The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today eleven Adult Basic Education Students from the school, Skill for Success. They are accompanied by their instructors, Bernadette Galway and Agnes Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, every year a special Canada Day Poster Contest is held nationally on July 1. This contest gives young Canadians the opportunity to learn about Canada's history and its achievements through the construction of images that they choose to represent their view of Canada.

This year, the Canada Day Poster Contest was "A Celebration of Canadians Firsts", prompting young Canadians to design a poster that expressed personal exploits, notable achievements, and Canada's many achievements to the world community.

Every year, the top poster design from provincial and territorial finalists is chosen as the official Canada Day Poster. This poster is then distributed all across the country. Finalists will get the opportunity to join thousands of Canadians on July 1 at Parliament Hill to participate in Canada Day Festivities.

The Newfoundland and Labrador finalist was announced this Monday at the Fairmont Newfoundland Hotel. The honour went to Suzanne van Niekerk, aged sixteen, a student at Herdman Collegiate in Corner Brook. Katie Druken of St. Kevin's High in the Goulds placed second, and Jennifer Brown of Discovery Collegiate in Upper Amherst Cove rounded out the top three.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating all three winners on their accomplishments and wish them the very best of success as they represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take the opportunity today to send special birthday greeting to a resident of Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay. Mr. Benedict Careen celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday this past Saturday, April 27. Benedict has retired from a life in the fishing industry and is enjoying his golden years with his wife Nellie at their home nestled under the hills surrounding the community of Point Lance. As many family and friends are aware, the welcome mat has always been in place at Benedict and Nellie's home.

As Benedict turns seventy-five, he is in great health and enjoys spending time in the outdoors. It is a very common sight to see Benedict travelling the countryside around his home on his ski-doo in the wintertime and/or his all-terrain bike. Maybe it is the fresh air off the waters of St. Mary's Bay that keeps Benedict young and healthy.

It is not unique to turn seventy-five years of age, but I do believe the family of Benedict and Nellie Careen of Point Lance is unique. They have eleven children, all of whom live in Newfoundland and Labrador, all of whom are involved directly or indirectly in the fishing industry. Up until approximately two years ago, all eleven children lived in the community of Point Lance, which by the way has a population of approximately 200 people. Today, ten of their children still live in Point Lance and all have established their own homes there. The youngest, Sylvia, married a couple of years ago and moved just up the road to the community of St. Bride's.

I believe this situation goes to show a positive story about our fishing industry. Here we have a very large family who have not only survived but created a wonderful way of life for their families from the fishing industry. This is an example of rural Newfoundland at its best. It is a credit to Benedict and Nellie Careen, and in sending greetings and congratulations to Benedict on his seventy-fifth birthday, I am sure that having all of his children and grandchildren around him, especially in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today, helping him celebrate is the greatest birthday gift of all.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in sending special birthday greetings to Mr. Benedict Careen of Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay on his seventy-fifth birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to echo yesterday's comments by the hon. Member for Lewisporte about Mr. Alec D. Moores, and to also congratulate another native of the Carbonear- Harbour Grace District who has been named to the Junior Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ches Penney is an individual who has significantly contributed to the growth and development of enterprise in this Province. Mr. Penney is the brother of our hon. Minister of Labour and is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Penney Group, one of this Province's largest private commercial groups with annual revenues in excess of $350 million.

Born in Carbonear, Mr. Penney was the eldest of twelve children and learned early the importance of accepting a leadership role. That leadership has made Mr. Penney one of this Province's foremost business people.

The operations of the Penney Group have grown significantly over time into a number of companies involved in heavy construction, concrete, land development, along with many other successful ventures, employing several thousand people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all members should recognize Mr. Penney, Mr. Alec D. Moores and Sir Robert Gillespie Reid on their significant contribution to business development in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Conception Bay South Concert Band which has been in operation for some thirty years. I had the privilege and pleasure on Saturday night to attend a function at the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap where they performed in concert as part of a fundraising effort for their group.

Their contribution of music to the community, and indeed to the Province, is nothing short of tremendous. Margaret Rowe, the concert band director, is to be congratulated on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to congratulate the people of Trinity-Conception who have raised over $15,000 to help support the Janeway Children's Hospital.

On March 9, the people in this region organized the first ever Run for the Janeway. It consisted of approximately 200 ATVs, beginning at the Shearstown Lions Club and traveling sixty-six kilometres through a beautiful country setting and returning back to Shearstown for the finale.

Alex Dawe, along with several others who organized this event, has received nothing but great comments. Mr. Dawe, who has a grandson who has spent his entire life at the Janeway, felt that by doing this they might be able to return the generosity they have received from the facility.

After the run, approximately 500 people were served lunch and attended a dance at the Shearstown Lions Club. Overall, the day was a great success and there are plans already in motion for a similar event next year. To help expand the event, Mr. Dawe plans to hold the event next year in mid-February so that snowmobilers will be able to participate as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join with me in congratulating the people of the Trinity-Conception region on raising $15,000 to help the Janeway and encourage them to keep up the good work in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 5-11, as North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or NAOSH Week. This is the sixth year that employers, government, labour and workers in Canada, the United States and Mexico, will join forces to promote a greater awareness for the importance of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

The goal of NAOSH Week, which carries the theme: Prevention is the Cure, is to focus the attention of employers, employees, the general public, and all partners in occupational health and safety, on the importance of preventing illness, injury or death in the workplace, and what we can do to make safety the number one goal.

Setting aside a period of time to reflect specially on workplace health and safety allows us to exchange ideas and experiences with other jurisdictions, other workers and even family members, so that we may learn from each other.

Safe, healthy workplaces, where the rights and interests of employers and employees are protected will continue to be a goal of this government. Positive legislative changes brought forward in 2001, emphasize the importance of accident prevention as well as early and safe return to work.

Health and safety on the job is everyone's responsibility. While employers and employees have a responsibility to ensure safe and healthy workplaces, government will endeavour to help foster a safety culture through its mandate to provide legislation and regulations that reflect this commitment.

This year, let us all do our part towards prevention so we can safely say we found a cure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Her, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say that we, on this side of the House, as well would like to join with the North America Occupational Safety and Health Week. We would like to congratulate all of those involved. I just attended two days of the Employers' Council of Newfoundland and Labrador seminar on a safe return to work. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that more people, more businesses and more employees in this Province are becoming aware daily of their safety and, of course, of all of them trying to get back to work.

I have also been involved with a family from my district who had the very unfortunate incident of having the lady's husband and father of children killed a few years ago in a very tragedy accident in this Province, work-related, and I can only say how sad it is when people have to go through such a traumatic experience as to see a loved one in their family lost. In this case, lost forever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: So we would agree with the minister and would like to join in and just say whatever we can do to help on this side of the House, we are only too glad to do for the injured workers of this Province and to help people obtain a safe return to work.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge the minister in her statement today and talk about the Prevention is the Cure, and safety and health is not something that can be fixed one day and it is good for a month. It is a continuous process. It has to be worked on each and every minute that people are in the workplace.

Now, referring the early and safe return to work, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that governments are catching up because this came about through the duty to accommodate human rights commissions throughout the country and arbitration cases. So, it is important that employees can return to work earlier than they could have before, but I will say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that has to be looked at very closely in each individual case because there are cases in this Province today where workers are being forced to return to work too early, aggravating their current injury and probably being off longer, in the long-term, as a result of that.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge and point out that today is May 1, which is Labour Day in most of the world.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and they are a follow-up to the questions yesterday concerning the Hay study which was commissioned by the government to provide an operational review of the Health Care Corporation at a cost of about $460,000. In fact, government commissioned it and, in fact, government owns that particular report.

It is also my understanding, from the answers yesterday given by the Minister of Health, that this report was reviewed by his department, by officials in his department, and as well as by the Health Care Corporation. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Would he take the time, please, to just go through, for this House and for hon. members, the steps, the various procedures that were taken in reviewing this report prior to its release? In other words, could you give us a chronological sequence of exactly what happened from the time it was commissioned until the time it was actually released?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question in the House yesterday from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as he has referenced here today, I indicated that in fact we were and had been in receipt of a draft report which had been reviewed by the department and also by the Health Care Corporation. On the basis of that, the particular issue that was under discussion was noted and had gone back to the consultants. I raised it with them and expressed the concerns with regards to it.

In terms of the particulars, I am not quite sure what the hon. member is looking for. I am not trying to be evasive, but when he is asking for specifics with regards to the steps, I would ask him if he could elaborate a little more. I honestly don't quite follow where he is coming from.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health if he could tell me by whom the Hay study was reviewed, how many times it was reviewed, and if any amendments were proposed and, in fact, incorporated into that study? Those are the kinds of particulars I am looking for.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the specifics, as to who actually reviewed the report, if he wants names I can't give him names, but I can certainly find names for him. As he would be aware, in fact, I wasn't in the department when the report was received. The information I have is that it was reviewed by the officials of the department. The draft of the report was also reviewed by the Health Care Corporation.

Now, if there were other matters there, it is my understanding - you know, I would have to be careful, as I don't know. The only issue I am aware of that had been raised for some consideration - there may have been others, and again I could get confirmation on that - certainly was the issue with regards to the emergency service at the Janeway. On the basis of that, the representation had been made to the consultants and these concerns were raised. My understanding was the consultants were prepared to make some minor adjustments, but in the main, they said, they stood by what they had in the report and were not prepared to make major adjustments to it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, from the minister's comments and yesterday, that it was in fact reviewed by your department's officials, and, in fact, concerns were expressed. I also understand from your statements in the House, that you completely separate yourself from the statements in the Hay report and, as well, you publicly apologized for those statements yesterday.

I ask the minister: In light of the fact that this report was publicly released on March 27^th, and it is now over a month later, why, in fact, the ministry or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did not separate itself from those statements on March 27^th, when it could have easily done so by disclaimer or by a dissenting opinion attached to that report, similar to what it did with the water quality report that was released some time ago? Why didn't you disassociate yourself, Minister, at that time, rather than now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, probably we have to acknowledge that, in terms of the understanding of the issue and the sensitivity of it, it may be an accurate presentation in saying that maybe at that point in time - in fact, in the letter that I have today communicated to legal counsel for them, I have acknowledged in that particular letter that probably at that point in time maybe it is something we should have done.

I guess from our perspective, maybe if we could be charged of anything, it would be maybe not being fully sensitive as to how this issue would be responded to by the particular officials or particular physicians who were involved.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the questioning, any time the issue has been raised, and subsequent to that, when it became a concern, right from day one, there was never any question that government made sure that they were, in fact - that they positioned themselves as clearly not being in support of what was there.

Mr. Speaker, no one can point anywhere to evidence indicating anything different that this minister or previous minister or officials from this government have indicated in terms of the issue that is there. Whenever it has been raised in questioning in this House, and outside of the House, this minister has made it quite clear that we do not subscribe to the comments that are there. We do have complete faith in the physicians who offer emergency service to the children and families in this Province. In fact, we have said repeatedly that the parents who depend on that service for their children have no reason, in the opinion of this minister or this government, to have any concerns with regard to the quality of care that will be provided today, as it has been in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I would suggest to you that it is not a question of being insensitive but a question of being incompetent. That is really what it comes down to here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: In light of the fact that you now take the position that you take, and you completely disassociate yourself and the government disassociates itself from the comments in that report; a report that alleges that emergency physicians at the Janeway are incompetent, unqualified, not properly trained, that the nursing staff is over-burdened, and that there are delays in providing emergency service, would you not agree, Minister, that you have now exposed the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Health Care Corporation, the Janeway Hospital, the emergency physicians, the nurses and the entire staff, to possible legal litigation as a result of that negligent exercise by this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition finally getting to being open about his real concerns, which are that he would probably rather be a lawyer than a politician.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Our concern is this, and we took it seriously yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - when we were approached through the NLMA some time ago by a letter that did not come from the President of the NLMA. It was not matter that was addressed in a meeting for dialogue. It was sent by a lawyer, and any time the government gets a letter from a lawyer, then, Mr. Speaker, we take it seriously to the point of making sure - and this is a very important point - making sure that we do not send anything back in response without having it vetted by lawyers, so that we make sure that we do not expose the government to anything that is unnecessary or improper because of an improperly responded letter, Mr. Speaker.

We took the time to deal with the issue seriously because we took it seriously; and we understood yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that everybody's interest in this Legislature was to do whatever was possible and necessary to make sure that there was no disruption of service for the children at the Janeway tomorrow. I understand that is close to being to being accomplished, if not already accomplished, but today the Leader of the Opposition wants to raise the issue again and condemn the government because now we might have settled the issue at the Janeway - we might have - but he does not want that to happen. He wants to now condemn the government and say that we were incompetent because we took the time, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we gave a proper answer to a lawyer acting on behalf of some doctors that we value very much so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that we wanted to make sure we gave the proper response, Mr. Speaker, and we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: You are pathetic, Premier. He finally rises, after two days, so he can have a shot at lawyers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: What about your learned friend, my friend, the Minister of Justice, who is a lawyer? Are you going to have a shot at him too? Your personal attacks, is this what this is all about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get to the meat of the issue, then. That Hay study was delivered, that report was delivered, without a performance appraisal of those doctors. Are you concerned, Premier, that parents and grandparents of children in this Province are going in now as a result of the scathing remarks in that report and asking these doctors and these nurses and the staff, are they competent enough to deal with their children? That is what has happened as a result of that report. Are you comfortable with the fact that now parents and grandparents are going in and asking these doctors whether they can properly treat these children? Because, they are concerned about it as parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is clearly this: A commission report by the Department of Health and Community Services, in conjunction with the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, who were in an $18 million deficit position and looking for an examination of all aspects of their system so that we could have some suggestions made as to how we could run the best possible level of health care that we can afford in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a legitimate exercise to go through. The HayGroup will defend their own words. They are not ours, and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to provide free legal advice to the NLMA, to the doctors, or anybody else as to what position they should take, and if they want to sue somebody, so be it.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that when we get letters from lawyers on behalf of any group we do check with legal council and make sure we deal with the issue seriously.

If somebody is going to suggest that by commissioning a report, that somebody has done something wrong, then we have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker. The stand for this government is this: Every time we get a report we give it to everybody in the Province so we can all work through the issues together. These doctors and the NLMA can have the discussions with the minister any time that they want, they can have a discussion with the authors of the report -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - any time they want. It is the authors of the report, if anybody, who need to make a retraction if they are going to be convinced in dialogue with the physicians, the lawyers and the NLMA that they have made a grievous mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The report is written. We do not agree with it. The Health Care Corporation does not agree with it. It is not the Health Care Corporations, it is not ours -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am a lawyer, I am a father and I am a grandparent and I make no apologies for it. That is why I stand here and ask you these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Why didn't you have the guts enough yesterday to stand up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that questions, again, should be directed to the Speaker, to government, not to individuals across the way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier why he didn't have the stomach enough yesterday to stand up and apologize to these doctors and retract these statements which he is now leaving to his minister to do today on his behalf?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Were you just not interested enough again, Premier? Is that the problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad, again, that the Leader of the Opposition, in his usual form, has gone from an issue of real importance and concern to all of us, which was a possible withdrawal of service at our children's hospital in the emergency department, to wanting to condemn me personally and the government for this, Mr. Speaker.

Let me make this point again: Does it make any more sense to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that if we had asked his law firm to commission the study, and if they had made some comments that we did not agree with, that I should stand up and apologize for comments that were written by his law firm because we asked them to do a study? That is what is being asked for in this case, Mr. Speaker.

A group that has a reputation, a stellar reputation across Canada and around the world, wrote a study on behalf of the Health Care Corporation and the department. They made those comments, not the government. We have told the whole world we do not agree with that part of the report. We do not plan to take any action as a result of it, because of the fact that we do not agree with the statements but it is not up to me to turn around and say: I apologize for the HayGroup. The HayGroup has to apologize for itself if they believe that they have said something completely wrong. We have told them we disagree. We have told the doctors we disagree. We have told the people of the Newfoundland and Labrador we disagree, but we cannot speak for the HayGroup. We do not own them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We are not part of them, and, Mr. Speaker, they speak for themselves and, hopefully, they will speak on this issue when they have a dialogue with the NLMA and the physicians, themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a final question for the hon. the Premier. Premier, would you not agree that you have paid $460,000 for a document that enables people around this Province to sue this government and the Janeway Hospital?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to my knowledge. I have no information whatsoever that there are any lawsuits pending as a result of comments made in a report that was commissioned by the government on behalf of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, I guess, is that we should have the ability, as a government, to commission a report and, at the same time, tell the authors of the report what to put in it and what to say. That is not how we operate, Mr. Speaker. These are independent specialists. They were selected because they are the best in the field. We don't do business by saying: We want a report, but don't say this, don't say that, don't talk about this, do say this and do say something else. When we get the report we take actions on things that we agree with and we tell people when we don't agree, because they are not given the right to make the decisions, but they were given the right to give their opinion and give us some information. We are dealing with it. Some of the actions we will take.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: And, Mr. Speaker, the deficit of $18 million has been eliminated as a result of some of the recommendations in the report, and we hope they will be able to balance their budget in the future -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - as a result of some of the good, constructive recommendations in this report; not ones like this that we don't agree with, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

A recent report of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council on groundfish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, once again pointed to the consumption of fish by seals as the major impediment to the rebuilding of the once great cod stocks in this area. The report cites consumption figures from DFO scientists that estimate upwards of 39,000 tons of cod consumed by seals in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence alone, annually. The Council goes on to say that stock rebuilding cannot be expected, even in the absence of a commercial fishery, if action is not taken to reduce the size of the seal herds.

Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Minister of Fisheries, or whomever the Premier decides should get up today, tell me how much more evidence they have been able to determine, from their discussions with the federal government, how much more evidence does the federal minister need to get action taken to reduce the size of the seal herds that continue to threaten our cod stocks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess all of us, on both sides of the House, recognize, in the number of years that I have been here, that the seal is a predator and it has been one of the reasons why we have not had the return in cod stocks like they were in years past. We all recognize that. The minister has given indications in this House that we, as a government, have worked with the federal government to convince them to increase the number of seals for the quota each year, and we will continue to work with that.

We all recognize, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that the seals are an impediment to the return of the cod stocks. We all know that. People who are in this House, the forty-eight of us, who represent a half-a-million people across this Province, know that. The fishermen who are out there know that. The people in our communities, the small communities that dot the coastlines of Newfoundland and Labrador, know that too.

We will continue to work with DFO to ensure that we will, in fact, find a larger quota of seals so that we can find a larger stock of cod and groundfish returning to the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this year the seal hunt presents us with an economic opportunity and a conservation opportunity. The market conditions have never been better, providing many in the fishery, particularly the small boat sector, and many communities, with much-needed employment. Mr. Speaker, we have waited twenty years for this opportunity, for the market conditions to be such that we might we able to start down the road towards restoring some balance between the number of seals and the amount of fish in the ocean. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask this: When does the minister intend to ask the federal government what more it needs to allow the fishermen of this Province to take more seals in this year's hunt, giving them much-needed revenue while reducing the size of the seal herd as the FRCC has once again recommended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the hon. member would know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sets the quota for the seal cull each year in this Province and in all of Canada. We would like to see more, obviously - our minister have said that - because we recognize the importance of the seals and the impact they have on the cod fishery.

We will continue to work with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, Mr. Thibault, and I am sure that when the minister returns to his office tomorrow - I will talk to him today, and if there are certain things that the hon. member opposite will want me to get, then I will contact the minister and have it for him.

I can say here, as one of the members in this Legislature, we are all concerned, and we recognize that it is an opportune time. A couple of years ago, I remember when the Member for Port de Grave was the Minister of Fisheries and seal pelts were $2 or $3 a pelt. Now there are $60 and even more than that. We recognize the economic activity and we recognize what it can do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so we will continue to press that particular case to the Fisheries Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Acting Minister of Finance or the Premier of the Province. I would like to ask the Premier: Why is Bill 7, that was tabled in this House, looking for authorization to raise $200 million when the Budget Estimates that were tabled here indicate a deficit of just $93 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is really quite simple. The cash position of the Province, as reflected in the Budget, is one issue. It is a year-over-year cash position that we expose, that we report.

The issue of how much borrowing we have to do year over year as a government has nothing to do with the deficit in a given year, per se. It has to do with our borrowing requirements to retire debt that matures and to add additional flexibility to the Budget in addition to that. So the borrowing requirements of the government on a year-to-year basis have nothing to do with the deficit, per se.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it has nothing to do with it, I want to ask the minister: Why does it say in the Resolution in Bill 7, that the money that they are authorizing to raise is $200 million in addition to the sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew, or refund securities under an act of the Province or may be paid into the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member answered his own question, and confirmed what I said. It has nothing to do with the budget position, the $97 million deficit that we announced in our budget. It has to do with other issues with respect to our borrowing requirements, in addition to what was in the budget as reported by the Minister of Finance, when she read it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should be aware, as the Finance Minister too, that there are certain statutory requirements that are non-budgetary items here in this budget. I want to say to the minister that in addition to this is the money that they are looking at. So, I want to ask him: Is government, or the minister, anticipating a much higher deficit then this government has stated and tabled here in the House and they are looking to cover that down the road in this fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The explanation in the bill, again answers the question. It says that we are seeking authorization to raise $200 million. It says in the explanatory notes, accurately so: In addition to some that may be required. So, this is not tied to the deficit that was announced in the budget. It talks here about requirement to - we are borrowing $200 million under this bill that can be used to repay debt, retire debt, to refund securities, or for other things that may have a requirement attached to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and concerns government's plans to spend $2.7 million of public money to build a golf course on top of the rare sand dune ecosystem in Windmill Bight Provincial Park. Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying there are other areas near Windmill Bight that are just the same characteristics as the sand dune ecosystem, but scientists disagree, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case.

I want to ask the minister, if the Minister of Environment is truly interested in protecting this rare ecosystem why doesn't he do the simple thing and tell the people who are involved, or the government itself, to find another place to build a golf course instead of trying to find the impossible, Mr. Speaker, a replacement for this rare and unique sand dune ecosystem? Why doesn't he do that, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because he is perpetuating another -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member is perpetuating a myth about the alternative sites, for example, when it comes to the ecosystem in that region. The document that we published two years ago, in the year 2000, Protecting Our Natural Heritage, which the environmental community knows all about, identifies at least two sites in that area, in this publication, which are going to be under consideration, and now a third one is under consideration. So, there are alternative sites for the ecosystem in that area and they will be evaluated as the government has directed.

Mr. Speaker, there are two words called sustainable development. There are developments that can occur and you can protect the environment and you can deal with the environment. I also have today, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the guidelines of an environmental protection plan which I will table in this House - which we will be dealing with very shortly - and which will deal with the environmental issues related to this project. The people out there very much believe that this project can be successfully done and protect the environment at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the area of Cape Freels, for example, are already complaining about the possibility of this government trying to protect that particular area. We have an area that has been protected for over three decades, an area that has been identified by the Canadian Parks Service as an important study area and a potential Aboriginal site. It is an area that needs continued protection. A golf course can be built in many places. Why doesn't the government do its job, protect the ecosystem for everybody instead of spending $2.7 million of public money, and ask the people of the Province to pay an additional price of losing this system?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in this document, Deadman's Bay is highlighted. Deadman's Bay, in that ecosystem in that area, is a provincial park which we promote, and the sand dunes in that area are now protected as a day use provincial park. That course has not been highlighted by some of the media. Some have. Some haven't. But I will say this: There is a way to deal with this issue, on a sustainable development way, with the proper criteria laid down upfront. By the way, there is a golf course development in Terra Nova National Park, approved by the national federal government, with a salmon river going right through it. So, can it be done in an environmentally acceptable way? We believe it can with the right conditions, and that is what we have said, assessing all of the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, last week in this House, the Minister of Justice and the acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal tabled guidelines covering the hiring of external consultants and when he did, he said: These guidelines were in place since 1985. What he neglected to say was that these guidelines were updated under a Liberal Administration in 1992 and further updated again in 1993. What he tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is leave the impression that they belonged to a former Tory government. Not true. They were updated and redrafted by a Liberal Administration.

My question for him is this - if anybody has taken the time like I have, and like our caucus has, to review each subhead in the Budget under Professional Services, there is an appropriation of a total amount of approximately $25 million under Professional Services throughout the entire Budget. My question is this: Given the fact that this government, under the leadership of this Premier, has said that it is going to be the most transparent and accountable government in Newfoundland's history, why is it, then, according to your guidelines, that $25 million associated with Professional Services, that ministries in the department can circumvent and not deal with public tender or requests for proposals, and, in fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - send out $25 million worth of Professional Services without anybody knowing who it is going to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It looks like another one of these filler questions as we get towards the end of Question Period.

First of all, let's set the record straight again, because Dr. Spin is at it again today. These guidelines for outside consultants were drafted by a Tory Administration in 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Just a second now, you will get the facts. If you want the facts you will get them right here, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The fact is, the only amendments made by any administration to these guidelines after they were drafted - and you can have your people check this out - were the amounts referred to in terms of where clearances were needed. For example, in 1985 when they were originally done, it talked about contracts less than $30,000 or over $30,000. The only substantive amendments to that document that he is referring to was due to inflationary affects, that amount was raised from $30,000 to $50,000 contracts. That is the only difference that are in those guidelines.

With respect to the other issue that he raised; this department, Industry, Trade and Rural Development, are going through the Estimates process next Monday, at 5:30 p.m. here in this House, on May 7. I would be more than pleased at that time to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: - give any and all explanations that he would like with respect to the issues of outside consulting contracts and shifting of funds from one area of the department to another when it comes to purchasing personal services. No questions. No problem with being totally open, totally transparent, and totally accountable.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, No. 2."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the communities of Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride's, Cuslett, Angels Cove and Patrick's Cove on the Cape Shore. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 100 and Route 100-16, Cape Shore;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

WHEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 100 and Route 100-16, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again I stand to present a petition on behalf of the people of the Cape Shore area and their concerns that they have put forward here through petitions, through me in the House as their MHA, in relation to safety concerns. They believe that safety concerns now exist on Route 100 and Route 100-16 normally known as Point Lance Road.

Mr. Speaker, from a place on the Cape Shore that we call Cuslett lookout, over to the community of Branch in St. Mary's Bay, Route 100 and Route 100-16, Point Lance Road, Mr. Speaker, there are some major problems and major concerns that have been brought forward by the people.

I drive over this road myself on a continuous basis, Mr. Speaker. This road was paved approximately around 1979 - the paving began and it has not seen a lot of work since. There are a lot of concerns that people have, Mr. Speaker.

One of the major concerns they have touched on in one of the WHEREAS of the petition, is the safety concern. We have school buses that travel this road everyday, carrying children back and forth to Fatima Academy in St. Bride's and there is a major concern with that. We have emergency vehicles, fire vehicles, and the ambulance service that travels back and forth over this road, and it is causing some great concerns.

The cost of repairs to vehicles in that area over the past spring are staggering. I have talked to several people who have had their cars or trucks towed to a garage. Many, many repairs are needed and we all know that all of these add up to an immense amount of money.

I received a copy of a letter this morning from three parents, three individuals in Point Lance, that was sent to the minister, and it basically explained the same things that I have talked about here in the House as it relates to the concerns of these roads. Hopefully, the minister will have a look at that letter and will instruct his officials to do something about the road repairs in that area.

I had the opportunity yesterday to present to the minister some pictures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: We had some picture that were forwarded to the minister yesterday. I forwarded some pictures to show the conditions of the road and I see by the expression on the minister's face that he found it hard to believe that these roads actually exist, but they do, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, with the pressure being put on by the people in the area, through me here in the House of Assembly, and the letters to the minister, the much-needed repairs will be carried out and the people of the Cape Shore can enjoy a safe road to drive over. In this day and age now, I do not think it is too much to ask.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if we can revert to -

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, by leave. if I might. I have some information with regard to the very pressing issue which we have been debating here in the House for the last couple of days. I would like, by leave, to be able to report to the House on a development which I was just informed of.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon. members.

As I indicated in Question Period today that I had, in fact, communicated in writing to the legal counsel of the doctors in question with regard to the issue that has been raised, I have just received a note in the House, sent to me by my deputy, which has advised that we have been informed by Mr. Rob Ritter of the NLMA that a letter is on its way to my office stating that the doctors have, in fact, accepted the letter which I wrote to them, which does contain an apology that they requested, and that there will be no service interruption tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: By leave, I am prepared to table the letter as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are back on petitions.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We cannot continue with the petition until we have some order here in the House. I ask hon. members to let the hon. Member for Labrador West present his petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the members of the House, maybe they all should have gone to Mount Pearl this weekend to the boxing tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador who are upset about government's decision to remove $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and place it into general revenue.

The people in Labrador are very concerned that the removal of this amount of money is seriously going to jeopardize Phase III of the Labrador Highway being constructed. It is also going to jeopardize the ability of the Province to repair roads on a much-needed basis on a year-round systematic basis as they deteriorate; because, given the fact that we have gravel roads, no pavement, the roads deteriorate. As one section of the highway is being repaired, the other part is deteriorating.

We are quite concerned, Mr. Speaker, that in the future government will not have the ability to address these issues simply because they will not have the money to do so. In the past, money was taken from this fund in order to do that.

I would like to say that the government knew what the reaction from Labrador was going to be when they took this money from the Labrador Transportation Fund. They knew that, and it is evident they knew it, because in the Budget Highlights, where they highlight the main attractions of the Budget, in those Budget Highlights was contained reference to the fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, if hon. members wish to engage in a conversation across the House, then I suggest that they find an appropriate place to do it; because here is not the appropriate place, when the hon. member is presenting a petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Highlights generally highlight what is happening in the Province, where government is spending lots of money to show the people of the Province where, in fact, government is spending their money to appease them.

It is interesting to note in the Budget Highlights this year, regarding Labrador, which was specially mentioned, the $97 million the government knew was going to draw flack from Labrador, they had highlighted in their Budget for this year that they were going to do snow clearing in Labrador in the wintertime, and that was a Budget highlight.

In addition to that, they talked about purchasing two graders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to raise this point of order, but I did give the hon. gentleman the time allocated to present a petition. What I wanted to do was to bring to hon. members' attention some of our rules regarding the presentation of petitions, and it is important. We designed those rules. We designed the rules of the House, and that is what makes it important. We are not following the rules that had been imposed upon us by some foreign body. We are working under the rules that we ourselves approved, and if we cannot follow the rules that we ourselves approved then I do not think that speaks well of us. Now, I hesitate because the hon. gentleman is normally a good parliamentarian and follows all the rules of the House, but in this particular case with the petition, Mr. Speaker, I noticed where, a couple of days ago, the hon. - let me, first of all, just indicate to hon. members what are the same of the important points about a petition.

Number one, "A petition to the House shall be presented by a member who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter...". So, the hon. member is responsible for what it contains.

Another important point that I want to make is, "Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations that it contains." That is what a petition is supposed to do, Mr. Speaker.

Lastly, and a very important point that we have always maintained in this House, not in the Standing Orders but through tradition, is that it have a prayer. Now, I noticed the member's petition yesterday that he presented, no prayer. Again, the one today, no prayer, just carrying on in a debate. A petition is not a place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I just tell the hon. member that a petition is not a place for debate.

These rules are done for an obvious reason, to expedite the business of the House, and petitions are not to have a debate. But yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the member, when he presented his petition, said: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of thousands of residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I took the hon. member for his word, a petition with a thousand signatures, or a couple of thousand. It was brought to my attention that the hon. member's petition contained twenty-one signatures.

Now, it is nothing to say that the hon. member cannot present his petitions over a hundred-day period, but I think it is incumbent upon the hon. member to indicate how many signatures are on that petition because that is what our Standing Orders say, and not try to give the impression that he is presenting a petition with a thousand signatures on it; because I would suggest that the hon. member hasn't yet presented a petition with a thousand names to it. If you put together the total of what he has presented, that it does not reach the thousand.

I just say to hon. members, all of us, that it is important that we follow the rules when we are presenting a petition, and much more important that we follow them now under the new rules, because under the old rules other members would see the petition. There were three people who could speak to them. Now it is only the member presenting. So, that is very important that the member presenting the petition does follow the rules so that we all know, when a petition comes here, that it is following the rules and procedures of this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has been in this House a long time, but so have I. I have been here nearly a dozen years now, and I have heard petitions presented, probably hundreds or thousands of petitions presented in this House, and I would have to say, despite the pontifications of the Government House Leader, I do not believe I have ever heard of a petition presented in this House that confined itself specifically to the rule mentioned by the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is a political House, I remind the Government House Leader, not a legalistic House. The minister and the government is complaining about legal interpretations and talked about law. This is not a legal interpretation. The petition presented by the Member for Labrador West was, in fact, presented on behalf of thousands of people in Labrador. The petition that he had in front of him was only signed by a certain number, but there are thousands of people in Labrador who support that petition, who signed various petition, and the petition does have a prayer, Mr. Speaker. It does have a prayer. There is a prayer on the petition that is spelled out. There are a number of: WHEREAS. There is a prayer in the petition and the people in this House - all of the people in this House, I would say to the Government House Leader - plus everybody who sees us on television, knows exactly what is in the petition and what it is about. It is perfectly appropriate for a member presenting a petition to elaborate on any of the points in it. The points that were being elaborated by the member are related to what is in the petition, talking about what was announced in the 2002 Budget, and what the implications of it were. It is perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker, perfectly in keeping with the practice of this House, and not one inch out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point raised by the hon. Government House Leader, again, many times in the past I have indicated to members that before presenting a petition here in this House they ought to consult with the Table people here to make sure that the petition is in order. A petition ought to contain a prayer, and any member presenting a petition ought to restrict his comments to the materials and the names on the petition, as outlined in our Standing Orders.

I would fully expect that any member presenting a petition here will conform to these rules. If a member does not, then if it is raised, the Chair will have to rule the petition out of order, as I said, if it has not been cleared, if it does not have a prayer, and if it is not restricted to the material allegations in the (inaudible).

It being Wednesday at 3:00 p.m, it is Private Members' Day. Under our Orders of the Day we have the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, I believe, who is presenting a resolution today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in my place to speak on a private member's resolution that I introduced into the House yesterday. For the record, again, I will read the petition and then I have a few words to say on it. Mr. Speaker, I expect there will be a number of Members of the House of Assembly who will speak to this petition.

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation, business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in virtually every region of the Province; and

WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways are a significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland and Labrador companies that market products in Canada and the United States; and

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres of twenty-five-year-old paved roads in the Province; and

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admits $900 million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard; and

WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from highway construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS there is only $23 million budgeted in this year's Budget for provincial roads, which is completely insufficient; and

WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the government negotiate a new cost-sharing agreement with the Government of Canada for road repair and construction that will bring the quality of the Province's roads and highways up to North American standards and contribute to the Province's overall productivity and competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I expect there will be a fair bit of debate in this House of Assembly today on this private member's resolution; one, I think, that is very important to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we all know, as Members of the House of Assembly, that the roads, the highways and byroads and Provincial roads, are in a serious state of disrepair in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see this and we know this, Mr. Speaker, by the number of petitions that come to this House of Assembly. I have presented petitions here in this House of Assembly with respect to the roads and the road conditions in my District of Cape St. Francis. I think there is not a member on this side of the House that has not submitted petitions to this House of Assembly and spoken to them about the serious state of disrepair of the roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, talking about the dirt roads in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Some districts have more than others, depending on that, but we are in Confederation now some fifty-three years, since 1949, and there are still some 900 kilometres of dirt roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, in my mind, with respect to what we are getting out of Confederation.

The Member for Baie Verte, often, is on his feet in this House of Assembly presenting petitions. I know the government is probably doing what they can with respect to the amount of money that they put into the provincial Budget - $23 million, Mr. Speaker - and I will speak to that as time goes on.

Not only is it a hazard in many cases, Mr. Speaker, but this is actually having an impact on our businesses and industries in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our truckers, for example, driving across the Island, the highways that leave off the Trans-Canada and go to the various bays and communities and towns in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the extra gas they may spend, it is all a cost factor with respect to the delivery of goods and services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago that we had Mr. David Gill of Terra Nova Shoes making a statement on how it costs extra money, because of the bad conditions of the highways, the poor conditions of the highways, the extra cost it is costing his company and the industries in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to get their goods to market: going across the Province, getting on the ferry and getting it to the mainland, to the United States and what have you.

The roads, from my understanding, Mr. Speaker, the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador are probably in worse condition than any other roads in the country. Now, we have the minister up every now and then saying that this is a problem across the country. It is a national concern, a national problem. But - I will get to this later on also - what is this Administration doing to get a federal-provincial roads agreement, Mr. Speaker? We have had discussions. We have had in this House of Assembly, questions asked with respect to that very issue.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the condition of the roads in this Province, is tourism. We have people coming onto the Island with their trailers, going all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are not coming back because of the conditions of the roads. We have our own residents living in the larger areas who want to go across this Province, up the Northern Peninsula, down the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Ten or fifteen years ago the Northern Peninsula was probably one of the best highways on the Island and now it is probably one of the worst. I go up that way every year, Mr. Speaker, so I know what I am talking about.

As a matter of fact, in my own district bus tours will not drive down and go around the Marine Drive because of how bad the roads are. It was only the other day the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was in my district to a school opening down in Pouch Cove and I asked him to drive back up through the community of Flatrock, the Town of Flatrock, and look at the Windgap and just see how bad the roads are. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the paved roads are in worse condition than the gravel roads; if you can believe that or not, but it is a fact. The bus tours refused to drive over them a couple of years ago and won't go down over these roads anymore because of the poor conditions.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are some 900 kilometres of dirt road and 1,500 kilometres of twenty-five year old paved roads. This needs to be addressed. We have the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, it was only the other day I think he had some pictures here of roads in his district, paved roads, so-called paved, with potholes everywhere, and in the middle of the road. You could not avoid them. The paved roads are a problem themselves. They need to be redone in many instances.

Years ago, of course, we heard stories of politicians, during an election, going out and throwing payment over snow. These are some of the problems that are coming back to haunt us today.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is interjecting and saying that a certain politician has finally stopped it. Yes, he finally stopped it because the Premier before him, who was known for it, I will not get into names, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is throwing out Conservative premiers over the past (inaudible), but I think we all know one of the worst for doing this type of thing during an election was the very first premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know who that individual was.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated, I believe, and I stand to be corrected on this, that there are some $300 million, or more, requests in for work in this Province from the various municipalities across this Province, the towns and the communities that need to be done almost as an emergency situation; $300 million required. What are we putting into it? What is this government putting into Capital Works for road infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker, $23 million.

Also, the minister, I think, confirmed in the Estimates meetings this past Monday morning that there is some $900 million required to bring our provincial roads up to a national standard. Now, that is a lot of money. Where are we going to get all this money, I would like to know, unless we get an agreement, a federal-provincial agreement that needs to be done as soon as possible. I have asked questions to the minister on this and he has said that they are working on it. They have made presentations to the federal minister in Ottawa with respect to this very serious issue. One day, Mr. Speaker, he stood up in this House of Assembly and had a presentation that he said he presented to the federal Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. We have some questions with respect to how comprehensive that presentation was. That is one of the reasons why this Private Member's Resolution is before the House of Assembly today.

With respect to the $900 million, an ordinary individual can hardly fathom how much money that really is, but when you drive the roads of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador you can certainly see that what he says is correct, that we do need $900 million.

I do have a concern with the Premier, and some of the statements that the Premier has made in this House of Assembly. I think it was on March 25, in this House of Assembly the Premier stated - now we are only talking $230 million when the minister has stated we need $300 million immediately, and that we need $900 million. But, he said, they would possibly take money from the Island portion of the funds to do the Trans-Labrador Highway. Now, why is that? Because, very simply put, this Administration has taken $97 million from the Labrador Initiative Fund to balance the Budget, to try and balance the Budget. They are still saying there is a $93 million deficit. In actual fact, right there alone, in reality there is a $190 million deficit there alone, not looking at anything else. But that $97 million taken from the Labrador Initiative Fund - members on the other side of the House and members who represent Labrador, by the way, fully support government taking $97 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund to help balance the Budget.

Now I say, Mr. Speaker, the old saying: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We now have the government taking $97 million that is there, that could be spent on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, that could easily be spent. There is nothing saying that it could not be spent on the Labrador Highway. Ninety-seven million dollars that the government now will have to come up with out of general revenues to go towards the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. They are saying they are going to do it in six years. So they are talking about, I think, $17 million a year that they have to come up with to put into the Trans-Labrador Highway when they had $97 million there now.

I have a letter here that was to Letters to the Editor from the members for Lake Melville, Torngat Mountains, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who supports and are proud - here it is: Labrador politicians are proud of government's commitment to transportation initiatives. They are proud that the government is taking $97 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund to balance the Budget. Now that is what they were proud of. If it were me, I would not be too proud of it. I am not too happy that they are going to be taking money out of the Island portion of the funds to complete the Labrador Highway when, in fact, they had the money there to do it when there was actually no need to be doing this, when we only have $23 million to put into the highways of this Province to upgrade them. By the way, out of that $23 million there is going to be some $3.8 million taken right off the top for engineering costs. Now I think we are down to $19.2 million for forty-eight districts of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; forty-eight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have requested from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation the breakdown, over the past two to three years, of where this money has been spend, what districts it has been spent in. The minister will get up and say: Well, it is going in priority, it is going into areas where it is actually needed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have become a bit suspicious in this House of Assembly, and I wonder about that sometimes, because, when I look at my district, in my area now I have dirt roads, and I have paved roads down my way. Members on this side of the House have very serious concerns - and I know the minister will get up and point to one or two members on this side of the House and say: This member got x amount of dollars and that member got x amount of dollars, Mr. Speaker. I am curious about this upcoming year too, Mr. Speaker, by the way, very curious about where the money is going to be going this year, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, that this government get very, very serious with respect to the presentations to Ottawa with respect to the federal-provincial agreements. Now, my concern, to be quite honest, is this, that the provincial government and the Province had an agreement, the Labrador Initiatives Agreement. It was in legislation. Now, we have the Province basically taking $97 million out of that. They had to bring legislation to this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, to change that, and now they are going to go back to Ottawa and look for a federal-provincial agreement on roads and road infrastructure. If I was the federal minister, I would say: Well, you know, can we trust you people to do what you say you are going to do with the money that we are going to give you, or did give you, because you are bringing in legislation to break the specific agreement we already had? I think that is something the minister has to consider when he goes to Ottawa to look for money.

We have often, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly, asked the minister to show and produce the - I won't say often, that is the wrong terminology. We have asked that the minister produce the agreements, I suppose, to show us the presentation he made to the federal member. I asked that, and he did table, I think, the presentation in the House. When I looked at it, Mr. Speaker, I saw one or two pages on the point thing where they requested funds, but there were probably ten pages of history that has gone on in the past. I stand to be corrected, it could be seven or eight pages, but a number of pages. The agreement itself boiled down to a few.

He stood in his place, Mr. Speaker - and I support him on this - and he made a request and talked about other roads in the Province that he has requested funds to complete. I am quite pleased, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the roads he has requested to be done, under a new roads agreement, is the Torbay bypass. It is something that desperately needs to be done. I think he knows that or he wouldn't have included it on the list of work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a lot more to say on this, because I think it pretty well speaks for itself, this Private Member's Resolution. The members on this side of the House, I believe there are a number who want to speak to this. I can go on at length, but I will have time at the end, Mr. Speaker, to say a few more words. I expect that the minister will want to respond to some of the points that I made. I will say to him, from this side of the House, if he goes to Ottawa looking for funds for a federal-provincial agreement that will service the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will service all the districts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador equally - and I understand that there are some areas that need more money than others, there is no doubt about that - that we will support him. I will support him wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a comprehensive agreement that can be reached, the sooner the better, with the federal government, because, when it comes down to it, they are going to have to pay a major part with respect to the infrastructure and the road infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise in the debate on the private member's resolution as presented by the Member for Cape St. Francis. I guess, to some extent, I agree with the resolution as presented but I do have some difficulties with some parts of the resolution, and as we proceed along I will outline some of the difficulties that I have with the resolution.

The first WHEREAS: WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation, business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life.

I do not think anybody can argue; that is a motherhood issue. Roads are so important in terms of the quality of life, for transportation and everything that we do in this Province and across this country, we need a good system and a good network of roads. To argue with that point of view is like arguing with motherhood.

When we get to the next two WHEREAS, I do have some problems: WHEREAS provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in virtually every region of the Province; and WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways are a significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland and Labrador companies that market products in Canada and the United States.

I cannot agree with these two WHEREAS. I think that is a very negative aspect; very, very negative and -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Bonavista South will have an opportunity to get up and talk in the debate, I am sure that he will have an opportunity to get up and speak in the debate, but I only have fifteen minutes and there are lot of things I would like to say on this resolution. I would like for him to listen because this is an important issue for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have been in this House of Assembly for thirteen years, and I have some great concerns in the last number of years that we seem to be sending out a wrong type of message to people across this country and around the world in terms of a very negative attitude. To say in a resolution in this House of Assembly that our roads are in such a state of disrepair that we are impeding business development in this Province, that is the wrong kind of message to be sending out to the people in this world and around this country particularly.

The next WHEREAS: WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres of twenty-five-year-old paved roads in the Province.

Give or take a few kilometres here or there, I have no problems with that particular WHEREAS. That is a statement that is fairly accurate and that speaks to the need at hand.

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for the Provincial Roads Program.

I have not problem with that WHEREAS.

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admits $900 million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard.

As a matter of fact, in the presentation that I made to Minister Collenette in Ottawa, I indicated that we were looking for a cost-shared agreement of $978 million over a ten-year period. That is the kind of funding that we were looking at in terms of Ottawa; it was a $978 million cost-shared arrangement. That was for the Trans-Labrador Highway, for major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, some of our major trunk roads in terms of the Great Northern Peninsula. The Burin Peninsula is pretty well looked after; there are some sections. The Bonavista Peninsula is roughly around $5 million or $6 million to bring that up to a respectable standard. On the Baie Verte Peninsula and some other areas of the Province there is some work that needs to be done.

What we were saying is that we required $978 million over a ten-year period, not $978 million immediately, in terms that we need $978 million because our roads are in a drastic state of disrepair. That is not accurate. I think for us to have, with a federal-provincial agreement, roughly $90 million a year would be adequate in terms of addressing our particular needs. That is what was presented to Minister Collenette in Ottawa in terms of the famous power point presentation, but it was a proposal that we submitted to Ottawa.

The next WHEREAS, I have a real difficulty with. WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from highway construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Trans- Labrador Highway.

That is inaccurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No. The problem that I have with the other side of the House is that for a great number of years Labrador, for all intents and purposes, under previous governments - it is only over the last five or six years that Labrador has been getting the attention that it deserves, that we are zeroing in on Labrador as a great opportunity for economic development within this Province. What the Opposition is really saying in this resolution, that I have a real problem with, what they are saying here is that Labrador is not a part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this House of Assembly we allocate monies in the Budget. When we allocate monies for health care, education, HRE, and all the other departments, we do not single out that we are going to spend this amount of money in the Island part of Newfoundland and this part in Labrador. We consider Labrador to be part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Opposition is saying that the Provincial Roads Program should only be allocated to the Island part of the Province. That is inaccurate. That is where the Opposition Party - I assume that is the -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious private member's resolution, and the minister is up there and he is really playing politics. There is nowhere in this document or in this private member's resolution where we say that Labrador is not a part of the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is really childish, immature and simple-minded, on behalf of the minister. We know that Labrador is part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. What we are saying - and it is in Hansard that the Premier of this Province made the statement that they would take money from the Island portion of the funds to go to the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is in Hansard on March 25, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, it is too bad that the hon. member has to get up on a point of order because he does have an opportunity at the end of this debate to speak and respond to anything that is said on this side of the House and the other side of the House. To get up on a point or order when he realizes that there is only fifteen minutes in this debate....

I will read the resolution so that the people in Labrador are quite clear about what the minister is saying and what the Opposition Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is saying. The Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, its policy is:

WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from highway construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Labrador Highway.

We are talking about a provincial highways program, and when we talk about a provincial highways program we are talking about Labrador too. Last year in the provincial highways program, we did work on roads in Labrador out of the provincial highways allocation. This year we plan to do some work on the road in Labrador West, to put some Class A on the road in Labrador West. It will come out of the Provincial Roads Program.

What my Opposition colleague is saying, he is saying that we will take the $23 million that is allocated for the Provincial Roads Program, we will take $17 million of that and put on the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is not what this government is saying. This government is saying that next year

MR. SHELLEY: You've got it all mixed up.

MR. BARRETT: No, this minister is not mixed up. What we are saying -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I wish the hon. Member for Baie Verte would just remain quiet for awhile. I want to express the point of view -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Winsor-Springdale will have an opportunity to speak in the debate, I assume; because I did, when I went to Ottawa, express that the Long Island Causeway was a priority, too, for the government, and we wanted the federal government to cost-share it.

What we, as a provincial government, are saying, is that construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway is the number one priority of this government. The Trans-Labrador Highway is the number one priority, and next year and over the next six years - and we are going to pass it in legislation in this House. It is on the Order Paper, a piece of legislation which says that this government is committed to building the Trans-Labrador Highway over the next six-year period, and that $17 million of the Provincial Roads Program which will be budgeted in this House next year will be allocated to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: This government is committed to building the Trans-Labrador Highway, and I want to repeat it. This government is committed to building the Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) from what you did this year with the money from Labrador.

MR. BARRETT: Will the hon. Member for Bonavista South stay quiet, please? This government is very, very committed to the people in Labrador and to the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

What hon. members on the other side of the House are assuming is that there will be $23 million allocated for the provincial roads program next year. We will budget in the provincial roads program next year, taking into consideration the $17 million that is required for the Trans-Labrador Highway.

We assume that the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador is against the Trans-Labrador Highway, will not support the Trans-Labrador Highway, but this government and all the members on this side of the House are very committed. I want to inform the hon. members that we will commit to that money. We will commit to the Trans-Labrador Highway. I want to look at the Member for Labrador West, look him right in the eye and say: this government is committed. The fact is that with the Trans-Labrador Highway you can start at both ends of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Engineers tell us that the maximum that you can spend in any one particular year on the Trans-Labrador Highway is around $17 million. We plan to do that road over a six-year period because that is the maximum you can spend in any one particular year, $17 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) worry about it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, this government is not worried about it because we are very committed about doing it.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose the following amendments, moved by the hon. Minister of Works, Services & Transportation and seconded by the Government House Leader, that we will agree with this resolution if we move that by striking out the second, third, seventh and eighth recital clauses and by inserting immediately after the word "government" in the first line of the resolution clause the words "continue to".

The new resolution as amended would then read:

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation, business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres of 25-year old paved roads in the Province; and

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services & Transportation admits $900 million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard; and

WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government continue to negotiate a new cost-sharing agreement with the Government of Canada for road repair and construction that will bring the quality of the province's roads and highways up North American standards, and contribute to the province's overall productivity and competitiveness.

This government has started the negotiations, and has presented our case to Ottawa. Our MPs are working in terms of working with their federal counterparts and hopefully, we will work with the other Ministers of Transportation across this country, and the Deputy Ministers of Transportation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: - recently met in Ottawa and there is a negotiation process going on with the provincial ministries of transport and with the government in Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, I gladly move these amendments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few brief comments with respect to the motion here today and, in particular, to the response by the minister. I would like to start off by referring to his comments, Mr. Speaker. He talked about the commitment that government has to complete Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway over the next six years. Now, they are so committed that they are going to pass legislation in this House stating their commitment and etching it in stone. But I want to remind people of the Province that we already have legislation in this House establishing -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) for a moment.

The Chair has been provided with a copy of the amendment and it is deemed to be in order. So, we are now speaking to the amended motion.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, government is stating their commitment to Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway by taking the $97 million out this year and going to pass legislation that says they will complete that highway in a six-year period. They are saying that is iron-clad, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to put it in legislation. Well, I want to remind the minister that we have legislation today. As I speak today, we have legislation that protects that $97 million that you are taking that could be used to go towards the Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway and, obviously, I say to the people of this Province, that piece of paper doesn't mean much to this government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I hate to interrupt the hon. member in terms of his speech, but the money that was in the Trans-Labrador fund was not allocated for the Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. It was there to provide the marine services to the North Coast and the South Coast of Labrador and not to provide money for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. That was never the intention of the fund. Never was it the intention to allocate for Phase III. It was to provide marine services. What this government has done, is that we have said we will commit forever to provide the marine services in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to speak to the minister's point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

When he rises on a point of order, he should do just that, not go on to make a big elaborate speech.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Simply a disagreement between two hon. gentlemen.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, also, say to the minister when he states that this $97 million was not meant for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, that it was also not meant to be used for general revenues to reduce the deficit of this Province. Definitely a closer connection between that money and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway than it is between that money and reducing the deficit of the Province. I want to make that clear to the minister.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 10 had better be written on tougher paper, I say to the minister, than the last bill that was passed in this House by this government, because right now they are in the process of tearing up the previous bill and passing a new one so they will get $97 million. The net effect is that they receive $97 million, and they gave the people of Labrador a promise. A promise, I do not believe and many others in Labrador share my belief, that this government will not be able to keep. That is what concerns me when I hear the minister talking about his commitments. There is no stronger commitment in this Province than a piece of legislation and they are about to destroy that piece of legislation that protects the money in that fund and use it for general revenues.

Mr. Speaker, the roads in this Province are atrocious. Last summer, as I was driving across the Trans-Labrador Highway - and I stated before in this House - I met tourists travelling the Trans-Labrador Highway, who had the trailer hitches broken off their vehicles. They told me that they really enjoyed their trip to Labrador. They enjoyed the scenery, they enjoyed the activities that took part in, and they certainly enjoyed meeting the people, but they told me also that they would not make that return trip and they would not recommend for their friends to make that trip either unless the roads were improved to a much better degree than they are at the present time.

Also, I know that after travelling around the Island, that roads on the Island portion of the Province are in terrible shape as well. I guess all of this put together really says to me that this government cannot keep up with what needs to be done in this Province today. How are they going to do it in the years to come, now that the $97 million that was in the Labrador Transportation Fund will not be there? That money has been used over the past number of years to do upgrading of that section of highway already completed. They will not have the ability because the fund will no longer exist. So now, any money spent in this Province, whether it be in Labrador or whether it be on the Island portion of the Province, I say to the minister, will have to come out of general revenues. If they cannot keep up now with work required on the Island portion of the Province, how in the name of God are they going to be able to do it when you include the road transportation network in Labrador in the future? They will not be able to, I suggest. They know that and we know that.

I think government read the people in Labrador correctly when they stated in their Budget that they were going to remove this $97 million. They knew what kind of reaction they were going to meet from Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because they tried to butter up the people in Labrador in the Budget Highlights that they presented on Budget Day. Where else in this Province did you ever see a budget highlight, a main portion of a budget, being snowclearing on a section of highway? You certainly do not see it for the Burin Peninsula as a budget highlight or the Baie Verte or the Northern Peninsula or the Bonavista. It is not a budget highlight there, but judging - because they knew what the reaction was going to be over this, they decided to put that as a budget highlight.

Even the purchasing of two graders; a budget highlight for Labrador. The government is going to purchase two graders. I mean, give us a break! That is an insult to our intelligence to put things like that in a budget highlight at the same time you are stealing $97 million and just trying to make it look good that you are commited to the area. No, Mr. Speaker, but I can say to the government one thing, the one thing they don't have to spend money on is yellow paint to paint the center line down the highway because there is certainly no pavement in Labrador other than what is in the communities. So they cannot save money there, Mr. Speaker. That is about the extent of their commitment to Labrador when it comes to roads.

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have a commitment. They do not have a commitment. They do not have a vision for Labrador when it comes to transportation, but they do have a need for $97 million, and that is about to happen over the next few days. But I can assure them that, from the Opposition on this side of the House, they will not have an easy time gaining access to that $97 million. They may be able to do it at some point in time because of their numbers, but I can assure them that the Opposition, to this move, will make sure that debate is carried on for as long as is possible to do so. It is not going to be an easy ride for them to get access to this money.

I would certainly stand here today and say that the other members of this House from Labrador - I know people in their areas, in their ridings, who are not happy with what is happening to this fund either, Mr. Speaker, because this fund -

MR. FITZGERALD: Did they have any petitions (inaudible)?

MR. COLLINS: I understood the Member for Bonavista South asked me if they had any petitions. I have not seen them, but my understanding is they have; but I do not know if they do because they have not been presented, so I am not sure.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that transportation is critical in Labrador. We have been many years without a transportation network and, now that we have it, it requires constant upgrading. It requires a considerable amount of money being spent each year. Our fear, our worry, as a resident of Labrador, is: Where is that money going to come from? I do not believe for a minute, and I do not accept government's promise that they will spend the money necessary to do the work that will be required, because they cannot do it now. Even when they were drawing money from that fund, they still cannot keep up with the need that is there.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. It is an important resolution because, in order for us to develop tourism to its fullest potential, in order for people in Labrador who are involved in the trucking industry to have the ability to make a living to provide for their families, in order for the people in Labrador to interact with each other, a good highway system is critical. That does not exist today. I suggest that with the removal of this money from the Trans-Labrador fund, it will not exist tomorrow either.

They can talk all they like about this money not being there for Phase III. They can say that all they like, but, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is an easier connection and a shorter line to draw between $97 million and Phase III than it is $97 million and reduce the deficit that they have built up. The connection can be much easier made, and not only for Phase III. Monies from that fund have been used for the last number of years to provide and do the upgrading of the road system that we already have. Money has come from that fund to do that. Where, I ask the government, is that money going to come from in the future? Where is that going to come in the future? It is not going to be there, Mr. Speaker, and people in Labrador have the same fear.

I hear members opposite from Labrador shouting out. I have not heard what they said, I was not listening to them, but I can assure them that many people in their districts, as well as mine, know, and do not believe, that government will have the ability to do what they say they intend to do with $17 million a year for six years to complete Phase III.

I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, and the majority of people -

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible) should not do it.

MR. COLLINS: I am not saying they should not do it, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. I am saying they should have left the $97 million there and used a portion of that to go towards Phase III of the road.

They can try to justify all they want what is happening, but they can never justify it to the people in Labrador. I can guarantee them that. They may be able to justify it to certain people in Labrador, but not the majority, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, not the majority. They may be able to justify it in their own caucus, but again their caucus does not elect them. We are elected to look after the people who voted in the last election, and I do not think it is in their best interest to take $97 million now from a fund that was protected by law, that the minister now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, says: Well, we are going to tear up that law, but believe us, we are going to pass a new law; a new law that is going to be made of much tougher paper, much harder to tear up in the future, and you are going to be protected by that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that when this government says they are transparent I believe them because you can see right through them. So they are transparent in that sense, Mr. Speaker, you can see right through them, and the people of Labrador can see through them because they do not believe for a minute that this intention will be delivered, will be acted upon, because even by their own admission they do not have the ability to do now what is required in this Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and certainly speak to the motion that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis and amended by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the amendments that are proposed to this resolution. I feel that yes, indeed, it is an important resolution for all the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that we have to have significant revenues to maintain our Trans-Canada Highway system from one part of the Province to the other. We have to have funds to be able to build roads and build highways for those people in those communities that for many years have gone without them.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that has gone on over the past number of days regarding roads in Labrador primarily, and roads around the Province, and I can honestly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if people, some people, had to live on the Coast of Labrador, like I have had to all my life, without roads and without connections, they would certainly understand the commitments that have been made. They would understand the importance of delivering on those commitments and the importance of what has been happening there over the last number of years.

Mr. Speaker, you can spin a yarn any way you want to spin it, and I can tell you that I have heard more spins in the last two weeks in this Legislature than I have ever heard in my life. I can tell you that the money that has been spent in Labrador on roads for communities is one of the most valuable contributions to infrastructure that has ever made to the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I seem to miss the point when people stand in this House and say that there was money taken out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to fix up roads in Labrador, to upgrade roads in communities, to do this, to do that, to keep marine services running. Well, that is what the dollars are there for. They are there to serve the people of Labrador and to ensure that they have good transportation networks.

You can either take the money that you have and use if wisely to invest for the future and guarantee services to people, or you can let it set in an account until it dwindles and dwindles and dwindles and there is nothing left. Well, I can tell you that this government and I, for one member, are going to ensure that the people in Labrador do not see a fund dwindle, but in fact what they see is continuous building of roads and infrastructure and upgrading of a transportation network.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Now, I agree with the resolution that was put forward and amended because, Madam Speaker, I really do believe that the Government of Canada has a responsibility here. They have a responsibility to ensure that the highways in this country are to a proper standard and that all people have access to a national highway system that is on par, I guess, from one end of the country to the other.

This government has been actively lobbying the federal government to do a new transportation initiative for the Province. I agree, all of us should encourage them to continue those lobby efforts and to continue negotiating with the federal government to ensure that we do get a good deal.

I realize that there are communities down in - the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's yesterday showed me photos of roads down in his own district that need to be upgraded. On the weekend, when I took the ferry from L'Anse au Clair to St. Barbe, and drove up to the airport to fly back to St. John's on Sunday evening, I drove the road on the Northern Peninsula around the Green Island Brook area, I think it was, which I am sure needs work and upgrading. I am sure there are many roads in our Province that need the same types of work and upgrading done. It is only right that the Government of Canada partner with us as a Province to service these people and these communities. But, Madam Speaker, I think what is more important is that the federal government realize that Labrador is a part of this country and that the highway network in Labrador should be a Trans-Canada Highway, just like every other part of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The Trans-Labrador Highway, as it is termed today, is partly built. It is constructed from Labrador West to Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It is constructed from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay, and Red Bay to Charlottetown, and hopefully by the end of this year from Charlottetown to Cartwright. Is it complete, Madam Speaker? By no means is it complete; but we, the government, without any extra dollars from the Government of Canada, we as a government have committed to build the Phase III, which is the Cartwright to Goose Bay portion of this road. Don't do half a job, Madam Speaker, we have to do the full job for the people of Labrador, and that is what we are committed to do.

Is that enough? No, it isn't. It is still a Trans-Labrador Highway and it should be a Trans-Canada Highway. We should have the same designation as any other province in this country and we feel that the federal government has not been honouring its commitment to us as Labradorians. We should have a highway that is first-class, to the same standards as any other region of this country.

In asking for this agreement with the feds, I want to point out that we also want to ensure that they include us as part of the Trans-Canada Highway system. Other members, as they speak today, I hope that they will support that because that is very important to us in Labrador, that we be part of that Trans-Canada Highway system.

Madam Speaker, I guess in the last few years we have seen a great deal of transition take place in Labrador. I just talked about the sections of roads that we have built. I am going to tell you, that unless we build the Cartwright to Goose Bay piece of this highway we will not realize the full benefits and the full potential of having a transportation connection and a transportation link.

I think I want to make something quite clear here today. The $97 million people keep talking about that was in the Labrador Transportation Initiative, I want to make quite clear that that money was left there to look after the marine services in the northern area of Labrador and the southern ports of Labrador which are not connected by road. That money could have sat in a bank account and been dispersed over a period of time, after which time the dollars had been spent, the monies had expired, the government of that day would have had to take on the responsibility of paying for the service, or we could take the revenues today and use it as investment toward other capital infrastructure in our Province and pay for the ferry services today, not eight years from now.

I can tell you, as one member in Labrador, I honestly feel that the marine services in Labrador are the responsibility of the provincial government, the same as marine services are in all other regions of our Province. I agree that they should own up and take the responsibility for that service today, not down the road, and I am pleased that they have agreed to do that.

So, whatever way you look at, Madam Speaker, the services for which this fund was intended to pay will be paid. The service will be first-class, and I say that with a great deal of certainty because I know what it is like to live in a community in coastal Labrador where you have to wait fourteen, sixteen and eighteen days to receive a freight boat to get your freight service. I know that it is going to be a better service, because when you have a boat that is docking in your community every seven days, going north and going south, you have a better service. That gives us a great deal of confidence in terms of where we are going with servicing the people on the Coast of Labrador. Whether you pay for that today in government revenues or whether you pay for it eight years from now, the people are getting a better service than they have ever had in their lives and I think that is important to stress.

For example, Madam Speaker, let me just tell you: In my own district, in Cartwright, we would have a boat that would go probably once a week to Lewisporte and Goose Bay. When the highway is completed into Cartwright, starting next year we will have a ferry that will run from Cartwright to Rigolet to Goose Bay every second day alternating back and forth. I mean, that is a better service than we have ever had in our entire lives.

So, whether you look at the fact that the $97 million will sit in a fund for eight years or whether you will start paying for the service right now, which is what we have chosen to do, the service itself is still provided, the service is still a better service than people have been used to getting in the past and it will be a better service as we go on.

The key point to all of this, Madam Speaker, and the point which makes me very proud, as the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and as a resident of Labrador, is that this government, the only government that I know of in the history of this Province that has ever looked at the Coast of Labrador seriously in terms of major infrastructure, has committed to spending $102 million over six years to build the Phase III of the highway. Now that is a substantial commitment, a substantial investment, and so it should be.

Madam Speaker, some people will say that this will be on the backs of people on the Island portion of our Province. I totally disagree. We are one Province, we have to service all people and I feel that we service the people with the greatest need first. No one will tell me, Madam Speaker, that the greatest need is not those people who do not have a road connection, because it is. So, however you administer or split the Budget in coming years, I certainly hope that it is done, first and foremost, looking after the needs of those in our Province that are the greatest, and the greatest need in transportation right now - and I beg anyone to challenge me on it - is definitely in Labrador, where you have no highway completion and many communities without roads. I feel that this government has made the right decision, the appropriate decision, for this time in our history to make those types of commitments and investments into Labrador.

I tell you, it really disturbs me when I hear people say: Well, what about the rest of the Province? What about all the other communities in the Province? What are we going to do, not spend any money anywhere else? That really bothers me, it really upsets me, because I thought that we were reaching a point in our history, Madam Speaker, where we were looked at as one, inclusively, as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador serving the needs of all the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I am not saying that there are not other communities in this Province that have needs. I am sure the Member for Baie Verte - I saw him stand here many times and talk about roads in his own district that need resurfacing, that need to be paved. I talked to a lady a couple of days ago from the community of Conche, and I know the people there would love to have their roads paved. They have been out and made their arguments. I said to her: I understand where you come from, but do you understand where I come from, when I still have communities that do not have a road. They certainly do, Madam Speaker, and they support us in that, but it does not mean that they do not have needs as well.

I think sometimes we have to put these issues into perspective. I flew into a community in my district, Williams Harbour, a few weeks ago and met with their community, and they need eighteen kilometers of road to be connected to a highway. You know we really do have to put this into perspective because they deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. How can we sit here and say that it is wrong to spend money out of the provincial Budget in Labrador, a large portion of it, over the next six years? How can we say that, Madam Speaker, and leave these people without infrastructure, without roads? We are not saying there are not other needs, we are just asking to have this put into perspective.

I think the lines here are drawn pretty clear. I certainly hope that we are not going to be confined to a $23 million budget in transportation for the next five years. I am sure that this government will, wherever possible, vote the appropriate amounts that can be voted for a transportation infrastructure in our Province. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I think that we have to understand that there are communities in this Province that do not have roads, that there are communities that should take precedent and priority, and I think that government has made the right decision in doing that.

Now hopefully, through this resolution, through the collective efforts of every member in this Legislature, that we will be able to, in supporting this resolution, put greater emphasis, bring greater meaning to the Government of Canada in terms of where we are coming from on transportation. We need to have a new federal agreement for this Province. We need to, in order to ensure that we can take on the responsibility of servicing all of those communities, communities like Conche, communities like those on the Baie Verte Peninsula -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Madam Speaker, to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand to make a few comments on the private member's bill put forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis. I am very concerned about it.

We are talking today about a need, and I listened to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, to her speech, Madam Speaker, and I certainly agree that there is a need for a federal-provincial agreement in this Province. There is a need for the Minister of Transportation to be in Ottawa seeking a federal-provincial agreement for roads in this Province.

I have stood here, Madam Speaker, for numerous days and put forward petitions on behalf of the people in my district. I have stood here and put forward petitions on behalf of the people in my district in relation to needs of roads in my district and no doubt about it, there is a need for a federal-provincial roads agreement. I have listened to the members opposite put forward that.

I will go back, if I could for a moment, to comments put forward by the MP for Labrador who talked about a federal-provincial agreement; who talked about this government putting forward a proposal, a so-called proposal for a federal-provincial agreement. I have a copy of that proposal right here. The Newfoundland and Labrador Future Highways Funding, February 2002, a so-called proposal by this government that put forward - and what did the MP for Labrador, a member of the Government in Canada, the MP for Labrador, what did he say about this proposal? I will go to what his comments were, Madam Speaker. He did not think that this was a very powerful presentation. He figured that a PowerPoint presentation did not cut it. He said: "Without a concrete, formal cost-benefit, business case for Phase III, there can't be an agreement. I can't take a PowerPoint show to caucus. Our federal Ministers can't take that to cabinet. There had to be something formal and professional, not amateurish. And then later that same week, Minister Barrett told the media he'd take any cost sharing formula for Phase III: 50/50, 40/60, 30/70, even 10/90. With last week's budget, the province negotiated itself right down to 0/100, without ever starting formal talks with the federal government."

That is the MP for Labrador, a person I am sure is fully concerned about the Labrador Transportation Initiative, Madam Speaker, and he thinks that this PowerPoint presentation just does not cut it in Ottawa. It is just not going to do the job and that is why he is concerned.

I listened to the minister as he talked about a commitment, a commitment of this government to build the Trans-Labrador Highway; $102 million of a commitment over the next six years; $117 million a year out of the provincial roads program. I am not against taking provincial roads program money, Madam Speaker, and spreading it throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where possible. What I am against is making a commitment for six years that you may not have to live up to. Six years, at $17 million a year, when this year the total provincial roads program for Newfoundland and Labrador is $23 million and we are talking about spending $17 million a year, that is going to leave $6 million for everybody else. I am not against sharing. I am not against sharing but I am for reality, and that is not reality when we are dealing with a $23 million provincial roads program and we are going to take $17 million and put it in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I listened to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair stand on her feet and say we cannot let the money sit in the account until it dwindles, and dwindles, and dwindles away, Madam Speaker. Well, what did the MP for Labrador have to say about that? The MP for Labrador, in the Government of Canada, said that the interest on that alone, the interest on the money in the account alone would do an enormous amount of work, but what he is concerned about, and what we are all concerned about - I will read this, and this is from the MP in Labrador. This is not from some young fellow on the lower road in Cuslett I say, Madam Speaker, this is from the MP for Labrador. He said: "This is the biggest Labrador sellout since the days of Joey Smallwood. Fifteen years ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: This is from the MP in Labrador: "Fifteen years ago we were shut out of the Roads for Rails deal, despite provincial promises that they wouldn't give up the railway without getting a Trans-Labrador Highway in return. I worked with my federal and provincial colleagues six years ago to make up for that rip-off, and we got a separate transportation deal for Labrador: The Labrador Transportation Initiative."

Madam Speaker, in 1989, in the last year of the PC government in this Province there was a $40 million provincial road program. In 1989; we talk about the growth in GDP. All we hear from the opposite side of this House is what we are doing in this Province; how great this Province is; how many people are working in this Province; the amount of GDP that we are growing; and one-half of what we spent on roads under the provincial roads program in 1989, we are spending today. Madam Speaker, that is not prosperity, that is hoodwinking, I say to the members opposite; that is hoodwinking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, the MP for Labrador has brought forward that it is hoodwinking. He says - these are not my words, these are the words of the MP for Labrador. This is what he said. He "...condemned the provincial government for raiding - not my words, Madam Speaker - "the Labrador Transportation Fund in order to reduce the provincial deficit." This is what he said. Would you believe this? I mean, I am reading it verbatim. "There is no word for this. It's beneath despicable and disgraceful. One more time, the province is looking to a Labrador resource to bail itself out." These are the words of the MP for Labrador, and these are sad, sad words.

I saw the Minister of Transportation stand on his feet and repeat several times, that this government is zeroing in on Labrador. Well, the only part of Labrador this government zeroed in on is the $97 million, Madam Speaker. That is the only part they zeroed in on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: How can they guarantee something, Madam Speaker, six years down the road? We had a guarantee when they signed the Labrador Transportation Initiative. It was law in this Province. It was law in this House, Madam Speaker. The members on the opposite side of the House, under the leadership then of former Premier Brian Tobin, stood and voted on the Labrador Transportation Initiative. They voted to support that, they made it law, they made it legislation, they made a commitment at that time, Madam Speaker, that they would live up to that commitment of providing Phase I and II and the marine services to Labrador. Now they are trying to tell us, now they are going to stand on their feet and say: Trust us again, because we are going to make a commitment once again. We can't live up to the last commitment, Madam Speaker. What did we do with the last commitment? We had a commitment in this House from these people on the opposite side, of the $347 million Labrador Transportation Initiative, and what did they do? They tore it up, Madam Speaker - that is what they did with it - and they threw it in the garbage. Now, they are asking us to make another commitment, to agree if they are going to make another commitment in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Do they think that we, on this side of the House, or do they think that the people of Labrador, are buying into it? I ask the MP for Labrador: Does he think the people of Labrador are buying into it?

I say to the Minister for Labrador: Where are the petitions that were given to him? I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair: Where are the petitions that were given to you? I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains: Where are the petitions that were given to you? Where are the petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say, stand on your feet and present the petitions that were given to you.

MS JONES: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: I just want to indicate to the House, Madam Speaker, that I have not received any petitions from my district, or anywhere else in this Province, that I have not presented in this House of Assembly. I would like to make that point, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if you don't have them on your desk now, you will have them there next week, and I will talk to you then and see if you present them then. I will talk to you then.

I know, Madam Speaker, that there are members from Labrador on that side of the House who have petitions and are not standing in their places presenting them on behalf of the people they represent. I have petitions here from the people in my district, and I have stood here four days in a row and presented them. I say to the members for Labrador, you have not done your duty as the members for Labrador, to present petitions that have been given to you in this House. You have not done your duty.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MR. MANNING: Oh, come on! I only have a few minutes, boy.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, today is May 1, 2002, at 4:15 p.m. I can say to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this House, that I have not received one petition from Labrador that I have not presented in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the House - I cannot refer, Madam Speaker, to the quotation now, but if my memory serves me correctly, it is quite unparliamentary to say to any member that they have not performed their duty for their district. That is in many quotations, Madam Speaker, and I will attempt to find it, but I want Madam Speaker to undertake to look into that. The hon. member accused a person of not performing their duty for their district, and I would suggest to you that is quite unparliamentary.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I only have a few minutes, Madam Speaker, to present my petition but I am putting forward a situation here, Madam Speaker, that is very important. I regret that I have to draw people up to their feet to interrupt my fifteen minutes that I have, Madam Speaker, but it is important that we put all the facts on the table. We have a situation here where we have a private member's resolution here, we have a minister's presentation here, Madam Speaker, that has gone to Ottawa -

MR. McLEAN: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify the fact that it is May 1, 2002, and I have not received any petitions to present in this House from anybody in Labrador referring to anything to do with the $97 million. Madam Speaker, I just want to make that clarification.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We have, Madam Speaker, a very serious situation here where $97 million, as far as - I am just quoting the MP for Labrador's comments. I am sorry if they upset the members opposite. I cannot help that. I did not say them. I am reading verbatim from what he said in his news release. He is saying that your government raided the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. I did not say it. He said it. Now you are going to go off to Ottawa and try to get a new federal-provincial agreement from the MP and his government in Ottawa that says that you stole the last one he gave you. That is what I am saying, Madam Speaker. That is what is in here. Now, we are up to Ottawa and we are trying - the minister has gone up, Madam Speaker-

AN HON. MEMBER: They probably do not trust him anymore.

MR. MANNING: There is a level of trust here. There is a level of trust here. So he is going to pass over a certain amount of dollars, Madam Speaker, to the provincial government to spend in a certain way; and this is not just an agreement that two people got at a table and said: You agree, I agree. This is a signed document. Then it was brought back to this House and it was made legislation in this House, Madam Speaker. It was made law, and now we have a bill before the House again asking to give permission to this government to take the $97 million from that fund and put into general revenue in this Province.

What I am saying is that if the federal government could not trust us the first time, how do we expect the federal government to trust us the second time? How do we go cap in hand to Ottawa and say to the federal minister: Give us another I think it was - if memory serves me correctly, I think it was $979 million or $980 million that the minister put forward in his presentation in February, and we are going to ask the federal government to share with us an agreement on almost $1 billion worth of road work that everybody agrees needs to done. I think the minster said $979 million or $980 million in the proposal that you put forward - $978 million - and we are going to ask the federal government to come with us on a road. Come down the road with us. Help us spend that money. Help us, Madam Speaker, to bring in a federal-provincial agreement and what do we say? We gave you money before. You did not spend it the way I told you to spend it. Now we want more. The MP for Labrador speaks, I am sure, for the members of the federal government.

MR. BARRETT: All you are saying is irrelevant.

MR. MANNING: All I am saying is irrelevant? I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, what is irrelevant in this whole equation is a power point presentation for a billion dollar. Madam Speaker, that is what is irrelevant. A power point presentation for a billion-dollar project. A billion-dollar proposal. What did the MP for Labrador say about that? He said it was amateurish. That is what the MP for Labrador said about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: These are not words, but the MP for Labrador. I am quoting him verbatim, Madam Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I want to set the record straight in terms of some of the things that are going on here. The MP for Labrador said that I did a power point presentation to Collenette? I want to remind hon. members in this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the MP for Labrador was not at the meeting. He does not know what happened at the meeting between the minister for Labrador and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation because the MP for Labrador was not at the meeting. It was a very in-depth discussion. What I had in that proposal were highlights and I went through a whole comprehensive, detailed discussion with the Minister of Transportation for Canada. The MP for Labrador does not know what happened at the meeting. There was no power point presentation. I am sick of saying it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

At this point, I would also like to remind the member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to clue up?

Can you table the minutes of the meeting that you had with Mr. Collenette, I say to the minister? Table it.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no leave.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I listened to the member when he spoke about the federal government, about their concerns and so on, and when Ottawa can claw back seventy cents on every dollar that we try and make better transportation and health services to this Province, I wonder where the sellout was, I say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the resolution put forward by the Member from Cape St. Francis and to recommend the Minister of Transportation for the amendments he brought in.

Labrador has gotten a lot of attention, and it is because of this government that came here in 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 1996, when most of the new members came in here, and one of the first things we did was make a proposal to Ottawa to change the name of this Province to Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that some members across the way might have trouble because it was this government that finally recognized Labrador as a part of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way shouted out about reality. I want to say that when we talk about the $97 million, I was asked by this government as to what my opinions were. I want to tell you that when the seal fishery was killed years ago, that every Newfoundlander who went out to the ice, went basically to supplement his income as a second income. The people who hurt the most were the people on the North Coast of Labrador where there was no money to supplement their income and there was no money given similar to the TAGS program. It was the people on the North Coast of Labrador who depended upon a seal fishery more than anyone else; yet, there was nothing.

I want to remind the members across the way, if they want to talk about treating Labrador, when the Tory government was in power they went down to Smokey and built what we called Aspenite Village, put in running water and big bunk houses for the fishermen who came down from Newfoundland. The great big documentary was done on the Labrador fishery where the boats brought down cats, dogs, boats and fishing gear. Yet, the people in Rigolet were not given five cents to put toward their water and sewer. When you want to talk about treatment of what this government is doing for Labrador, you people have no room to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the members across the way take great pride in rising and quoting from the federal MPs and the federal government, but yet, when the TAGS program was brought in, the people in my riding, because of the rules and regulations that were brought in, were the only people in this riding that never got any benefits.

I want to remind the Member for Bonavista South and the Member from Baie Verte, Mr. Shelley, when we went, I talked, and I spoke loud and clear that I wanted all of Newfoundland and Labrador to get more money for the TAGS program, and we did. The unfortunate part is, nothing came to the people on the North Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch very briefly on the $97 million. I am glad that there is going to be a road built. I say to the Member for Labrador West, that I personally know people who are from the South Coast of Labrador, and six or seven years from now they are going to be able to get aboard their car and take their children down from Labrador West, on down through to southern Labrador to spend time with their grandparents, something that they cannot do now. You, as a member, have been complaining about the high cost of the airlines, where they cannot fly, and yet you are against this road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be very clear, that my riding will not get a road for years and years to come. It will be the only part of this Province that will not have a road. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, I have thought about it: Should we take that $97 million and give it to the government - and they are going to put it back over a number of year - to build the Trans-Labrador Highway.

I want to say to the Member for Placentia: You talk of reality; well, I tell you, this is a reality. I have seen too many young people in my riding whom we have lost. I have seen too many social problems faced by our people because we do not have a connection to the outside world. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, small as this Province is, to get from Goose Bay to L'Anse au Clair and to Labrador West, is the outside world.

I made a commitment, that, yes, I will support the government with the $97 million, providing they will put the money back over the next six or seven years, to build the road from Cartwright to Goose Bay, so that the young children can travel back and forth for sports competitions, so that people will not have to fly from Cartwright out to St. John's, they can drive to the hospital in Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why this member gave his consent to what the government did.

I can tell you, it is too bad that you, as members, do not take - I hear you talk about your bad roads, but I can tell you what, I have been in every district, pretty well, and I can say to you: If you think that your roads are bad, or your conditions are bad, then you should have come to my riding prior to this government doing up our roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Because I can say to you, if you want to talk about how people were treated - I did that so that the rest of Labrador and this Province could move on. I gave my consent.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that there will be legislation brought in to protect that. I am going to vote for it and I am going to speak for it because of what I believe is going to happen with this new road being put in place. I can tell you, the way that some members over there have spoken out, who have never, ever been to Labrador and do not know the circumstance, let me say to you very clearly, that you should not only bow your head in hope of forgiveness, but you should bow your head in shame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I can tell you, until you have been there and you have experienced the problems that the people in my riding have gone through - maybe, if you were in my position, you would say: Yes, I think this is good idea because it is going to help the people.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the Member for Cape St. Francis: Sure, we need more money for transportation. I want to see the Trans-Labrador Highway completed, and I want to see it paved, so everyone in this Province can move back and forth. Perhaps, when the time does come, that the people in my riding want money to build a road through our district, that every member here will know the circumstances, and before you go out there and criticize, you will come out and support a road for our riding.

Mr. Speaker, again I can only say that it is frustrating when you hear so many people on the opposite side talk of this money, but yet we have a plan. I can tell you Labrador has a vision, and the reason why Labrador has a vision is because of what this government has done over the last five or six years. Mr. Speaker, that vision is going to continue on. That vision of completing the Trans-Labrador Highway from Cartwright to Goose Bay is going to be a reality and it is because of this government and our commitment to the people on the Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to people opposite, this resolution seems to be gone off track somewhere along the way. In my understanding of this particular resolution, it is not about whether there should be money spent on the Labrador Highway or who should get a road or who should not get a road. It is not the point of talking about anybody. It is the point of speaking to the resolution, Mr. Speaker. I do not see anywhere in this resolution where it talks about denying anybody access to anything. In fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - Mr. Speaker, maybe all members might be able to save that speech for Bill 10 when it comes before the House of Assembly. I would suggest that is when we can get into talking about what is happening with the $97 million, what is happening with taking money out of the Labrador Fund and putting it back in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I understand this resolution to read that the government should be more vigilant and the government should continue in the path of trying to get money from Ottawa to enter into another roads agreement so that we all might have better roads to drive over. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this particular resolution talks about the gravel roads that people have to travel over to get to places like Winter Brook and Jamestown. Mr. Speaker, I understand this resolution to talk about the need for continuing money to be brought forward, whether it is the Roads for Rails money or whether it is another agreement to complete roads like Route 230 leading down the Bonavista highway and the Burin Peninsula highway and the Northern Peninsula highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Labrador highway.

MR. FITZGERALD: And the Labrador highway, as well.

When the member talks about places in his district in Labrador that do not have a road, that have a gravel road or no road whatsoever, then this is what this resolution is all about. It is certainly not pitting one member against another member of where road work should be or who should get road work or who should not, Mr. Speaker. The first call on road work, Mr. Speaker, should go to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I say.

When I talk to people down in Winter Brook, who tell me that they cannot hang clothes on the line in the summer time or they cannot open their windows in the summer time to let the fresh air blow through their house, I am not so sure that we should accept that. When the minister stood up to speak and talked about the negativity that is on the go, I do not see how those people can be positive about what is happening with road work for their community. That is why this negativity, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is there, because those people have waited in excess of 100 years in order to get a decent road to drive over through their community. They waited over 100 years to be able to open a window in their house, to be able to have a breath of clean, fresh air blow through that particular house.

Mr. Speaker, this year will mark the end of the Roads for Rails money that was initiated back in 1988 or 1987. This particular year will see the end of that money, $800-and-some million that was negotiated between the Province of Newfoundland and our country, our central government in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference in the traffic on our highways today and what it was back in 1985-1986. Everybody that drives the Trans-Canada and drives the main trunk roads in our districts know full well what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the shame of it is that we have waited until the Road for Rails money has ran out before we started to negotiate another agreement in order to continue with the work. That is the shame of it. This agreement should have been, and a new agreement should have been, negotiated long before now. This particular year, Mr. Speaker, we will see very little road work done in trunk roads in this Province. I can assure you that the $20 million, the $22 million, that government has put forward for paving and capital works projects this year, certainly will not be able to do much work on the trunk roads leading into the communities in our districts.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my conversations with the local depot there, they do not even have funding in order to put some decent stone on the sides of the road. We are not fortunate enough to have sidewalks. Many people, especially the elderly, would like to get out in the evening and go for a walk. Many calls that I get are from people saying that we cannot even walk on the sides of the road anymore because the Department of Works, Services and Transportation do not even provide enough funding to put stone on the shoulders of the road. Do you know what they put on the shoulders of the road today? They go in and they put pit-run on the shoulders of the road. Rocks, Madam Speaker, the size of milk cans and bigger. That is what is used today as shoulders on the roads going through communities. There is no money anymore to allow the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to go and put stone even on the shoulders of the road.

So, that is what people are asking for. It is kind of hard to be positive when you see that kind of thing happening in our rural communities. It is not only the communities I serve. People opposite know exactly what I am talking about. They know exactly what I am talking about. When you see the pleas coming in from communities that do not have a decent road to drive over; when you see the pleas coming in year after year and the problem not attended to, that is why people are frustrated. Nobody is expecting government to go out and pave all the roads and upgrade all the roads but, at least, Madam Speaker, we can provide some funding to continue to upgrade and pave some of those communities that, up until now, haven't even enjoyed the decency of a paved road leading into their community. That is all they are asking for.

I understand there are other people here on this side of the House who want to speak five or ten minutes. We are running out of time. I have agreed to share my time. So with that, I say to people opposite that this is not about pitting Newfoundland against Labrador. This resolution is not about taking money from the Labrador agreement and spending it anywhere here in the Province. This resolution is a plea to ask the government - not to be bold, but ask the government to be bold and step up to the plate and initiate a discussion with the central government in Ottawa to bring forward another initiative so we might be able to provide the people in this Province with a decent road to drive over to get to the hospitals, to get to the school and get to their place of work. I fully support everybody who comes forward and asks for those basic necessities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak generally of the resolution that was put forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis, but, in particular, to support the amended resolution that was amended by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to get too excited in my deliberations, but I would agree with the Member for Bonavista South, that maybe he should have gotten up first this afternoon and said that we have lots of time when we debate Bill 10, on the $97 million, but I think everybody has had a crack at that this afternoon. I will not dwell on it a whole lot, but I just want to make a few points on the resolution itself.

I would say to you, and I would say to the people of the Province, that over the past year I, too, have driven about 90 per cent of the highways in this Province. I, too, agree that there is a lot of work that needs to be done in different sections of this Province on the highways., but I still have to look at the overwhelming need to see highways built. I think that is where the crux of the discussion is coming from today, not that we do not support the resolution, the main part of the resolution and most of the Whereas's. Of course, we do support the resolution in its form, but we have to look at it from a perspective that we still have parts of this Province where people have to commute in the summertime by boat or by air, and in the wintertime, Mr. Speaker, we have, in the last number of years, put snowmobile trails, and groomed snowmobile trails, so that people can have a main transportation network over the land in the wintertime. We also have areas that really have no prospect, I guess, of getting a highway over the next short period of time. I look at the North Coast of Labrador and the South Coast of the Island and some areas.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support taking this forum in terms of going forward to the federal government and ensuring that the federal government stands to their responsibility and their role of providing funding for infrastructure in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I can say, that for a lot of the things that we look for from the federal government they say we are looking for subsidies and looking for that kind of thing. If we were doing this west of Ontario it would be called an initiative. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand a lot of times why the federal government takes that attitude towards Eastern Canada. I think that is why it is important that we look at a resolution like this and bring it forward so that we can be positive in going to the federal government.

I was with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when he met with Minister Collenette, the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa, with the proposal that we had. Our number one priority was the construction of Phase III, which was the completion of the highway across Labrador, which will give perhaps for the first time in our history, a great opportunity for Labrador to benefit from the developments that can take place once you put the basic infrastructure in. That is the main thing that we are fighting for, Mr. Speaker.

That is why I want to divert a little bit over to what we are talking about in terms of the program that we are putting forward for the next six years is to ensure that happens. I think we tend to get lost a lot of times in the fact that we are stealing $97 million. I do not agree with that kind of terminology, Mr. Speaker. I challenge the Member from Labrador West, that he gets all hung up on that kind of thing. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker - and if you want me to I can go back, but I am not going to now. I will save that debate for Bill 10. I could back to 1997 when we originally signed that agreement, because it all makes sense.

What we have to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we have gone to the federal government. We have gone to the federal government a number of times to ensure that we can get some infrastructure developed in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the one thing that I do have a concern with, and I have had a problem with for a number of years, is that we always felt that the only way we could do any infrastructure work in Labrador was if we had the federal government support. I think through the efforts of this government in the last number of years we have taken that to another step, and have decided to do some of this infrastructure work ourselves. That does not mean that the federal government should not come in and support this further along because we still have to pave the highway. We still have to get a paved highway. If we could ever get the federal government - and I would almost be willing to take as part of this resolution, the fact that we see that highway built to a highway of national standard rather than a provincial standard which would require that it be a part of the Trans-Canada Highway system and be paved in that process. The federal government certainly can come in and assist us on that. We are not saying they should not come in and help us out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: I will sit down now and I will just conclude by saying that -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. McLEAN: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I support the resolution as amended because I believe that we have to go forward as parliamentarians of all stripes to ensure that the federal government handles its responsibility in terms of the infrastructure work that we need in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Member for Baie Verte was hoping to have few words, and he is a rural member. I do not mind giving him a few minutes of my time to clue up, by leave, if the members would allow him to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed, by leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate my colleague giving me some time. I understand that there are a lot of people who wanted to speak on this particular debate today, Mr. Speaker, many people. It all goes to show, Mr. Speaker. That is why I commend the Member for Cape St. Francis for putting forward this motion today. It shows in this House today, from every member who stood and more members I know who would like to speak - the member for Labrador - who wanted some more time to speak on this issue, because what it really shows is the importance of this issue, finally coming to the forefront in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: this problem did not happen overnight. This has been happening for years. This is not something we should be standing up today talking about Labrador and the Island, whether the road in my district is as bad as the member for Labrador. I appreciate where the member for Labrador is coming from. We understand that. I have lived a few years in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I understand where the people are coming from. We should not be talking about Labrador, Newfoundland, the Island. We should be talking about it as one, Mr. Speaker, because the truth and the fact of the matter is, I have been saying in this House for nine years, petition after petition, in debate, talking about the roads in my district, the La Scie Highway, Little Bay Highway, King's Point road, and then all the gravel roads. I can go on for an hour on my district alone, in this House, on how desperate it is. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that many other members could stand and do the same thing.

The fact of the matter is today, Mr. Speaker, this is proven true that today. Because of the way this debate has gone on, it only proves the importance of this issue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the safety of our children on school buses, to the tourism potential we have in our Province, when we have gravel roads like in Harry's Harbour and all over the Province where tourists will not turn down there because of the road conditions. Then you go to a place like the La Scie Highway, King's Point Highway, Little Bay, where they have old pavement there, it is slowing down the economy. When the only gold mine producing in Newfoundland and Labrador almost had to shut down last year because the trucks could not go over the road, that is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, a serious issue that we have to respond to.

When they made an amendment today, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution, they talked about how we are going to continue to negotiate. To me, Mr. Speaker, they said they were going to continue the status quo. Well, the status quo is not good enough. The status quo has not been working in this Province. We are sitting here today with $900 million worth of work that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker. Status quo is not good enough. We have to go to the federal government, whether it is a power point or a proposal, whether it is the Premier or the former Premiers who were here before, and just lay it on the line, that the status quo is not good enough anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I will conclude by saying this, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for giving me some of his time, because I could certainly go on for an hour today on the roads in my district, but it is time for us to get some action on this. Every year going to this minister and the former minister - I did it time after time - basically begging, like every single member in this House, both sides of the House, begging for a kilometre of pavement, begging for a bit of Grade A material to put on a gravel road. I am sick and tired of it. I am sick and tired of anybody calling, saying: Six o'clock in the morning meet me up on the La Scie road because we have to have a protest.

Do you think I enjoy that? Do you think any member here enjoys that? I have been doing it for nine years, Mr. Speaker. Sick and tired of it. I have people call me on the phone and say: Are you going to be at my protest tomorrow morning? Yes, I will be there. Do you think we enjoy it? It is easy, sometimes, for the Opposition member to go up and criticize and jump on it. Well, I do not enjoy it. It makes me sick. I stood there last year with a fellow from Brent's Cove, six o'clock in the morning, who said: I am supposed to be in the woods today. I am up here on a protest, looking at the sun coming up over the mountain, on a protest for a road. I am sick and tired of it.

This government has to take the bull by the horns and say what we have been saying all along: that you need a long-term plan. We do not want to come next April to another minister and say: Give me another kilometre of road. Give me a bit of Grade A material to put on the road. Sick and tired of it. We speak for all members here today. The members for Labrador, the members from any part of the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, we speak for all of them when we say: Get your act together. Get something done so at least we can have a plan so that people down the road can say, after fifty-three years of Confederation, that we do not have any more gravel roads in this Province. That is where the action needs to come.

I commend the member today for bringing this forward. I will tell you what; I would like to bring another motion forward and spend another three hours in this House talking about this same issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, some very interesting debate in this House of Assembly this afternoon on a very important topic. Before I get into it, I would like to thank all the members who participated here today: the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, his comments today. Many of them I disagreed with, but he has his right to his point of view, I suppose; the Member for Labrador West; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Torngat Mountains; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member for Lake Melville; and the Member for Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should, just for the record, read the resolution, as amended, because I think the minister - and I was expecting this. He made some amendments to it, but it really did not change the intent of the resolution itself. He wanted to play politics so he included one word in the important part of the resolution, and I am going to read it now.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the government continue - that is the word he put in there, Mr. Speaker, continue - to negotiate a new cost-sharing agreement with the Government of Canada for road repair and construction that will bring the quality of the Province's roads and highways up to North American standards, and contribute to the Province's overall productivity and competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, in that there was one word, I think, that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should really pay attention to, and the word was the Province. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tried to play a bit of politics with this today, trying to put words in our mouth on this side of the House. It is too bad, because it is a very serious issue. The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know that, the people who travel over the roads of this Province know that, but I am not sure that the minister is quite fully aware of that. To try to say that we, on this side of the House, are opposed to Labrador, that we do not support the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Absolute nonsense! Absolute nonsense!

What happened, Mr. Speaker - and who introduced this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - of course, is the Premier. It is too bad that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had to get on with that foolishness and nonsense, in trying to twist the words.

This issue in this Province today is starting to emerge and it is starting to come to the top with respect to the priorities for the people of this Province, let me tell you, for many, many reasons. One of them, of course, is the access to hospitals and health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and being able to get to these facilities. The state of the roads, and the vehicles themselves are being destroyed with respect to the poor conditions of the road. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that this is going on in every region of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, every region of the Province. What we are asking for is that this government negotiate an agreement, a federal-provincial agreement, to get funds to not only maintain but to bring the roads up to an acceptable, I suppose, if not a national standard, an acceptable condition in this Province today.

The minister, as Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, has that responsibility on behalf of the government, on behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to negotiate that agreement, and a positive agreement for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I want to thank all members today who spoke on this very important private member's resolution, and hopefully - we see so many resolutions pass through this House, no action taken on them - hopefully the government, and the present minister, will do something with this private member's resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

I declare the resolution, as amended, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, just an announcement regarding the Estimates Committee. The Resource Committee will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Just in conclusion, I raised a point of order a little earlier in the afternoon and I just wanted to give Your Honour the authorities on which I based it. I could not remember at the time, and it is Beauchesne, Sixth Edition, page 143, §488.(r).

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.