle, fair enough, but if you believe in the principle then go a step further and do not trust the good sense to have a leader call an election in less than twelve months, if you are going to say we do not have a mandate but we are going to give ourselves one for twelve months anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude with these other thoughts. What is here fundamentally is the basis of some good work and some good thoughts and some good ideas, but it does not go nearly as far as the democratic reform around this issue that the Premier himself committed to the people of the Province in the Blue Book when he was Leader of the Opposition, and here in this Legislature when he has made some references to it. He talked about other things that are not in this bill.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, I contend, will have to be amended again. It will have to be amended again because there is this issue of the election will be, unless there is an extenuating circumstance, on the second Tuesday of October in 2007.

Now, the current act also talks about an election time frame. How long is the election period? There has to be a minimum notice of twenty-one days. I do not believe the current legislation provides any maximum for the general election. There is a maximum here now for a by-election, so how long is the election period going to be? We know when the election is, but is the Premier going to call -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four years.

MR. GRIMES: I understand what the Member for Lewisporte said, the election period is going to be four years, but the serious point is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, it is not the fact when you talk about the law. There are certain things that are allowed to be done once the writ is dropped - he knows that - once the election is officially called. When it is held and when it is officially called are two different matters, two very important legalistic matters, because when the election writ period is in place, when the election has been officially called, there are certain expenditures allowed to be made, there is certain advertising allowed to be done, there are certain third-party interventions that are permitted during that period, or not permitted during that period and permitted during other periods. We have to refine it and make sure it is tighter. Does it give the government or the Premier the right to call the election in the middle of June and say the election period has now officially started?

Common sense, the Member for St. John's North says, will dictate all of that. That is why I am saying there are some other pieces that may not be here. What is here is good, is what I am saying. What is here is good, but there are other issues.

What about third-party involvement? What about third-party advertising? What about third-party spending and intervention? Where are the new rules with respect to that, that bring it in line with a very significant change? Because now they dictate certain things, is it the same time periods when you know the election is the second Tuesday in October?

We will raise them in more detail in Committee. We will put them on the record now, because we know the Government House Leader and others will want to give us definitive answers. I am saying, in principle, a couple of things here are headed in the right direction. I have pointed out the one thing in principle that I do not agree with, with respect to not having a mandate if the leader changes, but the rest of the bill, the other items, are headed in the right direction.

What about the election period for a general election? There will need to be some clarification of that. What about contribution limits? In the Blue Book, the Premier talked openly about the fact that there are going to be new rules for contribution limits during elections for corporations and for individuals. Those things are in the Elections Act now, Mr. Speaker. We are amending the House of Assembly Act and we are amending the Elections Act, so what about those new limits? Are we going to come back and amend the act again before that next election? It does not look like we are ready to do it now because it is not here for our consideration. You have the contribution limits for organizations, individuals, and those types of things.

What about the new rules that the Premier put in the Blue Book about leadership contests within parties? He said there was going to be a law that says, when you run for the leadership of a party you must disclose who your contributors are. You must do the full public thing the same as if it is a general election. If you raise money for a leadership - these are right in the Blue Book. I can read them for you verbatim, if you want, but I take it the members opposite at least read their own Blue Book that they ran on, even though, I guess, by virtue of not having a mandate, they all know they ran on coattails and not a platform at all. That is what they have bought into.

The other piece of it, by the way, that if you raise money for a leadership and if you do not spend it all, or if you withdraw from the leadership, he said there is going to be law that says you have to give it back. You have to give the money back. Now, that is part of all this reform that isn't in this bill. Then, he said, there would be different content rules for advertising. There were going to be brand new rules for advertising, right in the Blue Book, not in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am only pointing that out because there were other issues that were raised in the context of the fixed election date and accountability, and I would expect we will see a further amendment to either the House of Assembly Act or the Elections Act to deal with those other issues that have been put on the record.

Mr. Speaker, again, let me conclude at this point because we will talk about it again at different stages in Committee. The concept of a fixed-term election, absolutely the right idea. I commend the government to living to this commitment, because there are many that they put forward to the people of the Province that they did not keep. This is one that - so far, as I say, it is not perfect, it is not in its entirety, but the basic premise of a fixed-term election is the right thing to do and I am glad to see it here.

Mr. Speaker, we will look at potential amendments as we move through, and I am glad to see and hear the participation of many members with this very important, significant, democratic reform that is long overdue in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to be able to rise and make some comments about what I think is a very progressive piece of legislation, Bill 40. It just happens to fall in the sequence of Bill 39, another major piece of legislative reform, and reflects very progressive legislation.

As the former speaker and the Leader of the Opposition points out, there are three separate pieces of this legislation and I want to comment on the three of them if I could. The first one, being fixed terms, is obviously a significant issue. If you look at the history, and most recent history, of elections in Newfoundland and Labrador, we saw, in a period of 1993, 1996, 1999, rapid successions and rapid calls of elections.

Mr. Speaker, in each of those election calls there was a significant amount of staging, a significant amount of manipulation that took place in advance of those elections. One could say that it was a manipulation of the electorate.

This particular provision in this bill very clearly now forces a government, any government, whether it is this government today or some future government, it forces government to focus on governing the Province and not positioning itself for an election, or continuously thinking about how it might be opportunistic and call an election at a time when it suits their circumstance best. I think that is the significant issue with respect to this particular component of this bill. It now forces government to focus on a mandate that we all now know will be four years. We know today that on October 9, 2007, the people of the Province will be going to the polls again. This government recognizes that, the Opposition Party recognizes that, but, most importantly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize that.

As a government, our responsibility is to provide good, sound, governance today, create legislation that reflects a progressive government, reflects the protection of the people of this Province. That is what our responsibility is, and that is what our focus will be. We are not, today, thinking about whether or not we have an opportunity today to call an election.

Right now, today, Mr. Speaker, we are about on the eve of signing what is probably a major arrangement with the federal government. We have been successful, we have been extremely successful, in our discussions with the federal government, because we have established an excellent relationship with the federal government. Our leader has demonstrated clearly that he has the ability to negotiate skillfully, and hopefully in the next few days or the next few weeks we will hear a major announcement on the Atlantic Accord.

Ordinarily, in politics in Newfoundland and Labrador, former Premiers would have seized that opportunity, an opportunity like the Atlantic Accord, and a good news announcement, to call a snap election to extend their mandate. This will not happen. We can now focus on the good news coming out of a renegotiated Accord, looking at how we might invest that new money in providing quality programs and services.

Ordinarily, if we were not anticipating this kind of legislation, if governments would not envisage this kind of legislation, governments of the past would have strategically either accelerated the discussion process or dragged out the discussion process to reach a point where they could make an announcement and, at the same time or shortly thereafter, call an election on that good news announcement, on the strength of that good news announcement, in that false sense that they would lure people in to supporting their re-election. That is what the past would have seen.

In 1999, for example, we saw a Premier call an election three years after the 1996 one, but what did he do in advance? He pulled out all the one-time revenues from the federal government, produced a balanced budget, produced what he was presenting as a rosy financial picture, which was false. It was a hiding of the real truth. At the same time, though, he presented a picture to the people of the Province that the finances of this Province were much better than they were, and, in fact, called an election on the strength of the fiscal position of the Province. This won't happen in future, Mr. Speaker. This particular piece of legislation and this bill will prevent that from ever happening again in the future, and that is extremely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The second provision in this bill is with respect to by-elections. Mr. Speaker, I first got elected in a by-election, in April of 2000. In April of 2000 I was elected in a by-election, and in that General Assembly, the Forty-Fourth General Assembly of this Province, we had some five or six by-elections. If you look at each of those by-elections, Mr Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is substantial shouting across the House, and it is difficult for the Chair to hear the Member for Trinity North. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that protection.

I say, Mr. Speaker, in that Forty-Fourth General Assembly, we saw some five or six by-elections. I was one of the first. In the by-election in Trinity North, the one I was elected in, the Premier of that day called that by-election the day he announced the resignation of the former member. The people of Trinity North did not have to have an extended period of time without representation in this House.

If you look at the by-elections that followed, in Bonavista North, Conception Bay South, The Straits & White Bay North, and St. Barbe, all of those by-elections saw those districts go an extended period of time without representation, and that should never happen, Mr. Speaker. The whole principle of having representation in this House is to ensure that the issues with respect to each electoral district in this Province, the issues that are of concern to the people in those districts, they have an opportunity to be voiced on the floor of this House, and that is a significant issue. Any time a government allows a seat to stay vacant for an extended period of time, what that really does is provides that district without any representation. There is a block of people in the Province for that moment of time who do not have representation in this House of Assembly. Yes, there is still a government in power, yes, the day-to-day operation of government continues, but the voices of those people do not get heard in this Assembly, the people's Assembly, and that is extremely important. What this bill does, it ensures that happens in a timely fashion. That is one of the significant benefits from this particular bill.

The third provision in this bill has been spoken about already by both the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to make a couple of points with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's comments with respect to this provision. To this day, he stood in this House today and repeated the same kinds of things that he repeated throughout 2002 and 2003. This particular bill calls upon the government of the day, if we have a circumstance where a government in power and the leader of that party and the Premier of that party is to resign their seat and that particular governing party elects a new leader, then it is mandatory that there be a new election within twelve months. I think, Mr. Speaker, that becomes a critical point.

We just heard the former speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, stand in this House and continue to defend what he himself had done. One of the significant things that he talks about, former Premier Peckford, former Premier Wells, former Premier Tobin all having left. Well, one of the things is significantly different. In 2001, when there was a leadership of the Liberal Party and the current Leader of the Opposition was elected as the leader, there was a massive outcry in this Province. That is one of the things that separates the former Premier from Premiers Peckford, Wells and Tobin. When he became the leader of that party, the people of this Province were demanding that he call a general election.

I say to the Government House Leader, maybe we have shortchanged the Leader of the Opposition. Maybe we should, in fact, change the name of this bill. Instead of giving it a numeric identification, calling it Bill 40, we should call this the Roger Grimes Bill. This should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Trinity North of the parliamentary rule that we have in Parliament for a long, long time, that he should not refer to people by their name but refer to them either by their title or by their position in the House.

MR. WISEMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and if I offended anyone in this House, I withdraw my comment. My reference was purely to give credit to the impetus for this bill to the current Leader of the Opposition because it was the massive outcry by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for his behaviour upon getting elected as the Leader of the Liberal Party that caused this government, and this party, to want to bring in such a bill to ensure that what we saw and witnessed through 2002-2003 does not get repeated.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing necessarily wrong, I suppose, with some of the points that were made about a party getting elected and all of us in this Assembly being elected. They are all valid points. I think one of the things that we need to be very cognizant of here - and I think the lessons of 2001, 2002 and 2003 are reminders of what can happen. We saw an individual take power in early 2001, took power at a point in time when the Province had some very critical decisions to be made. As a result of that, we had a government in power trying to, in fact, hold onto power, trying to - rather than renew a mandate, made some major decisions on our future resources.

That particular government, Mr. Speaker, made significant deals on Voisey's Bay, an issue that was very heatedly debated in this House. To this day, there are many of us who would suggest - I think history will show that we are right - the Voisey's Bay deal was not necessarily a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. But, at the same time, it was perceived by the former leader that it was a good deal for his political future. That is what we witnessed in this Province. Had that same leader gone to the people of this Province and sought another mandate we may not have had a deal like we have today on Voisey's Bay. We may have, in fact, formed the government much earlier and we may have had a very different outcome to the Voisey's Bay deal, for example.

In that same period, Mr. Speaker, all we need to do is look at the financial records of this Province and see very clearly how we - yes, we have always experienced some deficits in this Province. We have seen gradual increases in our accumulated debt but never before in our history, in any three-year period in our history prior to and leading up to that particular point, we had never seen such a significant increase in the accumulated debt of this Province nor had we seen such a rapid increase in the annual operating deficits of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as we witnessed during that period of time.

It is too much of a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, to suggest there is no connection here between a government being led by an individual who was elected within a party, did not have a mandate from the people of the Province, had never gone to the people of the Province as a leader of a party and ask for a mandate, found himself in a situation where he was desperate for re-election, spent money like a drunken sailor, gave away deals on Voisey's Bay, had an irresponsible term as a leader and took this government and his party in a direction that was not in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. These are some of the critical reasons as a caucus, when we talked about this particular bill and talked about going in this direction as a party, when we talked about this as being a part of our platform last year. Some of the significant lessons that we learned and some of the significant reasons for bringing in this kind of bill was as relative as our reflection on what happened to the former government throughout the years of 2002-2003.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that future leaders and future parties - when they elect their new leaders they need to recognize that they are, in fact, electing the Premier of the Province. If they are in a position of governance at that particular time when they elect a leader, they are, in fact, electing the current leader of the Province, the current Premier of the Province, and the rest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have an opportunity, in short order beyond that point, to make some kind of judgement to be able to assess whether or not that is the individual who will provide the leadership to this Province.

I acknowledge the points that were made. All forty-eight of us got elected in this House. It just so happens that this time the majority of the seats rests with our party and, therefore, we are forming the government. The leader of this party becomes the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. But, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had an opportunity in a general election to decide to elect this party to be the governing party. They had an opportunity to see who was going to lead this party and represent them on a national stage, represent them when dealing with the Government of Canada, represent them as our Ambassador outside of this Province. They had an opportunity to see that.

Yes, each of us got elected as individuals, but we, as a group of MHAs in this party, presented ourselves to the population of Newfoundland and Labrador in all forty-eight seats and said: We are offering ourselves as a candidate to be your MHA, and when we are finished we will, if we are elected as a government - this is the individual right here who is going to be the leader of the party and who will be the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you support us as a team? Do you see us representing this Province, and do you see us governing this Province? We asked for a mandate to do that. The people of the Province said: Yes, we like what you have to offer. We like the platform that you are campaigning on. We like the slate of candidates that you have. We like the leader you are offering. They make their decisions based on that full picture, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Any time this party, or any governing party, decides to change their leader, it is important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, have an opportunity at that time to have a voice to determine, once again, whether that individual who is leading that slate of candidates should now provide the government of the day.

That is what this particular bill does, Mr. Speaker, so I think this is a significantly progressive piece of legislation. It creates some certainty in our future elections. It guarantees the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we, as a government, are focusing on governing, and the issue of an election, we know today that we will be campaigning in the fall of 2007, but today we are focusing on government. We are focusing on governance issues, and we are focusing on the issues that are the best for Newfoundland and Labrador, not preoccupied with looking for opportunities or looking for a golden opportunity with a good news announcement or trying to manipulate a set of circumstances to decided when would be the best time to call an election.

I think, fundamentally, that is the most significant issue coming out of this particular bill, that there is a high degree of certainty in future elections and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can be assured of solid, sound government and not have to worry about someone taking advantage of an opportunity or taking advantage of them, as citizens of the Province, to manipulate a situation, to create an opportunity to call a snap election to their mutual benefit.

I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make those few remarks about what I think is a very progressive piece of legislation, and I want to commend our leader, and the Premier of our Province, for having the foresight and the vision of what the future of this Province should look like by bringing in pieces of legislation such as this and others that we are going to be debating through this session, like Bill 39.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to rise and speak on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act.

We are at second reading, Mr. Speaker, so we are talking about the principle of the act. I guess there is more than one principle in this act, because we are talking about three related but different concepts, so I will have to speak about them separately.

One part of the act is about having a fixed term of office before elections, that being four years. That is something that we fully support. It is an important change in our democratic system. The second principle or issue or concept is that of what happens when a governing party changes leaders. That is a different concept, and different issues may apply. I will elaborate on that in a moment. The third concept that is contained in the bill is as it relates to by-elections, and I think the provision is designed to put an end to the kind of discretion that has led to abuse in the past. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. We support the changes, that there should be changes to the provisions that gave too wide a discretion to government with respect to calling by-elections.

I will deal with them in order, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps first looking at the issue of the fixed term of elections. I think we have to recognize that the idea of having the term, not at the whim of the Premier, because there are certain constitutional conventions that (inaudible). The Lieutenant- Governor will not always give an election when someone asks for it. We have had constitutional crises in the past, not only in this Province but also nationally, when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - not the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but when the Lieutenant-Governor, who has the duty under the Constitution to issue a writ of election under certain circumstances, that in making that decision can refer to conventions not only in this Province but in other Parliaments to seek the advice of some other person in the Legislature as to whether or not that person can form a government.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the idea of a fixed term, that the governing party should not have the right to decide when it is best for them to call an election - because that seems to be the case, Mr. Speaker. We have had a number of brazen examples of it in the past. Premier Smallwood, the first Premier since Confederation, chose to have elections sometimes very quickly - sometimes had them in two years - because it suited him to have an election because he was able to take the opposition by surprise, or he tried to create a momentum for a particular policy, or he tried to keep people guessing as to what he was up to next, and not allow an organized opposition to form to challenge his power. As a result of that - and not only that, of course - one of the consequences was, he was able to stay in power for twenty-three years.

We had, subsequent to that, the experience of Premier Peckford who had a habit of calling elections every two-and-a-half years to seek an additional mandate. The mandate was good for five years, but if he could find a time within that five-year period that was advantageous to him, that could take the Opposition by surprise, then he was prepared to call an election to do that.

I do want to commend this government and this Premier for bringing in this legislation, because the ones who are disadvantaged by a fixed term election in our system are the party in power, and the Premier and government in power. So, for a government to do that, for a governing party to do that, it has to be recognized as being a positive thing, to the advantage of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and potentially to the disadvantage of them, as a government, and them, as a party, to keep power. I think that has to be recognized up front, that this is an altruistic move that recognizes that it will limit the power of the governing party to stay in office by using the mood of the day or choosing the time of an election to their advantage, and I commend them for that.

I think, as a person who has watched politics closely in this Province for the last number of years, who has been leader of a political party in four provincial general elections in 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2003, I have seen the pre-election period, when will the election be called, who has the power to call it, and the ability of the Premier to manipulate that time.

Going along with that, of course, is the notion of, if you have an election called, when is the election going to be actually held, or when is the election period? We have a provision now that allows a general election to take place over a period from twenty-one to thirty-five days. I think we should fix that. I think that notion of, when is the election period - if we know when the election is going to be, we should also know the rules that apply to elections in terms of spending limits, in terms of nominations, in terms of who is allowed to spend what kind of money in the pre-election and election period. All of those things need to be looked at, and I think we should go towards a fixed election period as well.

For me, twenty-eight days is a reasonable period of time. Twenty-one days is quite short, particularly for a party. Thirty-five days may be longer than we need. I have been in elections, as a candidate in two federal elections, Mr. Speaker, in 1987 and 1988, when the federal rules provided for a fifty-one day campaign. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very long period of time to be out knocking on doors, travelling from community to community, and trying to maintain your stamina and your enthusiasm for the election during that period. I think that is obviously too long. Even the federal elections now are in the range of thirty-five days for a federal election, for federal districts, for those large districts that you have, large geographic areas, all of Labrador, for example, the whole South Coast and the West Coast in the case of Random-Burin-St. George's, large districts that require perhaps a longer period of time.

I do think we need more than three weeks. Three weeks is a very short period of time, because not only do you have to get candidates nominated, and get organized and all of that - this was probably likely to happen before, earlier, under a fixed-term election scenario. Nevertheless, having a twenty-eight day campaign would be consistent with, I think, most of the provinces across the country who have thought about having a set time, and I would hope that we could see further changes to this, either in Committee, during this particular passage of this bill, or by setting up a committee that will have a look at some of the other aspects and consequences of making the kind of changes that we have here.

The second principle, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit more difficult, a little bit more tricky. I think the member who spoke last talked about the scenario which presented itself in the last Administration, when the current Leader of the Opposition became Premier.

I think we should be careful, Mr. Speaker. To pass legislation to deal with some perceived anomaly that happened in the last year or two - there was no abuse, Mr. Speaker, of the parliamentary privilege that occurred under these circumstances over the history of this Province. We have often had changes in Administration during a term without an election intervening. It can happen when there is a minority government situation. It can happen. In fact, if the people opposite, for example, decide that they do not like their leader, that, for some reason, the leader is not doing the things that they would hope to see them do, they should be able to change their leader. I think it almost happened during the previous, previous, previous Administration, when we ended up having a man come from Ottawa to save the situation.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong in our system for the members who are elected - and we are all here. There is nothing wrong for us. We are the ones who were elected, Mr. Speaker, not the party leader. The party leader leads the party into an election but nobody votes for the party leader except the people who are in his or her district. The Member for Baie Verte got elected to this House to serve the people of that district, and the people of that district, may, at some point, call upon him or anybody else elected on any side of the House for any party, to act in the best interests of those constituents and continue to represent them with a new leader, with a different leader.

I have some difficulty with the kind of changes that are being suggested here. We do know that party leaders have a fair amount of power in our system, maybe too much power, because they get to choose the Cabinet. We often talk, or hear talk, about our parliamentary system referred to as some sort of elected dictatorship. To some extent, Mr. Speaker, that is true. I wouldn't say it is totally true, but there is a fair degree of truth to that statement, that when we elect a leader, whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada, or the Premier of a Province like ours, that person has an enormous amount of power. To some extent, this provision can give them more power, because that forces a decision about a leader of a particular party also to be a decision about whether or not we will have an election under a new leader or when that election might be.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances when there may be a change of leadership that doesn't require someone to go to the polls within twelve months. I have some considerable doubt about that. I know there were a lot of political - and I believe it was political more than anything else - issues raised when the Leader of the Opposition became leader of the party, leader of the government and Premier, and said publicly, that he wasn't going to call an election for two years. In fact, that may have been one of his campaign themes when he was running for leadership. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but the response to that was essentially political, that the members opposite when they were in Opposition and their fellow party members throughout the Province thought that this was a good issue, that they could stir up to attack the then Premier and to support their fortunes to become the leadership of the government. I have no problem with that being raised as a political issue, but to turn your political issues into law, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in my view, and I think that second thought should be given to the kind of provision that is spelled out here, as to what would happen if there is a new leader for a particular party during the term of office that we provided for.

I think there should be provision for a new leader to have an election early, but maybe there should not be a requirement that that take place. I think if a new leader wants to, or feels the need to get a new mandate, having been elected leader of a party - it may be a leader who sits outside the House. It may be a new leader who has no seat. It may be like Premier Brian Tobin when he became Leader of the Liberal Party by default, because nobody else wanted to run at the time once he announced. Nobody else would take him on. So, all of a sudden, he is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has not faced the electorate. All he has had is the ability to frighten off other potential candidates and, all of the sudden, he is Premier of the Province. He can be sworn in and he can have the same powers - and I call it the elected dictatorship - as a duly elected Premier would have. Now, that is a little different situation, Mr. Speaker. Somebody who does not have a seat in the House is in a very different situation than someone who sits here, who is elected personally, who has the right to sit in this House for four years under this new system. What is being said here is that if you become leader of the party you must call an election within a year if that happens within a certain period of time.

So, I have some considerable doubts about the issue of what happens if we get a new leader. If the new leader is not in the House, different circumstance, and if the new leader wants or needs to get a mandate, then they should have the right to do so within the four-year period. I think the proposition of requiring someone to do that is not consistent with the parliamentary traditions of a parliamentary government. This is not a presidential system. You know, in a sense, it gives too much emphasis to the leader. So, I make those comments at second reading. We can talk about them more in committee.

On the issue of by-election, Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief on this because I only have a few moments left, but I think that the by-election provision is a good one. I think it deserves to be passed. Again, I would like to see a fixed date, twenty-eight days. I do not know why you need twenty-one or the thirty days, why there needs to be that flexibility. Obviously, the flexibility comes in to when - you have sixty days to proclaim it so if you want to have it on a certain date, you can proclaim it on the twenty-sixth day as opposed to the thirtieth day, as opposed to the nineteenth day, as opposed to the twentieth day. So, a twenty-eight day election, again, for a by-election - and it may be even more important to have that.

I heard the Member for Trinity North talk about how great it was that the election was twenty-one days after the previous member resigned, but why was that? Why was that? Well, that was because the person who resigned was sitting in the government and the Premier knew he was going to resign and knew exactly when he was going to resign and probably had the Member for Trinity North lined up to be a candidate and ready to run. Nobody else was ready to run because nobody else knew that the member was going to resign, except the Premier. So, the member resigned. They called an election twenty-one days later. Again, if we are trying to remove the discretion and the potential abuse then we should say give at least twenty-eight days so somebody else - other than the governing party, if it happens to be a government party member who resigns - has an opportunity to prepare themselves, to find candidates or to run themselves.

I think the principle is good. The idea is to put an end to the abuse that can result, because we are talking here about representation in this House and we do not really - if we want to remove the power of the government to manipulate that by having discretionary authority, then we should do it in such a way which limits that potential for abuse as much as possible. That is something I would be interested in looking at in committee, that there should be a twenty-eight day election period for a by-election. The change from three months to sixty days is a good one. That would ensure the election is held before ninety days have expired. In fact, before eighty-eight days have expired, to allow a four-week election period for a by-election and to make sure the playing field is more level for all political parties, not just the government if it happens to be them who knows in advance that one of their members are going to resign.

That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I think the other issue that is not mentioned in this legislation, this is about electoral reform. I think there are some other issues that people have talked about in this House from time to time that - I know the Leader of the Opposition suggested some potential consequential amendments or other changes needed to be made as a result of this. I would suggest we also consider, Mr. Speaker, the kind of electoral reform discussions that have been going on in other provinces in terms of representation. Our party has consistently talked about the notion of proportional representation as an idea that is necessary to make our parliament, our Assembly, more democratic, more representative of the will of the voters. We have seen those discussions take place in British Columbia. We are seeing them take place at the national level. We are seeing them take place in other provinces.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, have implemented proportional representation in the last ten years, and I think that discussion should be held in this Province. Perhaps one way of doing that would be to establish a committee of this House to hear views on these issues and to do the kind of work that is being done by setting up - British Columbia went through an extended process, Mr. Speaker, people's assembly, to conduct that type of idea. Perhaps we should discuss that more thoroughly in this House and provide some ways for people to discuss how we can make this House more democratic, more responsive, involve more women in terms of representation and ensure that we have a greater degree of gender equity and gender balance in our House than we have today.

These are all ideas that are out there which need to be discussed further. I do want to commend the government for bringing in, particularly, the fixed-term election because it is something that does limit government power and it takes a government in saying: We are doing this, not in our own interest, but in the interest of the electorate, in general, to do that. I think that is worthy of recognition because that takes away power from the governing party and puts it back into the hands of the people. I think that is a positive thing.

With that, I will end my remarks, and look forward to hearing other member's comments on this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly glad today to have the opportunity to stand and make a few comments on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

As a member of the government, I am proud of this bill. I am proud that we are bringing it forward here in this House of Assembly because, as speakers before me have said, at the end of the day the people of the Province will be the winner with this bill.

It is part of our agenda, government's agenda, to continue with our openness, transparency and accountability. It is something that the Premier touched on during the election campaign and something that we have pushed here in the House, to whatever extent possible. It is part of continuing with that focus and that is why I believe that Bill 40 is a very progressive piece of legislation, something that is a long time overdue and something that was very needed. I will have the opportunity over the next few minutes to touch on why I think it was needed, Mr. Speaker.

Being a member of the House, first elected in 1993, and after going through the election of May, 1993, the election of February, 1996, February, 1999 and October, 2003, just goes to show the need for this piece of this legislation and the fact that over that ten-year period we had four general elections. With this new piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will have four elections over a sixteen-year period, which, again, is an opportunity for the people of the Province, as I said, to be winners in the end game. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is an immense amount of dollars that it costs to run off an election campaign, certainly a general election. When we looked back over those four general elections, we went through five different Premiers. There was Premier Wells, Premier Tobin, Premier Tulk, Premier Grimes, and now the present Premier Williams. We had four general elections and five Premiers over a ten-year period. I guess the main focus of this bill is to address that problem, and certainly we hope that Bill 40 does that.

Some of the highlights of the bill, as we stand here today, or when this bill is signed off by the Lieutenant-Governor, we will know, as Members of the House of Assembly, and the people of the Province will know, when the next general election in this Province will take place. Under this legislation, that will take place the second Tuesday of October in the year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I think it certainly gives credibility to the election process. It certainly gives credibility to the government, to bring forward this piece of legislation. I believe it is something that is very positive and something that, as I said before, the people of the Province will gain from. They will gain from it from a financial perspective, but also from a consistency perspective, and I think that is what is important overall.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to run through the legislation. Another part of the legislation has to deal with when a new leader steps up to the plate, for any party, whether it be the governing party that were here before us, or us. When a new leader comes in and takes over the helm of a party, within twelve months he has to go to the people. I truly believe in that. I believe that we had an instance - as an example, the former Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, sat in this House as a minister and went on during the campaign, ended up out at the Glacier in Mount Pearl. and was elected Leader of the Liberal Party. The people of the Liberal Party elected him as their leader. Certainly, we do the same thing on our side of the House, Mr. Speaker, in the Progressive Conservative Party.

The important thing is that on that day - it has happened in our party also - he also became Premier Elect of Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, he had an opportunity over the next while to bring in legislation, to bring in policies, to address concerns, and to bring in new ideas and a new direction to the people of the Province.

We have seen the results of that, after two years. We have seen the results of that. We have seen a growing deficit in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We have seen policies that have affected Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a negative manner, Mr. Speaker. That Premier - and when I was on the other side of the House I said it time and time again, and so did other members of our party - he did not have the right to continue in that process as Premier of the Province.

This piece of legislation that comes forward today will not allow 700 or 800 people gathered in a auditorium, whether it is for our party or whether it is for the party opposite, to decide who the Premier of the Province is going to be for the next two or three years. That is not going to happen anymore. They will have a maximum amount of time when they have to go to the people of the Province. They will have a maximum amount of time - twelve months - when they will have to go and seek their own mandate, when that individual has to go and seek his or her own mandate to the people of the Province to continue on as the government of the Province and indeed as the Premier.

At the present time now, we have a situation where it is at the whim of one person when the election will be called. I do not think we live in a democratic society - and the Leader of the NDP just talked about in some cases unfairness, and whatever the case may be - when one person can decide when to call an election, when one person can decide when to go to the polls. There are forty-eight of us here in the House of Assembly. There are over 500,000 people here in the Province, and still, up until now, up until this piece of legislation, one person had that decision, and that decision only. Hopefully, we will be able to address that through this piece of legislation.

I can remember back when we were leading up to the 1999 election. In the summer of 1998, in the fall of 1998, and into the winter of 1999, then Premier Brian Tobin was gearing up for an election. We certainly thought it was going to be the fall of 1998. Then it moved on, and it was going to be September, October, November, and time went on. We saw a flurry of announcements. The news releases were going out of the eighth floor like you would not believe, like the wind coming out from the north today. It was non-stop. There were ministerial announcements. I remember the former Minister of Education, the Member for Exploits, an announcement of $125 million was going to spent on school construction throughout the Province. Then, followed by that, there was a health care centre announced for Harbour Breton. Then, followed by that, there were millions announced for tourism celebrations, and on and on the story went.

I can remember in the City of St. John's at that time, where there was a cluster of seats, and some of those seats were on the edge. If you look back at the results of the 1999 election, we had several members who were elected in St. John's for the governing party at the time by the skin their teeth. I can remember there was a tax structure - I think it was on water, but I am not sure - but there was a tax structure in place where the Province was paying the City around $160 million a year. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when all of a sudden the minister of the day, who was also vying for a seat in the Legislature, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs at the time, Mr. Matthews, announced that they had a look at the tax structure and they figured they should give the City of St. John's $700 million instead of the $160 million that they were giving, Mr. Speaker. A continuous cycle of news releases and expenditures of money - non-stop, Mr. Speaker - were coming out of the eighth floor in order to build a foundation to go to the polls, Mr. Speaker.

I remember the election call itself, a couple of days leading up to it. I remember here in the House - and we were in the Opposition at the time - where everybody was wondering when the election was going to be called. The then Premier, Premier Tobin, called a news conference for six-thirty that evening so he could get front and center on the CBC news which was starting at six-thirty. He wanted to be front and centre on the CBC news. He called his news conference out here in the Government Caucus room at six-thirty that evening. The national news was there and kicked in at the same time. He was not overly concerned about Newfoundland and Labrador, and we certainly found that out pretty quick. He was not overly concerned about Newfoundland and Labrador. It was his national aspirations that he was concerned about. The six-thirty call that evening with the news conference to call the election had nothing to do with Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here we were, we were going to have a general election in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of the Province was calling a news conference at six-thirty, that had absolutely nothing to do with the people of the Province. It was his own personal agenda. That is what I said earlier about the whim of one person. It was the personal agenda of the Premier of the day, Mr. Speaker. I can remember him calling the news conference, and we had our news conference following that. As I said, it started as soon as the CBC news started that evening, and then halfway through the NTV news the news conference kicked in. Here we had, I guess, the people of the Province who were captured by the then Premier. It was a pretty shrewd way of doing things, I guess, when you have the power to do it. Under Bill 40, no Premier or no leader of the government will have the power anymore to do that. It will be set dates, Mr. Speaker.

I can remember the busses rolling off the hill on that particular day, Mr. Speaker, on the lead up to the 1999 election. We had our news conference and the Leader of the NDP at the time, he kind of curtailed it a bit, because the news release went out, I think it was around three o'clock that day, from the eighth floor that a news conference was going to be called at six-thirty. What did the Leader of the NDP do at that time? He held his own news conference out here in the Lobby, Mr. Speaker, where he announced some policies of the NDP Party, trying to upsurge the government at the time. Then, when the six-thirty news conference was called that evening, the Leader of the NDP was sitting down in the CBC studios doing an on-camera interview, Mr. Speaker. Three minutes of that news conference that evening was announcing the fact that Mr. Pete Soucy was going to be running against the Leader of the NDP down in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. He wasn't overly pleased with that either, but he was sitting down in CBC studio, Mr. Speaker, when they did that. It just goes to show how it can be manipulated to suit the agenda of one person.

I think if Bill 40 does anything, it clears that away. It takes that away, that one individual, whether it is Premier Tobin of the day, whether it is Premier Grimes of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, or Premier Williams of the day. It does not matter, but one person will not have that jurisdiction or will not be allowed to do that anymore. I think if Bill 40 does anything, it addresses some of those concerns. I do not think that any party, whether it is us on the Progressive Conservative side or it is the other side, can decide that 700 people or 800 people can decide who is going to be leader of the party for the next two or three years. Under Bill 40, we will address a lot of that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity under this with regard to by-elections. I can remember sitting here in the House waiting for by-elections to be called in districts where some people had to resign for whatever reason, whether it was health reasons or whatever the case may be, and, again, it was up to the Premier of the day when to call that election. You know, we saw districts that were left without representation here in the House of Assembly for months on end because they did not feel it was a comfortable time to call the election. They did not feel they were going to win the election. I think it was a terrible way to have a democracy, Mr. Speaker, that we are all part of.

Now, under this legislation here, within sixty days - the old legislation we had was that the by-election had to be called within a ninety-day period, but it did not necessarily say it had to be held within a ninety-day period. It had to be called within a ninety-day period. The government of the day could call the election for four months down the road. It did not have to be held in that ninety-day period. Now, under our legislation, Mr. Speaker, under the legislation that is being brought forward by our government today, you have a situation here where the election has to be called within a sixty-day period and held within a twenty-one to thirty-day period. I think, again, who wins here? Who wins with that situation? It is all of us here, forty-eight human beings. I mean, any day at all, one of us might have to resign for whatever reason, as a matter of fact, and our districts are left without representation here in the House. Why should it be up to the Premier of the day, our Premier, to decide, well, I am going to wait six or seven months to call a by-election. That is not fair to the people in that district. It is not fair to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under Bill 40 that, again, will be erased and we will have an opportunity, then, to have an election call within that sixty days and be held within twenty-one to thirty days. Again, Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 addresses those concerns. It addresses the concerns that people have put forward time and time again. I think we will see, at the end of the day, these fixed election dates, every four years. You know, people can plan, the parties can plan, the people of the Province can plan, the people who get involved. I, as a member of the House of Assembly, never, in my wildest dreams, would I ever be able to get here in the House of Assembly by myself. I have to depend on campaign workers, I have to depend on volunteers, I have to depend on so many people who help and assist me during an election campaign, Mr. Speaker. These people are volunteers.

We know, today, that we can set an agenda, that we can start making plans, that we can start putting an itinerary in place to led us up to October, 2007. Mr. Speaker, that is as fair to me, today, as it is to the Member for Virginia Waters, as it is to any member on the opposite side. It doesn't matter, we are all in the same boat here for a change.

I think it is a progressive piece of legislation. It is something that is long overdue. Sure, there will always be concerns, as have been raised by the Leader of the NDP, in relation to the timing of an election, but I fully believe that a twenty-one to a twenty-eight or thirty day election - I mean, any given time there may be circumstances there where you don't want to be locked into twenty-one days. I feel very comfortable being locked into twenty-one to thirty days, than not being locked in at all and having a free-for-all for whoever is running the show at that particular time. That is exactly what we have up to today's date, up to this particular piece of legislation.

I remember during the election campaign when the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, came into my district and we held a couple of meetings and rallies, Mr. Speaker. Part of his speech at the time was talking about openness, was talking about transparency, was talking about accountability, and after fourteen years, after 174 months, of the other party leading this Province we needed transparency, we needed openness and we surely - surely! - needed accountability, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is for.

Mr. Speaker, to digress for a minute. When the leader of the party came into my district at the time, he talked about the different types of legislation that he would like to have come forward here in the House as the leader of the government. He talked about the different types of accountability legislation that he would like to have come forward here in the House as leader of the government. Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 is one of the many pieces of legislation that we are bringing forward in this fall session of the House that talk about transparency, that talk about openness and accountability, and I think the people of the Province are very pleased to know that this is something that came up many, many times during the election campaign, especially when we look back, Mr. Speaker, at the Tobin era, for sure, where the agenda had nothing to do with Newfoundland and Labrador, but had all to do with an individual. I think it is important that we have a piece of legislation before us today that will erase any opportunity for an individual to have their agenda set and to have their agenda followed. I think if Bill 40 does anything, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is doing here today.

Certainly, as a member of the government, I am very pleased that Bill 40 has come forward, and I am very pleased that we are here, Mr. Speaker. It is a bill that speaks of vision. It is a bill that speaks of the vision of a Premier, the vision of a government that wants to be accountable, that is bringing forward legislation that shows that we are accountable. I think, at the end of the day, as I said and others have said, the people of the Province will be the winners with Bill 40.

When we look back at the election expenses - not the election day itself, the general election or leading up to it, because whenever that is held there is a certain set of dollars going to have to be spent. As I touched on before, we had an election in 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2003. In ten years, we had four general elections. Two of those elections - I remember the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Tobin, before he became Premier in 1996. I think it was December 26 or 27, 1995 that he came back to the Province, and we went to the polls in February, 1996. At the whim of that gentleman, we were thrust into an election in 1996. Again, a very short time after, we were thrust into another one in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, with Bill 40, now we have the opportunity to right the wrongs. We have the opportunity to ensure that we do not run into a situation like we ran into with the leader, who now is the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Premier. When he became Premier of this Province, I think it was 800 votes, give or take, out in the Glacier in Mount Pearl, that made the Leader of the Opposition then Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think there were only fifteen votes separating him and Mr. Efford, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition remembers those.

That, again, is pretty well the same process that our party follows. I do not have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker. I have been involved in several leadership campaigns. I have been involved way back when leaders were elected for our party, and I do not have a problem with that process, but I certainly have an issue and a problem with the fact that, when that person becomes leader of a certain party, whether it is our party or the other party, that he or she can continue on as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador forever and a day up to the five-year cut-off period. For two or three years, we are left with a situation where 700 or 800 people decide who the Premier of the Province is going to be. I certainly do not agree with that, and we have expressed that concern many times in caucus. Not only myself, but several of my colleagues within the government expressed that, and that is, I guess, why Bill 40 is here on the table today to be discussed and debated.

Mr. Speaker, when we look back on the record of those that have gone before us in relation to the power that they held as Premiers of the Province, as governments of the Province, and the amount of dollars spent and the expenditures made leading up to the call for an election when we did not have power to do anything about it, to just put up with it, certainly we see that mistakes were made, we see expenditures were certainly spent, and the people of the Province are still paying for some of those mistakes. That is on all sides.

Policies were brought forward. We look at situations where the then Premier Brian Tobin ran in 1999 and he said not a spoonful of ore was to leave Voisey's Bay, and the people of the Province voted for him on that. Then we had a new leader come into that party and sign the deal which was a little bit different, or much different, than the one that Premier Tobin had put forward in the election campaign.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation today, Bill 40, comes forward today as an opportunity to address some of those concerns, to make sure that the person at the helm, the person as Premier of the Province, has the mandate of the people of the Province and not the mandate of 700 or 800 people.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support Bill 40. I look forward to its implementation, and I look forward to planning for the general election in October, 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on this particular bill. First of all, I preface my remarks by saying that I speak only for myself. This is only my own individual opinion, and anything I might say is not binding upon anyone else over here.

There has been some suggestion that, because you might speak, your comments might be taken as being inclusive of everyone here. As I said earlier, we like to think that we think for ourselves, so what I say would only be my comments and not necessarily attributable and certainly not binding upon anyone else over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, as they say on the open lines, my thoughts are not necessarily those of this station. It is purely this member only.

Generally speaking, I am supportive of this bill. It is good, it is a start, but there are some things missing in it. My comments will be geared to not being critical of what is here, but some explanations and questions as to how it might be tweaked to make it better, because I think that is what this is all about. I do not think there is anybody in this House who disagrees that Bill 40, in terms of having a fixed election date, is where we all want to go. I think that is very clear. In fact, it is all about closing off loopholes where people can be manipulate, and we have seen that in the past from different parties, different Premiers and whatever. I will not even go there. We all know that the system, as it was, was manipulated, depending upon who was there. We have had lots of examples referenced here today. We want to get away from that. We do not want to be able to manipulate any more when a vote will take place. That is a good goal. That is an admirable goal.

We talk about a democratic deficit that we have in the country, and some things we can do to fix it, and that is a good start, but there are some things missing about it. For example, there are three basic things here. It talks about the fixed date, it talks about what happens if there is a leadership resignation and subsequently a leadership convention or whatever and you end up with a new leader of a party that is government, what happens, and then what happens in the by-election case.

First of all, we currently have an Elections Act. The history on it was, we had an Elections Act before 1991. In 1991, under the tutelage of Premier Wells, we did a major overhaul of the Elections Act in 1991 in this House. Then, in 1998, we did another major overhaul of the Elections Act and it was assented to, I believe, in 1998. At that time, in 1998, we got into some pretty detailed information about what you could or could not do in an election. It talked about campaign advertising, it talked campaign election expenses, it talked about fundraising, and when you could do it, it talked about having authorized personnel, running your campaign, finances, all of those things, what were authorized expenses during a campaign. The act has always been changed to reflect the times and to reflect changing circumstances. We have not had a major review of the Elections Act since 1998, when that was done and all of those election financing pieces were put into it.

Now we get Bill 40, which, part of Bill 40 is changing that Elections Act again, but it only changing the Elections Act in section 58. It is not touching anything else in the Elections Act, and it is touching section 3 of the House of Assembly Act. All section 3 said was, a government would not last any longer than five years. It set an outside limit. When you get elected, the maximum that you could be in government was five years from the time of the election.

What we are doing now is, not that there is going to be five years, we are saying you are going to have an election every four years and this is the Tuesday that you are going to have it - it is going to be in October - but we do not say when it has to start. That is why I talk about tying up loose ends. We will get to this in greater detail, of course, when we get to the committee stage, but we talk about when the election will be and it is going to be the second Tuesday in October in the year 2007. That is very fixed as to when the people of this Province are going to go to the polls. That is admirable and that is what we all agree with, but when will the election start? There is nothing in the current House of Assembly Act that says when an election starts.

The Elections Act talks about proclamation dates. It talks about when we proclaim it, how you proclaim it, the form in which it must be proclaimed. The Elections Act that we have now currently says: If you call an election in this Province it must last a minimum of twenty-one days. It used to be thirty days back in the 1991 act. In 1998, as I say, when there was an overhaul that got changed to be twenty-one day minimum in an election. In 1991 it said thirty days minimum -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: This act I am looking at here, I say to the Government House Leader - amend the Elections Act, 1991, assented to in June of 1998. Section 58 was amended so that there would be twenty-one minimum day for an election.

So, we are doing the right thing here when it comes to saying when the election is going to be, and we are fixing the date for the election, but we are not fixing the duration of an election - and we are talking about consistency here. So there is nothing here -

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Member for St. John's North was great in saying: Use common sense. I say we use the common sense and we use it right here, right now, to make this right. Why would we not fix it?

I will tell you, again, in terms of consistency - when we get to the last amendment suggested in here, when we talk about the by-elections, we are changing section 58 of the Elections Act to put a limit. We are saying in the case of a by-election, you must hold it within a certain period of time. You have to call it within sixty days and you must hold it within thirty days of when you call it. So, if we are limiting what a by-election will be to thirty days, why would we not limit what an election would be and have it thirty days? Then there is no confusion. You do not have any fuss and bother about: Do we interfere with the other provisions of the Elections Act about financing and fundraising and all that stuff that is there and still law? You simply say the election is on October 7, 2007 and on a second Tuesday every four years thence, and the election shall start thirty days before that date. That is when the Elections Act clicks in. That is when all your rules and obligations click in, otherwise we have left it open. Who is to say that you cannot call an election?

It is almost like the American system. George Bush gets elected on November 5, 2004 - but not in his case because he has his two terms served - but usually if they are going to run for a second term the election starts right away. They are on the campaign trail right away. Is that what we are going to have here? We do not have any duration period. I say for consistency, if it is thirty days on a by-election what is wrong with having thirty days on a general election? Or if the figure wants to be twenty-one days, I do not have any disagreement with whatever date you want to pick, twenty-one or thirty, but I think for consistency let's do it right. We know the date, we know the time and you know how much time you have to do it. Nobody plays with any polls or anything else or whatever. So, I think we need that consistency there.

We talked as well about - the common sense thing comes up again, and we have seen that so many times raised in this session. We have heard the whole session in the fall here being called the open, transparent and accountability session. We even have legislation here called the Transparency Act and Accountability Act. That is what we get here. But, part of being accountable, I would submit, is taking reasonable suggestions - if they are not hurting anybody and if they add something to what you are bringing forward to make it better, what is wrong with doing that? If it is somebody's idea, no matter where it came from, if it improves the situation, I would submit that it should be put in there to improve the situation for everybody, and it does not matter who takes credit for doing it. If it is a sensible amendment and it makes sense, do it. We all have to live by the same rules and we do then truly avoid manipulative behaviour by anybody in the future.

The other thing that is missing here is that it is not complete. It is not near complete. We talk about a government of action, absolutely not. In this particular case this is a government of reaction. A government of reaction. We have - and the Leader of the Opposition pointed it out clearly, if you are going to do it, do it right. For example, you say when it comes to health care: hold on, we will give you the figures when we get them. Hold on, do not ask us about the boards, we are in the process of restructuring. You say in education: hold on, wait until we get the White Paper back, we will tell you. Hold on, do not ask us about boards and stuff because we are doing it right. We want to do it right. We ask you things about programs. Hold on, don't ask us. Don't rush us. We are doing this right. You fellas made a mess over there. We want to do it right in program review. When we get our plan together properly, we will tell you.

What are you going to do in rural Newfoundland? Oh, don't rush us. We are going to do this right. We do not want to just throw it out there undeveloped.

If that is the case in health care, if that is the case in education, if that is the case in rural renewal or rural development, if that is the case in program review, that we want to do it right, why don't we take the same do it right approach to democratic electoral reform?

Where, for example - and it was already said who wanted it. We had a Red Book and there was also a Blue Book, and in the Blue Book we heard all kinds of things about doing it right. We heard in the Blue Book about appointing special committees. Do not see anything here. In fact, we have a Premier who refuses to appoint committees to discuss anything, whereas in the Blue Book it says: The appointment of a special committee of the Legislature that will ensure proper scrutiny and public discussion of federal proposals in the areas of provincial concern.

Now, that certainly deals with how we deal with things legislatively, electorally, democratically, democratic deficits. My God, we cannot even get a committee of the House struck to discuss things like the Atlantic Accord - we asked in here several times - nor FPI, nor where we are going with it. That is in their Blue Book.

I say that from the point of view, again, why go down the path if you do not know what you want to take down the path with you yet? You picked out two little things about by-elections, you picked out the thing about leadership review, and you picked out a thing about fixed term, but all of these other things that ought to be done and should be done, and you probably will get no disagreement on them when you do get around to doing them, I would submit, they are better done as a package and not done piecemeal. When you do it piecemeal, you react. It is like I say in terms of when you react, you leave things out. Where is the consistency between how you have a duration for a by-election but you do not have any duration for a general election?

The other thing I notice, too, you talk about the unknown. Democratically, I guess, the system, as I understand how it works, is that the Premier technically has a conversation with the LG, the Lieutenant-Governor, and the Lieutenant-Governor calls an election. A writ, so-called, is dropped and you promulgate and off we go; but, in this section right here that we are talking about changing, before we get to subsection (2) that sets the second Tuesday in October, 2007 as the election date, we have a section 3.(1) in there and it says, "Notwithstanding...".

We heard comments yesterday from the Premier talking about notwithstanding clauses, how they might be used, how they might have effects on what might happen, notwithstanding clause having the ability to overrule everything else that is in the piece of legislation. What do we have here? "Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit."

Who does the Lieutenant-Governor take his advice from? He takes it, I think, from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, the Premier. I guess it depends on what kind of advice the LG is going to get, then.

What is the point of a fixed date, four years, if, under this section, the Lieutenant-Governor is still required to take the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as to when he calls an election?

We know that is the case, and that is what is going to happen, because they say, in this section 3.(1) that is in here, they talk about the Lieutenant-Governor. In this particular case, they talk about if the leader is gone and you change your leader. It is right in here, there is no question about it in that case. It says, "...the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held".

It is quite clear that all of this still comes down to the LG taking advice from the Premier. So, what if the Premier decides, notwithstanding the fixed date of the second Tuesday of October, 2007 - notwithstanding that - the Lieutenant-Governor, in subsection (1), still takes his advice from the Premier.

What if the Premier gets up some morning and decides, I want to have an election next month? He does not have to wait. There is nothing that I see in here that prohibits the Premier, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, from telling the Lieutenant-Governor to call an election.

All I am saying here, in terms of fixing the thing, is, why can we not say in this bill - if we are going to do that, to make sure that we are going to have it on the second Tuesday of October in 2007 - the circumstances or the types of advice that the Lieutenant-Governor would act on? For example, we can quite clearly say that in the event of a minority government, in those circumstances where there is a vote of non-confidence in a government, that he calls it - or any vote of non-confidence. It might be a majority government and the government could be voted against. It does not have to be a minority government to get a non-confidence vote. In those cases it is not mandatory, even, that the LG call the election. If it is a minority situation and one government does not have the confidence, or one party does not have the confidence enough to form a government, that does not mean the Lieutenant-Governor cannot ask somebody else to form a government. That is a possibility. I am saying, why can we not, to make this proper, make this date fixed, truly fixed and truly non-corruptible, truly non-manipulable, why do we not put it in here, the circumstances under which the LG will receive advise, so that there is no question that the manipulation would not continue.

The only other comment I would make at this point is, I realize sometimes you probably cannot think of every circumstance to put in a piece of legislation. A lot of times you have it there. That is why we keep coming back to the House, obviously, year after year, to amend the thing from time to time. At least those things that you do think about in advance, I suggest, if you can deal with them you deal with them while you are going through here and not wait for the circumstance to develop later to come back and change it if you find it now.

That comes down to the leadership piece that is in here. I do not have anything personally upsetting about this issue. If you get a new leader for your party that there ought to be a reasonable period of time that that leader, with that party, will go back to the polls and ask the people, do we have a mandate. I do not, in principle, have a difficulty with that, but I do not know if it is proper in all cases to insist that it must be done. For example, I truly believe that the people of this Province who voted for each of their MHA's here, voted for their MHA. They did not vote because of who the leader of a particular party was. Yes, the party may carry a lot of weight and, yes, there may be a lot of people in here who came in on the coattails of their leader. That may well be the case, but the whole principle of because the leader changes you automatically go back to the polls, I am not certain that is a good idea either.

What happens, for example, if there is an election, a party comes to power, the leader of that party becomes the Premier and he has an aggressive illness, cancer, an aggressive cancer that sets in within two months of his assuming the Premier's job? God forbid if that should happen to anybody, but what if it happens? What if somebody, through sickness, medical reasons, due to no fault of their own, leaves and resigns as it says here, "Where the leader of the political party that forms the government resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier..." What happens in that circumstance, where the resignation was caused because of a catastrophic medical situation? We, as a Province, find ourselves back at the polls in twelve months. I do not think, under those circumstances, we need to go back to the polls. I think there have to be some protections put in here, if that happens that that should not be required. That is putting an unnecessary expense on the people of the Province too. It does not mean that the people of Kilbride have any less faith in their member than they did a month ago, when they elected him. Something has intervened, a sickness or an illness with the leader, but they are still going to vote for their member like they did thirty days ago.

As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition again, it is consistency. If you are going to have the sixty-day call and the thirty-day vote for a by-election, why wouldn't you have the same principle for a leader's election. There is no difference unless you are a bunch of coattailers, if you agree with that principle, and I am sure the Member for St. John's North does not. He did not get in here on the coattails of his leader, he got in here on his own merit. That is what he would claim, I am sure. He got in here because he is a good member. He did not come here because his leader came here. That is right. I cannot say that for everybody.

Anyway, in principle, I do not agree with that piece about the leader having twelve months verses a by-election having ninety days. To me, if you are going to do it lets be consistent and lets have ninety days for the leader too. If you resign, if you are gone, get it over with, get your leadership review done, get your man in place or your woman in place, and then off we go to the polls. I think that would be consistent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have more to say when we get to Committee on the details.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour for me today to stand up and speak to Bill 40. I realize that we have been beating it back and forth and I certainly do not have the political experience of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I have been a student of politics for quite a number of years, Mr. Speaker, and have watched a lot of things, how dates are manipulated to the government's advantage, Mr. Speaker, and I think that our opinion that we are going to be more accountable and more open to this kind of thing certainly bodes well for this government. It is actually a disadvantage for the government, if you want to play raw politics with this, Mr. Speaker.

We only have to think back to 1993, 1996 and 1999, were we experienced election after election after election, Mr. Speaker. It was ridiculous, bottom line. I mean, to pull off an election in this Province now it cost several million dollars, all at the expense of the taxpayers, I might add, Mr. Speaker. People were sick of elections, there was no secret about it. This is truly a way to be accountable, truly a way for a government to be accountable to the people. They have four years to look at you, size you up, see what they think of you, and then in four years times we all reapply. I will be no different than anybody else. We will reapply for our jobs and we will hope that people see that this government is doing the right thing and, hopefully, side with us. Of course, the jury is still out on that. I believe we have made some remarkable progress so far, and I am sure that we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, part of this bill, of course, as we all know, is that in 2007, on the second Tuesday of October, there is going to be an election. That gives everyone fair and ample time. It gives my colleagues on the opposite side of the House the same advantage as I would have, as the Premier would have. In past elections it was up to the Premier whenever he called an election and people used it to their advantage, naturally so. That was the system that we chose. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to be the case. Everybody has the same playing field, it is to everybody's advantage. Every member of the House has the same advantage. We all know when the election is going to be called. We all know when we will have to run and put our name on signs and go door to door and so on, Mr. Speaker. It evens the playing field. It certainly evens the playing field.

A governing party of the day cannot sit back and watch the poll numbers and judge by the way the polls are going. As we say, Mr. Speaker, you cannot manipulate or massage the people of the Province based on extra spending. My friend from Placentia- St. Mary's talked about how you hold back the money and you announce it all prior to an election. Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe the people of this Province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are starting to see through that, and those days are certainly over, where you can buy votes. Those days are long gone. Thank God for that.

Mr. Speaker, we can look at the abuse of power that happened a couple of former premiers ago. He was a politically astute guy, I guess, for lack of a better word, but he really abused power to his own personal advantage. When Premier Tobin was here, we saw him call an election in 1996. My colleague, the Government House Leader, talked about it as well. In 1998 he was going to call an election, and he decided he couldn't go at that time, so he waited until 1999. What we saw then, we saw people on the Opposition side not ready at the time. This is to help the Opposition. This bill is actually going to help Opposition or anyone else out there in the general public who wants to run. We all know what day it is, we can all line our apples up accordingly on an individual basis, and people who are working professionally - some people because of their business ties, because of their career paths, cannot leave a job at three weeks notice and decide, well, I am going to throw my hat into the ring. It is just not possible. By doing this, and bringing this legislation in, Mr. Speaker, we now have a plan so people can plan their career paths. Hopefully, it will attract deep thinkers to politics. Hopefully, it will attract people who are policy people, who like to see certain things done in government. So, that way, it will allow them the opportunity to get ready and be ready when the election rolls around on a fixed time in October of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the - I do not always agree with the Leader of the Opposition but, in my case, I was elected in a by-election and to his credit, I say to him, he did announce the by-election within an appropriate time frame. The seat was vacated in August and I had the opportunity to run in the by-election in October. I say to him, that was a good move and it was certainly appreciated at the time, but every leader does not have to do that.

Like I said, I will take my hat off to him on that one. He took the time to call that by-election within an appropriate time. We did not know when it was coming. It was certainly his judgement. He used the appropriate judgement on that time and did it, to me, within the ninety-day period and it was fair for everyone, I guess, but he was the only one who knew when that by-election was to be called and he did it within the appropriate time. However, when he became leader of the party and he had a mandate, I guess, from the people within his own party - which was done democratically. He won fair and square. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that parties have the right to dictate the leaders of the Province. We select the leader. We put him out there for election, as a party, and then the people of the Province decide the Premier. The parties, themselves, do not decide the Premier. The people of this Province, certainly, have the right to do it. I believe that is where he erred in judgement, when he went on for almost three years and did not give the people the opportunity to vote for the Premier of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about ‘coattailing.' I have heard members on the Opposition side talk about ‘coattailing' on this issue. Well, I disagree with that. When you make a decision to vote, as people in Conception Bay South and Holyrood did in my case, they measured me, the candidate, against the candidate, they also measured leader against leader, and they make their choice. I will say to you, I saw a graph one time, or I read an article one time somewhere, the population vote on a different way. I think there was a certain percentage vote based on their individual member. I would like to think that the majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador do that. This was based on a national perspective, I believe, at the time. There was, I will say, around 30 per cent made their vote based on their local representation. There was another percent, Mr. Speaker, who voted based on policy of one government or another and then there was another percentage who voted on the leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, like I said from the beginning, that people of this Province, certainly, have the right to elect the Premier. The party should not have the right to select a Premier for this Province. Sure, they have the right to select a leader who will carry them into an election, and, sure, the party has the right to select the person they feel who is best qualified for the job, but then it is the job of the government of the day to put that person out in front of their party and say to the people of this Province: Who do you want? Who would you prefer? This person or that person? I believe this legislation will allow for that.

Bill 40 is certainly good. It is certainly good legislation, and it calls for what the Leader of the Opposition actually did. He said it was ninety days. He called the by-election, in my case, within ninety days, and I certainly think that is what should be done. I heard someone mention earlier in this debate that back in Premier Peckford's day he let it go for six months. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am from the same party but that was wrong. That was definitely wrong, that a district in this Province should not have to wait six months for representation in this House. There is a history of this when it has happened down through the years and we can go back further than Premier Peckford, I am sure, and it has happened since then. That should not be the case and this legislation here makes that impossible to happen. It is good, and that is one of the big reasons why I support it. Along with the fact of the four-year term, it concentrates your efforts within a four-year period. You cannot manipulate budgets. You are not manipulating budgets or announcements around a certain length of time. What you are doing, Mr. Speaker, you are telling the people of this Province: Here we are. We are here for four years, and within that four years, you make a decision based on what they have accomplished over that.

We are not going to take on Ottawa on an issue and fall out - for example, right now, there is no secret about it. We have the Atlantic Accord issue that we are hoping will be signed, hopefully - certainly we wanted it signed back in June. We are hoping that is going to happen, and sooner rather than later. Right now, with the people of the Province, there has been a big bandwagon effect, that everybody sees where Premier Williams is headed with the Atlantic Accord. I guess the support in this Province right now - I would not be able to guess the number, but based on what I see in my district and the people who I speak to certainly support him wholeheartedly. So if we were into a mandate any length of time, this would be, from a leadership perspective, an ideal time to call an election. Jump on the bandwagon. We have the support behind us. It is a one-issue campaign. I think with these four-year terms - it will take the one-issue campaign away, will turn into a total basket, a total package of goods, and people will have their decisions in October, 2007.

So, it is because of that, Mr. Speaker, and others, that I certainly support Bill 40 wholeheartedly and look forward to this bill passing sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to have a few words on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

I think for the most part, it is a pretty good bill. There are a number of things in it that we, here on this side of the House, certainly support and did support. In fact, during the election in our Red Book we did say that we would amend the Elections Act to portray what we wanted it to do and that would be first and foremost to set a date that elections would be called every four years, instead of at the whim of one individual. That individual being the Premier of the Province. Under the current legislation, before this bill is brought to the floor, the Premier of the Province, the head of a particular political party, could call an election whenever he saw fit. He could rise in the morning and because he felt good, and he looked at the polls and thought that right now is a good time to call an election - because if we wait a little while it might not be as favourable. He could get up on any given day after an election and call an election, whether that be one day or four years - actually, five years at that time. He could do whatever he pleased without any discussion with anybody in the Province, even his own Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I think that, up until now, put a lot of power in the hands of one individual; which I do not think that individual really deserves in a true democracy. As a result, I will certainly support having a set election; when we all, sitting here today in this House, will know when the next election is going to be called in October of 2007, and the general population of this Province will know when the election is going to be called and that nothing, short of a change of the leader if the Premier steps down, will prohibit that from happening.

As I said, we certainly support that, and we said it prior to the election. We said it in our Red Book, along with the Tories - they said it in their Blue Book. We certainly intended, had we been elected to government, to do exactly that. We also agree with the fact - another portion of this bill - that by-elections should be called in a timely fashion, unlike what has happened in the past. A lot of people can rise today and talk about how by-elections were postponed for political reasons, and it has happened on both sides, I say to this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, it has happened on both sides. I think you, as the Deputy Speaker, probably know more about that than any of us here in the House.

We talked about what a former Premier did, Premier Peckford, when Clyde Wells was elected leader of the Liberal Party. An individual, who represented, I think it was Buchans at the time, resigned his seat to allow him to seek a seat in the House of Assembly, and the Premier of the day, Mr. Peckford, refused to call the election for six months. That sounds like a long period of time and that has been talked about here in this House today, how the Premier of the day, Mr. Peckford, would not call a by-election at that time.

That was not the lengthiest one in the history of the Province, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because that same Premier, Premier Peckford, when a Mr. Jim Morgan resigned in 1988, left that seat vacant for, I think, eighteen months. I do not think that any one individual in this Province has the right to do that to a district and do that to a group of people in this Province, to hold them without a representative in the House of Assembly for a period of eighteen months.

Mr. Speaker, it even goes further than that. If the Premier of the day, even today if one of us resigned, there is nowhere anywhere in the legislation that says that the Premier has to call a by-election at any given time. In actual fact the district could be without a representative for four years. It was bad enough that the people of Bonavista South did without a member in the House of Assembly for eighteen months in the years 1988 and 1989.

I am really pleased to see right now, in this piece of legislation, that the rule now will be that an election has to be called within sixty days. It has to be called within sixty days and an election must happen within the next thirty days. The most a district in this Province will go without representation in this House of Assembly is ninety or ninety-one days. I would hazard a guess that the most it would happen would be roughly eighty-one days, because if you look at past practices in this Province, when the election is called the duration is usually twenty-one days.

What I am saying is, if someone where to resign after this piece of legislation came in, the Premier of the day would have to call the election at the latest sixty days and the election being twenty-one. We would have a new member for a particular district in eighty-one days. I agree with that totally, because I do not believe that any one individual should hold the people of a district at ransom simply because he thought he might not win the seat or for some other reason, like he did not like the person who was running for his party in that particular district to hold the people of that area at ransom for an unlimited period of time, up to four years. I am really happy that is in there as well.

My hon. colleagues across the floor talked about holding an election the way we used to in the past, at the whim of the Premier and the cost that is to taxpayers. That is exactly right. Every time we call an election in this Province, it costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. To be able to call an election simply because you are high in the polls, every two, three or four years, simply does not cut it, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a total waste of taxpayers' money, and that when they elect us on election day they expect, for the most part, that we are going to serve our full term, a period of four years. Like my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, said, this will save the taxpayers money.

Mr. Speaker, there is one section to this bill that - I am not criticizing the government for putting it forward, but it is one to me that, again, places too much importance on one individual. In this case, it places too much importance on the Premier of the Province who happens to be the Leader of the party that has the most seats in the House of Assembly. If you were to occupy that position, Mr. Speaker, what they are saying in this piece of legislation is that if the Premier decides to resign and the party that he represents holds a leadership convention, whoever wins that leadership has to call an election within a twelve-month period. That is fine and dandy, but, Mr. Speaker, that throws out of whack the whole intention of the bill, and that is to say that we will have an election every four years and that we will know today when the next election is going to be four years hence. If you keep that clause in the bill, then we will never know when the next election is going to be called, because if the Premier of the Province, the Premier who now sits in the chair opposite, were to resign today we would have to have an election one year hence.

The fact that October of 2007 is spoken of in this bill as when we are having the next election, all of a sudden that date has changed. Do I personally believe that because one individual in this House, whether he be the Premier, or minister, or a lowly backbench MHA, or a member of the Opposition - I do not think that any one individual should hold that much power and authority. Nowhere, in any democracy in the world today, do they have a clause like that that I am aware of; nowhere. What is says is, if the Premier wants to resign today whoever takes his place must call an election within twelve months.

The Member for Conception Bay South talked about a waste of money. To me, that would be considered a waste of money, because if we go back to 1989, as an example, Clyde Wells led the Liberal Party in 1989 to victory in that general election, in May of 1989, but, Mr. Speaker, he wasn't elected himself. Even though he was Premier designate, he was not elected himself. I think, if I am not wrong, under this piece of legislation, that if he were not elected and he ran in a by-election, it is only - if, for example, Mr. Speaker, someone did not step down and allow him to run again in a particular seat, he would have still stayed without a seat in the House of Assembly. I say to you, Government House Leader, I do not think the party at the time, the Liberal Party at that time, that had a majority in this House of Assembly, would have tolerated holding on to a Premier designate even though he did not occupy a seat in this House of Assembly.

I suggest to you, that there would have been a leadership call if he did not get himself elected to the House of Assembly in short order, and that we could very well have been, under this piece of legislation, had it been in at the time, back to the polls in a year after that election. That is the problem I see with it. The problem I see with it is that we put too much stead into one individual. I look across the floor and I see at least ten people over there who were elected long before the current Leader of the PC Party came to power in this Province.

I say, also, to those opposite, I do not think for a minute that these individuals, these ten or fifteen individuals, who sat here since 1993, got elected on the coattails of the current Premier. I look around over there and I see some who, certainly, did. Let's just hope, I say to those members, that the Premier's popularity remains high because some of you will not be back here in four years from now, in 2007, if you have to depend on the Premier today to get you elected like you did just last year.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that it gives too much power to the Premier's position. I happen to think that there are many Members in this House of Assembly who are elected because the people in a particular district thought enough about that individual that they were going to elect him regardless of who the leader of that party was. You have people across the floor, for example, today - you were elected, I believe, in 1993. I would hazard to guess, Mr. Speaker, and I do not mind saying it, in 1993, the people of your district knew full well that your leader was not going to be the Premier of the Province, but they voted for you anyway. I will hazard to guess - I am not guessing, I am pretty well certain - that in 1996, when you were elected, the people of this Province did not think that your leader of the day was going to be the Premier of this Province.

In 1999, no disrespect for my hon. colleague the House Leader, because I happen to think that he got elected the same way for four consecutive terms in this House of Assembly - not because of who led him, but because of the individuals themselves - I would hazard to guess, regardless of their leader, the next time around, if some of these individuals who I am speaking about ran again, they would still get elected.

To say to these individuals that, if the Premier resigned today, they would have to also resign because they would be fired, they would have to seek election again, is placing too much power in the Premier's job. I also think that, by doing so, we could be conceivably allowing one individual to waste a lot of the taxpayers' money.

This has nothing to do with an individual. I think where this particular clause came about, if you listen to the member who represents Clarenville, the Member for Trinity North somehow thinks that this is the Grimes bill. He talked about it. He considered this to be the Grimes bill; and, so that an individual like the Member for Exploits would never be able to do this again, we have to bring in legislation.

Well, I say to the Member for Trinity North, I stood on a stage. I do not know what happened to him on the road to Damascus, I say to the Speaker of the House. I do not know what happened to him on his short trip across the floor, because I stood on the stage with the Member for Trinity North on a cold night, on a very cold night, in Mount Pearl, on the stage of the Glacier, when the member from Clarenville, or the Member for Trinity North, stood on the stage and held Roger Grimes' arm high into the air because he supported him 100 per cent. Not only that, but he spent two months in the late fall and early winter out knocking on doors in his own district, trying to convince every registered Liberal in that area to vote for Roger Grimes as leader of the party.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) told John Efford the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Yes, and my colleague for the Bay of Islands said he also told John Efford the same thing. That would not surprise me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: For that member to have the gall to stand in this hon. House this afternoon and call this the Grimes bill, to prevent someone like our hon. leader from ever becoming the leader and the Premier of the Province, that they had to bring in a piece of legislation, I say shame on that man; but, then again, not many of us pay a lot of attention to what he says in the House. I suggest that all of those people who pay little attention to him are not just on this side of the floor, believe me.

Mr. Speaker, not to get off track, I had to make a comment on that because it shows you how frivolous some people think of this. Being truthful about it, I do not think that one person should have the right to decide when the next election is going to be, simply because he says: If you do not play be my rules, I will resign.

I have heard that said by other leaders: If you do not play by my rules, I will resign. Then let's see if you are going to get re-elected. So, he is holding that over the heads of anyone on that side.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that if you study parliamentary democracy, I think you will find somewhere associated with the word Premier or Prime Minister, the words: first among equals. That is what Prime Minister means: first among equals, or Premier means: first among equals. If you take the word in that sense, how does one individual hold the right to be able to call an election?

Even though we are bringing in a piece of legislation today saying that the next election is not going to be until 2007, in the month of October, there is one individual in this House today who can change all of that simply by saying: I am quitting. If you do not play by my rules, I am quitting and you will be going to the polls in one year from today.

Besides placing too much authority in the hands of some Premier of the Province - and my colleague, the member who represents the Southwest Coast of our Province said - what happens if the Premier of the day, the leader of the governing party, becomes terminally ill and dies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficultly in hearing the Member for Twillingate & Fogo speak. I ask if we would be kind enough to hear the member in silence.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your intervention, because I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, those who are making the most noise down here today know nothing of the bill we are about to pass in this House - know nothing. All I suggest to them is, if they listen they may learn something. So I thank you for your intervention.

All they try to do, every time I speak in this House, when the truth starts to hurt, they get rowdy and rambunctious. I am surprised that one of them has not been standing up today thumping his chest and yelling and screaming to rally the troops again. Maybe he will later on tonight.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that one individual should not decide because, as I said, a Premier of the Province, by definition, means first among equals; not above, equal is the key word. If a person is the first among equals, why should he have the authority, on whim, to say: I am quitting, we are dissolving Parliament, and you will have to call an election.

I do not believe that any democracy, any true democracy in the world today, has that. Ralph Klein just got elected as Premier of the Province of Alberta, and most of the political pundits in this country say that Ralph Klein will not serve out his term. Under this piece of legislation - something that the Province of Alberta does not have - if Ralph Klein decides he is going to quit two months from now, if they had this piece of legislation in Alberta they would have to go back to the polls within the year. They do not have it. They do not have it in Great Britain. They do not have it in the United States of America, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. They do not have it there. If the President of the United States quits today, or gets killed, the Vice-President takes over and he will serve out the remaining years of that mandate. It happened. As we all know, it happened in 1964, I think, when JFK was shot. The Vice-President of the day took over and fulfilled the remaining years of that mandate.

I say to the Speaker, and I say to my colleagues opposite, I certainly agree with a fixed term, I certainly agree with by-elections being called in a timely fashion, as outlined in this today, but what throws a lot of this out of whack is the fact that one individual in this House can throw all of this out and say we are having an election in one year.

Mr. Speaker, we will have another opportunity to talk about some of these things in the bill when we go into second reading. A lot of it makes a lot of sense and we support it 100 per cent, but that one part, as far as I am concerned, if we are first among equals, let us be equal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words today on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this House of Assembly most of the afternoon listening to members on the other side of the House. We just had a prime example, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo standing in this House of Assembly and speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: He has taken great leadership from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. He was on his feet today saying: support the bill. Wholeheartedly support the bill, but then he continues to tear it apart. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo was up saying he supports it. He was going on for twenty minutes tearing it apart. Then he gets up, the very last comment he made: we support it 100 per cent.

The Opposition House Leader stood on his feet, supported it, good stuff, good act, glad to see it coming forward, good bill, but he continued to tear it apart again, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago while I was speaking you had to stand and ask for order in this House of Assembly because you could not hear me and I am sitting or standing all of ten feet away from you. You asked if the members opposite would be kind enough to allow me to be heard in this House of Assembly. I say to the member, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, had he and his colleagues kept their mouths shut he would have certainly heard what I said, and what he is saying I just said I certainly did not say. I suggest the next time that someone stands here, you listen and then you might know what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I would suggest to the member who was just on his feet, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, get a copy of Hansard tomorrow and read it. I will say to the people out there watching his show, Mr. Speaker, they will know that what I am saying is absolutely correct. He also said that the Premier is the first among equals - not above, but the first among equals and he should not have that authority. It is a strange thing, I say, Mr. Speaker, when you were on this side of the House - the Opposition of today were there for fifteen years and what did they do with respect to this? I did not see them bringing in legislation to have fixed dates for the elections, Mr. Speaker. No.

The Leader of the Opposition was up today saying he supports it but he is one of people, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation addresses. He was a leader of the government on this side of the House, never elected as leader other than by the members of the Liberal Party, two years and nine months and he had all kinds of opportunity to bring legislation to this House of Assembly to address the very thing that we are doing today. Did he do it? No, Mr. Speaker. Why did he not do it? Because he loves to agree with it on that side of the House when he knows full well that the legislation that we are bringing in today, putting through the House of Assembly, is a disadvantage for the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: But, Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, want the people of the Province to see the democratic process in action. Not that crowd on that side of the House. They know now that this could be to their advantage but we, as a government, who are open and forthright and transparent, are doing exactly what we said we would do in the Blue Book. We are following through on our commitments, but when they were on this side of the House for fifteen years and had all kinds of opportunity to do the very thing that we are doing with the legislation: no, definitely not, would not go there. So, you know, it is all right to say one thing but do another. What we say we do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - not the crowd on the other side of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to put this legislation in place for the people of the Province to know when an election is called or when an election will be called. For what reason? There are a number of reasons, of course. The democratic process is one; obviously the major one, I say to you. People out there who would wish to run in the provincial elections or provincial by-elections would have an opportunity to look at the dates, now would have three years to say: okay, I want to run. He or she knew it - had to put plans in place to say: okay, three years down the road -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are far too many conversations going on from one side of the House to the other side. The Chair has great difficulty in hearing the speaker and the Chair is reluctant to identify members doing the shouting by their district but will not hesitate to do it should it continue.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, one thing that this legislation will address, once it goes through the House of Assembly, is the setting of a fixed date for elections.

I was first elected in this House of Assembly in May of 1993, and by February of 1999 I had gone through three elections in less than six years. Now, that in itself is a cost alone to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is absolutely not necessary. There should have been only two elections in that period of time. Then again, no, because the Premier of the day had all the power to call an election when he wanted to. I find it more than passing strange that the Leader of the Opposition and again, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo were saying that one person should not have this power. Now, this is what has gone on for year after year after year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are actually doing our best to change that. Again, the Opposition gets up and says: okay, we support this but, we support this but, we support this but. Again, we see it all the time on that side of the House of Assembly, saying one thing and doing absolutely the reverse.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to address by-elections also in this piece of legislation. As the Government House Leader said, it is a very thin bill. Not a lot of words, not a lot of content, but very important. We want to address by-elections in this House of Assembly.

The Leader of the Opposition was up and said: back some time ago when they were government they brought in legislation to address by-elections and they would have to be called within ninety days. So often the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says that we, on this side of the House, have omissions. We do not say it all, but he did not say it all either with respect to that, Mr. Speaker. Back then when this was changed, when the government changed it to call an election within ninety day, he did not say or include that they could call an election within ninety days, but it could be called for six months down the road. He did not say that. This legislation will address that. Any government of the day will have to call a by-election within sixty days and have an election within thirty after that. So, it is all well and good for the Leader of the Opposition to get up and tear this apart.

Another thing I want to address when the Leader of the Opposition was up. He tried to make comparisons between this bill, Bill 40, and the bill that went through the House of Assembly yesterday with respect to the - how will I put it to you, Mr. Speaker? - basically saying that they are given enough time to look at the bills, to consider the bills, or not given to them early enough.

Mr. Speaker, what he did not say was what the Government House Leader said, that he was offered, members on that side of the House were offered, any time, day or night, to basically come forth and get a briefing on the legislation. He did not go there. He omitted that, Mr. Speaker, when he was on his feet, the Leader of the Opposition. Again, another example of the former government and the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking out of both sides of his mouth whenever he is on his feet in this House of Assembly.

I notice that it is getting close to 5:30 p.m. I think I should probably -

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep her going.

MR. J. BYRNE: Keep her going. Not a problem.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not retiring at 5:30. I will move a recess a little later on. You finish your comments.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the other points that we want to make. Again, talking about when the Premier resigned in this House of Assembly. The Premier of the day, whoever he may be - he or she - a year or two, five, ten or twenty years down the road - I expect the current Premier today could be here pretty well for as long as he wants. He is leading a government that is open and transparent. He is making moves on things that this previous Administration did absolutely nothing about for year and years and years, but when a Premier resigns - and we had a situation that arose, that the now Leader of the Opposition was in, a few years ago. He takes over, the party elects him as leader, and obviously he becomes the Premier. Now we want to address that, that they would have to call an election within a year.

Now, there seems to be some concern on that side of the House with this piece of the legislation, this part of the bill. Again, I want to say there was no problem with it when they were on this side of the House, not a problem whatsoever. To me, this legislation, Bill 40, again will probably be followed later on with the Elections Act -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Western democratic world (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition - I must be hitting a sore point; I am obviously hitting a sore point - is getting all riled up over there again. He was on his feet today for probably a half-hour addressing this, and I am on it now maybe ten minutes and he is all upset over there because, of course, he has a problem - and history has shown it - with doing things right. We are only trying to do things right. We are bringing legislation through the House of Assembly to improve something that has been talked about for years and years and years.

We have put our money where our mouth is, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. We are doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not like the previous Premier who was on this side of the House of Assembly. We are putting our money where our mouth is.

We are the ones who are putting ourselves at risk, because we are setting a date three years down the road when the election is going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not them. They agree with it now, to a certain extent, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Again, I do not know what the problem is, Mr. Speaker. It seems when I am on my feet over on this side of the House of Assembly, and the same thing used to happen on that side, I really think that the members on that side of the House have a problem hearing the truth, hearing the facts, and they overreact all of the time.

Mr. Speaker, what I am going to do, I am going to adjourn debate now, have something to eat and come back and say another few words later on maybe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, does that mean if I speak now second reading is done? Do other people want to speak to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Government House Leader moving (inaudible) second reading?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the Government House Leader speaking to provide information to the House about a break, or is he standing to speak to close the debate?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now that you have posed the question, I was prepared to answer it before, but I will answer it now as well.

It is 5:30 p.m., and we have moved motions in the House to sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and that certainly will play out throughout this evening. We are going to take a supper break between now and 7:00 p.m., with a recess, with the House to reconvene at 7:00 tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an agreement for the House to take a recess from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There is an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

[The remainder of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 53A]

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Resuming debate on Bill 40.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I wish to advise the minister that he has about eight minutes left in his allocated time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: I will not need eight minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not going to review everything I said earlier in speaking on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, other than to say and ask the question: Why is this piece of legislation before the House of Assembly now, Mr. Speaker? The simple answer is this. When we campaigned in the last election, we campaigned on - this was a part of our platform, that we would bring in a fixed date for elections in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is exactly what we are doing. This piece of legislation now will set the date for the elections three years down the road and then four years every general election after that in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I think members on the other side of the House of Assembly would agree that this is a good thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They can look at, basically, days, weeks, months and years ahead to know when the next election is going to be from here on, and that is a positive thing for democracy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other issue, of course, Mr. Speaker, is by-elections. We are now setting the time frames for by-elections. If someone should resign from the House of Assembly or, for whatever reason, a district becomes vacant from a Member of the House of Assembly, then an election has to be called within sixty days and an election held within thirty days of that. So, within ninety days we will have an election or a by-election.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the third point with respect to this legislation is that if a Premier should resign and the governing party has a leadership convention, then the person elected to lead the party automatically, of course, becomes the Premier for what would be less than one year. Now, members on the other side of the House do have some problems with that point and they have been saying that one person should not have that authority. Well, you know, that is all well and good to say now at this point in time when they are on that side of the House but I want to, again, reiterate that we are bringing in this legislation here and most people would argue that fixed-date elections are probably more detrimental to the governing party. When that group was on this side on the House, as I said earlier, they had some fifteen years to change the regulations, and now they agree with this, but I am wondering if they were still on this side of the House, would they agree with it?

I think the Leader of the Opposition made a point today, that this was in their platform and they campaigned on the same thing during the last election. I remember in 1999, Mr. Speaker, they also campaigned on the fact that there would not be one spoonful of ore leave the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, of course, we all know the story behind that now and what happened there. So, there is a situation where we are doing what we said we would do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tear up the agreement.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, there we go. See, on the other side of the House, again, getting very upset when they hear the facts, but that is something I suppose in this House of Assembly that we have to live with and deal with. Again, members on the opposite side are finding something amusing about us bringing in legislation that is going to set fixed dates for general elections, by-elections and to deal with the situation when a Premier of the day resigns and you have a leadership, that person then becomes the Premier of the Province - the new person who is elected - and that person then would have to call an election within a year, twelve months. That, again, from my perspective, is a positive step forward. It may not be what everybody wants, Mr. Speaker, but compared to what we had before it is certainly a major step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am just going to say that I support the legislation. I think most members on this side of the House see the logic and the sense in bringing this legislation forward. Again, we are just living up to a commitment that we made in the last election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand tonight and respond to Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And the Elections Act, 1991.

I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. I am wondering, when will the governing party come up with some new legislation that has not been thought about or been one of the initiatives of the former Administration? I would like to speak to this proposed legislation here. It was definitely a Liberal initiative. No matter how much they talk about it under their breath, it was a Liberal initiative.

I want to talk about a couple of the clauses there and I would really like to have clarification on one in particular. You are talking about, "The Bill would also amend the House of Assembly Act to provide that a by-election shall be called within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant." I am sure you mean that would be sixty days of an MHA - not the Premier - sixty days of a seat becoming vacant. Is that just for an MHA or is it for a Premier?

MR. J. BYRNE: We are all MHAs.

MS THISTLE: I know. You are talking about sixty days. I am looking for clarification on that point because it is not specific. You are saying, "The Bill would also amend the House of Assembly Act to provide that a by-election shall be called within 60 days of a seat becoming vacant." It does not make any distinction -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is participating in second reading. She is raising some questions. I ask members on all sides of the House to assure that we can hear the member without any serious disruptions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It really does read this way. It does not make any distinction of who occupies the seat. It says, "...60 days of a seat becoming vacant." I would like clarification on that point, whether that is intended for any Member of the House of Assembly or designated for anyone other than the Premier, but it does not make that distinction.

AN HON. MEMBER: How silly is that.

MS THISTLE: No, it is not silly. It is a piece of legislation. It is a bill that is going to be enacted into law and it deserves clarification. Our system in this Province is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our system in this Province is patterned under the Westminster British Parliamentary system and it has served us well over the years. When you look at the fact that we are now looking at fixed term elections, I believe, as being one MHA, that is a good thing. I recall when I ran in 1996, at that particular time I had to give notice to my employer that I was looking for unpaid leave. Naturally, I did not know when the election was going to be called and it sort of put your employer in the lurch, particularly if it is a busy time of year and he or she, the employer, has a long-term employee like myself. I had worked for nineteen years with the same employer and at that particular time, on the spur of the moment, go to your employer and ask for an unpaid leave of absence and get the assurance from your employer that you could return to your place of employment had you not been successful, but now the date of the next election is known. It is known so that everybody wanting to put themselves forward as a candidate in the next election they can make their career plans. They can talk to their employers or whatever they need to do with their families and make decisions on when and if they want to run as a candidate in the next election. I believe that is a good thing because that way everybody is on the same equal footing.

Now, it is common knowledge that if you know in the year that you are going to have an election, a provincial election, you know the campaigning actually begins at the beginning of that year of the election. Knowing that you are going to have an election on a certain date, if you had been the governing party naturally you would have a leg up had that not been known. It is normal to think if you are a governing party, and prior to this if you did not have a designated date in the future for an election, the governing party MHAs would be out and have their best places to put their campaign signs up; their very best places to put their campaign signs up. They would have their fund-raising done and everything would be in high gear as soon as the writ was dropped. Within thirty minutes the signs would be up all over the district. Been there! Done it! That works very well for the governing party.

Everybody will be on equal footing with this bill. I like the idea of that, and I am sure the electorate will like it as well.

It seems like there has been quite a lot of discussion surrounding the issue of the leadership. It has also come to my attention, when reading over this bill again today, that the clause concerning the leadership is not entirely clear either because it reads like this, "This Bill would amend the House of Assembly Act to require, in the event the leader of the party forming the government resigns and a new leader, who is subsequently sworn in as Premier, is elected by the party not later than 3 years..." But, what it does not say, it does not say how long the governing party will give to the leadership review - how long will it be for that to take place. That could be two years. That is not clarified in this particular clause. In actuality, the governing party, if they do not see fit to have a leadership review and install or elect a new leader, it is quite possible they could let that run as long as they wanted to. That is not clarified in that particular clause. I would like, when whomever responds to the questions I am asking - it will probably be the Government House Leader - had they thought about this, because it is wide open for abuse when you read this particular clause. It is not giving any set term for once a premier resigns to having a leadership review. It is not giving any set period for that event to take place. All it is saying is that an election must take place after the new leader is in place for one year. That is all it is saying, but it is not saying how long it will take to get the new leader in place. That is not clear. So, I think that needs to be clarified by the Government House Leader, or whoever will respond to those questions.

There are all kinds of reasons why a leader sometimes may resign. It does not have to do with not wanting to do the job. It could be in the case of a scandal. All of us will remember the issue of the British Columbia Premier, Gordon Campbell, who was in an incident in Hawaii. It was a bit of a scandal when he returned home and a lot of the electorate wanted him to resign. He did not resign. He rode out the storm and he just got re-elected again in June of this year. So, there are all kinds of reasons why a Premier might want, or somebody might want him or her, to resign. It could be for health or family reasons, or it could be a caucus revolt. That is possible, although I know the people on the other side of the House are very obedient and very loyal to their leader. They never speak unless they are asked to speak. There could be a revolt after two or three years and they might want to oust the leader. That is a possibility. A leader may want to resign for another motive. Maybe federal politics might be a reason for the leader to resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Maybe the leader might want to resign because of another motive. It could be federal politics. It could be a reason why - the leader might want to get into private business again. There are all kinds of reasons. I question why this government would only give a backbencher or a government MHA or a member of the Opposition, why would they only leave our seat as it presently is open for ninety days but there is unlimited time for the Premier's position? Now, I think we are blindfolding the devil in the dark here. I think we are blindfolding the devil in the dark because there is no set limit on that clause as to when the leadership review must occur. The only thing that is there for replacing the Premier is that once the Premier is elected as the leader of that particular party, he or she has one year to call the election. I think there is a loophole there that the governing party, the Progressive Conservatives, are trying to gloss over so that nobody will see. It will be a loophole that the governing party can use to their advantage to not call a leadership review or delay calling a leadership review and have all that time of organizing their party and then have in a year from the time the leader is elected. So, this is not clear cut, although at first glance it might appear to be so.

I also want to talk about filling an MHA's seat. There are many reasons why an MHA may wish to resign or may be forced into resigning by the leader of a particular party.

I want to talk about sickness issues. In the nine years I have been in this House of Assembly we have had many serious illnesses occur with our members in this House of Assembly. In fact, we had one death. There is no provision in this act at all - just say, for instance, a member is sick and cannot perform his or her duties for beyond a reasonable time frame. Who, then, will take on the duties of that MHA? Would the member then be forced by the leader of a particular party to look at resigning when, in fact, they might want to come back and regain their seat again? There is no provision in this act for an MHA who may have a long-term illness but wants to retain his or her seat. It does not become vacant unless that particular member decides to resign. What is there to prevent a leader from forcing a member to resign if they are vacant from their seat for a long time, or not able to perform their duties?

There are lots of reasons why we should look closer at this act. When you think about calling a provincial election, say two years into a four-year mandate - it roughly costs about $3 million to hold a provincial election in this Province. As we all know, this Province is not flushed with cash. So, if a situation occurred that the governing party had to call an election probably two years into a mandate, I am sure the electorate, if they were posed with the question: Do you want to spent $3 million to have a general election - we just had one two years ago - or would you rather put that money into a worthy cause like health care or some other issue? I would think that the majority of people around the Province would say: We are fed up with elections. We elected this party and let them carry out their term.

There is nothing in this act that proposes the length of time of the actual election period. We know with our current act it can run twenty-one days as the minimum but there is nothing in this act that tells us whether or not it is going to be longer than that or when it is going to start. When you look at the fact - I am glad to see that the Government House Leader is back in the House right now. I posed a question while he was gone and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has noticed on several occasions in the last several days that members have been referring to members either coming into the House or going out of the House. It is expected that members from time to time will have reason to not be in their seats and I ask the member if she would refrain from referring to members either being in the House or not in the House at a particular moment. There is a long standing parliamentary tradition that prevents that.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not infer that in a negative fashion at all. I was making that known because the Government House Leader introduced the bill and I was interested in posing the questions to him that I had posed earlier but it was not meant in a negative manner.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that this act is clear. I know the intentions are noble and I do not think that too many will be opposed to the actual intent of the bill, but I think what needs to be done is to clarify the issue on whether or not - what time will be allotted to the governing party to select a leader should the current Premier decide to resign. I would like to know the answer to that question. I would like to know what time frame will be allotted to the governing party to select a new leader should the current Premier resign after being elected? Because as it reads right now, it only says that once the new leader is to be elected by the party, that particular leader must call an election within twelve months. It does not say how long the party will give the leader to actually go through a leadership review and get to the stage where you have a new leader elected. That part is not clear at all in this clause. That is important because that could run on as long as two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It could. If there is no time limit here it is possible. It is really possible.

If it is your intention to make changes to this particular bill it must be clear and it must be spelled out properly. In fact, you are allowing sixty days of a seat becoming vacant for a by-election to be called. If you allowing sixty days, why would you give a Premier twelve months? If you are trying to look at the fact that you are going to have a new approach to governing and you have already given unlimited time to a leadership review and getting organized as a party, why would you then give twelve months after that period for a Premier to call an election when you are only allowing sixty days to an ordinary MHA? Can you clarify that for me? I am interested in that and I know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: These are all valid points.

It is a loophole that you have created, maybe not intentionally, but it is a loophole that has been - it is a glaring loophole. If you are sincerely interested in typing up when an election has to be called after the resignation of a Premier you will put in a set period for a leadership review, so that will not be part of that particular time.

There are many reasons - you already said in your Blue Book, "Under a Progressive Conservative government, the House of Assembly will play a key role in enabling real public dialogue that will have a genuine influence on government policies and priorities." If you believe your words, if you believe your own words that are here in your own book - this is a matter that concerns the entire Province. As we know, politics is around the table of every home in this Province morning, noon and night. I do not know anybody who is not interested in politics in this Province. We grow up with it from a very young age and it stays with us forever.

So, I think you are moving in the right direction. Fixed-term elections are a good thing. There are a couple of areas there that need to be tightened up. I am sure you will agree once you review it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up, for a few moments, has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Government House Leader for being so generous tonight.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, I would not stretch it that far.

I think between us all here in this House, we have a piece of legislation that has the right intention. With more debate back and forth we can have it fine-tuned to exactly of its true intentions.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. We have a member standing, and the position of the House is that we will recognize another member.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise this evening and say a few words on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I think this is a good idea and something that has been long overdue in the political process of this Province and country. I think that it is a step in the right direction. It will certainly bring order to people's lives and allow people to plan for things outside of politics because, let's face it, every member of this Legislature has a life outside of this House. Many times there is enough overlap, conflict and hard to put things together without making it more difficult, such as we went through last year with everybody on election call or election notice for about a year and not knowing when the election was going to be held, not knowing if you could plan a vacation, not knowing if your daughter was going to get married, if it was going to be in the middle of a campaign, or planning a family reunion where you may have to travel at great costs in order to get there. So, all of these things are good to see, that this bill will at least give some sort of stableness to the political process and that we will all know after this when the next election will take place.

It is also important, Mr. Speaker, for people who are contemplating running for a political party in a way that they can get ready, they have advance notice, it is not on the spur of the moment when the writ is dropped and try to decide whether or not you are going to be a candidate, if you can get a leave of absence from your employer. All of these sorts of things can be done in advance now that we will have a fixed election date.

Mr. Speaker, it also takes away - as other speakers have said - the element of surprise that the party in power can have. I commend the government because by passing this legislation they are the ones who will be - if you want, for lack of better words - the bigger losers. They will not have the advantage that governments previous to them have had when it comes to calling a surprise election. It will put everybody on an even keel, Mr. Speaker, to know that they will have time to get prepared and they will know when the election will be called.

There is one interesting thing there I was reading, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government has considered. It talks about the Premier, or the person sworn in as Premier, is elected by the party not later than three years after, within the most recent general election the new leader and Premier shall, within twelve months, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what would happen in a case where the Premier himself is turfed by his own party during the first year-and-a-half? The Premier himself has done something that really gets all of his own members upset, his party upset, a special convention is called and the convention ousts the Premier as leader of the party and a new leader takes over because we are under a party system in this Province. What would happen, I wonder, in the event that - it is not likely to happen, but it almost happened about ten or twelve years ago in this Province to a former premier who lost the confidence of his people and had a lot of them very upset with him in the things that he was doing. So, it is conceivable and it is possible. I wonder if the Government House Leader could probably address that question, as to what would happen if their own party got rid of their own leader who is Premier because he was leader. What would happen in an event like that?

I think, Mr. Speaker, there are still things here to be tweaked and refined. I do not think you will find anyone who is against the principle of a fixed date election every four years because I think all Members of the House of Assembly can agree on that. I think it will find favour with residents of the Province that they will not be caught away on summer vacation or in the middle of a Christmas season or things of that nature, having people like us come knocking on their doors and disturbing them. At least now they will know when we will be doing that and I think it will find great favour with people of the Province because it is a good step for democracy and it is something that will make this Province better politically and democratically once this bill become legislation.

Again, I commend the government for having the courage to bring forward a bill of this nature and I look forward to its passage but there are, as I said, many things that need to be done before this in fact becomes law because if we are going to pass this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, it should be in the most perfect content and form that it can possibly be. I think some of the things that have been raised by other members are certainly worthy of consideration, that can be amendments made during Committee stage of this bill, and hopefully when the bill does pass it will do exactly what it purports to do and will be the best piece of legislation that it can be at that time.

I will conclude my comments with that, Mr. Speaker. The debate has taken very long and I will conclude my remarks on that note.

Thank you.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for everybody on both sides of the House who have participated in this, I think a pretty significant piece of legislation. For the first time since Confederation we are introducing a piece of legislation, government is introducing a piece of legislation that actually relinquishes power and control by itself. Now, I do not think that can be lost upon anybody, that we are taking an adherent advantage as a government and saying: We don't want that. We are not interested in having the sole responsibility of when an election is called.

The Premier of the Province has driven this piece of legislation, has said from his own point of view, aided and abetted and supported by members of the Cabinet, by members of the government caucus, that what we are interested in is ensuring that there is a level playing field with respect to provincial elections. So not anymore can one person on a given day, for any reason or for any situation, take it upon themselves to put an entire Province, an entire Assembly, an entire Parliament through an election without due consideration.

What we are saying in this piece of legislation today is that on the second Tuesday of October in the year 2007 the next provincial election will occur. Not one government since Confederation has had the absolute courage or confidence to do that, only this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to address many of the points raised by many of the people in debate, but I want to say this first and foremost, that of all the situations that each member described, of every circumstance that they said could happen as a result of this legislation, I think they all individually know that those circumstances exist today. They exist because there is a lack of accountability, there has been a lack of a level playing field and there has been a lack of integrity, to be honest about it, in the political system as we know it. I would like to speak about that for a few moments.

For example, the Leader of the Opposition talked about, I think he said - I wrote it down, I wrote down a number of things he said. The Leader of the Opposition said he does not agree that in the event a Premier resigns, or leaves, that if it happens before the third year of the mandate, that upon the election of a new leader of that party chosen by a political party - whomever it may be - when that person automatically becomes leader and then, in fact, in law becomes the Premier of the Province, that he should call the election, or she should call the election, whomever it may be, within a twelve month period; because that goes against our parliamentary system, he said.

Other members, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, my colleague and hon. friend the Opposition House Leader and other members, said that in some way belittles the rest of us who sit here. For whatever reason - this is the logic that they use - if a new leader who has not sought a mandate comes to this House they should be allowed - the Leader of the Opposition said - to run out their mandate. What else would we expect this Leader of the Opposition to say, because that is exactly what he did. Do we expect him to say otherwise? No, but here is what troubles me with the point and the logic and the view point of this, is that for some reason that belittles the rest of us because we want that to happen. Well, I beg to differ. We live in a practical and realistic world and while it might be a neat, academic debate that is being put forward, or a point by the Leader of the Opposition, here is why it is there - make no mistake about it, I say to members in this House, and anybody in the Province who would like to listen - in 1999 a government was elected on a promise not to ship resources out of this Province; in 1999. Then, Premier Brian Tobin stood and faced the electorate on several different occasions in the public media in several different places in this Province, one being in the District of Gander.

During an earlier debate in this House that happened a few years ago, we hauled out - I talked about and others talked about how he said at that time that this is our choice, this is our future and this is our time. That was their slogan, all of them. On top of that, he said not one spoonful of ore would be shipped out of Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed anywhere else. Do you know what? The people of the Province largely gave him a mandate because of that, and that was a position our party supported. Now, catapult yourself to when he left and catapult yourself to when a new leader of the Liberal Party, and thus became Premier, what happened? Was that a promise that was committed to by that Premier? The mandate on which they sought the election changed automatically because we do see ore leaving Voisey's Bay. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to every member without interruption and once I got up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker - and I said to the Leader of the Opposition, any of my time on a point of order, I want to make sure it does not come out of your time. But I listened to all of them intently and I intend to answer all of the questions that they raised during the debate because I listened to all of them. The reason this is here is so that if another leader who is not elected by the people, who goes against the mandate on which the collective had sought and got a mandate, then this clause is strictly and utterly important because it protects the only people who matter, not the people in here but the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor raised a question about -

MS THISTLE: Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. E. BYRNE: Grand Falls-Buchans, sorry - raised the question related to leadership conventions. She had put out this notion - it is really unbelievable that somebody would put it out there, but anyway I will deal with it because it was put out there. She raised the notion that for some reason if a leader of the party left - now, we are talking about a four-year mandate. You need to keep this in mind, a four-year mandate, fixed. That for some reason if a Premier left - and here is what she said: If the Premier left, and there was a new Premier elected, that we could go on for two years. We do not have to hold a leadership for two years. Well, if I take that logic, if a Premier left within the first year we do not have to hold an election for two years. Guess what? The legislation does not apply anyway because in the fourth year the election is going to be held in a year, whenever a new leader applies. The fact of the matter is that I do not know of any political party, ones here, ones that exist in Western democracies that would allow a situation where a leader of party or a Premier resigns, to allow a situation to continue - particularly if you are the government - where you do not elect a leader in the quickest possible fashion, in a democratic fashion -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will get to that, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is unprecedented and we are not afraid to be unprecedented in the type of election laws that we put forward if it benefits the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I just do not conceive of ever a time or a place that a political party would allow a situation, particularly a governing party, where you would allow a Premier who resigns, for whatever reason, and then allow a process to unfold for over two years before you elect a leader of a government. I mean what rubbish! Really! Practically speaking, the government would never survive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor should it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nor should it is right.

Governments and parties do not survive without leadership. It is the fundamental necessary building block and it flows from there. That does not take away from any other member in this House. Leadership is the fundamental building block of the democracy that we have and to ensure that it is in place, which this legislation does, and to ensure that that leadership has a mandate from the electorate, I say that is progressive. I am not afraid, neither are my colleagues afraid, to put it forward to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it is exactly what they deserve, because it is not in the forty-eight members interest in this House, it is in their interest that we are putting this legislation forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition talked about - I believe he said there were many other commitments we made with respect to election reform that are not in this bill, and he is correct. This bill is about three things. It is about a fixed four-year term, fundamentally. Secondly, it is about if a leader resigns from the government or the governing Premier resigns, whoever he or she may be, that after they become Premier they must seek a mandate from the people of the Province to continue on. Thirdly, this bill is about if any member in this House resigns, gets sick or passes away - like a former colleague of mine, a good friend of mine did - that there would be a by-election called and over within ninety days so that no constituency in this Province would have to wait an inappropriate amount of time before they could be represented; in other words, that a district's right to have representation could not be circumvented by the will of one person. That is what this legislation is about, those three principles. With respect to election reform and other reforms that we committed to, you can bet your bottom dollar that we will bring them in, but this act and this legislation is about those three things and those three things only.

For the life of me, while I appreciate the commentary and the point of view, I urge all hon. members to deal with this in the spirit and intent of what it was meant to be. It is meant to put in place a level playing field so that when the Official Opposition - I can say this with a lot more knowledge of it than any member opposite, with the exception of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, with a lot more knowledge of it than the twelve members who sit in the Official Opposition today. From 1993 until the last election I sat there. I enjoyed my time there. I participated lively in debates in this House here. I sat in many different seats. I sat as an Opposition backbencher, I sat as a member who chaired the Public Accounts Committee, I sat as Leader of the Party and Leader of the Official Opposition and I sat as Opposition House Leader, but I can tell you this, that everyday as an Opposition, you wake up one morning - which you can and we did on many occasions - and on just a mere flick because the polls look good or I have an issue now to go to the people on, so that you can get ahead of issues like nurses strikes and difficulty in labour management issues. That is what has occurred in the past since Confederation in this House, but it was not any other government that is putting in place a regime which says to the people of the Province, and to members in this House, that from this day forward everybody -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. The Member for Bay of Islands says we must change that around. Well, we are changing it around for the better, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: From this day forward who do you think - if we want to look at it from our narrow self-interest - if we want, Mr. Speaker, just to take a moment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to look at this from our own narrow self-interest - if we were to look at this piece of legislation as a government from our own narrow self-interest, we would not be introducing this legislation tonight because the biggest beneficiaries - outside the people of the Province - of this legislation is not going to be the governing party, it is going to be the Official Opposition. How they have failed for purely, in my view, partisan reasons or reasons unbeknown to me, not to recognize the principles that are inherent in this piece of legislation, frankly is beyond me. But, that is something for them to live with. Irrespective of that point of view, it is certainly this government's intention to solider on with this piece of legislation. It is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will level the playing field in politics, it will ensure that elections occur every four years, and thus the debate about elections will be about policy and not about who has the best inside track on what is coming up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, 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 House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991, Bill 40.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Maybe later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill 40)

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

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

I want to move to Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province, Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province, be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province." (Bill 39)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who, as everybody knows, is in Ottawa with respect to the Atlantic Accord. This is his piece of legislation but I am equally proud, Mr. Speaker, to bring it forward on behalf of the government.

Again, in the last election, we focused much of our agenda on features of accountability, and much of what we talked about showed up in various commitments. We just finished second reading of one, for example. We are beginning right now second reading of another one.

This is an important piece of legislation. What this act is about is introducing, in the systems of government, in the entities of government, in every government department, a framework and a structure that allows for many things to happen, not just within government but allows for many things to happen so that people can see that they are happening.

In this piece of legislation, for example, we talk about how every Crown agency, every entity of government, every department, including, Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly, must begin to start three-year forecasting and three-year planning or three-year strategic plans. It talks about - we will get into the details in terms of the clause-by-clause debate - but it speaks to the notion of not only putting out three-year plans but setting objectives, and what are the outcomes of those three-year plans. For example, it puts in place a framework by which we can test ourselves, by which the public can judge our own report card.

Let's talk about smoking, for example. If it is the objective of government, and it clearly is recently, with the announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Health, that we want to curb teenage smoking, and one of the plans of government is to do exactly that, then part and parcel of the strategic planning process, inside the department or agency of government that is charged with that responsibility, is providing not only for themselves, but, through this House and the tabling of three-year strategic plans on how we are going to do exactly that, it provides for a mechanism whereby, here is our objective, here is how we plan to get there. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day of that three-year plan the outcomes have to be visible, and not only visible to the departments and agencies whom, onto themselves, are guided and given the responsibility to progressing issues along, but most importantly they have to be visible to the public.

Three years from now, once this structure is in place and once it is up and running, we can say to ourselves: Has this been successful? Here was our objective, here is what we did, what was the outcome? What was teenage smoking like three years ago? Has government policy impacted or affected the level of teenage smoking? How has it affected it? Has it gone down as a result of what we have done? If it has not, we can say to ourselves, that did not work, or parts of the plan worked. What it does forever and a day, Mr. Speaker, is put in place a framework within government that is transparent, that people can see, where tabling of those plans must be done in this House, it must be done on behalf of every Crown agency and entity. Whether you are the Citizens' Advocate, whether you are the Child Advocate, whether you are the CEO of Hydro, whether you are charged with the responsibility of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission, whether you are involved with a board or agency of government, every agency and entity of government will have to buy into this.

Another feature of the bill: Let's take an example whereby an agency of government does not participate or does not see the need. It provides the necessary, I guess, powers through the minister of the department, whomever he or she may be, to ensure that agency does it. It provides an accounting mechanism, an accountable mechanism, I guess, for every agency and entity of government that we are responsible for. That is what the public expects. That is what we committed to in the last election, and, to the best of our ability, that is exactly what we intend to live up to. Now, along the way, in terms of the debate on this legislation or others, will we always agree? No, we will not. I remember one time someone said to me, if you have a crowd of people in the room, if you are all thinking alike, then nobody is thinking. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? How true that statement really is.

We get the comments tossed from the opposite side all the time about: Well, you know, government members did not see that. When that legislation was tabled, that was the first time they saw that. We even had the Leader of the Opposition go as far today as to say: I would bet all of my money, I would bet my bottom dollar, that no one over there saw that. We saw that before they saw that. My own sense is that he does himself a disservice to talk like that but that is up to him. The fact of the matter is, we happen, at least on this side - and I can only speak for that. I will never say that about their caucus because I do not attend their caucus meetings frankly, Mr. Speaker, nor do I intend to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Nor do I intend to, Mr. Speaker. I can only say, that I happen to have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be part of a lively caucus where - yes, members laugh because we know how lively it can be sometimes. That is such a constructive thing and a positive thing, where there is debate, healthy, strong debate. There are divergent opinions and views, but when it comes to being accountable to the people of the Province there is a single view on this issue, that no matter what the issue is, as legislators, as elected members of this House, when we are putting in place legislation or bringing forward legislation like we are now, no, we do not all think alike. Thanks be to God we do not think alike. When we are coming to the House of Assembly and talking about being accountable to the people of the Province we are of one mind in that issue and we make no apologies for it, I say to the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The notion of performance contracts, Mr. Speaker, are also put in place here, and that is an important concept. It exists in other public jurisdictions across the country, public jurisdictions in places in Scandinavia - Denmark comes to mind - and it exists in other places in the Parliamentary Commonwealth system that we happen to live under. The notion of a performance contract and performance based contracting is not a new concept, but it is a tried, true and tested one.

What is outlined in the bill, and we will go through this on clause-by-clause debate, is simply this: that government, meaning the Crown, through its ministers and its ministries responsible for Crown Agencies and entities - and we have a public service who will work with any political party and any government who should be encouraged to do so. They are the steading force who implement government policy, who provide you the excellent advice. Sometimes you take it, sometimes you do not, but, nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, they are obligated to provide the best possible advice that they can give to you and then it is up to government to decide how that meshes and where the will of the people should be. That is what we are all about.

The notion of performance contracts really goes to the head of every department or the administrative head of the department, which is the Deputy Minister. I know at the press conference the Premier was asked: Does that mean that you could introduce some sort of financial incentives? I believe the Premier's answer was: I would love to be in a position at this point to do it but we are not at this point, but we would like to be and it is our hope to get there.

The notion is simply this: When you look at the objectives of government on public policy issues, whether it be smoking, whether it be dealing with gambling, whether it be dealing with economic development or natural resource movement, or dealing with municipalities and municipal operating grants and advancing infrastructure, whatever it may be in the host of public policy issues that every government deals with in its mandate from time to time, that every member of the House deals with from time to time on a daily basis, that the administrative head of the department, in advancing the strategic plan of each department and being accountable for the strategic plan of every department, if that strategic plan is implemented and implemented well there must be some performance based system to reward that. It is a system of reward that we are talking about as opposed to any other system.

It is important because it deviates from where, I guess, governments have traditionally been, Mr. Speaker. It moves into an era where, like anybody else, we plan to be accountable to the people of our Province, not only through our words but through our actions, not only through our actions but through the very culture and system of government that we are trying to influence by putting in place this legislation, by putting in place a framework whereby everybody, no matter who you are or where you are in government, whether you are an elected member, a valued public servant, or somebody who is on the front lines dealing with social service cases, somebody within the health care administration, or whether it is somebody dealing with mining leases, or somebody dealing with investment prospecting, that each and every one of us are accountable. This, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, is what this legislation is about, to introduce a system and a framework whereby - once it is in place, it will take some time, about two to three years - we figure by 2007-2008 every agency in government and every department will be in a place to be able to put out their strategic plans. Some may be ready next year, some will take a little bit longer to do, but the date in terms of which it must be done by, is, I guess, 2008. What we are trying to do is be realistic because we recognize that this cannot be accomplished overnight but it must begin somewhere. That is why the legislation is being put forward as it is being put forward right now.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that, very similar to the notion of Bill 40 in terms of fixed four-year terms so people can count on a steady reliable sort of environment to operate in, this is very similar in that regard. What we are putting forward is an information package that will be built into the system, that will be accountable to the Legislature, that will be reporting on a regular and systemic basis to the Legislature, to the people of the Province, access to information, achievable strategic plans of what our objectives are, how we plan to meet those and what the outcomes are, we expect. Once that is completed it will be in full view of anybody who wants to view it, and even some who do not, maybe, Mr. Speaker, of how successful government can ultimately be. It is more about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This, Mr. Speaker, is the politics of inclusion and that is what this government is trying to affect with this piece of legislation. To be honest, if anybody wants to take the time to look back over the last fifteen years of Auditor General's reports, this is one of the fundamental underpinnings of what is wrong with government departments. I am not pointing my finger at anybody, I am not going to point my finger at members opposite, I am not going to point my finger at anybody here. What we are fundamentally trying to achieve is changing the system somewhat, trying to move it in a little different direction. It is a big system. Government is big business and you do not turn it around like a speedboat at fifty miles an hour and flip it from one direction to the next. It does not happen that way. Often we would like it to. I do not know if there is a member in this House who would not like it to happen like that in some cases, but the truth is that it does not happen that way. With this type of legislation we believe that we can effectively turn that boat, if you want to call it that - to use an analogy - in a direction that will fundamentally change how government operates.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I finish my opening remarks and look forward to those who would like to participate in this very important debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand tonight and respond to the Government House Leader's introduction of Bill 39. This bill has a lot of information between the covers. It is seventeen pages of An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province; a very noble title. I am sure the people of the Province genuinely and sincerely believe that by passing this Act over the next few days they will have in their possession a government that will be accountable, transparent and ready to give us evidence based decisions on any matter that is brought before them.

This Act is quite lengthy and there will be a lot of activity between both sides of the House in debating this particular Act. It would be impossible, in my time here tonight, to go over it clause by clause, but I would like to speak to the general thrust of the Act and make some comments.

It was interesting when I heard the Government House Leader say that the plan of government is to enact this legislation. He was being realistic, he said, when it would probably take up to 2008 to make sure that all parts of this Act are ready. The government, at that point, would be fully accountable to the people of this Province. I think what he neglected to say - for anyone who was reading between the lines or listening intently, what he was really saying is that this is a very good Act, it has a very flowery presentation. I hope nobody will question the fact that I am trying to get through the next election with this Act, because that is what he saying. You do not have to be accountable to the people of this Province until 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: There is a section in it saying that if a particular government entity or body or department is not able to have this information ready for the minister to table in the House of Assembly, the minister who is responsible for a particular department, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which means the Cabinet, may approve a longer or shorter period for the plan required under sections 5, 6 or 7.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of latitude in this Act, in bringing this to the House, for a government that is trying to embark on a new version of accountability and transparency. There is all kinds of flexibility.

The Government House Leader also talked about the issue of performance-based contracts. That would be when a minister would make a contract with the Deputy Minister and the officials at the high levels of a particular department and say: We have a plan in mind here, we have a budget for this department, we have a clear direction as a government in setting out our policies and priorities. You must sign a contract with me, the minister. This is what I want to carry out. Move ahead with the government's agenda in this fashion. That is the idea of a performance-based contract. Well, I would say to the Government House Leader, would you have used that government based contract in the firing of the former Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services? Would there have been anything in that contract that you would have been able to pin on the Deputy Minister for not carrying out the duties as assigned under the performance-based contracts?

We had a situation on September 30 when the former Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services was fired for no apparent reason. If she had a contract signed with the minister and the government of the day, I wonder what would they use as a lever, then, to say that she was not doing her work? I wonder what kind of a lever would they use under that performance-based contract to give them some evidence to be able to drop the axe and say, you did not deliver on what you were supposed to do. I wonder now, would they have been able to use that performance-based contract and how open are officials going to be able to be in the future with a performance-based contract? Officials are supposed to be neutral in their political thinking. Officials work for Conservative governments, they work for Liberal governments and they advise all members of the House of Assembly, particularly the governing party.

With a performance-based contract, do you think that an official will be allowed, or be able. to express their own opinion to the minister of the day? Can you imagine sitting down with the deputy minister? I can imagine this, I have been a Cabinet minister for five years. Can you imagine the minister sitting down with a deputy minister and saying - it does not make any difference if it is a man or a woman. I will say: Deputy Minister, this is the government's agenda, we want to move in this direction. We have a plan in mind to eliminate 4,000 jobs. We want 4,000 people out of our public service. This is the way we want it done. We want it done with the minimal amount of interference and the minimal amount of disruption. We want that pain spread out all over the Province. Now, Mr. or Mrs or Ms Deputy Minister, I want you to carry that out for me. If you do not get that done or if it causes too much rumbling in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, your job is on the line, because I am signing a contract with you today and if you do not measure up to this contract you are out the door. When you are out the door, what is happening? Will you get a job in government anymore? Are you completely out the door or only halfway out the door?

There is a lot on the line with officials signing a performance-based contract. It is not like a private enterprise where you hire a CEO, you are paying him X number of dollars, and you have a certain bottom line you meet as a private corporation or whatever. When you are hiring an official who does not have any political affiliation, who is not politically beholding to any particular party, will that official become so ingrained in trying to perform their contract that they will not even be able to offer an unbiased opinion? This is what ministers rely on, officials' unbiased opinions. Officials can tell the minister the ups and downs of moving in a certain direction or whatever the decision might be.

If you have such a grip on an official at the deputy minister level, that official, I guess, will not have the freedom of going out and doing their work because they are afraid of the repercussions of losing their job. It is not like a private corporation. You do not have the same checks and balances there. With a private corporation, it is all bottom line how the end result will be, but everyone knows full well that within government every decision you make affects people. You cannot close a clinic, you cannot cut services, without affecting people. There will probably be lots of things that will come up in the run of a year that will be emergency based, and if an official has to make decisions that will bring hardship to people, does the government care as long as that official meets his or her quota? As long as that official stays within the realm of operating a particular department on X number of dollars, is there any concern to the minister on what hardship the official might bring to people by cutting services? Just as long as they stay within the realm of X number of dollars on the budget for that department -

MR. JOYCE: What happened to VON?

MS THISTLE: The VON is a clear example, I just heard one member say.

The former Minister of Health and Community Services made a public announcement three times that she would not entertain giving money to settle the VON strike in Corner Brook. She was a woman - and still is - of integrity and principle. She went out in the public, she said that three times, and she was going to stick to her guns because she knew that the repercussions of giving money to the VON would start a rippling affect right throughout the Province and other agencies who were in that predicament would want the same treatment. Being a woman of principle and integrity, and being a former Auditor General for ten years, she knew all about the negatives of doing something other than what she planned to do. She stuck to her guns and said she would ride out the storm, and she would not bend to the VON because she knew that it would affect other agencies throughout the Province.

We all know, from what we had seen transpire after that event, that the Premier decided on his own that he would settle the VON strike. Although there was no funding line within that particular budget for the Department of Health and Community Services for that particular expenditure, he decided, as a Premier, that he would, in essence, write a $50,000 check that would settle the VON strike and everyone would go on their way. He did not consult the former Health and Community Services minister. Everyone knows, if you are a Cabinet minister and you are not consulted by the Premier on decisions and the Premier decides to go out and upstage or do something that is contrary to your wishes, you cannot operate in that environment. As a result, the former health minister decided to throw in the towel and say: I cannot operate with you anymore.

The Cabinet process, if you are going to have any funding approved, the first thing you do in your particular department is write a paper recommending to Treasury Board that you would go ahead and propose that funding be approved for a certain project. This did not come from Health and Community Services, as the minister herself was against this particular project for the reasons she indicated. As a result, there was no paper that was going to Treasury Board to look for funding to look after the VON strike. What the Premier did, by his own admission, is, he decided he would go out and settle the VON strike that weekend in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: The date of the golf tournament.

MS THISTLE: The date of the golf tournament.

As a result there had to be a fall person, not a fall guy, a fall woman, there had to be a coverup. So, the top civil servant in our Province took the fall and she should not have taken the fall. A very, very respected professional, the top civil servant in our Province - I can tell you, as a former Cabinet minister, I relied on her judgement, her opinion and her advice. She had worked for governments of both stripes and she should not have had to take the fall for this. This came out September 30. The Premier of our Province had a news release saying that Mr. Ross Reid would be the new Acting Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services for a while and then it came to the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Works. It was he who had the media news conference and told the public what had happened. Is this the kind of performance based contract that this government will be signing with the minister and the deputy minister of each department of government? Is that what is going to happen?

We have a very talented MHA here this evening in the back benches, the Member for Topsail. She should never be in the back benches. She was the star candidate who had run for the Progressive Conservative government; a star candidate. The government is losing her talents right now in the back benches. She was the former Auditor General and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - although there were many times that there were things written in her Auditor General's report that we did not always approve of as a former Administration, I always had to give her credit for the work that she had done. It was her job to outline to whatever government she served of the ways they had conducted their business for the people of the Province and also the ways that they could improve. She was the first one who said that improvements had been made in the former Liberal government who decided to go with the accrual accounting method. That was one of her pet peeves over the years and we acceded to her request in that area.

Is this the kind of performance based contract that this government is going to write with the deputy minister's across the departments? If I were a deputy minister right now it would be a ticklish situation when you are going to let people concerns, health concerns, maybe even safety concerns come between you and the bottom line of running a department. No matter what, if the Department of Health and Community Services has an operating budget of $1.5 billion, and if you are the deputy minister of that department next year and you have to spend $1.6 billion because of extra cardiac operations or maybe there was an urgency to put dialysis in a certain centre or maybe there was a situation where equipment broke down in one of our hospitals, well I think if you were a deputy minister in that department next year you would be staying up nighttime wondering if your contract was going to be squashed at the end of the fiscal year. If that is the kind of pressure this government is going to put on deputy ministers throughout government departments, I have a feeling that they are going to be putting money before people. That is not what the people of this Province want. Yes, they want evidence-based decisions.

I read earlier tonight when I got up to speak about the new election act, that government reported they wanted to be accountable and transparent. They said they were going to dialogue with the people on public issues. I have not seen this. They said they were going to have an Outdoor Bill of Rights. I have not seen anything like this happen. They have not been out consulting with the people.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has his first bill before the House this session and, you know, it has the makings of good legislation. The only problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, it is all about accountability and transparency. Don't get too excited now backbenchers. Don't get too excited!

It has the makings of a good piece of legislation that will be of great benefit to a lot of outdoor enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation does not have his homework completely done, which is too bad because I do not think he would have gotten many questions in this House if he had taken the time early fall or during the summer, last spring, to go around our Province and particularly speak to the people who use snowmobiles and the trailways throughout our Province. It would not have taken much time and you would have gotten a lot of things out of the way that people are asking you now through the open line, through e-mail, through the telephone, through the newspaper, and through the House of Assembly. I think you will learn from this particular experience that whenever you are intending to make a huge change of public policy in this Province it is wise to take the time and spend the money - which is not very much money - to go across the Province and ask people for their input. I think you can be assured of a lot smoother sailing on future legislation, but it is a learning experience for the new minister. I think after awhile he will iron out the difficulties within it and the legislation will pass.

Madam Speaker, regarding this act of accountability and transparency, I do not think there is one person out there who would not like to know the fact that government is spending their money the way it should be spent.

I heard the Finance Minister in the House on November 30. It was precisely at 2:09 p.m. It was his job, he said, to carry out the priorities established by the Premier. The Finance Minister said in this House on November 30, at 2:09 p.m., that it was his responsibility to carry out the priorities established by the Premier. Well, I would say it is his job to carry out the priorities established by the people. It is his job, and everyone's job in here in this House, to carry out the priorities established by the people. The Premier is one individual in this House; one individual. I wondered when he said that. I guess he was thinking out loud. His real, true feelings were coming out when he said those words. In fact, I had to keep them. I had to get Hansard the very next day and make sure that what I heard was absolutely correct. This is what the Finance Minister said on November 30 at 2:09 p.m. I recorded the time because I could not believe what I heard. He said, "We are going to move to meet the objectives that the Minister of Health said, in dealing with the priorities established by the Premier." That is what he said. He was going to make sure that the priorities established by the Premier were his priorities. What odds about the priorities of the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - as long as he had the priorities established by the Premier. That was the main thing on his mind. I think his subconscious, at that particular time, came out and it told everybody in this House just how that particular government acts and reacts. They have one focus and that is whatever the Premier wants that is what they are going to do. What odds about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What odds about the people. Whatever the Premier's priorities are that is what they are going to do.

Regarding this accountability and transparency act -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear from Bill Rowe?

MS THISTLE: Some member just mentioned: did we hear from Bill Rowe? Now, talking about accountability and transparency, I think my first request -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are several loud, private conversations going on in the House. I urge members, if they want to continue with these conversations to please take them outside.

MS THISTLE: It is interesting that someone just brought up the matter of Bill Rowe because it was only two weeks ago, I guess, I wrote, under the Freedom of Information, that I wanted to know what meetings Bill Rowe had attended on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, who were in attendance at those meetings, and what benefits were there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and what money has been spent to operate that Ottawa office since the Budget?

Here I am handed by my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, an article that appeared in The Labradorian. It is a known quantity, Bill Rowe's name has a cache at home and Ottawa. Well, so it might but I have not seen, and I have not heard, and I doubt very much if the people of this Province will ever get an accountability report on what Bill Rowe has been doing in Ottawa since last summer. Now, I did see a CBC documentary where Mr. Bill Rowe was walking along with Doug Letto in front of the Parliament Buildings. Then I saw another one where he was socializing with some people, chit-chatting and so on, but if you can call that $350,000 worth of chit-chatting, I do not know. You decide, the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree or don't you?

MS THISTLE: How can I agree or disagree? I do not know what the man is doing in Ottawa. How can I agree or disagree? I know one thing I can agree with, that $350,000 would put a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor where I could walk into Grand Falls-Windsor at a cancer clinic and I could see people being treated where they should be treated in a proper cancer clinic. I cannot see what Bill Rowe is doing in Ottawa. The people of this Province do not know. He does not phone into Open Line. He does not give a report to you. You do not know what he is doing. I question one person on that side of the House: Do they know what Bill Rowe is doing in Ottawa? Tell me. Who can stand on their feet and talk about what meetings?

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) relevance.

MS THISTLE: It is all about accountability. It is very relevant, I can tell the Member for CBS.

This is about accountability and transparency. We had one line in the Budget of an Ottawa office being opened and being headed by Mr. Bill Rowe from St. John's. It was going to cost the taxpayers a starting figure of $350,000. Does that include cocktails at Hys or does it include skating down the Rideau Canal or did it include -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - sitting behind the Premier when he was getting the Atlantic Accord and looking smart? What does it include? Does anybody know? We will have a contest here. Does anybody know - do the thirty-four members on the governing side know what Bill Rowe has been doing in Ottawa since last June? Does anybody know? Maybe we will have it for the question of the day on VOCM. There you go. The question of the day: whoever can figure out what Bill Rowe has been doing in Ottawa since last year.

He started out with a budget of $350,000. I hope now - I have managed to write the Minister of Finance and ask him for this report. I wrote him about two weeks ago. He has not written me back to tell me what Bill Rowe - because do you know something, I bet he does not know either. I bet the Minister of Finance does not know either, what Bill Rowe has been doing in Ottawa. Although, Bill might have met him at the airport today. That might be something that he is doing. He might have met him at the airport.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Someone said he is running a taxi service. Yes, I heard he has a car allowance, so you could be right there. He has a car allowance and a housing allowance, and what else I do not know.

But this is all about accountability. You are the one who introduced this accountability and transparency piece of legislation here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you speak to the bill, then?

MS THISTLE: I am speaking to the bill, I am just not getting any answers. I am speaking to the bill. I am the one who is speaking to the bill, but I never got an answer, not an answer; no sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I think the Government House Leader is starting to silence the backbenchers over there. He is afraid they are going to spill out something they should not be saying.

This is incredible! The Government House Leader, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, has presented this bill for debate. He makes this look like it is the best thing since sliced bread. They are going to be so accountable, and the first time this is going to come into effect - can you believe this? - where everybody must stand up and be counted, is spring, mind you, 2008. It is something like the announcement the finance minister made in this past Budget when he allowed a subsidy for low income people, and it will not come into effect until 2006.

MS FOOTE: Is that when they start their three-year plan?

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, their three-year plan.

MS FOOTE: The year 2008.

MS THISTLE: In 2008. They even had the audacity to put in 2008. I mean, what they are really saying is: Let us get through the next election. We will be accountable in 2008 because the Premier already said, in a public appearance a while ago, that he has no intentions of sticking around longer than six years. I can see why it is important that you have decided to bring in this new election act and talk about the leadership, because the Premier has already been out in the public saying six years is the limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixteen, he said. (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Six, s-i-x, six years.

I remember the former Premier Brian Tobin. I said to Brian Tobin: What is the usual length and term that people stay around in politics? He said: Based on Ottawa, based on federal politics, the average length of time for politicians to stay in office is, guess what? This is another game. How long do you think it is? Is it five years? Is it ten years? How long do most people stay in politics?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Seven years. Well now, your Premier -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, Brian Tobin has gone beyond that rule. We all know he has been in federal politics a long time. He stayed around here for five years, but your Premier has already been out in the public and said six years is the limit for him. That is about right. He got elected in 2003, six years from that would be 2009, and you do not have to be accountable until 2008. This is your new accountability and transparency act that gives you another four years to get it right. That is a long time, isn't it, four years to bring in an accountability act? Are you going to give your ministers the authority to make a contract with the deputy ministers for four years from now? How long is that contract going to be, one year or four years? Is it going to be the end of your mandate or is it going to be the end of the fiscal year? That is what I would like to know.

It is noble and it is good to bring in the accountability and transparency act. I think most of the people would want to know where you are going in that direction. I remember that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development had a great plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That plan, you could put that in a matchbox. She had one of these meetings out in Port Union this summer, when the Premier came out of the meeting and gave a wonderful public interview, saying there was a lot that happened that weekend and they were on the road to a real economic recovery in rural Newfoundland. Do you know something? There were selective invitations to that PC gathering in Port Union. They called it economic -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: He has only twenty years.

They decided to have a meeting with economic people from around the region, but what they forgot to do - the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development decided to have an economic development meeting with people in Central Newfoundland so they could put their heads together and be able to come up with a plan that would grow their individual economies on their own and together. The only problem is she forgot to ask and invite the people from all of those economic zones that made up the Central Newfoundland region. She decided, in her own wisdom, she would put a few heads together - or maybe it was the Deputy Minister's wisdom, Doug House, seeing as he has the urban plan for the Province.

MR. JOYCE: Ask the Member for St. Barbe what he was at last weekend. It is the worse it has ever been down in his district.

MS THISTLE: Yes. I am sure she did not consult with the Member for St. Barbe when he was on the Open Line show saying that this the worse year for the Northern Peninsula. People are out of work and I sincerely sympathize with you in that regard because I know what it is like. If you are an MHA, you want to do good for your district. It is clear that you have not been getting the support within your own caucus, within your own government, to help out the people of your district. You had to resort to the Open Line show to make that known to your constituents because they were calling in to Open Line and saying: This is a bad year on the Northern Peninsula, other years we would be having some assistance up here. It is clear you are not getting the support that you need from your very own caucus and your very own government and you have had to resort to Open Line and the public media to make that known. I am hoping by bringing it up here tonight that your caucus will show some support and assist you in the situation you have in your district. I know it is not easy, it is hard to create employment, but, you know, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development had a good plan for this Province, she got elected on it, and to date we have not seen that plan.

We had a Department of Business headed by the Premier that answers to the Premier. I have not seen any performance come out of that Department of Business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your glasses on.

MS THISTLE: I have my glasses on and I can see very good, but I have not seen anything to look at. There has been nothing come out of that Rural Secretariat. I would like to ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: How many jobs she has created since taking office October 21, 2003? How many jobs? How many jobs have you created since taking office October 21, 2003? Could you fit all of the people here in this Assembly of all the jobs that you have created? Do you think that you would be able to get them all here in the gallery anywhere, since you got elected and got your new job as minister? I doubt it. I would say you would get them in a phone booth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, thanks to the Liberal administration there is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I do not know if you are going to be able to say that. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is in chaos. We have trouble in our fishing industry. We have a lot of trouble in our fishing industry, the backbone of our economy in this Province. What are you going to do about that situation? What is your plan for redevelopment of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? It is not Doug House's plan. That is not going to be the answer, put everything on the Trans Canada Highway. What is going to happen now with the new changes to the policy in Transportation and Works, where you are going to take the wings off the plows? You get a small community that is depending on government to open up their roads and now you are going to have to make extra cuts because you are not now, according to a new safety policy, able to keep a wing along with the plow. What are you going to do? How are people going to get their roads opened up? What are you going to do?

I came out from Grand Falls-Windsor on Sunday. I hit a snowstorm in Terra Nova Park. You are talking about being accountable. I know it is the federal government who looks after Terra Nova Park. Let me tell you, I have been travelling that highway long enough. When I got in Port Blandford there was all kinds of snow. I can tell you, from the time I left Port Blandford till I got to Paddys Pond I met three ambulances that were taking people off the road. I met two wrecker trucks and I only saw one plow that was going west. That is all I saw. I could not get in the middle lane on the divided highway and pass a car. There were two lanes. I could not get in the second lane on the divided highway.

MR. BARRETT: They think it is funny.

MS THISTLE: I do not know how these people across the way can laugh at that and think it is funny. This is a safety issue. I saw three ambulances picking people off the highway, cars overturned. I saw two wreckers towing them. I saw one plow going west as I got to Whitbourne. That is all I saw. What do you want to do? Do you want to see the ambulances first, and the wreckers, and then put out the plows? Is that what it is all about? I drive that road every week of my life and I know the conditions, I know every turn. If you cannot get into a second lane on a divided highway and move along in the traffic, there is something wrong here. There was crust of snow and ice at least six to eight inches deep. There was no sand on it, there was no salt on it, and it was not taken off with the snowplow.

We are getting into Christmas now, the Christmas season in another three weeks, and there will be tons of people travelling over the highway. There have been nineteen fatalities across our Province. Aren't you concerned? Aren't you concerned that people are travelling out there over this highway in this situation? I am not exaggerating, I am used to the highway, I drive it every week. You should not have to meet the ambulance before you meet the snowplow.

I am sure that other people who drove that highway Sunday evening - I think it was 3:00 o'clock when I hit Port Blandford. I guarantee you, it was not fit to drive over. I had good snow tires on, thank goodness, but I would not want to have to pull off that highway and change a flat tire. There was no shoulder to the road and there was nowhere for another car to move over in the second lane. These are the kinds of concerns. You are talking about accountability and transparency. There is no greater accountability than people's lives, their safety on the highway, their health and their welfare.

If you are going to put money before people and sign a contract with your deputy ministers that says, come hell or high water you are staying within your budget or you are out the door, well they are not going to do a very good job for the people of this Province. That is what it is all about. You made a pledge to the people in your Blue Book that you will be rid of the deficit in 2008. Everything is happening for this government in 2008. They made a pledge in their Blue Book they will get rid of the deficit by 2008. They gave themselves four years to bring in the accountability legislation. How long are you giving your deputy ministers, when you sign your contracts? Is it one year or is it four years of your mandate? I would like to ask that question because if there is either deputy minister out there watching this tonight they are wondering the same thing. They are wondering now, is their job on the line, are they going to be demoted. Probably the Multi-Material Stewardship Board is a landing place. Everyone who does not measure up to the governments contracts will end up over in the Multi-Material Stewardship Board.

They are bringing in an act now in another day or two. They want a deputy superintendent of insurance and pensions. I thought you were into a frugal state of mind of not hiring. We are going to see that act come here now in a couple of days.

MS FOOTE: Look at the Public Service Commission.

MS THISTLE: Yes. Look at the Public Service Commission if you want to talk about blatant patronage. Zero in on the Commissioner; blatant patronage. If you want to talk about accountability and transparency, did anybody go through a selection process for that job? Was that advertised in the paper, as was always the policy of the Public Service Commission? Did you go out in the public and look for that job?

I saw an ad in the paper that you are looking for someone to act as secretary for the Ottawa office. It is too bad I do not have that ad here now but I am taking it from memory. One of the final things on that ad which was in the paper is that you must be progressive in your thinking. Well, the only thing you never said was you must be a PC to apply for that job. You said all the words but you did not put them together.

Madam Speaker, there are many things that I could talk about with accountability and transparency. If it is done the way it is supposed to be done it will be a good thing for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: But, it is a pretty lax time frame involved here. It is done to give the impression that they are going to live to the letter of the law in bringing in this new act. Yet, for all of that, they are going to give themselves a holiday for the next three years until they can get past the next election.

I am going to sit down now, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am so delighted, Madam Speaker, that the government side of the House have enjoyed hearing the truth. They applauded the truth and they are going to hear more of the truth in the next little while.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Last night we had a number of members in this House rise to speak on Bill 44. Several of them were quite emotional as they have a long history associated with what was in that bill, and tonight I am in a similar situation. This bill, Bill 39, the act of transparency and accountability for the Province is an act that I, myself, have been recommending to the government when I was Auditor General for ten years, from 1992-2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: For the ten years prior to my appointment as Auditor General, the previous Auditor General, Mr. Joe McGrath, was also recommending an accountability piece of legislation for the Province. The current Auditor General took up the cause also and recommended the same thing.

Tonight, Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to an act which I, myself, have advocated for, for so many years and to see it finally come to fruition.

When I decided to run for elected office, one of the primary reasons was to carry on with some of the things that I had recommended as Auditor General. When I decided on my campaign theme, I did go with the theme of accountability, transparency and integrity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: I was quite happy when the Progressive Conservative Party also adopted in their Blue Book the themes of accountability, transparency and openness because it coincided with what I, myself, would like to see in the government. So I stand here today very, very proud in support of this bill.

Irrespective of what the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said with regard to the legislation, I am not saying that the legislation is perfect but I do say, Madam Speaker, that this is a great step forward for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Not only for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but also for the Members of the House of Assembly. I have long been of the opinion that the information coming forward to the Members of the House of Assembly has fallen short of what the members need in order to do a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: The sad part, when I was Auditor General, unfortunately the only thing the Auditor General can do is recommend and then leave it up to the lawmakers as to whether they will implement the recommendations. Of course, after many, many years I stand here today and look at this piece of legislation. I must say, Madam Speaker, it is an excellent piece of legislation.

I would like to go back and just talk a little bit about some of the problems that I can cite as things which I had to deal with when I was Auditor General and try to explain to the people of the Province, and also the members of this House, some of the problems that we had because we did not have accountability legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: The Newfoundland Government has many government departments and about a hundred Crown corporations that exist. There was very little information coming forward. Each year in the House of Assembly, Members of this House of Assembly approve a budget of about $4 billion. This money goes out to government departments to be spent and also to Crown corporations.

It has always amazed me, Madam Speaker, that the Members of the House of Assembly, when they review the Budget every year they sit down and look at it line by line. They question $100 budgets, they question $1,000 budgets, but the thing that people do not appreciate is that a budget is a plan and the most important thing is what happens at the end of that plan. What I always found quite amazing is that while we spend so much time debating the Budget, sitting in the House, going through committees and spending hundreds of hours looking at the Budget when the Public Accounts come in, which shows actual information on what has happened in our Province, we are given the documents and what happens to them? They are tucked underneath our desks. Rather, we should be taking those documents and pouring over them and looking at the numbers. The Budget is only a plan. The accountability information, the most important comes later and we should be spending more time looking at this information.

When I was Auditor General, I was appointed in 1992, and at that point in time I recognized that there was very little accountability information coming forward to Members of the House of Assembly. One of the things that surprised me was that up until 1989 there was a requirement for government departments to submit annual reports to Members of the House of Assembly. Unfortunately, the government of the day decided that this was not a worthwhile issue, that those documents were not worthwhile and there was a decision to enact legislation so that those reports no longer came forward to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: I was quite disappointed that government, instead of advancing the cause of accountability, like was happening in other jurisdictions, the government of the day actually took a step backward. However, I have to give some credit where credit is due. Around 2000 the government of the day did introduce some accountability policies, but it was not legislation and the policies, the implementation, was very, very slow.

What I would like to see, and what is now enshrined in legislation, is a requirement for multi-year performance plans and also reports. I think the important thing that people should recognize is that this information will now come forward to the Members of the House of Assembly so that the Members of the House of Assembly can see those documents. You will see the strategic plans, you will see the operating plans, you will see the reports at the end of the day. Not only will the Members of the House of Assembly see those documents, but also the people of Province will also see those documents.

One of the things I would like to acknowledge that the former government did do, in the mid-1990s the government did act on a recommendation that I made in 1992 or 1993. The financial statements of the Province at that point in time included only financial information from government departments. What I recommended to the government is that prepare a set of financial statements that included, not only government departments, but also all of the Crown agencies. Now, at that point in time when I became Auditor General, sad to say, when I went to look for a list of Crown corporations that the government had established there was no complete list. I had to go around and try to find out exactly what the Crown corporations were in the Province. But, by 1995 government had decided to move and was now preparing consolidated accrual financial statements. I do have to give credit to the government of the day, that was a gigantic leap forward for this Province. When we received those financial statements they gave a complete picture of the overall financial position of the Province, and I think one of the important things for us to recognize is we did not know what the financial position of the Province was until around the mid-1990s when those statements were prepared.

I will not go into details about what exactly is in the legislation but I would like to touch on a few items, Madam Speaker, because some of the issues there are near and dear to my heart and I did want to make reference to them. I am sure when we get into Committee stage we will be looking at these things in much more detail.

One of the things that I am looking forward to seeing are the multi-year performance based plans and annual performance based reports. I think when that information comes forward to Members of the House of Assembly they will be very happy to receive this type of information. There is not enough information coming forward for Members of the House of Assembly. When I was Auditor General I looked at the information quite closely and I felt that much more information could be provided to members and what is provided now should be looked at rather than tucked under our desks.

Another aspect of the new legislation is that it will require government to follow consolidated accrual accounting for preparing the provincial Budget and related documents. Some, as I have indicated, the financial statements, are already done and were done so under the direction of the previous government. However, the Budget has always fallen short and I am very pleased to see that we are now moving in that direction.

Another thing that is included in the new legislation is that a public body cannot borrow or otherwise incur debt for capital requirements without the prior approval of both the responsible minister and the Minister of Finance. This is a good requirement. I can remember when I was Auditor General, (inaudible) in an organization, the name of which I will not disclose, but they had a debt of $5 million and even the board of directors did not know it at the time until the auditors - in this case, myself - pointed it out to them. So, this also is a good feature of accountability.

Another aspect of the new legislation is the control over the incorporation of new entities. I think that this is very important. Previously, I alluded to the fact that when I took over as Auditor General we did not have a complete list or knowledge of all of the Crown corporations that existed under the provincial government umbrella. Under the new legislation, this information will have to be provided by the Minister of Finance and that information will be tabled in this House of Assembly so that all of us as ministers and all of us as MHAs will know exactly what Crown corporations are out there. I think that this is a very important feature.

The last thing that I would like to mention - and I would like to make reference to the April 1, 2008 date which has been mentioned by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. The requirement in the legislation is that we will fully comply with this legislation by April 1, 2008. I do not think that is an unrealistic deadline. I think everybody in this House of Assembly should recognize that the amount of work that will have to go into providing this information will be quite extensive and quite time consuming. I do not think that it will be prepared on the turn of a dime and I think the departments and agencies need time to fully implement the requirements of the legislation.

Again, Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that introduced the transparency and accountability act for the Province of Newfoundland.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am going to rise and have a few words with regard to Bill 39.

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I listened attentively to the Member for Topsail, when she talked about accountability and transparency, and no doubt, as the Auditor General, she did, in her documentation, recommend to government and to the people of the Province that there needs to be more accountability and more transparency. It is unfortunate that she did not bring that accountability and transparency to the government that she now sits in and is part of, because we certainly have not seen it in this Legislature. I think there are any number of examples that we can use to explain and show where government has not acted accountably or transparently in providing information to the people of the Province.

I guess probably a good place to start would be with the Labrador Metis Nation - a good place to start - because the Labrador Metis Nation was one of the first groups in this Province to come out and take on this government on accountability issues. It goes back to February of this year when the leader of the Labrador Metis Nation came out, after only several months before that having a letter from the Premier of the Province saying that we will recognize the Metis people of Labrador as it relates to the Supreme Court decision under Powley. They had a written letter, something the Premier did not have from the Prime Minister, I say to you, on the Accord, but a letter that they had from the Premier of the Province as it related to the Powley decision and the Labrador Metis Nation. In February of 2004, a few months later, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, accompanied by the Member for Lake Melville, goes into Happy Valley-Goose Bay to have the meeting with the Labrador Metis Nation to say: Sorry, guys. Sorry, but we can no longer stand to what we committed to in writing. We can no longer give you the recognition that we promised and committed to you, in writing, in the middle of a provincial election, Madam Speaker. That is accountability. That is accountability for you.

Now, Madam Speaker, that is not the only example. That is not the only example. There are many examples, and you only have to go back to the election when there was an ongoing debate over whether the government, led by Danny Williams, would have layoffs in the public service in this Province.

I remember looking at full-page ads in The Telegram - full-page ads - signed and autographed by the Premier on the bottom of the page, in the middle of an election in the fall of 2003, saying: We will not lay off public servants in this Province.

In writing, Mr. Speaker, in writing from the Premier himself, and what happened? On January 5, in a televised State Address, the Premier goes on provincial television and says: We are going to have to lay off public servants - only three months after autographing and paying for a full-page ad to pledge his support to the Public Service Commission. Now that is accountability, Mr. Speaker. It is all right that we are seeing legislation in this House so that we can see some accountability.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you another one on accountability; accountability, when you get a Blue Book in the middle of an election that is the blueprint for the Progressive Conservative Party while they knock on doors in Newfoundland and Labrador, that says: We will not increase the ferry rates to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to reduce the ferry rates to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not going to increase them. That is what the blueprint said when they knocked on doors all over this Province; but, what did they do? In March, 2004, when they bring their first Budget to the House of Assembly, what does it say? Ferry rates increasing 25 per cent, I think it was, 25 per cent. Where is the accountability right there?

Again, a written commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not a verbal commitment like the Premier had from the Prime Minister, no, another written commitment passed out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, saying, we will not increase your ferry rates - and, three months later, four months later, they are increased by 25 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about another commitment, one in Grand Bank, in my hon. colleague's district, where a group of people, leaders in the community, were told in a meeting with the Premier - a commitment that they would continue with the construction of their hospital.

MS FOOTE: Three times.

MS JONES: Three times. Recorded, Mr. Speaker, on tape, on minutes, saying: We will support the hospital for Grand Bank. What do you have there now? As the Member for Twillingate says, you have a gazebo down there, a tourist attraction. Not a hospital, not even a hospital under construction, but rather one that has been cancelled completely. That was the word of the Premier. That was the word that your Premier gave to the people of Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the word that the Premier gave to the people of my district - because I was on the conference call. I was on the conference call with the people in my district when he said to them, on the issue of the Sir Robert Bond: We are having Memorial University conduct a study into where the Sir Robert Bond should be based out of, whether it should be Lewisporte or Cartwright. We have asked three policy people at the university to undertake this work and report back to government. We will not interfere. What they recommend to us is what we will accept.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the university did their work. The policy directors did their research. They travelled throughout Labrador. They went to Lewisporte. They did all the research that was required to make the best possible decision economically, socially and financially, to all involved, to the government and to the Cabinet.

Did the Premier accept what their recommendation was, like he said he would? No, he did not, Mr. Speaker. He did not accept their recommendation. In fact, he went and did what his Cabinet minister, what his colleague, the Member for Lewisporte, promised he would do in the middle of an election in Lewisporte. That was the only transparency I have ever seen on that side, when the Member for Lewisporte, in the middle of an election, told the people in Lewisporte: If you elect me and my government, we will move the ferry, the Sir Robert Bond, back to Lewisporte.

That was pretty transparent, Mr. Speaker, because that is exactly what he did. That was exactly what he did. Even after the Premier committed to honour the recommendations in a study of Memorial University, he did not do it.

Mr. Speaker, then they said they would release the study to the public. We have never seen the document. The study as it related to the Sir Robert Bond, and the study that was conducted by Memorial University, has never seen the light of day. So far the study has never been released, so where is the transparency?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

There is far too much shouting, bantering, back and forth across the House. The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I ask if members would keep their conversations down, or take their conversations outside, please.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps my colleagues on the opposite side of the House could keep the noise down a little bit so I could finish my comments here.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about another issue around accountability and transparency. It goes back to a week before the Budget was brought down in the House of Assembly. The Minister of Health was then the Minister of Education. He was out in Central Newfoundland -

MR. REID: Gander, to be exact.

MS JONES: - in Gander, meeting with the school boards in this Province. He was out there one week, seven days exactly, before the Budget was tabled in the House of Assembly. Do you know what he said to those school boards, as the Minister of Education? He said: The boards will not be affected in this Budget. There will be no cuts in school boards in this election. It will all be a part of this review process.

That was what he said, Mr. Speaker. Seven days later, his colleague at the Cabinet table, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, walks into the Legislature, and what does he do? He axes the school boards in this Province down to four or five boards. That was what he did, Mr. Speaker. That was what he did, after the Minister of Education, seven days before that, committed to the school boards in this Province that they would not be changed this year, the cuts would not be made this year. Seven days later, his colleague in the Cabinet walks into the Legislature and slashes and axes the boards in this Province down to four boards. That is accountability for you. That is exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) health care.

MS JONES: Yes, let's talk about health care. Why don't we talk about the VON strike that was out in Western Newfoundland? Why don't we talk about that? The strike, Mr. Speaker, that really forced accountability and transparency to the government opposite, when it forced the Minister of Health to have to resign her seat. This was the issue, Mr. Speaker, the very issue that got resolved on the same day that the Premier was to appear at a social function on the West Coast of the Island. The very same day, Mr. Speaker, it gets resolved. That was when the cash got thrown into the VON strike. That was when the wink, wink and the nod, nod was given. Now, here in the Legislature - even as recent as today, I asked the Minister of Health to give me the Terms of Reference, and he did not give them to me. I asked him to give me the breakdown of funds, how much of that money was used towards salaries in terms of settling the VON strike. He did not give me the details. I asked him to table, in this House of Assembly, for transparency and accountability reasons, the copy of the proposal that was forwarded by VON to the government, and again he refused to give it to me. He said: The Terms of Reference were released.

Well, you go look on the Web site. You go look at the press release. You go look at the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read it?

MS JONES: Of course, I read it. I read it long before I came to this House of Assembly this morning. Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Reference are not there. There are three points that are listed, and if the Parliamentary Secretary for Health is telling me that is a Terms of Reference, I can tell why he is not the Minister of Health -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - because it is not a Terms of Reference, Mr. Speaker. It is merely a few points that have been listed. The full documentation is not there. If that was being presented by my colleague for Bellevue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, they were questions that were asked in the House of Assembly as recently as today, and there was no transparency or accountability in the answers that were provided. In fact, even at the present time we are debating a bill in this House, Bill 45, with regard to the snowmobile trails, and having a fee implemented for people who use those trails, and that legislation was introduced in this House of Assembly, asked to be pushed through in the exact same day, passed and proclaimed into law without even having a chance to read it, with no consultation with the public. In fact, it was only in about twenty-four hours after that legislation was tabled in the House of Assembly that people in this Province actually started to learn what the bill was all about and what information it contained.

The Member for Labrador West, when the bill was presented on Tuesday in the House of Assembly, last week, said there should have been public consultation and that people should have had an opportunity to voice their opinion. I totally agree with him, because it was only in the hours and the days after this bill was released that people actually started to find out what the contents of it were, what it was all about, and what it contained. Mr. Speaker, there was no transparency there, there was no consultation there, and now we are in the process of debating a bill without knowing what the actual views and perspective of the public are. I do not think that should be, Mr. Speaker. If the accountability and transparency bill brings that kind of accountability to the government opposite, well, there is no doubt they need it, because there should be consultations like that.

This week, Mr. Speaker, I also asked the government about the Labrador medical travel fund and I am absolutely amazed that there are no details with regard to that fund. When the Premier came back from his health summit in Central Canada, he came back to this Province, he jumped off the airplane, he ran out to the cameras, and he said: Look at all the money that I just secured for you in health care. Look at all the money we are going to be able to invest. Look at the money that we have to put into the Labrador medical travel program. Where is it, Mr. Speaker? We still have not seen it. When other provinces are actually budgeting the money, spending the money, making the allocations, outlining their priorities, and talking about where the investments are going to be, we are asking the questions and getting no answers from the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, to me that is not accountability and transparency. It is always grand to run out in front of the cameras and make the big statements, but I say to the members opposite, you have to practice what you preach. You cannot walk around and say to people that you made a commitment to me, or you said you were going to do this, and now I am going to hold you to it, I am going to hold you to your word. That is fine and good, Mr. Speaker, when you are prepared to have the same done to you, and that is not happening. We have seen written commitment after written commitment after written commitment from this Administration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and we have seen action of the complete opposite. There is no transparency, there is no accountability, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the Hay Group report, because I want to talk about the Hay Group report. The Member for Topsail was the Minister of Health when she commissioned the Hay Group to go out and do a study of the health care system in Western Newfoundland and on the Northern Peninsula. There are like three drafts after floating through the Department of Health over there and now a final document, and the public has yet to see a detail, has yet to see one detail that was provided to the government as a result of the Hay Group study. Mr. Speaker, you cannot go out and launch a study at a cost of $300,000 or $400,000 to the taxpayers on any given day and then hide the documents away.

Mr. Speaker, the Hay group study is in the Department of Health and it has not been released to the public. It has been two, three - I heard that after the amalgamated boards it went back for the third draft because it did not really meet with the structure that government was proposing. They had to go back and do another draft at that time. Mr. Speaker, where is the accountability, where is the transparency?

They talk about making commitments and keeping commitments. Well, when you start making commitments and you start putting your name to them and you start giving those commitments in writing, there is an expectation that you live up to them as well. Mr. Speaker, we have not seen them live up to those commitments, we have not seen the transparency that they have promised.

I have just outlined report after report that was held in the departments and not released, talked about issue after issue that we have asked questions about in this House in the last week or so and have not gotten any answers. Mr. Speaker, if it takes a bill, if it takes legislation in this Province, to get the government to own up to its commitments and to provide the transparency and the accountability for it, I guess the bill is to govern themselves and their own actions because it is certainly not to govern this side over here.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak tonight on the transparency and accountability legislation because it is so important for this government and for future governments as they address the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is quite important, and one point I want to make, is that the year 2008 represents a time when this legislation will be fully implemented and all the reports and all the levels of accountability will be in existence and will be working as they should be. Mr. Speaker, what is important to note is that the accountability started for this government on October 21, 2003 and not 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when the Cabinet was sworn on November 6, 2003, each and every Cabinet Minister took on the responsibility of accountability and transparency at that time, and what this legislation is doing, in essence, is taking this on and making it law, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: That is what will distinguish this government for previous administrations and that is the important point to remember. It will be become law under this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, one thing that I want to comment on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the third time that the Chair has had to rise to restore order in the House and the Chair is reluctant to identify people who are making the interruptions back and forth across the House, but I would just like to warn people that I will identify them. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment has been recognized by the Chair and I ask that she be heard in silence.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One important note I would like to make this evening is that the different departments, the different agencies, the different commissions, will have plans based on the level of activity or the type of activity that they perform. Some entities will produce business plans, others will produce activity plans, and, Mr. Speaker, some will produce what are called strategic plans. That is the point that I want to speak on tonight, the fact that we do need strategic plans. A lot of times the role of different agencies or boards may be social in nature as opposed to fiscal. Sometimes it becomes quite difficult to justify these boards, these agencies, these commissions and the role they play.

One thing that I brought into this portfolio, when I was sworn in on November 6, 2003, is the fact that we need to be accountable for all our activities and all the agencies and boards that report to the department. One thing that is very important, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a strategy, we can roll out a plan for one year, two years, three years, and we know where we are going and what we are hoping to achieve. We need to have objectives and goals and we need to be able to measure them with measurable outcomes. It is no good for us to say, as a government, that any of our strategic plans are reactionary in nature. We do not set out to react to circumstances. We set out with a plan, that we know what we want to accomplish in a time frame, and we have objectives that are measurable. I think this legislation will give us the latitude we need to make sure we have appropriate strategic plans that are measurable, so then we can measure our performance and see if we are able to meet the plans that we put forth.

Mr. Speaker, what else is important is the performance contracts that we will have with our deputy ministers and that the chair or a CEO of a board will have. There are questions here this evening as to how long will this performance contract be: Will it be for the calendar year? Will it be for the fiscal year? The reality is there is no time frame on a performance contract. Each and every CEO and deputy minister, every single day they perform their jobs, are accountable for their activities and there is no time frame. As we have these contracts, we will want to ensure that the accountability, the transparency and the work is being done each and every day and that there is a goal and mandate that we are working towards.

The other thing that I also find very interesting is that, when we talk about accountability and transparency and the need to put it in law, there was one comment made by the member for Windsor-Buchans, when she talked about Bill Rowe and wondering if we would hear how he is doing on the Open Line Show. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government does not depend on Open Line for accountability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: This government will put into law legislation that will ensure transparency and accountability. We will get annual reports and we will be able to measure how this government is doing. Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between this government and previous administrations, that we will be demand accountability in law, and that is very important.

Mr. Speaker, another important point that I want to make as well is, as we deal with the issues that face government, it is very important that the government receives accurate information and that they know what is going on in this Province. Mr. Speaker, there were comments here tonight about the Rural Secretariat and there were comments about how this government is going to grow the economy.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to leave the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a number tonight, that employment has grown in this Province by 1.4 per cent. That is the equivalent of 3,100 jobs and those jobs are not in the metro St. John's area.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Government House Leader moving to close the debate?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible)..

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

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

I want to call Order 4, Committee of the Whole, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45.

With that, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to that bill.

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 this said bill.

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, Bill 45.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise again tonight to continue debate and discussion that we have started at Committee stage on this particular bill. We have had some very interesting feedback across the floor and I have taken notes on many of the questions that members have asked. I say to the Member for Bellevue that is why I said, the first time I got up, I would take notes on all the questions that were asked. I have many of them here and will respond to them one by one. There were a lot of overlapping concerns and questions raised, so we will try to address them one by one.

Mr. Chair, I remind all members that is exactly what Committee stage is all about. It is informative in the way that you are back and forth across the floor every ten minutes, raising concerns and questions, making suggestions and making amendments. That is what I look forward to and we will try to continue in that mode tonight.

Certainly, we have had feedback. I know we all have, from our districts and our constituents, people for and against, with concerns and issues they have raised. Mr. Chair, that is what we appreciate about the whole process, that, in fact, you do get those concerns raised. I do want to thank members on both sides of the House for issues they have raised with me. I must say it has added to the debate.

This debate is nothing new, Mr. Speaker. I will just very quickly refresh people's memories. Last fall, when I entered as the new minister of this department, one of the very first situations or concerns - as a matter of fact, it was described at the time, which was reminded to me this morning by a media person who said this was described last year by the Federation as a crisis situation. Just to remind members - I am sure most of them do remember because I have talked to a number of members about it. Just over a month of being in my department last year, I had the federations from the Province, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation on the Island portion, of course, and the Labrador Winter Trails, approach me to say that for a number of years they have been up and running now, they have had trails in place, they have spent an enormous amount of money, some $21 million, to put an infrastructure in place, and they have very grave concerns that one part of the puzzle that was not in place - and this has been raised to many members in this House. I know it has been. The fact of the matter is, now that we have an industry up and running, really just beginning in a lot of ways as compared to other parts of Canada - and we checked with other jurisdictions - that we are probably the best destination for the snowmobiling industry in the country. Some people would argue that Labrador, in particular, has probably the best snowmobiling potential in the world.

So, that is what we have as a product; that is what we all agree upon. Of course, we have to recognize, too, that throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural parts of Newfoundland, this reaches out to many parts of this Province. In the last five or six years it has been a very, very positive story for a lot of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador especially. Even last year, when I attended Rendezvous in Grand Falls in Central Newfoundland, some 1,200 snowmobilers from all across the Province, and outside the Province, on a regular event that this federation holds every year. So the potential for it and the tourism industry is incredible. I hear the stories day after day, and I have heard it from members opposite and I know they are genuine. I have spoken to the Member for Bay of Islands many times on this particular issue, Mr. Chair, and we have friends right across this Province who have enjoyed snowmobiling for years and now we are enjoying groomed trails. It was something - just in 1997, as a matter of fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation was formed, and it was only a year later the Labrador Winter Trails in 1998.

Mr. Chair, what I am going to try to do is capsulize, I guess, some of the questions that were overlapped. We will go back and forth tonight and raise some more concerns, I understand, and some amendments and so on. We are willing to work through some of those and try to work, as we should in this Legislature, the same way the Snowmobile Federation is working with different groups and different people to try to make this work for all of us as a whole in this Province so that it would be an industry that we could be proud of and that we can grow with.

So, the questions were raised by a number of members, and I will tell you again, that there were a number of questions that the same members asked. So we will try to answer them as well as we can. But, a little reminder, with this infrastructure now in place, the part of the puzzle that has been missing, and it was brought to my attention last year and as was just described to me from the federation, was that a crisis situation - really at the eleventh hour last year, when the federation came in and gave a good case, that unless we find some way to operate and maintain - we built it, we put things in place. We have to find a way to operate and maintain.

The big thing that hit us last year - we are all very familiar it - was the skyrocketing cost of insurance. That was one of the main concerns; we have seen it. Of course, I gave statistics here in this House before. Insurance went from - three years earlier - $17,000 to three years later, just last year, to $217,000 a year. So, the cost of insurance certainly went up. As the Federation described it last year, now we have to operate and maintain, including the cost of insurance, which has been a major deterrent to operating and maintaining those trails.

Mr. Chairman, the part of the puzzle that has to go in place is how we are going to move on forward from here to see this industry grow, to maintain it and be able to operate the groomers and, of course, pay insurance costs and so on.

Mr. Chairman, with that preamble in mind, I just want to touch on a few of the questions and we will go back and forth. First of all, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo raised some very good points. As a matter of fact, and he admitted right off the top, that it is not structured in his district right now. He is not very familiar with it. I appreciate that, but as many parts of the Province knows, over time of course that infrastructure has been built up all around the Province and his district could see that down the road, no doubt, if they so desire. That is the point I want to make, because one of the questions he asked was: Who are these associations and who will set guidelines for the fees? Mr. Chairman, it is a legitimate question and I just described what the Federation and what this - he made the comment: Can any group just jump up and get a groomer and go groom trails? No, Mr. Chairman, they cannot. I say to the member, it is a legitimate question and I will answer the question.

The snowmobile federation in this Province - and this legislation is directly to that, the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, which is the Island portion of the Province and the second association is the Labrador Winter Trails that make up two umbrella groups. Within those umbrella groups, Mr. Chairman, on the Island portion there are some nineteen member clubs and in Labrador there are some four member clubs. All of those clubs come under the umbrellas of those two bigger associations. If, for example, a group of individuals in the member's district or any part of the Province wanted to form a club and join the Federation and so on, they would come under the auspices of that provincial body. Of course, if this legislation is enacted, then they would fall under that.

As far as the fees go, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people question this; what will happen with the enactment of this legislation is that the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, the Island portion, and the Labrador Winter Trails will make, on an annual basis, a recommendation on the fee structure. The fee structure that has been recommended - and, of course, cannot go anywhere yet because we have not passed the legislation - by the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation - they have given out fees of $60 early bird, $80 later on throughout the year. That is for the entire Island portion of the Province. For Labrador, there are some variances. In Western Labrador, Southern Labrador and so on, there are variances of fees, but they are all talking about - and this is something that the snowmobile federations will work out on their own, is that they will make recommendations on those fees annually but it will come to the government for a final approval. So, those are recommendations that would come from the snowmobile federations themselves for recommendations for fees. Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem to a point, I guess, for the first year of the fees is that they are projections. They are projections of fees, what they think will cover it and a number of people who would join up, which nobody really knows yet. Really, until the first year is over, we have nothing to monitor it by, so we need something that we can look at for next year.

Mr. Chairman, that was one of the questions that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo asked on the fee structure. Also, are all associations offering the same discounts? That was another question raised by the member. As I have just said, there is an early bird that the Island portion offers this year, $60 and then $80 after Christmas. Those are uniform across the Island portion of the Province. In Labrador, there are other situations.

Mr. Chairman, then the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans: Where the stand is for the trails, are they going to be uniform throughout the Province? That is the intent, Mr. Chairman. Each club has groomers available to them and from what I understand, so far all trails have been kept up to a pretty good standard, the best they can with the resources they have; which, of course, lends to exactly why they are asking for resources of funding now, so they can keep up grooming those trails, keep signage and do all the things they need to operate and maintain. So, the intent, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, is to keep all those trails up to a certain standard and keep them uniform. To my understanding, so far those trails have been kept in pretty good shape throughout the Province.

MS THISTLE: What about those ATVs that are (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: I will get to that question, I say to the member. I am just going down through the list of questions that you have asked.

Who will make the decision with regard to expenditures of these funds? - which is an excellent question, Mr. Chairman, and that will come out in the regulations. Each year, along with the fees, they will come to government on annual basis to look for - on recommendation of fees on an annual basis. Also, in the regulations there will be an annual audited statement; that the snowmobile federations will have to give an audited statement to the government of how much they have collected in fees and where the fees were expended. So, on an annual basis they -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: For the Island portion as a federation. Each club will report to the Federation for the Island portion and the same with the Labrador Winter Trails. They will submit a full audited statement for the Island portion and for the Labrador portion. So, there will be two separate statements come from each association. That is the accountable part. It is a good question and people have asked that, and that is the intention of the regulations which would come with this.

Will some association clubs decide to build lodges? That was one of the other questions. That is part of the infrastructure update that is ongoing all the time, I say to the member, and it is a good question because one of the problems they are saying the federation has now is that exact point, that they do not have the resources now to do the things like a halfway lodge for warm-ups and so on if there is a large distance between each point. That is the type of infrastructure they would like to build on. They need those resources to build those infrastructures. As the years go and this improves, as many members in the association, especially in Central can tell you, that that infrastructure has been improving gradually.

I know in Labrador it is the same thing, that they will try to build on those infrastructures. As people use these trails - and that is the big key here, Mr. Chairman, as the users of these groomed trails, once you become a member and buy that sticker you are the ones who go to those annual meetings and you are in direct connection with your clubs to make recommendations. I know in Labrador they get it all the time, from the membership in saying: We should have a lodge there, we should make improvements there, or the trail is in bad condition there. That is where they get the feedback from the people who use the trails. In fact, Mr. Chairman, that is what it is all about. It is about a co-operation of people who use the trails to try to benefit everybody, to upgrade the infrastructure and to move on with making the trails better as we grow with the members and so on.

Will there be a family sticker? Now that was a question brought up by a number of members, so I guess I am answering to a group of people. In Labrador this year - because they have it in place - they have a situation where they will give a discount on the second and third and so on, depending on the number of snowmobiles within the family. Now on the Island portion, as of right now, as of the last update just a few days ago, they do not have one in place for this year. They want to do that. They do not know if it is possible, logistical wise, to put it in place for this year but their full intent is to also have a family package. It only makes commonsense and fairness to everybody, that if you have a second snowmobile within the family, of course if you have two or three, which some people do, then there should be a family setting. Now that will come in a recommendation which comes to us on an annual basis, with the question you asked about the fees. So that all overlaps into that. I agree, by the way. Personally, I think there should be a family package. If someone has two or three snowmobiles in that family, there should be a discounted rate for them. So, they are working on that.

Who will police the trails? Peace officers. Basically from the RNC to the RCMP, to conservation officers. The regular police officers who are now in the Province would have the authority on this particular question, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Labrador West, Mr. Chairman, the member was asking me: Can the stickers be transferred? Now, I have asked that question - and in regulations by the way, I say to the member, this is something that when you are sticking to regulations. Regulations comes following the act, as we have said many times before, but these are recommendations and suggestions that may be able to be looked at. I can tell you now, the feedback I have had so far that transferring a sticker may cause problems with people abusing that, if you are using it from one snowmobile to another; how many can move to whose snowmobile and so on. That is still up in the air, I say to the Member for Labrador West. Is there something that can be considered? Maybe. That is something that can be worked out in regulations, but there are problems with that, Mr. Chairman.

Are ATVs included? No, Mr. Chairman. This is strictly with snowmobiles, but the member did ask a good question on the fact that if ATVs do enter the trails. If there is a problem with that, the most I can tell the member, if that persists and keeps up then there will be some kind of regulations or something that we can move in to correct or alleviate that problem; then we could do it, and we can do it, Mr. Chairman.

Then he asked for clarification on section 23.(f)(4). So I will try to get that for the member. I will clarify that section, Mr. Chairman, with the member and I will bring it back in the next few minutes to speak to him about it.

The Member for Torngat had a question on the LIA. We have spoken since and I think the Member for Torngat fully understands that pursuant to the Lands Agreement Act there is an exemption and the people in his area would not be charged the fee of a permit. They would get the permit free of charge. So, I think we have answered that one.

The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - I know we are going through a bunch of these but they have overlapped. We can come back to them again and do more clarification, especially on certain sections, I say to the Member for Labrador West. The two technical ones on the sections of the act, I will come back to and address in just a few minutes.

The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. He asked a question -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time has expired.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I just have two more questions that were asked by the members and then I will sit down and we can have some back and forth about some of the concerns raised. Could I have leave for just one minute?

CHAIR: The hon. minister, by leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Just one minute to finish up the questions that were asked in the last committee stage, and I will clarify the technical questions for the Member for Labrador West in a few minutes.

The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile had the last couple of questions, and two of them had to do with snowmobiles from outside the Province. Mr. Chairman, across most of the country, as we said, I think seven provinces now have a mandatory sticker in place. Most people coming for touring activities with snowmobiles understand that. There is, and there will be available in this Province, daily passes and also weekly passes; the same as green fees on a golf course. For visitors coming in, they can avail of a daily pass or a weekly pass.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are the questions that were asked of me. I will also mention now that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile also had a clarification and an amendment that was suggested, that we are working on right now. We should have it printed in a short while, and we will certainly be talking with the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, to talk about that amendment. From what I can see of it so far, from the Legislative Counsel here, we can make a correction there that will basically clarify a piece of legislation on the landowner, as a landowner. It was a specific amendment that we discussed, and I think that is something that we can work out. Throughout the night, maybe we will be back and forth on the language and so on. When we have that printed, I will certainly be speaking with the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile on that.

Those were the questions. There were some overlaps. I am sure there are some more, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to some more debate, and I look forward to more questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to rise to say a few words this evening on Bill 45. I would like to start off, if I may, by saying to the minister that fundamentally the concept of trail passes is not something that I disagree with, but I do have a lot of concerns concerning the implementation of Bill 45 as it exists.

The first thing I would like to say to the minister is to go back to what I spoke about last Tuesday when this bill was introduced, and that is the lack of public consultation that took place before this bill was drafted and brought forward.

I think, and I believe, that a lot of the confusion, a lot of the apprehension, and a lot of the concern that is being expressed by people around the Province today could have been avoided had public consultation taken place. I know that members of this House - all members, pretty well, of this House - have received e-mails from their constituents and from other people across this Province addressing some of the concerns that they have with the implementation of this bill.

When the minister states that there has been a lot of consultation throughout the past year or more, then he is probably correct, but I would say to the minister that the consultation has taken place with snowmobile organizations and not with the general public of this Province, and the Ski-Doo users of the Province. I think that they should have had a right to have input into something that is going to affect them and going to change the way that snowmobiling is done in this Province forever and a day. I say again that I am not against the concept of trail passes, but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of things could have been done.

I want to talk about the issue of ATV's or quads. I do not know how many people here spend a lot of time on trails or in the woods on Ski-Doos, but I do, every opportunity I get. I can say to the minister, it is not uncommon to see quads on Ski-Doo trails. There is absolutely nothing here, by definition or otherwise, that prohibits anyone in this Province who has an ATV, a quad, to go on the groomed trails, nothing whatsoever preventing them in this legislation.

The other issue I want to raise with the minister is the issue of the HST. If government really believes, if they are believers in the trail pass system, if they really believe that is the way to go for the future, and if they really are concerned about getting everyone to come on board with this bill, then why does the minister insist that HST be charged to trail passes? If we have 10,000 Ski-Doos registered in this Province - and that is a small number, I might add - that will bring in revenue to government of $150,000 a year, just based on 10,000 registered. I wonder what government proposes to do with that money? My opinion, and the opinion of many people I have spoken with in the last few days, Mr. Chairman, is, that charge should not be there. It should be HST exempt, and it should not be attached to the trail stickers.

I have some other concerns with some of the explanations that the minister just gave. I am sick and tired, and most people who live in Labrador are sick and tired, of hearing advertisements about some things that are a certain price and, at the very end, a little more in Labrador. We are sick and tired of that, I say to the minister. Almost all of the advertisements, from Mary Brown's chicken all the way down the line, have a little more in Labrador at the end of them. I do not see why, for example, we cannot have uniform rates across this Province for Ski-Doo users when they are purchasing a pass. I can tell you, the rates in Labrador differ. The rates on the Island are uniform, as I understand it, but the rates in Labrador are not. I don't understand why the rates in Labrador have to be higher than they are on the Island portion of the Province. I guess you can say we have more groomed trails, I guess you can say they go further, I do not know, but let me remind the minister that when I got aboard my car for most of my years in Labrador, the farthest I could drive was from Labrador City to Wabush, but I still paid the same price to register my car as if I lived on the Avalon Peninsula, so I do not buy that argument, I say to the minister.

Part of the puzzle the minister talks about, or the piece that is remaining not part of the puzzle, is the rates that are charged, and we hear tell of the early-bird draws and things of that nature. These are things that are not standardized, that are not uniform across the Province, that should be.

I want to also talk about some of the things that I mentioned. Public consultation, in my opinion - because, I say to the minister, most of the calls that I have received from my district over the past week have talked about things that I feel a good public consultation could have solved. For example - and I raised this the other day but the minister did not respond, when he rose a few minutes ago, to some of the things that I had talked about - one of the things I talked about was like a buffer zone around communities, where the communities themselves should be exempt, in my opinion, from the trail system, and if people are going in close proximity, maybe what we need, I say to the minister, is a system whereby we have different coloured stickers for a certain distance within a certain perimeter of the communities, and if you go beyond that you would have a different coloured sticker altogether which would serve the same purpose.

I understand the minister, when he responded to another issue I raised about the transferable passes - many people I know have an old Ski-Doo by their cabin, that they use to go and get wood, or use to go and get water, or use in the fall of the year when the snow is not deep, and use again in the spring of the year when rocks and stumps are starting to show. I do not see why a sticker - if I am a member of a club and I purchase a pass and I have two Ski-Doos, I can only use one at a time. If I use both of them, then I am subject to the fines that are stated in the legislation, but most times I will only be using one. I do not see why I cannot take something off the Ski-Doo I use on the trail regularly and just put it on the other Ski-Doo, because I am not using two of them at one time.

Many people have more than that, and we talk about family passes. Many families have second and third and fourth Ski-Doos. Now, they may not all be brand new $10,000 machines but they are adequate and kept up to standard so that they can be used. None of that has been taken into consideration when we talk about these issues.

You know, last fall I remember the debate that took place in this Province with the insurance, but I say to the minister that the problems that were created then were from an insurance perspective, and the cost of insurance skyrocketed. Well, I say to the minister, tomorrow he and his caucus have the opportunity to try and do something about that, because there is a private member's motion being brought forward by us to address the issue of public insurance in this Province. That is something that government can take part in tomorrow, and not only address the issue of high insurance rates for Ski-Doos and associations but also address the overall insurance picture in the Province.

So, I do have some concerns. These concerns have been raised by many constituents in my district who have been in contact with me, and I am confident when I say that the issues that I am highlighting here tonight are issues from my area, that people have put to me - they have heard me speaking on the issue - and that they are in agreement with.

I know that the snowmobile federations are probably not going to agree with some of the things said tonight. I understand that. I understand that completely. I want to say to the minister, the people who have called me are members of the snowmobile associations. They are members. They are not people who want to use the trail and not pay anything, but they want a sense of fairness built into whatever legislation might pass through this House. I do not think it is good enough, Mr. Chairman, that we can say that these things will be defined in the regulations.

I think we are putting the cart before the horse. I think, if we had public consultations held throughout the different regions of this Province, where the general public could have taken part and stated their concerns before the legislation was drafted, many of their concerns could have been addressed and built into the legislation by way of regulation or whatever. I think the people should have had the opportunity, I say to the minister, to have input into a change, a fundamental change, a drastic change, from the way things have been done all throughout the years in this Province, to what they will be in the future. I think when we make any change of that magnitude, something that affects so many people, the public ought to have an opportunity to have input into these changes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Labrador West that his time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister, while I am not a person who is going to stand here and condemn trail passes or snowmobile associations, because I understand and I know the valuable asset that a trail is, not only as an economic driver but as something that I use, as a citizen, and friends of mine and many other people use. It is a big improvement over what we are used to, but I have to say to the minister that I still believe that public consultations should have been held, still can be held. I want to say to him that the public need an opportunity. I think that has been clear in the court of public opinion that has taken place since this became public last week, because we have to remember that when this legislation was brought in last Tuesday, outside of the federation of snowmobile associations, nobody in this Province knew that this legislation was before the House of Assembly. Nobody. When I went to the open line, the public media in this Province, last Tuesday night and again on Wednesday morning, that was the first time people became aware of what was happening in the Province. I did not do that to try and scuttle anything that was taking place, but I felt very strongly that people in my district and people throughout the Province have a right to know what is being debated when they are ultimately affected by the decisions that are made here. I think that should still happen. I do not think it is ever too late to do the right thing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to get up every second time, because that would not be fair, and I know a lot of members have a lot of things to say on that, but just in fairness to the Member for Labrador West, he is right. Actually, a note was there. One question that I left off, that I did not mention when I got up, was the buffer zones that the Member for Labrador West suggested in his earlier remarks when we discussed this, this week.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is something that should be looked at, as a matter of fact. I think it is something - if the federations could look at something that would help the municipalities and work with municipalities, because in Southern Labrador I know that the different communities and development associations are now in consultation with the federation and the snowmobile clubs in that area to work out something with respect to municipal boundaries and so on. I think those types of things can be worked out. They are in regulation. I have to say to the member again, the act allows us to move into regulations. I can tell you, for example, in Ontario, when they brought in the act in 1990, they were still doing amendment regulations; they were still doing amendments to the regulations eleven years later. There was another amendment made just two or three years ago in Ontario and other provinces in Canada.

The regulations, I say to the member, as far as input by people who join the federation, whether it was last year or if they are planning on joining this year, those regulations change and they improve because of feedback they get from their membership on ways to improve those regulations. I would concur with the member that certainly a buffer zone is one of the things that can be looked at.

I have to mention to you that the HST exemption is the first time I have heard it from you. I think that was the first time it was mentioned here today. That is interesting, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly speak with the Minister of Finance to see what his feedback is on that, but that is interesting, this type of debate and so on.

I have to say to the member, as far as the prices in Labrador - I agree and I have already told both the federations, on the Island portion and in Labrador, that I do agree with a uniform rate right across the Province. I have been told by people in Labrador that two of the reasons are that the fuel price is higher, but also the distance of the trails, much more distance in Labrador. Mr. Chairman, those where the two things they told me at this point in time anyway. Of course before this legislation is enacted there is no uniformity even within Labrador, which I see a problem with, I say to the member, and I see a problem that it is not uniform right across the Province. That is something that we can work with. I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, from the feedback I have gotten from both associations and from a number of clubs, that is something that can be worked out and that everybody wants to move towards.

I appreciate the response from the member. I will not go back and forth to every single question, but I will certainly be taking some notes and give everybody a chance to have their say in the House.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

CHAIR (S. Osborne): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madame Chair.

I would like to make a few observations on Bill 45 here in Committee stage, and I do so not as somebody who is involved in what the minister has called an industry. I used to think it was a sport. I thought it was a recreation, like skiing or fishing or playing soccer, but the minister wants to call it an industry. If that is the case, okay.

One of my observations - and again it may not be very popular with some of the groups because I know a lot of people are very involved in snowmobiles. Some of them are involved in the snowmobile clubs and they do a lot of work and they enjoy themselves and they have a good time in the outdoors, and that is great stuff for those who are interested in it. I know lots of people who are, including members of my own family, and they get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

I want to remind members about something that happened a few years ago when government worked very closely with a group of people who wanted to get involved in something called watershed management. They were very enthusiastic about organizing rivers and making sure that the watersheds were looked after and that people payed an appropriate fee to look after the management and taking care of these particular water sheds and rivers. If I recall, Madame Chair, this caused an enormous uproar in the Province, because what the government was proposing to do was to pass over to some non-governmental organization the right to charge fees to go on Crown land and conduct recreational activities, to enjoy the wilderness, to fish, to hunt or whatever. There was a great big uproar about that, Madame Chair. I think members opposite were a part of that uproar, as I recall, because members on this side, when they were over there, seemed to be going along with this whole proposal. We had that going on for a long time before the whole idea got drowned in a claim by members opposite that they were going to bring forth, and the government, actually - I remember Premier Tulk, as he then was, and the Outdoor Bill of Rights and a big long list of things that were going to be brought in to ensure that people had the right of access to use of the outdoors.

That is one observation I want to make. Remember that. Do not have a short memory when it comes to figuring out how to look after these issues, because there are some people who say that what you are doing here in this bill is privatizing the outdoors, saying that this particular part of the outdoors that is groomed by this particular organization, you are required to pay a fee, not to the government. It is not like licensing your car or something where you license your car and you can drive on the public roads. You are not paying it to the government to use the public roads, you are paying to some organization to use the public wilderness. That is the second part of it, Madam Chair.

You know, we do not do very many things in government and pass laws that require people to pay fees to third parties. There was a big exception made a few years ago and there are some problems with that, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. That was created by government, and individuals, consumers buying a can of pop, were required to pay six cents to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. We have a hell of a time having some control over what the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board does. The public has no real control over it. The government appoints the directors. Even though the government appoints the directors, some people say they are spending more money on advertising than they are on collecting and recycling materials. There is no real control over that once you have done it because it is not a direct action of the Minister of the Crown.

We have municipalities out there, Madam Chair, and we have a minister in a department trying to control and ensure that fees that are collected, that taxes that are collected, are spent in a proper way. We have audits and we have legislation. We have the Municipalities Act and we have a whole department designed to try and ensure that people who are collecting money, and are required to pay money when certain services are provided, that they behave properly.

I am wondering, Madam Chair, how far government has really thought this process through, of what we are doing here, what kind of - you know, I notice the former Auditor General perking right up and I am glad she is because I am saying that there should be an audit at the end of the year. We will know at the end of the year what they spent their money on but we do not have any sense of governance as it relates to these organizations or entities that are going to be entitled to collect the fees.

I am not here to denigrate the snowmobile clubs and associations. I am sure they mean very well. I do not know what training they have in handling money and I do not know what responsibility they have. I know they want to groom trails and they want to look after that, but to what extent is government now setting up another entity that is going to be entitled to collect money from the public, and not only entitled to, Madam Chair, but under pain of enforcement by law officers of the Crown. The Mounties are going to spend their time issuing fines to people who go on public land without paying money to a private club. Again, I understand this is all very well meaning, and a lot of people are in favour of it. What I am saying is, this is something that government should tread on very lightly in going forward with this type of activity.

As my colleague from Labrador West said, there has been very little consultation, outside of consultation with the snowmobile club. They knew all about it. That is why we are getting lots of e-mails and messages saying: This has all been talked through, we know all about it, this has to happen, we had 7,000 people paying in last year and, if we have it mandatory, of course, we will have more, and all of that. We know that is true. If you make it mandatory, you are going to get more money. There is no doubt about that. The question, Madam Chair, is: Is this the right thing to do right now at this time without broader consultation with the public, so that everybody is satisfied. The questions are legitimate. Can a bunch of people get together and say, okay, we are going to have a snowmobile trail now and we are going to start grooming certain trails in our neighborhood and our region, and because they are now groomed trails and meet the definition of groomed trails under the act - you will get the impression if you read the introduction to the act, the Explanatory Notes, that there are only two groomed trails in Newfoundland, one in Labrador and one on the Island, there are groomed trails, two managed trails in the Province, "purchase a permit to do so from the organizations that are maintaining and grooming those trails." There are not two trails, Madam Chair. There could be twenty, there could be thirty, there could be forty. It is not the federation that collects the money; it is some individual club that collects the money. How all that is going to work - I know the minister says he is going to make regulations and he might take ten years to fix them. He has almost admitted it, it might take ten years to fix them and get it right.

What is going to happen in the meantime, Madam Chair? Are we going to have chaos because some people do not like the fact that some club said, we will manage the trail here, and they did not follow the regulations, and no one knows where the trails are, and there is no provision for gazetting these trails? There is no provision for identifying which trails are now managed trails. These are important questions that someone looking at this objectively will say: Has this been thought through? Can the minister and I get a snowmobile trailer, put a couple of snowmobiles on it, go across the Island, go out and know where the managed trails are and where they are not?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are well marked.

MR. HARRIS: They are well marked. They are marked keep off, unless you have the red sticker, the green sticker, or the blue sticker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not know. They may be well marked but they will not be marked until you get there. Are we talking about one sticker for the entire Island? Is that the plan? If that is the plan that might simplify a few things.

Madam Chair, a number of issues have been raised. We heard about one in the last few days, about a legal case in Quebec. Maybe all of these trails are in the wilderness, there are no houses nearby, and there are no people who are going to be disturbed by these trails. It is all very well to protect the government from liability here but we might have other people who are going to be liable. In fact, perhaps they should be liable if they are a nuisance to people and having trails nearby where people want peace and quiet.

There are questions that perhaps have not been addressed and perhaps the minister has thought through all of these things, has them all figured out and everybody is satisfied, but that is not the impression I get, Madam Chair, when I hear people on the Open Line.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Human Resources and Employment did not say that we were accountable to the Open Line. That is all very well. You are certainly not accountable to the Open Line, Madam Chair. You do not have to respond to the Open Line, but the Open Line is a good forum for people's concerns being raised. I know governments in the past have listened very carefully to what is being said on the Open Line. Maybe this government is not bothering to monitor the Open Lines, they are not bothering to listen to what people have to say. I know there are people who are raising a lot of concerns because I am getting the feedback and I am getting the e-mails just as other members are.

There was a crisis last year. The crisis last year was not because people were not paying fees for the trails. The crisis last year was related to the high cost of insurance which went up enormously in the last year, no doubt contributing -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Just for one moment, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - no doubt contributing to the $2.8 billion increase in profits that they - not increase but the profits that the insurance industry got last year. That is a crisis, there is no doubt about that. The insurance is an issue that really acted as a negative impact on the abilities of organizations to operate and it is having a negative impact on, not only these organizations, but a negative impact on businesses to operate. Commercial enterprises that have been operating for years are having trouble carrying on because of high insurance rates. Drivers are having trouble getting insurance for their cars. Young people are having trouble getting insurance. These are many situations that we have to face, Madam Chair, and we do not necessarily have to face it by bringing in a regime like this without full public consultation.

These are observations that I make, Madame Chair, and I do not know if the minister or members opposite are able to address all of these concerns in a timely fashion so that this can be put through the Legislature in this session.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madame Chair.

As I said last Tuesday, I will try to help to get this legislation put through by Thursday; try. I say I will try.

Madame Chair, first of all, I thank you for the last couple of days and the last week of discussions with the minister. I have told a few people tonight, who I was dealing with from the Western Sno-Riders Snowmobile Club, that the minister is doing his best in dealing with people to try to help get this legislation through. I just wanted to publically acknowledge that the minister is working with people to try and get this through.

I also had a few phone calls in the last week or so saying that we are holding up this piece of legislation, and it is just not true, it is just absolutely not true. For the people who are out there listening, if this government was so strong in getting in this legislation they can invoke closure, but instead we are trying to work through this. I say to people out there, there is no intent and there is no one here slowing this legislation down. We are doing our duty as people who are elected.

I had a lot of calls, Madame Chair, and people have some concern about the pricing. Some people have some concerns about their normal way of life, getting to their cabins, getting to their traplines, getting to other things of their normal activities, and they do have legitimate concerns. I also see the concern that the minister is facing and I say to the hon. the Government House Leader, I know last Thursday, when I was not in the House, it was in Hansard that you said I was trying to take credit for it. That is what was in Hansard last Thursday, that I was trying to take credit. That is what was in Hansard when the Minister of Transportation - there is nothing further from the truth, absolutely nothing further from the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Okay, fine. I know the minister was dealing with the association and I give him credit for it. Then, again, the association itself found themselves in a bind last year, and I said it before. I called the minister when they were in a bind and mentioned it, and he said he would try something short term and he did. Then came the problem of, what are we going to do for the long term with the insurance problem that they are running into, with the cost of doing the groomed trails. Make no mistake about it, make no mistake, that the tourism industry has a great potential when it comes to snowmobiles on the West Coast. Make no mistake about it, it is an industry that can and does have a lot of potential on the West Coast, and I think we need to do something to help promote this industry. Again I say to the minister, he is working through all the different concerns that we have to try and get this straightened out.

I will, Madam Chair, later in clause 3, propose three amendments. Two of these three amendments will reflect some of the concerns that I have, based upon the phone calls that I receive from a lot of constituents and people from the West Coast. I received calls today from Central Newfoundland. There is a third amendment there for the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, for the residents in her area.

I will just briefly read into Hansard the amendments that are going to be discussed when we get to clause 3 of the bill. For the purpose of paragraph (f.1), any person or group of people who have traditionally used these trails for access to Crown Lands, wood supply, traplines or cabins, would be exempt. I know one person I spoke to today, his father is a traditional hunter and he has traplines. He may go across the trail on a Ski-Doo, he may or may not. At times he will, other times he will not. What he is saying is: Should I have to pay the trail fee if I have been traditionally doing this? This is something that he has a concern with, that I know we somehow have to try to take into account and try to help out. For people who are going to their cabins who traditionally use these trails, and have been using them for twenty-five, thirty, forty years, if they go ahead and use these trails now - because someone groomed them they are probably easier and safer trails - should they have to pay to get to their cabins where they already pay cabin fees and fees to Crown Lands for the existing cabins? There are some of the concerns that people have expressed to me. That is one amendment that we will be placing before the House.

The second amendment that I will be presenting when we get to clause 3, any person referred to in (f.1) that crosses these groomed trails to access Crown Lands will be exempt from having a permit. That amendment is for people - I use, out my way, the Mount Moriah area - people who live on one side of the road and who have to cross to the other side just to get to the normal trails. It is just a normal crossing that they would use. A lot of those people - I know a lot of them personally - go in and cut their wood. A lot of them do not have the big $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 Ski-Doos. They have the little Ski-Doos that they had over the years. They fix them themselves, and they cross the trails to go in and cut their wood. They are hoping that they can be exempt from this, and there are ways.

I say to the minister, once you start exempting one, and the groups start exempting another, I know the bind that you are going to find yourself in, but we must try to find some way to help out these individuals. If an individual goes fifty or seventy feet on a trail to get to his traditional routes to get in the woods to cut his wood - in some cases I know he had permits up to ten, twelve, fifteen years in the same spot to cut his firewood - will he be exempt? Can he be exempt? Those are the kinds of questions they are asking me to raise. I told them that I would be bringing forth amendments to this.

Another amendment that I will be bringing forth at a later date concerns Labrador. All residents in Labrador who depend upon this trail as their main transportation link between communities will be exempt from purchasing a trail pass. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked that we would make an amendment because there are people there now who depend upon the roadway, depend upon the groomed system, depend upon grants now from the provincial government, to ensure that they have access to a main highway. Again, I know I spoke to the minister on this and the minister has concerns with this and will try to see what he can do with this. I thank the minister for that.

Also, I say to the minister - and we spoke very openly with this, the legislation from Ontario. The minister is well aware of it. The concern that I have with the legislation from Ontario - I guess I am not the smartest man going and I do not profess to be the smartest man, but if we had the legislation in Ontario that provides the mechanism in Newfoundland and Labrador which would help the traditional people to use the traditional routes that they usually operate, why can't we adopt those regulations?

I will just read a few of the regulations from Ontario - if we can adopt some of these here, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of them: Landowners, their tenants, the immediate family members of landowners and of their tenants and the same-sex partners of landowners and of their tenants, are exempt. They are exempt. That is a way whereby if someone had a cabin for thirty-five, forty, or fifty years up in Gaff Topsail, and all of sudden a portion of the trail is groomed now, he has access to his cabin because he traditionally always went to his cabin.

Here is one in the Ontario legislation which would reflect a lot of people in the Bay of Islands, and they are exempt from licenced fees in Ontario. Licensed trappers are exempt. In Ontario, licenced trappers are exempt. If we have licenced trappers who are exempt, or any helper who goes in who is a part of this industry -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member his speaking time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Just to clue up, Madam Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: I am sure I will have time to speak on it again, and I am sure these amendments, when it is time, will be presented. I thank the minister for his involvement in the last week or so, for helping to work their way through this. I say to the minister, I say to the government, and I say to the members on this side also, I say to members on both sides, we have to try to find a balance. The tourism industry - and I speak of the West Coast - has great potential. Snowmobiles are a part of it, but we also have traditional users of these lands, of the woods, of traplines, that we have to find some way to accommodate. I say thank you to everybody who is trying to find a way to accommodate. We must find a way to accommodate, because these individuals have worked together for years, they have used the same trails for years, and we have to find a way to make sure that things are compatible to promote everybody.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments here in the Committee stage on this particular bill. I appreciate, as well, the forthrightness of the minister in putting forward his responses. We raised some concerns in second reading. He said he would go get answers, and sure enough, he did come back tonight, and, in fairness to him, he gave us those answers.

Nobody here in this House, I think, is doubting the nobility of your cause and what you are trying to do in your portfolio. That is not an issue here and it has never been an issue from this side of the House. It is like the old slogan that they used to have, I believe, over in Industry and Trade when he said: Doing it Right Here. All I am saying is if we are going to do it, let's do it right here. That is why the questions are being asked. It is not to be difficult.

Besides yourself, in your capacity as the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, there are other ministers over there who have obligations to people in this Province, too. The Minister of Natural Resources has obligations to foresters and to miners and people who use areas of this Province, and sometimes they are intersect with what you are trying to accomplish regarding the snowmobile users. Everybody has to appreciate where we had to come at the end of the day. We want something that fits and works for everybody, if at all possible. That is where the intent is coming from here.

First of all, regarding the amendments, I appreciate the answers you gave, but I would certainly appreciate as well - you indicated to me that there was an amendment being drafted regarding section 2, that is the 20.1, that I would appreciate having a copy of, if we could. If we are going to put the amendment forward, again, we would like an opportunity to review. You undertook that it was being drafted and that we would see it before we would have to vote on it. I would certainly appreciate it if we could see that, and we are at the stage now where we ought to have that.

The other piece is, the minister says - everything is not cured in this act, obviously. A lot of it is a learning process. It may take some time to ferret things out, figure out what is wrong, figure out how we fix it, and fix it. A lot of stuff is going to be done by regulation.

The Member for Bay of Islands makes a very good point. We are not blazing a new trail here. We did not create the template here on having groomed trails in Canada. We have it in Ontario. The minister is saying we have to make the regulations. All we are saying over here, in terms of the users, the traditional users, is, as I said to the minister: Why can't you tell us now that you are preparing a regulation to protect these traditional users the same as they do in Ontario? The minister said: We cannot do that. I said: Well, is it your intention that you have to look at regulations and you are going to make regulations later? Yes, he says, we are going to make regulations. I said: Well, if the concern is that nobody wants to hurt the traditional users of these roadways, and if you are prepared to consider that in legislation, all we need is a commitment.

We realize that you have to have an act, and then, based upon the act, you take your authority to make those regulations. We have no problem with that. Nobody in the Province has any problem with taking you at your word. All we are saying is, if you agree with the concept and the idea that traditional users, like they do in Ontario, will be exempted here, all you need to say is: We have no problem in drafting our regulations along those lines. If that is the case, there is no problem.

For example, in the Ontario one - and the minister keeps talking about the benefits to be derived from the snowmobile industry. I say to the minister, in the snowmobile regulations of Ontario, the template is there, it is cut, it is done, it says: Snowmobiling is both an exciting recreational activity and a method of winter travel in Ontario. Now, you can take that sentence and exchange Ontario for Newfoundland. Snowmobiling is both an exciting recreational activity and a method of winter travel in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why can't that apply here? If that is the concept - and they go on from there to say: Because you are trying to accomplish both of these goals we want a groomed trail that is going to enhance and promote our snowmobiling industry, but at the same time we do not want to hurt anybody who has had previous uses of it. Why can't we have a regulatory scheme that accomplishes that? That is what we all want, I would think. I am sure the Minister of Tourism does not want pass a law that will have a negative impact on a fellow who is a logger, who goes from his home to go in to do his logging who happens to cross over an intersected trail. If that is what the intention is, not to hurt him, all we are saying is give us the commitment that, that will happen. That is not a big deal. Yet the minister says: Cannot tell you, got to put it in a regulation. The regulations exist that we are asking for, all you have to do is give us the commitment that you will give us the similar type regulations.

I have not heard the minister up talking about this. This is not a simple one section in the Ontario act or the Ontario regulations dealing with exemptions. I mean, I am looking here at a very comprehensive five page scheme. It tells you who is exempt, under what circumstances you are exempt, and if you are exempt and you are, for example, on the T'Rail and somebody comes to you and says, you got your tag, you got your sticker, and the guy says, no, you have to have some proof on you. That is all in here. It tells you everything that you need to be exempt. All we are suggesting over here, from the point of view of fairness, is not that there should not be groomed trails, not that a user of groomed trails should not pay. Nobody is disagreeing with that. I am a firm believer that if you want your snowmobile and you want to go up on a trail, and you want to travel on a groomed trail, you should pay for it, absolutely pay for it. I have no problem with that at all, but I do not think that the person who wants to go from point A to point B - he already has, for example, a Crown permit from Government Services in his camp, and he goes from Port aux Basques to Burnt Island Pond and he has to cross a groomed trail. Under this legislation he cannot get on that trail, that he has done for years and years. He does not want to get on there and use it as a recreational activity, which is the intent of the sticker and the intent of using the money to groom the trails. He wants to use the path that he always used to get from point A to point B. I do not think there is anything wrong with the logic in suggesting that he should be exempt.

It says, for example, in our own Province here, if you operate on a public highway or a road, you have to have insurance. Are we going to have insurance now? Is that going to be next? Because you are opening up this provincial T'Rail, you are saying that you have to have a sticker to get on it, are we also now heading in the direction of having to have public liability insurance for users of those groomed trails?

I would like to go out, when I go to Grand Falls with my friends, and go for a walk on the T'Rail, but all of a sudden now I am facing a snowmobile that is on there and I am walking on that legitimate T'Rail, which is a provincial park. I am allowed to be on there, but you have also given another group, the snowmobile or a club of theirs, authority to groom that trail and force them to have a sticker, and they have snowmobiles on it. What happens now, when I am a walker on that trail? I have my rights under that act to walk on that trail.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, that is a simple answer, get insurance. That is exactly the question I would like the answer to. Is that where we are heading? When we go from the ticketing, $60 per year, are we now heading to where everybody in this Province is going to have to get third-party liability on their snowmobile? A very good question from the Member for Lake Melville. Get insurance. You want to go for a walk on your T'Rail, the member says, get insurance. That is a pretty simple answer.

That is a question I would like to ask the minister: How do those two acts interact, and what is that going to come to when it talks about liability for authorized users of the T'Rail, wherever there is a crossover between the T'Rail and the groomed trail, which I understand is in several places in this Province?

The Member for Topsail raised the issue of why the Accountability and Transparency Act was so important, but the Leader of the NDP made a very good point. What about the inconsistency between wanting accountability and transparency in one act, that we already dealt with here tonight in second reading -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: I will get back to the question, because it is fairly detailed, the inconsistency between the Accountability and Transparency Act that we are dealing with here and how this very act flies in the face of that, as was raised by the Leader of the NDP. I think it is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed. We not only are not doing it right; we have two pieces of legislation in this House that are diametrically opposed to each other.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. SHELLEY: Madam Chair, as I said earlier, if I get up every time one other speaker gets up, I do not think it would be fair. I was waiting for somebody else to get up. I am delighted to get back up, especially to address - I will at least address the main question that was asked by the member when he got up. He was talking about traditional trails and so on. That issue has been raised a number of times by people across the Province, and it has been discussed. I can tell you, last year when this whole situation spoke about mandatory trail stickers, when it came to what we said was a crisis situation last year, that same issue was debated at that time. It is not new. It was debated before that also. As a matter of fact, it goes back to six or seven years ago when the first groomed trail, which the government of the day at the time supported - and I commend them for supporting it - that was the whole issue at that time. The traditional trails were starting to be taken over, or to be groomed, by the federation, and people in the Province at that time, five or six years ago, were starting to question: Hold on, now. This is a traditional trail that I have always used, and now you are going to be grooming it. So that question goes back six or seven years, Madam Chair.

As a matter of fact, a lot of people have said to me, that is when the decision should have been made about whether we are going to go on to traditional trails or we are going to be cutting new trails and so on; but, really, the fact of the matter is, it is a combination in this Province. It is new trails that have been cut in Labrador and on the Island portion, but there are also traditional trails that were taken over by the federation and they have been groomed for the last four, five or six years. So, Madam Chair -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, they were a combination of the traditional trails that are now under the auspices of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation, and now they are groomed. What I am saying to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is that whole discussion, when those traditional trails were started to be groomed five or six years ago, this is not a new question that arises today. The whole debate should have started, Madam Chair, when those traditional trails started to be groomed, about who has ownership of this. That all went through the previous Administration. Every single piece of trail that is out there today, that was funded and supported by the former government, which I commend them for, the $21 million that was spent, I commend them for, the trails that were taken over that were traditional trails and now they are being groomed, that was all a part of the question when Environment and Lands, at that time, okayed those particular trails to be groomed and to be part of now the whole network. So, I guess that debate goes a long ways.

Madam Chair, the one thing I would like to address with the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and we have discussed it, as he said earlier, about Ontario - and the Member for Bay of Islands also mentioned it - one thing he did say, which was very true, it is very complex, and I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, in the 1990s the act came in place in Ontario. In 2001, that was when the amendment the member refers to was brought in. It was an amendment to the regulation - eleven years.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You are right, I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do agree that you can learn from that, and not to say that we will not go there. In this particular act you can see that the exemptions are there that we can do that over time, but to say that and to agree with the member, it is very complex. I did read through some of the exemptions. Ontario got to that after eleven years. If we are going to go there, I hope we do not have to wait eleven years, but I do say that they have taken into -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We will start, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, but I will tell you that it is complex. I do agree with the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. It is something, yes, that we can look at in this Province, absolutely. Can we get up tonight and say with all the different factors in Newfoundland and Labrador, defining a traditional trail, defining where people are going on the trails and so on, can we do that with the act, not with regulations? No, we cannot. We cannot do it that quickly. It would be wrong to do it like that.

Can we consult and work with people, as the Member for Bay of Islands said, and talk about exemptions and traditional trails and what they mean to this Province, and what particular instances they mean for Labrador and for the Island portion of the Province? Yes, I think there is room for discussion and room for regulations, but traditional trails was a debate five or six years ago when these trails started to be groomed under the federation, and they are still a debate today.

What we are trying to do with this particular piece of legislation is to allow the federations to move forward in the operation and maintenance of these trails. It is something that was not put in place when.... I believe this: that the very first day that the government of the day allowed a piece of traditional trail to come under the auspices - which they did allow under Environment and Lands, in their day in government - the first time they let one inch of that trail come under a groomed trail, and the first day they spent the very first dollar of the $21 million, that is the type of questions that should have been asked at that time.

What we are trying to answer today is, onward from here, from operations and maintenance of these trails, that is what we have to try to find an answer for, and we will try to work at that. That is exactly what we are doing with this piece of legislation, to move forward, to do regulations as Ontario did, to work through amended regulations that happened ten or eleven years later, and they are still doing it. They are eleven years into the industry now, when they have had an act in place. We do not have it in place in this Province. That is what we are trying to work through.

That is one of the questions that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile brought up. There were some other questions there, and I will come back to those a little bit later and allow some other members to get up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to have another few words on this bill. I appreciate what the minister is trying to do here. I happen to think he is a pretty fine individual and he actually believes what he is doing is right, but I do have some problems, as I said to him last week, and he brought some answers into the House tonight.

The problem that I have with this is, one of the reasons that we love this Province - and when I say we, I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians love this Province - is because we have a number of freedoms in this Province that do not exist elsewhere in the world. Let me give you an example. In Great Britain today, I say to the minister, every square inch of land in Great Britain, with the exception of park lands, is owned by somebody and you do not have the right to travel or to walk in the woods or walk wherever you so feel that you can do, like we can in this Province.

Tonight, or later in the winter, if I want to get on a Ski-Doo on the railroad track, down right here in the park in the west end of the city, and drive right to Port aux Basques on that railroad track, there is nothing in any legislation that existed, up until tonight anyway, or up until now, that would prohibit me from doing that, and that would not cost me one plug nickel to do that, Madam Chair.

The reason I mentioned Great Britain, and everything being owned, is because right now we, collectively, own that railroad track and nobody can deny me access to it if I use a vehicle that was outlined under the T'Railways agreement that was signed some years ago. The problem I have right here is, I see this as a thin edge of the wedge for taking away the rights and the privileges that we enjoy in this Province. Let me tell you why: because right now, if this act were to pass tonight, I could get on that Ski-Doo down here in Bowring Park, or just west of Bowring Park, and I could travel freely on that Ski-Doo trail until I reach an area where there is a snowmobile association.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly. We will get into that one later.

I can travel as far as I want until I run into an area that now will come under the control, if this bill passes, of a snowmobile association, and at that point I will either be stopped by an RCMP officer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

At that point, when I enter an area of this Province where it is controlled by a snowmobile association, I will either be stopped and ticketed, or I will be stopped and told that I can no longer proceed because I do not have a sticker that I would have had to purchase from a snowmobile association at a cost of $80, and if I did not do that, then I would be fined. I think the fine for travelling on that portion of the T'Railway would be $200, or is it $250?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: A $250 fine. I would not be permitted to continue any further along that trail. Now, to me, that is an infringement on my rights and privileges that I have enjoyed up until today in this Province. Now, you have to ask yourself the question: If we permit this bill to go through, what comes next? Does that mean that down the road, the fact that you can currently walk along that trail, does it come down the road one of these days that if we get a walking association who goes out every year and snips the bushes on each side of that track and says you are not getting on that track any more to walk unless you help pay for the cost of recovery that they have spent grooming the trail, that you would be prohibited from walking along the trail?

It is also a thin edge of the wedge to lead to the taking away of other rights, because currently all I have to do is purchase a salmon licence in this Province and I can fish any salmon river in this Province. Nobody will tell me that I cannot fish a salmon river, but if you see what happened last year, because the federal government did not pay their share of paying for river guardians, that the provincial government picked up the bill. Next year, what is to stop a group of individuals on the Humber River, or on the Exploits River, or on the Gander River, or on the Terra Nova River, from saying, we will take care of this particular salmon river and we will supply the guardianship on that river, but in order to come to fish on that particular river you are going to pay a fee like you do elsewhere?

In Scotland, and even in parts of New Brunswick, people own sections of salmon rivers, just like, as far as I am concerned, this bill will give sections of Ski-Doo trails in this Province to an association. It is not giving it to an individual but it is passing over authority for particular areas of this Province to an association. To me, that is not right, because that is one of the privileges that we so enjoy in this Province, the freedom to be able to walk anywhere, to ride in particular areas on Ski-Doos that they do not have a right to do elsewhere. I am very much concerned that this is the thin edge of the wedge that is going to take away a lot of our rights and freedoms that people have fought for and died for in this Province. I have a real concern about this.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, spoke tonight about what is happening in Ontario. I am sure the members opposite have all received e-mails. Some are from those who want this piece of legislation to pass but most of the ones I have gotten - if you want me to I will send them forward to you - the e-mails that I have received are saying, stand firm on this, do not vote for this piece of legislation because, and they list a whole host of reasons.

The one I got today was from an individual who has been living in Ontario. He sent an e-mail to me today and told me that 95 per cent of the Ski-Doo trails in Ontario are what he considers to be privately owned. What he meant by privately owned is that you have to pay a fee to ride your Ski-Doo on them. Ninety-five per cent of the trails are privately owned. Not only that, but he said the average cost of riding a Ski-Doo on these groomed trails, these privately owned trails, in Ontario, is somewhere around $1,108, I think. Maybe some of you people got the e-mail because I am certain that it was not just sent to me. If you want I can bring it here to the House tomorrow and show it to you. My concern is that if 95 per cent of the Ski-Doo trails in Ontario - because they started down this path long before we did - are privately owned, or semi-privately owned, or owned by a group of individuals called an association, what is to prevent it from happening here?

Right now, as I told the minister the other day, I do not have groomed Ski-Doo trails in my district, but who is to say that next year I won't. Personally, I do not think, as it stands today, that the majority of people in my district want to pay $80 to use a groomed Ski-Doo trail. I truly do not believe they do. The minister says: We do not have to. What you are saying is that there are only two associations in the Province right now that you have to pay for. Am I right? Is that what you are saying? There is one in Labrador and there is one on the West Coast of the Province. Well, answer this for me. What gives the people, the Ski-Doo association in Labrador and the Ski-Doo association on the West Coast, the right to carve off a piece of trail that would normally belong to everybody and say, sorry, you are paying $80 for it from now on? That can happen anywhere I say to the minister. He can shark his head and nod.

Already we have heard about an individual from St. John's talking about starting an association to take care of that part of the rail bed that leaves St. John's and heads West to hook up to the next one, wherever that might be, whether it be in Gander or Clarenville or Corner Brook. What I am saying is that the rights and privileges we enjoyed for free could very well start the thin edge of the wedge so that we will have to pay for any outdoor activities that we so freely partook in, in years gone by.

I am sure that when you talked about being open and accountable to the people, and when the Premier gave the commitment to the group representing the outdoors - I think Mr. Morgan and a group of those are involved in it - that he was going to consult with them and he was going to make sure that they had a say in all of this stuff, I do not think that he meant you were going to bring in a piece of legislation a couple of weeks before Christmas, when we knew that the House was only going to be open for a total of sixteen day, and push this through and no one was going to say anything. I say to the minister, in all honesty, if you think this is the right thing to do and if you believe that the majority of people in the Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, support your bill, strike a Committee of the House, if you want to be open and accountable and you are talking about this great government that you are setting up and the Premier talks about the government being all inclusive. We have not had an all-party committee since you were elected.

I asked for one to deal with the FPI situation we had on the South Coast last week. You said: We do not want to have anything to do with you crowd across the floor, we are not sitting on a committee with you. If you honestly believe that this is what the majority of the people in the Province want, to pay for groomed Ski-Doo trails wherever they may be, then strike a committee. I am not saying, minister, and I sincerely mean it -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member -

MR. REID: By leave? I am going to clue up.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: - that I am going to try to obstruct this, but take it around the Province and just see if that is indeed the case. I am getting e-mails and you are getting them, but personally right now I am getting more against it than I am for it. If the people in my district or any other district feel that they want to do this and this is a step forward, and it is not going to infringe upon any of their rights, I will accept the will of the majority of the people in the Province.

I say to the minister: Consider striking a committee, take this on the road, and find out firsthand what the people in various parts of the Province want to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Government House Leader deferring his comments.

I would like to speak for a few minutes, Madam Chair, because when the minister last spoke he talked about the fact that government money was spent on these trails, it has been happening for years, and if anybody had concerns about traditional use of trails it should have been raised then. Madam Chair, nobody objected to the grooming of trails so that people could actually use them and use them more easily. That is not the problem. Nobody objects now, for example, to the East Coast Trail Association taking over traditional trails to the point of clearing them out, making them useful, and putting back bridges that were there before. Nobody is going to stand around and object to that. In fact, the public supports that, they give money to it, they donate money to it. Companies donate money to it. Governments give money to it. If that is the issue, Madam Chair, then I have to wonder what is going to happen to the East Coast Trail, for example. There have been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the East Coast Trail in the last ten years. Are we going to have a request at some point for that organization to say, look, it is costing us a lot of money to upkeep these trails, and we have to do that? There should be a fee for it and we want the government to pass legislation to force people to have a permit before they walk on the East Coast Trail or any other trail that may be built or maintained around this Province.

The members opposite are scratching their heads about that, but that is exactly what we are talking about here. The fact that it is snowmobiles and mechanized grooming that has to be done annually does not change it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not annually, every snowstorm.

MR. HARRIS: Even every snowstorm. That does not change -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two or three times a week.

MR. HARRIS: Two or three times a day! That does not matter to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody has to pay for it.

MR. HARRIS: Somebody has to pay for it. All of these phrases are phrases that could hear in any way, in any shape or form. We are talking about public land that people have had the traditional use of for many years.

If we are going to be changing that kind of scheme to where people are now forced to pay for it as opposed to volunteering to contribute to the grooming of trails for their greater use and enjoyment, that is one thing, but if you are talking about forcing people, under pain of an offence, under an act, to be fined, then that is another thing.

I think we are stepping into an area where members oppose, when they were over here, were objecting to quite strenuously, and yet they do not seem to see that what they are proposing here in this legislation is exactly the same thing in another form. If we are going down that slippery slope, I would not be surprised, in two or five or ten years time, that we are going to have legislation that says you cannot walk on a certain trail that may have been a traditional hiking trail, may have been a traditional path between two communities, and they are now all linked up into some expansive trail system that is there, that people will have to pay a fee to hike on. That has to be maintained, too. It may not have to be maintained after every snowstorm, but it may have to be maintained after every rainstorm that washes out a part of the trail or the paths are overgrown. They are continuously required to keep them in shape and improving them so that people can enjoy them better.

Madam Chair, that is all I wanted to add to this discussion right now. I gather the Government House Leader may be changing the legislation that we are dealing with. I think we do have a situation which requires a little bit more thought, and I would support the suggestion of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that a committee be struck, whether it is a committee of government MHAs, and they want to do it themselves and keep Opposition members out of it, that is up to them. What I am just suggesting is, there is more thought that has to go into this.

AN HON. MEMBER: When would you suggest it be done?

MR. HARRIS: When would I suggest it be done? I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: As soon as possible maybe.

MR. HARRIS: As soon as possible. I mean, the minister is talking about regulations being the guts of this anyway. I have not seen regulations being drafted in a very quick period of time anyway. I cannot see regulations being ready for this season, to be able to implement this. I do not know what members on this side have been experienced in dealing with, but I have not seen regulations come forward speedily yet. We had a bill that was given royal assent in 2002 and it is only today they proclaimed regulations, and there were already regulations in place, all they had to do was change them. I cannot see there being regulations promulgated on this legislation by January when the snow comes, or whenever the snow comes, enough to have groomed trails.

I do not see what the urgency is. If the government is serious about trying to provide a mechanism whereby we can have groomed trailed and have people pay for them without violating some of the principles that we are talking about here, then maybe a committee should be struck. Whether government MHAs want to do it or they want to have members on this side of the House as part of it, do it quickly and hear what people have to say, because people are very concerned about this issue and they are passionate on both sides, but it is something that deserves further consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR(R. Fitzgerald): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to be on the record as saying this, just a reminder for process again. We are into Committee and we are taking it one clause at a time and I think clause 1 has been called and clause 1 says: Repeal what is there now, which says the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and replace it by saying, " ‘department' means the department presided over by the minister", and I can tell the House that I fully concur with clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do appreciate the commentary with respect to this important piece of legislation, and I do appreciate the interjection or the few comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I was hoping that he was going to be a little more long-winded in terms of does he support the legislation or not. He has been unusually silent. Before I get into that, I just want to make a couple of comments with respect to this piece of legislation.

I think we have to acknowledge, and most do, that we do have a vibrant industry in the Province that creates wealth, that creates jobs, and supports significant regional economies, dominated and predominantly in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think all members acknowledge that and I appreciate the debate that is going ahead, because what we are up to is trying to achieve some balance, I guess. I do understand the commentary on both sides. I have received commentary from members of the public, like all members would, on this particular issue, on both sides of the equation, and I appreciate that and appreciate the commentary and take it very seriously.

I do want to correct a few things, first of all. I listened this morning, I believe it was, or yesterday morning - I am not sure which now - to the Member for Bellevue say: Government is ramming this legislation through. We have introduced a piece of legislation like we have other pieces of legislation. When we do that it goes through a process. We are going through that process where a great deal of latitude has been given on both sides. The minister is trying to answer questions to the best of his ability. Members of the Opposition are asking questions to the best of their ability. There it is, and we will continue the debate on this particular piece of legislation another day.

Before I move into the next piece, though, I do want to get back to the Leader of the Opposition for a second. If there is confusion sometimes about where we are and who is on what side and stuff, I just want to read this because it is an important piece of information for the debate that continues. This was written on March 10, 2004. Now, that was how many months ago? That was several months ago, eight months ago. March 10, 2004 and it was written to Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, 40 Trans-Canada Highway, Deer Lake, Newfoundland, A8A 2E4. Attention: Penny Brake, Executive Director. Dear Ms Brake crossed out, Dear Penny. I can table it if anybody wants to see it. Thank you for your letter dated March 5, 2004 and for providing me with an update as to the Federation's intention with respect to legislating mandatory snowmobile trail stickers for groomed trails.

Now, this goes back eight months ago. This was written by the Leader of the Opposition under his signature. For members opposite to say that we are ramming it through and no one talked about this or they were not aware of it, I think it is a bit disingenuous, to be quite frank about it, Mr. Chair, and this is an important piece of information. So, I will read it again: Thank you for your letter dated March 5, 2004 and providing me with an update as to the Federation's intention with respect to legislating mandatory snowmobile trail stickers for groomed trails. Please be assured that our caucus will do what we can to effect a positive outcome for the snowmobile federation. Now, I say that because I think that is exactly what is happening here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no. I am not trying to be facetious with this. I think it is important.

I think that is exactly what is happening here tonight, because while we can support equally a notion about trying to grow a federation where there are legitimate concerns - and they are raised by both sides of the House, and we acknowledge those. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo raised legitimate concerns about traditional rights and I am a supporter of traditional rights and have been for some time. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised the notion of it. I think there is a commitment - and I say it from this point of view - from both sides of the House to try to achieve a balance here. What I am sensing is that it is there, and I hope I am not wrong in saying that. I believe it is there on all sides of the House because it is a recognition, on the one hand, of how important this industry is to Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what the growth of that industry has done for regional economies, rural economies. The growth of the industry has occurred, was supported by the former government in terms of trails, development of trails, the federal money that has gone into purchasing of groomers, for example, to try to develop parts of the Province that needed a boost. Now, there are members in this Legislature who can attest to the impact which that has had on their own communities or on their own districts. I do want to acknowledge in saying that what appears to be emanating here tonight is a legitimate attempt to try to find a solution, and I applaud members on both sides of the House for that.

The issues that were raised, I think some amendments have been put forward. I think the minister is going to take some time to work through some of those - again, from what he tells me - and hopefully we can reach a solution that provides the right balance for everybody, acknowledging that we have a growing industry on the one hand and, secondly, trying to protect and answer legitimate concerns that have come up. Hopefully, before the House closes, we can do that.

So, I do want to thank all members for the sincerity of their debate, to being honest on this issue. I do not want to belabour it, other than to say that when it comes to an issue where people are trying to achieve a solution where you see two sides of the issue, there has to be a solution somewhere that we can achieve in this House, because, at the same time, the lack of a solution coming forward out of the Assembly between now and when the House closes, does put in jeopardy the snowmobile federation's aspirations and continued support. We will have to deal with that, if that happens. I am just acknowledging that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Like I said, there have been suggested amendments. The Opposition House Leader has made some suggestions tonight. There have been some suggested amendments that the minister is looking at. We do not want to, in any way, curb the debate on this until the minister has a chance to have a sound and conscientious look at the amendments that have been put forward by members of the Opposition and, secondly, to have a sound and conscientious look at the comments that were made tonight.

I want to thank all members for their participation in the debate because I believe there is a great deal of interest in the Province on this issue. I think members have acknowledged - and I appreciate the comments made by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo because I think in some of those comments he has quite literary picked up the other side of this issue. Certainly, I have received very similar e-mails, I say to the member.

I will conclude by saying this, I think there is an understanding that we would like to move forward but there are issues we need to deal with before we do so, if I can capsulize it that way, and I do appreciate the comments made by members opposite.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to move, if I could, to Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licencing Board, Bill 36, for further debate in Committee.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order please!

Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just again, for clarification while the two House Leaders are having a quick conference here. We do have some amendments to propose. They are not related to clause 1, as I said on the last bill. I will just take this time to mention that clause 1, the Official Opposition is certainly ready to give approval to it. The issues that we raised in second reading are all related to the arm's-length independent nature of the board which are covered in clause 4. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have provided a copy to the government and I believe now the Table has a copy that they should have a look at. We understand they have been checked before to be in order. When we get to clause 4, Mr. Chairman, I will be standing to make some general comments and also to move some amendments. So, we can debate at that time.

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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 4, I might just take a couple of minutes because we are going to, in clause 4, suggest three different amendments. It might be instructive, again, to remind everybody of what the content of clause 4 is.

Clause 4 is the one that describes the objectives of the board. In the explanatory note and in the explanation given by the minister, Mr. Chairman, in introducing the bill at second reading, he said to the Legislature and to the people of the Province that this bill will enact the Dunne Commission Report with respect to a licensing board that will be arm's-length from the government, completely independent. There will be no more licences passed out by the minister, it will be done by a board. He said we are now bringing in the legislation that will make that happen. We are accepting the recommendation of the Dunne Commission Report. We said it in the speeches by several members in the Opposition at second reading, that clause 4 does not do that. Clause 4, instead, sets up another advisory board to the minister but the final decision still rests with the minister. So, in fact, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed, except we have set up another level of bureaucracy to advise the minister. Either we believe as a group collectively, that the Dunne Commission Report was right and that the minister should no longer have a say - set the rules, set the criteria, that is what the Dunne Commission Report said but then let an independent board make the final decision.

What section 4.(a) says now, Mr. Chairman, is that, "The objectives of the board are to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding fish processing licensing applications, including applications for new licences, and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences." Now, that is not what the Dunne Commission recommended. This is just an advisory board to the minister. So, the amendment that I have proposed, and seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, is that section 4.(a) be changed so that you would delete the words "recommendations to the minister" and replace them with the words: final decisions. So that it would now read exactly what the Dunne Commission said it should read. It would read, if the amendment is accepted, that the objectives of the board - this is the independent, arm's-length licensing board - is to assess and make final decisions regarding fish processing licensing applications, including applications for new licences, and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences. Now, our contention, as the Official Opposition, is the amendments and these words would then give true substance and effect to what the Dunne Commission recommended and what the minister said the government has accepted and what the minister explained the whole purpose of the bill was to accomplish.

The other amendments are similar to that. There are some differences because we, in looking at it - having had plenty of time to look at it as the Official Opposition in this regard. No qualms at all about the distribution of the bill, time to study it, time to examine it, time to debate it. I give kudos to the government for all of that. It was done right, and we have an opportunity here now to have a thought-out reasoned debate. There are other areas of the same one where we say, in our view, that there are other things about licensing, transfers, mergers and all of those kinds of things that probably was never intended by the Dunne Commission; that the board do it but that the board itself could make recommendations to the minister. On this fundamental issue of licences, of granting a licence, the Dunne Commission said: The minister reserves the right to set the criteria and to make up the rules but then the board assesses the applications to see whether or not they meet the criteria and the rules.

That is the spirit and intent, Mr. Chairman, of this particular one and I will take the time to speak separately to the other couple because there are nuances or differences in them that we see as being different. We agree with the government, that there are parts of this particular section where the board should be advisory to the minister but that if this is going to be advisory than the government would at least have to admit that they are not implementing the Dunne Report at all, that they are just having another level of bureaucracy, other than the existing bureaucracy in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, have some say in advising the minister as to whether or not the minister should grant the licence.

I do not need to belabour it any more than that, Mr. Chairman. There may be others who may want to speak to it. We do not intend to prolonge it, other than to make the point to ask the government to give it serious consideration and then to see where we go from there.

CHAIR: The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table. I understand the Leader of the Opposition, while putting through three amendments, is dealing with them separately. The Chair rules that amendment number one, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, is certainly in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I will just take the time to respond to what the leader has said and acknowledge upfront, that the minister in introducing the bill and afterwards acknowledged, as did the Minister of Transportation and Works in speaking to this legislation, and as did myself in speaking to this particular piece of legislation, that what we are doing is not completely what was contained in Dunne. We are not implementing or legislating the Dunne Report. What we are doing is legislating a bill to enact and establish the fish processing licensing board. Let me talk about that for a second because it is important.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that this is a piece of legislation where government is just going to introduce another form of bureaucracy, and I disagreed, and government disagrees with this. Here is what the view and the vision with this particular board is. Let's just put ourselves in the context of today for a moment, and this legislation does not exist. What happens now is that applications for a fish processing licence, or if somebody wishes to have a licence, or have a licence renewed, is giving sole and utter discretion to the minister. Now, there is no public process involved in doing that. There is no process by where people can understand why a recommendation was accepted or why a decision was made, other than we made it; and, up until this point, before this legislation, the only really accountability that existed at all would be a question in this House of why a certain company or a certain region received a licence.

Now, what we are putting in place is in place in other departments and it works very well. I gave an example earlier, and I will give one again today through the Division of Agriculture, for example, within the Department of Natural Resources. There is a board there that deals with the whole land freeze issue with respect to issues that may arise in terms of housing development or other development on the Northeast Avalon. There is a board there by where if somebody makes an application and is turned down for whatever reason, that person, group or individual can appeal to this appeal board. The appeal board makes a decision, goes through the hearing, makes a decision based upon the criteria, which is exactly what is going to be established when this legislation passes, that there will be a criteria established by which the board must adhere and then, once that process occurs, a recommendation will be made to the minister responsible and the minister will either accept or reject the recommendation.

In the experience of the other boards that exist similar to this, in the vast amount of cases, the recommendation made by the board is done exactly according to the criteria, done exactly according to what the legislative framework sets it out to do, and in the vast majority of cases the recommended decision by the board is signed off on by the minister, but there are exceptions. When we sat around and debated this, we said, you know, we can implement the Dunne report to the extent that the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite are suggesting, but, in doing so, I think we have to acknowledge that we are transferring any and all responsibility. Should a peculiar or a particular circumstance exist for government to respond or act, then we need the opportunity to do that, to respond to that.

I could see a point in time - I do not even know what the issue may be - where, if we went as far as what is being suggested, both in Dunne and by the Official Opposition, I could see a time when members opposite, or some future members opposite, or some future members on the government side, may have to come in and change a piece of legislation like this to be able to respond to a very legitimate need in a part of the Province.

It is exactly what the creators of the Electrical Power Control Act envisaged when they talked about setting electricity rates. I will give you an example. Right now, under the Electrical Power Control Act, for example, the Public Utilities Board sets all electricity rates in the Province. It is independent of government. Within the Electrical Power Control Act we have the ability to direct the PUB - government has the ability - or order the PUB on a proactive basis only. It is my understanding of the legislation that if a decision is made by the Public Utilities Board on electricity rates we do not have the right, under law, to reverse a decision. We can only direct on a proactive basis, but the creators of the legislation envisaged, at some point, that there could be an outstanding and exceptional reason, or extraordinary reason, for government to be able to step in to do something.

Having said that, that is what this legislation and the proposal that we have before the House represents. It does a couple of things. I will sit down after this. It puts in place a public process. It puts in place a criteria by which decisions will be judged in handing out fish processing licences, which has never been done before. I think we need to acknowledge that up front. We will have a board, an established set of criteria by which the board must operate.

Having said that, when the board makes a decision, that is a public decision, which is not now a public decision on how licences are done. Once that decision is made and forwarded to the minister with a recommendation that the minister follow this course of action, the minister then has the choice to either say yes or no to that recommendation. If the minister does not follow the recommendation, with all that other sort of public scrutiny involved, then I would suggest to all hon. members that we would have to have a very, very solid reason and basis on which we should not have followed the recommendation. That would have to be defended not only here; it would also have to be defended publicly and in the regions that potentially are affected.

To the Leader of the Opposition's point, no, this is not exactly what the Dunne Report looked at but it does go, in our view, a sufficient amount of the way in order for, one, criteria to be established for the board to make its decisions upon. It is a more public process than we have right now - I think we need to acknowledge that - and we have left ourselves room that should an extraordinary situation exist that government needs to respond to on behalf of the people of the Province, then we have the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is 11:22 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, and I am standing here tonight listening to, or taking part - in the words of the Premier - in a family-friendly government. I say to the Premier, I did not see my family today, but I bet he did.

The other thing that I want to talk about - and the reason I made that point is because we are standing here tonight in a family-friendly government debating a bill that we have no need to be standing here tonight debating - absolutely no need - because the Member for Lewisporte is over there, and he was a Minister of Fisheries himself, and my colleague here from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, she was a Minister of Fisheries herself, and I was a Minister of Fisheries myself, and there is nowhere in any act in this government that says the Minister of Fisheries cannot establish an advisory board without going to the Legislature to ask permission. You could have done that without ever walking through the doors of this House, and you have us standing here at 11:23 on a Tuesday evening in a family-friendly government doing exactly that, bringing a piece of legislation before the House when there is absolutely no need to do it.

Now, to get back to some of the points that the Government House Leader made previously, when he talked about how the Minister of Fisheries did not say or did not insinuate or did not try to hoodwink or did not try to deceive the people of this Province into believing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: All right, I will take back the word deceive, if they are going to grumble over it, because it is unparliamentary. I will take that back, Mr. Chair, so you do not even have to decide whether you are going to call me on that point. All I am going to say is that he did try to hoodwink the people of this Province into believing, ever since he received the Dunne Report, that he was going to, and is going to, under this piece of legislation, establish an arm's-length licensing board, and that could be no further from the truth.

Again, I will read the recommendation of Mr. Eric Dunne, an individual for whom I have a great deal of respect, an individual who knows far more about the fishery in this Province than I do, and I would say far more than anyone in this House of Assembly, including the current minister. Mr. Chairman, let me read the recommendation. I have to put on my glasses at 11:25 in the evening to read this. Here is the recommendation from the Dunne Report, by Mr. Eric Dunne, Recommendation 9.10 on page 146, "I recommend strongly: That the Department establish an arms-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests made to the government."

It cannot be any clearer than that. Mr. Dunne recommended that we establish an arm's-length board to administer all decisions on the licensing of fish processing facilities in this Province. Now, here is what the current Minister of Fisheries is putting before the floor of the House: a little bill, eight pages long, sixteen clauses, and here is what he says about that arm's-length board that he is going to set up. Here is what the arm's-length board is going to do once it is set up, once we spend a pile of money putting five people on that board, and a staff, I say to the minister, and let them travel around the Province and hold hearings, not to mention that currently we have roughly 100 employees down in the Department of Fisheries to whom we are paying $10 million a year to give the minister advice, not to mention that, but here is what that board, the arm's-length board that Mr. Dunne recommends - and the only thing that it says is in clause 11 on page 8, "The minister shall consider a recommendation of the board made to him..." Shall consider.

Now, tell me or anyone standing in this House that what the minister is saying in clause 11 of this bill that we have before the House tonight is what Mr. Dunne says on page 146, Recommendation 9.10. Not close, does not even fall in the same ballpark, I say to the minister.

The Government House Leader talks about depoliticizing decisions on licensing, processing licences in this Province. Tell me how that will depoliticize it when a politician - for example, the Minister of Fisheries - still has the only say as to whether or not an individual or company gets a processing licence or loses one. Tell me how he does it. How is that depoliticizing the fish licensing? How does it do it? It does not do it. He talks about boards that are currently set up under government - advisory boards, like this one will be - an advisory board that we have no business here tonight talking about. He could have, with the stroke of a pen, called up five individuals, yesterday or the day before or the day before that, and said: I am going to establish a licensing advisory board. We do not need to be here debating this at 11:28 on a Tuesday evening. How is that depoliticizing it?

You talked about all those other boards. Let me give you an example of a board. The Minister of Tourism, the other day, talked like this licensing board is going to be the panacea for processing licences in the Province. It is going to depoliticize that, because no minister in his right mind will overrule a decision of this advisory board, and not an arm's-length board, and I will give you the example he used. The Member for Lewisporte will know full well what I am talking about. I am sure my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, will know. He used the example that no minister would ever overrule - what is the federal board that recommends to the federal minister?

MS JONES: The FRCC

MR. REID: The FRCC. No minister would overrule the FRCC. Well, I do not know where he has been living for the last five or six years, but he could not have been living in this Province, because the federal Minister of Fisheries does it on many occasions. The one we remember most is when we struck an all-party committee of this House just two years ago, and every member who sat on that all-party committee - and the Premier, the current Premier, attended many of the meetings and helped draft the recommendation, and that was not to close the fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, not to close the cod fishery.

MR. GRIMES: To have a limited fishery.

MR. REID: A limited fishery we asked for, and guess what? We talked to the FRCC. Mr. Fred Woodman was the Chair, another man who knows more about the fishery than any of us will ever know. We talked to the Chair of the FRCC, and guess what the recommendation that he made to the federal minister was? Not to close the Gulf fishery, but to have a limited fishery in the Gulf. Guess what the federal minister, Mr. Thibault, did? He shut it down.

Now, you tell me if you know what you are talking about, members opposite. Don't stand in this House and tell me that the current Minister of Fisheries didn't try to lead us to believe, and to lead processors in the Province to believe, and to lead communities like Change Islands, who have been dealing with the minister about the transfer of a licence to another company - don't tell me what he told them, because I know that he said: Wait until we establish the arm's-length board.

He said it last spring on Open Line. I went right on behind him and said: This is not an arm's-length board if all you are going to do is ask for a recommendation from a hand-picked board and then I will decide whether or not I accept it. What I am saying is, we are not here tonight being asked to vote on a piece of legislation that is necessary. It is absolutely redundant. We do not have to be here. If the Minister of Fisheries wants to establish fifty advisory boards tomorrow, on what colour shirt he is going to wear, if he wants to, there is nothing in the legislation that prohibits him from doing it. There is nothing, so why are we here in a family-friendly government, at 11:31 on a Tuesday night, asking the Legislature to vote on a piece of legislation that is absolutely unnecessary?

If the minister wants to wave the Dunne Report around, like he is so apt to do - let me tell you about the Dunne Report. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was the one who commissioned Mr. Dunne to write that report, and I remember the current Fisheries Minister, what his comments were, another Mickey Mouse report.

MR. GRIMES: A waster of time.

MR. REID: A waste of time and a waste of money. If you want, I will find those words for you, if you do not believe you said them. I will find those words, and I will place them on the table here. Another Mickey Mouse report, he said. Now, it is the bible.

I have more respect for Mr. Dunne than to say that what he wrote was a Mickey Mouse report. I happen to believe that if the current Minister of Fisheries wants to follow the recommendation of Mr. Dunne, all he has to do is accept the amendment that our leader, the Member for Exploits, just made, to do exactly that. If you are going to establish an arm's-length board like Mr. Dunne recommends, then do it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave, just for a second, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: I am going to sit down here but I would like to speak later on tonight about some of the comments that some of the members on the opposite side made about depoliticizing the licensing system, and how political it was when we were in government.

Mr. Chairman, I could speak for days about politics in licensing when the Tories were in government prior to 1989, and I will before this debate is all over, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak here at the Committee stage on clause 4 of Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

I think, Mr. Chairman, following on the speeches of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and the Leader of the Opposition, and looking at the recommendations that were made by Mr. Dunne in the report, which is very clear and unequivocal in what he recommended, what Eric Dunne recommended in his report was that there would be a board that would make the decisions, Recommendation 9.10. What we have here is a step along the way to the minister making the decision, because all the board does is make recommendations.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, the minister has some say in not only establishing the criteria, because the board is supposed to consider, under clause 10, an application made to it according to the Fish Processing Policy Framework or other policy guidelines criteria or - listen to this - directions given to it by the minister.

Not only does the minister establish the policy framework, the policy guidelines and criteria, but he also can give directions to this licensing board and then, when they make the recommendations after him giving it criteria and directions, all he has to do is consider their recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard to say much more about that than what I have just said, that we have a board here - it is called a board - and a board normally implies some decision-making. Here we have, really, the facade of decision- making, or charade, as the former Member for Terra Nova used to talk about; I think he pronounced it charade. He might have pronounced it charade, but he meant facade and he meant that there was something that was, in fact, phony, Mr. Chairman.

I think, when we are talking about what appears to be and what is said to be a licensing board, in fact, this board does not grant licences at all. The board does not grant licences, cannot approve licences, cannot give out licences, so to call it a licensing board is, in fact, a charade, Mr. Chairman. It is a phony name for a piece of legislation that is really designed to give the minister advice as to what to do in particular circumstances. It will be in a very short period of time, Mr. Chairman, that this board be regarded merely as a step along the way to convince the minister in the same old way, for the same old reasons, to do what the minister wants to do for political reasons.

One thing it may do, I suppose it may have some effect, it may allow the minister to say no when he wants to say no. That might be the only political value to the minister because I know there is a lot of pressure on Ministers of Fisheries, I do not take that away. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo was the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was the Minister of Fisheries. Anybody who has been the Minister of Fisheries in this Province knows there is a lot of pressure on that individual to grant licences to communities who are in desperate circumstances, no question about it. It is a lot easier to say yes than to say no.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, this piece of paper, the so-called licensing board, if you set the criteria right the recommendation is going to be no more often than it is going to be right. All the minister has to do is say: Well, I might like to give you the licence but the board has recommended against it. So, what does that do, Mr. Chairman? All that does is give the minister an excuse to say no without in fact giving up the power to grant the licence when he sees fit. That is what is wrong with this legislation, Mr. Chairman. It is a facade for the minister continuing to have the same discretion that he had before. There is not one ounce of discretion taken away from the minister.

We talked a little earlier tonight, and I was quite happy to praise this government for bringing forth legislation that was taking away the discretion of the Premier as to when to call an election. A very important power and a very important way that governments have used to maintain or try to maintain, not always successful, power by the timing of an election. If I was quick to praise them then, I am quick also to condemn them. What they are doing here is something that does not in fact do what they say it purports to do. If they are purporting to take away and depoliticize the licensing process for granting fish processing licences in this Province, they are not doing it. They are merely providing a smokescreen for continued political decisions and a continued discretion for the minister to ignore recommendations when it suits him and accept recommendations when it does not suit him. That, Mr. Chairman, is not the establishment of a fish processing licensing board. This act is misnamed. If they wanted to have an advisory board, than they should call it the fish processing licensing advisory board, not a licensing board because they are not granting licences. They do not have the authority to grant licences. They do not have the authority to deny licences. Perhaps there might be an amendment for the title if this amendment, that the Leader of Opposition has proposed, does not pass because it will not be a licensing board at all.

So, I say to hon. members, that the amendment is a proper one. It does do what the Dunne Commission Report recommends. It does do what the minister said he was trying to do, which was depoliticize the process and it does, in fact, provide that the decision will be made by this licensing board. Now, if the government wanted to have some overriding provisions, if they wanted to say this is the licensing board but under special circumstances the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can override the decision of the board, if they wanted to take it to that level of seriousness, then I might support that. I mean, there may well be circumstances if the licensing board refuses a licence where the government feels there is an overriding public interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Government, not the minister. Where the government is satisfied that there is an overriding public interest that a licence be granted in particular circumstances and the board did not make the right decision in the government's view and the government is prepared to take political responsibility for overruling a decision of the board, just as they might take political responsibility in other legislation where, under the former legislation, the Public Utilities Board made a recommendation on power rates for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but the Cabinet could override it. If they want to take responsibility for that, let them take political responsibility for that. It may well be a good decision if the public interest is overriding and the government wants to take the political responsibility for making that decision, then let it do so. But if we are going to establish a licensing board, then we have to give that board the power to issues licences, just as we do to the Liquor Control Board. There was a time in this Province when the granting of liquor licences was a very political event. We have to look to the Member for Lewisporte. He is probably the longest serving member. Maybe it was a political event when he was serving first.

I know there was a time when the granting of liquor licences was a very political event in this Province, at one time, and that changed. Now there is a Liquor Licensing Board. They just do not make recommendations to the minister. They do not just say to the minister: We think there should be a liquor licence to such-and-such an individual in such-and-such a community, and the minister says yea or nay on the recommendation. The liquor board grants those licences because it has become depoliticized. It has been recognized that politics and political decision-making should not enter into it.

This is what Mr. Eric Dunne recommended, that the same process - although he did not make that analogy - of depoliticizing should be treated for the granting of fish licences, and I support fully the recommendations, or the amendment put forth, that would actually make this a licensing board and give the board the authority to grant licences.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the difference of opinion, if I can put it that way. Maybe it is a little stronger than that, because I know members opposite feel it may be stronger than that. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just said that if it was the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who needed a special provision to override a decision of the board because there was some extraordinary reason, I think we have to acknowledge in this place, to be honest, that we cannot predict every potential situation that may come across a government's bow in the run of a day, whether it is this government, whether it was the past government, or whether it is any future government. Having said that, I appreciate the commentary that this is not the recommendation that was put forward in the Dunne Report. No, it is not.

I think we just need to look to the Minister of Fisheries when he talked about it. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and myself talked about it. Acknowledgeably, it is not, but to say automatically that this is a smokescreen or a charade, I do not think lends entirely the justice to the piece of legislation that it deserves either.

Acknowledgeably, whether we want to or not, for the first time there is a public process that is going to be established with respect to licensing, processing licences in the Province, for the first time. There is a board that is going to be established. Let me finish, I say to the member opposite. A board will be established. A set of criteria will be established. Those who want to make application must advertise that they wish to do so.

Section 11, that the member talked about, the former Minister of Fisheries, says, "The minister shall consider a recommendation of the board made to him or her under paragraph 10(2)(c)...". He said: That is not transferring any responsibility; we could do that with an advisory committee.

We do not want to establish an advisory committee. We want to put in place a process that is binding and legal on everybody. That is what the legislation is about. The rest of the section goes on to say, and I think this important, because this does not exist now, "... following his or her decision..." - meaning - "...with respect to the application...." - so whatever is recommended, whatever the minister then decides - "... following his or her decision with respect to the application,..." - the minister must - "...release both the recommendation of the board and his or her decision regarding the application first to the applicant and then to the public."

For the first time there is going to be a decision made by the board. The minister will either sign off on that decision in terms of acceptance of it, or reject it, and then we will have to make public the decision for all to see. Now, nobody can tell me that provision or that process has been in place before, because it has not been.

I am not going to get into commentary on former governments' issuance of fish licences, because there is enough blame to go around in the last fifty years on how politics has played an overriding and sometimes very unnecessary role in determining who got a fish licence. The fact of the matter is that what we are trying to establish here is a process that is public, that if the minister of the day disagrees - and the minister of the day may disagree, but the minister also represents the government, I say to members opposite. I think to the point that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made, that the minister represents the government, if the minister disagrees with a decision, for the first time when we talk about the issuance of processing licences, that decision that he or she makes according to this piece of legislation will have to be made public along with the recommendation of the board for public scrutiny.

That is where we are headed. That is where this government wants to head. The reason we haven't transferred the entire responsibility to an appointed board is because we do want to leave just that small bit of room should an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance exit that demands the intervention of the Legislature. This is the way we see as best to do it.

Members may disagree with that, and we may disagree on the approach of it, but I do believe that all members recognize, and members who have served both in Opposition and on the government side in this particular portfolio, that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that do present themselves to government from time to time. We cannot predict that, we may not know exactly what they are today, but we do need to leave ourselves the opportunity to respond to those circumstances when they present themselves to us, in order to protect the public interest and protect the public generally.

Mr. Chair, that is, I guess, the pith and substance of what this piece of legislation is about. I appreciate why members may disagree, but I think you have to acknowledge that the process we are recommending is one that has never existed before, and stands a little better, a lot better in my view, in terms of the public test or litmus test of what public scrutiny is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Is the Committee ready for the vote?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again I would suggest that we have made the basic point. We have actually had an admission from the Government House Leader that this is not what it was purported to be, at all. It starts, basically, with the explanatory note that is in the bill. The explanatory note reads, the bill would establish the Newfoundland and Labrador fish processing licensing board. The board was recommended to be established by the final report of the Dunne Report. Here is the explanatory note for the bill, right off the top, which says, let's try to pretend, let's try to get anyone who doesn't take the time to really read it, let's try to misrepresent it, to suggest that we have accepted the Dunne Report, and this is the committee, this is the board, that was in the Dunne Report. That is what this all said.

We have gone back through Hansard of the minister introducing the bill, and his final concluding comment - he did admit, like the Government House Leader admitted tonight, that it is not the Dunne Committee Report. He is just confirming again, it is not the Dunne Committee Report, which is the whole point of, why do we need a piece of legislation when we can put any advisory committee the minister wants to establish, with any rules about accountability and any rules about giving the reasons - he can do it today. We don't need a separate piece of legislation for that.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in concluding, said, "I think that at the end of the day people will have to reach the conclusion that an independent fish processing licensing board is really the only way to go..." Now, what is that, if it is not a statement from the minister? Then he said, I will conclude, I will take my seat, Mr. Speaker, and move second reading. What is the last impression that he wanted to leave with the people of the Province? That is November 23. It is on page 2505. His last parting comment to the Legislature, to the people of this Province, was - and I will read it again, "I think that at the end of the day people will have to reach the conclusion that an independent fish processing licensing board is really the only way to go..." What ego! Now, we have the minister himself up tonight admitting this is not independent, it is more open, it is more accountable.

Let me make a comparison. We would only wish that other things were as open and accountable as this is going to be, but you don't need a bill to make that happen, you just need political will to make that happen. You can make it happen today. You don't need a piece of legislation to order it. You can do it if you believe in it. You can do it right now. You could have done it six months ago.

Let me give a comparison. Labrador Marine Transportation Service: Let's talk about if that was open and accountable, like he is saying. Well, that is the best (inaudible) for this. It is not independent. It is not arm's-length removed but it is more accountable. Well, it is going to be more accountable than the Minister of Transportation and Works, who is the alternate Minister of Fisheries, was. The Premier gave a commitment with respect to the Labrador ferry service. He wouldn't make a political decision. The only thing the minister said here is that this depoliticizes the process. The Premier said, we won't make a political decision about the ferry service to Labrador. We are going to give it to the university to study, we are going to give it to a public policy group at the university to study. We have a commitment that says, any time we put out a study we will release it within thirty days and then if we don't agree with the recommendations we will give the reasons why the government disagrees.

Guess what happened with that? The Minister of Transportation and Works, because he was asked about it today, about the Labrador ferry service for next year, he said: Oh, it is going to be about the same next year as it was this year. By the way, did we ever find out, did he ever explain to the people of the Province, whether what he enacted and what the government did was consistent with what the independent group recommended?

MR. RIDEOUT: I released the report here in the House.

MR. GRIMES: Did not release the report. It has not been released to this day, Mr. Chairman. It has never seen the light of day. He must have a complete lapse in memory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He has never released the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the minister is trying to distract us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So, Mr. Chairman, I say to you in those kinds of issues we have commitments made that are not kept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, we can have now this, I asked when I spoke the first time: Would, at least, the government admit that this is not the recommendation of the Dunne Report? I am satisfied that we have had that confession now to the people of the Province. Too bad it is midnight, because when the minister rose at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to talk about it, when the minister rose at 2 o'clock in the afternoon in broad daylight to talk about it, he said: I think that at the end of the day people have to reach the conclusion that an independent fish processing licensing board is really the way to go.

So, at midnight, in the family-friendly Legislature, we get the convenient admission that: oh, no, this is not independent, guys. This is not like the Liquor Licensing Board - which is the model, by the way, that Mr. Dunne had in mind. The Liquor Licensing Board, they make the decision. As a matter of fact, there is a minister responsible for the Liquor Licensing Board. It is the Minister of Finance, but if the Minister of Finance were to be seen to try to influence or interfere in a licensing decision of the board he would have to resign. If it ever became public, he would have to resign in disgrace. That was the model that was put forward by Mr. Dunne and that was pretended by the minister.

Now, he did acknowledge they were going to make recommendations and if that is what they believe then let's stand up and say it, that they, as a government, believe they are going to take political accountability and that the minister will make the final decision, no matter what Mr. Dunne said and no matter what any board recommends. It is on page 2505, lefthand side just before some hon. members said hear, hear - which means the crowd over there agreed with what he said. It is independent because that is what they were told in their caucus. In their caucus meeting they were told: folks, you do not have to read the whole bill. Look at the explanatory note. It is the Dunne Report. If anybody ever asks what it is about, we are implementing the Dunne Report. Boys, that is what you have to tell them. Just tell them all it is the independent panels in the Dunne Report. That is what the Member for Bonavista North was told. That is what he told his constituents. It is in The Gander Beacon that we have established the independent board that was recommended by Mr. Dunne because that is what he was told in the caucus. That is all he ever asked about it, as is fairly typical.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, no. He did not get it in a meeting in the caucus. He had enough interest, because he is from a fishing district, to ask the minister: What should I say about this if I am asked a question? He said: Look, the explanatory note tells you all you need to know. It is the Dunne Report. We are implementing the Dunne Report. Now, that is how the thing operated. That is how it transpired. That is what is out in the public, but we do have the admission at midnight that it is not that at all.

Now, I do not think we will bother to prolong it. I think we have made the points. I think what we need is a signal from the government whether they are going to accept this particular amendment or not. We should have a vote, in my view, that will give a real signal as to whether the government says that the minister should have the last say because, by the way, if you were back to debating on principle, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I have always believed that you get elected and you should answer for your decisions. You should never be going to the point of sloughing them all off to a crowd here and there. Stand up and be proud of what you did. Defend it! Let the people know but do not come in here under the cover of darkness and pretend that you are being independent when you are still leaving the decision with the minister. Let's admit that is what is happening because I believe that is what the Government House Leader has said. That is what the public record will now show. That there was a little bit of misrepresentation here. There was a pretty good pretense put on the go here but now we know that the government, every time that we say publicly that the Dunne Report was not action with respect to an independent licensing board, the government will be able to point to Hansard from this night where they will say: We admit that. That is not what we did. We left the final say with the minister.

So, let's have a vote as to whether we are going to leave it with the minister, which is what the Government House Leader has described and what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has described, or whether we are going to leave it with an independent board, which the amendment will do. We will live with that because this is a Parliament. This is a democracy. We have all had our say. We could probably stand here and say it fifty different ways all night long but I think then the vote will really decide where we are and then we can move and decide what we do about the other amendments that are proposed here. So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest - at lease I think I can speak for the Liberal caucus, I never pretend to speak for them, they are all independent thinkers and free voters - openness and transparency and accountability to their own constituents every time above all else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, they speak for themselves, they think for themselves and they vote for themselves in this Legislature, but I would suggest for the purpose of doing some government business, that maybe this caucus might not make a further speech on this amendment and we might have a vote. I cannot speak for the NDP and their members, never could, never would pretend to do so, but maybe a vote might give us some real elucidation as to where the government really wants to go with this, having heard the arguments, and then we can proceed further from there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I always appreciate the commentary by the Leader of the Opposition. He has been here fifteen year, I have been here twelve, and his performances get better and better sometimes, but to the point that he has made.

He has made a point tonight that all of a sudden, under the cover of darkness, there has been some huge admission by government that was not there before. I beg to differ on that, I say to the member, and I do so in the most strenuous of ways, and for a couple of reasons. One, this is not the first time government said that we were not implementing the Dunne Report as it existed. The minister said that - if the member had backed up a couple of pages when he said: That will be the public process. The minister will still retain the discretion to accept the recommendation or reject the recommendation. Clear acknowledgment that was completely different than Dunne. That was made that day. Later in the same day my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, former Fisheries' Minister, got up and said in this House - and I can almost quote what he said from Hansard. I do not have Hansard, but I bet my quote would be almost direct because my memory serves me correctly. Here is what he said: We are not legislating the Dunne Report. We are legislating what the bill is calling for. So, we have been very clear in my commentary on second reading on this bill. Acknowledgment right upfront, and Hansard will show that in terms of the model that we are looking for.

I do want to clear up any perceptions, Mr. Chair, that all of a sudden, at 12:02 in the night, government made the startling admission - as the Leader of the Opposition said - as if we had to go to the confession box and receive our penance, when that is absolutely incorrect. Right upfront there was an acknowledgment of that. Here it is, we are debating it. I appreciate the commentary. I think it has been well aired out what the Official Opposition's view is. They have stated their reasons for that. What the Leader of the New Democratic Party's view is, he has stated his reasons for that. But, I can say to members opposite, and all members who want to listen and any member in the public, that we have stated our view and we are completely prepared to defend that because we believe in it. It would not be in the legislation if we did not believe in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, with that I will conclude my remarks. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wants to make a few before we proceed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know whether the confession box is the place where members opposite should go but they ought to hang their heads, that is for sure.

I will read you this, Mr. Chairman, the explanatory note on the bill which usually tells you what is going on. It is very short. "This bill would establish the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Processing Licensing Board. The board was recommended to be established by the Final Report of the Fish Processing Policy Review Commission, the "Dunne Report", which was endorsed in principle by government in February, 2004."

Mr. Dunne didn't say a lot about this, but he did say the following, "Changing the manner in which licensing decisions are made was the one issue on which there was virtually unanimous agreement in all the Commission's consultations. The view held by all participants in the commission was that an independent board must be established to administer licensing decisions in a public and transparent manner. This is viewed as the only way to eliminate unexpected, unexplained and simply poor decisions. Almost everyone pointed to the splurge of crab and shrimp licenses and the resulting chaos as ample proof for the need for such an arrangement."

He goes on to say, "This arrangement does not diminish the power of the Minister; he simply delegates the decision-making function to an arms-length board that makes licensing decisions against the policy criteria and guidelines he establishes." That clearly indicates that the minister has a role in establishing the policy, establishing the guidelines and establishing the criteria, but that the decision making is actually conducted by the board itself. That, one has to presume, is what the explanatory notes intend. The board was recommended to be established by the final report of the Dunne Commission.

Mr. Chairman, there is clearly a huge disconnect in what the stated intention of the act is, the very distinct and specific recommendation of the Dunne Commission Report, and what we are faced with here tonight, which is a board which is not a decision-making board. It is only making a recommendation. It is not with a sense of there maybe some need to override the board at some point. The board doesn't do anything that needs to be overridden, Mr. Chairman. All they do is make a recommendation which may be accepted or may not be. Just as the law advisors to the Crown advise the government in terms of legal opinions, sometimes they are accepted, sometimes they are not. Just as the deputy ministers advise the ministers - all the time, every day, they give advise to the ministers as to what to do or what not to do - sometimes the advice is accepted, sometimes it is not.

Let's not say that this is a very powerful board that may be overridden from time to time. This is an organization, a - it is called a board, so I guess we have to call it a board, but it is a board that makes recommendations only. The minister still exercises the same discretion as he exercised in the past. Unless these recommendations are accepted, that is all this board will be.

CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition has put forward three amendments to clause 4. Probably, for clarity, if the Committee would agree, we will go one by one, because there is only one amendment introduced so far. If the Committee agrees, the Chair will read the amendment and then vote on amendment number one before we move on to calling clause 4 again. Then, the Leader of the Opposition can introduce the second amendment to the same clause.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Agreed, Mr. Chairman.

Again, depending upon the outcome of the first amendment, we may or may not move the second and third ones. I think we should have the vote on the first one and then we can decide from there.

CHAIR: The amendment to Bill 36, clause 4(a) reads - amendment number one, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition - that section 4(a) of the bill be amended by deleting the words, recommendations to the minister, and replacing them with, final decisions.

Section 4(a) will then read: To assess and make final decisions regarding fish processing licence applications, including applications for new licences, and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 4?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will just make this point. There were two other amendments that we were considering to move with respect to making it truly independent instead of being an advisory. The government has now indicated clearly that their intention is to have this as an advisory board to the minister, albeit pretty open and transparent. A process will be followed, but it will be, in the ultimate sense, advisory, and they have admitted, confessed, come clean, acknowledged, that this is not the Dunne committee report at all. I think the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, concurred with that, and pointed out quite clearly that was not the case. I would, though, just like to take a minute to read into the record that, if it was going to be truly independent, as Mr. Dunne had recommended, then in section 4.(b), which currently reads that this board would assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding applications for the addition of new species to existing fish processing licences, we were going to move a recommendation that should also be a final decision instead of a recommendation; but in (b) it also goes on to say, "...and where appropriate, make recommendations regarding licensing on a regional basis."

We were willing to concur that recommendations on a regional basis is not a specific individual licence application. It is a matter that the minister should do, and it is okay for the board to make a recommendation, but we will not move the amendment.

As well, there is a part (c) of it which talks about assessing and making recommendations to the minister regarding corporate concentration. We were suggesting that should stay as a recommendation to the minister, that the idea of looking at corporate concentration, mergers and so on, is not the issuance of a new licence. The whole issue in the Dunne Report was, when there is a request for a new licence, or adding species to an existing licence, that there be a board, like the Liquor Licensing Board, that does that: government decide what the rules and the criteria are, and the board will do it.

The government has now explained that they have rejected that, that they have not, in fact, enacted anything to do with the Dunne recommendation at all; they have come up with their own solution. They are prepared, as a government, to defend their own made-at-home solution with respect to licensing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would expect after tonight we will not hear any of them, like the Member for Bonavista North or others who are in fishing related districts, going around saying: Well, we did the Dunne Report, you know, on licensing.

I do not think they are going to say that any more. I think the Member for Terra Nova came close to saying something like that, something close, about independence, and take the politics out of it, and now we are all admitting that the minister is really going to do it.

Mr. Chairman, we will not be moving the other amendments because I think they will meet the same fate, obviously, as the first one did. We will reserve, though, one other amendment that we will move when we get to the title of the bill, to suggest that instead of reading, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, that we acknowledge what it is, and that it be An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Advisory Board. We will move that amendment when we get to the appropriate point in the procedure, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 5 to 16 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clauses 5 to 16 inclusive are carried.

On motion, clauses 5 to 16 inclusive carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the title, with respect, to reflect what this debate has just absolutely established to be the fact of the matter. It is here in writing for you to consider, but I think everyone understands it is very straightforward.

The title that we are now being asked to vote on is, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. It has been acknowledged by everyone who spoke that it is not a licensing board at all; it is an advisory board to the minister with respect to licensing, and that should be reflected in the title so that there is no confusion, because the members opposite who have gone out and made statements contrary should now go out and acknowledge which bill it has been and that it would now read - we would add the word after licensing so it would say, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Advisory Board, and acknowledge what it is, Mr. Chairman.

It is seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair rules that the amendment is certainly in order, and the amendment is to change the title of the act. Instead of the act reading, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, it will read, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Advisory Board.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to the title?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 36 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the commentary and the debate, the thrust and throw of it all, many sides of an issue debated.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 36 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 Bill 36 passed without amendment.

When shall the 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, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

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

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is now 12:18 a.m. in this family-friendly House, as the Premier calls it. Even though he probably trimmed his tree tonight with his family. I did not get that opportunity. He probably attended a hockey game with his son, something I did not have the opportunity to do tonight, I say to the Premier and the members opposite. We are still here talking and carrying on with this charade of passing a bill in this House, that it is absolutely not necessary to be here doing. All we are doing is establishing an advisory board to the Minister of Fisheries on the issuance of fish processing licenses, something that the minister could have done, and, I say, the previous ministers of fisheries could have done any time they wanted to. They did not need to parade in here with this bill saying that we are establishing - I do not care what the Government House Leader says that the minister said, or did not say, or what he was purporting to do or what he was not purporting to do, he hoodwinked the people of the Province. No, I should not say that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All right, I will withdraw it. If you are going to say that it is unparliamentary I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. You do not even have to -

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly was going to say it was unparliamentary, but you already have it withdrawn.

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are more intelligent than that, because they know what the minister is trying to do, and that is he is not following the Dunne Report, not going close to it. There is no arm's-length board being established in this bill; on the contrary. The only ones that he - I cannot use the word hoodwinked. What will I use? The only people that he fooled into believing he was establishing an arm's-length board, I say to the Government House Leader, is all other members who sit over there with you, except for you, I say to the Government House Leader. You were not fooled into believing that this was an arm's-length board, because you stood right after I spoke and explained that it was not an arm's-length board.

I say to the Government House Leader, his colleagues were certainly fooled into believing it, including the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Terra Nova, because they got up and spoke for twenty minutes about depoliticizing the fish licensing board, depoliticizing the minister. How are you depoliticizing something when the person who had the authority to issue a license or to withdraw a license still has that authority regardless of what any board he wants to establish says to him? The only thing this is going to do is have the minister come out and say why he did not issue the licences, or why he did issue the licences.

The Government House Leader says this never existed before. Well, I would like to correct the minister on that, at least in one respect, because there was a policy, at least when I was Minister of Fisheries. If there was ever a licence transfer from one town to another in this Province, there was a process and a public process that was followed. That was, if you wanted to transfer a licence like - I will give you an example - the people of St. Anthony wanted to do two years ago, from the Town of Ramea to the Town of St. Anthony, there was a process they had to follow, and they came to me and asked me what that process was. I said: The first time you do is talk to the people who currently hold the licence in Ramea and asked them if they will transfer to you in St. Anthony, and they did that.

The next step they had to do was, the Department of Fisheries took out an ad in all the local papers in the Province asking if anyone wanted to voice an opinion or to complain. They had the opportunity to do it, because the ad had to appear, if I am not mistaken, for two to three weeks. That was done, that was quite public, and there were presentations made to me for and against that transfer. I will say to the minister, if he can remember correctly, not only were they given the opportunity to write, or come and talk to me, they could show their protest, for or against it, in a public way, which they did.

I can remember there were roughly 2,000 plant workers in this Province who showed up right out here, right out in the front of the door, to tell me how they felt about the transfer of that licence from Ramea to St. Anthony. Guess who was in that group letting their voice be known simply by their presence, standing in that group, saying to me as the Minster of Fisheries, don't transfer the licence from Ramea to St. Anthony, don't do it? The Minister of Fisheries stands today and accuses me of axing the licence to St. Anthony -overthrew the ruling, when the courts said I did the right thing by not issuing the licences to St. Anthony. Judge Greene agreed with me and said: You were within your rights to do that. Since that, the Appellate Court has overruled me. Guess who was in the audience standing out in front of that door saying, don't do it? The reason I am saying this is, I want to know, are you going to stand out there again, when the current minister issues a crab licence to that town, to St. Anthony?

MR. JOYCE: Who was there?

MR. REID: I will tell you who was there. The Member for Bonavista South was there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saying, don't issue the license.

MR. REID: Don't issue the license. The current Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, was standing on the steps. The Minister of Education, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, he was standing there proudly with his people. Who am I forgetting? There were more than that over there. The Member for Bonavista North -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. REID: Oh, you were not there. I am sorry! Was the Minister of Tourism there? I will guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, there were five or six of the members opposite who stood there and, by their presence, voiced their displeasure. An open, transparent process, I say to the Government House Leader. An open, transparent process! Your own colleagues - there were only ten or twelve or fourteen of you in the House at the time. Half of you were out there voicing your criticism about that transfer, along with 2,000 others. We took that into account. I did, and I didn't issue the license. That is the reason I gave on the Fisheries Broadcast. That is the reason I gave to every media outlet in the Province who questioned me on it. That is the reason I gave to the local newspaper in St. Anthony. If that wasn't open and transparent, I don't know how this is going to make it more so.

When the Government House Leader says that we didn't have transparency before, and this is going to correct it, I don't know how. The minister still reserves the right, I say, to issue or to withdraw a license. He can appoint what boards he wants, all they do is make a recommendation. Whether that recommendation is going to be followed or not, I say to the minister, right now will depend, for the most part, on what the public says about it; not what the board says but what the public says about it.

Mr. Chairman, if, as I said earlier, the minister is saying that he is not, or he didn't purport to say that he was establishing an arm's-length board, he fooled a lot of people in this House. He didn't fool me and he didn't fool anyone on this side, because we knew exactly what he was establishing, because I was waiting for him to bring in the bill. All you had to do was read Clause 11 on page 8 which says, the board will make the recommendation and I, the minister, will decide whether to accept it or not, or tell them to, go on home, boys, I am not doing that. That is all you are doing. It is going to establish a board, and I bet if it is like the boards I have seen established since this government took power, it won't be very independent in their thinking. All you have to look at is who you have appointed to chair boards in this Province, like the one you appointed as the interim chair of the school board on the West Coast of our Province. You cannot find anybody, I say to the minister, who is any more politically motivated than that individual, and politically connected, so all you are doing is setting up a charade, and the only people, I say to the Government House Leader - the only one who has stood and really admitted what they are trying to do here, because I have not heard any of the rest of them say it - the only people that he fooled in this Province are those who stood over there and talked about depoliticizing the licensing process in this Province. They are the only ones who were fooled, and I have seen that happen time and time and time again in the House in just this twelve or thirteen months since you have been elected. I have seen it.

I had a prime example when I said to the previous Minister of Health, the Member for Topsail, when I asked her across this floor on a number of occasions, when are they going to open the hospital on Fogo Island, and what they were going to open there - how many beds - because it was build for twenty beds. There were twenty beds delivered to the hospital, and set up in twenty different rooms; twenty brand new beds, I say. I asked her back and forth: When are we opening the hospital? I never quite got a direct answer until the Premier of the Province spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Gander and, when asked the question: How many beds are you opening in Fogo? The Premier did not answer, I found out later; his public relations officer did. We are opening ten of the beds, not twenty as the Premier promised.

We saw another example last March when the previous Minister of Education went to Gander and told the school board: You have nothing to worry about. You are not going to be dissolved this year. Nothing is going to happen to you, not going to happen to you. He walked back into this House of Assembly seven days later, only to hear his Minister of Finance saying that the boards were gone.

All I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that I know there is one individual on the other side of the floor who knows what is going on. I do not think he has been told everything, but I know the individual well enough that he finds out what is happening around him, and he knew, because he is the Government House Leader responsible for placing legislation on this Table in the House. He knew, because he made it a point to know, that the bill that was going on the floor, what was in it. He was the only one, because there is no evidence on that side over there that one of you read this bill, or, if you did, that you knew what you were talking about.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this bill does not do what the minister said on every program and in every media outlet in this Province that I have heard in the last six or seven months, that he was going to do with the licensing board. In fact, if you were to call up the minister on any given day, do you know what he would say? Wait until we implement the Dunne Report before I make a decision on your licensing. Wait until we implement the Dunne Report. He has told people that. Call the mayor. Call the committee out on Change Islands and ask them what they were told when they were discussing a licensing issue with the minister. They were told: Wait until we implement the Dunne Report.

We are not implementing the Dunne Report. When Ramea, or Gaultois, asked about the licences - a company wanted to go in and reactivate licences in Gaultois - do you know what they were told? Guess what they were told. Sorry, you cannot have one because we are following the recommendation of the Dunne Report.

When is the minister going to get down off his high horse and admit what he is doing? He is using Mr. Dunne as a scapegoat to do the things that he wants to do, while blaming it on Mr. Dunne, when, in actual fact, he is not implementing any of the Dunne Report. He has not yet, and he is certainly not doing it with this bill tonight.

I think it is not only an affront to the people of this Province by trying to make them believe that you are implementing the Dunne Report; more importantly, it is an insult to Mr. Dunne to actually lead people to believe that you are doing what he recommended when, in actual fact, you are not even going close to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I believe if I speak now I will close debate on third reading. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. In representing the minister, who is not here with us this evening - no? It is my understanding that -

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that the minister would not be closing debate at this stage if he were to speak. We could have consultation with the Table, but that would be my understanding right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would understand that members could speak on both sides, and that the member who just spoke could have spoken for an hour, and that now it will go back to twenty minutes each.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I need clarification. I think that is it, we are closing debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, yes, that is exactly right.

In the absence of the minister introducing the bill, the Government House Leader speaks to a bill, the debate is at last closed. That is more of a process issue than a contentious issue here tonight.

First of all, I appreciate the commentary made again by all members, and I will speak directly to the comments that the former Minister of Fisheries said. He said: What is the difference? He explained the situation that existed when he was Minister of Fisheries, and in his own commentary he has provided us with the exact difference. I want to turn it this way. He said that there was a public process, there were public demonstrations, and here is what he said: When the people of Ramea came and said, yes, they came to me - in his capacity, then, as Minister of Fisheries. I said to them, in my capacity as Minister of Fisheries, to the people of St. Anthony, that you would need their concurrence. They came back to me, as Minister of Fisheries. Then we had to advertise. Then there were demonstrations where members in the House participated - and so they should have, if they had a public interest in representing constituents. So they should have, and they should be applauded for that, not condemned, I say, Mr. Speaker - and then I made a decision. Then, he went on to say, there is no difference in what we are doing here than what happened then.

I beg to differ because, if the same situation existed, here is what would have happened. The people of Ramea and St. Anthony, in that exchange, would have had to go to the board. They would not have gone to the office of the minister. They would have had to go to the board, not to office of the minister, but to an arm's-length board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arm's-length?

MR. E. BYRNE: An arm's-length board to make their case. The board would then would have to publicize, or people who wanted their licence according to the new legislation would have to publicize in advance, two weeks in advance, the legislation says, of why they wanted to do that. The board would then conduct a hearing. People who wanted to participate in the hearing, or make their case, would present it to the board; not to the minister but to the board. Upon hearing the case being put before the five-member board, not one person - who happens to be the Minister of Fisheries - but to a five-member board, that board would then make a decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now, I say to the member.

The board would have to make a decision amongst themselves, first and foremost. Upon reaching that decision the board would then send that decision and their recommended course of action, which would be that decision, to the minister. The minister has a choice either to accept or reject; no question about that. That was an important consideration for all members of this caucus, I say to members opposite, to all members of the caucus.

Now, quite a difference when they had to come to me and I, to a board, make their case, the board makes a decision and forwards the recommendation to the minister. After that, if the minister rejects the recommendation, he or she first must make that recommendation, must give the reasons why they rejected the recommendation to the people who made the application first and then to the public, and then release the reasons why. A completely different process, I say to the member. While you may think so that it is not, that does not necessarily make it so that it is not. That is what I say to the member opposite. That is the fact of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just because you or other members stand in this place and say it ain't so does not make it so because it goes to intention. All that we try to do, and what we are allowing to do in this piece of legislation in leaving it with the minister, is the ability to respond to an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance should one present itself to us.

Now, let me say to the member opposite, it is fair enough that we may disagree on where this piece of legislation is going. You have a constitutional obligation to question, poke and prod and find out wherever you can what we are up to. That is the obligation of the Official Opposition. I played that role for a long time to know that is what the obligation is and that is essentially what keeps this place alive and healthy, because of that obligation you are playing. I do not discredit you for that but I will say this, that above all else, when you are going to turn around and suggest that members opposite are like a bunch of lemmings who are walking over a cliff without giving due consideration amongst ourselves and our caucus then, sir, I take exception to that on behalf of members of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to say to members opposite and to the public, that there is not a member in this House who should not take exception to that. Again, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, just because you believe it is so or just because you would like people outside this House to believe it is so, let me tell you, does not make it so, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary on this particular piece of legislation and I appreciate the frankness of the debate that occurred, but what I do not appreciate is when members of the House and colleagues are being insulted to such a degree that we do not take our jobs and our obligations seriously. We do. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and those who want to listen and even those who might not want to today but may have a look at it down the road, when it comes to the legislation that we put forward, members of this House - and many of them have spoken - are prepared to defend the legislation that this government puts forward because there has been a healthy discourse that has occurred before it has come here.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am proud to conclude debate on Bill 36.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Her, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 36 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, Bill 36.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

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

It is now 12:45 a.m. Tomorrow we are debating the private member's resolution dealing with the call for public insurance, I believe, put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I say to the member opposite, we will have three speakers speaking to that tomorrow.

With that, I do now adjourn today's sitting until 2 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 o'clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Motion carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

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