November 28, 1997        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLIII  No. 40


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise hon. members that government has decided to re-examine the arming policy of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which provides policing service to St. John's, Mount Pearl, the northeast Avalon, Corner Brook, Labrador West, including Churchill Falls.

The full arming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has been a subject of considerable discussion for a number of years. In particular, the discussion has centred around the wearing of side arms on a full-time basis by the patrol division of the force.

Mr. Speaker, I must make it clear that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is an armed police force. The current firearms policy, however, requires officers to place firearms in vehicle trunks and seek the permission of the divisional commander or designate to carry the firearms in the line of duty. Because of this policy, it is not unusual for an officer to park behind a shopping centre or other public building in order to arm himself or herself, taking valuable time out of what should be a direct route to attend a situation at hand. The policy clearly compromises public safety and the safety of the RNC officers. Especially because officers often cannot predict when firearms are going to be needed.

In the interest of ensuring the lives of the public and that of the officers are properly protected, government has decided to re-examine the current firearms policy to determine whether or not officers should carry guns on a continuous basis as part of their uniform. I would also like to point out that the members of the RNC are highly trained in the use of firearms, and they have demonstrated competence in their use through the many volatile situations wherein they are required to wear them.

We are also interested in examining the issues of consistency. For example, in areas where boundaries overlap with the RCMP, such as Holyrood and Corner Brook, and in Labrador West where the RNC coordinates with the Quebec police, our officers are left exposed and susceptible in comparison to their armed counterparts. The RNC also serves in a jurisdiction alongside two armoured companies, Loomis Courier and Brinks, again leaving RNC officers vulnerable in responding to incidents involving the companies.

Furthermore, to add to the inconsistency, RNC officers in Labrador do wear firearms for a large part of the year given the potential for weapons to malfunction in vehicle trunks due to freezing weather conditions.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the current firearms policy of the RNC needs examination. Over the coming weeks, I, the Chief of Police, members of the RNC and many others will be discussing this issue publicly. Our objective is to raise the level of awareness on this important issue among the general public and in the near future, to make the best decision regarding the future firearms policy for the RNC as we approach the new millennium. I also encourage members of the House of Assembly to pass along any views of their constituents on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to thank the hon. minister for the very ample time in which he provided me with this statement and I am pleased to see that once again the government has seen fit to re-examine a policy and an issue which is of extreme importance to the people of this Province.

It is important, however, that there be a very careful analysis and study of this very issue by those people who are directly affected and I speak primarily of the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, themselves, and also the public at large.

There ought to be, Mr. Speaker, no preconceived notions as to what the situation should be or should not be. There should be a careful review. There should be an empirical study. There should be clear and concise data presented to the people of the Province as a result of a careful analysis of these very important issues.

I welcome the re-examination and it is hoped that just because we are approaching a new millennium that does not necessarily mean that a policy be put in place without careful examination of the views of the public at large and the members of the force itself.

So, I welcome the review, but I also await the results of clear data as a result of a careful study being given to the people of this Province in response to this very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a sort of a perennial issue in this Province with respect to the arming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I share the ministers view that the capabilities of the RNC are not in question here, but there is a great reluctance on the part of very many people to see an armed police force on duty at all times in the city of St. John's and in the jurisdiction of the RNC. The unarmed police force underscores the peaceable nature of our Newfoundland community, Mr. Speaker, so any examination of this obviously has to take into consideration not only the needs and desires of the police force - and I think it has to be carefully examined from the safety perspective which has been discussed on many occasions - but also the notion of what kind of community we have and will it make for a safer and more peaceable community or will it up the anti, Mr. Speaker, with those elements of the population who may wish to engage the police from time to time. I have a concern about that; I think there needs to be a public debate about it and public discussion before any decision is made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, six years ago, a handful of men in Ontario and Quebec decided that a white ribbon, worn during the week leading up to the anniversary of the massacre of fourteen women at Montreal's École Polytechnique, would be a symbol of men's opposition to men's violence against women. Since then, the White Ribbon Campaign has spread across Canada and also to the United States, Australia, Europe and Central America.

Tody is the official launch date for the 1997 White Ribbon Campaign which runs until December 6.

Mr. Speaker, I am wearing a white ribbon as a personal pledge that I will not commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. I have encouraged my hon. colleagues to make the same commitment. My female colleagues are wearing purple ribbons which is the colour normally designated for anti-violence.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has made a commitment through the five-year action plan of the Provincial Strategy Against Violence to work in collaboration with the community to decrease violence. The vision is that the people of this Province will live in safe, caring communities where there is an inherent respect for each other, and where violence is unacceptable.

In order to achieve this vision for our society, both men and women will need to work in partnership. My colleague, the hon. Julie Bettney, Minister responsible for the Status of Women, will be providing you with an update on initiatives under the Provincial Strategy and activities surrounding December 6, in a statement next Friday.

While the White Ribbon Campaign remains dedicated to the notion that reaching men and boys with a message of non-violence is key to a long term solution, they understand that supporting women's organizations must also be a priority.

This fall, the White Ribbon Campaign, with the support of trade unions, schools, universities, municipalities and community groups across Canada is, for the first time, raising money for women's anti-violence programs on a national basis in an organized fashion. The campaign continues to encourage fund-raising for women's shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the White Ribbon Campaign for the support of my colleagues, and reaffirm this Administration's commitment to addressing violence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the members of this side of the House, we join in this very important sign and indication of our support opposing violence against women. What happened six years ago was a very tragic incident at the École Polytechnique. It is important that we continue, Mr. Speaker, on an annual basis and perhaps on a daily basis, to present signs to all members of society that what happened is unacceptable, and certainly, as government leaders and members of this House and as politicians that we continue to convey that message.

It is an educational issue, as well, Mr. Speaker. This is an educational process. It must begin in our schools. It must begin in our homes. It must be continued in our post-secondary institutions. It must be always a symbol within our social arm of government, in our courts and, indeed, in all our institutions.

We are pleased to participate in this particular initiative. It is an issue that obviously has the full support of all members of this side of the House, and I, along with my colleagues, am pleased to show this symbol and sign this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Minister of Justice and the Member for St. John's East in recognizing the commencement of the White Ribbon Campaign which has had some significant effect over the last number of years in Canada. It is supported and made possible - I think the successful anti-gun legislation in Canada, in part, is a response to the unfortunate incident in Montreal. But we do have a continuing and ongoing problem, Mr. Speaker. Our children are said to see - I do not know how many thousands of violent acts per year on television. The encouragement of violence in our society by witnessing it on television, particularly American television, is a difficult problem. We do have to underscore at every occasion the particular problem of violence against women.

I thought for a moment, the Minister of Justice was going to say that the government is supporting core funding for women's centres in the Province, as part of his announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and if I could hear that from the minister responsible for the Status of Women, next week...

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to make a statement regarding the news this morning which has been carried on the CBC national news network that the IFAW - during the course of the NAMMCO convention in St. John's, which has been supported, I believe, the NAMMCO effort, by all members of this House to promote the responsible practice and development of the seal hunt - indeed attended the convention, but attended under false pretences; registered as members of that convention as a film crew, as independent journalists and freelance journalists. It has been reported this morning on CBC Radio that indeed the crew in question had misled the organizers of the convention, had come in as journalists and were secretly filming and taping all of the activities over the last several days at the convention.

Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the House have been making the point indeed to the people of the Province, and making the point to the people of Canada and around the world, that the IFAW has been a dishonest and deceitful organization which has spread false and malicious lies about the nature of the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador and around North Atlantic countries that participate in the seal hunt.

Mr. Speaker, let the word spread across the land this morning of the nature of the IFAW tactics. This is an organization not dedicated to animal welfare. This is an organization that is dedicated to fund-raising. This is an organization whose best years and best days were more than a decade ago when they raised millions of dollars from innocent and malleable people all over the world for purposes we do not know. None of the money raised, as far as we can see, has ever gone to promote the welfare in one iota or one sense of a mammal whatsoever.

If the IFAW were serious about proper management of mammals or seals, there would be programs or contributions or science or research and development, or development of the species, or development of means to assist in the proper development of the hunt. None of that has occurred.

I want to say today in the House, and I hope that I will be joined by members on all sides of the House, in saying that the IFAW have exposed themselves for the phoneys that they are, for the deceitful practices that they engage in. They have exposed yet another facet of this campaign of lies, all designed with one purpose in mind: to fill the coffers of the IFAW.

It is no different from the psychic –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between the IFAW and the people who rent time on television advertising psychic advice. You may as well call up for psychic advice from Jo-Jo as call up the IFAW and give them $10 towards a so-called cause for animal welfare.

They are modern day charlatans. They are peddling snake oil, and they do so in a deceitful manner. It is time that the people of Canada paid heed to the words of Pierre Burton, who has warned the members of the arts community of Canada not to be taken in by the IFAW. This shameful letter signed by twenty-five so-called Canadian artists in support of the IFAW has to be challenged. The paltry few hundred thousand dollars -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The paltry few hundred thousand dollars being given by the Federal and Provincial Governments - and even that is being phased out over next year - to promote the seal hunt is nothing compared to the $75 million annually being given to the arts community of Canada. Every part of that $75 million is money well spent. Why would we spend less to assist aboriginal peoples or coastal peoples in Canada to promote a sustainable seal hunt, Mr. Speaker?

Pierre Burton, a noted Canadian author, and historian, has said that the shameful campaign of the IFAW ought not to be endorsed by those who have done no research but who want to attach themselves to an advertising blitz. It ought to be condemned as an attack on aboriginal people and coastal peoples of this country.

Let this latest shameful episode by the IFAW, this latest deceit, be heard across this land, and let Canadians note that the Advertising Standards Council of Canada has recently forced the IFAW to change its ad campaigns because the message is false. Let me say to The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper that has carried full page ads of lies, that The Globe and Mail has more than a responsibility to pick up a pay cheque for an ad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Globe and Mail has a responsibility for content and carrying full page ads that describe 500,000 baby seals being killed is a lie and it not the role of a newspaper to put the pursuit of advertising cash before the content that reflects truth in the national newspapers of the nation.

So, I challenge today, the medium in this country, in Canada and that includes news world network, where I say an ad last night, that includes The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, The Sun newspaper chain to take a look at what they are putting in these ads. I say let them buy ads until the cows come home, but surely they have a responsibility to ensure a measure of truth in advertising and understand who they are dealing with when they take these cheques propagating falsehood and lies.

Mr. Speaker, the only blood money associated with the seal hunt is the money being paid over for an advertising campaign that is false and malicious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, join in and condemn the actions of the IFAW. In fact, I do not think they should be permitted even to attend such a convention. I think, they should be barred from it because they are a campaign of deception and deceit and it is a fraud that they are committing here and the people of this Province, Newfoundlanders who will go out and protest against sealing, these few Newfoundlanders are not true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I can assure you.

We have depended, in this Province, on the sealing industry from our very beginning. We are developing a diversified seal industry in this Province, one to be proud of and to let the IFAW try to take the scene away from an industry that is developing and it will employ hundreds, if not thousands of people here in this Province in the future. It is a growing industry and for the IFAW to be permitted, I feel this government and the Government of Canada has to have an aggressive counteraction to what the IFAW is doing and putting money into their coffers and expose them for the frauds they really are.

People in other parts of the world are staring to see them for what they are and they have turned a blind eye. We have gone through that period now, where white coats - we have gone through that period now and people know its sensation, that is dying, they have lost the battle there, so they have to try to penetrate in isolated small fractions of the market to get people that are willing enough to go on the line and perpetuate their particular cause. That is what they are doing. They do not have the support of the people of this Province. They do not have the support of the people around the world. They have the support of enough of people who are influential to make a case for that and we have to counteract and we have to show that the people out there do not want this and they are not going to put up with that utter nonsense anymore.

They are hypocrites, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They do not apply the same standards, universally, when they are promoting their cause to the seal industry as they would do to other industries and in the killing of other animals. I guess it is probably best summed up that they are lower than a snakes belly in a wagon wheel rut and that is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope the Premier, in cooperation with the federal government will seriously look at measures that we can take on a very rational basis, in a way that is not going to give them a platform to play on, but is going to be a concerted effort, a long-term plan and a short-term plan to deal with the utter nonsense that we are seeing. We need to do it and we do not want ad hoc haphazard responses to them. We have to have a campaign like they have that is methodical, it is planned, it has a purpose in mind and a goal and we have to do that and sit down and put our heads together the best way to do that and stop this utter nonsense that is going on here and ban them from attending such concessions.

We have a right in a democratic society to prevent them from coming in misrepresenting the truth. That is fair game. The court systems have prevented people who have violated certain fundamental principles of law from participating and getting access to particular right. We have a responsibility as the government today, to deny them access to avenues where they are going to use the platform to spread malicious lies and untruths on people here in this Province when we need an industry that has been rationally developed and is going places, we have to start supporting these things here and pulling together with everybody in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in condemning the actions of the International Fund For Animal Welfare but they have done us a service I think, Mr. Speaker, in showing to all of the people of Canada, the tactics and the deceit and the hypocrisy which they are prepared to undertake in order to victimize people who are trying to make a living.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, if they spent the three days at the convention and they had an opportunity to cover the convention, what we will not be hearing from them, is what I heard broadcast on The Fisherman's Broadcast the other day, which was an Inuit leader talking about how the destruction of the market for seal pelts has destroyed Inuit communities in the whole circumpolar region and discussed how the diet, the very diet of the Inuit people has been affected by the lack of seal meat being available to them because of the economies of the hunt, how it has increased disease, destroyed the community function, increased the suicide rate, has effectively taken away from these communities their ability to conduct their way of life, to live in the arctic, to live a way of life that they have lived for centuries and centuries and centuries, Mr. Speaker, destroyed, for no other reason, other than an attempt by this organization to vilify and victimize the people who are engaged in legitimate activity, using nature, Mr. Speaker, to survive.

That is what we have been doing on this earth for centuries and centuries and thousands of years, To take upon itself to destroy this and to victimize the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Inuit people, native people, is an outrage, Mr. Speaker, and any attempt and any effort, whether by the Premier in his speech today, by his speech the other night, by taking out ads, by asking The Globe And Mail to cover that part of the story, Mr. Speaker, not just take money from the IFFAW -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - but to cover the real story of what is happening to the people who are affected by this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I would like to welcome to the House today, thirty-two students from O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl and they are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dave Denine, who is also the Mayor of the City of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

In light of the Premier's recent announcement that he is in negotiations with the federal government on the Lower Churchill, I ask him: Is he in a position to tell us today if there are other people involved in the negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have not announced that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the middle of negotiation with the federal government on the Lower Churchill. I do not know what comments specifically you are referring to.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier indicated in the media that he has had discussions with the federal government, the Prime Minister recently; it was reported in the media, just to jog his memory. I know his memory has not been too accurate as of late, Mr. Speaker, he has severe problems on times but, I certainly give him forgiveness and let him know that on his free-time political telecast, Conversation with the Premier, he had the opportunity to mention that he has had discussion with the federal government on Lower Churchill. It was only five days ago, Mr. Speaker, so maybe he could also tell me if other negotiations with the federal government, if there are other people involved in those negotiations, to which you alluded to just five days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, The Leader of the Opposition is right, I do have severe problems on times but it is better than having severe problems all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is referring of course, to that popular program which all Newfoundlanders require as mandatory listening on Sundays which, of course, the Leader of the Opposition himself listens to: Conversation with the Premier on VOCM, twice a day on Sundays, with excerpts Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, I think is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that Jack Byrne would not waste his time. It is the weather, Mr. Speaker, it is the big fluffy white bits of snow coming down. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a good question and I think it deserves a serious answer and I will attempt to give one.

The Leader of the Opposition is making reference to the comments that I've made that I had been in Ottawa some days before meeting with the Prime Minister on a variety of subjects, but that while there - in fact, I was there with the Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, to meet with the Prime Minister to talk about the Kyoto conference and Canada's position at the Kyoto conference. There is a particular interest, one would understand, by both Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada's position. Indeed, the Minister of Mines and Energy had co-chaired a federal-provincial conference a week or so before that meeting and had come to a good Canadian position.

Alberta is an important oil and gas producer in the North American context, and Newfoundland and Labrador is becoming a very important oil and gas producer in the North American context, and it is important that we are comfortable with Canada's position. While there I did say, and this is what the Leader of the Opposition is asking me, to the Prime Minister, and I did say to everybody I talked to, and I talked to a number of other ministers, that the Lower Churchill has a particularly good role to play in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.

Because many Canadians will not realize that Canada, if it is to meet a target, for example, of reducing our emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, will be 103 million tons over our 1990 levels by the year 2010. If we develop the Lower Churchill, the Lower Churchill will eliminate the equivalent of 20 million tons of greenhouse gases. If Canada is serious about wanting to make a contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing better we could do than develop the Lower Churchill. I was merely saying to the Prime Minister what I said when I was in Boston a few weeks before, that the Lower Churchill is the lowest cost energy left on the North American continent, and it behooves us all, in a reasonable fashion, to develop that resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm greatly concerned. The emissions coming from that side of the House are not in any way related to the question I asked. I am getting concerned. It is not only his memory that has gone; he is having a severe hearing problem. The question I asked, and I repeat again for the Premier, I will try to make it as simple as possible, is: Are there other people besides the federal government involved in the negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP, let the record show, is making faces across the floor. It is causing me to lose my composure.

We are not in negotiations with the federal government. We have been, since last January, discussing the whole range of issues surrounding power development and future opportunities with the Province of Quebec. Those negotiations continue. What I'm trying to do is to make the people of Canada aware that the lowest cost energy, according to the National Energy Board, left on the North American continent, hydro energy, is the Lower Churchill, with 2,100 or 2,200 megawatts of power at Gull Island, 800 megawatts more at Muskrat Falls. That is the lowest cost hydro energy project left on the continent. It emits no greenhouse gases. I'm saying that the moment to develop Lower Churchill is now. There has never been a better time. I am simply promoting that project everywhere I go. If there is some way that any player, federal, provincial, or private sector -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - can contribute to that project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: - God bless them, we would welcome their help.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier here is directly avoiding. He stated on public airwaves negotiating with the federal government. Now he denies it. I asked him is he negotiating with anybody else, he has said before negotiations with Hydro Quebec. He is not answering the question. He is avoiding it, or either he is not being truthful with the people of the Province in his statements Sunday.

The Premier seemed quite optimistic about the federal government's involvement when he was on radio last week, just days before he could not tell us anything in this House. Now I ask the Premier, can he tell us what terms or conditions might be put forward by the federal government in terms of developing the Lower Churchill? He has already been on record that there are discussions with Quebec. He has already been on record as stating he has negotiated with the federal government, and he has already been on record here as saying that there is a company here - I think a $35 billion company - that is interested if Quebec is not. He said that. So answer that question, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a very easy matter to resolve. There is a tape, there is a conversation; it was played on air.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition has a habit. The habit is that he likes to get up and put words in the mouths of members on this side. He attempted all last week to put words in the mouth of the Minister of Health which were totally false. There is no tape to justify any of the words that he attempted to put in the mouth of the Minister of Health. He has now just said, let the record show - and I am challenging VOCM, and I am challenging all of the media to get the tape - he has now just said that I announced we are in negotiations with the Government of Canada on the Lower Churchill. I can tell you, I said no such thing; and I ask that the record be examined. The whole question is based on a premise which is false.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Premier, did he state last week that he had discussions with a company - a big, huge company, $35 billion in sales - that would be interested in looking at the Lower Churchill if negotiations with Quebec fell through. Did the Premier make that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition would now like to change the subject because he is on record in the House as saying that I announced - he said it several times today; I have not counted them all, two or three - negotiations were ongoing with the federal government. It is now entering his mind, it is now beginning to blossom into his consciousness, that maybe he said something which is absolutely false. He is uncomfortable with the notion that I have asked that the tape be examined.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition once again this week, you are up saying things which are absolutely false, making a false statement, making a false premise, and then asking questions about something which is not true. I say to you again, there are no negotiations ongoing with the federal government.

Now, with respect to a company with sales of $35 billion, was there a meeting? Are they interested? Yes, there is a company interested. There are a number of private sector companies interested in the Lower Churchill development if, indeed, beyond the discussions currently under way with Hydro Quebec, there is a need to look for private sector partners. The answer is yes, of course, it is a good project.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On one hand the Premier tries to give the people of this Province the impression that there are negotiations going on; then, on the other hand, he is not willing to talk about it. You cannot have it both ways, Premier.

I might add, in response to the Premier's false accusation that everything I said in this House is entirely accurate and I stand on record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: With the federal government to get involved in negotiations in this Province, will he give a commitment today that if the federal government is going to get involved in the Lower Churchill development - am sure the federal government has an agenda to ensure that most of that power will go into North America grid - I ask him: Will there be restrictions? Will he give a commitment that this Province will not tolerate restrictions on the amount of energy that we can use in our Province on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really should think very carefully about what he has just said. Here is the policy handbook of the Conservative Party from the last election: (1) P.C. government will promote a consortium of public and private investors to develop the Lower Churchill; (2) promote resource and related industrial development in Labrador; (3) energy needs for industrial development to the Island part of the Province; and, (4) equitable economic returns from the sales of surplus power to customers in other Canadian provinces or in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the P.C. Party, but the Leader of the P.C. Party has just stood up and said: Don't talk to the private sector; don't talk to other governments, and don't talk about the sale of surplus power.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to what we say he puts words in our mouth, and when it comes to what he says he swallows himself whole.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see the Premier's tactic. Any policy of this Party - we released an energy policy this past year, I say to the Premier. You are about three years behind the times. Let's get with the times, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, a simple question: I want to ask the Premier, will he, once again, not sell us out on the Lower Churchill and give a commitment here today in this House that Federal Government involvement in this project will not place a cap on the amount of energy on the Lower Churchill that can be used in this Province and they will not use the condition that a certain percentage must go into the North American grid before they will come on-stream? Will you give that commitment here today, Premier? Stop avoiding answering the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my own members are - it is Friday morning, it's the weather. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that he can see my tactic. Now, I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot quite see through to his. I am not quite sure where he is going. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Your leader has asked a question, you should allow me to answer it, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that there should be no development of any Labrador hydro power? Is that the position of the Conservative Party, no sale of any Labrador hydro to Canada or to the United States? Is that the position of the Leader of the Opposition? Is that position? Because the people of Canada have a right to know what the position of the Conservative Party is. They have produced a policy platform which they have just disowned on the floor of the House. They flip-flopped, Mr. Speaker, on where they stand with respect to development of the Lower Churchill. Now they are asking for a commitment that we would develop hydro power but not sell it. Mr. Speaker, it is not a sensible policy.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that if or when there is ever further development of hydro power in Labrador, there will be development on the basis of a guaranteed floor price for Newfoundland and Labrador, no limit on the upside for Newfoundland and Labrador, no more long-term contracts, no more fixed prices and no prices that go down over time, no more Churchill Falls, only full benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today, Mr. Speaker - I want to continue with the Minister responsible for Development and Rural Renewal in the Province. I started on some questions the other day but I want to ask some more, because as every day goes by now, as you talk to your constituents, and especially the rural members I know, and also the members here in the city and so on, rural renewal is a big question in everybody's mind. Of course, with the recent series on CBC the other day, that was not a show from Hollywood that was the real thing as to what is happening in this Province. Of course, the minister knows a lot of people in that particular filming. It was from my district, and I spoke to many of them. As a matter of fact, one of the people spoken to at Port aux Basques was my next-door neighbour who I saw just a little while ago as he pulled out with a U-Haul, Mr. Speaker. A trained person in this Province, forty-five years old with two trades, ended up going to Alberta.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the plans and the people who are involved in the strategic plans around the Province, I commend those people. I think they are doing a great job. There are some good volunteers there.

My first question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is about the strategic plans and so on for all these zones. Is the minister satisfied now that these are on-line, on time and are about to move forward and we are about to see some real effects of what is happening in these economic zones?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. gentleman for his question because indeed, it gives me an opportunity to tell the House just how much good work those volunteer people have done.

MR. J. BYRNE: Time to go to sleep.

MR. TULK: Well, it would do a great service to the House if you did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me answer a very serious question put forward by a very serious member. It gives me an opportunity to tell him that indeed, fourteen of the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards have put their plans together, have their strategic economic plans in place. There are still six to come. We expect those to be done rather shortly. The Rural Revitalization Committee has been moving around the Province meeting with the regional economic development boards, listening to them, asking them to put five or six projects from each economic development board in front of us so that we can work with them - work with them, I say to the hon. member - over the next year to hopefully stop some of the tragedy that we saw on public television in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad that the minister is taking it seriously. I do not find it any joking matter whatsoever. I say again that I do commend the people who are on these boards. I know a lot of them - they are hard-working people. But I have talked to them also and these people are frustrated themselves.

I guess it does take time but, of course, this particular department by this government now has been in place for some year-and-a-half.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two years now.

MR. SHELLEY: Almost two years now, and people want to see results and they want to see them fairly quickly.

With respect to the Revitalization Committee that is travelling the Province, I know that the minister and his group have gone out and spoken to the positives, and that is wonderful. I would like to go out and talk to the positives, too. I am going to ask the minister: When is this committee going to go out and talk to the people who are having the problems? You have gone and visited all the companies and so on around the Province that are up-and-running and doing well, and that is great - I applaud that - but I wonder when the committee are going and where are they going in the next little while to address the problem that is out in rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that side of the Legislature this morning. On the one hand, he stands up and praises up the rural economic development boards as being the voice of the people in rural Newfoundland. I get up and tell him that we have gone out and met with them, and he immediately comes back and asks: When are you going to go out and meet with the real people out in rural Newfoundland?

Now, Mr. Speaker, he has to get it right. Either the REDB are going to be the tool of rural revitalization in this Province or they are not. I say to the hon. gentleman, you cannot have it both ways. You try hard to have it both ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, they are trying to have it both ways over there all the time. Here they are saying, `Go out and meet with the REDB. Those are great people. Those are the people who represent the grass roots of this Province.' Then, on the other hand, he asks: `When are you going to go out and meet with the people?' I tell the hon. gentleman to get his homework done before he comes in and asks questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the storm is affecting the minister or what. He was on the right track for awhile but then he went off. I guess he is in the blizzard, because what is going on here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I agree with the minister that they go and meet with these boards and so on. I applaud it. I will do it again. This is the second time I will do that; but I am telling you, there is another phase, there is another group you have to talk to. It is the people who are having problems and so on, the people who are dealing with these boards, I say to the minister.

I am going to ask the minister this: Because of the situation that is happening right now, today, because of - for example, yesterday in my office, I had a call from two people, forty-four years old and thirty-nine years old, who, for the first time, are going to welfare today, to seek welfare in this Province. That is the reality. I wonder what it is like around the rest of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to ask the minister and the Administration today: Is this government considering a job creation program for this winter, or even just after Christmas, because it is needed and needed immediately? Are you looking at that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is - I do not know where he is, whether he is in Disneyland or whether he has gone off on his Christmas holidays early.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on the campaign.

MR. TULK: He must be on a campaign for the leadership of his Party, and I say to him, that is sorely needed over there. I hope he moves up to the next seat, or a couple of seats up.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this government, over the last year, has been putting funds into good, worthwhile projects that help create jobs for our people.

In the area of silviculture, my friend has spent this year some $15 million, created some 1,800 jobs in this Province, all over the Province, in every district in the Province, in the hon. gentleman's district. Let me give him a few more.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself and my colleague from the Ramea area visited Ramea about two months ago. I think that fish plant is getting well under way.

Let me say to him, too, that out in Arnold's Cove, it is now going two shifts, I believe, as a result -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of days, the members of the Opposition have been asking questions that have been brought to order by the Chair and we have complied in terms of Question Period, and the rules that are associated with asking questions.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to page 123 of Beauchesne, where it says specifically: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised" - I say to ministers answering questions - "and should not provoke debate." Mr. Speaker, I ask you to enforce the rules of the House to ensure, with respect to the questions that are being raised and asked by members opposite, that not only are the answers to the point but that they are brief and deal with the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: What my hon. disputative Opposition House Leader fails to realize is that the first quote in that passage also says that the questions ought to be brief, and when the preamble is three minutes the answer deserves three minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the Minister of Mines and Energy would pick up Beauchesne, he would understand that there is no preamble to what I just read. It clearly says 417, page 123, and I will begin and read the entire section for the minister: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Now, if he would like to get into how questions should be asked, we could go back to page 121 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - but we are dealing with the answers given by ministers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, from time to time the Chair has brought attention to all hon. members regarding the Question Period. I have asked members from time to time to make sure that questions that they have asked are within the guidelines set down by our own Standing Orders and that outlined by the parliamentary authority that we follow, Beauchesne. Question Period is not a period for debate. Members have been reminded of that from time to time. Questions should be brief. Only the first question asked should have a preamble. The supplementary question should need no preamble. Members ought to follow that, ought to take that into consideration when they are putting their questions. Ministers who answer questions ought to be brief, ought to address the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I ask hon. members to follow these when they are answering questions and when they are presenting questions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Speaker has made a good ruling. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that his question required a long answer, and to that end, I will provide him with a two-page summary on Monday.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Minister, already this morning in my office, I have had several phone calls concerning road conditions in the western end of my district. I would ask you today, Sir, to check with officials of your department. Apparently, as the ploughs come out the Foxtrap Access Road and turn east, they cover the roads with pure salt. As they come out the Foxtrap Access Road and turn west, they cover the road with a mixture of sand and salt, the mixture being 3 to 1. Now for me, being the member, I care as much about the people in the east end of my district as I do the people in the west end. In reports to me this morning there have been pretty close to a couple of accidents already in the Seal Cove, Holyrood area and I would ask you today, Sir, as minister, to check with officials of your department to certainly change the mix and to give the same service in the east end of my district, if you would Sir, as we receive in the west.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a bad morning on the road in many parts of the Province, but to this specific request, yes, I will check to ensure, and I will endeavour to continuously ensure that all roads in the Province receive the same appropriate and equitable treatment in terms of salt and sand application.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question ordinarily would be for the Minister of Education but I will ask the question of his counterpart in transportation. Will the minister tell us how old a school bus has to be before it is prohibited under our law in Newfoundland, from carrying children to and from school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The specific age is a number that I am not absolutely certain of. So, in that context, I will take it under advisement and provide an answer to you, as to what the exact age is in terms of limitation.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the law, as it exists in our Province today, is fourteen years. In the Province of Quebec recently, in fact, in this year, in 1997, there was a regulation passed which states that the limit for school buses is twelve years. In other words, there can be no bus on Quebec highways transporting children for a period of greater than twelve years when the age of the bus is twelve years.

My question is: Is the minister aware that we have bus operators in this Province who go to Quebec, perhaps other provinces as well, who pick up these buses at bargain-basement prices, those buses beyond the twelve-year period, return the buses to this Province, and these same buses, which are apparently not good enough for the children of the Province of Quebec, apparently are good enough for the children of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: These same buses are being used -

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - on the highways in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The age of any vehicle on the road is always important, I suppose, and relevant to some extent. The critical piece, in terms of the highway safety of the vehicles that are on the road, whether they are school buses or dump trucks or cars or sports vehicles, is tied significantly to the inspection regime we have in place as a province, and that governs, indicates, and dictates the quality of the vehicle that is on the road.

The key component has always got to be the inspection regime we have in place, the extent to which we require adherence to that regime, and the extent to which we enforce that regime. Given all of the components - the age of the vehicle, the inspection regimes we have in place, and the policing that we have in the Province to ensure that these things take place, not only with the RNC and the RCMP, but also inspectors under my hon. colleague, the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Under his auspices, those things happen, they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - happen very effectively -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we have a safe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - school bus fleet, as far as I know, in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will he take steps to move to enact changes ensuring that buses older than twelve years are not used in this Province to transport children to and from school? In other words, that this Province is not being treated, with respect to school bus transportation, as a Third World country.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also suggest and ask the hon. member that if he is going to dictate, or wanting to lay out what the real parameters should be for highway vehicle safety, that he should lay out all of the parameters that he thinks are appropriate.

The age of the vehicle is a criterion, but the inspection requirements that we impose and that we adhere to and that are in place are equally just as important a criterion, and a review would not be appropriate or sensible unless everything was going to be reviewed as would be relevant to the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, my question (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

 

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

 

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

MR. H. HODDER: I rise at this time - I guess it would have to be on a point of order - to say to the hon. House that since the session has started, we have placed on this side, forty-one questions on the Order Paper and have not had any responses at all from the ministers, not one. There are forty-one questions as of today's date that require answers, and we want to ask You, as the Speaker of the House, if you would cause the government to respond to these legitimate questions which we feel are of some urgency and require answers to be presented and to be printed within the Hansard as required by the law.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that he knows full-well that he is trying to put the Speaker in an embarrassing position, which he knows the Speaker cannot get into, and that is, to tell the government when to print answers to questions.

Let me also say to him that I can recall sitting in this House when the Opposition put some 600 questions on the Order Paper, and got no answers at all, and, Mr. Speaker, we are glad -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: They deny everything, they never live - and, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Where are they now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver, most of them.

MR. TULK: Vancouver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we are looking at the questions. It takes quite a bit of time to get them -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) to do it the next time.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to contain that crowd over there this morning?

- and in due course, action will be taken by the government. I say to him, it is a spurious point of order, there is no point in him standing up again unless he wants leave to make another motion similar to what he made yesterday evening on Marine Atlantic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

To the point of order, the Chair has no authority to order ministers to answer questions that are either on the Order Paper or during Oral Question Period. The minister has the option to refuse to answer any question at any time without reason.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a long-standing tradition in the British Commonwealth, in our Parliamentary system, that when Your Honour, the Speaker, stands, this House is supposed to go quiet, no catcalls, no heckling and every other member in this House is supposed to sit.

For the last number of days, I have noticed - my Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker - that every member seems to speak when Your Honour stands. If we are going to allow that trend to continue, this House is going to become a bear pit, and it will be a disgrace to the people of this Province. I would suggest, Your Honour, that members in this House should stand by the rules and that when you stand, everybody else sits and everybody else remains quiet, Mr. Speaker, otherwise this House will be a disgrace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst offender is the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, support that particular point of order. We are quite prepared to live within the rules laid down by Parliamentary tradition, however, we recognize that in a parliamentary forum, if you watch the debates from Great Britain or watch them from Ottawa, that from time to time things do happen. We respect the Office of the Speaker, that is very fundamental to our parliamentary system and we also understand that from time to time things will happen, as they have happened this day and I guess they will happen continually. It is the system we have and we respect the Speaker and we give our full co-operation to his Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I could not agree more with the Minister of Justice. We do get to the point here in this House where the rules of order and the Office of the Speaker is not respected and I think the time has come for all members of the House to endorse the suggestion that we ensure that the proceeding of this House are televised live, so that the people of this Province can see what is going on here and so that the members of this House can have an opportunity to speak -

MR. J. BYRNE: And to see you do nothing.

MR. HARRIS: - to speak directly to the people of the Province and speak to their constituents. I think if the House were televised on an hour by hour basis, gavel to gavel basis, that the effect on the proceedings of the House, the effect on members and the respect for the Office of the Speaker and for the House should improve, Mr. Speaker.

So, I think the point of the Minister of Justice is well taken. We have seen in the last number of days a deterioration in respect for the rules of order and the rules of the House and I think that the solution to that would include the televising of the proceeding of the House and I urge government to consider doing just that at the earliest possible time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon. the Minister of Justice, I just want, again, to refer members to our own Standing Orders in this respect, Standing Order 11(2) says: When the Speaker is putting a question, no member shall walk out of or across the House or make any noise or disturbance.

As well, no member may pass between the Chair and the Table, nor between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace has been placed on the table.

When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him or her and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order.

I ask hon. members to, certainly, if they have not already familiarized themselves with the Standing Orders - to do so and to certainly cooperate in the House and to follow the Standing Orders and our own rules and regulations that we have ourselves put in place to govern ourselves.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Order no. 2, Mr. Speaker.

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

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

Resuming debate on Bill no. 33.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise again today to conclude some of my remarks from yesterday with respect to the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, the amount of money subject to that.

Just to reiterate the point I ended off on yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The people in Labrador are now of course enthused, I guess, to a point if they hear announcements of what will happen in talking about the transportation system and so on in Labrador, which is long overdue, now they have to see it for themselves. They have to be able to drive up that blacktop and say: Yes, they finally followed through on something. A government of the day has followed through on finally something for Labrador that is long overdue and should have been done many years ago.

It will improve a lot of things in Labrador, as I mentioned before. The people in Labrador still have that feeling of being left out for a long time. Of course, when they see the Voisey's Bay development go ahead they still feel betrayed. They were not appeased at all of things that happened in Labrador when they found out that the Voisey's Bay development, the secondary processing and the smelter and so on, would go on on the Island portion of Newfoundland. That hasn't been forgotten.

A lot of things that are happening, especially in the rural parts, in the coastal parts of Labrador, are I guess similar to what is happening around the Island portion of rural Newfoundland. I spoke about it today in Question Period, and I say it again. The people in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, all together, have very similar concerns when we talk about the economy and job creation and so on. It is a real sore spot for a lot of people out there now.

When you hear the news like this morning, with Mr. Martin here yesterday at the $500 a plate dinner at the Delta, talk about how great everything was in Newfoundland and how we are leading the country, he said. I think that was one of the phrases. I haven't got a quote from him, but from what I heard of Mr. Martin this morning, Newfoundland is leading the country in recovery, in unemployment rates, in job creation going on, and going on and on. It was unbelievable.

As I left to come to work this morning I asked: My God, is that true? I've got to go out and find out where that is happening in the Province. Yes, there are good things. I say to the minister again, in all seriousness, yes, and I've supported and commended people who have started up small businesses around the Province and talked to them and said: Good for you, you created one job, or two jobs, or five jobs. That is wonderful, but it isn't it. I know we don't expect all solutions to come overnight, but here is the crux of the situation. As we speak here today, and this is the last part of 1997, there are people in this Province who are going to welfare for the very first time.

The two people I spoke to in my district yesterday, and I certainly wouldn't name names, but one of them is a very good friend of mine, thirty-nine years old with three kids. He phoned me to say yesterday that he is so many hours short with the new regulations on UI. Thirty-nine years old with three kids, and he is going up today to check on how to go about applying for welfare. He didn't know how to do that. That isn't a story or anything. As a matter of fact, I would give the minister or anybody the name of the gentleman. Maybe they can find him a job. Because that is the reality. He and another gentleman who I don't know so well, forty-four years old, two children, he is going into the welfare office in Springdale today to check out how he can apply for welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It certainly has happened, I say to the Member for Humber East, but it is happening much more now. It is happening right now, Mr. Chairman, a lot more than it ever has before. That is what I'm saying. It is getting worse, it isn't getting better. As a matter of fact, it isn't even sustaining, I say to the Member for Humber East. It isn't even staying the same. It is going down. It is getting worse.

The big catch about it all, Newfoundlanders for years in the 1970s and 1980s and whatever, up to this decade, had more hope than they have right now. Yes, there are certain sectors. You talk about Hibernia oil flowing and so on. That is positive. There is no doubt about that. If you ask the 5,000 people who worked at Hibernia, and when there were 5,000 people working on Hibernia, ask the people in Flower's Cove or Ming's Bight or Cockles Cove how much affect it had on them. I still say -

MR. BARRETT: Ask the people of Sunnyside how much affect it had on them.

MR. SHELLEY: How much what?

MR. BARRETT: Ask the people of Sunnyside and Arnold's Cove how much affect it had on them.

MR. SHELLEY: It had great affect on Sunnyside and Arnold's Cove, Mr. Chairman. I say to the member that is good. It has always been good that certain parts of the Province - my point here today is that mega-projects affect certain parts of the Province. For example, Argentia. We salute them, our hats are off. It is going to be good; it is going to pick up.

MR. BARRETT: That is not true. Hibernia affects the whole Province. It had more effect on the whole Province than it had on my district.

MR. SHELLEY: What I am saying is that the 5,000 at the peak periods in Hibernia never brought rural Newfoundland out of the slump it was in. I never, ever said that it did not affect certain parts of the Province, or all parts of it. The point I made - as a matter of fact, the minister agreed with me - it is not mega-projects that are going to bring us out of an entire slump. I agree that Sunnyside and other parts of the Province - Hibernia, now Voisey's Bay, when Argentia gets going, the smelter, it is going to affect mostly the people in the Argentia area, but there are people, I am sure, in my district who will get jobs out in Argentia.

What I am saying, and I still hold to it, and I have for the last four years, is that until our philosophy in this Province changes, that, `By God, Hibernia is going to save us, and Voisey's Bay is going to save us,' until we stop thinking like that, we are never going to get on the right track.

Our energies as a government, the administration of the day, I don't care what stripe they are, the focus has to be on small business and regenerating people's ideas in this Province so that they become part of the solution. I still maintain that. There are people every single day who come to see you who have a great idea. Maybe it is only for two jobs. I spoke to another person yesterday; it was only two jobs. He said, `Boy, it is only two jobs'. I say, `Boy, that is wonderful. If you can get that up and sustain it for ten years then I am just as proud of you doing that as I am for a fellow going out and striking off a big press conference because Hibernia oil is flowing'.

When you start to see those little things all over the place, that is better than one big bang, because what usually happens in one big bang - and I am from a town that had one industry, 600 jobs at the Baie Verte asbestos mine - bang, gone; but if that was 600 people working in fifty different small little companies, if five or six die, you can maintain. The threat and the problem with big industry and big boom is that with a big boom there comes a big bang, sometime, sooner or later, even Voisey's Bay. We could sit here today, and we are looking forward to all of that, but what about our kids when they are twenty-five years old and maybe they are some of the people in this House of Assembly. They are going to say, `Oh, Voisey's Bay just finished; it is all shutting down'.

Mr. Chairman, they are going to come and go with time. Voisey's Bay is good, it is twenty years, but a lot of these mines around the Province, especially if you come from a mining town - or Marystown Shipyard - Marystown Shipyard went down. Luckily for them now, and for the Province, we have somebody else in there; but I really maintain the whole point, not that Hibernia didn't affect the whole Province, I say to the Member for Bellevue. I agree with that. I never finished my point, the point being that I think that the concentration of the government and the administration - and I know the other members get it - when that person comes in with a small idea, like I say, and I used my quote before - I don't know if I made it up or somebody said it to me - roll out the red carpet, not the red tape.

MR. BARRETT: If they have an idea, why don't they go ahead with it?

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: If they have an idea, why don't they go ahead with it?

MR. SHELLEY: That is the question. That is the whole point of it. I will say it to you again. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but this is what happens to me. I have had people come in and say, `Boy, I had a great idea.' I would get them started with an aquaculture project, and they would go to ten, twelve or fifteen different offices and by the time they get a permit and talk to environment and go to mines and go to lands, they come back to me...

I had one fellow actually walk into me and say, `I am gone home. Forget it. If I have to go through any more of this red tape trying to justify me creating two or three jobs, any harder than I have, because I am gone'. And he has left. He has actually left the Province. And I bet there are members in this House who get the same thing. That is what is happening, I say to the Member for Bellevue. People in this Province are getting turned off from bureaucracy, from red tape.

MR. BARRETT: We have one-stop shopping now.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, if you think that is working then you are not in touch with it. I am sorry, but I have to say that you are not in touch with it. If you think that one-stop shopping is working... The concept is right but the reality is that it is not working. I can take a list into this House of just people in my district, and I have a small, rural district. Some of these urban districts have people coming in with ideas on companies all over the place.

MR. BARRETT: You can't be doing your job. You are not (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Don't you worry about my job. I will do my job as good as the Member for Bellevue any time, and I will hold him to that. I can tell you that right now.

I have gone, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and have actually walked around office to office with the people, and the bureaucrats say: Oh, there is another form, or there is another permit you have to do, or something else.

Don't you worry about my job. I worry about the Member for Bellevue's job. We should not get into that anyway. You are getting off track of the point. If you don't believe that... First of all, I have always believed that if you are going to solve any problem you have to acknowledge that you have the problem. If you are an alcoholic then you have to acknowledge that you have the problem and then you address it. So, if you are thinking here today, as a legislative member -

MR. BARRETT: That is why we set up the one-stop shopping.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: That is what I am saying to the member, and I will try to get the point through again. Maybe I am the only member in this House who believes it - and if I am then so be it - the one-stop shopping is not working.

If you go into the small business community in this Province, even the ones that are up-and-running now, and are trying to expand or do something, they come in here and leave this building so confused and frustrated. You will run into that I say to the Member for Bellevue. So everybody has come to you with a business idea, they say, `oh, there is no problem I must say. I go into the Confederation Building and ACOA and I go to ENL and `D2R2' and everything is fine. They are wonderful.' I mean you have heard that somewhere. Maybe I am missing it. Maybe I am the only member in this House who has seen that but I have people - not only in my district by the way, I have talked to people in Grand Falls and in Deer Lake and people I bump into and say, `boy, I have this great idea.' They tell me about it and the next thing, `...but I have gone in there and I have gotten so confused and frustrated that I gave up on it and left the Province.' That is what happens, Mr. Speaker.

If you take one stop shopping, the concept is right but the reality is not working. What we need is a -

MR. BARRETT: Can you give me their names?

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you need their names for?

MR. BARRETT: I would like to talk to them.

MR. SHELLEY: You worry about your own district I say to the Member for Bellevue. I want to make sure while I am up, Mr. Speaker, I will get this on record now, that the Member for Bellevue believes that everybody in this Province who has an idea for business and opportunity and whatever, that there is no problem whatever. They came in here and they just breezed right through the system. That is what the Member for Bellevue is saying to me, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Member for Bellevue is saying to me. He said no problem, if anybody has a good idea in this Province they can just come in here and the bureaucracy is no problem. They go to ACOA there is no problem, they go to `D2R2' there is no problem, and they are good ideas or maybe, Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Bellevue is saying is that they are not good ideas. These things are not thought through.

I have seen people paying $30,000 for a business plan out of their own pockets, come in here and get caught up in permits for the environment, in lands or somewhere else or `D2R2' will not talk to them and anything else, Mr. Speaker. I tell the Member for Bellevue, he is not from my district, if he is trying to use that. He is not. If that is the only problem, that it is only the Baie Verte District having that problem, then we are okay because we can solve that. We can send everybody in and you would just take care of that district but it is not true. It is all parts of this Province. Go up to rural parts of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, or Western Labrador and talk to those people.

The concept of the one-stop shopping is right but the reality is that it is not working and that is my whole point, Mr. Speaker. I still believe and I maintain the premise that until we focus, as a government, on small business, two and three jobs, five and six jobs, ten and eleven jobs. That is where this Province is going to start turning around because what happens, Mr. Speaker, is you pick away at it and you develop it. You will not be sitting back in your armchairs for two, three, four years waiting for the Hibernia oil to flow or for Voisey's Bay to start exploding. I mean, God knows how long it will take or how long we will get caught up in it. If we are waiting on that, Mr. Speaker, then what we saw on CBC television the other night is going to continue and continue big time because I tell you the timing is terrible. People are at that point. That man who was at the Port aux Basques ferry on the second night of the CBC series - count them. Imagine, thirty-eight families leaving this Province on one boat - 25,000 people, that is the reality, Mr. Speaker, that is fact. Twenty-five thousand people since 1991 left this Province. So let's just move all that into one group, Grand Falls - Windsor wiped off the map since 1991. More than that, what is 15,000 in Grand Falls - Windsor? The member is not here right now but that's about the population of Grand Falls - Windsor, 15,000.

Twenty-five thousand left the Province. So Grand Falls - Windsor, Badger, Baie Verte Peninsula is wiped off the map since 1991, if we brought all these people into one group. That is how serious it is. Imagine, places that size. You're trying to tell me that there are no problems and that people are saying they are getting through the system, are developing their ideas and using their business sense to develop ideas? No, Mr. Speaker, the problem is hope, the word hope is gone. When you lose hope, Mr. Speaker, you lose it all. For the longest time we have been the most residual people when it comes to surviving through tough times. We are known for it. That is what our history is all about.

If you go back through our history to the early days of settlement here, right on up through the 1930s, '40s and '50s before Confederation, there were tough times and Newfoundlanders were known for it. We could take something small and live off it. That is why in rural Newfoundland they are saying, `look all I want is my home, which I own. There is no crime here. I want my child to be able to go to school. I want to be able to pay my bills.' That is what they want. Newfoundlanders are not complicated when it comes to that in rural Newfoundland. They want the simple things, Mr. Speaker. The two simplest and the two necessities that they are really bothered about is that they are still driving over gravel roads and they are still carrying their water in a white bucket in Newfoundland and Labrador today. As we speak today, Mr. Speaker, there is probably somebody in Marks Island or Smith's Harbour carrying a white bucket of water, as we sit here today, when we have a space ship going to Mars and so on. In Newfoundland and Labrador, a developed country - and I do not think I am misleading anybody when I say it - but there is somebody carrying a white bucket as we speak today, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, carrying water, and with a population of half-a-million people in a developed country. There is no way anybody can justify it, Mr. Speaker, then you talk about roads.

In my district now, there are a few communities that still have dirt roads. We have given up on having them paved, just grade our roads on time, put something on it so we can grade it. I know in certain parts of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, I have been up there too besides the roads, all over, especially the northern part of Labrador, water and sewer and the school system and all these necessities that people say: we pay taxes, although there are a few of us in these areas, we pay the same taxes, we are just as much Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as anybody else in the bigger centres of this Province, therefore no, we do not want a double-lane highway, we do not want a university, we do not want a mall in our town, we just want the necessities. It is called decency and dignity, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is called and that is why the focus is on back there and I say to the minister again, the question that he did not answer, he should really consider it and although I do not totally agree with a job creation program, I do not think that is the answer, it is only short-term, but at the same time, one has to realize the situation of the people in this Province today as they are turning to welfare for the first time in their lives, at age forty and forty-five and so on, these are the people who will be looking for help in the short-term and hopefully, if all of these great things that the government is talking about come to fruition and we do see a Hibernia, Marystown, Voisey's Bay and so on develop, then they can have jobs in a year or two from now.

The Premier has even told me himself, he figures eighteen months, that was eight months ago, so he has ten months to go to have it all turned around. He is saying that it is going to turn around so I am saying to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal today, that a job-creation program is a necessity right now. It is needed and that is where the Premier should be talking to his counterparts, his very close relatives in Ottawa, talking about, as our Leader just mentioned to me, about the surplus in the EI fund, $20 billion.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) after another year it will be $20 billion.

MR. SHELLEY: There will be a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund and, to add to that, let us talk about the great surplus that the feds keep talking about; they were so delighted, well I am. We are glad as a country that we are getting back on track and our finances are being controlled but if they are looking for somewhere in this country to spend money, Mr. Speaker, to try to decide - I mean, we should be at the top of the list with our resources and the way they mismanaged our fishery and the resources in this Province, we should be at the top of the list of the federal government when it comes to excess spending if they have the deficit under control. Number one, Mr. Speaker, and to go even further again, the Province should take that money and make sure, especially the worst-off parts of this Province, the Labrador side, especially the coastal area and the rural part of Newfoundland should be taken care of first and foremost and immediately. That is where the $20 billion surplus from EI should go. That is where the Premier should be telling his colleagues now when he sat with the Prime Minister, he said a week ago.

If he were on track with this Province, Mr. Speaker, and in tune with what is going on, I hope at that meeting, that the Premier of this Province looked at the Prime Minister who is a good friend of his, a good, close colleague of his and said: Listen, the first step, when you start spreading out this money, before you look anywhere, Newfoundland and Labrador paid the price big time, because the biggest, biggest example, Mr. Speaker - and you can talk about blame and fishermen and so on - they mismanaged, over the years, all different stripes of Parties, the fisheries, a renewal resource in this Province was mismanaged by the federal government. There is no way out of that, and for that reason alone, never mind another twenty reasons they can give, for that reason alone, the federal government should be saying: Newfoundland and Labrador is our first priority for any spending that will be going on in this country and we are going to make sure that they get through these tough times, this next year, the year-and-a-half like the Premier says, a year, a year-and-a-half we will go through another tough time.

Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, it all fits into place. There is excess money from the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador is a year or two before we start to rebound, so very simply, the excess money should come here quickly to get us through that slump that we keep talking about. The little slump that we keep talking about (inaudible) Newfoundland is down and out, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I have been reading all your mail, I say to the minister. Somebody should read their mail because they are not reading their own and they are not answering their letters anyway and they are certainly not returning their calls.

But Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell - and I will conclude on that - the federal government are talking about $20 million from the EI fund and the debt under control. The Premier of this Province, who is very close to the leader of this country right now, should be having a face to face with him and say, very quickly Mr. Prime Minister take some of that excess money, direct it to Newfoundland and Labrador for the short-term because like he said we are going to turn around in a year to eighteen months anyway. So, what we need now is a quick infusion of cash to get people through a very tough winter.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my point to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, that although the job creation, I have never really supported it as a concept, but it is short-term, but I think and I believe that this time in our history and this particular year, that we need a job creation program in the late part of this year or early in 1998, to get people through the bad mood that they are in and to say to them: we are going to create some work in rural Newfoundland for the short-term. By the way, Mr. Chairman, if we let that money be channelled through the communities around this Province, they can come up with good projects. They do not have to be piling rocks from one pile to another. I have seen good projects where money is well spent because infrastructure in towns is falling down and there is a lot of different things. Tourism, there are trails to be done. They are good long-term investment dollars that can be spent where we can take ten people who are desperate for another three or four weeks work and put them on something that is useful and long-term and that community can use it.

Mr. Chairman, I tell you what, the communities around my district have a lot of good sensible ideas about projects and I am sure like in many other parts of the Province, where they can put people to work and at the same time do something for the community that is useful and that is going to be long-term.

So, I would like for the government and the minister to reconsider that job creation program for this year. Infuse some money in there and save the mood.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not enough I say to the minister, it is short-term silviculture. No, it is not enough, I say to the minister. We need it badly and we need it quickly. So, I suggest that the government take that to heart and really look at the situations around the Province and react to it positively.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill no. 30: "An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund".

In reading through this bill this morning it brought back many memories of many of the trips that I have made down on the Labrador Coast and in Labrador West as well. I worked at Wabush Mines in Labrador City. I spent, not a long time, in Labrador West, I think I worked there for one year back in 1965 and for a similar period in 1977 and I spent a fair amount of time on the Labrador Coast, I say to members opposite, travelling back and forth to places like Williams Harbour, Black Tickle, Domino, Spotted Island, Square Island, all the way up the coast, but only up as far as Goose Bay and it is certainly quite evident when you go to those small places on the Labrador Coast that government has to start paying more attention in providing revenue back to that particular area of our Province.

MR. TULK: Did the hon. gentleman ask the Member for Torngat Mountains how much improvement there was in his area this year? Did you ask him?

MR. FITZGERALD: I realize that. There has been some schools -

MR. TULK: Did you ask him?

MR. FITZGERALD: There has been some schools built there.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am talking about when I was travelling back and forth there, I say to the member. I have been into Rigolet many times, I say to members opposite, many, many times. I do not know how any business survives on the Labrador Coast -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - when you look at the transportation -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is talking about the Labrador Coast, yes, I think that we on this side would agree with him that much needs to be done on the Labrador Coast, but he should have heard the Member for Torngat Mountains the other day talking about the changes that have taken place. How the social assistance rolls have decreased, what is it, eighty per cent, in some of the communities up there that he has been working at. He has worked a great deal at it and he is to be commended for it.

The hon. gentleman should stay aware of the kind of things that certain members in this Legislature are doing, -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - rather than - Harvey what is wrong - rather than whining over there, they should be out trying to -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are working with the member over there.

MR. TULK: We are working with the member from -

PREMIER TOBIN: Who has brought us good suggestions.

MR. TULK: Who has brought us good suggestions to help her, but the hon. gentlemen, all they do is get in here and whine and criticize rather than putting forward something positive.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Members here, especially this member, agree that the Member for Torngat Mountains is doing a good job and he is getting good benefits for his people there. I say to the members opposite that we are still going to be far short of what those people on the Labrador Coast need and desire.

I will make the statement again. I don't know how any business survives on the Labrador Coast with what they have to contend with, with transportation needs, weather, the cost of getting goods in, the cost of getting goods out. They are certainly at a big disadvantage. Government has to step in and help. Government has to continue to subsidize freight to the Labrador Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If the minister can go up there and create a good sawmill and get people working, that is good stuff. I've been up to Port Hope Simpson many times, I say to the member, and sailed in that long inlet there many times, in fact, in December month. I've never travelled up in the chopper at the expense of the taxpayers of this Province. I've never done that, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: If you talk to many people, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I have to inform the House that the hon. gentleman has indeed travelled in a helicopter at taxpayers' expense last year when we were out trying to get some wood for some people out in his district. I have to tell you something else. We almost lost him! The door came open, and if I hadn't reached over and grabbed him he would have been out through the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: You pushed him!

MR. TULK: I was tempted! I must say I was tempted, but I reached out, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: Hold on, there is a reason. I say to the hon. gentleman there is a reason why I reached out. I reached out and I grabbed him because he comes from my wife's home town. I know they would be terribly upset if the hon. gentleman, as Tory as he is, fell out through that helicopter door. Mr. Chairman, he has travelled, and I saved his life in the process.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Government House Leader is 100 per cent right, but he didn't finish telling you the story. He landed the helicopter about 300 feet from my door and let me out. The chopper picked a place to land. I said: There isn't any point in me flying back to St. John's, I may as well get out here. Friday afternoon. His wife's cousin had a dog tied on to a house that was there. When the helicopter landed the dog took off. Took the chain, took the door of the house, went across the road and put somebody off the road who was driving down in a car, and the dog hasn't been seen since! That is a true story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader, there is no point in you going back in the district of Terra Nova and expect to get many votes from Musgravetown because they won't be forthcoming. You aren't a very popular fellow. They knew it was you.

Mr. Chairman, a little bit of humour there, but this is a very serious bill. It is nice to see government putting forward an initiative for the Labrador Coast. Nice to see government putting forward an initiative hopefully that will help those many people who so long in their history contributed greatly to the economy in this Province.

The people on the Labrador Coast seem to maintain the working skills and the togetherness that we have experienced one time in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you could only go down there in places like Williams Harbour and see what the people have done there, the things they have moved and the buildings they have put up, and how they have banded together to make the community survive, you would hardly believe it. You would almost think they had to get a crane in to lift something from one place to another. You would wonder if it just dropped out of the sky and fell there, because they are certainly very innovative.

MR. E. BYRNE: They've never landed in Bonavista in a helicopter, have they (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, that is for sure. Mr. Chairman, very innovative people.

This particular bill, the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, they should have people from the Labrador Coast, they should have people from the Labrador portion of our Province on that committee that is going to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Hopefully it won't be all political appointments who are past Liberals or donators to the Liberal Party to be put there to further their own gains, Mr. Chairman. Labrador is certainly well represented with the minister that they have here in the House of Assembly and I feel certain that this fund will go a great ways to bringing some equality to the people's lives in that particular area.

That is all I have to say on that. Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

 

Resolution

 

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, sums not exceeding $353,000,000.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill, Bill No. 33, be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1998 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 9, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act". The Minister of Government Services and Lands introduced the bill.

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple of notes on this particular bill.

The Mechanics' Lien Act is an act that was enacted many, many years ago. With the new electronic means that we have for filing, we need to bring the legislation up to a process whereby we can accommodate the registration of liens through electronic methods. Certainly the bill that is here today will accommodate the computerization of the mechanics' lien registry. In addition, there is a provision to deem a lien to be registered at the point of delivery, certainly making this act consistent with the Registry of Deeds.

Computerization will make the registration of liens more efficient, and certainly the priority of interest will be easier to establish through this amendment, and this effort will certainly improve service to the business community.

There are just a couple of more quick notes. The Mechanics' Lien Act governs the process of establishing the lien against property in the Province. Basically, a lien can be created against property when materials are provided or services are rendered to a particular property. Certainly in this case timing is critical to determine the priority.

Currently, the mechanics' liens are registered manually in a series of index boxes, which has been done over the years, and certainly with the IT we can improve on that and put it into a computer program. Certainly a computer registry system has already been developed and tested so we aren't doing anything really new. Certainly the computer registration system will be more efficient, making it easier to determine priority and easier to search for liens already registered.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very straightforward amendment that will improve government's service to the business community. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few words on Bill 37. What were the last words he used? The minister said it was a housekeeping or minor amendment, is that what you said? What were the last words you used?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a minor amendment. No, it is a major amendment, I would say to the minister. There is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister said: In case you aren't aware, we use computers for that. I wonder if the minister knows how to turn on a computer. I've been using computers for twenty-five years, I say to the minister. I know a few things about computers and, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Give me a chance! The minister says: What's wrong with that? Don't be so defensive. I might be up here to compliment you on this yet. I might be saying it is good, I might say it is good, but I don't know. If the minister keeps bawling and yelling at me I will bawl and yell right back, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was up introducing this major bill, he said, and I think it took him three minutes, or two maybe. He said it was a minor bill. Now, this is a major bill, Bill 37. I agree it is a major bill, and I will show why it is a major bill, as time goes by. I don't know how much time I have but I have papers here everywhere on this, all kinds of notes made, as you can see. Look, all highlighted. I made a few notes when the minister was up speaking so I will address his notes first, I suppose.

He said that the present mechanics' lien legislation was enacted many years ago. There is no doubt about that. Because if you go to the registry to dig up the information it is all hard copy, written out, photocopies, and what have you, going through files and different types of things like that. The intent of this bill I would imagine is to be more effective, more efficient, and to speed things up. When we talk about that type of a situation, of course there are costs involved to implement a new system, this computerized system for the mechanics' lien registry. There has to be costs to implement that. The minister never addressed that when he was on his feet, the cost to implement this new system. How many computers are we going to have to purchase? Another factor. We were talking about efficiency in the system. How many jobs may be lost because of this, I wonder? Did he address that? No, he didn't.

I remember in the House of Assembly last week and this week asking the minister questions with respect to the on-site septic waste disposal and wells water supply. There are going to be jobs lost there when of course it becomes more efficient and we become more computerized. Jobs going out the door all the time. That is a cost in itself, not only respecting the dollars to implement and to buy computers, and to buy the programs, to maintain the programs and what have you.

Also, this is going to be put in place to save dollars. There is no doubt about that. This Administration, since it was elected back in 1996, and the previous Administration to that back to 1989, have been on a cost-cutting binge with respect to government. Because of that cost-cutting binge, we have seen hundreds and hundreds of people laid off. It was only the other day I think that one of the ministers was on his or her feet talking about the voluntary departure system that was implemented by this Administration.

There were quite a number of people who were forced out the door. They were forced out the door because they didn't know what was going to be done with their pensions. There were talks of cutting the pensions, and there were all kinds of fears out there. I personally know a number of people who had to leave government and different Crown corporations, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for example. So every move that this administration makes, it seems to me they are either taking money out of the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, one way or the other or, causing people to leave the Province or laying people off. So this bill, although it appears to be minor, could be a major bill with respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Are they going to charge more, Mr. Speaker, for a search at the Mechanics' Lien? What is the charge now for a search at the Mechanics' Lien, anything? It is a minor charge now, ten dollars but we know from the previous Budget, last year's Budget and the Budget before that; the Budget for 95-96 showed three pages of license fees and permit increases, doubling and tripling, but there were no tax increases in that Budget they said, and in the 96-97 Budget, we saw six pages of license fees and permit increases.

Now, when this is implemented, there is no doubt about it, you can mark it down, Mr. Speaker, the cost to do a search at the Mechanics' Lien Registry is going to increase. I think it is somewhere around ten dollars now to do a search but I stand to be corrected on that figure. It is not a lot of money but in the meantime, you can mark it down, when they bring in this system, it will be an increase in what a person has to pay to do a search. The minister mentions that this action will basically be in consistence with the Registry of Deeds.

Now we all know, Mr. Speaker, that the Registry of Deeds was computerized a few years ago and what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We saw from zero, no charge, I think it was a dollar, a nominal fee, and now, you have to go in there, purchase a card, you pay for your photocopies and for companies that are in there searching all the time, there is a monthly charge, I say to the Member for St. John's East, how much do they charge now at the Registry of Deeds to do a search?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: At the Registry of Deeds, it depends on the value of the property.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it is all geared to the property value. Now, I ask some questions off and on to the Member for St. John's East because he is an individual who constantly uses the Registry of Deeds and is quite familiar with what has happened in the Registry of Deeds. I am somewhat familiar but not as much as the Member for St. John's East and other groups within the Province, but I know that, when they computerized the system, it went from one dollar to a fee that now relates to the cost of the property that you are researching so, Mr. Speaker, again, another hidden tax on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well now, I heard a comment from the Member for - what is he for, Bellevue? - talking about paying salaries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if they want me to talk about members in this House of Assembly being paid salaries, there are members in this House of Assembly who are well worth their salaries I say to the Member for Bellevue and I think that, any member sitting in this House of Assembly and is doing a decent job at all within his own district and looking after the concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the money is well spent I say to the member and I am sure that all members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, oh, oh, oh the Minister of Government Services and Lands is bringing up a good point in what he said. If there are companies out there, a survey company for example, was doing work in 1976, would he be charged the same rate today as they were in 1976? Well the answer to that, I say to the Government Services and Lands, is that they are getting less for it today than they were in '76. They are getting less with the increased costs they have to pay, increased fees for insurances, for permits and to the associations and what have you, they are getting less today but government is not getting less for the services they are providing I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. The government is not getting less.

Every door you go through now within government, every office that you go into and look for a permit or a license or a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, they are trying to deflect me from the real issue here, Mr. Speaker, and the real issue here is the increased fees that this government has brought in since 1989; that is what they are doing, they are trying to distract me and get me away from that because they are completely embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, completely embarrassed about that over there on that side of the House, and I saw yesterday in this House of Assembly, for the first I often heard about Liberal Red, Mr. Speaker, but when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was on his feet yesterday, I saw Liberal red for the first time in my life, I can guarantee you that. When there were questions put to him and he turned as red as the beet, I knew what the Liberal red was all about.

Now, if you want to continue on and be the distraction that you are going on with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am serious here. You listen to me and tell me what I am talking about here. I am talking about the license fees, the permit increases in Newfoundland and Labrador brought upon us by this administration which are completely irrelevant to this Bill no. 37, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands because once this is implemented, he cannot stand in his place over there and tell me there will not be an increase in the charge to do a search in the mechanics' lien. He cannot tell me, right there now, he did not tell me how much it was going to cost to implement this, which is a major consideration. He did not tell me how much he was going to charge to do the search and he did not tell me how much he was going to save in the long haul.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have not asked him.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have asked him three or four times and I thought the minister would be taking notes to answer these questions when he gets up to respond. That is what I am up to, but I am not getting that, Mr. Speaker.

But he talks about this being more efficient and no doubt that this will be more efficient, hopefully it will be, but for everything we do there is a reaction, if there is an action, there is always a reaction and what if the reaction -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is physics, I did physics, I know something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: An opposite reaction, an equal and opposite reaction. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, did you pass physics?

MR. FUREY: Did I pass physics?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. FUREY: I passed physics, but (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is about it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did well on physics and I did well on post-secondary physics too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I never did chemistry, but after high school, I went on and did post-secondary physics, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder what he did.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell you right here and now, I have no problem in admitting, I did not do physics. I did biology and one of the rocks that I studied was the minister's head, granite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to - what is the member for - Humber East, the maw mouth for Humber East. Why don't you sit down and be quiet.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want it? You think I cannot do it, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't be so childish, immature and simple minded, my son. I can do it, you need not worry, I can do it. What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Five hundred, make it worth your while.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, can you protect me from the maw mouth over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious bill and I being distracted and the Minister of Mines and Energy is the worst over there, trying to distract me. I have to go down to my notes now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Physics, I am telling you, I should never cease to amaze you, I say to the member and that should confirm it for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have my son.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill no. 37; "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act" briefly, it is going to accommodate the computerization of the mechanics' lien registry, but the main concerns are the questions about the security with respect to the electronic data base and will there be a lack of hard copy, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands? Will there be a lack of hard copy? Will the information that is put into the system, will it be backed up? Will there be a hard copy stored because we know any computerized system now are subject to packing, they are subject to what they call - the computers are down or electrical current going through the system, electricity going off or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are hacking your way through something.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am hacking my way through something.

If the Minister of Mines and Energy would pay attention, he would learn what that government is doing, and what they are trying to do. I am asking the Minister of Government Services and Lands serious questions, and this crowd over here are making fun of Bill 37. It is a serious bill that the minister is trying to introduce.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a speech with such depth and such breath that I wonder if the Speaker would protect me from members on this side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now, let me think, about five years I suppose, and the Government House Leader, the present Government House Leader, the clone of the previous Government House Leader, is on his feet daily on points of order, and I don't think yet that man has had one point of order. Of all the times he has been on his feet, not one point of order, and for a Government House Leader to not know what a point of order is, is shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are on second reading of a bill. We should be debating the principles of the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the bill, and maybe the Government House Leader will be more serious and take the seriousness of this bill. The Minister of Government Services and Lands is introducing this bill -

MR. TULK: That is what I just said.

MR. J. BYRNE: - and he is very serious.

MR. TULK: You didn't hear me, did you?

MR. J. BYRNE: But you are not making it serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

In detail, of course, the government now is shifting from paper records to computerized systems because of speed, the cost-effectiveness, and the ease of manipulation of data. Of course, now when people go to the Registry of Deeds, or the Mechanics' Lien Registry, the system that is in place now is old and antiquated, and what have you; but now, with this new system, maybe there will be an improvement.

Again, I say to the minister, when he gets on his feet to respond in due course, maybe he will talk about the cost to implement it, the charges that will be charged for the new system, and how much money they are looking at saving overall.

The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to ask a question, and in due course if he wants to get on his feet and speak to this bill he is welcome to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, is that right? That is a good point, I say to the minister. That is a good point, but if we do get hacking... We can get people who get in hacking and erase information. Did you ever hear tell of that, to erase information? That is a concern. Did you ever know that? Now, when you sit back and are going to make a comment, you should think about the consequences of your comment, and what you are talking about. I say to the minister, don't be embarrassing yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I know how to use a computer. That is why I have some concerns about this.

The information that will be in the system, of course, is going to be the name and address of the service, and the people who will be involved in the lien, and the amount of money that may be involved in the lien itself, and the agreement and what have you. I suppose that is something that may need to be looked at in due course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say one thing, Mr. Speaker. I know when I am on my feet to speak on this side of the House, I can guarantee you one thing, the crowd over there that pays attention, they are all the time trying to interrupt. When most of them are on their feet answering questions, as I mentioned earlier this morning, it is a job to stay awake, but not when I am on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, four years in Grade IX.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment raises some concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grade VI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Grade VI. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this crowd over there? Are they afraid of the truth and the facts? It is pitiful the comments that come from that side of the House. The comments that are supposed to be, trying to be, witty and intelligent are witless and dull.

I have the ear of the Government House Leader. Now, is there a danger in limiting the filing of information on paper, having it on the electronic data base, I ask the minister? What happens if there is computer failure, power outage, electro-magnetic disruption, accidental erasure of the data, tampering, or computer hacking, resulting in the loss of original information?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I tell you what we do on our side. We have researchers. We go to these people and we make points to these individuals and ask them to do a bit of research for us. What the problem is, and why there was a 69.1 per cent failure rate in that Administration, is because of the research that they do, or the lack of research that they do, on these issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are hearing it from the horse's mouth. I am saying it. I ask, where is the back-up? Will there be back-up copies, I ask the minister? This bill does not require the department to create even a back-up list, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be wise to amend the bill by adding the requirement that a certified hard copy duplicate be made. Maybe the minister should look at making an amendment or a change to the proposed bill to require a hard copy to be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to put my glasses on every now and then to look across the House. Do you ever watch the show The Muppets? Well, there they are, the crowd up in the gallery - like the two old crones.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look like the chef who lost his hat.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the chef who lost his hat? I don't know what the man is talking about. Now, they had me distracted again. There is no doubt about that.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that hopefully, when he passes this bill and he is asked legitimate questions in the House concerning this bill, that he can answer them better, and do a better job on the questions I asked him the other day in the House of Assembly with respect to the on-site septic waste disposal system. He never had an idea. With respect to questions, there are forty-one questions, and not one question answered of the forty-one questions on the Order Paper. That will tell you now what this Administration is doing and how busy they are.

With respect to this registry, I would say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Department of Government Services and Lands is responsible for a number of registries: the registry of deeds, the mechanics' lien registry, the Crown lands registry. Is there any movement afoot, I wonder - and I asked the minister this last year - any movement or plans by the Administration to combine all these registries? Another major concern of mine is the privatization of these registries.

What is on the go, I would ask the minister, if I could get the minister's ear. I wonder if there is anything on the go with respect to the privatization of any of the registries, any of these mechanics' lien registries. Because what I see coming - we see the computerization of the registry of deeds, we see the computerization of the mechanics' lien registry, we see the computerization of the Crown lands registry, so are we going to see, in due course, that these registries will be privatized to maybe, possibly, the former Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services? I am not sure what they are called now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am asking a question.

There you go, Mr. Speaker. Whenever we ask a question of that side of the House, the response by the ministers is: Are you suggesting that, is that what you are telling us to do? I am asking you a simple question. Is that going to be a possibility, that all the registries will be privatized in the near future when they are all computerized, when the taxpayer of this Province has paid the bill, footed the bill, for the computerization of the Crown Lands Registry, the Registry of Deeds, the Mechanics Lien Registry and any other registries. Then we will see it being sold off to someone for a dollar, maybe, after the taxpayer paying for it.

Mr. Speaker, are we going to see the same situation arise as we saw when the previous Administration tried to privatize Newfoundland Hydro and give it away. Since then, we now know that they have used tens of millions of dollars from Newfoundland Hydro to help balance the budget, Mr. Speaker. So this is a very serious concern, I say to the minister. If the taxpayer of this Province is going to pay to have all these registries computerized, to me, the next step then, knowing the history and the track record of this Administration, is that they are going to look at selling it off to maybe one of their buddies, one of their supporters possibly, for a dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I see the Member for Labrador West over there making gestures. I am expecting to see the Member for Labrador West on his feet to speak to this bill. I refer affectionately to the Member for Labrador West as the preacher. He is up, Mr. Speaker, and everywhere he goes he is preaching the gospel according to Tobin. So that is why he is referred to as the preacher.

I would like to see the Member for Labrador West on his feet to speak to this bill and see if he knows what the intent of the bill is, what the implications of the bill will be in the future and what it is going to do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to cost me money. It is going to cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador money but I want the minister, when he responds to - maybe in committee - the question with respect to the privatization of the Registry of Deeds, the Mechanics Lien Registry and the Crown Lands Registry - I think that is a very serious question and concern. I asked him questions in the spring sitting, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this issue about a certain company that is registered in the Registry of Deeds and he did not know anything about that company. So maybe he will want to go back –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes. The cost, the savings, what it will be and what the overall intent - if you are implementing this bill, if you go into it and get it through this House of Assembly, obviously, government must feel that it is a positive thing. When you spoke this morning and introduced the bill you really did not say a lot about some of the concerns and the issues that I am bringing up, I say to the minister.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know now if some of the other members would like to speak on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legislation coming through the House this time around, there is not a lot of legislation or bills, I would say. There are a number of bills but mostly pretty minor bills, as the Minister of Government Services and Lands, refers to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Fifteen more bills left to come. Mr. Speaker, we are in the House two weeks today and I think this is basically the second bill that has been -

AN HON. MEMBER: Third.

MR. J. BYRNE: Third bill -

MR. TULK: Sure, that is up to you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, it is not up to us, Mr. Speaker. It is up to the Government House Leader, the bills he decides to call. We will debate them on this of the House. There is no problem there. We will debate the bills, but we cannot debate the bills if you do not bring them forward. This is only the third bill.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you know, we are debating the bills, Mr. Speaker, as they are brought forward by the Government House Leader. We would like to see the bills introduced. And another thing, too, Mr. Speaker, it is getting close to Christmas and we have fifteen more bills, he said, to debate.

MR. TULK: We can come back in January.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, no problem, but when we normally bring bills into the House and they try to force them through, Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, they invoke closure. They have abused closure on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, so often in the past four or five years - more times in one year, I think, than -

MR. TULK: We are going to do a few night sittings.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader says we are going to do a few night sittings. Why would that be?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you just - now, see, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is contradicting himself. He said we would come back in January and do the bills. Now he is talking about having night sittings, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying to the hon. gentleman is this, and this is a legitimate point of order, I believe. What I am saying to him is this: that we will do some night sittings, we will give the hon. gentleman all the time he needs and if it comes to the 23rd of December and we have to finish off the Order Paper, then there is absolutely no reason why in the world this government - we have shown ourselves to be flexible - even with all the night sittings, we would not come back in January? The hon. gentleman will have all the time he needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Speaker just ruled there is no point of order. Now, how often, Mr. Speaker, is the Government House Leader -

MR. TULK: That was a point of clarification.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it is a point of clarification. Okay, I accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am going to say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that I agree this can be a positive step forward, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker - there is no doubt in my mind that this can be a positive step forward; but there are a number of questions that are put forward to the Minister of Government Services and Lands and I hope that he will address those concerns in due course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I agree, we will do that at Committee stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am asking questions generally speaking, there is no doubt about that, but I mean -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) principle there and ask questions (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am speaking on the principle, I am wondering about the concerns and the implications of this to the public, you know, those are the general concerns of mine; that is not a problem. So on that note, saying that this may be a positive step forward - I am hoping it will be, but my major concern with this is that, in due course, down the road, when we have everything computerized, Mr. Speaker, that this will be given away, for a dollar, when the taxpayers of this Province paid a fortune to put it in place. That is a major concern and I hope the minister can address it and give us some assurances that that will not happen.

On that then, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments on Bill 37, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act.

The Act, of course, was put in place years ago to protect the rights of principally creditors, but to some extent debtors as well. Simply put, there was a thirty-day limitation, Mr. Speaker, on those individuals who felt that once work was completed, either by a contractor or a sub-contractor, there was a thirty-day limitation if there was some concern that the outstanding indebtedness would not be dealt with in a timely fashion, that a person could file and register with the Mechanics' Lien Registry, a notice of lien. And what essentially that did, Mr. Speaker, was protect the rights of the creditor within that thirty-day period, to ensure that any subsequent issues or any subsequent indebtedness would simply fall in line.

It was an issue of priority and just like any registry, Mr. Speaker, that is really what Mechanics' Lien Registry is all about. It is a legal registry which guarantees a priority. That is the same with respect to the Registry of Bills of Sale, and Chattel Mortgages whereby, if a person puts a chattel mortgage on a particular object or commodity, that chattel mortgage is usually registered by the mortgagee and it is registered in sequence, therefore who is ever registered first, is protected first, who is ever registered second, is protected after the first registrant. So with all of these registries and the registry system in this Province, Mr. Speaker, it is done in sequence to protect those individuals. Whether they be mortgagees or lien holders or any claim holder, they are there to protect their rights and, as I have indicated, it is done in sequence.

For example: if a person has a mortgage on a property, that mortgage is registered at the Registry of Deeds and Companies and Securities here in the Confederation Building. If there is a second mortgage, Mr. Speaker, that particular mortgage is registered in sequence. The first mortgagee has priority –

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The first mortgagee is protected because of the priority right. The same is true in the Mechanics' Lien Registry and that is basically what this bill is about. I agree with the hon. minister that, it is essentially a housekeeping act. It is there now to improve the codification and the registration components; however, there are a couple of concerns, and one is - and the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis referred to it - if it is restricted to a computerized system, without the hard copy and without the manual registration which we have known for years, if it is restricted to only a computerized system, fundamental questions have to be asked: What happens in the case of power outages? What happens in the case of computer breakdown?

The answer to those questions could be fundamental to the very purpose of the registry itself. It is there to protect lien holders. It is there to protect, in the case of the Registry of Deeds, mortgage holders, property owners, and so on. If there is a breakdown mechanically in the system, and if we do not have a secure back-up system - in other words, the traditional manual system, the hard-copy system that we now know - if there is a problem mechanically, how is the individual protected?

That is a concern, and a concern that perhaps ought to be addressed by the minister. What is the security? What is the protection which is put in place as a result of this legislation for the continuation of a manual back-up system? Because if there is that sort of failure or computer breakdown that I mentioned, and in the absence of the manual system being continued, we could be in a situation where the priority purpose, the prioritizing which is the essence of any registry system, is lost.

Another point, and I refer specifically to the definitions of `approved claim' and `pending claim' in Bill 37 - `approved claim', according to the definition, means a pending claim for a lien which has been approved by the registrar. A `pending claim' means a claim for a lien which has been received by the registry but has not yet been approved by the registrar.

There is perhaps a fundamental weakness in this as well. It gives significant discretion, as I see it, to the Registrar of Lands, the Registrar of Deeds in our Province. It gives significant discretion, and if a lien has not been approved, when must it be approved? What are the guidelines? What are the time lines? How much time is the Registrar of Deeds given before he or she gives the appropriate approval so that it can be appropriately placed in the Mechanics' Lien Registry?

That begs the question: What happens if a subsequent claim is registered and is given quick approval? What happens to the document which was registered in advance of that?

This definition, in my view, needs some clarification, both `approved claim' and `pending claim'. They are defined rather loosely, and when we consider the very essence of the registry system, which is based on priority, and the protection of those rights that an interested party would have when he or she goes to register, if there is a problem with the definition, it raises concerns that could be down the road for that individual who relies on the Mechanics' Lien Registry.

Mr. Speaker, these are the couple of areas of concern which I just want to refer to briefly. One, the definition of `pending' and `approved' claims; and, secondly, what happens in the event of a computer breakdown. To rely on this solely could be problematic. We need a back-up system to ensure that the rights are protected.

If the minister wants to make a comment in response to that, feel free to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

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

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

I just want to have a few comments, not very many because my colleague, the well-informed Member for Cape St. Francis, and my colleague, the Member for St. John's East, have outlined some of our concerns about this particular piece of legislation.

It certainly is a housekeeping bill, as the minister, I do believe, had indicated in his comments. We agree with that, that it is basically to accommodate the computerization of the Mechanics' Lien Registry. We believe the time has come to use the computerization technology that is available to us.

Therefore, we do not have any great deal of concerns. We do have some concerns that were raised by my two colleagues, who are the primary critics for that and I am sure the minister will respond to some of their concerns in a few moments.

Some of the issues that were raised here include the problem - we are wondering what will happen if there are breakdowns in the computerization system and we all know, those of us who know a little bit about computers and part of the system for some time, know that from time to time there have been difficulties and we just want to be assured that the information is adequately protected and there are ways to do that and that there are appropriate backups to prevent tampering or the data being accessed inappropriately. We know there are people out there who take great delight in being able to get into computer programs and some of the very best computer programs in the world have been accessed and there are people out there who would take it on as a target.

I should say to the hon. the minister, that we have not had any evidence of any great deal of difficulties with the computerization programs that the government is presently operating. Therefore, we are not saying that there is a case here or any statements have been made that would indicate to us that we have great concerns about the technology that the government agencies are using.

However, we do say that because, at least in the initial stages, there might be a case of having a hard copy backup and also for having appropriate backups that would be available within the computerization system itself.

So, we are a little concerned about the security of the documentation. In fact, some of us on this side believe that at the appropriate stage in committee, we may move an amendment for some time there may be a need to have a certified hard copy or duplicate made that might take care of some of the questions we raise about tampering or loss of data.

The minister might want to address that when he makes his concluding comments on second reading, then we would know whether or not that might be a step that we would want to take on this side or not. We can do it regardless, but we would like to maybe have comments about that, about the protection that would be in place.

We want to know, as well, statements about what this would mean in terms of employment and employees. Whether or not there is going to be any loss of jobs and whether this would result in lay-offs in the public service. Where these lay-offs would occur and would they only be in one department or whether they would be in a number of departments. So, the effect of the public service is an issue that we would like to have addressed.

We are not saying no to computerization. We know that it is a reality. We know that it is a stage of our society and we certainly are giving reserved approval to the bill in principal and maybe with these few comments we would like to have the ministers comments, particularly as to two things, security of documents and also the impact it might have on the numbers of employees within the civil service, whether there would be lay-offs or no lay-offs at all.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The points that have been raised by the members opposite I am sure we can deal with at the committee stage, will respond to the inquiries.

I think the general thrust of the bill itself is to improve the service to the community out there and we have been requested on numerous occasions to start coming into the 1990's and that is one of the main driving forces behind this, is to bring us up to speed so that we can do things in a way that things are done today.

I will respond to the points, when we get in debate, on the issues of the backup copies and the safety devices that are going to be built into all this and also to the cost and that sort of thing, that searches are going to require.

Mr. Speaker, I just think that I will leave it at that for now and close debate on second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 37)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 10, Bill No. 38, "An Act To Enable Information To Be Filed Electronically By Business."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Enable Information To Be Filed Electronically By Business". (Bill No. 38)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few comments on Bill 38 and this is another housekeeping situation. Certainly this is also involving being able to deal through the electronic filing methods. This bill will, certainly legally, enable information and forms to be filed electronically with government, which is not the case right now. We have to change the legislation in order for us to be able to do that. Certainly the act will apply to all departments but Cabinet approval will be required in order to authorize electronic filing for each individual piece of legislation. So that is the process by which this will be carried out and certainly appropriate computer systems will have to be put in place in order to accommodate electronic filing and that would be part of the whole transfer of this.

Electronic filing will make the filing of information and forms faster and cut down on the volume of paper required to be filed. I don't think I have to explain that very much as to the volumes of paper that we have, the volumes of files that we have to dig through when we are looking for information. Electronic filing will be able to be performed remote from government offices. Examples would be in places such as; law offices, businesses and even in your own homes. So this will greatly enhance the availability of being able to accommodate the electronic filing.

Information and forms will be stored electronically, providing for easier and faster access. It is much easier to get into a computer screen and look at it rather than go to a filing box somewhere down in the stockroom to find out what you are looking for. The act will also create a consistent regulatory environment in Atlantic Canada. Here is another point, similar legislation has been enacted in Nova Scotia and PEI. So we are coming in line with the other jurisdictions which I think is long overdue. It certainly will bring us up to speed.

The act also provides for the establishment of common business identifiers which would make it easier for businesses dealing with more than one department and this will facilitate the sharing of information between government departments. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that can be accommodated by the amendments that we are going to do to the electronic filing act or bring in the electronic filing act.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I will entertain some questions from the other side because this is their opportunity to take a look at that and we will have responses for that at the committee stage but I think in all, Mr. Speaker, this is a process that is certainly overdue. We should have probably had it before. It is something that will greatly enhance our efforts, as government, in providing services to the public.

I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and allow for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill No. 38. I see members on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, bowing and waving to me, rightly so. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: More, more.

MR. J. BYRNE: You shall have more, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

The minister is introducing this bill, Bill 38, as a housekeeping bill. Again, I think it is a bit more than a housekeeping bill. I think there are going to be some major impacts upon the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people living in Newfoundland and Labrador, when the full implication of this legislation is felt. What the government is trying to do, basically, is legalize the electronic filing by businesses. Of course that would bring many, many concerns to these businesses, I would imagine.

He talked about the appropriate computer systems. Again, the question that would come up right off the top of my head, I suppose, would be the fact that it is important to be at the forefront of the information age -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there we go again. It is a very serious bill and we have members on the opposite side of the House reducing this bill to some kind of a comedy or something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a very serious situation here. We are talking about bringing in legislation here that is going to affect every present and future Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and people coming to the Province. It is not something to be laughed at.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it very well could be.

I say it is important, no doubt, to be at the forefront of the information age - there is no doubt about that - but we have to wonder, `Why the rush?' We have to kind of weight the pros and cons, I suppose, of why the rush, but we have to make sure that we do it right. If we don't do it right, what is it going to cost us in the long haul?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister is over there saying, `What is the rush?' That is exactly what I am asking. I am only saying that up front we have to be careful that we bring in the proper programs and what have you. The minister even referred to it that we have to have appropriate computer systems. That is all I am saying, the appropriate computer system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Withdraw the bill? Don't get carried away. I am only bringing forth some concerns of the public out there, the businesses and what have you. We have to go forward in a proper fashion, and that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not into the Premier's intensity yet, where he gets up and starts out nice, at a low, low profile, and he builds and builds and builds. What a performance. No, I am being me. I am being Jack Byrne. That is who I am being. I am bringing the legitimate concerns forward to this administration - legitimate concerns - and I have all kinds of concerns here with respect to this bill.

Of course, by going to the computerized age the government is trying to speed up the efficiency, speed up the procedures and what have you, but when I want to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Improving the services is what he is trying to do. I have no doubt that this very serious, sincere minister, one of the few on that side of the House, is genuinely concerned. But he gets up here introducing bills in the sake of three or four minutes that are going to have major impacts on what happens in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not only to the businesses but to the people who live here, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am bringing forward concerns to the administration over there that need to be brought forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation losing his mind, I wonder? Is he losing his mind? I know he has been hounded this morning with phone calls from people all over Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the state of the roads here. He was asked questions in the House by the Member for CBS. He cannot answer the questions. He is in a complete blizzard over there, as the member said. I think he is losing his mind, but my concern -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, see? Mr. Speaker, I am getting support from the other side of the House, the government side of the House. The Minister of Mines and Energy said for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to lose his mind he would have to have one first. So I stand corrected. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation does not have a mind. It has been confirmed by the member - one of the few in this House, Mr. Speaker, who has had proof that he has a brain.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get back to (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, watch out, watch out now, the Member for Topsail, watch your blood pressure.

MR. J. BYRNE: I thought you were talking about fly rods, fishing. There is a story behind that but I won't tell you. Some other day, maybe.

Anyway, they are trying to distract me, Mr. Speaker, from the very serious concerns that I am bringing forward, once again on behalf of the people of my district and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister talked about a regulatory environment in Atlantic Canada and he said that the other provinces in Atlantic Canada, I think he mentioned Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI, have gone to this system and again, Mr. Speaker, we cannot be outdone by the provinces, certainly our neighbouring provinces with respect to this if we want to be competitive and have our businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador competitive in Atlantic Canada and throughout Canada and internationally. So, again, I have no problem in supporting what the intent of this bill is, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.

Also, he mentioned that the business would have identifiers that they then could share in government information, so I would assume that the businesses out there would now be able to tap into the government computer system once they have an identifying number and that could be confirmed, I suppose, but I am sure there would be certain securities built into the system, that we would not be able to tap into information that should not be available to one business versus another business. So I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that there would be securities built in there, I have no doubt about that. I am hoping that there would be, and if we are to be competitive, of course, those are some of the points I had to bring up.

Jobs, Mr. Speaker - as I mentioned earlier in the previous bill, once we go to a computerized system - you know, and it has been the trend in the 1980s, I suppose, and 1990s, that once companies and/or administrations, government and what have you, become computerized, there is a job loss and there is a job-cost factor to the people within the Province - this Province and any province that would implement such a system. So I am wondering, will there be job loss in this and, on the other side of the coin, will there be actually jobs created because of this, Mr. Speaker? This is just some of the things going through when you look at this bill.

Also, we have to wonder about the hardware costs, Mr. Speaker, and the software costs with respect to implementing this and with respect to government converting from basically, a paper system to an electronic filing system, and what it would cost to look at the computer training programs and the hardware training -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I like your tie. That is a dandy tie the Member for Labrador West has on, Mr. Speaker. No trouble to see it.

These are costs involved. When you implement any system there are costs involved in it. When you look at costs involved, then you have to look at the other side of the coin and see what you are going to be saving by putting this in place. It is not only the efficiencies in the system that you have to look at, but the cost related to implementing such a system.

A few minutes ago I was on my feet talking about Bill 37, the mechanics' lien bill, and I brought up a point that I thought was a very legitimate concern, I will say, and that is the privatization of these different registries and what have you. Now we are talking about government going to an electronic filing system for all businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the concerns here for me would be maybe rural Newfoundland. What kind of a system is going to be put in place for the businesses in rural Newfoundland? Are they going to be subsidized, maybe, in putting in their systems, possibly, to feed into the overall system in the administration of the government? What kind of preparatory work is going to be done there for that possibility?

Will there be a company put in place? Or is there a company out there now sizing up the situation and maybe lobbying government to get on with this type of thing, to get into the computerization of government records and what have you, and that we will then see this whole computerization department? Maybe there will be a department set up, a department of computerization maybe, be set up and then privatized eventually to the private industry out there.

Who is pushing this, I wonder? Is it just the people in government who have legitimate concerns about the slower process that we have, or is it someone out there behind the scenes that we do not know about yet who is just waiting? The reins are being held back on them now until such time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister makes a good point, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt about it that government has an obligation to improve the system. What I am saying is this. Is there someone out there in the wings just waiting for all this to be privatized, all the different government registries, and the electronic filing, and will there be some kind of data base company set up to take the responsibility of this and that the government would then have to privatize all of this out to private industry; and how many more jobs would be gone out of government.

We saw an example there a few years ago, where NLCS was privatized and it is costing government more money now, from what I understand, it is costing Memorial University more money now to use that privatized system than it did when NCLS controlled it. It is costing the different government departments - I know, for example, the Department of Government Services and Lands, or the Crown Lands, or the control surveying division of Crown Lands, who utilized NCLS all along, Mr. Speaker, are paying more from what I understand, to utilize the services at NCLS to do the computerizing of the triangulation nets that cross the Province. Although, we know that the new systems and the new technology today, that there is not such emphasis put on the control monuments in Newfoundland and Labrador as there once was because of the GPS, Global Positioning Systems, Mr. Speaker, where you can go from -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am impressed.

MR. J. BYRNE: I cannot hear you.

The Global Positioning Systems that can be utilized within the - pardon?

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You should be, I say to the Member for Humber East. He should be impressed with my knowledge. He is over there now and I can guarantee you he will never cease to be amazed by the knowledge that I have and the members on this side of the House - not only me, but every member on this side of the House with respect to their portfolios and their critic portfolios.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mind-boggling.

Mind-boggling is right. There is no trouble to mind-boggle the Member for Humber East, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, not really distracted, on the topic somewhat, but a bit off the topic, I suppose, I do not know.

There are some other concerns that I will bring forward at this time.

What about the handling of errors in filing or entering data, Mr. Speaker. If the electronic system is put in place and we have a - now, for example, in the Registry of Deeds, if there is an error you can go in there and make amendments and changes to the information, but what will be the legal implications of an electronic system if there is something put into this system and it is an error? How will we correct that information and what implications would that have on the people who are trying to overwrite it? For example, if I am a businessman out in some part of Newfoundland and there is some wrong information put into the system and I want to correct it, will I be charged, I wonder? Would I be charged to make the correction, for example, Mr. Speaker?

That is just some of the minor details, I suppose, of this bill. Again I want to get back to the backups. Will there be some kind of a backup system with respect to the electronic filing? Will government departments require, or will the legislation require, that businesses have a backup on the information, filed in a different premises, for example? Will that come to pass under this legislation, I say to the minister?

Again, will the departments themselves, or the various departments that will utilize this electronic filing, be required to have a backup system? Not necessarily a backup system but a hard copy, or some kind of backup data can be taken from the premises and stored elsewhere, for obvious reasons. You could have a breakdown in the system; you could have information wiped out; you could have hackers involved to erase information. There are all sorts of questions that probably would need to be addressed.

This is, as I said, a serious piece of legislation. As I mentioned earlier, access to the computers... Many of these functions in rural and remote areas - many may have limited financial means, and many are not yet computerized, as I said earlier. It is all well and good that we have the urban parts of the Province that may be - in some areas, now. There are other areas of the Province in rural Newfoundland... I believe down on the South Coast there is a company that is into digitizing, and they have been into it for a number of years now, where they take maps and digitize all the information on the maps from the paper copy into a computerized system, and they digitize it and we can feed it into our computers and work with that information.

That is a great use of technology today. It is great to see companies in Newfoundland, and particularly in rural Newfoundland, having access and being available, and being known on the national and international markets. I believe they get contracts from various parts of the planet or the world, not only from the mainland or the States, but from other countries also.

I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, is government certain that businesses are ready for a wholesale shift to the electronic filing system? Is the Internet access widespread enough with respect to most of the remote areas?

I know there are companies in the Province, Newfoundland Telephone for one, who are into the Internet and are having fibre optics lines put all across the Island. They put two lines, I believe it was, right across Newfoundland, right from Port aux Basques to St. John's. It cost millions of dollars, I think, to have access to the Internet, one of the uses. They are looking at other areas of the Province, I believe, with fibre optics.

To talk about electronic filing, it is starting possibly for rural Newfoundland to have access to this electronic filing system that the minister is promoting here with respect to this bill today. There are a lot of areas in Newfoundland and Labrador that don't have access at this time. I would wonder, question it, are the businesses ready for a wholesale shift to the electronic system?

It would be great if they are. What way is it going to be implemented? Is it going to be done in phases, I would ask the minister? I wonder will the urban areas be taken care of first, have implemented, say in St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, what have you, and then we would get into the more remote areas. To me, that is just a logistics problem, I would say to the minister, but I'm sure it is something that is not going to happen overnight.

Also, what penalties would be involved, or is that going to be addressed, with respect to the improper use of the electronic data base? That may sound like a minor point, but if you look at what is available today on the Internet and the experts, I suppose, in the field today, and what they can do with computers... I know of an individual who is completely afraid of computers, who says what is happening today is we are becoming too computerized. They are frightened of what may happen to their private information, who could have access to it, legally or illegally. That is a concern I think that would have to be addressed. What penalties would be put in place, how the controls would be implemented, what controls would be implemented, how you would pick up on people abusing the system, or using the system for illegal concerns or whatever.

Before I sit down and adjourn debate -

MR. TULK: Adjourn debate.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader is suggesting that I adjourn debate and come back. Seeing as it is 11:56 on Friday morning, I will adjourn debate.

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

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

I wonder -

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until Monday, at two o'clock.

We are going to do Orders No. 8 and 5, next.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until Monday, at two o'clock in the afternoon.