The House met at 2.00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some special guests to our gallery. First of all we would like to welcome one of our retired Commissionaires, Mr. Ladd Bursey, he served in our House from 1992 to 2003. We want to thank him for his many years of service and wishing him a very happy retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also would like to recognize fifty Grade 5 students from Larkhall Academy in the District of St. John's North, with their teachers: Mr. Ralph Cann and Ms Penny Pinsent. Also, they have chaperones: Frank Hatcher, Yvonne Urovski, Mary Hewitt and Tanya Shalaby. Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin the regular procedures this afternoon the Speaker would like to rule on the point of privilege raised by Leader of the Opposition on Thursday, May 13, and by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on Monday, May 17.

In that there is a commonalty in the points of privilege, the Speaker will deal with them concurrently.

The purpose of privilege is to allow Members of the House of Assembly "to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without undue interference." A quote from Marleau & Montpetit.

The role of the Speaker is limited to deciding if the matter raised by a member or members is of such a character as to entitle the member or members raising the question to move a motion which would have priority in the House. In such matters, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has occurred. Should the Speaker determine that a prima facie breach exists, it is incumbent on the House itself to determine what actions should be taken. In such instances, the matter would be referred to a House Committee on Privileges as per Standing Order 65 and there would be a subsequent report to the House after such study and consultations as the Committee would determine.

During this process, the matter may be remedied at any stage by actions taken by persons or groups named in the point of privilege. In most instances, an acknowledgement of an error or an apology to the House by persons or groups of persons named in the point of privilege puts an end to the matter.

The point of privilege raised by members sitting in Opposition in recent days focus on the contents of documents released to them by the Executive Council and relate to decisions made by government in the implementation of budgetary policy. This document was not tabled in the House and is therefore not a part of the regular parliamentary proceedings. However, the Chair is very cognizant of the expectation that documents shared by government with members sitting in Opposition or with the public in general through its departments or executive branches be accurate and reliable.

On Thursday, May 13, when this matter was first raised, the Government House Leader gave a commitment to review the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition to enter a report to the House later in the same setting. However, towards the end of that sitting day, by agreement the commentary on the review of the Government House Leader was deferred to Tuesday, May 18. There was agreement on both sides of the House to defer the matter.

On Tuesday, May 18, the Government House Leader was out of the Province on government business and in his absence, the Acting House Leader, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs reviewed the matters raised in the points of privilege and apologized for any errors in the document shared with members in Opposition by the Executive Council. In a ministerial statement, his exact words in reference to the inaccuracies were, "For this we apologize." Later, in responding to a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, the Acting Government House Leader stated, "In the apology, in acknowledging we made some errors and apologizing to the House, I apologized on behalf of the government for the misinformation and on behalf of the Minister of Government Services and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation."

Furthermore, in Question Period, the Premier accepted full responsibility for any mistakes made by his government on this matter. To quote the Premier, "As the duly elected Premier of the Province, elected by the people of the Province and as Leader of this government, I accept full responsibility for any mistakes of my government at any particular point in time."

In the opinion of the Chair, the statements made by the Acting House Leader and the Premier resolved the issues in the point of privilege raised on Thursday, May 13 by the Leader of the Opposition and the point of privilege raised on Monday, May 17 by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

In the House on Tuesday, May 18, the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order with regard to whether or not the statement of apology offered by the Acting Government House Leader and the acknowledgment by the Premier of mistakes could or should be extended to include the Minister of Environment and Conservation, the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I do believe that members will acknowledge there is a long standing tradition in our parliamentary system that the House Leaders speak for and on behalf of their respective parliamentary caucuses.

In addition, members will note that essential to the Westminster model of democracy is that the executive branch be responsible to Parliament. The Leader of the parliamentary group with majority support in Parliament, the Queen's First Minister, was asked by the Lieutenant-Governor to name members of a ministry. It is the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Minister or the Premier to invite members to the ministry. The core of responsible government is that the ministry must be answerable to the House of Assembly and must maintain majority support. In such matters, the Premier as the First Minister speaks for and on behalf of all ministers and the government as a collectivity or Administration. Thus, the Chair rules that the apologies offered by the House Leader and, more specifically, the acknowledgment by the First Minister that mistakes had been made must be accepted on behalf of all ministers and would include all those involved in the Executive Branch, whether the individual members are named or unnamed. Thus, there is no point of order.

Further, yesterday, there was a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader with regard to comments made by the Premier in reference to the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair has reviewed Hansard, has taken note of the original exchange and the Premier's subsequent withdrawal of the remark.

The Chair notes that, in the withdrawal, the Premier did not do so unequivocally. The Premier's comment was: I actually withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, no-faced.

I ask the Premier now to withdraw his comment, and to do so unequivocally.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I unequivocally withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker, and apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: We have notice of the following statements by members: the Member for St. Barbe; the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition; the Member for Trinity North; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate an outstanding student from the District of St. Barbe who has accomplished a significant academic achievement.

Ms Sheralyn Rumbolt of Norris Point has been awarded one of three International Baccalaureate scholarships for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as recipient of the scholarship, Sheralyn will attend Holy Heart of Mary High School in St. John's for her Level III studies. Holy Heart is one of only 1,425 schools in the world to offer International Baccalaureate.

Sheralyn's selection comes from many applications from throughout the Province to the provincial selection committee. After a screening process and personal interviews, she was named a recipient. She will also receive $12,000 to complete her studies in St. John's.

Sheralyn will be attending a program that is highly respected and demanding; however, I am positive that Sheralyn, who currently attends Gros Morne Academy in Rocky Harbour, will excel in the International Baccalaureate program and whichever path she chooses after.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Sheralyn Rumbolt for this significant achievement and wish her success in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits and Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young man from Exploits District, who has recently distinguished himself in his studies of faith.

Mr. Speaker, Patrick Penton, a nineteen-year-old student of William and Catherine Bible College in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and a resident of Bishop's Falls, has been invited to travel to London, England, and Dublin, Ireland, to preach and to lead some revival services while there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous honour for a talented young man from my district. Since the age of seven, Patrick has known that he wanted to dedicate his life to the service of God. With his study, he has shown passion and leadership, and this recent distinction of an invitation to lead revival meetings in Europe continues to show that his selfless service is the right path for him.

Mr. Speaker, I know Patrick will do a great job while preaching in Europe and continue to be an excellent ambassador for the Province and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Patrick and wishing him the very best as he continues his studies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today my colleague, the Minister of Education, announced three provincial winners of this year's International Baccalaureate scholarships. I am very proud to rise today to say that two of those winners are from my district.

Mr. Speaker, the International Baccalaureate program is a demanding, pre-university course of study designed for highly motivated high school students, which offers a comprehensive international curriculum and stresses critical thinking and inter-cultural understanding. Graduates are well prepared to enter university with advanced standing.

One of the awards is the prestigious Lester B. Pearson Scholarship and it was awarded to Miss Simone Warren of Little Heart's Ease. This scholarship of $52,000 will fund Miss Warren's attendance at the University World College in the Victoria, B.C. Mr. Speaker, she will be among 100 students who have been selected from some eighty countries around the world to attend the University World College this fall.

The second scholarship, offered by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, provides funding for two other students to attend Holy Heart of Mary High School in St. John's, which also offers the International Baccalaureate program as part of the its established curriculum.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WISEMAN: This program is offered as a part of their regular curriculum. Ms Stephanie Smith of Port Rexton is one of the two recipients of this award.

Mr. Speaker, both Simone and Stephanie have excelled in academic achievement. As well, they have both displayed dedication to their respective communities through participation in an extensive array of volunteer and extra-curricular activities.

I ask the members of this House to acknowledge today and to congratulate those two fine young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because they are an exceptional example of what can be achieved in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

One other final point, Mr. Speaker. These two students are, as I said earlier, two of three for the Province, and they both happen to be students in a small all-grade school in two separate small rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is a real tribute to these two young ladies, their families, their parents, and the staff of those schools that they attend, who have prepared those students for the future in the manner in which they have.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this year will always be remembered as one of the best competitions ever for swimmers from Grand Falls-Windsor.

On May 8, approximately 200 swimmers from across our Province participated in the Provincial Long Course Swimming Championship in St. John's, and four swimmers from Grand Falls-Windsor came away with a total of ten medals.

Erica Kelly's hard work and dedication to her sport paid off as she was awarded four gold medals for her finishes in the competition, while Jared Bursey came away with two gold medals and a bronze.

Mary Clair Lynch, a first-time competitor in this annual event, earned a silver and a bronze medal for her finish in the 100- and 200-metre breast stroke, which earned her a place in the East Coast Championship to be held in St. John's in July.

Rochelle Gladney earned a bronze medal for her time in the 200-metre freestyle.

These young people are truly dedicated to their sport and they have represented our community and Province proudly. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these four young swimmers on their amazing accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the recognition given to one of our best-known Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on her being invested as an Officer of the Order of Canada on Friday, May 14.

Nancy Riche was born and grew up in the Battery, here in St. John's, and started her career as an instructor in what is now the College of the North Atlantic. Her involvement with NAPE and the National Union of Provincial Government Employees led to a lengthy career with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Federal New Democratic Party in the forefront of labour, social and political battles nationally and internationally until her retirement last year.

Her citation from Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson reads as follows, "Nancy Riche is a committed, courageous champion of workers' rights. Involved for decades, she has broken new ground for women within the labour movement and attained one of its highest positions, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. Respected by business and labour leaders alike, she tackled issues such as racism and discrimination in the workplace, maternal and paternal leave and accessible quality childcare. Former vice-president of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, she represented more than 62 million women at meetings organized by numerous international bodies, including the World Trade Organization."

I would ask that all hon. members join me in congratulating Nancy Riche on her investiture as an Officer of the Order of Canada and to recognize the great contribution that she has made to our Province and country, and indeed around the world.

We are proud of her accomplishments and hope she continues to play an active role in our Province for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time on a point of order, before we get into Question Period, concerning an incident that occurred yesterday as we were concluding things in the House here. This is a point of order dealing with unparliamentary language and decorum in the House. I stand at this time because I like to do it at the earliest opportunity.

It was brought to my attention, actually, after the motion was made by the Acting Government House Leader to adjourn. It deals with, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to Bill 7, the Member for St. John's West, who is also the Chairperson of Committees, shouted across the House several times, "slime". The word "slime" was uttered several times by the Member for St. John's West.

Mr. Speaker, we raise this point of order because there are several aspects to why this is of concern here. The Members for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, Fogo & Twillingate, and the Bay of Islands, will attest to the fact that it was uttered. It is important for two reasons. First, of course, it is unparliamentary language. Whether the Chair heard it or not, the member knows the statements were made, and members on this side certainly heard the statements, and that is unparliamentary by anyone's definition.

The other concern is the fact that the Member for St. John's West is also the Chairperson of Committees. In that capacity, a very important capacity, and supposedly an impartial capacity in this House, the governance of this House is sometimes under the direction of that person. She decides, in fact, and rules upon issues of unparliamentary language and decorum in the House. We submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be impossible for members of the House to expect impartiality from the Chair of Committees when she is in the Chair, if, when she is sitting as the Member for St. John's West, it is her opinion that persons on this side of the House are, in fact, categorized, in her view, as slime.

She may indeed have two separate and distinct roles, one as the MHA for St. John's West - it has come up in this House before, as to the fact that she does have two separate roles - and she has another role as the Chairperson of Committees. The same person, with the same conscience and the same attitude, controls both of those positions. We would submit that it is absolutely improper and inappropriate behavior. Members on both side of the House must have, and should have nothing other than, complete impartiality from persons who act as Chair in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we would ask you to rule on this point of order, because it has come up earlier, as to what her duel roles would be and what she can or ought to do. I would suggest that maybe a good starting point in this whole process is if she admits she made the statements, withdraws the comments and unequivocally apologizes for having made them. That would probably go a long ways to resolving the situation.

Thank you.

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

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

I guess the general point that the Opposition House Leader has made is to deal with language that may be inflammatory. While I agree, I recall standing on many points of order when the Premier has been called, in this House, a racist, a dictator, Pinocchio. Last week there was reference made about when he was in Germany promoting the Province, how he was in the right place.

I share any member's concern about the language used in the House, but it is a two-way street and the cloth does cut both ways. It is a reminder, I guess, to all members, that whatever is said we ought to be careful.

Secondly, and more importantly, to the point that the Opposition House Leader has raised with respect to the role of the Member for St. John's West in her capacity as Chair. This point should also be made to the Member for Bonavista South in his capacity as Deputy Speaker.

I want to refer the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, and yourself as well, to a ruling made by former Speaker Snow, and certainly to Marleau, when it outlines the rules of Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees on page 294. The fact of the matter is this, that the primary role of both the Deputy Speaker and the Chair of Committees is to support you, Sir, in your capacity as Speaker. That means the role when we move into Committee and other roles as well.

I recall raising a point of order about a former Deputy Speaker who had made comments publicly about the leader of the party at the time - in this case it was the Premier - about two-and-a-half, three years ago. The ruling was very clear. The ruling was that while the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees service, in a sense in terms of the role, that they do also have obligations as private members or members within the House.

I do want to reference, Mr. Speaker, all members, but in particular, you, to that ruling made by former Speaker Snow. I think the ruling at the time, while we necessarily did not agree with it, certainly was one that was in the parliamentary sense, quite correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes that the Speaker was not in the Chair at the time. I do believe, according to the reference made, perhaps by the Opposition House Leader, that this occurred, perhaps, during the Committee stage yesterday afternoon.

The Chair will consult with the Chair of the Committees, the Member for Bonavista South, and will also ask to have the tapes heard and will come back to the House at a later date when we can have some clarity.

The Chair cannot rule on the matter now because the Chair did not hear the comments. The Chair needs to seek advice and the Chair needs to consult with the person who was in the Chair at the time, the Deputy Speaker. We will come back to the House at the appropriate time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to announce this government's plan to ensure compliance of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company with its adjacency principle for the mine/mill portion of the Voisey's Bay project.

The Voisey's Bay mine/mill project is a very significant development for Labrador and it is important to the residents of Labrador that they derive as much employment and training opportunities as possible from the project. VBNC has given a commitment to hire qualified residents of Labrador on this component of the project and has taken measures to ensure its hiring and the hiring done by its contractors follow its adjacency principle.

Nevertheless, government has a role to provide oversight on major resource-based projects on behalf of the people of this Province, a role that we take seriously. This government intends to carry out our responsibility to ensure that VBNC lives up, in every sense of the word, to its commitment of adjacency.

Mr. Speaker, in August 2003, the previous government established a short-term contractual position to monitor VBNC's compliance with its adjacency principle. The position was not funded under the departmental salary budget and the cost had to be covered through forced savings elsewhere in the department's budget. After assuming responsibility on behalf of the government for the Department of Mines and Energy, at the time in November 2003, on behalf of the government I gave direction to continue the position, eventually to the end of the fiscal year until we, as a government, and myself, as minister, had an opportunity to undertake a full review of the position, its function, and how it relates to ensuring compliance with adjacency principle.

We have looked at various means within the constraints of a reduced budget, to continue, and indeed strengthen, governments's role as it relates to the Voisey's Bay adjacency commitment. I have also had consultations with my colleagues, the Minister responsible for Labrador, and the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as the Member for Lake Melville, over the concept of using shared resources to carry out this important responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce that government will improve and strengthen its effort to ensure VBNC's compliance with its adjacency principle. The responsibility of this compliance will be shared between the office of the Department of Natural Resources in Labrador City, Wabush, and the office of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, this decision makes absolute best use of existing personnel in the Labrador offices of the Departments of Natural Resources and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. The responsibility will be carried out by permanent staff who live in Labrador, and who are well-versed in the employment opportunities and challenges associated with the Voisey's Bay project. This arrangement will give permanency to the functon that did not exist previously. It will also greatly improve accessibility for the people of Labrador who have questions and concerns over employment and training opportunities at the Voisey's Bay mine site.

Mr. Speaker, I assure the residents of Labrador that this government has every intention of holding VBNC to its commitments of adjacency. The major difference, and fundamental difference, this time between the monitoring function and what we are calling the compliance function, and ensuring compliance is that VBNC has agreed to openly share all employment information with the government. Having access to this information, which was not provided before, will provide government with the opportunity to assess, to ensure and to take action, if necessary, if the commitment is not being lived up to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can say with great certainty that there is just as much joy in Labrador today with this announcement as there was when the government announced they were going to do a study on a tunnel across The Straits.

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a year makes. First of all, myself and the former Premier met with a group of people in Labrador who came together to talk about the monitor at Voisey's Bay. The Member for Lake Melville, who was the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay at the time, was adamant and so were members of the Combined Councils of Labrador, and everyone else, that the monitor be at arm's-length from government. And what do we find here?

Minister, you may have talked to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Labrador Affairs, but I can guarantee you one thing, you never talked to the people in Labrador.

Right now, Minister, there are 750 people working in Voisey's Bay. They are going to peak at 900 this summer. So there are only 150 left. The majority of these people were hired when you took that monitor away.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds members that under Standing Order 63.(7), on Wednesday afternoon we must begin Question Period at 2:30. By agreement we could complete this exchange and add the time on after, if that is by agreement of the House. By agreement.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to confirm that we do have an agreement in that regard. I know I would not normally have to ask the Government House Leader that, but given what happened here yesterday by the Premier with the revocation of leave, I just want to be certain that we are not going to have any problems with this today. By consenting to this arrangement, we will go and do what we all want to do, for example, finish the ministerial statements and responses, have our thirty minute Question Period and then get into the private member's motion.

MR. SPEAKER: That is certainly the Chair's understanding and that is the agreement. I do believe the member has about forty seconds left in his response to the ministerial statement.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say to the minister that there are some of us who have worked very hard. I have received as much as thirty phone calls a day from people wanting to get into Voisey's Bay, and I have taken the time to try and help them.

Let me close by saying this, Minister: Obviously your government has many priorities, but certainly, from what you are proposing to the people of Labrador, it shows the people in Labrador that they are very low on your priority list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy. I am certainly hopeful that this system will work because one think I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that the previous system did not. That, I do know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I have had lots of frustrations with this. As a matter of fact, members of this House, who were here at the time, will recall that I raised a question of monitor first but I did not want a monitor with his hands tied and no tools to do any work, and I am hoping this will provide that. I am also interested in seeing how these training opportunities will coincide with employment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that compliance officers will have their work cut out because, in this paper I have here, there is one company with a total of 140 employees, eight-eight of whom are not even from the Province. Not even from the Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: I want to say that I have lobbied long and hard for this and I have had many conversations with the current minister, as I have had with past ministers as well, and I am glad to see that one of these people will be in Labrador West, in the area that I represent, so that people can go to them.

I certainly hope as well, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have complaints, people from Labrador who have complaints, will be able to get their complaints listened to, but, more importantly, corrected. I think that has to be a fundamental part of this, and I hope that we have access to the information that the compliance officer will have, too; because, if we look at the numbers that were given, currently there are 319 people on site from Labrador. There are 242 from the Island portion of the Province, and there are over 100 from outside the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a real concern with this because the 319 people from Labrador, with all due respect to the previous speaker, if we look at the Aboriginal community, who have their own agreements concerning Voisey's Bay - and rightfully so, and rightfully so they should get employment for jobs there - but if we take away and look at the remainder of Labrador, who do not have an agreement other than the one signed by government, that only leaves the same number of people from Labrador working at Voisey's Bay as there is from everywhere else in the country. That is not the purpose of that deal. That is not the obligation that was given to the people of Labrador when this deal was being sowed, and that is not what the people of Labrador expect.

I am hoping that, once this compliance officer starts their work, that people will be lined up, I can assure you of that. I hope that when they are lined up and show their qualifications and say here is somebody in Voisey's Bay working who has the same qualifications that I have, then I hope that on the initial flight into Voisey's Bay, that person is on board the aircraft and, on the return flight, the person who is there with the same qualifications is on the one back out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I was advised, Mr. Speaker, that there was going to be a Ministerial Statement by the Minister of Justice. That is why I stood up.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the leave of the House that we will continue with Ministerial Statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to announce today that Newfoundland and Labrador has become the sixth Canadian province to introduce tobacco-free environments at Adult Correctional Facilities. The eight Provincial Correctional Facilities are fully compliant and have been tobacco-free as of May 3.

The designation to tobacco-free follows an extensive four-month sequence of activities, where inmates and employees participated in educational and smoking cessation programs, and were provided with a short-term provision of pharmacological aids.

Mr. Speaker, the adult custody facilities include: Her Majesty's Penitentiary, Salmonier Correctional Institution, Bishop's Falls Correctional Centre, West Coast Correctional Centre in Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women, Labrador Correctional Centre and the lock-up facilities in both St. John's and Corner Brook.

I am pleased to report that the transition has been smooth and without major incident. The initiative will provide a healthier living and working environment for inmates, employees and visitors to the facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the success of this program is due in large part to employees in the Division of Corrections and Community Services, Newfoundland and Labrador Lung Association, and the John Howard Society, who assisted with the administration of the program. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the organizers and facilitators of this initiative. Much time and effort has helped make this a smooth and positive transition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notwithstanding the minister's statement, I understand it was not without incident - maybe major incident - and I understand it certainly was not a smooth transition, particularly for some of the inmates at Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

Mr. Speaker, any initiative that stops smoking, cessation of it, is certainly appreciated and nice to see. What I would like to see - not only do we snuff out the butt - I would like to see when this government snuffs out these fluff announcements that we continue to get during polling periods.

Ministerial Statements are supposed to deal with very strong statements and important statements of policy. When are we going to hear from this minister about proclamation of the Privacy Act, the Workers Compensation issue involving the RNC, the Aboriginal policing issue in Makkovik and Rigolet? Maybe the minister could take some of this important, valuable time to inform the House and the people of this Province about some of these more important issues and snuff out these fluff announcements that we get here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the initiative. It is clear recognition by government that non-smokers who are incarcerated deserve to be protected from second-hand smoke. I think this is part of the reason for the initiative. I am pleased to see government recognize that. I am waiting for this government to take action on a smoke-free environment in other workplaces in the Province, such as bars and restaurants, where people, not only patrons but workers who are there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - are required to endure second-hand smoke, which we know is carcinogenic, would not be allowed in other industrial settings or any other workplaces. It is time that we joined the ranks of Ireland, places like New York, San Francisco and Ottawa, in having a smoke-free environment in bars and restaurants in this Province as well as in our penitentiaries and public buildings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers? Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported in the media that the Premier still had not finalized his Conflict of Interest statement declaring all of his business interests and ensuring that each of his holdings was placed in a blind trust. It is expected that all ministers, particularly the Premier, complete this process in a timely fashion; however, it has taken the Premier now several months to fulfill the requirement.

A Budget has recently been tabled and a new Department of Business, of which the Premier is also the Minister Responsible, has been created.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Could he please update the people of the Province as to whether or not he has completed this important requirement that ensures that he is not in a conflict of interest while making decisions, either as the Premier or as the Minister Responsible for Business?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that matter is currently being dealt with by the Commissioner. I am working with the Commissioner. My officials are actually working with the Commissioner, my auditors, my financial advisors. The business holdings that I had are somewhat complex. We are proceeding as quickly and with all due dispatch that we can in a proper manner. I have no reason to believe that the Commissioner is dissatisfied with the process, and my own personal auditor is dealing with that. I see no problem at this time but we are moving forward. It is a complex situation and I am doing everything I can to deal with it as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier just recently, in the last couple of days, actually, has refused to appear before the Estimates Committee for the Department of Business, that would have allowed the Opposition to ask direct questions related to the new department.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Was the real reason that he would not agree to reschedule the Committee a direct result of what he feared could be asked regarding his personal business holdings and possible conflicts of interest in his position as Premier and Minister of Business?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the real reason why I was not at that committee meeting was that I was in Europe. As hon members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you would just allow me to answer the question that you just asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was in Europe, and actually conducting business on behalf of the Province. As I said, when I answered these questions previously, I was over there trying to deal with a very difficult situation at 5 Wing Goose Bay. A piece of business that is worth $100 million to the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and indeed Labrador generally. A very, very important piece of business. So that is something we are trying to foster as well.

While I was there - as I indicated when I was on my feet just a couple of days ago - I met with the Canadian Embassies, and as the Minister of Business I am trying to do everything possible to attract business to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to create jobs and employment and economic growth and development for the Province. So I would certainly think that was very, very productive. As well, I was also dealing with the foreign overfishing file, which is something of extreme importance to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer, quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, if that is not a satisfactory explanation I can do no more. I was not in the Province. I was not available. The Estimates were passed. I was doing my best to grow the Province and develop business for the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record shows that the Premier is still refusing to meet with the Committee, who would meet tonight if he wanted to, tomorrow or next week.

Mr. Speaker, a different issue. The Premier stood in this House on Monday and said he was very concerned with video gambling and related addictions in this Province, and government has committed a minimal increase in funds to help treat gambling addictions instead of the 5 per cent share of the profits that the Finance Minister had proposed.

Mr. Speaker, it was reported in the media several months ago that the Premier himself was an investor in a company that manufactured, sold, and distributed video lottery terminals. Can the Premier acknowledge that he was an investor in such a company, and can he answer whether or not he is still involved in such a business today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are generally concerned about video lotteries and gambling in the Province. I indicated, in response to the question from the Member for Labrador West, that is something of very personal concern to me and, indeed, all the members on the government side. We have seen the damage and the harm that it has done to families. We have heard about the suicides. We have heard of, indeed, about people who have lost their homes. It is very disruptive and it is a problem, unfortunately, that governments across the country are participating in and creating this problem. We intend to do everything we can to try and alleviate it. That is why, as a small initiative in this particular Budget, we put $100,000 into trying to increase the amount for treatment and rehabilitation. That is not nearly enough and more is needed. Hopefully, some day we can get to the wish of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and, in fact, commit 5 per cent.

With regard to holdings in a corporation, that matter was brought to my attention some months ago. As the Leader of the Opposition can appreciate, with the significant business holdings that I do have, I have invested in hundreds of companies. I am not able to monitor each and every activity of each one of those companies. There were two companies that were actually brought to my attention before. One was a company that had interest in private prison holdings. Another one was one that had an interest in video lottery terminals. As soon as I found out, I divested of my holdings in those companies. If there is anybody who is aware of any other holdings in any companies that I have invested in that would cause any difficulty, I will divest of them just as I divested of my senior partnership in Williams, Roebothan, McKay and Marshall, something of which I was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- very proud. Something which was very hard to do was to take my name off that firm. I also sold a company that I had for twenty-five years, which was Cable Atlantic, which I put a lifetime of effort into and I had a good relationship with my employees. So, I am doing everything I can to be honourable and to be above board, and I will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly why the process is so very important for it to be concluded with the Chief Electoral Office and why we would invite him again to come before the Committee as the Minister of Business so we can have him explain these issues to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, since the Premier's comments on Monday, we, as the Opposition, have received information that indicates the current government is in discussions with a business group to establish a casino in the Province. I ask the Premier: What discussions have taken place with you or any of your ministers or senior officials regarding the potential establishment of a casino in the Province, and has an actual proposal been submitted to the government to date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge there was a proposal of sorts, at least an e-mail was sent inquiring as to whether there was any interest in a casino in the Province. To my knowledge, that has been just flatly rejected.

For the record, I can indicate to the hon. member opposite that while I was in the private sector and while he was a member of a government, that I was actually approached myself to bring a casino to this Province; something which can be deemed to be very lucrative, very profitable and I flatly rejected that because I am not prepared to make money off the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have learned, actually, the business group that approached the government wanted to potentially establish a casino at Marble Mountain. Again, could the Premier now tell us and report to this House, or the Minister of Finance who seems to know more about it, as to whether or not this is still an active proposal? Is it being pursued or is it going to be squashed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was approached by at least two, if not three, and possibly more, certainly two or three anyway, about a casino. One was by a personal friend of the Leader of the Opposition, who contacted me on behalf of a client, and I responded to every single one saying that it is not a policy of government to go down that road, basically. I just responded personally with the e-mail myself, and with a telephone call in each case. There are at least two or three, and there might even be four, but certainly in that range. In fact, I did not even take it to anybody in government. I did not take it to Cabinet. It was not a policy direction of this government, one that we did not entertain, one we did not proceed on, and for that reason that is where it ended, right when it came to my office.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, last week, I tabled a private member's resolution in this House - it is on today's Order Paper, in fact - calling on the creation of an all-party committee which would draft an agreement or an accord to be presented to and endorsed by all candidates and all leaders of all parties in the upcoming federal election. The Leader of the NDP has publicly stated in this House that he is supportive of that resolution.

You indicated on Monday past, when you returned to the House here, that you would review the motion that I had made, and you would provide us with your position regarding this resolution. We have not heard from you to date, Premier, and the time is quickly passing. In fact, I would suggest that if we do not make a decision on doing this all-party committee accord prior to the announcement of a federal election, we may indeed have lost a great opportunity to get these people on the record.

Will you agree to debate the resolution, which was tabled and is on today's Order Paper, immediately? In fact, the resolution on the paper today, by the Member for Bonavista South, dealing with highways and federal-provincial agreements, would fit excellently under the same debate, as part of the same debate, and we could have that debate right here today. We just await your concurrence to do that Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker. I think when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned it on Monday, I thought I had heard it was the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune who had made a resolution. That is what I thought I heard. Forgive me, I am having some hearing problems from time to time.

I went back and researched to see what the resolution that was put forward by the hon. gentleman was, and it did not seem to fit. Having said that, now that the Opposition House Leader has indicated - I have to indicate to him that it is not something that we need to debate today, nor are we prepared to debate. We, as a government, are moving forward. When it comes to stating the position of the Province, I am a member of the Council of the Federation. We, as Premiers, had a conference call just a couple of days ago with regard to putting our joint position forward on such matters as health care, equalization, government funding, many, many broad issues. As the former Premier understands, that is our role as a government, to move forward. As I have indicated, I have also written the leaders of the parties, and intend to do so.

Even more importantly, though, why would you hitch your horse to a wagon with no wheels on it? That is what I would like to understand, because, if we join with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - if we join with the hon. member opposite, of course, who admitted on April 30, 2003: I wanted him to know that the federal-provincial relationship is strained and is at and all-time low.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why would this government join with this particular former government, who destroyed every relationship that they ever had with anyone in Ottawa? We are not hitching our horse to that wagon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is certainly the person to be talking about what wagons he hitches his horse to. The man who promotes team-ship to the ultimate, goes off to Europe without the principal people involved in the 5 Wing Base and contrary to the input of the member for Labrador, the MP for Labrador. That is the Premier who is all about team-ship.

Premier, I doubt very much if you have read the resolution, actually. Maybe you might take a moment to read it; but, on the assumption that you have taken the time to read it, which only calls for an all-party committee which would ask the federal candidates, parties and leaders, to endorse a lot of things that this Province is concerned about, such as EI, such as our federal-provincial agreements like Roads Agreements, health care contributions, et cetera.

Can you tell us what is wrong with the resolution, and tell the people of the Province what is wrong with the resolution, other than the fact that you did not come up with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly think that the hon. member opposite certainly owes the Member for Lake Melville an apology, in the fact that he certainly was not important enough to go along.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I also find it very, very strange that he considers Mr. Randy Ford, the head of PSAC, the head of the union at the base, was not important enough to take along, and that my deputy minister was not important enough to take along. I am just amazed that this gentleman would make that statement about those people who attended.

With regard to the other issues, we, as a government, will be taking this issue, as a government, forward. I have spoken to the Prime Minister on two occasions in the last two weeks, when it comes to major matters like foreign overfishing. I have been dealing with the Prime Minister directly. When it comes to dealing with the federal minister, unfortunately there is a very, very poor relationship between that government and that leader of that party with the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the minister for this particular Province. So, the worst thing we could possibly do is to align ourselves with the hon. members opposite who, as I said, have burned every single bridge behind them and have taken federal-provincial relations to an all-time low.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We now have them back to an all-time high and we are doing very well, thank you very much, without you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You talk about consistency. I wonder if the Premier could tell us, then, if your party, your members, have come into this House twice since this session has started and asked for the unanimous support of everybody here, and received it, with regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay, with regard to the Atlantic Accord? Your members sponsored it. You asked us in Private Members' Day here. We debated it and unanimously agreed to it.

Mr. Premier, there is no talk about what wagon you want to hitch to when you want that, and your party members want that. Yet, we ask you for this very important resolution that could handcuff, tie down and commit every federal member, and you are refusing to do what is in the best interest of the people of this Province.

Can you give some answer other than a wishy-washy response?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, next week, a week from today, is Private Members' Day, and that resolution can be tabled and debated at that particular point in time. That is your right, that is your prerogative, and we will participate in that debate; however, I had a bad experience. I was part of an all-party committee that went to Ottawa on the fishery. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi was there as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The former Premier actually headed that committee at that particular point in time. It was a bad experience, because we were in a room before and we agreed on a united position as to how we were going to present to the federal Minister of Fisheries. What did the hon. gentleman opposite do when he walked into the room? The Member for The Straits & White Bay North was there. Do you know what he did? He caved in. He completely undermined our position. He destroyed the entire mission. He destroyed the mandate of the all-party committee, and it was all over as soon as he opened his mouth. That is why I will not be part of any all-party exercise with the hon. gentleman opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to talk about destroying credibility, let's talk about the long-term care facility in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Premier has stated on many occasions in Corner Brook that the long-term care facility for Corner Brook will be publicly built, publicly funded, and be completed and operational in this four-year mandate. There was $300,000 allocated in the previous budget, and I ask the minister: What is the purpose of these funds and has the Western Health Care Corporation been notified of these funds?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yes, there was $300,000 approved in the Budget for the long-term care facility, and the purpose of the money is to commence planning for that facility. It will cover site selection. It will also cover some preliminary planning work. In addition, to the second question from the hon. member, yes, the Western Health Care Corporation has been informed that the $300,000 is in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister has just stated, and from her answer, there are no funds there for the archeological design nor the blueprint -

AN HON. MEMBER: Architectural.

MR. JOYCE: - architectural design, or the blueprint of this project.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Trinity North -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - this is a serious matter for Corner Brook, for the Member for Humber West and the Member for Humber East, so if you have any jokes to say, please say them outside. It is very serious. There are twenty-four people in acute care beds -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Estimates given, even by the members of the Western Health Care Corporation, Madam Minister, is that it will take up to a year-and-a-half to complete this design, with consultation between the stakeholders, the Department of Health and the Western Health Care Corporation. With the next budget a year-and-a-half away, and a year-and-a-half to have this design, will the minister now stand in this House and state that the project cannot be completed in his one and only mandate that the Premier has promised for the people out in Humber West and the Corner Brook region?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had quite a lot of involvement with regard to planning, and planning for different types of facilities within government. A facility of this nature will take several years, and it is usually budgeted for year by year over one, two or three years. This year the $300,000, as I indicated, will be for planning, will be for initial site identification selection and preliminary planning, and I would anticipate that the next phase of the project will be considered during the next budgetary process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: So, the minister cannot commit the Premier's commitment of having this built in the four-year mandate which he promised out in Corner Brook. Thank you.

The next question, Minister: Can you confirm if there is any engineering firm that has been selected for this project? If so, who is the company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

When we identify the consultant, I will inform the hon. House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Education.

I noticed in the ministerial report by the Minister of Natural Resources, he made references to training opportunities for Voisey's Bay in Labrador. I want to ask the Minister of Education: What is his and his department's responsibility, and what is their commitment to making sure that training for Voisey's Bay takes place at training facilities in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the College of the North Atlantic, of course, we have two campuses in Labrador. We have a campus in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area that presently has an enrollment of over 600 students, and, of course, the Labrador West campus where the hon. member would be familiar with the enrollment, we have an enrollment of just under 300 students, and, of course, the Centre of Excellence in Labrador West that deals with mining and other related areas.

I can say to the hon. member, that there is a commitment by this government to the residents of Labrador to ensure that the residents of Labrador will find a place for their educational purposes within Labrador, when and where possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister: Given that commitment that he just stated, can the minister tell me why there are journey person construction electricians who are going to be trained to become industrial electricians, so that they can work when the plant goes into operation at Voisey's Bay The facilities in Labrador West are quite adequate to provide that type of training. I wonder if the minister can tell me why that training is scheduled to take place in Seal Cove?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, that very situation has been brought to my attention and our officials within the Department of Education have been speaking with the main administration of the College of the North Atlantic, with officials in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with college officials in Labrador West, and also with the funding agency that is involved. It is our hope that that particular matter can be resolved and the eight industrial electricians who are impacted will, in fact, not have to come to Conception Bay South but will, in fact, have their training and the furtherance of their education in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, for the Minister of Education. We have heard a lot of talk on government's position on things that happen in this Province, about being outside the overpass. Colleges in Labrador, from time to time, in order to compete with existing Colleges of the North Atlantic or other public training institutions within our Province, may have to compete from time to time with them.

Would the minister undertake to make a commitment to, as far as possible, make the colleges up and ready if they have to purchase additional equipment, to make sure that they are able to compete with colleges that may be further advanced because of historic reasons?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we have a very sound public college system that addresses and meets the needs of all of the residents and all of the students throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, in this particular case, the residents of Labrador, as indicated, have found a very appropriate place for the furtherance of their post-secondary education in both communities in Labrador, namely Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Labrador West.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, in The Telegram yesterday the Premier credited himself, as he is apt to do, with prompting the EU to back Canada's demand to allow Canadian inspectors to board Portuguese vessels that were caught illegally fishing on the Grand Banks. In light of the fact that this request has now fallen on deaf ears and the Portuguese government will not allow our inspectors to board these vessels in Portugal, will the Premier now admit that diplomacy is not the answer, as it has never been with regard to this issue? Will he now push Ottawa for more decisive actions on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated in my previous answers to questions, diplomacy is worth trying. We tried that, of course, with Ottawa and it seems to be working very, very well. That is an approach, as well, that we have tried with our European friends and hopeful trading partners in the future.

I must say, I was extremely disappointed when it, in fact, did not happen. However, it was not because of the exercise that I went through with the officials of the EU. I encouraged them to do it. They wrote a letter and, of course, as the former minister clearly understands, it is a prerogative of the country to say no, and they, in fact, said no.

We will be taking further initiatives. I did indicate in the strongest terms that we were resolved in this issue, that if they were not able to be effective in their own jurisdiction that we would, in fact, take action ourselves. I can assure him, he can rest assured that I, in fact, spoke with the Prime Minister within the last thirty-six hours on that very issue. I spoke with him directly on that very issue. I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that he is going to take it even further. Yes, if diplomacy has not worked - but I do honestly feel that it is worth a try because the confrontational attitude of himself, as a former minister, and of his former leader as a Premier, obviously -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- the confrontational attitude has not, in fact, worked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that we have been using diplomacy, or the Canadian government has been using diplomacy since 1977, when the 200-mile limit was instituted originally and that has gotten us nowhere. In fact, the situation gets worse.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In a ministerial statement in the House on March 25 the minister stated that the Canadian government has tools other than custodial management available to improve management of straddling fish stocks. He went on to say that should a multilateral approach fail, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Government would continue to press Canada to pursue other alternatives.

In light of what has happened with these Portuguese vessels in recent weeks, I believe the minister knows - I believe he said it yesterday - that custodial management is really the only option. I ask the minister, when will he and his leader aggressively pursue this option with the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is aware, and as he has indicated here, we have said that it is our understanding with the Canadian ratification of the Law of the Sea and the European Union -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if you could gag some people on the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We only have about another forty seconds left. The hon. minister has the floor.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was attempting to answer the question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister has not completed his answer. I ask him now to do so.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition does not see the seriousness of the question that his counterpart from Twillingate & Fogo just asked.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer by saying this. We were of the opinion, based on suggestions by representatives who were engaged in discussions with the Law of the Sea, that Canada's ratification of the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Fisheries Agreement ratification by the European Union may present us with some tools similar to what we would like to see under custodial management, and we suggested that we should attempt that.

Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently - as this government and as the previous government has suggested - that should these multilateral approaches fail Canada must move expeditiously down the road towards imposing custodial management.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Wednesday, Private Member's Day, I wonder if we could just run down through the list of routine proceedings.

We have: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees; Notices of Motions; Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. We will not have any time for Petitions. We will call the Orders of the Day.

I do believe we are debating a resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Bonavista South. The Chair calls on the hon. member to introduce his resolution.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly glad today to rise and present a private member's resolution as it pertains to the upgrading and reconstruction of roads in this Province and calling on our federal government, our central government, to provide funding in order to carry out some of those maintenance programs.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the resolution. The resolution states:

WHEREAS the challenge of constructing and maintaining transportation infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador is enormous, given our difficult terrain and our relatively small population dispersed over a large area; and

WHEREAS much of this Province's existing transportation infrastructure has deteriorated in recent years as a consequence of insufficient funding; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada establishes the principle of equalization which directs governments in Canada to reduce the disparity of opportunities associated with the relatively poor fiscal capacity of a province; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has entered into transportation agreements with this and other provinces whereby it has funded or cost-shared valuable infrastructure work; and

WHEREAS the 1988 fifteen-year Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation Initiative (also known as the Roads for Rail Agreement) has expired, leaving the Province with significantly diminished funding in the face of an undiminished need; and

WHEREAS proper transportation infrastructure is required to attract and complement investments that will create jobs and opportunities in our communities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to enter into a comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that there are six WHEREASs in this particular private member's resolution. I am sure that every member here in this House can stand for a whole day and talk about each one of those individual WHEREASs as it relates to their own district. There is not one member sitting in this House of Assembly today, I am certain, who cannot relate to this particular private member's resolution and cannot relate some of the roads in their own district, as well as the major highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, that they have to travel over for the most part, especially for rural members, to get to and from their district.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is faced with a huge deficit, has been put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. It is certainly not within the ability of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to go out and provide the funding that is needed in order to bring our major highways and our trunk roads and our secondary roads up to an acceptable standard.

This particular year we have seen an extra $7 million put forward by the present government, by the Minister of Transportation and Works, to increase to a total of $30 million for major upgrades to the roads in Newfoundland. That is not counting what is happening in the Labrador Highway, but only for upgrading, maintaining and reconstruction of roads in this Province.

While it is pretty well one-third more funding than we received last year, Mr. Speaker, it falls far short of what is needed in order to look after the up-keeping and maintenance of our roads. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is only one program which is available right now that is being cost-shared by the federal government. It is a federal-provincial 50-50 cost-shared program known as the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program. This particular program is going to be looking after some major reconstruction and upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway between Chance Cove and Goobies this year, some forty-five kilometres. God knows, the people who are travelling that section of highway on a regular basis knows full well of the need to upgrade that section of highway and make it safe, because it is the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I called over to the Department of Transportation and Works earlier this morning and I was given some facts as it relates to the responsibility of the Department of Transportation and Works as it relates to the highways in this Province. I was informed that there are some 8,943 kilometres of road in the inventory of Transportation and Works; some 8,943 kilometres. Out of those 8,943 kilometres, 6,995 kilometres is paved road. That is roads that people have been fortunate enough to see some pavement on. Mr. Speaker, out of the 8,943 kilometres, there are1,500 kilometres of gravel road, secondary gravel roads.

There are places in this Province today, there are communities in this Province, and there are secondary roads that have never, ever seen an asphalt spreader. There are places in this Province today where people still cannot put their windows up in the summertime, or housewives cannot hang their clothes on the line on a Monday morning because of the conditions of the highway through the community, or the roadway through the community.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the cost of upgrading some of those major trunk roads, and upgrading and paving of some of those major trunk roads, you will find that with the prices that we are experiencing here in this Province today, the cost is something like $150,000 to $200,000 per kilometre. If you are going to go out and pave Route 230 today going to Bonavista, the major trunk road, which today sees - if you drive down that road you will see the speed limit reduced to 20 kilometres an hour. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! This is the major trunk road going to the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula. This is the major road going down to service the crab plant in Bonavista, the shrimp plant in Port Union, and all other activities where we are trying to build a tourist trade and where we are trying to build on some infrastructure that we have put there over the years. We see the speed limit on that particular road, the main road to Bonavista, reduced to 20 kilometres an hour over certain sections of that road.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at it again, upgrading and paving of trunk roads. I refer to Route 230, which is the one that I know best. If we are going to go and put out a tender today in order to have some work done on this particular road we can expect a tender to come back for something like $150,000 to $200,000 per kilometre; $150,000 to $200,000 per kilometre. When you look at the amount of money that we have allocated this year, it would take us - if we looked at just this section of road, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is the major trunk roads - approximately twenty-eight years to bring it up to an acceptable standard that would be acceptable in other parts of this country.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at the upgrading and paving of local roads, it would cost us in the vicinity of $80,000 to $100,000 per kilometre. You might say: What is the difference? Mr. Speaker, most people would know that on a major trunk road you see two layers of asphalt put down because of the amount of traffic that uses that particular road, verses a secondary road where you would see one layer, one lift of asphalt put down. So, that is the difference in the cost.

The department has also indicated, Mr. Speaker, that if they were to bring their inventory up to a state of good repair, up to a state of acceptable repair, it would cost something like $840 million. So, it is not hard to figure out. You do not have to be a math wizard. When you look at the cost of $840 million, and if you look at the amount of money that we have put forward this year into road reconstruction and upgrading here in this Province, you will see that if we were going to continue to put forward $30 million a year, and it would cost $840 million to bring our roads up to an acceptable standard for 2004, then it would, like I said, take us twenty-eight years to realize what other people in other provinces accept as an acceptable standard. So, I do not have to tell anybody what would happen to other roads in this Province while that twenty-eight years were being taken into consideration for some of our roads.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody drives the Trans-Canada Highway they would know full well if they travelled behind some of the transport trucks - I always look at some of those - we used to call them eighteen-wheelers but they have many more wheels than that these days. But if you are going to look at the bad sections of highway, all you have to do is follow one of those big transport trucks because they know the road very well. I went out the other day, and my wife was with me in the car, and she said: That fellow in front of you driving that big truck, there must be something wrong with him. Mr. Speaker, he was driving with one set of tires in the center on the white line, and the other set of tires out on the shoulder of the road all the way out; all the way from Chance Cove out to Goobies. It was not hard to understand why the truck driver was driving in such a manner because that was probably the best part of the road where he could get the goods that he was delivering, to the place that he was delivering them to, in a state that he could realize, I guess, the cost for delivering them. The highway is in a deplorable condition.

There has probably been no other member who has stood here on petitions anymore than I have, since I have been elected here in May, 1993. It is a major problem in my district, but I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to members opposite when they were in government, that it is certainly beyond the capacity of this Province to look after the road needs and the highway needs without negotiating some form of a comprehensive agreement with the central government.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1988, everybody is familiar with the terms of the Roads for Rail Agreement. That is what it was deemed to be. At that particular time, we decided that we were going to give up the right to a railway. In order to do that, we accepted something in the tune of $800 million from the federal government. Mr. Speaker, $740 million was directed to roads in the Province and there was something like a total of $60 million that was directed to the towns of Bishop's Falls and Port aux Basques. They received funding to the tune of $60 million. Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, in 1988, the $800 million would have been perceived as an amount of money that would look after all our needs as it relates to road transportation and to upgrade and maintain roads in this Province. There has been some good work done, no doubt about it. We can all argue whether this particular road, or another particular road, needed to be upgraded to the extent that it was.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak again about the section of road that I know best, and that is Route 230. Back in 1988 there was $13 million allocated for Route 230 on the Bonavista Peninsula. The Northern Peninsula Highway was allotted $5 million. The Bay d'Espoir Highway was allotted $12 million. The Burin Peninsula Highway $17 million, and the Baie Verte Highway allotted $6 million.

Out of those five major highways that I just identified, not one of them has been brought up to a standard that is acceptable today in 2003. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Bonavista Highway, Route 230, the Discovery Highway, still needs something like twenty-two kilometres to be upgraded and brought up to an acceptable standard. That twenty-two kilometres translates into about another $6.5 million. So, in essence, there was only one-third of enough money that was identified to bring Route 230 up to that acceptable standard.

With the $30 million that we have identified for all of the Province of Newfoundland - and that is not considering over in excess of $100 million that is needed for the third phase of the Labrador Highway. I am just talking about on the Province now. I am not touching on the over $100 million that is needed for the Trans-Labrador Highway, the third phase. Over half of that would be used in my district and we would still be experiencing gravel roads. We would still have a problem with one of the major highways leading into Bonavista, Catalina, Port Union and that particular area.

Last year I brought forward the concern when Route 235 - which I refer to as the scenic route going down the Bonavista Highway. You get to a place known as Princeton, Southern Bay area, and you come to an intersection. You have a choice. You can go the scenic route, which is down through the communities of Plate Cove East, Plate Cove West, Southern Bay, Summerville, Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove, King's Cove, into Bonavista, or you can go down Route 230, which is the Discovery Trail, Mr. Speaker. What people face when they get to Lethbridge, because the road has been maintained - well, except for about eight kilometres, which is probably the worst section of the whole highway in that particular area - the remainder of the road down as far as Port Rexton has been upgraded to a fairly safe and acceptable standard from Lethbridge to Port Rexton. The other parts of the highway have deteriorated to such an extent that we now see tourists coming as far as Lethbridge and, after they experience the road, the conditions of the road from the Cabot highway down to Lethbridge, it is not uncommon from them to stop at one of the service stations there, the Tourist Chalet or a service station, and the first inquiry they have is: What is the road like from here down to Bonavista? What is the road like from here down to King's Cove?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have a few minutes to conclude at the end. I know that there are a lot of other people who want to take part in this discussion, so I will certainly take my seat now and allow others to participate. I look forward to closing the debate later in the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to make some comments with respect to the private member's motion and to indicate that clearly the intent of the members of the Official Opposition is to vote in favour of the private member's motion, and congratulate the Member for Bonavista South for introducing it.

What I am puzzled by, though, Mr. Speaker, is how it fits in the context of the Premier's performance, if I might call it that, during Question Period today, and his representation of how insignificant he, as the Premier, feels it is to have any support from the Opposition with respect to issues that the government is dealing with.

As a matter of fact, during answers to questions today from my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, asking whether or not the Premier might like to have a fuller debate than just roads - this is important, this is a federal contribution to roadwork in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we fully support. The question put to the Premier just half an hour or so ago, Mr. Speaker, was whether or not he might like to incorporate it in another motion in the name of the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that says: Whereas there is an impending federal election and there are many issues, why would we not look at the issue of the principle beneficiary for offshore resources? Why would we not look at the issue of equalization? Why would we not look at the issue of post-secondary funding? Why would we not look at the issue of the need for improvement in the EI system? Why not look at the issue of custodial management? Why not look at joint management of the fishery? Why not look at federal involvement in the Lower Churchill? Of course, he said, why not roll roadwork right into this, and do a more comprehensive motion that would show all-party support and then we would take that motion, which would be passed by the Legislature, and forward it to all the candidates in the pending federal election to put them on the record - the candidates and their federal leaders - as to how they feel about these issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, by the response and reaction of the Premier, who said: No, thank you, we are not dealing with any of that. We will do it ourselves. As a matter of fact, I think his exact phrase was: We will do it without you. We will do it without you, is what he said, Mr. Speaker. The ego and the arrogance in that particular comment now has me puzzled. It is obvious, very obvious, that the Member for Bonavista South did not check with the Premier when he asked to have this motion put on the Order Paper, because this says: Let's go to the Government of Canada, and it asks all members of the Legislature - all members of the Legislature - to vote and show that it is not just the government, it is not just the Premier, it is not just the party in power, but all the members, the Official Opposition and the Opposition members who are members of the NDP Party, that we all support the notion that we should have some money in an agreement from the Government of Canada for roadwork in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this motion is asking us to do.

The Member for Bonavista South is signalling that he feels it is important that the whole Parliament here, that every one of the members of the Legislature, endorse this. Meanwhile, half an hour ago, when we asked if the Premier would like our support for other issues as well, he said: No, thanks. I will do it myself. I will do it on my own. I do not want any of you fellows involved in this.

The contradiction that has me puzzled even further, because three of the items that were in the motion referred to by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile have already been dealt with in this House by private members' motions brought by members of the government side. As a matter of fact, two of them, Mr. Speaker, were dealt with in the Legislature in a private member's motion that stood in the name of the Premier himself.

The Premier himself, right after the Budget in which health care initiatives were cancelled, 4,000 layoffs were announced, wage freezes and all of that bad news, in order to deflect from that, he brought in a private member's motion himself, in his own name, moved by the hon. the Premier, to ask that the House of Assembly call upon the Government of Canada to acknowledge and honour its obligation under the Atlantic Accord, and be it further resolved that we allow Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100 per cent of the provincial revenues from oil and gas.

He came in here, as the Premier, and asked to present a private member's motion. That day, he said it was important that the message be that everybody in the House be seen to be supporting it. Today, because the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile presented that as part of his own motion, because that is in there - 100 per cent of revenues for the offshore, 8.5 per cent for Hibernia, the ownership of that - the Premier today, because we suggested it instead of him, contradicted himself completely and said: No, thank you. We do not want any all-party committees. We do not want your support. We are going to do it without you. I am the Premier. I will do this by myself.

Mr. Speaker, I am really, absolutely, amazed by the contradiction in terms of the Premier, himself, who put a motion on the Order Paper as a private member, had to get consent of the House in order to do it because it was contrary to the rules. We agreed to the debate. We voted for it because he told us that day, through his Minister of Natural Resources who actually led the debate, that it would be an important signal to the Government of Canada to know that this wasn't just a Progressive Conservative request. This was supported by all members and all parties in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When asked and offered an opportunity to do the same thing today, he said: No, thank you. I will do it by myself. I do not want you guys. I don't plan to have you involved. I am going to do it by myself. The old one-man show will deal with this, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, the Member for Bonavista South, presenting the motion, is back again half an hour later, saying: It is important that all members of the House be seen to be asking for a roads agreement, when the Premier stood up less than half an hour ago and said: I do not need any of you people supporting me. I will do this by myself, thank you very much. So, that leaves us wondering whether or not the Member for Bonavista South even checked with the Premier. I am sure now that the Premier is up there saying, maybe: I hope they don't vote for this, because I don't want that crowd involved in it anyway. I am going to do this all by myself.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, why didn't you just have a little meeting in the caucus and deal with this? The Premier has stated publicly for the people of the Province that he wants no involvement from anybody else, does not plan have it and, by the way, the evidence proves from the recent trip to Europe that is exactly how he will operate. Because one other one was brought forward by the Member for Lake Melville, as a private member's motion, brought to this House, saying he wanted everybody in the Legislature to support a request to the Government of Canada to guarantee the future existence of 5 Wing Goose Bay in Labrador - brought by a member of the government, the Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador Affairs - and he asked the House, just like the Member for Bonavista South is asking today, he said: It was an important message if it is seen that the Liberals are for this and that the NDP are for this and we are all for this, because when we go to Ottawa we would like to be able to tell them that everybody here is for this.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that day the government, through the House Leader, agreed to an amendment. We proposed an amendment saying, if you want our support, let's formalize an all-party committee about 5 Wing Goose Bay; and the Government House Leader, speaking for the government that day because the Premier was not in the House at that point in time, said: Yes, that is a good idea.

Obviously, no one had checked with the Premier, because the Premier did not want an all-party committee and he proved it when he went to Europe. He went to Europe about 5 Wing Goose Bay. He had a motion passed in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary who accompanied him. The motion said we should go and fight for 5 Wing Goose Bay in Canada and elsewhere in the world, wherever it takes, to make sure we ensure its future, and we should guarantee that they know it is supported by everybody in the House, by having an All-Party Committee. Guess how many members of the All-Party Committee went to Europe? Nobody. The Premier, then, ignoring the motion, did what he said today. He said: I will do it without you. Not only did he do it without us, in reference to 5 Wing Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, he did it without the federal Member for Labrador, who, by the way, had arranged the first meeting of the Premier with the Prime Minister about 5 Wing Goose Bay. The Premier applauded Mr. O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, for all the work he did in Ottawa, in arranging all the meetings with the Department of National Defense, arranging for everybody to get to see everyone that they needed to see, and making sure that the Prime Minister agreed to see the delegation, personally, about 5 Wing Goose Bay.

What is the evidence? Mr. O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, who did all this and was praised by the Premier - not only does the Premier want to do it without us, he wants to do it without Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is in the local media in Labrador saying, I didn't want to beg for an invitation, but it would have been nice if the Premier had called me and said: I am going to Europe. Do you think you would like to come along? He said, I found out he was in Europe through the media; the man who arranged all the meeting, made sure he got to see the Prime Minister, kept the agenda alive, is acknowledged in Labrador, by the local people, to probably know more about the base and the issues than anybody else up there, including the Minister for Labrador Affairs, including the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Lake Melville. They acknowledge in Labrador that the MP for Labrador knows more about 5 Wing Goose Bay than anybody.

Mr. Speaker, here you are - today we say to the Premier in Question Period: Let's incorporate the motion for the Member for Bonavista South which we agree with, a roads deal with Ottawa participating. Let's put it in with the rest of it. Let's put it in with 5 Wing Goose Bay, let's put it in with the offshore. We have already voted on both those by the way. Nothing new. Maybe the Premier did know that these people over here broke ranks with him and voted for that. He doesn't pay a lot of attention to what happens in the Legislature. He acknowledged that when he came back on Monday and didn't know that there was a motion presented while he was gone, looking at trying to have an All-Party Committee approach the federal candidate to make sure that they were going to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, when answering questions about it he said: I don't want any help from you people over there when it comes to those issues. When I deal with the Government of Canada about anything, I will do it without you. Those were his words.

Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is, despite that absolute contradiction by the Premier which doesn't surprise me, because he contradicts himself time and time and time again, we will support the motion from the Member for Bonavista South, because we think it is important, even if the Premier doesn't think it is a bit important. He thinks the only thing that is important in Ottawa and in Europe is what he says. If he says it as the Premier then that is going to make something happen, Sir.

He came back and said to the media that we even got permission for the Canadian Fisheries Officers to board the ship in Portugal because I raised it at the EU meeting, and embarrassed himself today by having to say: I have to admit that my attempt at diplomacy was a failure.

Well, he did not characterize it as a failure yesterday to the media, Mr. Speaker. He was out bragging about it, trying to suggest that one action in itself justified the junket to Europe, the junket to Europe with the one-man show, Mr. Speaker.

Now, despite all of that, despite my problem with the contradictions by the Premier, we will support this motion because we believe the Member for Bonavista South is on to a good issue. It is a proper issue, even though the Premier does not think it is important. We still believe it is important in Ottawa for a leader in this Province to be able to say - and, by the way, I am not only saying this on behalf of the Conservatives, I can tell you, because I have a vote from the Legislature that the Liberal Opposition supports it, and that the NDP party supports it. That makes it easier, by the way, for the Government of Canada to agree, if they understand that it is unanimous in Newfoundland and Labrador, despite the fact that the Premier, in his high-handed, arrogant way would say: I will do it without you.

If we were to get childish about it, Mr. Speaker, then we would say: We are going to vote against this because the Premier does not want our support. That is what he said today. Before the Member for Bonavista South stood, the Premier was after saying: We do not want your support on these issues.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, despite the Premier and his ego, and his arrogance, and his attitude, we will support the Member for Bonavista South. We will support this issue because it is important to some people, some place, even though it may not be important to the Premier himself. He has disgraced himself, in my view, Mr. Speaker, in terms of his performance here again today, but it will not get in our way of doing the right thing, which is to support the motion because it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Even though the almighty one-man show does not think it is important, we know it is and we will support the motion from the Member for Bonavista South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased today to stand and make some comments on the private member's resolution put forward by my hon. colleague from Bonavista South. I certainly feel that it is a very important issue to all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the regions of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly in my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, which I will take a few moments later to make a few comments on. I certainly sat and listened attentively to the Leader of the Opposition, and to characterize anything here in regard to being political, I think it would come, certainly, from the other side of the House in its full course today.

This is a very important issue for members on this side of the House. As most people know, who have been here for a number of years, Private Members' Day is a day that is reserved for members in the Opposition and members of the NDP and for people who are not part of the Cabinet on this side of the House to bring forward concerns that they have of a provincial nature, or concerns that they have of a district nature, under a private member's resolution. It is a day for members to bring forward concerns, and the concern that has been brought forward and the issue that has been brought forward by the Member for Bonavista South is not a new issue.

I have been here in the House since 1993 and the Member for Bonavista South, like myself and many others, have presented many, many petitions on behalf of the people in their districts in regard to roadwork, have presented several times, and have raised in the House private member's resolutions to the effect that this one is today. All these efforts have been, in some cases, I guess, felt to be futile for the simple reason that we still have not gotten a federal-provincial agreement to address the road concerns that are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to go back a number of years now, if I could, to when there was a former Administration in power in this Province and a former Administration in power in Ottawa at the time, and they reached agreements on several types of road infrastructure agreements, Mr. Speaker, including the Roads for Rail Agreement, which saw multi-million dollars pumped into roads in this Province. I think it was up around the $800 million mark. Then we had the Trunk Roads Agreement, Mr. Speaker. We have had major agreements in relation to improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, that have been spent and, in most cases now, are expired.

These agreements were signed by somebody we had in Ottawa at the time who proved to be, I believe, a great friend of Newfoundland and Labrador in many ways, but indeed someone I knew on a personal basis, the hon. John Crosbie at the time, who was a member of the Brian Mulroney government, and signed several road agreements that would see some major improvements to the road infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just last year, in the construction season of 2003, we have seen the last of those dollars that were signed way back when, way back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that were signed with the federal and provincial governments at the time, and we were still spending that money up until last year.

I think an important thing to point out here today, Mr. Speaker, if I could, is the failure of the former Administration in this Province to work out a roads infrastructure agreement with the government in Ottawa of the day, who wore the same political stripe as the members opposite, I might add. They failed to work out a new roads infrastructure agreement. That in itself, I think, speaks volumes of the relationship that the former Administration had with the Chrétien government at the time, Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa. I think, because of that negative relationship that they had, we are suffering in this Province today. The people who are travelling the roads and the highways in this Province today are suffering because of the fact that we could not work out a new roads infrastructure agreement with Ottawa.

I remember back - I am not sure exactly when it was, Mr. Speaker, but the Opposition Leader just referenced some comments that were made by the MP for Labrador, and I remember the MP for Labrador making some points in relation to a $1 billion proposal. We are not talking thousands of dollars, like the former Premier used to say. We are not talking tens of thousands. We are not talking hundreds of thousands. We are talking a $1 billion roads infrastructure agreement. The former Administration, under the leadership, at the time, of the Minster of what was called then the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. Mr. Barrett, went off to Ottawa with a proposal to look for the $1 billion. The MP for Labrador said, at the time, that he had a better proposal - if memory serves me correct and I stand to be corrected but I am pretty sure I am correct - from the community of Pinsent's Arm in his district in relation to roadwork than what the minister of the day, the hon. Mr. Barrett, had when he went to Ottawa to look for $1 billion. It was a power point presentation that failed to convince the people in Ottawa of the necessity of roadwork in this Province; that failed to convince the people in Ottawa of the necessity of coming on board and improving the infrastructure in this Province; that failed to convince the people in Ottawa that this Province deserved to have a roads infrastructure agreement that would meet the needs and meet the concerns of the people of this Province. So, there is where the failure lay at that time.

In this private member's resolution today, I believe that the Member for Bonavista South is putting forward an opportunity here once again, and I guess it is all finished up. You have several WHEREAS, but, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to enter into a comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said, anybody who drives in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and my district is 100 per cent rural, Mr. Speaker, anybody who has to operate in those districts, knows full well the need for the roads infrastructure agreement. I certainly want to lend my support to this private member's resolution today and offer anything we can to help in formulating this infrastructure agreement with Ottawa, that we are on side in doing that.

I just want to take a moment, if I could, to talk about my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and certainly the need for road infrastructure work in that district. Hopefully, if we are successful enough in working out an agreement with Ottawa, that will leave some money over to the side to be able to work at some of the roads that are off the Trans-Canada.

As a matter of fact, we just did the Department of Transportation and Works this morning with the Estimates, and it was brought to light at that Estimates meeting this morning, Mr. Speaker, that -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, we worked on them, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and we certainly wanted to leave the opportunity for anybody to ask questions. That is why we are working on rescheduling a further meeting of the Department of Transportation and Works.

In that meeting this morning, Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out by the deputy minister, I believe, that when the federal government puts money on the table to address road work in the Province, they want to put that money where possible - as much as possible, I should say - into the Trans-Canada Highway. That is their focus, Mr. Speaker. I realize how important the Trans-Canada Highway is to the movement of goods and services across our Province and certainly for the different industries that we have and the movement of people back and forth across the Province, but we have, as the Member for Bonavista South touched on earlier, thousands of kilometres of roads that are off the Trans-Canada in this Province that need attention. Hopefully, by working out an agreement with Ottawa, we can get them to address some of the concerns that we have in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully, through the private member's resolution being put forward today, we can get to address some of that.

I want to get back, if I could, to the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Speaker. Over the past couple of days I had the opportunity to bring forward here to the House several petitions that have been sent to me to present on behalf of the people I represent in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's in regard to road work and the need for road work in the district. I am very pleased to present those petitions and very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to highlight the concerns of the people in my district as it relates to road work.

Last Wednesday, as a matter of fact a week ago today, I had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take the present Minister of Transportation and Works throughout the District of Placentia & St. Mary's and highlight to him and show him firsthand the concerns that people have out there and the issues that I have raised with him back in January of this year when we presented the priorities for our districts to the minister for this year's budget considerations. We had the opportunity to travel throughout the district. We travelled first into the St. Mary's Bay portion of my district. Then I took the minister down to the community of Admiral's Beach and through O'Donnells and St. Joseph's and looked at road conditions in that area. We then travelled on down into St. Mary's Bay. We even had the opportunity to visit the small community of Mall Bay, which is now serviced by a gravel road about eight kilometres long, where they ran into some major problems with washouts on two of the steep hills that they have there. We had the opportunity to go down and visit Mall Bay.

Then we followed down into St. Mary's Bay, and throughout the communities of St. Mary's Bay. Then we came back to the Town of Riverhead. We had a public meeting in the Town of Riverhead which was attended by several people; almost up to 100 people. Representatives from all the different outlining communities in St. Mary's Bay. We had an opportunity to discuss the concerns and the people - more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the people of the district had an opportunity to forward their concerns to the minister, in person, there at that case.

We then travelled on from Riverhead out to the Cape Shore area of my district. We went down to Point Lance where there is an absolute deplorable road condition, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the community and the Town of Point Lance, and through the communities of Branch. We travelled, at that time, through North Harbour, Colinet area, and down through the Town of Mount Carmel. We had the opportunity to visit all of that area and certainly see some of the deplorable road conditions that are in that area.

We had the opportunity then, Mr. Speaker, to travel on into the Town of Placentia and that area of my district. We finished up with a meeting at the Town Council of Placentia and had an opportunity to discuss, not only road conditions but, indeed, several other concerns they have, especially the one related to the lift bridge in Placentia and the highway depot in Placentia, and some changes which were about to happen in that regard. We had an opportunity to sit down and discuss those with the Town Council of Placentia.

I want to take the opportunity today to thank the Minister of Transportation and Works for taking the day to come out to the district. At least when I discuss the issues with him now, when petitions come forward to the House, to me as a member of the House, or when we have the opportunity to have correspondence with somebody out in the district in relation to road work, the minister is fully aware, firsthand, of what we are talking about. I certainly want to thank the minister for that today.

Mr. Speaker, also there is a washout down through the communities of Ship Harbour in my district. That has gone to tender now and will hopefully be addressed in the next little while.

That is just my district. I want to take the opportunity - I went through one end of my district to the other, Mr. Speaker, back a little while ago now, and measured off areas of my district that needed work. In my district alone I could use 100 kilometers of recapping, just to address it. This is not work that we do when we are passing by. This is work that is a necessity in my district. That is just my district, 100 kilometers. That just goes to show - based on the figures that I have been told - that work of 100 kilometers could cost anywhere between $8 million to $10 million to do. We were lucky this year that we had the opportunity to increase the Provincial Roads Program by $7 million, but it brings up the total Provincial Roads Program to $30 million.

Now, to look at it in perspective, we have my District of Placentia & St. Mary's that could use $8 million to $10 million, but we have an entire Provincial Roads Program that consists of $30 million. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I know in my district all of the concerns and issues that people have out there are not going to be addressed this construction season, and neither, I guess, is it going to happen in many other districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess that is what makes this resolution more important today, to ensure that the message that the people of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's bring to me on a regular basis, that the people of Placentia & St. Mary's brought to the minister last Wednesday, that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that message is brought up to Ottawa, that message is brought to the powers that be in Ottawa and to say: Look, we need this infrastructure. We have some major industries in this Province.

Just the fishing industry alone, Mr. Speaker, I met a tractor-trailer - I was coming out of St. Mary's Bay on Sunday, I attended the annual ceremonial revue for the Cadets in St. Mary's on Sunday evening. As I was coming up I met a tractor-trailer who was travelling to the crab plant down in St. Mary's. The truck was crawling along the highway, Mr. Speaker, crawling along for the simple reason of the road conditions. A big machine, a full-size tractor-trailer, Mr. Speaker. I would not say he was doing 20 kilometres, because I am sure the driver knew himself the damage that could be caused to his vehicle. The danger of being on that highway at the present time in car - alone say a tractor-trailer - is certainly something that is very important. Everybody realizes that.

Certainly, the issue being brought forward today, as I said when I began, is not a new issue but it is an important issue because of the fact that we had a failure of the previous Administration to address this concern in anyway - concrete form with the people in Ottawa, the Government of Canada. That is what brings us forward today. That is what happens in the mess we are in today in relation to the road work in this Province. Newfoundland and Labrador is now in the position - and we, as the government, have put forward an extra million dollars this year in the Budget into marketing our Province to the outside world in relation to the development of tourism in this Province.

When many people come to our Province they travel in RVs, Mr. Speaker. They travel in different types -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that his time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker, if I could.

As we try to develop our tourism industry in this Province and bring people in here, I think it is important that we have a proper road network here, not only on the Trans-Canada Highway. I think that message needs to be brought to Ottawa, that there is more to Newfoundland and Labrador than the Trans-Canada Highway. The by-roads, the trunk roads that travel all around this Province are part of our developing tourism industry, and we need to be able to do that. Forget about, Mr. Speaker, for a second, the people who will be travelling here. Just think of the citizens of this Province. The citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who travel these roads on a daily basis. Think of the damage that is being done to vehicles. Think of the danger these people have to be involved in each and every day.

We hear a lot of concerns raised about moose on our highways, but, Mr. Speaker, the condition of the roads themselves. That is why I fully support the resolution today to hopefully work out a new comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. I look forward to a resolution being brought forward to Ottawa, and I certainly look forward to funding from Ottawa in a partnership with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to address some of the concerns that have been raised, not only by myself, but indeed, all Members of the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to take a few moments to speak on the private member's resolution by the Member for Bonavista South here today. Just to explain - because everyone here knows - but the viewing audience, of course, and there is a viewing audience to these proceedings throughout the week and whenever we meet at night. Here is how the system works: On the bottom of their screen, they just see a little caption that says, Private Member's Motion. Maybe just a little explanation of what is happening here. Every second Wednesday, when the House is in session, we have what we call a Private Members' Day, and private members on each side of the House get an opportunity to put forward a resolution that they would like to have the House consider, and, if they want to make amendments even, you can move amendments and so on. At the end of the day, when everybody has had their piece, we vote upon whether that is a good motion or a good resolution or a good idea, that we, as members, and as the House, would like to proceed with. That is what we are having today. We have a motion here today that has been put forward by the Member for Bonavista South, saying that the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador should enter into another agreement, vis-à-vis funding for roads in this Province, a very worthy purpose of that Private Member's Motion.

Disappointed somewhat, we did not hear the Private Member's Motion from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He had intended to have his on a preceding Wednesday, of course, but, due to procedural difficulties, he did not get an opportunity. I noticed he was very upset and had some pieces in the media about why he did not get it on. I noticed he did not come back today, so obviously the Member for Bonavista South's resolution was given priority, and came back on today. I always appreciate the comments of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and look forward to dealing with his resolution some time in the future.

The resolution that we have here today is a federal-provincial issue. In Question Period earlier today, I asked the Premier quite clearly, because I, also, as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, filed another resolution suggesting that, because we are having a federal election, what a prime opportunity to get everybody who is going to run for any party, Liberal, Conservative, NDP - if you are going to run, here are a bunch of issues that we have had on the table, some of them since Confederation: the fisheries; the management of our fisheries; our highways, as discussed by the Member for Bonavista South; our funding for health care; and our EI system - there is a whole pile of issues - 5 Wing Goose Bay; what is going to happen to the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia; what about our principle share of the Atlantic Accord.

The purpose of the resolution was to embody all of these things, take everybody in the House, regardless of what political stripe you are, consider all these issues, plus anymore we would like, come up with an agreement and say to all of these federal members, candidates, parties, and particularly the party leaders, because it is very important - there is not much point in having just the member, who might become an MP, sign on. We need the federal leaders to sign on to what we, any party in this Province, agree to.

What did the Premier of this Province say today? No part of it! I want no part of it. He said, I am better off without you, in essence. All you people were, was confrontational. This is the same man, by the way, who I have heard nothing - nothing! - from his mouth since two years ago, who talks about openness, transparency and diplomacy. This same Premier now stands up in this House today, when this member, on behalf of everybody here, says, why don't we do something that is in the best interests of the people of this Province, and let's get all of the federal leaders and candidates to sign their name to a document saying, yes, this is what we endorse - if we are not prepared to say that, the people of this Province will know whether they should or should not vote for them. What does the Premier say? No, I am not interested, thank you very much. I would rather not have you.

This is the same Premier who, only two or three weeks ago or a little more, actually, I think it was March 31, waltzed into this House with a resolution of his own, put forward on behalf of the hon. the Premier - it was the same type of day, one of these Private Members' Days - and says: I have this idea about the Atlantic Accord. We need to get our fair share and I would like to have the support and endorsement of everybody in this House to this resolution, that we do this. Do you mind debating it and voting for it? We stood in this House on that day and said: Not a problem, Premier. Not only do we support your stand on the Atlantic Accord, but we would like to amend it, so that we also put in the piece about the 8.5 per cent share in Hibernia. What did the Premier's side of the House say? Not a problem. We agree with that amendment because it makes sense. We want a fair share of the Atlantic Accord and we want our 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. We want to give that to the Province as well. We discussed it, we debated it and we voted on it. Now, it was okay that day. That was okay on the Atlantic Accord and the 8.5 per cent, as put forward by our Premier, because, I guess, it was his idea. If he comes up with the idea, it is okay for us here in the House to deal with it, but because someone else came up with the idea, and it happened to be myself, he says: I want nothing to do with it.

I do not mean to use the words, to the point of nausea, about one-man show, because some people feel that it is over used, but this is an absolute example of a one-man show type of action. If I come up with it, it is okay. If someone else comes up with it, I do not want any part of it. That is exactly what has happened here today. The Premier of this Province has an opportunity to get every federal candidate and leader to sign an agreement, an accord, that if elected, I agree to do the following for Newfoundland and Labrador on these issues; Atlantic Accord, EI and health care. The Premier of this Province says: Thanks, but no thanks. I do not need your help. I am going to do it and I am going to go it alone.

What, in the name of heaven, is wrong with having everybody, if we are into diplomacy, if we are into co-operation, if we are into advancing the interests of this Province, what is wrong with having a resolution such as this debated and supported, the same as we did on the Atlantic Accord, that the Premier himself put forward? What is the logic of it? I cannot understand, other than his comment today that: Thank you, Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, but I do not want to do that. Absolutely no explanation other than: Thanks, but no thanks, it is not on. Not that it is not a good idea, not that it might in some way be beneficial because we are about to have a federal election, not because it is improperly drafted. In fact, the resolution, if you read it carefully, was only to suggest a committee get together, so that the committee, the Opposition, the NDP, the government, everybody, could have input to decide what issues we want the federal government and the federal candidates and leaders to endorse. You do not have to be restricted to what I put in this resolution. It is a resolution to strike a committee, that would set the terms and conditions to be included in the manifesto. Yet, this Premier says: No, I do not want to do that. You crowd are only confrontational. Thanks, but no thanks. I have a great relationship with the federal government and I will go it alone.

This is the same Premier who sends very confusing messages. That is confusing in and of itself. I want you to vote for my resolution today, because I made it, but I am not going to support your resolution because I did not come up with it. In terms of confusing messages, we know the Premier has made several confusing messages. We only have to go back to no layoffs, to no massive layoffs, to sorry I have to do this and you are going to have layoffs - and they were massive, no question about it - to whether we defer a cancer clinic or we cancel a cancer clinic. We have all kinds of these confusing messages, to budgets that we get and budget details that get released to the Opposition that are absolutely inaccurate, to the point that the Premier has to stand up here and outside the House and apologize for the fact that his ministers gave information that misled MHAs, such as the one from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and his ministers had the nerve to stand up in public and say that the Member for L'Anse au Clair did not know what she was talking about, after she made her statements based upon this government's release of inaccurate, untruthful information. We need not talk about the confusion that this Premier has caused.

Now, the team approach. He is a great team player. He talks about how he plays hockey and he is a team man. No doubt he wants to be the captain of the team. We will agree with that. He is, indeed, the captain of the government, and he is, indeed, the captain of this Province right now, no question about it, but it does not hurt from time to time, you know, to pick up a few hockey players, to get a few ideas, to expand your team a little bit, to get some input, if one starts from the assumption that I do not know everything, somebody might be able to give me a nib of wisdom or a suggestion that might be of some benefit to us. He is not the beholder of all wisdom in this Province, and the mark of leadership, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, is for the Premier to first acknowledge that he does not know everything and that he is open-minded, that it is fine to lead the parade but he wants to know who is in the parade with him. Anybody who can contribute to that is what he should be looking for, not discrediting people by saying: I don't want you; you are confrontational. That is not inclusive. That is confrontational and exclusive. That does not benefit him, it does not benefit the government, and it does not benefit the people of this Province to be exclusive. He says, don't be confrontational, and that is exactly what he does. He stands up and is confrontational and says: I don't want to hear from you, don't want you on my team at all. I will go it alone.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to his team, we have to question again how he runs the team, because we sat here and had an all-party committee, voted unanimously in this House, based upon a resolution from a government member that we would have an all-party committee to deal with 5 Wing Goose Bay. We had the debate, again from the Premier's own party member, supported it, said it is a great idea, do whatever we can to advance the interests of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was not a problem at that time when he wanted our support, because the idea came from his side of the House; but, lo and behold, what happens? About two weeks later - and even after we struck the all-party committee and the members were named. There were members from the government side, as there would be. The Member for Lake Melville was there, for example. There were members from the Opposition side. I believe the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was on the all-party committee. What happens? The Premier is going to go off to Europe to discuss all of these issues about 5 Wing and who does he take? He takes the Member for Lake Melville, he takes himself, and he takes a gentleman who is involved in the labour movement in Goose Bay. He does not take the federal MP. In fact, I heard commentaries and read commentaries this very day from Mr. O'Brien, the MP for Labrador who is downright offended. The Premier, on whose team he was supposed to be, he did not take.

Now, we realize that maybe he does not like the members over here. Maybe he did not like the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and want to take her to Europe as part of the all-party committee that we agreed upon and voted upon unanimously. No, this is the man who: Be on my team when I want you. Maybe, what is it for, the grunt work, the dirty work? But I don't care if I have you on the team when it comes to going and speaking and showing the leadership potential and showing that we are all standing together. I can do that alone, thank you very much. The Premier goes off - nobody from the House committee on this side of the House, the all-agreed-to all-party committee. No, thank you, don't need you. The MP for Labrador - no, thank you, don't need you. Gone off. The Mayor of Goose Bay - no thanks. The very town involved, the very town that we are talking about, 5 Wing Goose Bay, the Premier: No, I don't need you on my team to go to Europe to discuss that. I can go it alone.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to debate, under the rules, on the motion that was put forward on the federal government. We might not have it today, but there will come an opportunity in this House when we will debate it, whether the Premier likes it or not. We will debate that resolution because there will be another Private Members' Day. It will be during the federal election, and I say to the Premier: There is never anything wrong, either, to admit that I made a mistake.

I think this was a mistake on the Premier's part to take this position. There is never anything wrong with advancing the interests of this Province as a united force. I do not care who puts the idea forward. If the Premier wants to take credit for this, he is certainly entitled to and ought to, even, as the Premier of this Province, but to do so without the unanimous consent and endorsement of every member in this House, I think it not only shows that we are not co-operative here when it comes to a provincial interest; it shows there is something lacking here. You cannot preach leadership, you cannot preach advancing this Province, and the same time you do not want to utilize the ideas, the skills, the people, the energy, that the very people in this House - all forty-eight, bar none, all forty-eight members in this House barring none, have the best interest of this Province at heart. It does not matter what party stripe you wear. It does not matter which part of this Province, this Island or the big land you come from. Everybody in this House has the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart, and to suggest from this Premier, to get up here today and say: Thank you, but no thank you, I do not want to use forty-eight endorsements and unanimity from all of you; I will go it alone. I think that belittles the members in this House. I think it takes away from our case and another tool that we had to exert pressure upon all federal candidates, all federal parties and all federal leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have these few words. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to withdraw any statement that I made in the House yesterday that may have been unparliamentary.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise here today, in this House, and speak in support of the Private Member's Resolution as put forward by my colleague from Bonavista South.

The "RESOLVED" section of the resolution states,"...that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada to enter into a comprehensive transportation infrastructure agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, I think the first "WHEREAS" section of the resolution sort of sums up why we need to enter into this federal-provincial agreement, where it states, "...the challenge of constructing and maintaining transportation infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador is enormous, given our difficult terrain and our relatively small population dispersed over a large area." It is because of that, Mr. Speaker, that without federal government participation we will have major, major problems in this Province in trying to maintain the road infrastructure that we have.

It is unfortunate, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the previous administration did not re-negotiate an extension to the Roads for Rails Agreement that expired last year. I don't know how much effort was put into that, Mr. Speaker, but you would normally think that any government of the day, with a major agreement like that about to expire, the funding about to run out, you would think, two to three years in advance of the expiry, that negotiations would be underway to have a new extension agreed to or a new agreement reached.

Mr. Speaker, over the last eight or ten years, the roads in this Province have deteriorated considerably, and that is the reason why we should have had, by now, a new agreement with the federal government on that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I only have to look at the roads in my own district and I can see all kinds of evidence as to why we need more monies to go into roads infrastructure. Parts of my district, over the past eight or ten years, have been totally neglected when it comes to funding for roads upgrading and paving. This past weekend, I visited Gander Bay and I was quite pleased, I must say, to be there when they delivered a new fire truck for the Gander Bay area - a truck that cost $180,000 - but, the unfortunate thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that in Gander Bay they hardly have a road fit to put that new truck on, and that is very, very sad.

The road from Rogers Cove in Gander Bay through to Clarke's Head, Mr. Speaker, is a road that is used by hundreds and hundreds of vehicles on a daily basis. People travelling from Fogo, Twillingate, New World Island, and all down that area, coming across from Boyd's Cove to Gander Bay, have to use that road and then the Gander highway road to Gander and other parts of the Province.

Then we can go to Main Point, Davidsville, Mr. Speaker, another area where the roads have been totally neglected. All of that area, in fact, as you go on from Davidsville into Frederickton and Noggin Cove, the same thing, and I mentioned that several times since I have been a member in this House.

Mr. Speaker, last year, during the election, the previous government came down and paved just one kilometre of that road in Noggin Cove. While it was appreciated, nevertheless it was looked on by the people who live in that area as more of an insult than anything else.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and talk about the road in Ladle Cove and Aspen Cove, the same thing, and also in Musgrave Harbour. Musgrave Harbour, with a population of roughly 1,000 people, is the only community in my district that has to maintain the main highway through the community. It is the only council in that area, Mr. Speaker, and they are a council that have to maintain and upkeep twenty-two kilometres of road in their community, which includes, like I say, the main highway which passes through the community.

This year, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the government is putting $30 million of its own provincial funding into roads upgrading and paving. That is $7 million more than what we had last year. I have spoken to our Minister of Transportation and Works on a number of occasions and I am hoping and feel confident that I will get a portion of that $30 million for roads in Bonavista North.

My colleague mentioned in his motion that proper transportation infrastructure is required to attract and complement investments that will create jobs and opportunities in our communities. Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a fact. When we consider that, whether it is our public service sector health care where we have people being transported on a daily basis in ambulances to hospitals or whatever, or whether we have our children being bused for further education, the roads are certainly an essential service.

Also, with respect to our resource industries, and the fishery in particular, Madam Speaker, we use the road system immensely to transport fish products all around the Province. When I make reference to the transportation of fish products, I would just like to point out the importance of a good road system when we are talking about the transportation of crab, because studies have shown that shock is the major cause of crab dying. You can imagine the effect, the negative impact that the transportation of crab and the road conditions that we have in this Province, the negative effect it has on the quality of that raw material.

Also, our other resource sector, the tourism industry; over the past number of years, Madam Speaker, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in my district alone on improving tourist infrastructure and restoring historic sites. That has really brought thousands of new people into my community and my district. The sad thing about that is, while we have invested so much money in developing the tourism sector of our economy, we have these terrible road conditions that people have to travel over, and I am sure that a lot of these people will not return a second time or will not spread the good news about what they saw while they did their visit.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to say that I cannot overemphasize the importance of this move to have the federal government enter into an agreement with the Province in upgrading our roads and transportation system. I fully support the private member's motion as put forward by my colleague for Bonavista South.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the Member for Bonavista South, as the critic for Transportation and Works. Madam Speaker, I know the number of calls that I get, as the critic, from people across the Province who are calling in for work that they want, repairs on the roads in their communities.

Madam Speaker, there is no question about it, the people across the way are saying that they were left with a huge deficit. We, on this side, would probably debate the actual deficit, but the truth of the fact is that the past Minister of Transportation and the present minister could take that entire Budget of the whole Province and not do justice to a lot of the roads around this Province.

Madam Speaker, I am not fortunate enough in my riding to have highways leading into my district, but I have been around the Province and I know that some of the roads are in really bad shape. Members on both sides of the House, when they speak, especially in the rural communities, speak of the importance of money needed to do essential upgrading, and it is certainly essential.

Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Member for Bonavista South that some time ago I had the opportunity to travel to Ottawa on an all-party committee. It was a time when we were asking the federal government for a lot more money than they were willing to give to carry on with the TAGS program. I am sure that the Member for Bonavista South would agree. We went up there as an all-party committee and we gave presentations. It wasn't just the ministers. We did get more money than Ottawa had planned to give us, but I can say with great certainty, Madam Speaker, that it was not just the Cabinet Ministers who spoke. It was the members who were on this side of the House, who are now over there, who spoke as well, and also the backbenchers from the government at the time who spoke, and we did make a difference. Again, I know that the Minister of Transportation could probably take the whole entire Budget of this Province and still not do justice with the roads, so it is very important.

The other thing that I want to touch on today is the remark that the Premier made as well. He said, well, we don't need people. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that we need people, and we need to work together. Certainly, again, some of the all-party committees that I had the honour of being a part of, we did make a difference.

I can say to the Member for Bonavista South: Yes, I know the roads in your riding. I know exactly what you are talking about. To the member who just spoke, Madam Speaker, with great concern about the roads in his district, I have been around there, not in all of the communities but certainly I know the need. The Member for Springdale has spoken many times on the amount of money he needs for his riding. Madam Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway is a prime example, a gravel road. We need to bring that up to standard and make it a lot better.

Madam Speaker, I fully support the motion put forward by the Member for Bonavista South, and again I would say to the Premier that we are important, too, and we need to work together.

Madam Speaker, with that, I will certainly sit down and give someone else an opportunity to speak.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South. If he speaks now, he will close debate.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to thank my colleagues and the people from both sides of the House who spoke on this particular resolution here today: the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Bonavista North, and the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's was correct when he said that this is not a new resolution. In fact, this is a debate that has been happening here in this House ever since I got elected. In the eleven years that I have been here, I would think that, other than a resolution brought forward to deal with the economy, and maybe the fishery of this Province, I would think our problems with our highways, and the highway infrastructure, has probably gotten more attention in this House than any other topic that has been raised, and we will continue to bring it forward, Madam Speaker.

We all know, who sit here in this House, no matter what side you sit on, that in order for us to be able to realize any form of a road initiative in this Province today, with our dispersed population and the hundreds of kilometres that we have to drive, either down the Bonavista Highway, or the Burin-Placentia Highway, or down the Connaigre Peninsula, or the Northern Peninsula, even to get to the first community, that it is certainly a challenge for no matter who sits in the Premier's chair and who sits in Cabinet in this Province. That will continue to be that way.

Madam Speaker, when you talk to people who are travelling the highway everyday, whether it is ambulance operators, whether it is transport truck drivers, school bus operators or students travelling on those school buses, you will find that the first thing they bring up are the conditions of the road.

In fact, I was down to King's Cove a couple of weeks ago and attended a parent forum there where they had some concerns about their school and the curriculum. Before we left the school that night one parent got up and said yes, they had some concerns, but one of their biggest concerns was the condition of the roads. The conditions that students experience by driving and having to get on a bus to go from their homes to the school. We have closed down a lot of schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not uncommon now for people to have to get on school buses and be on them for in excess of an hour in the morning to school and in excess of an hour in the evening back home. The least, Madam Speaker, that the federal government should do in tandem with the provincial government is to allow us to be able to address some of those problems.

If we could get an agreement that would look after the Trans-Canada Highway, or the major cost of the Trans-Canada Highway and the major cost of our trunk roads, then we could realize some savings where we could at least spend our $30 million in provincial budget to look after the Winter Brooks, the Princetons, the Summervilles of the world and allow those people to drive over a decent road.

Madam Speaker, when you hear people talking about the amount of money they pay for gasoline taxes, the amount of money they pay to register their cars, the amount of money they pay for insurance, the amount of money they pay for licences, the first thing they bring up is the condition of the road that they have to drive over. Sometimes we talk about safety of vehicles and safety of something else. Madam Speaker, the one thing that is probably most important that we sometimes do not talk about when we talk about safety is the conditions of our highways.

It is certainly outside the realm of the provincial government today - as it was last year and as it was ten years ago - to look after all the needs. I think I indicated that it would take something like $840 million to bring the network of roads that the Department of Transportation and Works is responsible for, up to a standard today, up to the 2004 standard. It is certainly something that is not going to happen overnight. It is certainly not something that we have the ability to deal with. Hence, the reason for calling on Ottawa. Ottawa is certainly much more capable of delivering funds to look after highway needs and look after highway infrastructure than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a great need in Labrador, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. He stands here and talks about the Labrador Highway. There is certainly a great need there to provide people with the basic services. While I understand that there is a fair amount of money being spent there again this year on Phase III of the Labrador Highway, hopefully we will see a day in the not too distant future when the people in Labrador will be able to realize a highway even to the standard that we realize as the number one highway in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will conclude. I thank the people for taking part in this debate today and I ask every member to be vigilant and holding Members of Parliament in Ottawa, holding your feet to the fire, letting them know the needs of this Province. They know it very well but they need to be reminded. I can assure you that this government, this Cabinet, this Premier on this side of the House, will certainly step up to the plate and cost-share in the agreement that is being brought forward by the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the adoption of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried unanimously.

On motion, resolution carried unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, this House will now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 20, at 1:30 in the afternoon.