MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland, with leave; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands and the hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Bishop David Torraville, a Cartwright native, who was ordained on November 30 at St. Martin's Cathedral in Gander.

Bishop Torraville was a teacher in Labrador before he was ordained a deacon in 1985 and a priest in 1986. From 1985 to 1989 he served as rector of the parish of Twillingate. In 1989 he was assigned to the parish of Gander as an assistant priest until 1992. He then served as rector of the parish of Gander and the Cathedral of St. Martin until 2000.

Mr. Speaker, Bishop Torraville received a bachelor's degree from Memorial University in 1978 and a master of divinity degree in 1985 from Queen's College. In 1994 he completed his course work and qualifying exams for a doctor of ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He became a fellow in pastoral leadership and development at the same university in 1999.

Prior to the election, Bishop Torraville was a member of the diocesan joint committee, chair of the health and community regional pastoral board and a member of the diocesan executive committee. He is married to Karen Flemming of Brookfield, Nova Scotia and they have two children, Paul and Catherine. Also, he is the son of retired Anglican priest, Cannon Arnold Torraville and Mrs. Nita Mesher Torraville.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my hon. colleagues today to join with me in congratulating Bishop David Torraville on his ordination at St. Michael's Cathedral in Gander on November 30.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland, with leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my district, to publicly pay my respect to the memory of the recently departed Mr. William Patrick O'Brien of Ferryland.

Mr. O'Brien was eighty-five years old. He was a committed family man who cared greatly for his family, friends and community. Pad O'Brien, as he is better known, was a World War II veteran of the British Navy. Pad and his close friend, Al Devereaux, enlisted together and hoped to serve on the same vessel. Upon approaching the commanding officer, they were informed that they could not serve on the same ship as they were related. As a result, Pad was posted to serve on the HMS Revenge while Al got posted to the ill-fated HMS Hood. It was this decision of the commanding officer that luckily allowed us to have Pad for many years after the war.

Pad was a consummate storyteller and commanded the attention of young and old alike, regaling all with stories of the Southern Shore and of his many sailing adventures. Padt will be missed by friends and family and will be remembered with a smile by all, especially his son, our MHA for the District of Gander, Kevin O'Brien.

I am sure this House, Mr. Speaker, will join me in sending our condolences to Mr. Kevin O'Brien and the O'Brien family on their great loss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mr. Don Crewe, a Port aux Basques resident, who has been awarded the Outstanding Professional Achievement Award as part of the 2005 Memorial University of Newfoundland Alumni Tribute Awards.

This Outstanding Professional Achievement Award acknowledges alumni who have given of themselves to improve the lives of people and their communities. Recipients of this award will have demonstrated exceptional community and volunteer service that has made a difference to the well-being of others.

Mr. Speaker, a retired educator, Don Crewe's volunteer work expands more than thirty-six years. Since 1969 he has served in a wide range of leadership roles, including: Secretary of the Port aux Basques Minor Hockey Association; Vice-Chair of the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre; local Chair of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion fundraising event and local area Chair of the Cabot Soiree and Viking Celebrations.

Mr. Crewe also serves as a member of St. Paul's Anglican Church Vestry, the Winter Carnival Committee, the Port aux Basques Anniversary Come Home Year Event and the local chapter of Toastmasters International. He has been a Royal Canadian Army Cadet leader and trainer, as well he preforms with a popular local folk singing group that donates its revenue to local charities.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Don Crewe on receiving the Outstanding Professional Achievement Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to congratulate Humber Valley Resort on winning the Best International Development Award at the 2005 Bentley International Property Awards this past November.

It is truly a delight to see Humber Valley Resort being honoured in such a prestigious international competition with entries from top resorts in over twenty-five countries from around the world. It should be no surprise to the people of Humber Valley that our beautiful backyard is now receiving the recognition it has always deserved.

In addition to the Best International Development Award, Humber Valley Resort also received awards for Best Canadian Development, Best Sports Development, Best Golf Development and Best Water Front Development.

I would like to thank Chairman Brian Dobbin of Newfound Developers for having the foresight to grasp this dream and make it a reality. This world-class resort is a true Newfoundland and Labrador success story, and I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending congratulations to all those involved in helping Humber Valley Resort win this remarkable international award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 10, I had the privilege of attending the Annual Firemen's Dinner in Harbour Breton. The dinner is held on an annual basis to express appreciation for the dedicated service provided by the volunteer members of the fire department.

The Harbour Breton Fire Department has always been a group to show leadership and guidance to their community. The residents have always supported the fire department and in turn they have committed their time to provide a very professional service to the residents.

In a community where residents are facing incredible challenges, the volunteer members of the fire department continue to give what they can to this organization.

Mr. Speaker, the members ensure that they are well trained and equipped to answer the emergency calls when they are needed. In fact, they were called out earlier this morning to assist in a tragic accident near my hometown in Seal Cove, Fortune Bay. This department also put significant time and effort into fire protection and prevention. Statistics for the community prove that they are making much progress in their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to share the evening with Fire Chief Reg Bennett, Mayor Don Stewart and members of the Fire Department in Harbour Breton. Long-term service awards of twenty-five years were presented to firefighters Ernie Drake, Kevin Ashford and Raymond Hynes Jr. I have enjoyed sharing their many accomplishments and look forward to continued co-operation with the Harbour Breton Fire Department in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the Harbour Breton Fire Department for another successful year and good luck as they continue their volunteer effort for the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House that, on December 3, I had the opportunity to attend the Toys for Joys event in Labrador West. This event raises money for children of less fortunate families in Labrador West to ensure that their Christmas is more enjoyable than it might otherwise be.

Mr. Speaker, Toys for Joys is an evening of entertainment where local musicians volunteer their talents to this worthwhile event. This year saw eight bands take part, providing a full night of entertainment.

The first Toys for Joys was held thirteen years ago, an idea originated by a local musician, Roger Lyons, who passed away suddenly in July, 2002. It is now called the Roger Lyons Memorial Toys of Joys and is an annual event. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the generosity of the citizens of Labrador West, this year's event raised more than $13,000.

I would like to thank organizers Fred Fewer and Nick Kennedy, and everyone else who helped out to make this year's event an astounding success. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, whenever there is a need in our communities for needy causes, it is generally local musicians who are most often the first in line to help out. I would like to recognize them today, whatever community they may live in, for making our society a better place to live.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to extend congratulations to the members of the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department and Meadows Firettes.

On Saturday, November 19, I had the pleasure of attending the thirty-third Annual Firefighters Ball. The eighteen members who make up the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department are an active and committed group of volunteers dedicated to ensuring the safety of their own town and its residents. The members are continuously training and enhancing their skills to provide the best service to their town.

There were a number of awards presented at the dinner, including the twenty year Fire Service Long Service Medals to Spencer Brake and Shawn McAuley, as well as a Ten Year Bar to Derek Hann, who has been with the department since 1973. Firefighter of the Year was Ted Taylor, and the MHA award was presented to Michael Brake.

In addition to the dedicated firefighters, there is an active Firettes groups continually supporting the fire department through fundraising and other initiatives. Over the years, this group has raised thousands of dollars to ensure the firefighters have the necessary equipment available when needed. Again, on Saturday night, the Firettes presented a cheque to the fire department for $4,200.

One of the major projects for the fire department over the past four or five years was to raise funds for a new fire hall. I was very pleased to be able to attend the official opening of the new fire hall on October 12, and join with the firefighters and the residents as they celebrated the opening of the new facility.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Meadows Firefighters and Firettes for their continued commitment and dedication to theirs towns and residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Arrow Air disaster in Gander on December 12, 1985. There were 256 people on board at the time of the crash, including eight civilian crew members and 248 soldiers from the U.S. 101^st Airborne Division. The soldiers had been part of a peacekeeping mission in the Sinai desert and were on their way home to the U.S. for Christmas. After a refuelling stop at Gander International Airport, the Arrow Air plane lifted off for the troops home base of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and crashed less than a minute later, killing all 256 people on board.

Somber ceremonies are being held in Gander today in recognition of this terrible tragedy. Similar ceremonies are also being held today in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington.

In recognition of this horrible tragedy, and in honour of the 256 lives lost in Gander twenty years ago this very day, I ask all hon. members to join with me in a moment of silence.

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members would join us, we will observe a moment of silence in memory of the 256 people who died in the air crash twenty years ago.

[Members observe a moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to perform the very pleasant duty of offering congratulations to a team of young men from this Province who are now Olympic athletes and role models to us all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yesterday afternoon in Halifax, the curling team of Brad Gushue out of the St. John's Curling Club won the Tim Horton's Canadian Curling Trials. With this win, they also earned the privilege of representing Canada at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Torino, Italy.

Mr. Speaker, this is truly an extraordinary feat by this young team consisting of: Skip Brad Gushue of St. John's; First Jamie Korab from Harbour Grace; Third Mark Nichols of Labrador City; of course, along with Russ Howard, a native of New Brunswick and a Canadian curling legend, who actually threw second stones; coach Toby MacDonald of St. John's; spare Mike Adam of Wabush, and the team's sports psychologist Bas Kavanagh from the Goulds.

These young men have accomplished something truly awesome. They are the very first team from our Province to compete at the Olympics in any sport. We have had Newfoundland and Labrador athletes perform at the Olympic Games before, however, this is truly a first for sport in our Province.

The Gushue Rink had a remarkable run in this tournament losing only one match while competing against the best curlers in the country. It culminated with an eight to seven win over Jeff Stoughton of Winnipeg in a match that I know had Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, myself included, on the edge of our seats yesterday afternoon.

When I referred to this team as role models, Mr. Speaker, I did not do so lightly. I have no doubt that their success with do wonders to increase Newfoundland and Labrador's reputation, not just in curling circles, but in the sporting world generally.

Our recent accomplishments, including the Gushue Rink's own triumphs as Canadian and World Junior Champions and Corner Brook's Bas Buckle Rink winning the Senior Men's World Curling Championships, have proven that our Province can compete with the best in the world.

This is a true testament to the desire, dedication and raw talent of athletes in Newfoundland and Labrador and from a talent pool of only a half million people and a team sport that is something quite phenomenal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating the Gushue Rink on their world-class performance and I know that all of us will follow them on their exciting journey to Italy as they make a run for Olympic gold.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for an advanced copy of his statement. Members on this side would also like to congratulate the Gushue Rink on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, going back to when they won the World Juniors and they were travelling around. They went to Labrador City, the team wanted to go. I had the privilege of travelling with the team up to the Carol Curling Club in Labrador West and accompanying the team and attending the festivities with the World Juniors, that group. At that time I made a statement at the curling club, I said this group is going to do well. Not because of their curling skills, but because of their desire and their attitude towards the sport and towards the people in general. These were fine, upstanding, young individuals. What I noticed about the group, at that time when they won the juniors, they sat there and signed everybody's autograph, everybody's T-shirt. They stayed there until every kid who was there, that wanted to be a part of them, they did. Their character is what was going to bring them to this level.

I congratulate the team. There is one person in particular - and the Member for Baie Verte would recognize this more because we played sports together - Mike Adam of Labrador City -

AN HON. MEMBER: Wabush.

MS JONES: Wabush? Well, Wabush. For a person to be on the team for so long, from a junior level, to bring up and realizing that they need someone with experience and in comes this person they needed with experience, they bring him in, and for this person to step aside for Russ Howard, it is just amazing. It is just absolutely amazing the character of this young fellow, who would take his own personal - whatever he wanted to do and step aside -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say congratulations to the whole team, but for this young athlete - and I know the Member for Baie Verte, when we are into a championship game or into any tournament, when we are sitting on that bench we are almost chewing the bench to pieces to get out there. But for a young fellow to take himself aside, it was a true testimony for himself and to the dedication that this team has. I congratulate all the team members. I know we will all be watching them, we will all be cheering for them. The best part of this here, not only will they represent Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada at the World's Curling, they will also be representing Newfoundland and Labrador's true ambassadors and I congratulate them on their athletic skills but also on their skills as people because I know they are just great, fine individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for his statement. Today is, indeed, a proud day in this Province, and certainly a proud day in Labrador West, because it does have a great Labrador West connection, as was pointed out, with Mark Nichols being from Labrador City and Mike Adam being from Wabush, from the Carol Curling Club; but, in addition to that, Brad Gushue's uncle is a long-time resident of Labrador West as well, so it is a big day there.

I want to congratulate them as well, Mr. Speaker, and say that they have elevated the game of curling in this Province to an all-time high. As previous speakers have mentioned, their conduct on the ice is impressive, but the one thing that is probably more impressive than that is their conduct and their attitude off the ice, and the way that they are proud to represent our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all join in wishing them the best when they go to Torino, Italy, and I am sure we will all be watching, on the edge of our seats, as the Premier said, while they are there participating as well. We wish them the best of luck.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit down without saying that it also gives me a bit of satisfaction at the win yesterday, the significant win, and their play throughout the past week, when I think about all the comments that have been written by reporters from upalong who sort of discounted them and did not pay them any serious attention at all, in spite of all the facts that were there for them to see. I think they showed the country, and in particular this Province, how intelligent they are, how dedicated they are to the game, and the high level of skill that they demonstrate.

Again, we certainly wish them the best of success in Torino.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege to participate in the United Nations' Conference on Climate Change, commonly known as COP 11. It marked the eleventh meeting of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was held in conjunction with the first meeting of the parties who signed the Kyoto Protocol.

During my time at COP 11, I participated in a number of meetings and events including the Climate Leaders Summit. I also had the opportunity to tour a number of exhibitions of equipment and services related to climate change, which gave me a greater understanding of the latest climate change technologies.

Mr Speaker, our government understands the seriousness and importance of addressing climate change, and that is why we have developed our provincial Climate Change Action Plan. During the COP 11 meetings, it was encouraging to learn that much of the science of climate change upon which our own provincial plan is based has now been confirmed with a greater level of certainty. This information affirmed for me that our action plan is the right plan and we must continue with its implementation.

One topic referenced in our provincial plan, climate change adaptation and preparing for the negative effects of climate change, was also a topic of discussion at COP 11. Countries now realize that it will take considerable time and resources to reverse the effects of climate change. In our Province, adaptation to flooding and extreme weather events is of particular concern, especially at the municipal level. In this regard, I am pleased to inform hon. members that my department, in conjunction with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, will host a workshop for municipalities on December 19 of this year. The purpose of the workshop is to educate municipal leaders about adapting to climate change and the importance of planning now for potential adverse events.

This is just one of the many actions that we have already taken to address climate change. In taking action to address climate change, government is taking action towards the development of a more sustainable society and economy, which will benefit our Province today and for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to echo the comments of the hon. minister. This is a very, very important topic in our world today. We know all the serious weather conditions, and flooding that we have had over the last number of years. Research indicates that it is related to climate change.

I think our federal government is on the right track in this particular area. It is too bad the United States of America will not join us in this major initiative, because they are one of the biggest polluters in the world. I am sure that, if the Prime Minister keeps up the battle, we will win this battle and get the Americans onside in terms of making sure that we do not have a disaster in our world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to take the opportunity to publicly congratulate the minister and his wife, Yvonne, on their new baby girl -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - and welcome them to the joys of parenthood.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue, I am very glad to hear that this government and this minister are finally taking climate change and the Kyoto Protocol seriously. They did not really do so when they were in Opposition, but I think this is a good thing. The fact that the minister is holding meetings with municipalities, to help them learn to adapt, to plan for potential adverse effects, is obviously an indication of how seriously this issue is, and the fact that the government is treating it seriously.

I hope they do make some effort to convince their federal counterparts of the same thing, Mr. Speaker. We do have problems with the Americans coming to grips with this, and I would have been a lot happier if, in their approach to conservation and energy renewal, they would take a much more aggressive approach in energy conservation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in the Catholic Church they have something called general absolution, and perhaps we could work something out before we start, so that whenever I get up to speak I don't get half the time while we are here. Maybe the House Leaders should talk about that.

In any event, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will give you general absolution.

MR. HARRIS: I think I have general absolution from the other side, I don't know about my friends over here.

Mr. Speaker, I would have been a lot happier if, in their approach to climate change, they had been much more aggressive in adopting a conservation strategy, doing greater things to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the Seal Cove Generating Station, something far more comprehensive in helping people contribute less in their own homes to greenhouse gases. That, I hope, will be the next step we hear from this minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform this House that government is today prepared to pledge an additional $50 million over five years for the Trans-Labrador Highway to reach a cost-sharing agreement that will see the federal government match this contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The total cost, Mr. Speaker, of surfacing the Trans-Labrador Highway from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Labrador City is estimated at about $100 million. We have written the federal government, today, requesting a commitment for a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement to have this work completed over five years.

Mr. Speaker, key to the economic progress of Labrador is the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. The Premier has written each of the federal leaders seeking their position on a number of issues important to Newfoundland and Labrador in this election campaign, including whether they would support a federal-provincial cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

The Council of the Federation, Mr. Speaker, recently released the national transportation strategy, Looking to the Future; A Plan for Investing in Canada's Transportation System. The strategy proposes a new transportation funding partnership between provinces, territories and the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we believe an early commitment to cost-share surfacing the Trans-Labrador Highway would be a firm indication of the federal government's endorsement of the national strategy. This is an ideal opportunity for the federal government to signal its support for the completion of this vital transportation link in Labrador.

The provincial government was recently successful in having the Trans-Labrador Highway and several other roads in the Province added to the National Highway System. As a result, this Province now has 2,469 kilometres of road designated as part of the National Highway System, up from the previous 955 kilometres.

Mr. Speaker, a new funding arrangement with the federal government is essential if this expanded road network is to be upgraded and maintained at national standards. Federal concurrence to add more roads to the National Highway System is just talk unless it is accompanied by a renewed commitment to funding. This Province will be calling upon whichever party forms the next government to make this commitment to Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister asked me if I had received a copy of his statement when I came in the House. I said: Yes, I did about a minute ago, but the cheque was not there. So, I do not know if that was an oversight or not.

Mr. Speaker, anytime that there is new money to be spent on highways in Labrador it is a welcomed announcement for the people of Labrador, I can tell you that. In 1997, I sat in this Legislature representing a district that had next to no road connections, and it was through a deal of the government of that day that $340 million was signed off to be invested in road infrastructure throughout Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I support the initiative that is taking place here today, but I want to say to the minister, you have not taken it far enough because there is a highway in Southern Labrador, from Red Bay to Cartwright, right now that has to be resurfaced and paved as well. I would have liked to have seen an agreement going forward from the Province to be able to do all the highway that has been built in Labrador to date and to bring it up to a national highway standard. So I would like to encourage him to add that to his proposal or his initiative that he is bringing forward to the federal government at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that it is a good announcement by the minister but also a sad occasion in Labrador, when all of these years later we are still standing as a part of this Province fighting to have roads brought to a highway standard that most people in our Province have enjoyed for decades and decades.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: So, I wish the minister well. I will support it 100 per cent. I will lobby my colleagues in Ottawa, I say to the minister, to ensure that they can ante up and put the money in that is needed to bring those highways up to standard.

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

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

I say it is a great day for Labrador in the House of Assembly, talking about the curling club, half of which comes from Labrador.

This statement - I have risen and addressed I guess a good many ministerial statements over the years, but I think this one gives me more pleasure to respond to than many of the others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I think now, Mr. Speaker, we have to press the federal government to come onboard with this because this initiative is long overdue. The $100 million that would be allocated should see that road completed in a five-year period, something that people of Labrador have been telling me that they would like to see it done in.

I say to the minister, this initiative will go a long way towards improving the economic activities that take place in Labrador. If you talk to the truckers and what they have to subject themselves and their expensive vehicles to today compared to the ease that they would have if we had a hard surface on that road. So, I welcome the news from the minister and take this opportunity to inform him that anything that we can do from our side during this federal election with our political party, the New Democrats, then we will certainly be doing to encourage them to come onboard, make an issue of this, support it and let's get on and get the road done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, government has recently been given a Cashin Report on raw material sharing in the crab industry. This is a very important report and will affect a very important sector of our economy, the fishery. The release of the report is necessary to ensure the crab fishery will open in a timely manner.

I ask the minister: When will the report be released publicly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The Cashin Report was delivered to government, I believe it was a week today. So we are still in the process of completing our due diligence and analysis of that report. We intend to make it public as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that I made a commitment on the Fisheries Broadcast one day last week, that certainly as quickly as possible means before Christmas. That is certainly our timetable and we want to get it out there, in the general public, as quickly as we can, keeping in mind that it is incumbent upon us to do it right, to do it properly and to do a proper analysis of the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Speaker, government is trying to close the House of Assembly early so that they will not have to answer questions from the Opposition pertaining to the Cashin Report.

I ask the minister: Why not keep the House open until the report is released, so that any legislative changes that may be required are facilitated before we close for Christmas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if the House, in fact, closes - and I do not know whether it will or whether it will not today. I assume it will be, because all of the parties in the House agree that we have publicly finished the business that is in front of us and we can proceed.

In terms of legislation, Mr. Speaker, if the report were released today, released tomorrow, released next week, it will not be physically possible to have legislation drafted in time for this particular session of the House. The commitment of the government is that if legislation is required and if the government determines, as a result of the analysis of the report that legislation is required, this House, if necessary, will be brought back early enough to deal with the legislation so that its impact will be felt for the next fishing season. That is the commitment of the government and I can assure you, on behalf of the government, that commitment will be kept if it is necessary for it to be kept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly hope that he does not wait until March, like they did last year, to bring in the raw material sharing. We saw what happened then, so I certainly hope that if there is legislation required, that you get the House open early in the new year to avoid the catastrophe we had last year.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Premier. It is over a year ago the residents of Harbour Breton received the devastating news that FPI was closing its plant and throwing 350 people out of work in that town. At the time the Premier said he was all over the file and stated publicly on many occasions that he would not let the people of Harbour Breton down. We have watched what has expired here in the past year and with the exception of a few make-work programs, nothing has been done by your government and FPI to assist the people of Harbour Breton.

I ask the Premier: What did you mean when you stated you were all over the file and you would not let the people of Harbour Breton down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of the people who work in the plant who have been affected and not in receipt of income have been employed in the community through projects administered through the town and through this government. We continue to work with the FFAW and with FPI to conclude the terms of the contract and at that time we will be able to offer an enhanced wage benefit to the workers of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I would say, that is all over the file: We are not going to let you down. A couple of make-work programs this year. Absolutely nothing happening! People leaving the town every day to seek employment in other parts of this country. You should be ashamed to get up and answer that.

Mr. Speaker, FPI is currently deciding the future of its operation in several communities in this Province. I ask the Premier: What conversations have you had with FPI regarding your operational review and can the people in communities such as Marystown, Burin and Fortune rest a little easier this Christmas knowing that the Premier is all over the file?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. Leaving the political rhetoric and innuendo aside for the moment, because of the importance of the question, let me say this, Mr. Speaker: I have met, on several occasions, in the few weeks that I have been Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, with senior officials of FPI, and I mean senior, top officials of the company. We are allowing them, of course, to continue with their internal review. When that is completed, we will be briefed on that and we will have more to say. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Premier and I are meeting with senior officials of FPI and a subcommittee of the FPI board tomorrow.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of what is happening internally with FPI. We are in close contact with them. Both the Premier, as leader of the government, and myself, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, will be following up further with the company on that tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, you can meet all you like, FPI has not even honoured the commitments that they made to the people of Harbour Breton. It is time that you forced them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Education has stated publicly that the Eastern School Board should shred the multi-year plan for the Eastern School District, will government commit the necessary funds and resources to ensure that all children in the Eastern School District get the same quality education, or will the minister cherry-pick which schools will close, as was done in the Central Region during a by-election?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the report that was made public last week was done by an independent consultant. Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the Eastern School Board that there will be a consultation process, the stakeholders will have a say in the process, and that the school board and the trustees will be able to provide a full analysis to the information that they receive.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, they will put forward a proposal that they feel is appropriate for the long-term facilities needs for that district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Abitibi in Stephenville is another file that the Premier has been all over. We now have passed the company-imposed deadline of last Friday, and no resolution. The mayor and the Chamber of Commerce in Stephenville have both been asking for help with this issue.

What is your government doing, Premier, to help resolve this most important and serious situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do everything we can, whenever requested. That is what we have done right from the start. As the hon. member opposite knows, we have made a significant contribution to make this work. We announced our proposal some considerable time ago, a proposal that the company, at the time, was certainly satisfied with.

Recently, in recent days, of course, over the last week, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Member for Port au Port and myself have had several communications and contacts with the people in the community, officials of council, members of the corporation and members of the union.

I was requested, and my understanding is that it came from the mayor and from the council, that a request be put in for a mediation in this particular - because it was their understanding that both parties wanted to have a mediation. I contacted the company and I did contact the union over the weekend and spoke with senior officials, Mr. Planet in the company, and the head of the union as well, and asked if they wanted a mediation. The company flatly rejected a mediation, and that was contrary to the indications that were given by the company to the town and people on the ground in the community. So, the company flatly rejected any offer for mediation by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Premier, as much as the government has tried to present this issue in the last couple of months as being between Abitibi and the union executive, it is much more than that. Government made it a regional and a provincial issue this past summer and fall and then became a spectator. Making an announcement that a deal has been done, but not seeing the deal carried through, still amounts to failure.

I say to the Premier: What are you actively doing yourself to see that this matter is positively resolved in the interests of the people in the Bay St. George area; and, in particular, is there a Plan B to ensure that this company will not remove assets if they do not make a deal, or that you might even consider expropriation of the assets so that we can still protect the people in that region?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are very clearly on the record where we stand on expropriation, but our goal is to have that mill up and operating and that is why we made the significant contribution that we did, and that is why we have attempted to make a deal. We also made it very clear that we are not going to stand by and allow this company to strip that union contract. That is something that we have made very, very clear.

When it comes to the union dealing with the company, we are not going to try and impose our will on the union. The union has to deal with the corporation. The union executive are not satisfied with what has been offered by the company.

This company is an extremely difficult - and that is the nicest way I can put it to this House of Assembly - an extremely difficult company to deal with. They shift, they move. What they say at the highest levels, their people on the ground are saying something else. They are trying to manipulate that community, they are trying to divide that community, and we are not going to stand by and allow that to happen under any circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, notwithstanding the comments of the Minister of Transportation in the past couple of weeks, the family of the victim involved in the fatal accident on the Argentia Access Road a few weeks ago are calling for a public inquiry into this incident.

Minister, are you prepared to see that a public inquiry is, in fact, conducted into this incident?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the accidents that have taken place over the past number of weeks on our highways have been as a result of black ice buildup on the roads. There have been some difficulties associated with that. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these things happen from time to time at this time of year.

We have had discussions internally about the way salt is applied on our roads. We have been endeavouring to try and upgrade our equipment, something that has not been done over the past number of years, to make sure that the department is in a better position to be able to deal with the environmental conditions and the road conditions that we have in this Province.

As for a public inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to speak to that; however, many days, accidents take place on the highway and we endeavour to ascertain what the problems were. We look at the police reports and see where improvements can be made from a departmental perspective, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a long-term objective of ensuring that all schools in the Province, and the communities in which they reside, have access to affordable broadband Internet services. We support this objective and we encourage government to move in this direction, an initiative of the previous Liberal government.

Proposals were called earlier this year for the expansion of this service. We asked for the proposals under the Access to Information legislation to determine if there was indeed a level playing field in the issuing of the contract; however, much of the document was blacked out.

When a close business and personal connection to government, such as Mr. Dean MacDonald's company, Persona, received $10 million in taxpayers' money, then there should be scrutiny to ensure the taxpayers' money is well spent.

I ask the minister if the entire document can be released for scrutiny to show that this company was not given special treatment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was over $5 million invested by this government in CDLI, giving broadband services to schools and communities right across this Province in this past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can assure all members of this House that all protocols were followed and everything was done fairly, transparently, and in the way that it ought to be done by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I say it is not very transparent when the documentation was blacked out.

I ask the minister: Will the company be required to disclose to the public, financial statements related to the profitability of this venture? Also, was the information gathered in the Request for Proposals used to determine the potential possibility of this venture for the company? If so, will the minister release that information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises some very important questions. I am unable to answer them at this time. I will take it under advisement and I will report back.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West, who understands he is sharing the four minutes with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi today.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

I want to ask the minister, given the fact that the College of the North Atlantic in Labrador West is paying excessive rent to the tune of $1 million a year that is going outside this Province when they could deliver more effective programs if they had their own facility. So, I want to ask the minister: How long does her department intend to allow this to continue instead of putting a proper campus in Labrador West?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we take education and post-secondary education very seriously, and we certainly have completed the White Paper because we want to put emphasis on post-secondary and make sure we are meeting the needs of our young people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the exorbitant prices that we are paying for the space in Labrador City or in the Labrador City area. We do want to improve the service. I cannot say right now when we will be building a new facility or how we will be looking for alternate accommodations. I am very aware of the problem. We are very committed to post-secondary education and we will certainly be working with that issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also, for the Minister of Education. Given the minister's comments on the Eastern School District report last week and her comments today, recognizing that the five-year plan is still going forward and the board plans to have their five-year plan approved before the House meets again: Will the minister commit that no school closure or school downgrade that does not meet the community consensus in a particular area will go ahead without a full consultation and perhaps a one year delay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had said before, the report that came forward was done by an independent consultant without the full consultation of the stakeholders who would have a vested interest in the education and how we proceed in this Province. I have been assured there will be a consultation process. There will be a full consultation process to allow the stakeholders to have their say. Based on the information that goes back to the school board and the trustees, I understand that they will be doing a full analysis of the information before the board puts together what is the report of the board and their proposal for their facilities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of this government was evident last Thursday when the Minister of Education was unaware of any details of her so-called consultant to the White Paper, Ms Nada Borden, who happens to be the Vice-President of the PC Party and was the Chief Financial Officer for the Premier during the last election.

Will the minister tell the House what her duties are, the length of this blatant, political appointment, the cost to the taxpayers, and confirm that Ms Borden's office is located on the tenth floor of the Sir Richard Squires Building, which happens to be the Premier's office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, these questions were asked the last day we sat in the House and I did indicate at that time that I would get the information.

There are a number of secondments to the Department of Education. I believe there are actually thirty-eight, but I will speak to this particular one. You asked for the information. I will provide the information.

The information indicates that Ms Borden was seconded to the Department of Education from the College of the North Atlantic on August 25, 2005, and she will remain in that position until the end of the month, at which time she will be retiring. Ms Borden is reviewing how colleges across Canada do strategic planning to determine the best practice we will be using here in this Province, which is part of the White Paper.

As for the cost of Ms Borden's appointment, she is presently being paid at a Class VI, Level E, Step 12 on a Technical and Vocational Instructor's scale of the Faculty Collective Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: You left out where her office is at, which happens to be on the tenth floor of the Premier's office in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, from the information received on the Access to Information Act, it states that all other expenses, including travel, vacation, will be the responsibility of the Department of Education, and the College of the North Atlantic is being reimbursed for her salary from the Department of Education. This makes Ms Borden an employee of the Department of Education. Ms Borden was elected to the school board under these guidelines. Any employee of the Department of Education must have written prior approval from the minister to seek a seat on the school board.

Will the minister table this letter, if it was provided to Ms Borden? If not, will the minister follow her own guidelines and have Ms Borden removed from the school board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that matter and I will report back to the House. I do not have a letter available right now. Mr. Speaker, I will note that she was hired in August, 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked a question about the Housing Corporation, headed by a former PC Party Leader, Len Simms, paving a road to a golf course owned by the Premier. The Minister of Education said the road was paved because there were complaints by the residents who have very, very expensive homes in the area.

I ask the minister: Will she come to my district to see if the houses located along the dirt roads are expensive enough to warrant proper road repair and paving, and can she tell the people of this Province how expensive their houses have to be before they get road repairs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, I can tell the member I have a number of those roads in my district also, so he doesn't have to explain that to me.

I understand the member asked this question last week, Mr. Speaker, and from what I understand, just being a few weeks in this portfolio, this is a development that came under the development for the Southlands. The fact of the matter is, it was your administration that built that road, it was your administration that allowed the money to be in that fund to finish the road, and it was a complaint that came from the City of St. John's through a petition. We just fulfilled our duties with the money that was in the fund and completed the road, as it should be, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in addition to showing her arrogance and elitist streak in the House last week with her comments about expensive homes being more deserving of paving, the acting minister also said that the City of St. John's approached Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to have the road paved. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that while the city has been receiving a number of complaints about this road, this project was not high on their priority list.

I ask the minister: Will she stop trying to justify this blatant abuse of political power, and tell the House that the only reason this road was paved was because it goes to a golf course owned by the Premier, and will she finally tell us, or will the minister finally tell us, how much it cost to pave this particular road, once and for all, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, right off the top I can tell the member how much it was; $29,000. I can tell the member also, that we don't have favorites when it comes to paving roads. As was seen in my district last year, Mr. Speaker, the most roads (inaudible) in this Province were in the District of Bay Verte, and we make no apologies for that.

I can tell the member this, he is one of the members, I understand from my briefings, from across the way who knows full-well that this whole development for the Southlands was put in place, the road was built, and the money was allocated, from your administration, to finish that particular road. That is why it was done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

Parents should be able to send their children to school knowing they are in a safe and secure environment. The stories of two mothers in recent months, and again in the past few days, of how their children are being bullied and abused by other children in school is absolutely heartbreaking. The issues that are being expressed by these parents have obviously fell on deaf ears and with no action. I am sure the minister will agree, that this is probably not an only incident that are occurring in our school system and I ask if she will intervene, as the minister, to protect these children and to stop the known abuse that is happening in these schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we do take incidences of bullying, harassment and intimidation in the schools, in the schoolyards and the classroom very seriously. We certainly work with those issues. We certainly have staff trained to be able to work with those issues. We also recognize that sometimes issues escalate. Early prevention and intervention may not necessarily work, or some incidences may go undetected until they have escalated. But, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the school officials, the school boards and other related professionals, which sometimes may need to be used when situations escalate, are certainly out there. It is certainly a process we follow, and at no point, Mr. Speaker, do I ever want to indicate that we do not take these incidences seriously.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the conservative hired director of education for the Eastern School board was on the radio this morning and, in my mind, absolutely shirking his responsibility. Mr. Speaker, he talked about protocols being in place, he talked about policies and procedures were followed, but I would say to the minister, that these are all words until your child is a victim. These are parents who have expressed a sincere and very important issue here that needs to be addressed.

I want to say to the minister, that I think she and her government - and I want to ask her to look at this, implementing a mechanism that would be province-wide in our school system that deals with cases like this and that it is not left to one school, one principal or one director of a school board. Minister, will you commit to do that today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the news reports as well with regard to some of the issues that have been brought forward by some parents.

Mr. Speaker, some issues that we have to deal with are extremely serious and they do need intervention, and parents are very concerned about the health and safety of their children. Mr. Speaker, each and every child in Newfoundland and Labrador and beyond, certainly need to have a very safe environment when they go to school. They need protection. They need to be in a caring environment and they need to be able to learn in an environment that fosters learning as opposed to making them feel that, in any way, they are intimidated or afraid, or unable to go to school.

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize how serious these issues are. We do work with these issues. We do ensure that we have staff trained to be able to deal with it. We are also able to access other professionals who may be needed at times to deal with some of these issues. Mr. Speaker, in no way do I ever want it to be said or to be believed that we do not take the health and safety and the learning environment very serious for our children.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe what I am hearing because latitude is not the answer here. This is a situation where parents, who have children in the schools, were not informed. Teachers were not informed that this abuse was occurring.

Minister, I feel you have to intervene. You have to put your own standard policy in place in this Province that allows for parents and teachers to know what is happening in these schools so they can make those decisions and make them wisely.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is very important that we do have a very safe environment for our children, one that fosters their education and learning. When there are incidents that arise, that means that somebody feels the effects of harassment, intimidation or bullying, that we are able to intervene and we are able to deal with the issues and we are able to ensure that other students, or victims of any particular incident, are able to be maintained in the school, in their classrooms, within the boundaries of their learning environment. Mr. Speaker, we have to work with all these factors. We have to deal with the individual circumstances of what is going on and we also have to deal with the parents who are involved in the situation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Clarenville and other thirteen larger urban municipalities have been targeted for another MOG cut this year and councils have learned there will be no review for 2006. These mayors are incensed about the latest cut, calling it a deterrent to economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he had any communications with these mayors to assist their economic conditions before the decrease was made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the MOG has had a reduction and there have been fourteen municipalities that had growth and can absorb the MOG reductions in grants. We are working with municipalities in order to have economic development.

MR. REID: For what? To take the money?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: The municipalities that have been targeted can absorb those reductions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the Town of CBS and the City of St. John's brought down their budgets recently and have raised taxes to their residents, which is very unfortunate because it is a direct result of MOG reductions to these municipalities.

I ask the minister if he will revisit the decision and give back the MOGs due to these towns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

As one of the four ministers - with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - who was at the Federation of Municipalities Convention as a Ministerial Panel, that question was asked by the Mayor of Goose Bay, I believe, who was one of the municipalities that were targeted. I can only reiterate and respond the way that my colleague did. He said that, if a town feels that they have a case to make to me, in terms of to the government, then, by all means, make it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you can yap all you want. If you want to hear the answer to the question, I will give it to you. Whether you accept it or not, then let me provide it to you and you decide for yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the fact is this: The minister said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like to have an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have only about twenty seconds left in Question Period.

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) two minutes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, two minutes of being interrupted, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

The fact of the matter is this: The minister said that if a town wishes to make a case, be aware that they can do so. Having said that, he said to all of those municipalities that government had made a determination that they could absorb the reductions within the MOGs.

Mr. Speaker, that is the case. That is what the minister said. That is government's position. There it is. It is up to you to accept it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Department of Education.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I table the Department of Finance Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased to provide the House with the Annual Report for 2004-2005 for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

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

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

In keeping with government's commitment to accountability, I hereby submit the 2004-2005 Annual Performance Report for the Department of Natural Resources. This report addresses the department's activities and outcomes from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The Speaker wishes to table the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for May, June, July, August, September and October, 2005.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Before the Speaker calls Petitions, the Chair would like to recognize the former Member for Placentia, Mr. Nick Careen, who is in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Burin Peninsula. It says:

WHEREAS there is a desperate need on the Burin Peninsula for a kidney dialysis machine; and

WHEREAS this need was identified and brought forward to government by medical professionals and residents of the Burin Peninsula; and

WHEREAS government has an opportunity with additional health care money from the federal government and a cash surplus to address this need to improve health care on the Burin Peninsula;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to implore the government to install a kidney dialysis machine at the Burin Health Care Centre in response to the demonstrated need.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for this particular piece of equipment on the Burin Peninsula now for months; in fact, for a couple of years, I guess, because if you look back at the need there, and the demonstrated need - and, we are always being told that you have to have a certain number of individuals. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that number has grown.

To give credit to the people on the Burin Peninsula, they are not just asking the government to come up with the machine on their own. They have also raised a considerable amount of money for, in fact, two kidney dialysis units for the Burin Peninsular, to be put at the Regional Health Care Centre in Burin.

Mr. Speaker, this is long overdue. We have people who are in serious, serious, condition down there, very serious health issues. Of course, apart from the fact that they need dialysis, what happens to families when people who require dialysis are forced to leave home, forced to come to St. John's to receive the treatment they need? Sometimes it means that the entire family has to be uprooted, that a spouse, a partner, another family member, has to give up their employment and move with that family member. We have seen this happen on a number of occasions, where wives have had to go with their husbands, or husbands have had to go with their wives, to St. John's and take up residence here, in fact, because of the length of time they would be required to receive this treatment. It is difficult to explain, I guess, to someone who really has not had to go through it, the hardships that are incurred as a result of having to do this.

It is not just the equipment itself, of course, that is needed at the regional hospital in Burin. We also need the human resources down there, in fact, to carry out the treatment that needs to be done; because, to have a piece of equipment and not have the manpower or the person power to make sure that the treatment is given to the individuals affected, that is pointless as well, Mr. Speaker.

What we are asking the government to do is to acknowledge the need, the demonstrated need on the Burin Peninsula, for a kidney dialysis machine. Two would be great; one we will take for the time being, but we really need to have that equipment. We need to have the human resources that go along with that equipment to make sure that people do not have to continue to travel to St. John's to receive this most vital care. We all know how difficult it is. I am sure we have all become aware of people who need this particular treatment.

Again, we are calling upon the government to acknowledge that there is a serious need here. I am not sure of the status of the health care review for the Burin Peninsula that the government undertook. I do know that they have moved forward with a couple of initiatives without that review being completed. I do not know if it has or not; but, if it has, I would hope to think that they have also recognized the need for a dialysis machine on the Burin Peninsula.

As the prayer of the petition says, we call upon the government to do that right way.

Thank you so much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition, and the petition reads:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Bonne Bay;

WHEREAS there has been no permanent doctor over the past few months.

We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to provide a permanent doctor in Bonne Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that I have been working with the residents of Bonne Bay and the area, and have also met with Western Health Care Corporation and members of the Western Health Authority. I would just like to inform you that, following several meetings with the Western Health Care Corporation, I am very pleased to say that we do have a permanent doctor for the residents of Bonne Bay, and I will continue to work with the residents of Bonne Bay to make sure that we provide access to quality health care.

Mr. Speaker, I have grappled with this issue, as the Member for Bay of Islands mentioned, for quite some time now, long before I was a Member of the House of Assembly and since I have been a Member of the House of Assembly. Recruitment and retention of health care providers in rural Newfoundland is a very difficult issue to deal with, and it is one that we deal with all of the time. I am going to deal with it the same now, as a Member of the House of Assembly, as I did with it before I was a Member of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I am working with the Department of Health and Community Services, the Western Health Care Corporation - actually, I have been speaking with the CEO at Western Health Care Corporation and officials at Western Health Care Corporation on several occasions. We are certainly going out now to do a needs assessment to determine how we can improve the recruitment and retention of health care providers in rural Newfoundland. I am sure all Members of the House of Assembly, including the Member for Bay of Islands and other members here, will benefit from such a process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 has been called.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

I thank you for the opportunity to be able to stand for a few moments and say a few words in reference to Motion 2 that was put forward by the hon. Government House Leader.

As we look at that motion, Mr. Speaker, we look through the whereases, and where Mr. Fraser March, the Office of Citizens' Representative, was placed in his position on December 14, back in 2001;

AND WHEREAS the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, has, in accordance with subsection 7(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act been suspended as the Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, when you go to section 7.(1) - I just want to read that for the record - it references suspension when the House of Assembly is not sitting. Section 7.(1) says, "Where the House of Assembly is not in session, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Internal Economy Commission may suspend the Citizens' Representative for incapacity, neglect of duty or misconduct...".

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is where some of my comments will be made today, in that reference. That is what brought us to the point where we are, where we are now speaking to the amendment that was put forward by the Member for Grand Bank. Her motion states that Fraser March be given an opportunity to state his case to the House of Assembly before a vote is taken regarding his removal from the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of days I have read the report that was tabled by Your Honour as Chair of the Commission, of the Internal Economy Commission, presented to this hon. House. I have read the numbers of letters that have been sent to Your Honour by Mr. March over a period of time. I have read the letters in response to his correspondence, and one cannot help but listen, I guess, to the debate that has been carried out in the media over the last number of weeks and months. I have listened intently to our representatives who serve on the IEC. Then, after having read the motion - I have to be honest and up front - I have some concerns, I guess, with what I am reading. Then, as my other hon. colleagues stated from time to time in their remarks, we did meet with the lawyer who was involved, and we listened to his presentation. We questioned and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe each and every one of us - I know how I feel - we have to be totally satisfied before we vote on this motion, but I believe that we are being asked to be the judge and jury in this situation; because, back in December, 2001, forty-seven of us here in this hon. House of Assembly stood and hired this gentleman unanimously.

The part that, I think, is missing when I tried to make up my mind on it, is that I am missing the part where Mr. March is not being given the opportunity to appear before the people who did the hiring. I know he was invited on several occasions to appear before the IEC, and I am only surmising this, but here we are; we had probably six or seven members from the hon. House who would have been there at that time on the IEC, and probably what he is saying to us is: I would like to appear before all the people, rather than just the committee or the commission that would have looked after that.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently the other day to the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands, when he used other scenarios maybe not totally in relation to what we are dealing with here because we are the employer in this case, but I guess it brought a lot of things to our minds of how we should look at different issues. I know for a fact - and I can relate two or three different scenarios - I know it is not totally 100 per cent the same but we have to give everybody the opportunity to be heard and state their case.

I refer to Workers' Compensation, how often each and every one of us in this hon House of Assembly are being asked by our constituents to go and represent them. When they call upon us, they are to the point where they have been told that their benefits are discontinued, or some other scenario, a final decision has been made. But each and every one of them are given the opportunity to go before the chief review commissioner or the assistant commission to have their case heard. Many times cases are overturned; many cases stand, but they are given that opportunity to speak what they have to say.

Take the unemployment insurance rulings, people who are told they are not eligible for benefits. However, they are given the opportunity to appear before the Board of Referees and to state their case. Many times it is overturned; many times it proceeds as it previously was, but they are still given an opportunity to go to the next level, to go to the umpire.

Canada Pension, again, Mr. Speaker. For many people it takes months sometimes, from the time they apply for a disability benefit, and at the end of the day, whether it is for the incorrect medical documentation to be there, whether there was an improper procedure followed and they are told that they do not qualify for disability benefits, but Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, each and every person, if it is their choice, they can appear before the review tribunal to have their case heard.

When I look at the information, Mr. Speaker, that has been placed before us, I think that the opportunity should be given to Mr. March. I want to make it very clear that I find myself in a difficult position and I want to state it for the record that I am not here today defending Mr. March, because I can assure you there are questions there that I would love to be able to ask this gentleman in the proper setting, and neither am I accusing the government or the IEC of doing something wrong because I think they have followed through the procedures that they believe to be the correct procedure to follow, but, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing missing and that is the opportunity for this gentleman to appear before us.

When I look at the report that was tabled to us, and the letter came from the lawyer who was involved, I just want to quote, Mr. Speaker, "While the conduct of the Citizens' Representative with respect to the investigation of the home care sector coincidental with the NAPE organizing drive may not fit squarely within the legislated definitions of conflict of interests...". Mr. Speaker, I guess that is why I am questioning it. If it does not fit squarely into the confines, then it is open for questioning.

It goes on to say, "...it is our opinion that Mr. March's conduct was arguably in conflict with the fundamental interests and expectations of the House of Assembly...". Here we go again, when we look at the word arguably, and I guess that is what makes us, on this side - I cannot speak for everybody on this side but I will speak for myself - that I find myself in a difficult position when it comes to this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to the point - and I do not want to reference other scenarios to tie into play here, but I think everything is open for a second opinion. I think back to when we had that wonderful debate on the FPI issue, and we all came here, each and every person stood in this hon. House and stated their opinions on what they thought of that legislation. I mean the Premier, himself, I am sure he must have known what was there or thought was there because it was brought in by one of his ministers. I am sure it probably went before Cabinet and discussed in their Caucus, but at the end of the day, the Premier himself stood in his place and said: Having considered all the facts that were presented to us, all of the comments that were made by hon. members on both sides of the House, he felt that - he stood in his place and he stated very clearly, I believe that there were loopholes in that legislation and he did not think that he could stand and support it.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is always room when you hear the other side. You may have an opinion made but there is always room for, I guess, misunderstandings or what have you. I just want to say in closing, from my perspective, having seen the motion that is put forward and having looked at the information that is before us, that I will be supporting the amendment put forward by the Member for Grand Bank. I am not saying that I am totally in favour of what Mr. March did or did not do, not saying that I am against the procedures followed by the hon. House to the IEC or the government, but to say that I believe this gentleman should be given the opportunity. At the end of the day, when he appears before us, whether it is in the setting of the House of Assembly or in some other venue - it does not matter - I do not mind standing here and saying, yes, what was done was wrong or what was done is okay, but I believe that we should have everything placed before us, and no disrespect for all the work that has been compiled and placed before us in this hon. House of Assembly.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity and to say that I will be supporting the amendment put forth by the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few comments, a few brief comments, on this particular issue here. I am a member of the Internal Economy Commission. I sit on it, along with Your Honour, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, three members representing government, three members of Cabinet, and two members from the Official Opposition who sit on the Internal Economy Commission. In total, that is seven members.

I will repeat it for the Leader of the Opposition, who probably was not listening at the time, I said His Honour, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, three Members of Cabinet, and two from the Official Opposition. That is seven. Seven members sit on the Internal Economy Commission.

When this issue arose, Mr. Speaker, we discussed this and we wanted to make sure that the Internal Economy Commission was doing the right thing and being fair and giving every opportunity. When the Auditor General released his report, I think it was back in January at the time, there was subsequent follow-up and discussion on this for a lengthy period of time. I will say, unequivocally, that every member of that committee who was there agreed with the process we took by getting independent legal advice and following through on that - every single member. When he asked to have an opportunity to be heard, that committee, unanimously - including the representation from the Liberals on that committee - unanimously agreed to allow him to appear before the IEC, and they unanimously agreed to move this resolution forward to have him temporarily, I guess, suspended from the job until it gets dealt with here. They agreed with that process.

What I find a little hypo critical is that -

MR. REID: Hypocritical, not hypo critical.

MR. SULLIVAN: Hypocritical, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

He should know what it is. He should know what it is, because his party sat in that meeting when I was there and voted to follow this exact process we are going with now, and supported it. Then they come around -

MR. REID: That is not true.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is absolutely true.

MR. REID: That is not true.

MR. SULLIVAN: Unanimous support.

MR. REID: That is not true.

MR. SULLIVAN: Unanimous support in that committee.

The Member for Bellevue supported this process.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) stretch the truth!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bellevue, Mr. Speaker, supported this process, and the very party he represents on that committee comes back with something entirely different than what was put forward.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, you were there. The Deputy Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South, was there. I was there. The Government House Leader was there. The Minister of Justice was there. The Member for Bellevue was there. The Member for Bellevue supported it. Every single step of the way, it was unanimous in each decision.

What I find wrong about this, Mr. Speaker, is that it had unanimous support, and the party that supported it comes to this House now and puts a resolution to take a different action than they agreed on the unanimous recommendation of that committee.

That is what I find appalling. That is what I find very difficult to accept.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue represents our side on the IEC committee. It is my understanding that the member did agree with taking it to Cabinet and looking for a suspension with pay. Nobody, I say, on this side of the floor, said to bring this before the House of Assembly and have Mr. March fired.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is using a point of order to engage in debate. While there might be differences of opinion, there isn't a point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was at that meeting, not the Leader of the Opposition, along with you, Mr. Speaker, along with the Government House Leader, the Member for Bonavista South and the Minister of Justice who were at that meeting. The reason it was sent to Cabinet for recommendations is because the House was not sitting and we could not deal with it in the House. They supported that action, but in the interim they were going to move it to Cabinet. That is what they did.

I attended those meetings. Absolutely, unequivocally, the Member for Bellevue supported the action that is happening here, and in committee, because I heard it with my own ears in the presence of other members of that committee. Now they are doing a full 180 degree turn on an issue. To me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will have my say. The members have their say when they get up. I will tell you what I heard by sitting on the committee, what happened. If anybody has a different version, I have not heard it from the Member for Bonavista South, or the Government House Leader, or the Minister of Justice. The only one who has a different version - I have not even heard the Member for Bellevue get up and say it. Maybe he said it. Maybe he should get up and say it, because he is doing a complete turnaround from what he said in the committee there, attended by staff of this House in that meeting who were also present.

There was no dissenting opinion, no dissenting comment on anything there, because there was no dissenting opinion. I am saying it was unanimous in committee. You can look at what is in the minutes, whether it is said the word unanimous or not. I am telling you, from sitting inside that room in which the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and all of the others attended, he agreed with the action.

I will say, Mr. March asked to appear before the Internal Economy Commission. We agreed to hear him. I believe it was three times there was an opportunity. We all agreed to hear it, and then he did not want to meet. Now, all of a sudden, he wants to appear before the House of Assembly. That is like something happens over in the department, a problem - let's not talk to the department; let's go to the Premier's office with it. If something happens there, we don't want to deal with it; let's go to the Supreme Court. Let's not go through the lower courts; let's go right to the Supreme Court. There is a process.

This House is represented by the Internal Economy Commission, represented by members from that side of the House, and a member supported this action we took every single step of the way, and I know some comments that were made there - I will not say in this House - pertaining to it, because it is not the place to say it, but I know what words came out of the mouths of members who sat there. It is absolutely false, if they say anything different, because I attended just about every meeting leading up to that point. I do not think I missed either one. The minutes will show who was there at each meeting. I know what members said.

To have to stand here in this House and see a resolution presented that is completely opposite from what we were told - if he did not represent his caucus and the Liberals on this issue, if he did not represent them there appropriately, fine, I can accept that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you do not. If he is the member who is appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to represent your interests and did not do it, you have a problem with him not with us on this side of the House. That is what the Member for Bellevue said, and he supported this every single step of the way, never a dissenting vote. In fact, some very strong comments over the last year or two were made. Lots of strong comments were made, but it does not serve anyone well to repeat them in this Assembly here today.

I know, in my mind, I attended those meetings. I know what went on. I know what happened. I heard what was said. To say any different from that side in this House would be absolutely false, because we wanted to have Mr. March an opportunity to come before the Internal Economy Commission to hear what he had to say.

MR. FITZGERALD: We offered to pay his legal fees as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: We offered to pay his legal fees. We scheduled - was it three times, I believe?

MR. E. BYRNE: Three times (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Three times we scheduled it. He did not appear and did not want to come. All of a sudden, he wants to skip the whole process now, walk in on the floor of the House of Assembly - twice in the history of this Province. If the AG wants to come in, on the floor of the House of Assembly, the Chief Electoral Officer wants to come in, the Child and Youth Advocate wants to come in - yes, we will have everybody who wants to come in, on the floor of the House of Assembly. A person might get dismissed in the department and want to come in, on the floor of the House of Assembly - anyone.

MR. REID: That is different and you know it, totally different.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, if they want to go to the Premier's office instead of going through the proper process, that analogy I referred to earlier -

MR. REID: These people are invited to the House of Assembly, not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The AG is an employee of the House, the Chief Electoral Officer is an employee of the House, the Child and Youth Advocate is an employee of the House, and the Commissioner of Members' Interests is an employee of the House. All of these things are very similar, Mr. Speaker.

What is so distasteful about this whole process is that it was endorsed - and I say it again before I finish - every single step of the way in very strong terms by the representative from that side there, who now has the gall to stand up and say he didn't. Well, absolutely! Here is what they are trying to twist, that he agreed with only sending it to Cabinet. That person knew that we could not talk action for the resolution when the House was not sitting. The only avenue to move someone of a position, in the meantime, was to do it by a recommendation to the Cabinet. He knew that it would then have to come back here to this House. That was known the full step of the way, that was absolutely known, absolutely discussed at those meetings there, and that is why we are here today dealing with this.

Need I say anymore on this issue, Mr. Speaker? I won't say anymore on this issue. I was there for the entire process, and I am really disappointed that someone has taken a 180 degree turn. When it gets into the public forum, gets on the floor of this House, they want to take a different side on that argument, when everybody heard it and everybody knows what went on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the Minister of Finance, who has just spoken, as a duly elected member of the House of Assembly, regardless of what my representative says in the IEC or anywhere else, I have a right to express my views, and I am going to do it over the next little while, whether I agree with what is happening in the IEC with my representative or with the Minister of Finance.

Me, personally, the way that I see it, I am not taking issue with John Noseworthy, the Auditor General. I am not taking issue with the lawyer who did the independent study here and gave us some reference to look at. I am not taking exception to the IEC. What I am asking for is to make provision to make the process fair, to make it complete, to make it equitable, and to allow him to make his case before the House of Assembly. If, at the end of the day, people don't accept my views that is perfectly alright. I have a chance to express it and that is what I am going to do.

The thing, again, that I look at here is, in this particular case a person has been accused, is before the judge, the police have given their report, the lawyer has given a report, and the judge says: Okay, I want to hear from the defendant to see what he has to say for himself. In this particular case he says: Where is the defendant? He is not here. He cannot speak for himself, and that is why I think it is wrong. You know, if, at the end of the day, when Mr. March could come before the House - and it is not like everybody in the House is an officer of this House that was appointed. I say to the Minister of Finance, the IEC did not appoint Mr. March and they are not going to fire him. It is the duty of the House of Assembly to do that.

I remember when he was appointed and it came here. The Premier, who was the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader for the NDP approved it, and it was unanimous. So, therefore we are going to get rid of him for, supposedly, some of the thing that he did. I am not questioning that. All I would like is to be able to ask him some questions in the House. If we are going to get rid of him, I think he has the right to appear before the House, this tribunal to ask him some questions. That is what I would seek.

The Government House leader says: You know, if Mr. March wanted to appear before the IEC he could have done it. But why didn't the IEC say to Mr. March: Why don't you appear before the House of Assembly? They have the right to do it. They represent us - so that every member in the House of Assembly, from one part of this Province to the other, can have an opportunity for him to be questioned. If, at the end of the day, the information that is given is such that his contract is to be terminated, then let's do it. But at least give the man an opportunity to respond to the House of Assembly, which is really, in a sense I guess, the Bar here, and let's make informed decisions. As I said earlier, it is not my role here. I am not questioning the IEC and I am not questioning the Auditor General. I make that absolutely clear, but I do not think that the process is complete. Give that man an opportunity to appear before the House.

In a sense, when we look at it here - if the House, as I said earlier, did the hiring, than the House itself should have to do the firing, and I guess that is what is going to happen in this particular situation before the day is out. But, what I am asking is, before that happens then why not have the individual, who is about to be terminated, appear before the House so that there can be questions asked? I guess, in this particular case, his reputation is at stake, his job is at stake. I think that the Members of the House of Assembly who did the hiring should, in fact, hear what he has to say. That is my point all along, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a matter of process and he should be given an opportunity to come before the House and speak.

I think what is important for me is the fact that here - to follow due process. Now - and people can argue. I would think that somebody would get up on the other side of the House and would argue for me or to me to the House, as the Minister of Finance has just done, that due process was followed. Well, a certain amount of it has been followed, but why not go the ultimate? Because at the end of the day, all of us, in a sense, can be vindicated for following the prudent process to its conclusion. I guess for all of us, we will have the level of comfort in knowing that we did everything that we should have done to make sure that the right decision was made. For me, there is nothing more than that. There are no ulterior motives. Like I said, I am not here to prop up Mr. March or to say that what he did was right or wrong. That is not where I am going from. All I am asking is for us to do due diligence, follow through the process, have him appear before the House so that he can be questioned and to, in a sense, I guess, have a chance to defend himself as to the allegations that are in front of him.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to take up more time by repeating some of the other things that people have already said. My particular point is, have the person here, follow the due process so that it can be transparent, so that it can be carried through in its totality and, at the end then, when we have made the decision that ultimately has to be done, we will know in our heart of hearts that we followed through everything that is possible to do.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As some of my colleagues have said in discussing this motion, it is normally a pleasure to rise before this House to debate any matter before the House but given the circumstances and the matter of this motion, it is not particularly a matter, I do not think, that any of us relish discussing. Nonetheless, that is the responsibility that we have been charged with and therefore it is our duty, I think, and I look forward to having a couple of remarks on the motion.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that before the House at this moment there is an amendment. Some of my remarks will address the amendment and some will address the motion in general, and I understand, from having listened to previous speakers, that is kind of the general tenor of this discussion at the moment.

We have been, as members of the House, charged with a very, very difficult decision, Mr. Speaker, because we have, in fact, one Officer of the House who has, namely the Auditor General, adopted a position that the Citizens' Representative has stepped outside his boundaries. On the other hand, another Officer of the House, the Citizens' Representative, has vociferously and vehemently denied what the Auditor General has stated. What were we to do, Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly? We have two divergent opinions by two different members, two different Officers of the House. Naturally, what we have done, I think, is the right course of action in order to keep the process clean. In order to keep it unbiased we have employed independent legal council. We have employed, basically, a referee to give us a third opinion in the matter, having evaluated the remarks of the Auditor General and the remarks of the Citizens' Representative. Anybody who has seen the report given by the independent council will understand that Mr. Harrington has given us a detailed report. He has obviously taken considerable time and gone to considerable detail to analyze what was before him.

In essence, Mr. Speaker, there were three questions that Mr. Harrington, the legal council, addressed. I will briefly give my own comments. I have read through the report, as I am sure all members of the House have done. What it was that swayed my opinion - because, unfortunately, I think the decision here seems to be falling down on political lines, on party lines. I do not want to be seen as one that is following strictly the party line on this. I pride myself sometimes, Mr. Speaker, as being capable of independent thought. So I took the report of the independent council, read through it and made up my own mind.

In the first question that came before Mr. Harrington, he was asked: Did Mr. March, as Citizens' Representative, improperly claim reimbursement for travel expense? In that matter, Mr. Speaker, I focused on three different items in Mr. Harrington's report. Number one was the fact that the Citizens' Representative himself, on page 9 and 10 in the report, indicated that, on his own investigation, he had undertaken or done what he described as a grievous and significant error related to travel in one claim. This is the Citizens' Representative's own statement, Mr. Speaker. In his letter he says: the Citizens' Representative - talking about himself - believes this to be an error of such magnitude as to warrant the attention of the House of Assembly.

These are the remarks, Mr. Speaker, of the Citizens' Representative himself. He further goes on in that section regarding travel claims, Mr. Speaker - there is considerable discussion about travelling back and forth to a residence in Blaketown, and whether or not this was the principal residence of the Citizens' Representative. In that matter, there are any number of examples of this number of kilometres being travelled on a given day and this number of clients having been spoken to by the Citizens' Representative. If you want to sit down and consider all of those different examples, you might say that some of these travel claims were very difficult to substantiate, but it is not impossible in all instances.

However, Mr. Speaker, in this matter I focused on, in pages seven and eight, the comments of again a third party which was the former manager of operations in the Office of the Citizens' Representative. On page seven it is indicated there that the inquiries of the Manager of Office Operations for the Office of the Citizens' Representative from February 1, 2002 to September 2, indicates that she had raised with Mr. March the fact that he had made reimbursement for claims for private vehicle usage from Blaketown to St. John's and return. Upon the advice of his own Manager of Operations he withdrew those claims; however, upon the departure of that same Manger of Operations, the claims had been withdrawn.

Further, it goes on the say, "... it appears that after the departure of the Manager of Operations, Mr. March resumed submission of vehicle usage reimbursement claims in 2003 and for the period April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004..."

That, to me, is again a third party, an independent person, offering, if you will, evidence in this matter and, having advised the Citizens' Representative this cannot be done, but upon departure of that person the Citizens' Representative, having previously withdrawn those travel claims, resubmitted them.

That, to me, is not the evidence of the Auditor General or the evidence of the second party, namely, the Citizens' Representative; this is concrete documented evidence, if you will, from a third party.

The third one in terms of the travel claim question - on Thursday, in the debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allowed for the question: Shouldn't we all be allowed one error in judgement? Some time ago, a professor quoted something that stuck with me over the years in that he said at the time: Any person is capable of the utmost folly at any given moment. Taking that wise advice into account, Mr. Speaker, we allow for the fact that, was there, in fact, an error in judgement?

Again, I refer to the comments of our independent legal counsel in this matter. He has said in his report that he was asked to examine whether or not there was systematic abuse or whether it was, in fact, a one-time occurrence or, as the Leader of the Opposition would have said, an error in judgement. I will quote from Mr. Harrington's remarks. He says, "In all the circumstances, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the findings of the Auditor General and responses of the Citizens' Representative are indicative of a single incident of ‘poor judgement or sloppy bookkeeping'. The findings tend to support a conclusion that serious impropriety occurred." These, Mr. Speaker, are the words of the third party that we have employed for opinion.

In the second question, Mr. Speaker, we have asked Mr. Harrington to examine, "Did Mr. March in his leadership of an ‘investigation' by the Office of the Citizens' Representative into the operations of personal care homes... contravene the Conflict of Interest Act..."?

In that matter, again, I read through diligently, as best I could, and focused on a couple of words from Mr. Harrington, where he states that some eleven months after, in fact, the Citizens' Representative had taken office - this is November 3, 2002 - the Citizens' Representative issued an memorandum from his office, under his signature, that addressed the plans of his office respecting the proposed investigation into the working conditions of home care workers in the Province.

Now, at these meetings, at these investigative meetings that the Citizens' Representative was undertaking, these were not open meetings or public meetings. These were, in fact, meetings where only home care workers were entitled to attend. Representatives of employers were not permitted, so it was obvious what the intentions were - or, it would seem obvious what the intentions of those meetings were.

Further - and, again, I take my advice from the report of our independent counsel - he speaks here, and the hon. Member for Port de Grave referred to this section but I will just go back a sentence before what was referenced by that hon. member. Mr. Harrington has, in fact, said, "...his course of conduct..." - his being the Citizens' Representative - "...his course of conduct would appear to be fundamentally in conflict with the mandate of the Citizens' Representative to be objective, impartial, independent and avoiding any sense of self-interest."

He goes on to say, "...it is our opinion that Mr. March's conduct was arguably in conflict with the fundamental interests and expectations of the House of Assembly as his employer which were articulated in the Legislature with Mr. March present in person on December 13, 2001." So, the Citizens' Representative clearly understood the mandate of his job and according to Mr. Harrington, he clearly violated his mandate, Mr. Speaker.

On the third question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most critical, is if, in fact, Mr. March violated section 4.2 of the Citizens' Representative Act which prohibited him from holding any other office or carrying on trade or business or another profession while engaged as the Citizens' Representative. On that matter, Mr. Speaker, I refer to Page 6 of the independent legal counsel's report to us, and he states, "...that invoices dated as late as January 6, 2003 were submitted to NAPE for "Pre-arbitration work/set-up fees" with no specific date as to when Mr. March actually performed the work." So, Mr. Speaker, this is some eleven months after the Citizens' Representative took his job as Citizens' Representative. After Mr. March assumed that position, eleven months later he was still issuing invoices.

Mr. Harrington goes on to state - and, Mr. Speaker, this is not open to question and I am not sure how listening to Mr. March or listening to anybody else could change the tenor of this statement. This is our legal council, says: "The incontrovertible fact is that Mr. March was still billing NAPE for professional services more than 11 months after the commencement date of his appointment which is wholly inconsistent with his own indication to the interview committee that he ought to have been able to disengage himself from other work activities within a couple of months after being offered the position in mid-December, 2001." So, there was some discussion, Mr. Speaker, that he needed a couple of months to clear up some overlapping activities. Mr. Speaker, in any man's language, whether they be on that side of the House or on this side of the House, eleven months is more than a couple.

The independent legal council goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the precedent of a decision made in a previous case would support a conclusion that Mr. March's work for NAPE as described in the Auditor General's Report would constitute just cause for dismissal. Mr. Speaker, that is fairly clear.

So, those are the three points that the independent council was asked to examine, Mr. Speaker, and I think from any man's judgement, putting party alliance aside, I do not think that there is any other way that we could come down in making our own decision on this. I have done my own analysis and I do not see any other possible conclusion that you could come to. What puzzles me in this is why there would be a demand right now or a request through this amendment to have the Citizens' Representative appear before this hon. House. What is to be gained by listening to Mr. March once again? We are in fact the employer and any employer has the opportunity to discuss with and to listen to the opinions of any employee who is being considered for dismissal. However, Mr. Speaker, in this case, the Citizens' Representative - and we all agree in the House - was given the opportunity to appear before the IEC.

Why haven't those who are saying that Mr. March should be listened to - why didn't they invite Mr. March, if they were in doubt about some of the aspects that Mr. Harrington brought forward in his report, why didn't they phone Mr. March or have him come to a committee meeting or a caucus meeting and say: Mr. March, I am a little puzzled about what Mr. Harrington says right here, that your own manager of operations advised you not to do this and then when she was gone, you, in fact, resumed that behaviour? I am a bit puzzled by that Mr. March. Why wouldn't those people have called him on the phone and said: Can you explain that to me? He was given the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come before the IEC. He was given that opportunity in the Speaker's letter of April 14 and he was offered a date even of April 20 and he did not avail of that opportunity.

If the Citizens' Representative - let's assume that he was to come before this House. We have here a gentleman who obviously has a vested interest in protecting his own job. We already have his opinion. As one officer of the House, we have the opinion of the Auditor General. Obviously and logically, what we have to do then is go to the third party and put our weight in the advice of a third party. So, in this case we have legal counsel in Mr. Harrington. We have the manager of operations who has passed an opinion and, Mr. Speaker, furthermore there were letters written by employers and employees, not verbal opinions, but letters written by employers and employees who stated that they were concerned that Mr. March was going about organizing on behalf of home-care workers. These, Mr. Speaker, have been documented by our independent legal counsel.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasis enough the importance that both these offices, the office of the Auditor General and the office of the Citizens' Representative, the integrity of those offices be maintained. Both of those offices are charged with representing people. The Auditor General, in terms of auditing all operations of government and, of course, the Citizens' Representative in terms of representing individual people through the Province who come to him with complaints. The integrity of both those offices, Mr. Speaker, must be maintained, so we here in the House of Assembly, if we are to say that: I'm sorry, Auditor General, we do not place any credence in what you have reported to us, then, by inference, what we are doing - if we are to place our credence in the arguments and the protestations of the Citizens' Representative, we are inferring that the Auditor General, his reports do not deserve any credence from us, Mr. Speaker.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think the process has been clear. The process has been open. The process has been independent. I have referred to the three third-party opinions that I am basing my decision on, Mr. Speaker. Even though this is a distasteful task, I do not see how we, as members of the House - if we are putting aside our party lines - can come to any other decision, other than the fact that this motion must be passed. If we are to maintain the integrity of the office of the Auditor General, if we are to maintain the office of the Citizens' Representative, or maintain the integrity of both of those, I think that the rights of the people, above and beyond all, must be protected and therefore, we must pass this motion, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on the amendment to the motion that is before the House today. There is a lot that has been said over the past couple of days, Mr. Speaker, and I will try not to rehash all of what other people have said, but I do want to be on the record as having the opportunity to voice my concerns over how this whole process took place.

Mr. Speaker, most of my life has been spent representing employees who have been accused of doing various things, some which they were terminated from employment for, others which they were suspended for, others which were written warnings, depending on the gravity and seriousness that the situation called for. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what the form of discipline was meted out, the person always had an opportunity to appear before a group of people, the employer or some other independent person who would judge what the appropriate discipline, if any, would be issued and what the level would be.

One of the things that concerns me here is the fact that Mr. March is accused of breaking the law. Mr. Speaker, if we go back to when Mr. March was hired, he was hired by the members who sit here in the House of Assembly. Any change in that, Mr. Speaker, if his employment is to be terminated, it should be done by the same group of people, members of the House of Assembly who hired him. That puts us in a very difficult position, Mr. Speaker, because we are asked to take part in that process without really having the opportunity to have Mr. March appear before us and to be able to question him.

Mr. Speaker, the IEC is not the avenue that should be pursued to rectify a problem of this nature. There is nowhere in their mandate where they are responsible for that. What this reminds me of is that somebody is accused of doing something in society, the police conduct an investigation, they take what they find in their investigation and give it to the Crown Prosecutor, the Crown Prosecutor writes up a nice summary of everything he has been given by the police during their investigation, and takes that summary and goes to the court in front of a judge, asking that that person be condemned without that person having the right to appear before the judge and without any legal counsel of their own. I cannot support a situation, Mr. Speaker, that conducts its business along that line. I believe that everybody, no matter who they are, no matter what type of job they have, if that job is threatened or taken away they should have an unconditional right to appear before the people who are making that decision and put their case forward and be questioned and cross examined by the people who are ultimately going to make a decision. That hasn't happened in this case, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I believe the system to be flawed.

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that have been talked about in this report - I know one of the things that is questioned is the number of kilometers sometimes that the Citizens' Representative drove, 1,000 kilometers a day or more. Some people may find that to be practically impossible or highly excessive, but I can tell you that is not. For anyone who has been involved in the type of work I did before coming to the House of Assembly or the type of work that the current Minister of Transportation and Works did, that is not excessive and it is not unrealistic.

I recall one trip where I travelled 1,250 kilometres in one day for a meeting, on a gravel road the entire distance. It was tiring, yes. Should I have done it? Maybe not, but I did, and I am sure that other people whose jobs are very demanding and require great distances of travel find themselves in that position where they have to do that on many, many occasions. The average kilometres driven, by the way, by the Citizens' Representative, from the report, shows that it is an average of 401 kilometres, which is not excessive, by any stretch of the imagination, given the nature of his job.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be able to look at the evidence that is being used to do away with the Citizens' Representative from that current position. To do that, as I said, we need to speak with the Citizens' Representative in order to make that happen.

The former speaker concentrated a lot of his speech on the opinion that was given by independent legal counsel that government had hired to do an opinion for them, and that was just that, Mr. Speaker, an opinion. Even that, there is nowhere to be found in the opinion that was given to government by a legal counsel that they hired and retained to do that - there is absolutely nowhere to be found in that report - any recommendation as to what procedure should be followed to deal with this matter. Nor was any asked for, Mr. Speaker, but they did not make a recommendation on what procedure to follow. This amendment that is put forward is an avenue that I believe makes the most sense, has the most elements of being above board, to deal with an issue of this nature.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote comes on this amendment I have no choice but to support it; because, to do otherwise would be taking justice into our own hands without giving the person who is accused of wrongdoing any opportunity to put forward any reasons they may have had, to clear up any misconceptions, any of the things they may want to put across to the people who ultimately employ them and are now considering getting rid of them. They should have that opportunity, to appear before the House of Assembly and to be questioned and cross-examined as need be on any activities that have taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks on that, but I want to take the opportunity to say that, when the vote comes before the House, I will be voting in favour of the amendment to the resolution because I believe that it is the fairest way of dealing with this issue, and it will be seen by the public of this Province as being done above board without any hidden agendas.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak in favour of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank.

One of the basic principles of our society is the right to a fair hearing. As I have looked at all of this, I have read the report that was presented to me and the report itself does not bring any conclusions. There are no conclusions in the report. There are assumptions being made, there is legal counsel hired - I think it was a Mr. Harrington - and he offered his legal opinion. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have defence attorneys and we have prosecuting attorneys, because it is based upon opinion.

I would say that in many instances in this country you could go to five or six different lawyers and come back with five or six different opinions. That is what makes the legal system what it is, the opportunity to argue and create a defence for yourself, or a defence for your client. That is just what we are doing here today.

We, as members of this hon. House, are in a difficult role. We are being asked to stand, speak, and come to a conclusion about an officer of this hon. House. In other words, we are being appointed judge, jury and, as is happening today, executioner. I find that very, very unfair. I find that it flies in the face of everything that I believe in, that the aggrieved person has not had an opportunity to come forward and present his case.

I strongly believe that if we are going to believe in democracy - and it was only last week that the Minister of Justice got up and gave a Ministerial Statement, which I had the pleasure of responding to, and talked about the Great War, talked about democracy, and especially mentioned the Year of the Veteran and the honour which we bestow upon them for giving us the right to a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, I know full well, too, that we sit here on this side of the House and that our numbers are such that we will have some difficulty in getting this resolution passed, this amendment passed, but I want to go back to when Mr. March was hired. I am not sure how many were present that day, but all members present stood in unanimous support of Mr. March's appointment as the Citizens' Representative.

I have known Mr. March, and known of him, for most of my work life. I started with the community college system back in 1974, and eventually Mr. March became president of the union that represented me, the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. I watched Mr. March in his struggles for democracy himself. I saw him carted off to jail back in the 1970s. He was taken and put in jail for protecting and defending the rights of the people who were members of this union. So, Mr. Speaker, I figure a person like Mr. March should have at least the opportunity of coming here, either before that Bar and speaking and answering any questions that we may have, or at least come to some other venue that this House may see reasonable in its conclusion to come to.

You know, when Mr. March was hired, he was hired to a new position. He was given a mandate to protect and represent the citizens of this Province. I wonder, was Mr. March ever taken and sat down with, and the guidelines of his position discussed with him? Was there ever any due diligence used in Mr. March's position? Was there ever any scrutiny on his activities?

What accountability was in place for Mr. March? Did Mr. March ever report to the officers of this House or to the members of this House for an update? Was he ever challenged on what he was doing? Was he ever challenged about any problems that he might have been encountering, or any perceived activity that has come out now in this report? If Mr. March was doing anything on a regular basis, was he ever confronted? If he was doing something wrong, or perceived wrong, was he ever confronted and held accountable for it?

I feel, in keeping with the intent and the spirit of what this House represents, Mr. March should have the opportunity to come in here and explain his actions, or any motives that he had.

Mr. Speaker, we are all human. All forty-eight of us here in this House who were elected by the people, we are all human. Was there some misunderstanding that Mr. March did not really come to grips with, or was there some misunderstanding that this House did not come to grips with, with Mr. March? Just to be able, for us, to sit here in judgement today and say no, Mr. March, you are guilty as charged, without hearing his side, I think, brings a black mark upon what we are all here about.

Mr. March is a citizen of this Province with a very proud background. He has been a union leader in this Province. He has been somebody who has been a champion for people who were not even union members. I refer to some home care workers that he was involved with, trying to organize them. He has been a champion to other people in this Province, people he solved their cases for and helped them through, because there have been points that even the MHAs here in this House could not come to a conclusion with, that Mr. March took and worked on to try to help the ordinary citizen of this Province.

I think Mr. March himself, being an ordinary citizen, as well as an officer of this House, should have the opportunity to defend himself. If there are some misgivings, or if there are some contradictions or errors in this report - because we are all capable of making errors. It was only last week that the Speaker stood in this House and admitted that he had made an error in judgement. Why can't we, as members of this hon. House, sit down and listen to Mr. March, ask him any questions and get some answers of any concerns that we may have, if he has erred in judgement?

As far as I know, it is not going to cost anything. To say that it never happened before, or it only happened twice before, well, what is wrong with saying in two years' time that it only happened three times before? If we never brought somebody in here in the 1960s for it to happen the first time - I think we have to be open-minded about this whole process. Just to bury our head in the sand here, and take a report - a report, by the way, that was authored by another officer of this House.

What we have here, in effect, is a disagreement, really, between two officers of this House. We have the opinion of the Auditor General and we have the actions, or the purported actions, of the Citizens' Representative. So, where is the real answer? How do we come to a decision regarding who do we believe, when the only person we have heard from is the Auditor General and the legal counsel that was hired by the IEC? Where does Mr. March get his opportunity to have his day in court? Where does that happen?

I made a point there a little while ago about Mr. March, and who he answered to, but there are a couple of compelling questions that have to be asked. Was his quality of work ever questioned? Because, we are his boss and I do not recall ever questioning Mr. March about anything that he was doing, or the quality of what he was doing. There was never anything brought to our attention until - I think I heard it on the radio or saw it in the newspaper. I am not sure which media form I heard it in first. Is there a record on his file challenging him for any work or activity that did not pertain to his job? Was he ever spoken to about this performance as the Citizens' Representative? To me, that report does not show it. It has not told any of it. Was he ever told by the IEC to eliminate any activity that he may be engaged in? Was he ever told? If he was, was he given it in writing?

The court system, and any system, I guess, when people are being judged, usually involves two sides. It is the defence and the prosecution. All we have heard from, and the only legal opinion that we have seen, is from the side of the prosecution. We have not heard any legal opinion from the defence. All judgements in this country usually involve two sides. We, being here today, as I said earlier, the judge, the jury and, unfortunately, I guess, the executioner, I think we deserve - and, more especially because of our numbers. There are only thirteen of us here on this side of the House - eleven Liberals and two NDP - and it is more especially that we should have the right to hear Mr. March, or at least Mr. March's counsel.

When it is all said and done, I think it would be incumbent more on the government than even on us to hear that other side; because, in reality, when the vote is done today, it will either be the government firing Mr. March or keeping him on, because there are only thirteen of us here versus thirty-four on the other side.

As I said earlier, the report that I read did not offer any conclusions. The Auditor General and the IEC looked at that report and sought legal counsel for their interpretation, but the great part of the judicial system is the fact that legal opinions usually are as varied as jellybeans. It depends on who reads something a certain way, and how they want to frame up their opinion; in other words, who is hiring them The person who is hiring them gets, usually, what they pay for.

I listened to the Minister of Finance a little while ago, and he gave the analogy of an employee being fired and wanting to come here into this House. Mr. March is more than an employee. He is an officer of this House. We are not talking about somebody who is working in a department. Then he went on to say, after awhile - he was criticized for it - well, the employee would want to go up and see the Premier.

That does not happen either. Mr. March is an Officer of this House, and I think as any officer of this House, he is entitled to his day and his side of the story to be brought out and given to everybody. To arbitrarily, today, not give Mr. March that chance, I think is a gross injustice to him and to the position. The most critical part of it all is the position that he occupied, because what other officer of this House would feel safe if they, too, could be treated the same way, if somebody out there made an allegation about them and they were never given the opportunity to defend themselves? So, the fact that we have only done that twice before does not hold any water for me. If we have done it before, we can do it again. These are extenuating circumstances. We are talking about somebody with a good reputation, a champion of the worker of this Province and a champion of a lot of people in this Province. Obviously, he was selected because of that to become the Citizens' Representative. Now we have taken that champion and not given him the opportunity to reply and letting him stand guilty as charged. I think that is why he should be given that opportunity to stand before that Bar and appear in this House and give his case.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise for a few minutes and speak to the amendment being proposed by my hon. colleague for Grand Bank and to make some comments in terms of the whole situation in regards to Mr. March.

First off, I want to say that I have known Mr. March for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, he worked with me for many, many years and I found him to be a very dedicated individual in terms of everything that he has done. As a member of the Internal Economy Commission, and I have been in that role for the last couple of years, not once did we receive a complaint about his performance in terms of his dealing with individuals, in terms when he pursued their cases. There was, I think, one complaint that came in from the employers' association about him being involved in some outside activities. They considered that to be inappropriate for the Citizens' Representative to be engaged in other activities outside of his regular job. To me, the only report that I received or got that was in any way criticizing the Citizens' Representative was the employers group that was out. I guess that was more of a battle between union employers in terms of the home care workers.

The Internal Economy Commission is a committee of the House of Assembly. It is set up to be an administrative function and make rules and regulations and administrative details as it applies to mostly members' benefits and other areas of concern. There are certain individuals or certain employees who are directly employees of the House of Assembly. The Internal Economy Commission administers the administrative functions, not the policy functions, but the administrative functions for the Auditor General's Report and the Child Advocate, and all the other agencies or people that report to the House of Assembly. The Internal Economy Commission is sort of a committee that relates and goes over the budgets and the administrative details.

We are all aware in our democracy that a Legislature is an autonomist body. It is an autonomist body. This Legislature reports to nobody, other than to the people of the Province. We are not government, we are a Legislature. There is a distinction between government and the Legislature. There is a legislative role and there is a government role, which is called the Executive role. In our democracy there are three levels. Executive, which means the Cabinet, which means the government, and we have the Legislature where we come here and we pass legislation that applies to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador; pass acts and pass laws that apply but that normally is initiated by the government of the day. All the legislation that is approved in this House is initiated by Cabinet and it comes to the Cabinet and through the Government House Leader tabled in the House and we debate it and at the end of the day, we either approve or disapprove it. Normally, at the end of the day, it is approved because the government normally has the majority of the people in the House of Assembly. That is the executive role. Of course, the other role that I am not too familiar with is in terms of the judicial, which is separate from government, separate from the House of Assembly. In our democracy there are three levels, executive, legislative and judicial.

There was an Auditor General's report that came out which indicated that Mr. March was, in the opinion - now, we have to be clear here, in the opinion of the Auditor General, not fact. There is a difference between opinion and fact. In the opinion of the Auditor General Mr. March had contravened certain travel regulations, that he had, in some respects, broken the law as it applies to travel.

I have seen speaker after speaker stand in this House and talk about travelling. In the last two or three days attending various functions in my district - I keep referring to it as: I just did another Fraser March trip. If you are involved with the general public, if you are out there serving the people and you represent Newfoundland and Labrador - I worked as an Assistant Director of Adult Education in this Province, and my record will show that you had to travel the whole Province. I tell you, if you have to travel the whole Province you have a lot of work to do and you are responsible for every community in this Province. I remember, when I was Assistant Director of Adult Education leaving Buchans at ten o'clock at night and driving back to St. John's, because I had a meeting here the next morning or the next afternoon.

When we did an analysis of all this, in terms of the travel and the questioning of the Auditor General and questioning of the legal counsel on it, Mr. March was not suspended for his travel. Let the record be clear, that Mr. March, despite what the media is saying and everybody else is saying in the Province, was not suspended with pay because of his travel. At no time was there a decision of IEC that he be suspended for his travel regulations; never. The question was put to the legal counsel, Mr. Speaker, and you were there, I put the question to the legal counsel, Mr. Harrington: Is there justification in those travel regulations to get rid of or fire or suspend Mr. March. Mr. Harrington said: Mr. Barrett, no, we cannot suspend or fire Mr. March based on abuses of the travel regulations. We may get him for an error of judgement, but there is no way that any court of law would hold up that we could suspend or fire Mr. March because of the travel regulations.

That was very, very clear. As a matter of fact, the Government House Leader, I guess, and I were very, very clear. As a matter of fact, the Government House Leader, in his words, said: I want to be on the record, too, as indicating that we cannot suspend Mr. March for travel regulations, and what he did in terms of travel.

Right now, out here in the general public, I think that is being very, very unfair.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for St. John's North said, sure, just now.

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, the Member for St. John's North was up. I have listened to every member speak in this debate. We need to be clear on this, because we cannot go out damaging a person's reputation based on hearsay. At no time was it determined that we could suspend him because of the travel regulations.

As a matter of fact - and, I am not a lawyer. I do not attest to be a lawyer, and I cannot interpret a lot of the things that are said in terms of the legal agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am sure you don't want to be.

MR. BARRETT: Neither do I want to be - an interpretation of it.

I guess what the IEC was trying to do was to follow the advice that was provided to the IEC by a legal counsel that was hired by the IEC. If I go out tomorrow and hire a lawyer to represent me, he is going to present my case in the best possible way.

Our decisions and guidance were being led by Michael Harrington, who was hired by the IEC to provide legal counsel. In the questioning, he said the travelling claims would not hold up in court.

The other one - and I do not know - after listening to the speeches in this House of Assembly, I think we may be in a grey area in terms of conflict of interest. I have listened intently to this debate, listened to what the people had to say, and what the members had to say. I tell you, I have a problem right now. I have a problem with what is happening right here in this House of Assembly. There is some doubt.

I guess I can sort of relate to how the Premier felt about the FPI legislation, because I have listened to all the arguments in IEC. I have listened to the legal counsel. I have listened to all those arguments saying that we should suspend Mr. March. Right now, I am in a bit of a dilemma because I do not know if the case has been well heard. In the amendment right here - and I am not too sure that the House of Assembly, I do not necessarily agree that the House of Assembly, in terms of coming in here and presenting the case to the House of Assembly. It has happened in the past, and I guess it could work, but I think there should be a lot more debate and a lot more consideration of this particular area.

I think there should be a committee set up of this House of Assembly with equal numbers from each side, with an independent chair. I think Mr. March indicated that he wanted to speak to the House of Assembly; that, at no time, did he want to speak to IEC. We did extend invitations to him. That is on the record, and that is right. We said that we would like to meet with you, Mr. March, and we would like for you to present your case, but he decided that the House of Assembly had hired him so therefore the House of Assembly should be the area, that he should be represented here. I am not too sure that appearing before the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the IEC, are you?

MR. BARRETT: Will the Minister of Finance please be quiet? I am relating -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance to withdraw what he just said. He said I am not telling the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) not what you said in the IEC.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking all members on both sides to bear with us. We have a very serious debate that we are seized with.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bellevue. He certainly appreciates the comments he is making, and his right to do so.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance just got up and - our rules are very, very clear on this, Mr. Speaker; this is a serious issue - he just said that the Member for Bellevue is not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the way I was brought up, if you are not telling the truth, you must be telling a lie. I am not telling a lie, and I ask the Minister of Finance to get on his feet and do the honourable thing and retract his statement.

Hansard, Beauchesne and everything else is very, very clear on this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker heard the Minister of Finance say words that would be - I cannot say the exact words, but certainly there was a comment made by the Minister of Finance that was inappropriate in a parliamentary sense. I ask him to stand now and withdraw it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will withdraw it. I attended the IEC when he said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister has been asked by the Chair to withdraw it. He does so unequivocally, without explanation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise on a point of order, that the Member for Bellevue made a statement in this House and I indicated that it was not the statement he made in the IEC meeting that brought this issue to the House. I think that is fair game. I would ask him to stand up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled on many occasions that you cannot use a point of order to engage in a debate. Therefore, there is no point of order in this particular matter. Points of order deal with parliamentary procedures, not with whether one member on one side can use a point of order to reinsert himself or herself into a debate which is ensuing.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bellevue.

There is no point of order, as raised by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I have related so far in this debate is what I consider to be the events that happened in the IEC, and it is very, very clear. I find it very disturbing that the Minister of Finance would get on with such foolishness and, as a matter of fact, question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I want to get back to the points. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, if we want to pursue this further, I can pursue it further with the Minister of Finance.

What I was relating was that the legal counsel indicated that the Citizens' Representative could not be suspended for travel claims, but there was some doubt in terms of the conflict of interest. I guess I heard from some of the members on this side of the House that everybody in the Province was aware that Mr. March - I think the employers' group had one time gone public with the information and probably we were very neglectful in that we did not call Mr. March in earlier. If the IEC has such control, why didn't we call him in and say to him: Look, you are not permitted to do this, you are contravening the act or you are doing something that is not proper? Probably the IEC did fall down on the job. We probably should have called him in and said: You are not allowed to do that. We did not, and that raises a lot of doubt, which takes me to the next stage.

I think that there has to be another avenue for Mr. March. I do not feel comfortable voting in this House today to take this job away from Fraser March. I want to be on the record, that in IEC never once did I vote to fire Mr. March. I never voted to fire Mr. March. As a matter of fact, in IEC was the idea, based on the evidence that we are presented, that we suspend Mr. March. I remember quite distinctively saying: I do not think we can suspend him without pay. The legal counsel was called into the room and Mr. Harrington agreed with me. He said: I do not think we can suspend him -

MR. E. BYRNE: And others.

MR. BARRETT: And others. I have to give the hon. Government House Leader - him and I were on the same wavelength in a lot of this discussion. He agreed with me. The hon. House Leader is an honourable man, and he agreed with me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes. He agreed with me, that we could not suspend Mr. March without pay, and my assumption I guess, that there would be more dialogue with Mr. March and that there would be more details revealed. Eventually, what would happen to Mr. March, he would come back to the House of Assembly because we are the ones who hired him. The IEC did not hire him. Cabinet did not hire him. The House of Assembly was the one that hired Mr. March. The House of Assembly is the avenue that has to be used if you are going to fire him. I guess everybody in this House of Assembly, either this week or next week, will stand in this House and either vote for or vote against the firing of Mr. March.

All I ever did in the IEC was that we voted to suspend Mr. March until there was more information or until there was an opportunity - that the Cabinet and the House of Assembly could get an opportunity to see if there was any more evidence because we knew that the House of Assembly was not opening until November and I guess there was no more dialogue with Mr. March after we suspended him.

So, I agree that we should have another avenue, another approach to handling this particular problem, and I do not think we should follow it on party lines. I think every Member of this House of Assembly should get up and vote based on their conscience. Today, on this issue in regard to Mr. March, I have to vote based on my conscience, even though all this information was presented.

I know that the Premier must have felt the same thing with the FPI issue. The Cabinet had approved it, and it was unanimous by Cabinet. He sat in the Cabinet, and we all know that in Cabinet you cannot bring a paper to this House of Assembly or legislation unless there is complete consensus of the Cabinet. That is the rule of law within our society. He came here and he said he listened to - I have listened to every member who has gotten up to speak because I wanted to hear what people had to say. Once I heard the speeches - the hon. Leader of the NDP is a lawyer, and I listened intently to his speech and the comments he had to make.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: To the hon. the Minister of Finance, you do not have to sit in your seat to listen to speeches in this House of Assembly anymore. We have television and we have speakers in our offices, as a matter of fact, that we can listen to the proceedings of the House of Assembly. I have listened to every speech in this House of Assembly on this particular issue because I consider it to be a very, very serious issue and I wanted to hear what the people and the Members of this House of Assembly had to say. I am, right now, in the same dilemma, I guess, that the Premier was on the FPI issue. I cannot vote in this House of Assembly to fire Fraser March because I only had voted recently in IEC to just suspend him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House now ready for the question?

The amendment is as follows: All the words after the word that be substituted for the following: Fraser March be given an opportunity to state his case to the House of Assembly before a vote is taken regarding his removal from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

Voting on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment please say, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the amendment is lost.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Rideout; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Jim Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. French; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Ridgley; Ms Goudie; Mr. Skinner; Mr. Oram; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Forsey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair notes that the Opposition House Leader did not vote. Under our Standing Orders, there is a requirement that he is required to vote; however, the Chair understands that, a few days ago, the hon. the member declared himself to be in a conflict of interest. I ask the House's direction in this particular matter at this time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Standing Orders are clear, obviously. I am not going to try to make an issue of this, Mr. Speaker. Everyone understands that the Opposition House Leader has recused himself because he was mentioned in a piece of correspondence. I can only advise him that, if there is another division on a vote or another amendment, it would probably be in your best interest not to be in the House, basically.

I have no difficulty with accepting it on the face of it right now. You have pointed out what the Standing Orders are. For all members, I guess, in the future, not just the Opposition House Leader, if any member finds himself, on any situation, in a conflict, and they believe there could be a division, they would be best served by just not being in the House when the vote is taking place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all understand the Standing Orders require a person who is in their seat to vote, but we have had experiences in the past where members who have recused themselves have been in the Speaker's gallery. I remember a former Government House Leader watching a debate from the Speaker's gallery at one particular occasion, so I guess the normal way to recuse yourself is not to be present in the House for a vote, but the member was here. I do not think, notwithstanding our Orders, that we can force him to vote one way or the other when he has already recused himself and believes he is in a conflict of interest.

Given the current circumstances, I do not think we should take any action to attempt to enforce the Standing Orders in this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is obliged, of course, to bring these matters to the attention of the Assembly. The Chair is satisfied with the explanations. The Chair would recognize the will of the House in this particular matter.

Proceed with the count.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, eleven ayes and twenty-four nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules the vote on the amendment has been lost.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: We shall return now, then, I do believe, to the main motion. The main motion, we have had one speaker. The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, speaking on the main motion.

Are we ready for the question on the main motion?

All those in favour of the main motion?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I think there are some speakers to the main motion, Mr. Speaker, so I ask that you not call the vote.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did ask if there were speakers; however, in fairness to all members on this matter, I would rule that maybe members did not fully understand what I had called. Therefore, the Chair would revert to the main motion debate and recognize the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the motion that has been presented on the floor of the House of Assembly as it relates to the employment of Fraser March as the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, I guess over the last number of days in the Legislature most members have taken the opportunity to express their perspective on this particular issue, and where it is going. I think there have been a number of concerns raised by the Official Opposition and by the NDP Party for people to realize that there is really not enough evidence here, or certainly not enough participation by Mr. March himself, in terms of making a decision with regard to his dismissal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. March, I guess, was appointed as the Citizens' Representative in this Province with the support of all the members of the Legislature at that particular time. He was hired by the House of Assembly. He was instructed as an officer of the House as to his responsibilities and was expected to carry out those particular responsibilities in light of the agreement. Mr. Speaker, I think he took his work very seriously. I think, over the course of time that he was there, there were a lot of investigations and there were a lot of matters that were raised with him as the Citizens' Representative, that were indeed looked into, investigated and evaluated.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we find ourselves in a situation today where the Internal Economy Commission found that, in the case of Mr. March, there were reasons to terminate his employment. I guess where we sit, as legislators, or at least the Official Opposition, we felt that Mr. March should have had the opportunity to come before our Legislature, the people who hired him, the people who put him in this office in the first place, to hear his side of the story and to hear his perspective on this, and give him the opportunity to explain some of the recommendations that were put forward in the Auditor General's report when the Auditor General chose to investigate this particular matter, to allow him to have that opportunity to explain and clarify some of the information that had been presented not only by Mr. Harrington but also by the Auditor General in carrying out his responsibilities in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was just put forward and voted on by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, we felt, was a very fair amendment in terms of being able to deal with this particular issue. We felt that it was fair in terms of hearing both sides of this particular case, and hearing an opportunity to have some explanation and details attached to the issues that had been raised in both the report by Mr. Harrington and by the Auditor General.

Unfortunately, as you just witnessed, that particular motion did not pass here in the Legislature today. Without this amendment we honestly feel, as an Opposition, that we have not given fair, adequate and reasonable, I guess, opportunity to Mr. March to come in here and to provide us with his side of the story and his information, and that is unfortunate. That is unfortunate, because I think that should not have happened.

Honourable members have said here this afternoon that, as individuals, we probably should have met with Mr. March, or as a caucus we should have met with Mr. March, but we did not hire Mr. March. He was hired by all members of this Legislature. He was hired as an officer of the House. In fact, the Clerk of our Assembly was on the hiring committee that appointed and hired Mr. March. That was the detail to which our House of Assembly and our Legislature had been involved in that, and we should have had the same involvement as was requested in an amendment by the Member for Grand Bank in terms of deciding whether he should be dismissed or whether he should not be.

Mr. Speaker, what I found interesting about all of this debate were some of the personal experiences that have been presented here. My colleague, the other day, from the Bay of Islands, I think, gave the perfect example of how sometimes a person can be misled and can be wrongly accused with not having the opportunity to present their case. I think my colleague from the Bay of Islands, just a few days ago, outlined his own personal experiences with that when he himself, as an individual, was forced into the courts to defend himself. When he did do that, it was found out that he indeed was not responsible and was wrongly accused for a number of the actions that had been placed against him in that particular court at that time. So, that was his experience with dealing with the system. I think it outlined to all of us how important it is to hear both sides of every story and to be able to understand and to give an individual an opportunity to clarify their own perspective, provide their own facts and their own information towards any case, any situation. It is unfortunate that that will not happen in this particular case as it relates to Fraser March.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is because of that, that a lot of us are very hesitant about where this is going and certainly feel that we should not be firing this individual without at least giving him that particular opportunity. As I said, the arguments are there, that because there was an independent investigation - well, the Auditor General is an independent body of this House as well, and even the Auditor General did not make recommendations that were evident. He made recommendations that caused one to investigate further, to look into the matter and to see if it was indeed the factual information or not. A couple of those things were outlined already in our debate. One was around the tendering within the office and how that particular tendering contract worked in the Citizens' Representative. There were a couple of other issues as well, which was already raised here in debate over the last couple of days.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that the fairest and the most justified way to have handled this entire matter was to allow Mr. Fraser March the opportunity to come forward to the people who hired him, the Legislature of this Province, to all of us as members and to have an opportunity to provide his case. It is unfortunate that has not happened. It is because of that, that we, as an Opposition, feel that we have not been fair in judging this particular case and we feel that it would not be justified in our actions to just go out and fire him based on recommendations from third party independent people who have taken an opportunity to investigate this.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a number of people who will want to speak to this motion before it is voted upon. I am sure that there are a number of people who will feel, as I do, that you have to hear all sides of this. We really have not seen the evidence that we were looking for in terms of proving that there was a need for him to be dismissed at this time. I think everybody needs to have their say and needs to be heard. This is a case where this individual certainly has not been, in the way and the extent that they have chosen to and asked to be heard. That, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunate.

I am going to conclude there and allow some other people to make some comments with regard to this motion. I am sure that there will be a number of people who will want to speak to it before it is voted on here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to the main motion?

The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I have been only elected for about two years and every time I get up to speak I got up with great pride in this House, but today I do not get up with great pride. I get up on an area that is very difficult for this House. In the meantime, I see something that has transpired over a period of time, that a process has been followed, to me, to the letter of the legislation, the letter to what rules this House.

You have the Auditor General, who is an independent officer of this House of Assembly, who rendered an opinion and looked at facts, documented facts, Mr. Speaker, not verbal facts as has been suggested by the amendment to the motion to have Mr. March come into this House and express himself in front of the House in a public forum. That was provided to him on three occasions by the Internal Economy Commission. That is the proper process, Mr. Speaker. That is what they are there for. It is made up of Members of this House of Assembly. You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, sit on that in a very respectable position and a very respectable commission. It governs various things in this House of Assembly that should be governed. They have to rely on the facts as they are presented by the various people who are asked to provide it.

In this case, the commission went one step further in regards to what was presented by the Auditor General. They went one step further in regards to hiring some independent counsel and legal advice as to what was found in documentation over a number of months that was looked at on the Citizens' Representative. That reputable lawyer from the Province, a very respected lawyer, came back with an opinion and yes, absolutely, everything is based on opinions but opinions are based on facts. That is the way it is, Mr. Speaker. This is not a court of law but if you are going to look at it as a court of law that is exactly what you will have to do. You will have to render your opinion on the facts that are presented in documentation, not in verbal, Mr. Speaker. Just by coming into this House of Assembly - I might say that and then I will move right into the same motion - wouldn't change anything in my mind in regard to what I have seen and in regard to the report that was tabled last week that speaks volumes to me. Just by someone coming into this House and verbally saying what they did or did not do would not make a difference to me. I would have to see documentation that would support what the person or persons were saying, and without that I wouldn't change my opinion. They were given every opportunity to do that as they moved through the process, three occasions at that. That has no bearing on me.

Actually, in the findings, I may also say, Mr. Speaker, that there are three areas that were of question in regard to the Citizens' Representative, but there is one in particular, and only one, that I would center my thoughts on, and that is contravention of the act itself governing the Citizens' Representative. The act itself, section 4.2 of the act was contravened and compromised with regard to his employment and what surrounded his employment and the conditions of employment, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

I think the effective date in regard to him being hired as the Citizens' Representative was February 1, 2002. He had asked, which was granted, for a couple of months to straighten up his affairs in regard to representing some labour things and whatnot, but it was clearly shown through the process and by documentation that he actually stretched that to several months, submitting invoices up to somewhere in 2003, which clearly shows that he contravened the act and compromised the act.

As a matter of fact, I would also say that in my mind, based on the remarks that I have heard in the public forum, on the open lines and the backtalks and whatnot, that he clearly knew the confines of the act and also the conditions of his employment. I think he actually said on one occasion on the public airwaves, I am not allowed to be any part of any business activity. Clearly after that two-month grace period, he should have clued up his affairs. He clearly went on with business as usual, engaging in several things across the Province and whatnot, and that is in clear contravention of the act. We are governed by the acts and that is all there is to it, no more to it than that.

A person coming in here to speak to me, today or tomorrow or whenever it is, would not change my mind. It is there, it is written, and it is documented. It was done by an independent officer of this House of Assembly, a very reputable person who is considered in high regard not only by this House but by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way it is. They did not base it just on verbal, they based it on the facts, Mr. Speaker. There is a contravention of that act and that is where it is to.

I get back also with regards to Mr. March, the Citizen's Representative at that time, suspended with pay at this time. He was offered three occasions to come in to present his views and also possibly, hopefully - what I would do was present documentation that would support my position, because without the documentation you have no support. I can get up here today and say whatever I want, but if I do not present documentation well then I have no support in what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. That is the way I see it and that is the logical way to see it.

As I said before - and I will not speak too much longer on this, because the only thing that I will consider here today, and consider on my vote later on whenever that happens, be it today or tomorrow or whenever, is the contravention of the act itself. He clearly knew, by what he had said on the public airwaves, and he understood the conditions of his employment, what they meant. He was clearly told that he had to clue up all outside activities and business activities within a two-month period, but that clearly did happen, Mr. Speaker. He just went on as if it did not matter.

That is all I can say. I will rest my remarks on that and I will leave the floor of the House open for any remarks by my fellow colleagues. I will be listening. I have never left the House during this, even just to go outside, because I want to listen to all of the remarks that are made. I end it by saying that the only one I am looking at is the noncompliance of the act itself. He clearly knew exactly what the act meant in regard to his employment.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude on that, and I leave the floor open for any other speakers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few minutes again to speak on the main motion on this issue before the House. Once again, I just want to make sure that it is understood that at no time are any of my comments directed towards the IEC or the Auditor General. They are not. They are absolutely not. I am not going to, in any way, cast any doubt or aspersions upon any of those individuals, the House or the IEC members. It is just on the facts alone.

The Member for St. John's North, when he was up speaking, saying that this is going along party lines: how foolish. How foolish can the Member for St. John's North be, to stand up in this House and tell me that I am voting along party lines when I had a stack of affidavits, that everything was going wrong and it was proven, that never even made it to court. How foolish is it. That is just absolutely foolish. You shouldn't even make those statements unless you know what you are talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about. You wanted to fill in time. You should not make those statements making aspersions upon the people across this House who are just giving anybody - anybody in this Province has the right to appear to make their own case. For the Member for St. John's North to stand up and say, they are just going along party lines, is absolutely false. I take offence to it.

I will just tell the Member for St. John's North, when my case went to court it was just by luck that Mike Monaghan now is appointed the Vice-Chair of the Liquor Corporation. That has nothing to do with me being named, and I had no acquisition against me. It has nothing to do with John Sweetland now been appointed the Vice-Chairman of the Labour Relations Board; no labour experience whatsoever in this Province, never in front of a labour board in his life. That has nothing to do with it though. It has nothing to do with Kimberly Burridge who happened to be the lawyer for Mike Monaghan. It has nothing to do with it. Then all of a sudden she is on the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. That has nothing to do with it. I did deserve a right in court because they are lawyers, they know what they are doing. The would not do anything differently from what they are supposed to do. They sign affidavits. Mike Monaghan signed an affidavit. Listen to the Member for Gander saying that opinions made by lawyers are based on facts. Well, the -

MR. O'BRIEN: Not lawyers. Opinions are based on facts.

MR. JOYCE: That is what I meant to say, opinions are based on facts. That is what I tried to say to the Member for Gander, opinions are based on facts.

MR. O'BRIEN: Documented facts.

MR. JOYCE: Documented facts. Okay, let's just take that premise for a second, I say to the Member for Gander. Documented facts - there were thirty affidavits with documents that happened in the Bay of Islands. I was brought before the court, it cost me $12,000, and they did not even make it to the court. One of the people who signed an affidavit was Mike Monaghan, a lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Documented facts are affidavits. If an affidavit goes through a court, you assume that it is right, you absolutely assume that it is right. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is a lawyer. If you get thirty affidavits, you are assuming that the affidavits are correct. Someone is not going to put their name on it unless the information is correct.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am assuming I have the right to cross-examine on them.

MR. JOYCE: That is right, and the only way you can cross-examine is if you bring the person in face to face. I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. That is why I think Fraser March should be here, that we should have an opportunity to ask him questions, and if need be, he could explain his case.

I will just give you another example about one of the affidavits that was put in out in the Bay of Islands, and you want to talk about how easy it is to clarify things if you want to clarify them. One of the affidavits that someone wrote was, an RCMP officer, who was living in Ontario, voted in the Bay of Islands through a special ballot. That was the accusation, a signed affidavit. Do you know how we got that resolved? We phoned the Chief Electoral Officer. We said: Did this man vote? He said: No, he is not on our list. Simple! Yet there was an affidavit, with no checking whatsoever, put in saying that this man voted. One phone call; done, over with, that affidavit thrown out; no merit, no foundation whatsoever.

If you want another reason why we should have Mr. March here - and I said it last week and I will said it again. I do not know if I ever spoke to the man in my life. I have no idea what is right and I have no idea what is wrong, but I am willing to make a judgement based on the facts that I get from this person, personally, because I know how things get distorted, how things are taken from one point of view and passed on with no facts.

Just here today, Mr. Speaker, if you want to hear today why we feel Mr. March should be here - look at the confusion that was on the IEC. Who is right or who is wrong, I am not saying. I believed the Member for Bellevue when he came back to our caucus and said: At no time did I say we should fire Fraser March in the IEC. Here we have the Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, saying: Well, boy, you agreed with all of this. Just the confusion itself from the IEC members. I had no doubt, because the Member from Bellevue was consistent all along with what he told us. The Member for Ferryland, the Minister of Finance, says -

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: If the Member for Gander wants to speak again, you can stand up and speak. There is no one stopping you from speaking; absolutely nobody. If you do not want to listen to me, you can leave the House. You can stand up and speak again. You can say what you like when you get up. I am not saying anybody is going to listen to you or if you are right or wrong. You can have you opinion. You had your chance. You sat down. You never even took your twenty minutes, but you are over there yapping and you have not stopped. If you want your twenty minutes, stand up and get your twenty minutes. You had your chance for your twenty minutes, so you stay quiet now. You were given your little script to read. You read your little script for two or three minutes. Sit down, now. You sat down, like a good little boy. You read your script; you sit down, now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will appreciate that this is a very serious debate. I ask members if they would be tolerant of each other's viewpoints and accept them. This is a forum for sharing of opinions. Sometimes we have to handle very serious issues. I ask members to be tolerant and accepting of other people's viewpoints.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not say it any better to the Member for Gander.

Mr. Speaker, just to go over some of the things that happened to me in the court case, we go back into the court case. Just another thing: here was an affidavit signed, and one of the affidavits said that the DRO was saying to the person: Come over I curses you. In other words, I will swear you in. That was in one of the affidavits. That made it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. This person then was turned around and had to go and defend herself. Did she mean swearing in or curse somebody? That is the type of information that, if you took it on face value, you would say: Okay, that person should not do that - but, when it came out in court, the person walked into the polling booth, asked them where she should vote, and this DRO said: Come over here - you are over here - I curses you over here, with a Bible out to swear her in. Then, she did her duties and swore the person in.

This is why we need someone here face to face. No matter how small, how minute the details, no one knows the issue only the person involved. The person involved can explain the minute details, which I can read all day.

I am not contradicting the Auditor General's report. I am not going after him as a person who is answerable to this House - I am definitely not doing it - but, if there is any minute detail, the person who is directly involved would know all of the details and be able to speak on it a lot better than any of us who could read it 100 times, I can assure you. I can take it from personal experience, that when you go through it and you get through the nuts and the bolts of it, you go through it and get down to the threads of it, the minor details are what counts. The minor detail is that the person who is directly involved could walk in here and we could say: Here are the accusations made against you. Give us the details on it.

This is what we need before we take someone and throw them to the wolves. I am not saying I will vote for or against Fraser March. I am definitely not saying I will vote for or against Fraser March, because I do not know. What I do know, from my own personal experience, before a judgement is made, before my name was put across in the media in Newfoundland and Labrador, before I even got a copy of the affidavits, I was the one who responded - because of everything I did wrong in the election. When I got those affidavits in my hand, my name was not mentioned once. Not once was my name mentioned. Here I was, getting calls from the media all that day, December 19, 2003 - do you want to comment on the affidavits? I said: I can't, I do not have a copy. I haven't got a copy, never got a copy, never received a copy.

I phoned over to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook and they were trying to photocopy it for me, but it was so thick they said: Ed, we may get it done today. We will get what we can done for you. Just out of courtesy to me, that is what they did.

When we got the affidavits, we were going through the affidavits that Friday afternoon - it was a Christmas party that we were having, a social for the people in the Bay of Islands - we got the affidavits and we all sat down and went through it. Even before it reached the Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, a few of the people who were there said: I wasn't there. I wasn't there that day. What are they getting on with?

We had half of the information thrown out that afternoon, within two hours. Yet, Mike Monaghan, who is an officer of the court, John Sweetland, who is an officer of the court, Kimberly Burridge, who is an officer of the court, they went around and got all of these people together, got all of the affidavits signed, got all of the information put together and said: Okay, let's go with it, put it in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mike Monaghan signed an affidavit saying I believe all of this information is true. The next thing you know, it has gone to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have to stand up and defend the Chief Electoral Officer, with my name not even mentioned.

For the Member for St. John's North to come out here and say that I am voting along party lines, Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about, I can tell you.

Mr. Speaker, if that man went through what I went through with three officers of this court who were, by the way, all of a sudden put to boards by this PC government - it makes one wonder, was it politically motivated or not? - if that Member for St. John's North had to go through what I went through from the officers of the court, those three officers, he would demand that Fraser March be sitting in that chair right there answering questions. I guarantee you that right now. I can guarantee you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: If the Member for St. John's North wants to say something, you will have another twenty minutes. You will have another twenty minutes, Sir. You will have lots of time. Just go and get someone to do up your prepared text so you can read it and sit down again. That is all you can do. You can do that, no problem whatsoever. You will have your twenty minutes.

I am just telling you, from my experience - do not tell me, Mr. Speaker, that I am voting along party lines because I am absolutely not. When this was discussed in our caucus it was said: boys and ladies, do what you feel is right. Do what your heart - get the information. Do what you feel is right. When you get all the information in front of you, make an informed decision. If the decision is to vote for or against, do what you feel is right. That is what was in our caucus.

No one in my Caucus, any caucus meetings that I have attended, said we have to go one way or we have to go another way. We have to do this because of one reason or this because of another reason. It was always said, get your own information and make your own decision. It was never nothing along party lines. Trust me, it was nothing along party lines. Never.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Member for St. John's North is saying that - so I am assuming you will retract the statements that you made earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Sure. If you want, go ahead.

He is smiling over there, Mr. Speaker, because he is not man enough to do it. He is not man enough to do it, because if that member was in my shoes he would be the first one to say Fraser March should be there. He should be there. I tell you, he should be there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with those remarks because, once again, I know you cannot give justice or do justice to anybody or any issue unless that person is down there to get the minute details. At the end of the day, we, as the forty-eight representatives, may say: We do not agree with those minute details. That is a separate issue, but I feel very confident, very, very confident that the minute details, the only person to give them to us is Fraser March. Good, bad or indifferent, he is the only person who can give us the minute details. If the minute details are brought forward to us in this House and we all agree that the minute details do not add up, fine, we have to carry out our responsibilities as Members of the House of Assembly and I can assure you, I have absolutely no problem in doing that. Absolutely none!

I feel very, very strongly that a person should have the right to defend themselves in front of the people who are going to make the decision. If the people who are going to make the right is us, to hire or fire, we should have the right to sit down with this person and say give us the minute details because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it once again, when it came down to minute details with three officers of the court who named me in a Supreme Court document which I had nothing to do with, absolutely nothing, the minute details meant a lot to it because it did not even make it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. It did not even make it, because when you walk in - and I will ask any member over there, if you are a Chief Returning Officer over there and all of a sudden you get an affidavit saying that you did not swear someone in - you walk in through the court and you didn't swear someone in and you have to go up and sign an affidavit to contradict it, the person that you assume you never swore in and you are supposed to ask for an ID was your son. All of a sudden you are named in an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. But, if you go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and someone appears in front of the Newfoundland and Labrador - visual ID is fine. No problem. How many lawyers say visual ID is fine? You take Sheriffs of the Court, when they go serve subpoenas or any information, do they know the person? That is fine with them, as long as they know visual ID is fine.

How would you feel if you received a signed affidavit against you during Christmas, turned around telling you that you have to appear in front of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador because you did not do your duties and the minute details comes out that the person you did not swear in, who walked in front of your desk that you did not swear in and ask for an ID was your son or daughter? I think it was seven cases like that. Is that minute details? To me it is, but when you get that in a stack of documents saying that the person is not doing their duties, it sounds pretty serious. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am adamant that Mr. March should have an opportunity to appear in front of us to explain his position and the details become clearer, so we can all make a decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to move motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today and motion 6, further pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, December 12.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate on the resolution?

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are speaking now to the main motion to terminate the services or to remove Fraser March as the Ombudsman, and for cause. It has not been made clear to the House, as of yet, what exactly the cause was. Some speakers have talked about the Auditor General's report in relation to travel expenses. Other people have talked about the alleged conflict of interest. Other people have talked about Michael Harrington's legal opinion. Some people have talked about process and in my opinion the process is very important.

Also, when we look at what transpired here, the fact of the matter is this came before the Internal Economy Commission that ultimately recommended that Mr. March be suspended for cause and sent a letter, presumably, a communication, to the Cabinet to that effect. What did they tell the Cabinet? We don't know. Is there a report that has been made to this House? No. There has been a set of minutes, attached documents for the Auditor General, a legal opinion on employment law, but nothing from Mr. Harrington indicating what process ought to be followed to determine the issue. I would submit to this House, that he wasn't even asked to give his opinion as to what process ought to be followed, if the Internal Economy Commission or the House or the Speaker had determined there may be cause to terminate Mr. March, what procedure ought to be followed. I don't think he was asked. There was certainly no indication, in his legal opinion that has been presented to the House, that he was asked any such question. He gave his opinion based on assumptions. He gave his opinion based on employment law. He was not asked his opinion as to what procedure ought to be followed in dealing with an officer of the House of Assembly, who, in our view, has the right to be accorded treatment including the rules of natural justice.

I don't mean an opportunity to appear before the committee. Some people are satisfied with writing him a letter saying, come before the IEC, we will have our lawyer you can bring yours, come to the IEC, that that was an opportunity for him to be heard. The IEC, first of all, doesn't have the power to make the decision, and I believe he has the right to appear before a committee that either has the right to make a decision or has been given the right to make an effective recommendation. This hasn't been the case here.

What, then, is the opinion of Mr. Harrington, for example? People have talked about lawyers' opinions, and other people have given good examples of the fact that lawyers may have opinions and do certain things, but that does not make them right.

A senior lawyer once said to me one time, in advising clients from time to time, look at all of these law books here on the wall in my law library. They are all cases that were heard in the court. Each one of them had a lawyer on one side and a lawyer on the other side. This case did not go to court unless both of those lawyers told their client and gave legal advice to their client as to how this case might go, so I am giving you, he says, my opinion, and my opinion is only my opinion.

I think that is the context in which Mr. Harrington gave an opinion to the IEC about employment law. What did he base it on? He based it on assumptions. He based it on information that was given to him, and he based it on assumptions. He assumed, for example, that when Fraser March sent a bill for services in 2003 that the work must have been done after February 1, 2002. It might be a good assumption, it might not be, but he made that assumption.

We also have various other opinions on, let's say there are three matters. There are three matters here. One that was raised in the legal opinion had to do with violation of section 4.(2) of the Citizens' Representative Act, which says, "The Citizens' Representative shall not hold another public office or carry on a trade, business or profession."

That is the one where Mr. Harrington concludes that he was in violation of the act and, based on the case of Andrew Wells and the nurses' union, that would support a conclusion that March's work for NAPE, as described in the Auditor General's report, would constitute just cause for dismissal.

If you read the Citizens' Representative report, he refers to several engagements that Mr. March had with NAPE much prior to him being named the Citizens' Representative, and one some time after the appointment, before he started work. Fraser March's response says, well, there were four days during the period from February 1, 2002 to August 1, 2002, that the Citizens' Representative spent four regular work days on the matters list above and stemming from pre-appointment duties. Four days, for engagements that he had before and that he was cluing up afterwards.

Now, is that engaged in a business or trade? Is he out offering himself, looking for work, or is he finishing up engagements that he had undertaken beforehand? Well, that is a matter of judgement. That is a question of judgement. The judgement is not, is it a black and white violation of the act? The judgement is, is cluing up work, whether it is for one month or two months or six months on two or three files, spending four days doing that work, is that cause for him to be terminated as Citizens' Representative, or are we into black and white law here, boys and girls? He did some work after this time; therefore, he should be fired. That is grounds for firing. I do not think that is the way that a proper judgement should be taken, should take place.

It is interesting that he also says, in one matter, that he did work in July of 2002. He did so at the request of the Office of the Premier. That is what Fraser March says in his response to the Auditor General's report: I did that work at the request of the Office of the Premier.

Now, I suppose he could have said: I am sorry, I cannot do that because I am not supposed to do that work. He could have said that, presumably, but are we going to say now the Office of the Premier asked him to participate in this work study, because that is what we are talking about, an hours of work study, presumably because of his knowledge and prestige and understanding of the situation, and asked him to do this particular work and he did it.

My question is, is that grounds for firing him? Even if it may be technically non-compliant with the absolute black and white of the act, that is a question. It is not a question of, was it in violation of the act and therefore he should be fired? Because the Auditor General does not say he should be fired. The Auditor General knows all this. In fact, the Auditor General says he worked thirteen-and-a-half days after February 1, and what does the Auditor General say? He does not say fire him. He does not say get rid of him. He says, like the Auditor General always says to government departments, you should comply with the act. That is what the Auditor General says. After his big, long report, and then all of the replies and responses, the Auditor General's conclusion, after he conducts his audit and carries out his function as an officer of this House, makes several recommendations: The Citizens' Representative should comply with the Citizens' Representative Act; because, he says, there has been a violation by him doing this work two or three or six - four days, the Citizens' Representative says, four regular days. Now, maybe he worked on a Saturday and Sunday. Maybe that is the difference between four and thirteen, I don't know.

Whether it is four or thirteen, I am not really bothered by it because the question is not whether he did or whether he did not. The question is, should he be removed from office because he carried on some functions that he was appointed for beforehand? Is that grounds to terminate his services as Citizens' Representative?

So, if I was asked to vote just on that basis alone, I would probably, say: Hold on a minute, folks. What was this guy doing? Was he out looking for work? Was he out trying to bolster his salary and increase his wages and do something in conflict of the act, or was he conducting himself, as he says himself, he expected to be able to do, as he says, as is the case - as is, was and is the practice in other Canadian jurisdictions for newly appointed Ombudsman.

Did anybody look? Did anybody go to Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Ontario or British Columbia, or any other place throughout the world that has ombudspeople in office and find out what the practice was, to see whether this was in conformity with it, or did they just ask Mr. Harrington, was it in violation of the act?

That is the question we have to answer, and that is the question that I would expect some reasonable tribunal to answer, not just did he or did he not work during this period on a contract that he had engaged in beforehand, but whether or not the work that he did justified him being terminated. That is the question.

I have to look at that and then I say, well, that is a question that really should be answered by somebody who has a little bit of knowledge and a bit more information. What is the practice in other jurisdictions? Does anybody ask that? Did anybody in the IEC ask that question? Did anybody look at the Fraser March response and say: I wonder what goes on in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and some other places. I do not know. We do not have any report from them saying, well, we have discounted that. We have listened to what Mr. March has had to say but we discounted it. We are just, I presume, relying on Mr. Harrington saying: Well, as far as we are concerned, if he was an employee, it could be used to justify him being fired - not whether he should be. Not whether he should be fired, but whether he could be fired, and there is a big difference.

Count number 2: Reimbursement Claims For Private Vehicle Travel Allowance. Well, I think we have had it said on the record here today, that was not the reason why Mr. March was recommended to be suspended or terminated. That is what we have here. So, I do not know if it has been used as grounds or not. I do not know. The Member for Bellevue is on the committee and said that was not the grounds; when it was discussed with various members that that was not sufficient grounds to terminate his services. I have not heard anybody contradict that yet, although some people opposite have said that they think it was grounds. I suppose it is up to them to make that independent judgement, but they have not heard from Mr. March on this. They are only reading what he said to the Auditor General back in January.

Count number 3, or issue number three as Mr. Harrington calls it: Is he in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act for acting in relation to the home care study? Well, when I look at Mr. Harrington's opinion, what he says in his second last sentence, "While the conduct of the Citizens' Representative with respect to the investigation of the home care sector coincidental with the NAPE organizing drive may not fit squarely within the legislative definitions of conflict of interest, it is our opinion that Mr. March's conduct was arguably in conflict with the fundamental interests and expectations of the House of Assembly as his employer which were articulated in the Legislature with Mr. March present in person on December 12, 2001."

Arguably; so in other words you could make the argument. Did anyone make the argument? Was that the conclusion that was reached? Is that what members are voting on? I do not know. I have no idea.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader says that I am not listening. Well I am listening and I am hearing a variety of comments from various people. Some which say: Well, I am only voting on this and I am only voting on that, and some people are saying that they agree with the Auditor General. I do not know what weight they gave, if any, to what Mr. March had to say in response. I have no idea. In the circumstances here, where we have in fact no report from the IEC which says we accepted these facts, we accepted this argument, we believe collectively that all of this adds up to the fact that Mr. March must be terminated. We won't know. We don't know.

Sometimes I have heard it said, if you throw enough mud around some of it will stick. Maybe that is what we have here, Mr. Speaker, a case of there is enough individual bits and pieces, claims of travel expenses, he should not have travelled this far, he did not travel that far. It is arguable that Mr. March's actions in connection with NAPE's unionizing efforts were at odds with his duty to remain independent. All of those things, you throw them all together, including the fact that he is doing some work on sending bills out late in 2002, or early in 2003, and some of it sticks. Is that what we are dealing with here? If you throw enough mud some of it sticks and say: Well, there is enough here to convince me that he should be gone. This is in a process that I believe is flawed. If we had all the facts on the table, Mr. Speaker, an analysis of those facts and a recommendation, then I think we might be in a position to vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a situation here where I do not think that this body the House of Assembly has before it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a number of conversations going on across the House of Assembly Chamber. I ask members for their co-operation again.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who has limited time and is coming towards the end of his address. I do believe he has some further comments that he wishes to share with the House.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I will say, in conclusion on the main motion - I am debating on the main motion now: Should we vote in favour of terminating Mr. March or removing Mr. March as Citizens' Representative? What I am saying is that I do not believe that this Assembly voting on this motion, or being asked to vote on this motion, has before it a sufficient level of facts and analysis, nor the opportunity for Mr. March to be properly given his rights to hear and respond to the case against him before the decision-making body or before a tribunal body with effective means of giving a proper recommendation. I believe because of that, that this motion, this resolution needs to be amended to fix that problem.

Therefore, I wish to move, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution that we have - and before I read the resolution I will read the third preamble. It says: AND WHEREAS there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative. I am moving that after the word WHEREAS in that preamble, be inserted the words, ‘it is alleged'. So it will now read: AND WHEREAS it is alleged there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

Number two, by deleting all the words after the words, BE IT RESOLVED in the resolution and inserting the words, ‘that this House of Assembly consider whether Fraser March should be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative after a proper procedure is invoked in keeping with the position of an officer of this House and to provide for the application of the rules of natural justice by either having the matter addressed by the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges with a report back to this House or considered by an independent tribunal appointed by this House of Assembly after consultation with representatives of the three parliamentary groups represented herein and receiving the tribunal's report.

I provided a copy to the Table for your consideration, Your Honour, and I am assuming you will have to require some time to determine whether it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will receive the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Chair will recess the House to make a ruling as to whether the amendment is admissible or not.

This House is now in recess.

[The remainder of today's sitting will be found in Hansard No. 45A]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

With regard to the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Speaker has consulted with the authorities. The Speaker also thanks the member for providing an advance copy of his amendment.

Beauchesne, page 176, article 576, states, "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee." Moreover, Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, states that an amendment is out of order procedurally, if: it exceeds the scope of the main motion or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice.

Thus the Chair rules that the amendment as placed before this House by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is not in order.

Debate resumed on the main motion.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's scheduled speaking time has indeed expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Fall-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally at this time in the evening, I think, we would probably be breaking for supper hour. I know some people have had the opportunity to have a bite to eat, but so far we are holding up pretty good.

MR. REID: The Chinese food smells good, I tell you.

MS THISTLE: We are starting to get a whiff of Chinese food permeating the walls of the House of Assembly; however, I know we will survive.

Mr. Speaker, today I watched the debate and the motion that was put forward by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, and it was almost predictable how the outcome would be. As we know, the government side voted to defeat that amendment, and the Opposition and the New Democratic Party voted in favour of that amendment.

When you consider what the debate is right here now in the House this evening, it is almost predictable what the outcome will be even this evening, because we have seen government members vote along party lines and it will be interesting to see the final vote some time later this evening.

I am wondering what Fraser March is doing right now. I would imagine -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am hearing a lot of laughing from the government side of the House, but I suspect Fraser March is actually probably seated in his living room watching the debate that is occurring right now.

It is interesting, and it is awkward, that the people in the House of Assembly, the members from forty-eight districts, are standing and giving their opinion, and they are actually going to determine the future of Fraser March and he is on the outside looking in. He is actually on the outside looking in today, as he was on Thursday, and he will be able to see through the miracle of television what his future will be, probably by the end of this day.

When I look at what has been said here in debate on both sides of the House, I think back to my colleague from the Bay of Islands. I was really not aware of what the Member for Bay of Islands had actually gone through in the last election. I did not know the severity or the brevity of what was really involved in determining the actual vote in that particular election, but when he laid out his case here for all to hear and all to see what actually happened in the Bay of Islands, that was an eye-opener for me, and it was probably an eye-opener for everyone in this House of Assembly, and definitely an eye-opener for people who have been watching this debate closely. That is what can actually happen, you know. When you go through a situation like this, there can be much talk and innuendo and, when you get down to the actual facts of the matter, sometimes they are different than indicated.

Now, I have had the advantage of having an in-person briefing by the lawyer who was retained by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Michael Harrington. I have had the benefit of hearing his person-to-person opinions on what he discovered during his look into the situation. I guess Michael Harrington, like any other lawyer, was looking at the evidence that was brought forward by the Auditor General. His decision, even at the end of his complete examination of the facts, his opinion was not crystal clear. His opinion was not crystal clear. There were gray areas either way, so it was not determined at the end of his assessment whether or not Mr. March was totally in the wrong or he was totally all right in what he did in carrying out his job as the Citizens' Representative.

Actually, there are three issues that have come to the forefront regarding the dismissal or the retention of Fraser March but, when I look at the motion, the final resolve says, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by this House of Assembly that Fraser March be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative."

There were three issues, but I think the one that is looming largely for discussion purposes in this House of Assembly was: Did Mr. March carry on a business while engaged as Citizens' Representative, contrary to section 4.(2) of the act? Did Mr. March lack impartiality, act in a biased manner, or place himself in a conflict of interest in his leadership of an investigation into the home care sector, contrary to the mission statement of his office?

Now, all of us here, Members of the House of Assembly, forty-eight of us here, we are working for the people who elect us. I am working for the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, and everyone who sits in this House, they are working for the people of their district. Now, do the people of the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, do they want me to carry out a private business while I am doing business as the member? That is the question I would like to leave in people's minds. Would the people of Grand Falls-Buchans mind if I carried out a business enterprise? Would they mind that, or would they object to that and would they want me to be fired based on that?

Well, I do not carry on a business, commercial or private, other than my job as MHA, but there are lots of people in this House of Assembly, among the members here - there are forty-eight members here - and several of the Members of this House of Assembly carry on a commercial enterprise. They carry on legal work outside of the House of Assembly. Do the employers, the constituencies that they serve, are they opposed to their Member of the House of Assembly carrying on business outside of the scope of their work, their first priority as being MHA for a particular district?

We are supposed to make that known, when we get elected, whether or not we have any commercial enterprises that we are a part of, or any board or directors or any potential conflict; all that is to be made known to the Chief Electoral Officer. We have to file a statement of conflict of interest every year by April 1. We do not have any choice in the matter, although our Premier, when he got elected, was over two years before he filed his first conflict of interest statement.

That conflict of interest statement contains what any particular member has in the way of commitments, business commitments and business interests, and what his assets are, and hers. It is supposed to be a clean slate of whatever business you are involved in outside your job as MHA, must be declared in a conflict of interest statement by April 1 of every year.

Also, if we were to receive a gift of any amount of money above $500, that must be declared. If somebody were to give me a painting, say, that was worth a couple of thousand dollars, or even $600, I would be required to file that as part of my conflict of interest statement by April 1.

From what I am hearing, it is not our job here to be determining whether or not Fraser March filled out his travel claim expense forms properly, whether all the items that were submitted were legitimate and accepted by the Auditor General. That is not our job to do. That would be the job of the Auditor General to determine that. That is not our job to determine whether or not all claims that were made by the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, were legitimate and were acceptable.

What we are here tonight discussing is: Did Mr. March carry on a business while engaged as Citizens' Representative? My understanding is that I do not think any member in this House of Assembly had real knowledge that was occurring. I think what members in this House of Assembly did hear through the media and otherwise in the public, that activity might have been taking place, but with regards to having any full knowledge or full evidence that was actually taking place, I do not believe any of us members have any clear proof that was taking place.

I think that is what it all comes down to today. According to the motion that has been advanced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government side, is that they believe there is cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is not a motion being brought forward by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an action that was taken by the IEC where we suspended Mr. March for cause, which we felt were cause, all of us on the IEC, unanimously. Emanating from that, we could not relieve Mr. March of his duties because only the House of Assembly can do that. So in my capacity, as a member of the IEC and Government House Leader, came forward, but it is very important for members to understand fundamentally that this is not a government sponsored motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. A point of clarification brought forward by the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to resume debate on this important matter.

As I was saying before, there has been a motion that has been brought forward. It says here the hon. the Government House Leader made this motion. Of course, it is in accordance with section 3, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, on a Resolution of this House of Assembly, by Order in Council, dated December 14, 2001. That is when Fraser March was appointed and it was for a six-year term. It is also saying that, "WHEREAS the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, has, in accordance with subsection 7(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act been suspended as the Citizens' Representative."

It says nothing here about the IEC Committee. It says: AND WHEREAS section 6 of the Citizens' Representative Act provides that Cabinet may, on a Resolution by the House of Assembly, for cause remove the Citizens' Representative from office.

So, I would suspect that Mr. Fraser March is home tonight tuned into his television set and waiting to hear the ultimate fate of what is going to happen to him. I also wonder in the course of the IEC Committee making a statement that they felt there was cause to remove Fraser March from the Office of Citizens' Representative. Now, if there was a suspicion that Mr. March was conducting business outside his main job as Citizens' Representative, I wonder was there any written correspondence to Mr. March advising him that was not acceptable and he should cease and desist that type of activity?

I looked through the notes - I read through the notes a couple of times - I did not happen to find that information and I do not believe the IEC Committee actually put that matter into writing. It says that the appointment is for six years. We are still looking at a couple of years on a contract that was accepted unanimously by this House of Assembly. There are, roughly, a couple of years left for payment on this contract, regardless, and I do not know the salary for the Citizens' Representative. I am looking at the salary figures for the Citizens' Representative. I do not have it exactly here, but I know that the salaries and employee benefits for the entire office - the latest one here, April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 was $232,000. You are looking at a sizeable salary for the Citizens' Representative. I am sure it is over $100,000. I just don't have that here with me now and I won't break to look it up in the salary book. I know it is a sizeable amount of salary that the Citizens' Representative obtains in his position.

I look at the three allegations that have been put out there for people to look at and wonder or not should we fire Fraser March. This is an awkward situation that we in the House of Assembly, forty-eight of us here, are expected to be judge and jury. We are expected to be judge and jury but we don't have the accused. The accused is like an imaginary person who we are talking about, but he is not here in front of us. I can't ask Fraser March the questions I want to ask him. I can only look at the evidence that has been put forward by the Auditor General and the review of that evidence by a couple of lawyers. Then we have an opinion from the legal community on what they think actually happened here. Even the lawyer has not been clear-cut in his decision as to whether or not Fraser March did something opposite to what he was hired for.

I think what we are all talking about here is process. It is unfortunate that the amendment on the resolution piece that was put forward by our colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, was not accepted. I don't think any of us here are satisfied that the process in dealing with this awkward situation is the right one. Unfortunately, that is the part of the equation that the IEC did not address. They did not address the process. They made the recommendation to Cabinet that the matter be brought to the House of Assembly to be voted on. The process itself, when you talk about democracy, does not allow the accused, which in this case is Fraser March - if it were to happen again, what kind of a precedent are we setting here? No matter who goes into that position, if the ultimate ending to this resolution here this evening is the firing, if the government vote as they did during the amendment that was put forward by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, if the government - they have the majority. This is here now in the regulations regarding the firing of the Citizens' Representative, and it would be a majority vote in the House of Assembly. If all of us on this side decided to vote against this resolution, it would still pass. So, the ultimate fate of the Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, lies with the governing body who has the majority of seats here tonight.

What we are saying is the fact that justice is not being carried out properly. Can you just imagine yourself in this type of situation, where you did not have an opportunity to speak to the employer. The employer is the forty-eight members here in this House.

I do not think any of us know here, really, if Fraser March - has he done what he is accused of doing? I know he had an opportunity to talk to the IEC, but the Internal Economy Commission has a majority of government on that committee. There are only two Opposition members, and five are government, so you have a seven member committee and he was asked to speak to that committee to give his point of view on what he had been questioned on, and he refused that offer. Then, when he asked to stand before this House of Assembly, forty-eight members, he was refused that.

I think it would be the right thing to do, for government to not turn a blind eye to his request.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time for speaking has expired.

MS THISTLE: May I have thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The member, by leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty seconds to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for your latitude here this evening.

I just want to speak on this main motion and conclude by saying that I do not believe there would be any harm done by allowing the accused, Mr. Fraser March, to come into this hon. House of Assembly, make his case known, make himself available for questions from the Members of this House of Assembly, because it is the process that we are questioning and nothing else.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Government House Leader, a resolution that would, in effect, dismiss Mr. Fraser March as the Ombudsman or the Citizens' Representative, a position that he has held since February 1, 2002, and he was put on suspension, I guess, for lack of a better word, in August, 2005. So, he has occupied the position for approximately three-and-a-half years and it was decided that he would be sent home with pay at that particular time. The reasons given, I guess, stem from the Auditor General's report which came out in January, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, for those who might not know, the Auditor General, I guess, is the watchdog for the finances of government. Back in January of this year he released a report, and in that report he talked about the expenditures of the Citizens' Representative office - for example, Mr. March's office - and he had some concerns -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for Trinity North is getting a bit lippy over there again, Mr. Speaker. I guess he just had a good meal and he feels rather healthy now. We can talk about that at a later date, why we are here tonight going through supper. We only opened the House on November 23 and we are closing it today, after just thirteen days in the Legislature. It is the latest time I have ever seen the House open, since I have been sitting here, since 1996, and it is certainly going to be the earliest time that we closed the House. Now, all of a sudden, it is so important to get it closed that we have to talk through supper and continue on into the night until, I guess, we are beaten into submission, the eleven of us on this side of the House, and we cannot speak any longer. Then they will take the vote and dismiss Mr. March and maybe give him his Christmas present. Maybe that is why they are in such a panic to do it, that they want to inform him before Christmas that he no longer has a job, but we will get back to that later on tonight, I say to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, his dismissal, according to what is happening here in the last few days, is a result of the Auditor General's report that came out in January, 2005, just about one year ago, and I still do not understand why it took almost eight months after the Auditor General's report came out to make the decision that, because of the Auditor General's report, we are going to have to let him leave or we going to have to firm him. If that sounds confusing to the general public who might be listening at this hour in the evening, it is confusing. It confuses me and I have been sitting here being part of this now for the last two or three days.

The Auditor General outlined a number of concerns that he had with the Citizens' Representative office, and I have gone through a lot of these. In listening to the members opposite, on the government side of the House, apparently they have all reviewed the matter in great detail. They have listened to the lawyer we have had hired as counsel for government, or for the House of Assembly, with regard to Mr. March, and they seem to think, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with what the Auditor General said and what the lawyer said we have grounds for dismissal. I beg to differ and, I guess, in the next few minutes that I have, I will tell you why.

First of all, in reading through the Auditor General's report, in reading through some of the comments that Mr. March has made, we find that there are two conflicting stories on at least one criticism the Auditor General made against Mr. March, and that has to do with the breaking of the Public Tender Act. In one part of the Auditor General's report, dated January of this year, the Auditor General said that Mr. March broke the Public Tender Act when he went out and paid $11,000 for printing services, and it should have gone to a public tender. Normally, in government, if something is over $10,000 then you have to go to a public tender. Now, Mr. March - and this is what the Auditor General said, that Mr. March broke the Public Tender Act by allowing a contract to be let for over $10,000 without going to public tender.

Mr. March disputes that on two grounds. Number one would be that he didn't break the Public Tender Act because the Public Tender Act didn't apply to the Citizens' Representative office. Now, that is debatable. I don't know if it is or if it isn't. I do know that in his second statement Mr. March said that, even if the Citizens' Representative office fell under the Public Tender Act, he didn't break it because he let two contracts for printing service totaling $11,000. We all know that under the act you only have to go to public tender if it is over $10,000, one contract.

I say to those opposite, even if that were the case and even if he broke the Public Tender Act by not going out to tender for some reason, I don't think it is reason for dismissal, because the Finance Minister or the Speaker of the House presented this report just this afternoon at approximately 3:05 and it says here: Report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the past year. This is full, right full, of instances where the government broke its own Public Tender Act. In other words, it didn't go to a public tender for things that were worth more than $10,000.

I also say, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. House Leader, back last February or March, or whenever the Premier got the Atlantic Accord signed and got the cheque from the federal government, he went out and hired a PR company, a public relations company in this town, to come up with some ads that were supposed to make us feel good and proud to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a result of getting the $2 billion from Ottawa, and the big fight that we put up to get it. Those few ads that ran for a short period of time, it is my understanding that cost in the area of $200,000.

Now, if you know that, under the Public Tender Act, anything over $10,000 has to be publicly tendered, and now we find out that the Premier went and spent $200,000 to a PR company here in the city without going to the Public Tender Act, I say to those opposite, if the Auditor General thinks that Mr. March should have been dismissed because he broke the Public Tender Act, then what do we do with the Premier? What do we do with the Premier, who spent $200,000 without ever going to the Public Tender Act?

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we talked about, besides breaking the Public Tender Act, the Auditor General basically makes the accusation that Mr. March, somehow, did not properly claim for travel. When you work for government, whether you are a public servant or you are an MHA or a Cabinet minister or even the Premier, if you travel on government business then you are afforded at least the cost of your travel, and some meals and some accommodations. We are all entitled to that, to a certain degree, and we are all given somewhat of a budget that we can spend on that, and it is up to you to claim for your travel at a cost of, I do not know, let's just say thirty cents a kilometre.

Anyway, what was found in the Auditor General's report, or he made the accusations that the travel that Mr. March claimed for could not have been made, and that was debated. Some of the things that the Auditor General came back and said were disputed by Mr. March and they were later dropped.

If I had listened to my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, here this afternoon, who sits on the Internal Economy Commission of this House of Assembly, that is not the reason we are dismissing Mr. March. In other words, we are not dismissing him because he broke the Public Tender Act, which he claims he did not, and we are not dismissing him for padding his travel claim. We are basically saying that he made travel and got paid for travel that he did not actually do, or something like that. He did something untoward when it comes to his travel expenses.

Apparently, in listening to the people in the House of Assembly this afternoon, and my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the Member for Bellevue, they said this is not the reason why Mr. March is being dismissed. Apparently now, we have whittled it down to a number of complaints made by the Auditor General about Mr. March, the Citizens' Representative, and we are down now to one. That is whether or not Mr. March was employed by somebody other than the Citizens' Representative office while he was working as the Citizens' Representative. I think it comes down to the case that he was also working for NAPE during the time that he was working as the Citizens' Representative; and, as a result of that, then, he should be dismissed from his employment as the Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, I read the document that was prepared for us, the Report of the Auditor General. I have read the legal opinion that was presented to us by the lawyer who was hired for the MHAs here in the House of Assembly.

Actually, I spent a couple of hours just a week or two ago, in the very early morning, sitting in a room adjacent to the House of Assembly here, whereby I was afforded the opportunity, along with my colleagues and the Speaker and the Clerk of the House, to question the lawyer who we hired to give us an opinion as to what we should do with Mr. March.

I can honestly tell you that, when I went into the meeting - when I came out, I had more questions and more doubt than when I went in. It is not because our lawyer was not a capable individual and that he could not give an opinion. He did; but, when questioned in detail as to whether or not Mr. March was actually in the employ of another organization like NAPE while he was working as the Citizens' Representative, or whether or not it was possible that Mr. March made the trips that he claimed for, all of a sudden the issue became very clouded.

It became very clouded for me and my colleagues, after coming out of the meeting, to the point where we thought maybe the best thing that should happen is to call Mr. March before the House of Assembly, which he has every right to do because we are his employer, collectively. All forty-eight of us are Mr. March's employer. He has asked that he appear before the Bar of the House of Assembly to give his side of the story and to answer questions that we may have for him.

I would certainly like to be able to do that. We have done it to our lawyer; I have questioned him. I have read the Auditor General's report. I would like to question the Auditor General as well; because, as my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, said, often the Auditor General will write opinions, and we are all entitled to opinions.

The Auditor General might say that you should not be breaking the Public Tender Act. He said

that on a number of occasions, either he or the people who proceeded him in that position, that you should not be doing it, but the fact of the matter is, we have a document here today that was presented by the government where there were exceptions made to the Public Tender Act. That is one instance, and that he will often make an opinion that varies with some of ours because I do not always share the same opinion as the Auditor General. That does not mean that he is right and I am wrong, or that I am right and he is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that, having listened to our lawyer, having read what the Auditor General had to say, I am at somewhat of a loss as to why we are proceeding in such haste that we cannot stop for supper here tonight and that this bill, or this piece of legislation has to be pushed through before we lie down tonight or tomorrow morning, or before we can eat again on this side of the floor. I am at a loss as to why it is so important, when you consider that we have only been in this House of Assembly thirteen days. It is not thirteen days until we complete it here today. Thirteen days. I think it was the end of April we closed the House last year, and with the exception of returning here for two days to discuss the FPI Act and the Income Trust - I do not know why the government is so intent on rushing all of this through the House of Assembly and closing the House tonight or tomorrow morning. We will talk about that later.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that Mr. March is not going to be dismissed because he broke the Public Tender Act. He is not going to be dismissed if the collective knowledge in here today is any indication because he padded in some way or he falsified in some way his travel claims. The only thing now that we are hanging our hat on, the reason for dismissal is that for some reason or somehow Mr. March was under the employ of NAPE while he was also under the employ of the House of Assembly in his capacity as the Citizens' Representative.

Well, I do happen to know, and I think it is general knowledge, that when Fraser March was hired by then Premier Roger Grimes, there was a question of work that he was conducting for NAPE. In fact, I think it says in all the reports that I have read that he notified the Premier of the day when he was being asked to take the position as the Citizens' Representative, that he was doing work for NAPE and that he asked for a certain period of time to clue that work up while he also occupied the position of Citizens' Representative. I do not know how long he asked the Premier to be able to do both jobs. I do not know if he asked at all, actually. I know we heard that he had asked the Premier and that it was agreed to. I do not know if indeed he continued to do that beyond the period of time that the Premier prescribed. In other words, I do not know if Mr. March was employed by NAPE while he was the Citizens' Representative and I certainly do not know how long he was employed for.

Now, I think the lawyer who represents all of us here in the House said that he sent a bill to NAPE a year or so after he became the Citizens' Representative but I am sure that there is a possibility at least that he may have been billing for services that happened eight or ten or twelve months prior to that. I do not know that, and that is why I would like to be able to talk to Mr. March to find out exactly how long he worked in that capacity. We will not be able to know that unless we call Mr. March before the House, which he is so intent on doing, only we have denied him up until this point.

The other thing I want to talk about is that we have one legal opinion. We have one legal opinion and based on that opinion, we should dismiss Mr. March on the basis that he was employed by another group or company or union other than the Citizens' Representative Office. Let me talk to you about legal opinions. We have four or five lawyers in the House of Assembly and I would bet tonight, Mr. Speaker, that if we asked for five opinions on the same topic and five different individuals hired that five different lawyers to give you an opinion, we would end up with five legal opinions. I have seen it happen time and time again since I entered politics ten years ago. I have witnessed it myself, as Minister of Fisheries and Minister of Education.

I say to the Speaker and my colleagues opposite, if you think that lawyers do not have different opinions all you have to do is look at the record of governments in winning litigations or cases where they have been taken to court by individuals outside of the House of Assembly. Every year we have someone suing government and if you look at the record of government winning cases, you would wonder why we ever went to court. You would wonder why we ever went to court.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the Minister of Finance, do not go bawling and shouting yet because this could be yours. This could be the one that you are going to lose; could very well be the one that you are going to lose.

MR. SULLIVAN: He supported IEC. The Member for Bellevue supported IEC.

MR. REID: The Minister of Finance, now that he has eaten his supper -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - he feels rather full and jolly. Now that he feels rather full and jolly, just having eaten his supper and watched the news, something I wasn't afforded the opportunity to do here this afternoon, I say to the minister, now, that you feel rather saucy, I guess, this afternoon, you want to keep this debate going, you have to make the poke whenever you can. What you said this afternoon, I say minister, is that this side agreed with the dismissal of Mr. March.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said the Member for Bellevue agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I can tell you right now, that is not the case. It is my understanding that our member on the IEC, when asked if the question of whether or not Mr. March should be suspended with pay should go to Cabinet, he agreed. He didn't agree, or he didn't vote for us and I don't even think he voted himself, to send this bill before the House of Assembly this afternoon where we dismiss Mr. March without pay; in other words, fire him. It is my understanding that our representative on the IEC was asked should we send this up to Cabinet and have Mr. March sent home with pay until this matter was resolved.

I think since that time we have gotten a legal opinion, and before I was so rudely interrupted by the Minister of Finance, I was going to tell you about legal opinions. Maybe if he would stay quiet just a few more minutes, I would do that and then I would sit down. As I said earlier, if you want to take anybody to court today, you go out and hire a lawyer, whomever he may be, and if you are paying him for an opinion and you want to fight one side of a case and you say, I am going to hire you to fight this side of the case, guess what he is going to say? Yes, I can do that for you and here is my fee. Yes, he is probably going to tell you, like I have been told as minister in my experience: yes, we have a good case, and, no, we are not going to lose it. This is ironclad, we are going to go to court and we are going to win the case.

I had cases when I was Minister of Fisheries that I didn't have anything to do with, that ended up in court, decisions that were made before my time, but because I was the minister I was the one who was called, I was the one responsible for going to court. Even though a group of lawyers from the Department of Justice in Confederation Building told me not to worry about it, this is an open-and-shut, ironclad case, guess what? We lost.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: If you don't mind giving me a minute, please, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the Member for Gander, you might have your stomach full - I can go without eating a meal from time to time with no problem whatsoever. If you think the fact that I didn't get my supper tonight is going to shut me up, you better think again.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that we are not dismissing Mr. March because he broke the Public Tender Act. We are not dismissing Mr. March because he somehow fraudulently claimed travel that he did not do. That has been erased from the table. We are dismissing Mr. March because some people believe that he occupied two positions or was employed by two groups at the time.

The only thing that we are hanging our hat on here today is the fact that we think, or we have a legal opinion, one legal opinion, that says that Mr. March was working for NAPE while he was in the employ of this House of Assembly as the Citizens' Representative. All I am saying is that if we are going to hang our hat on one legal opinion we should have a sober, as they say in court, a sober second thought about this, and that we should bring Mr. March before the House so at least we can get all the facts, so that I will then be able to stand and vote, in all conscience, what I think might be right.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would like to do an amendment to the resolution put forward by the Government House Leader, and I would like for that amendment to read as follows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I shortchange the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have been reminded that the Leader of the Opposition has one hour to speak, and not twenty minutes. I do not want to cut the hon. member short. I would like to say to him that, if he feels like carrying on with his wisdom, he has extra time to speak.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You have me a little confused. You just told me to sit down and now you are telling me I have forty-five minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, just about twenty minutes ago my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, put forth an amendment to the resolution that is before the floor and it was ruled out of order for one reason or another. I would like to put forward a very similar resolution that I think is going to be supported by my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, and it reads, "That the Resolution of the Honourable the Government House Leader be amended as follows: 1. By inserting, after the word "WHEREAS" in the third preamble, the words "it is alleged", and, 2. By deleting all the words after the word "BE IT RESOLVED" and inserting the words "that this House of Assembly consider whether Fraser March should be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative after a proper procedure be invoked in keeping with the position of an Officer of this House with full application of the rules of natural justice by having the matter considered by an independent tribunal appointed by this House of Assembly after consultation with representatives of the three parliamentary groups represented herein, and receiving the tribunal's report."

What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that we amend the resolution so that we can establish a tribunal - whether that consist of one, or more than one, individual - and that we be giving Mr. March, I guess, the opportunity to report to that tribunal, and that the tribunal then would come back with their decision or their recommendation to the House of Assembly.

I would like to know if that amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to speak to the amendment, as to whether it is in order or not. I do not know if the Leader of the NDP wishes to speak to it as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we can speak to the amendment, the Chair has to determine whether the amendment is in order or not.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what I want to speak to.

MR. SPEAKER: I think maybe we should determine whether the amendment is in order or not, before we debate the amendment or talk on the amendment.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if I could, maybe there is a little bit of confusion here. What I wanted to do was determine whether of not the Leader of the NDP wished to make a submission as to whether the amendment is in order for Your Honour's consideration. I certainly do, on behalf of the government, wish to make a submission for Your Honour's consideration as to whether this amendment is in order or not.

Out of courtesy I was going to allow my friend, the Leader of the NDP, to proceed first, if he wished, so that we would have one submission from each side and then we could give it to Your Honour for due consideration.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for his intervention because the question, this is a point of order as to whether the amendment is in order. The previous amendment was ruled out of order without any opportunity for debate on the issue and I am given to understand, from the ruling itself and from discussions with the Table Officers, that there is a rule which states that you cannot refer a matter before the House to a committee, and that one of the reasons why it was ruled out of order is based on Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, which states, "An amendment is out of order procedurally, if: one part of the amendment is out of order."

My understanding is that the portion of the amendment that was out of order was the portion that suggested that the matter be referred to a committee. So, to refer something to a committee and take it away from the House, by doing so, is apparently, according to the ruling, out of order, and this is the authority of Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, that was referred to. The Beauchesne quotation, I believe, is the one referring to the matter being referred to a committee.

So, having the benefit of that order of the House, the ruling of the Speaker, I would like to speak to the general principle of amendments being in order. We already had an amendment to this motion, saying that the matter not be voted on until Mr. March be given an opportunity to speak to the House, and this is a similar amendment saying: Look, basically, we want an independent tribunal, sort of a fact-finding tribunal.

It is out of concern, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, whatever decision is made by the House being able to stand up to scrutiny, that Mr. March be given the opportunity either to state his case to the House, which has been turned down by the House, or, in this instance, to be able to state his case to a tribunal who is going to make perhaps findings of facts and make a report to this House. We do not have any report suggesting what the facts are. We have people talking about what happened at a committee, but we do not have it in a report from the committee.

The purpose of an amendment is to make a resolution more acceptable to the Members of the House of Assembly, and I believe this resolution says: Okay, there is some confusion about what the facts are. There is some disagreement about what the facts are. Let's have an independent tribunal hear the submissions of the Auditor General and others, and if legal counsel wants to make cases on behalf of the IEC or on behalf of Mr. March, then the tribunal is there to hear those representations and come back to the House.

That is not quite to the point of order, except it is to the point of making it more acceptable to the members of the House; because I have a sense, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides of the House are having a little difficulty sorting out what facts are and what facts are not in this House, or have been already found, and also the issue is weighing those facts. Both of those things are attempting to be done by this House without adequate material before them.

So, the notion of putting it to a independent tribunal is to make it more acceptable to the Members of the House of Assembly; and, as I understand it, that is the guiding principle. It does not negate the motion. It says that the motion be deferred until the tribunal has considered and referred back to the House. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I believe this particular motion is in order.

The other one, on the technicality of referring the matter to a committee of this House as opposed to the House itself, is not. We are referring it or suggesting that the parties here in the House could actually appoint between them a tribunal to hear the matter and report back to the House and the parties would agree as to what form that tribunal could take. As the member said, either a single individual - I know a retired judge or judge has been suggested, but that is something that could be up to the party leaders. The idea is to make the resolution more acceptable to the House because it seems that there is a division about that right now.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will very briefly speak to our view - or my view, I should say, of the amendment as proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It would be my submission, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think there is any appreciable difference between the motion that the hon. Leader of the Opposition just put forth for consideration and the motion that was put forth by the Leader of the NDP earlier in the day. I say that, Mr. Speaker, for a couple of reasons. The Speaker, Mr. Speaker himself, ruled today that Beauchesne Page 176 §576 indicated that, "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee." Well, granted, the wording here has been changed from a committee, which I presume would mean a committee of this House, to a tribunal. But the very essence of the argument is that the parties in this House would agree on some form of a tribunal. Now, is there much difference, I say in reality, Mr. Speaker, between that and a committee of the House? It would seem to me to be not much of a stretch to suggest that there would not be much of a difference.

Also, Mr. Speaker ruled today as well, in his second reason for rejecting the amendment put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is that the amendment is out of order procedurally if it exceeds the scope of the main motion or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and submit that the idea of a tribunal is certainly inserting in the whole procedure here a new proposition, and that new proposition, if it were to be appropriately debated here, should be debated in the form of a substantive motion with notice.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this, edition 2000 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit at Page 453, says the following: "An Amendment is out of order procedurally if: it is the direct negative of the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion." Mr. Speaker, I submit that is exactly what would happen. If an amendment were ruled to be in order, it would produce the same result as a defeat of the main motion would, and therefore it is, on all counts in my view, not proper and out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not had an opportunity to look at the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, so the House will now recess while the Chair confers with the Table and will rule whether this amendment is in order or not.

This House now stands recessed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker has consulted further with the authorities on the amendment before the House, including consultations with our learned colleagues in other jurisdictions. Again, we reference Beauchesne page 176 §576 which states, "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee."

The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment placed before the House by the Opposition Leader would be contrary to the intent and parliamentary direction quoted from Beauchesne. Indeed, it is more problematic than a proposal to have the matter considered by a committee of the House. A tribunal is foreign to the House and beyond its direct control.

Also, Marleau and Montpetit give directions on page 453, wherein it is stated that an amendment should not introduce a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice. Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.

Debate continues on the main motion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are here debating tonight is whether or not we should be firing Fraser March as the Citizens' Representative.

MR. E. BYRNE: For cause.

MR. REID: For cause, the Government House Leader says.

We are being asked to fire Mr. March based on the Auditor General's report that was issued last January. There were a number of things in the Auditor General's report that dealt with breaking the Public Tender Act, for which we are not discussing here today. Also, about his travel expenses and the claims that he made for travel. The third one, was whether or not he was employed by NAPE while he was the Citizens' Representative.

Along with the Auditor General's report, there were some comments that we consider to be opinions rather than fact. The Auditor General is often apt to do is give an opinion rather than state what is, indeed, a fact. Some of what we are discussing here tonight appears - at least to some of us here in the House of Assembly - to be an opinion. Nowhere in the Auditor General's report, I say, Mr. Speaker, did the Auditor General recommend that we fire Mr. March, or at least not that I am aware of. What the Auditor General did, like he does in every report that he submits to government, is that he asks that Mr. March abide by the rules and regulations set down for the position of the Citizens' Representative, and he did not mention firing him. The Auditor General - and we have a former Auditor General sitting in the House of Assembly with us. I thought she did a pretty good job when she was in that position and I also thought she did a pretty good job when she was the Minister of Health for a short while but -

MR. E. BYRNE: Hansard does not reveal that. (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the hon. the Government House Leader, go out and dig up Hansard and if I made remarks contrary to that, then I withdraw them, but I am not aware that I did.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, they are trying to get me off my track and they are trying to get me to laugh about a very serious matter, and that is not only the position of the Citizens' Representative who we are being asked to fire here tonight, but we are also, basically, and in so doing, I guess, certainly not doing anything for his reputation if he ever hopes to find gainful employment in the future.

All the Auditor General said was that Mr. March should follow the rules and regulations laid down by the rules for the Citizens' Representative. My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, having gone through the Auditor General's report, read the information that was presented to her by the IEC, and having attended a meeting with the lawyer for the House of Assembly and questioned him for a couple of hours, along with myself and our colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor, we came to the conclusion that Mr. March should be given the opportunity to appear before the Bar at the House of Assembly to answer questions and give his side of the story.

So, she put forward an amendment to the resolution that is put forward by the Government House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources. That amendment was found to be in order and we debated that, and just before supper - supper I never had. Just before suppertime, I should say. After we all spoke on this side of the House to the amendment then the vote was taken and we were voted down because all those on the government side voted unanimously that they did not want Mr. March to appear before the House of Assembly to give his side of the story, even though they are all legal-minded people over there. At least you get that impression listening to them speak in the House for the last couple of days on this issue, that they do not need further information. There is enough in the lawyer's report to convict the man and fire him.

The motion, or the amendment to the resolution was defeated by those opposite. My colleague, the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, proposed an amendment that took the Speaker and his staff quite some time to come back and rule that, no, it was not in order and that we could not amend that resolution or we could not even discuss it because it was out of order. To me, and no disrespect for the Speaker or anybody else, I cannot see the difference between asking for Mr. March to be allowed to stand before the floor, which was in order, or an amendment to the resolution whereby my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, asked that he appear before a tribunal that would be established by this House of Assembly. If we did not want him to come in and appear right before the House, we would establish, with the consent of all parties in the House of Assembly, a tribunal whereby Mr. March would be able to come and present his case to that tribunal. Then the tribunal would come back and give the information to all of us collectively in the House of Assembly and then we would be able to vote on whether or not we are going to dismiss him. That was ruled out of order. I put forward, myself, a very similar resolution that took the Speaker a similar amount of time to rule that it was out of order.

So, Mr. Speaker, I guess we are here tonight and we are asked to vote on Mr. March's future based on the opinion of one lawyer and some comments made by the Auditor General, even though the Auditor General never, ever mentioned firing Mr. March; even though some of the comments made by the Auditor General has been proven to be of an opinion only and not a fact.

I will go back to the point that I was trying to make before I was rudely interrupted about half an hour before suppertime by the Minister of Finance when I was talking about legal opinions. I say that legal opinions are often based on the old adage: He who pays the piper calls the tune. In this particular case, I guess, the House of Assembly has hired a lawyer to give an opinion and he has come back and said that we could fire Mr. March, if we so desired, based upon what I consider to be not enough information.

I cannot be as confident as those opposite that we are doing the right thing here. Believe me, at the end of the day, if I were confident, I would be standing here and saying Mr. March should go; but, based on the information that has been given to me, the information that I have also gone and sought on this issue, I still have doubts in my mind as to whether or not we are doing the right thing. Because, for the most part, I am convinced in my mind that he did not break the Public Tender Act. I am also pretty well convinced, having listened to Members in the House of Assembly, that he did not pad his expense claim or defraud the government of money for travel which he did not take.

We are down now to whether or not we should dismiss Mr. March because he was employed by NAPE while he was employed as the Citizens' Representative. I really do not know if he was or if he was not; and, if he were, I do not know how long. I know that when his original contract was signed he did specify that he had been working for NAPE at the time and that he needed a period of time to clue up. That is my understanding, and I know the Government House Leader is shaking his head; but, again, we have a difference of opinion here, not a difference of fact, I say, Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) opinion.

MR. REID: Exactly, and I am just as entitled to my opinion as the legal counsel that this House has to make his opinion known. Now, you might not respect my opinion.

MR. E. BYRNE: I never said that.

MR. REID: No, but you just said it was a matter of opinion. I think that my opinion should weight just as heavily here as the individual whom we paid for an opinion.

MR. E. BYRNE: It does.

MR. REID: Yes, and I thank you for allowing that my opinion does count. Thank you, I say to the hon. House Leader, I really appreciate that.

Having said that, I really do not think that we should be here tonight basically firing an individual, besmirching his character, without at least having heard from him directly on the floor of the House of Assembly, or indirectly through a tribunal, or you can call it whatever you like, some other mechanism which would allow Mr. March to be able to give forth evidence on his own behalf, or through a lawyer, through a tribunal of some sort, that would then come back and report to the House of Assembly and let us know so that we would be in a better position to at least be able to stand here and say: Yes, I am firing the individual and I feel confident that he did do something that was wrong.

Right now I can honestly say, in all sincerity, leave politics aside, I do not feel comfortable with doing that. As I stated back on Thursday afternoon when I spoke to this first, I said I have never fired an individual, and I certainly do not want to start by saying yes to this motion or this resolution - yes, that I will fire this individual - unless I am quite certain that I am doing the right thing, and I do not feel confident enough to stand here tonight and say that I am doing the right thing by saying that I am going to fire him.

With that, then, I guess, Mr. Speaker, I am going to try one more amendment and I hope that we can get a bit more of a quick response, I say, Mr. Speaker. No disrespect to the Chair. That resolution will read, "That the Resolution of the Honourable the Government House Leader be amended as follows: 1. By inserting, after the word "WHEREAS" in the third preamble, the words "it is alleged", and, 2. By deleting all the words after the word "that" in the Resolution and inserting the words "Fraser March not be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative until after a proper procedure has been invoked in keeping with the position of an Officer of this House with full application of the rules of natural justice by having the matter considered by an independent tribunal appointed by this House of Assembly after consultation with representatives of the three parliamentary groups represented herein, and receiving the tribunal's report, and a majority of the members of the House of Assembly votes in favour of removing him as Citizens' Representative."

I said in that last part, by a majority. I have to add, before I am going to let you rule on that, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. March's appointment to the position for which he applied to an advertisement that was made in the Province, a position for which he was interviewed by three of the top civil servants in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, his position was approved unanimously in the House of Assembly by all forty-eight members, and today we are talking about: we hired him unanimously and we are going to fire him with a majority.

That, to a lot of people, might not be very clear but it is to me. What I would like is that we could all stand at the end of the day and feel confident enough, with the information that we have, that we could all stand and say we are either firing him or not firing him as a group, and that would be unanimous; but, as it stands right now, I know that I cannot and members on this side cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and we can ask if the amendment is in order. I think that is as well seconded by my colleague, the Leader of the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and will call a brief recess and come back to the House with a ruling very shortly.

The House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

With regard to the amendment seconded and put forward by the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and the Opposition Leader, the amendment, in essence, fails for the same reason as we stated in the previous amendment, in that the same principles apply, as I quoted in the previous amendment, and in this particular case we are saying that the tribunal is foreign to the House and beyond its control. Certainly, the intent of Marleau and Montpetit and of our learned reference, Beauchesne, is that this amendment would not be able to pass the parliamentary scrutinies. Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that very quick ruling.

I am going to just clue up by saying, before I sit down and let my colleague speak, that in the case here, I think the old saying goes - and the lawyers here in the room probably know this better than I do - it says: Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that either one is going to happen here tonight if we vote to fire Mr. March without having him, or some representative of him, or a tribunal at least, discuss the matter with him.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down and let somebody else speak.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to take a long time but I just want to reiterate a couple of the things that I said this morning.

The question we asked, I guess this afternoon, and I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to it and I do not know if the other people in the House have or not, or if the Newfoundland people, as a whole, have gotten a satisfactory answer to it. That is: Why would you not call Fraser March before the House? Why wouldn't you? The next question is: What is the problem?

I am sure that there are a large number of people in the Province who are watching the House of Assembly proceedings tonight, as they do all the time. I am sure that many of them out there who are looking at the proceedings in the House of Assembly are saying: Why won't you do it? So, there is no doubt in my mind that there is doubt, that there is apprehensive and there is uncertainty about what we are doing here in the House of Assembly in their minds, because what they are saying is: Why should we not allow Fraser March to appear before the House of Assembly and to defend for himself? I heard a number of people say, and I heard a couple of times over the weekend, that Fraser March was a champion of the average person, helping the little guy and looking for justice on their behalf.

Today, we have a situation where I know we have an Auditor General's report and we have had a legal statement by a solicitor that has been given to the IEC about some of the things that Mr. March did that probably takes into question why we are here tonight, but it goes back to what I said at the beginning, if I have done something wrong and I have to go to court, and the lawyer is going to give his summation and the judge is going give his and whatever, and at the end of the day he says: Where is the defendant? He is not here, Your Honour. He cannot defend for himself. So, in this particular case, that is why I just could not see why he could not come before the House of Assembly.

Now, I also know that the IEC asked him to appear before them. That is a Select Committee of the House but the IEC is a regulating body here, but they did not hire him. I remember the day when the Premier of the day, Mr. Grimes, brought his name to the House and it was done unanimously. I was sitting on that side of the House when it came. For a lot of people - for Fraser, as I said, they not only see him but they see him as a figure out there that is somehow, not my words, but somehow that he should have the right to come and defend himself against allegations that have been written against him by the Auditor General and also by the particular individual, the lawyer who gave the House of Assembly some legal advice. So, really, that is what is happening.

If I can quote a comment that was made by the Member for Grand Bank, and this is what she said: I think anyone who has been taken to task over something or some issue or something they have done, or something that has alleged to have been done, really they should have the right to speak to that and to defend him or herself. In this case, of course, it would be giving Mr. March the opportunity to defend himself in the House of Assembly; defend himself in front of the people who hired him and, in fact, could fire him.

So, that is the whole process. It is not much point to go on for a lengthy dissertation on all of that. It is just how I feel, individually, about the whole situation. I really think - it is just my opinion and it is certainly not political on my part. I am not defending Mr. March, as I said earlier today. I think, in this case, the government's end would be strengthened in what they are doing - I really believe that - if Mr. March were to appear before the House of Assembly. For the general public out there who, ultimately, we will have to go back to and they are the people who put us here, some of them will have doubt in their minds saying: Why wouldn't the forty-eight people who sit in the House of Assembly not allow Mr. March to appear before them to answer some of the allegations that have been put before him?

I am sure that all of us here, when we go to our districts today or tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day, will be asked that particular question. As I said here, I have not gotten an answer as to why he should not be allowed to come before the House of Assembly. I think we need that. Not only we, when I talk about we, I think about the forty-eight members who are here, but more important, the people that we represent. I do not think that we can really do what we are doing here - I guess we can, because the House of Assembly can do it, but to me it is not right to fire a person and get them out of a situation without giving him the opportunity to defend himself in front of the House. To me, appearing before the IEC is not the same as appearing before the House. He is an Officer of the House here. He has the right to appear, I think, in my opinion before us. Before we take an action of this particular magnitude then I think that we should do that because there will be doubt in people's minds out there about Mr. March, and not only doubts about him but also saying to themselves: Why did you not give him an opportunity to defend himself?

As I said, I think that government would remove a lot of the uncertainty and they would remove a lot of the doubt, remove a lot of the apprehension out there that would linger in the minds of people when they ask the question: Why wouldn't you do it? Why would you not let him come before the House of Assembly? It is not right. What have you got to hide? Why can't Mr. March come and defend himself?

That is the type of thing that - there is no doubt in my mind that it is going to linger. This issue is not going to go away today even though we might vote on it a little later tonight and replace Mr. March and fire him out of that particular position. I would bet to say to you, that as all of us here, two years from now at this particular time when you go to the polls again, that that particular question will be asked of everyone of us here in the House, not once but many, many times over. Why did you not give him an opportunity to go to the House of Assembly to defend himself against the allegations that were made? Why we would not agree to that? I have not heard an answer to that today. I do not know if anybody else has gotten the satisfaction of knowing that answer. I have not. Whether I have been in the House here actually physically or in the caucus room listening to the TV monitor, I have not heard a particular situation where I have been satisfied as to why we will not allow him to come before the House to answer questions.

To me, it is not good enough just to have the IEC do it. It is not good enough to have gotten a response from a lawyer to do all of these things for us. I think that by having him and being able to do the questions - and I do not know the answer to it. It might be after his appearing that it would be much more a situation after hearing all the evidence to weigh out more of what the Auditor General has said and what the legal advice that was given to the House of Assembly. It might be that it would substantiate it more than what is already there. If that is the case, then there would be no problem whatsoever of dismissing him. But, as of now, that uncertainty really is there and it is going to grow, as far as I am concerned, because there is one thing that all of us should always think about - and as I said, I have been here for just about seventeen years and the general public out there is never wrong. One thing that we have to realize is that we are dealing with a population today, we are dealing with a citizenry in many, many instances that people are more abreast of. They have opinions that are just as valid. They have opinions that are well thought out and probably more thought out than all of us. They are an educated group of people that are out there. They will think about this, and they have already thought about it. They will, as I said, give us some indication of how they feel about it over the next while. There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever.

If we had to have Mr. March here so that he could defend the things that he did, based not on what somebody else said but what he said himself, about the knowledge of what had transpired and having him explain it, and if there was some good reason, as I said, that presented me with difficulty that substantiated even more of what the Auditor General did and what the legal advice given to us did, then I would be satisfied. But, as it stands now, Mr. Speaker, to me, not to have given him an opportunity to defend himself is not right.

As I said, I am not here to defend him. I do not know Mr. March that well. I know him to see him. He is not a personal friend of mine. As far as I know, he is not a political persuasion of the party that I represent. Regardless of who he is, he is a citizen of our Province and anybody who has been accused of doing something wrong, they should have the right to be able to defend themselves in front of the people that employ them and the people in this particular case is us, and I think that we are making a mistake. Only time will tell.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say anything more. I have said what I wanted to say and I do not want to regurgitate over and over, but I think we have made a big mistake by not allowing him to appear before the House to answer the allegations that are before him. As I said, with that, I will let someone else speak, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise this evening and say a few words on the main motion that is being debated in the House of Assembly tonight as well.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier speaking to the amendment, about how unfair a process that is taking place in the House of Assembly as we debate the job of a person who was hired by all Members of the House of Assembly. If his fate is to be decided, whatever that may be, Mr. Speaker, then it should be decided as well by all Members of the House of Assembly. In order to do that, we have to have first-hand knowledge of exactly what the issues are. The only person we can get that from is Mr. March himself.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. March was not invited to appear before the House of Assembly, and I think that is unfortunate. As one speaker indicated earlier, it is not enough for justice to be done; it has to be seen to be done, and that is a very important message that should be conveyed throughout the Province on this issue.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is the same as the police filing their report against an individual, giving it to the Crown prosecutor, charges being laid, and the Crown prosecutor is the only one who is going to court. I do not think anybody in the House of Assembly would accept that, I do not think anybody in the Province would accept that, and I know for sure that I could never accept a situation like that happening, but that indeed is what is taking place in the House of Assembly this evening.

Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have indicated, I am not talking to the realities of what has happened because we do not know them. We are speaking to the process about how things are transpiring. I firmly believe that Mr. March, the Citizens' Representative, should have a right to be in the House of Assembly, to be questioned by Members of the House of Assembly, cross-examined by anyone who desires to do that, but, at the very least, there should be some type of tribunal that is set up to adjudicate his case. That tribunal could report to the House of Assembly.

The IEC Committee of the House of Assembly was not invented for that purpose, and I do not believe it is the mandate of the IEC to fulfill that role. Anybody in society today in a position such as the Citizens' Representative is in this Province, I believe anyone who occupies a position like that, who has that profile, who advocates on behalf of people in the Province, really, who had nowhere else to go with their complaint - it is ironic, I think, that Mr. March, having fulfilled that role, now finds himself in the same position with nowhere else to turn in the Province to have his problem adjudicated. I think that forum should be provided to him, and I think it should be either by way of a tribunal or by way of appearing in front of all Members of the House of Assembly.

If we are the people who hired Mr. March, then we should have an equal say into his fate. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we have to have the information that is relevant and pertinent towards his case.

Mr. Speaker, I know this evening, as it unfolds, is going to be a lot like election night, when five minutes after the polls close CBC predicts a certain party with a majority government or a minority government, and most times they are right. While we are having this debate this evening I can also predict, when this debate ends, what the outcome will be. There is no questions about that. People's minds are made up, and it does not matter what arguments we may present. To the contrary, Mr. March's fate has been already decided in spite of what we may or may not say here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I find that I am disillusioned with that process because you are removing the principal person who is involved there, who has the most at stake, whose credibility is on the line, and we are not even allowing that person the opportunity to appear before the people who actually hired him for the position that he occupied for years, and is now threatened to be fired from. That process, Mr. Speaker, is not a fair one, and I do not think it should be allowed to happen here this evening; but, as I said, I can predict, with no uncertainty, what the final outcome of this will be.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am not going to stay here for my full twenty minutes and argue this over and over and over. I will conclude my remarks by once again saying to members of the House that, when we decide any person's fate in this Province, it should be done with all the information that we can have available, and I feel that is lacking in this particular instance.

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight and take this opportunity to speak against the main resolution.

The fundamental flaw being discussed here tonight is that Mr. March has not had his day in court. He hasn't had the opportunity to present his side of this case. It is unfortunate, you know, because the very concept of what this House is all about is the right of the people to speak, and to speak through us as MHAs, and here we are tonight, caught up in a process where Mr. March is left hanging outside there somewhere with his future already decided, as we have seen already this evening.

It is to that point - I said earlier, I am not defending Mr. March but I am concerned about the process. If tomorrow another officer of this House is in trouble, they, too, have no recourse because, Mr. Speaker, all of these people report to this House through you. You are the main officer of this House, and everybody reports through you. We have tried tonight, through several different ways of making resolutions, making amendments, to try and get Mr. March in here and get his version. His story has to be told, and it has to be told in this House to us, the people's representatives. It is kind of ironic; here we are, the Citizens' Representative depending upon us, the representatives of the people, to protect him and have his story told.

Mr. Speaker, I have read this report, read a fair amount of it, and I look at some of the things that have been brought out here, and we talk about breaking the Pubic Tender Act. Well, it is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, that today we had a document tabled, Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions. If we are going to fire somebody for breaking the Public Tender Act and going outside the Public Tender Act, obviously there are a lot of people here tonight who should be concerned; people who have made decisions and brought about these exceptions through various departments.

I think we have to be careful. My colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, gave his case, and how far that got. It was quite interesting; as I listened to him tell his story, I reflected back on my election and how the defeated candidate in my district, and his campaign manager, took to the airwaves a day or two after the election, whining, I called it, and protesting the fact that it was not fair because there were special ballots used.

Mr. Speaker, if those people kept on and maintained their story, maybe I would not be here today either, or it would have cost me $12,000 or more to defend myself.

The role I took in an election, Mr. Speaker, was to knock on doors. I had nothing to do with the mechanics of it, the organization of it. I always felt that the best place for a candidate to be would be at the door of the people from whom we were looking for support. Thankfully, the people who were doing my work were very diligent about what they did, and a margin of almost 600 votes certainly did not leave any room for recounts or for anything else, but all policies were followed.

I could not help but think, if the outcome has been closer and if public opinion might have swayed with them, what would have happened to me? Would I have been caught up and hung in what turned out to be a kangaroo court here for my colleague from the Bay of Islands, going as far as the Supreme Court of this Province? It is scary when you have affidavits signed by people and, all of a sudden, they do not get into court because they are nonsensical, they are not accurate.

I am just wondering, is Mr. March guilty of all the things he is accused of here? Because, from what I have read here, and the report of the lawyer, and without having an opportunity to question Mr. March myself, I think the biggest thing he is guilty of here is involvement with the union, the fact that he may have done some labour work for the union, but it is also interesting to note that the Premier of the day told him that he had his permission to conclude, to clue up, these particular cases.

I guess, like most things, the process of labour and regulations pertaining to it, hearings and appeals, as many of us here in this House have been involved with either through workers' compensation or Canada Pension or anything else, you just don't conclude all your cases the same time. The window to exit is not the same for every case. So, quite conceivable, some of this stuff could have taken a year to clue up.

If the Citizens' Representative, or if he was an arbitrator for the union at the time, may not have had the opportunity at the time to conclude all of this. So, the greatest infraction that he was being accused of here, in my opinion, and the opinion of the lawyer, is his involvement with the union, and cleaning up his work load with that particular union. I just wonder, how accurate is the opinion of Mr. Harrington? Because, as has been said here many times this afternoon, the opinions of the legal community are many and varied, and they all amount to one person's opinion. We have heard a number of opinions here this afternoon, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not, but that is the very fundamental principle that I guess we are here arguing about tonight.

Mr. Speaker, when we get involved with an issue of a person's reputation - and that is what we are dealing with here today. We have a man who started off his career in the college system here, became a union leader, and a very reputable union leader, and, for the most part, a very diligent Citizens' Representative, from what I can gather. The biggest problem he had, I think, was his workload, because the new position opened up all kinds of calls. I read there, in one particular instance, he had over 4,000 calls to his office in a short period of time, so it was a tremendous workload that the man faced. It is quite conceivable that somewhere here is some room to consider that there may have been an error of judgment made, so I cannot help but wonder why this House, tonight and today, is so determined not to allow Mr. March to have his say here.

If you stopped on the side of the road for a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, you are allowed to go to court and have your say. For something as mundane as a speeding ticket or a parking ticket, you are allowed to go in and represent yourself. So, I cannot believe that this House, based upon the very fundamentals of democracy which this House is built upon, will not allow an individual to come in here to defend himself, to defend his character and to defend his career, his whole life.

To me, tonight, I know the outcome. We have seen it already. The majority rules, unfortunately, in this case, and I know the outcome. We will be reading about this, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, for some time to come, because the court system, I am sure, will have their say in all of this. It is quite interesting that governments over the years - and I know the previous government to yours, and the one before that, which was yours - all ended up seeking legal opinion; but, do you know what? There has been a lot of money paid out in this Province based on somebody's legal opinion; because the legal opinion of that particular time, which everyone thought to be the best, was later overthrown in a court of law by somebody else's opinion. I have no doubt, if Mr. March pursues this, that he, too, will find retribution, because it flies in the face of everything that I think, that I feel, in the face of common decency, that this man has not had his say to defend himself.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things that I could speak about, but I am going to take this opportunity to move an amendment. I will try another one.

"That the Resolution of the Honourable the Government House Leader be amended as follows: 1. By inserting, after the word "WHEREAS" in the third preamble, the words "it is alleged", and, 2. By deleting all the words after the word "that" in the Resolution and inserting the words "Fraser March not be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative until after a proper procedure has been invoked in keeping with the position of an Office of this House with full application of the rules of natural justice..." - and I further add - "...and a majority of the members of the House of Assembly votes in favour of removing him as Citizens' Representative."

Mr. Speaker, I present this amendment for your perusal and await your outcome.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a trend that has developed here this evening in that we have seen, I think this is the fourth amendment. None of them have any basis in terms of being parliamentary or procedurally correct.

Essentially, what the member has just proposed, let me read for him, Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, "An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:..." - and I am just going to read this section - "...it is the direct negative of the main motion..." - which this is - "...and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion...".

Mr. Speaker, if we were to accept this amendment, that is exactly what would occur, that the motion before the House that we are asked to consider would, in a direct sense, be defeated. On that basis alone, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to make a quick, or as quick as possible a ruling on this. This is the fourth amendment. I see it as a way to try to accomplish through the back door what they can't do through the front door. I await Your Honour's ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the amendment put forward and come back to the House, hopefully very quickly, with a ruling.

The House is now in recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment put forward by the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and the Chair is of the opinion that this would introduce a new proposition which should probably be the subject of a substantive motion with notice as defined and qualified in Marleau and Montpetit on page 453.

Therefore, on this particular matter, the Chair rules, as he has ruled in other amendments earlier in the day, that this amendment fails.

Further debate?

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few moments to speak on the main motion: Be it resolved by the hon. House of Assembly that Fraser March be removed from the Office of Citizens' Representative.

Mr. Speaker, just to make a few comments, as I stated earlier today when I spoke on the amendment, I guess I have seen the evidence that was put forward by the IEC, the report that came back from the lawyer, Mr. Harrington, who was involved, the correspondence that was reported to us from Mr. March and from yourself, Your Honour, and I still have some concerns, I guess, wondering if the final points have been made without having Mr. March appear before us, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated earlier, I want to make it very clear that I am not standing here defending Mr. March; neither am I taking any, I guess, negative impact towards the IEC, Your Honour, or anyone who has any involvement with this, Mr. Speaker - the Auditor General or whomever - but I have to say, and it has been recorded, that Mr. March was given the opportunity to appear before the IEC. He failed to do that, I know, Your Honour, but I guess probably in his own way of looking at it, he was hired by the full House of Assembly at that given time and feels that he should appear before us.

I do not know about anybody else, Mr. Speaker, but I feel like I am placed in a difficult position. I have to refer back to the comments that the Government House Leader stated today, or on one of his previous engagements when he speaking, when he said that the IEC was placed in a difficult position. I have to go along with that because, Your Honour, I feel the same way here this evening. I find myself placed in an awkward position as well.

I just want to touch on a few of the comments that were made earlier, and I am not bringing them up to get into debate with the hon. members; they have their viewpoint. When I listened to some of the comments that were made, I guess we all have our different views on how we interpret things, and I just want to go through three or four of those, Your Honour, while I am making my final comments.

I had the opportunity, along with some other of my colleagues, to meet with Mr. Harrington, maybe about a couple of weeks ago, and Your Honour was present at that time. I was advised at that time, looking at these issues, it was made very clear that the Speaker or the IEC themselves could not deal with this issue. It had to be dealt with by the hon. House of Assembly.

I guess it is on those lines, when that was referred to me, that it had to be dealt with by the hon. House of Assembly, that I believed that it would be proper and fitting that Mr. March would appear; because, I can assure you, each and every member on this side of the House would have some questions to ask the hon. gentleman.

I listened with great interest when my hon. colleague from St. John's North stood today and referenced three different issues that were related in the report. He mentioned one of them with regard to the travel claim. I have to say, my hon. colleague from Bellevue, I think, clarified that when he said they were advised, while with the IEC, that they could not fire Mr. March because of the travel claim, and there was not enough evidence there that could be dealt with.

The other one I listened intently to was when my hon. colleague from Gander said that, regardless if Mr. March or anyone appeared before the House here today, it would not change his mind. He had his mind made up, and all the information was in the file.

No doubt, there is quite a bit of information in the file, I say to my hon. colleague, but all too often I reference the CPP appeals, the workers' compensation appeals, the EI appeals. When we receive the dockets, all of the information is in those files; and, if we looked at it in the light that nothing can be done because all of the information is in the files, I guess we would not represent our constituents, taking it to another level to put a different case forward so that their cases could be considered in a different light and, in many cases, issues that we think are taken for granted, and the files that are placed before us, they do get overturned and people win their different cases, Mr. Speaker.

From time to time we hear exchanges across the House. I listened today when the hon. Member for Lewisporte and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aboriginal Affairs - and I think it was in exchange with the Member for Bay of Islands - and the hon. minister referred to, in different court cases, you get an opportunity to cross-examine.

I know this is not a similar situation in this case, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that is what I would be looking at if Mr. March would appear before us. There are many questions, like I said. It is more or less a situation where we are hearing one side of the story, and we could put questions to him, cross-examining - whatever terminology you want to use - to get some of the answers to questions that I do not have my mind completely made up on at this time.

That is what we requested. I know that the motion has been put forward and it has been defeated, but that is what I was looking at when I stood to support the amendment to the motion of the Member for Grand Bank.

I listened to another hon. member, the Minister of Finance and the Member for Ferryland, when he was up making his comments, and how he said that members opposite - I will apologize, but I thought he said members opposite; I do not know if he was only referring to the Member for Bellevue, but I thought he said members - when he said we have taken a 180 degree turnaround.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I apologize for that, but I thought you said members opposite.

I want to make it very clear for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have my mind made up now, let alone take a 180 degree turnaround on how I feel about this. Then, again, I guess we all have to stand in our places and make our decision.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much more I have to say on this issue. I know there have been various amendments put forward, and each and every one of them have been ruled not in order, but on the main motion, Mr. Speaker, even thought I am not speaking to an amendment, I still contend what I stated earlier today; I believe that Mr. March should be given the opportunity to come before this House so that we can ask him questions, so he can make a presentation to us.

I know some hon. colleagues today mentioned: Did we approach Mr. March to come and sit down with us? No, I did not, for one. I was given the opportunity to meet with Mr. Harrington. I met with our member on the IEC and I felt, if he should come to meet with us, it should be with the full body of this hon. House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to state for the record that I supported the amendment earlier today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I have to say to my hon. colleagues, I was only here for one. I missed the ones that were rejected, but I will be voting against this motion because I feel very strongly that I cannot make up my mind based on the information that was put before me. Like I said earlier, no disrespect to the IEC, the Auditor General, or any other viewpoint. That is just my opinion on it.

I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to the main motion?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to have a few concluding remarks about this resolution.

I guess the writing is already on the wall, in that in about five minutes or so Mr. March will fired.

I just want to make a few comments about conflict of interest. As you are all aware in this House, every member who sits in this House of Assembly is subject to conflict of interest legislation, and they have to abide by the legislation. As a matter of fact, we have to submit, on April 1 of every year, a statement to the Commissioner of public interest, Mr. Green, in terms of outlining our assets, our liabilities. As a matter of fact, it is so detailed that, if you have children who are dependent on you, you even have to outline how much money they have in their chequing accounts. If you have an education trust for your children, you have to outline how much you have in your education trusts for your children, in detail, how much you owe on your Visas, and all that sort of information in terms of a conflict of interest.

We are all well aware that when the Premier became the Premier of this Province he waited and waited and waited. As a matter of fact, at one time I was late in submitting my conflict of interest statement, which is due on April 1, and the Commissioner indicated to me that, if I didn't soon submit it, I would be fined and I would be penalized, and the final penalty would be that I would not be able to occupy my seat in the House of Assembly.

I want to point this out tonight, Mr. Speaker: We had a request from the Citizens' Representative to appear before this House to outline his case. Sometimes in our society I wonder if there are two laws: one for the well-to-do and one for the not so well-to-do. I think tonight what we are seeing is in evidence. The Premier was subject to the conflict of interest. He waited a whole year-and-a-half before he even submitted his conflict of interest. Was there a resolution in this House? Was there a resolution put before this House saying that the Premier should not occupy his seat? No, there was not - the Member for Trinity North, who is an authority on everything. It is very serious in terms of, if you are going to have somebody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is why he isn't in the Cabinet.

MR. BARRETT: That is why he is not in the Cabinet, I guess. Centerfold for Trust Magazine, I guess, or something like that.

In this case here, we had a situation where Mr. March was accused of being in a conflict of interest situation because he did not report that he was doing other work, and it was not really established whether he was doing it or he was not doing it, and the bills indicated that it looked like he was doing it when he should not be doing it.

Right now, the jury is out. The verdict will come back in about four or five minutes. I guess we already know what the result is going to be. We can stand on our feet forever proposing different amendments which have been ruled out of order, but I do not think this government is going to change its mind. It has an arrogant attitude - very, very arrogant. This government has been so arrogant, it is not even funny. It is their way or the highway.

What we are seeing here tonight for Mr. March is: You are getting your walking papers and, as of tomorrow morning, you no longer will be employed. You will not be suspended with pay; you no longer will be the Citizens' Representative.

I guess over the next period of time it is our role here within the House of Assembly to point out how arrogant this particular government is, and the people out there watching on television tonight can see the arrogance. We are here tonight in this House of Assembly. The Premier said that he would have a friendly House of Assembly. We saw today, we have gone through a supper break with no supper, and we are here until the wee hours in the morning.

We saw a government that came in here two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, with no agenda, no legislative agenda. In a lot of cases we were out of here, one evening, 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon because there was nothing on the Order Paper to be discussed. They left this controversial issue regarding the Citizens' Representative until the last minute; and, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here now is to make sure that Mr. March is not given an opportunity to have his say, to present his case.

I think it is a sad day for democracy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the hon. members on the other side will vote in the appropriate way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I have listened with interest over the past several hours and couple of days with respect to the motion before us. I am not going to belabour the point but I will say this, because it is important for the record which may be used with respect to any further action that may be considered by anybody with respect to this matter: Due process was served.

The Member for Bellevue just got up and talked about the arrogance of the government. This is not a government resolution. This is the same member who, in the IEC, agreed with the IEC, all members of the IEC, that Mr. March, based upon a legal opinion that came before the IEC, that there was cause to suspend Mr. March with pay. Today, he stands up and swallows himself whole in front of everybody.

I think it is important for people to understand, who are watching this debate right now, that when we recommended, as a group, as the Internal Economy Commission, to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the basis for which we said - and we did not take it lightly - that when we recommended, as a group, for suspension of Mr. March as Citizens' Representative, the Member for Bellevue was in complete agreement with that motion.

He stands tonight, and a resolution coming from myself, in my capacity as the Government House Leader who sits on the IEC, not as a member of the government, who puts forward a resolution - and stands up and has the absolute audacity - the absolute audacity - to say that we are arrogant as a group and we are in full view tonight.

What is in full view tonight, Mr. Speaker, and the record will be clear - I have heard members talk about how many decisions, unsuccessful decisions, there were based upon legal cases and legal opinions. The problem with members opposite when they were the government, it was not the legal advice that they got; it was the legal advice that they probably did not follow that causes those decisions to be overturned, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have listened to a lot over the past two days on this debate and, for me, my decision, as a matter of the public record - I said it when I spoke to the amendment and I will say it right now as a member of the Internal Economy Commission - was simply this, and it was yours, too, I say to the Member for Bellevue, but you never had the backbone to stand up and agree with what you did at the IEC, but you didn't do what you said you were going to do earlier. Here it is, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to members opposite, we listened, and I listened intently, but I am not going to sit by and be accused of arrogance by a member who agreed with the decision that we made.

That it the pith and substance of his argument: that today, in the full light of the public Chamber, he could not stand by a decision that he took in your office, Mr. Speaker, with every other member of the IEC.

Let me say this: Every member has to decide for themselves on this. I will calm down by saying this, Mr. Speaker: My view, as an individual member, based upon the process that we went through, due process was afforded. Mr. March asked to meet with the IEC; he did so publicly. He was provided the opportunity. He chose not to show up, after asking for it. We provided the opportunity for him to have legal representation, for it to be paid for.

Now, all members talked about the Public Tender Act and their own sorts of experiences; but, for me, as a member, it simply comes down to this: Mr. March knew full well that, as Citizens' Representative, he could not engage in any other business activity for anybody.

How do I know that he knows that? Because the information that was provided to each and every member says right here: On June 24, 2003 - and I will quote Mr. Fraser March himself - ...but I want to point out to the people that not only am I not allowed to be part of any union activity, I am not allowed to be part of any business activity. To do otherwise would be in full contravention of the act as an independent officer of this House.

I listened probably to one of the best speeches made on this matter by the former Auditor General, the Member for Topsail, who was in a position as a former Auditor General, as an independent officer of this House, to say that, she said that it was, amongst officers who report directly to the House, all of them have felt, in her experience, that it is a privileged position - and that it is - but for me, when it comes down to this issue, I have to separate my personal feelings about Mr. March, the individual, to what my obligations are as a member of this Assembly. My obligation and my duty is to look at the facts on the face of it, not to engage - in my view I am entitled to my opinion as well - but not to engage in a charade that potentially has occurred, but to look at it for what it is. Whether I like what I am up to or I don't, still doesn't change the fact that as a member of this House a resolution is before us that was put forward by the Internal Economy Commission unanimously, that represents both the Official Opposition and the government's side; and, no, the NDP are not part of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, for me the Citizens' Representative, based on the information, based on the report, based upon the independent legal review that we asked for, knowingly, in my view, contravened the Act that he swore to uphold. From my perspective, Mr. Speaker, that is why I will be voting yes to the resolution tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to the main motion?

Are we ready for the question?

The question before the House, without reading all of the WHEREASES, is as follows: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by this House of Assembly that Fraser March be removed from the office of Citizens' Representative.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Are the Whips ready?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK (Noel): Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. French, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Ms Thistle; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-six ayes and twelve nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Motion carried.

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

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

Motion 1. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House be resolved into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 62.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No 2." (Bill 62)

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand tonight and respond to Bill 62, which is a money bill. As we all know, with a money bill you have the latitude to speak on anything connected with the public Treasury.

It was interesting today in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, that one of my colleagues, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, had raised an issue concerning the reduction of the Municipal Operating Grants and asked the government, the minister, what she planned to do about the reduction in the Municipal Operating Grants. I got the shock of my life when the Minister of Government Services responded, saying that the towns that had received the reduction in the Municipal Operating Grants could absorb it.

In other words, government decided that they would take so-called fourteen urban communities in our Province and say that they could absorb it. Is that what we want to tell the people of Grand Falls-Windsor when I go back now after this House closes this week, that the Minister of Government Services said it was all right to reduce the Municipal Operating Grant for the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor because they could absorb it?

Tell that to the taxpayers in Grand Falls-Windsor, that they can absorb it, so they can pay higher taxes, while the government have $2 billion in the bank earmarked for nothing, $15 million worth of interest since the month of July - actually, it is $20 million now - and they are arbitrarily going to decide what communities in our Province can absorb it.

Tell that to the senior citizen in Grand Falls-Windsor, one I spoke about only a couple of weeks ago, who cannot even get the oil put in her oil tank. She has her own property, has her own home, manages to pay her property tax, but she cannot get $1,000 to put the oil in her tank. She is heating herself this winter with comforters and eiderdown, spends most of the time in bed when it is cold, and other times opens the oven door to keep herself warm. Now, this is the same resident of our community that the government of today said: The Town of Grand Falls-Windsor can absorb it.

I do not know if the minister realizes that we just got hit with some bad news in Grand Falls-Windsor on April 27. We just got hit with the news that our number seven paper machine is coming out. I spoke to the CEO, John Weaver, of Abitibi only about ten days ago and he is still insistent that is going to happen, even though they have a contract with the government of this Province saying they must keep two machines going. What is that going to do if that comes to pass? There are 200 jobs right in that mill, and another 200 in the woods operation, besides all of the indirect jobs accompanied with Abitibi.

Now, this the same minister who stands up today and says this community of Grand Falls-Windsor can absorb it. We are going to sock it to Grand Falls-Windsor, we are going to sock it to Clarenville, and I do not know how many other communities, because they feel that these communities can absorb it. That is an awful outlook isn't it? Arbitrarily decide this is the way they are going to do it, because they figure these urban communities can absorb it.

In your own literature, the 2004-2005 annual report by the Department of Transportation and Works, this what you said, the minister: The population of Newfoundland and Labrador, according to Statistics Canada predictions, Newfoundland and Labrador will be the oldest province in the country by 2026, with half of the population being fifty and over.

Will you tell me how the people of Grand Falls-Windsor can absorb that reduction of the municipal grants, when we know that the population is aging all of the time? In fact, it was only this morning that I heard on one of the media outlets that in the U.S. right now they are going into the high schools and they are trying to convince young people to go into the funeral director career choice. Can you imagine that? They are going to have a shortage in 2025 of funeral directors in the United States of America, because the baby boomers - and there are lots of them around this House - are expected to be passing away on or about 2020, 2025, and so on.

What we know from the Minister of Transportation and Works, and he is even saying this, our population is going to be fifty and over - half of our population in this Province - that is alarming. That is alarming.

We have a population now of about half a million people, and half of that population, in 2025, twenty more years' time, is going to be over fifty years old. That is frightening. What has this government done to bring new people into this Province and grow our economy? Zero. They have done nothing. In fact, their own literature, they are predicting that 20,000 people will leave our Province over the next ten years. Now, those 20,000 people are not going to be fifty years and older; they are going to be young people of child-bearing age who could add to our population here in this Province.

This government is on their third year now of a new mandate, and I really do not see one job that has been created by this new government. If they have one created, I would like to know: Where is it? I looked at the Economic Review dated November, 2005, so that it pretty recent. I do not know if anyone has been following the tourism industry in this Province but, I will tell you, there has been a real stalemate this year in tourism. There has been a real stalemate. In fact, non-resident tourists have declined. Do you know that 37 per cent less people travelled to our Province last year by car to come and see our wonderful Province?

I was kind of alarmed a couple of days ago when I read that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has put out $10 million in tourism contracts for marketing purposes that I never did see go to competition. It might have been a Request for Proposals. I never did see that information go to competition.

Also, the Premier, last week, got up and announced that he is trying to come up with a new branding scheme, a marketing profile, that would improve the government's image. Can you tell me - the government will not need to spend $300,000 in a new branding image for themselves if they do their work. This government is willing to spend $100,000 for the next three years in what they call a new branding image that will improve the look of government itself. That is a ridiculous amount of money to be spending when there is already supposed to be an image for this Province.

I notice as well that there is a Supplementary Supply Bill before government looking for pre-committed money for our information technology department - the information technology department wanting $1.5 million in addition to what they have already had this year in $10 million.

There has been a stagnant report coming out of tourism this year. St. John's has been busy because they have had a record number of conventions. The West Coast has not been busy, and Central Newfoundland has not either. What is happening with tourism in this Province? I would like to ask that question. I know the gas prices have gone up, but still there were a lot of events that should have drawn in a big crowd to this Province this summer. Grand Falls-Windsor was one of the bright spots. We have never seen this - since first we introduced Cabot Year in 1997 there has been pretty much a scene for tourism every year since. The reports that are coming in already from 2004 and 2005 are not good.

MR. SHELLEY: They are not bad.

MS THISTLE: If you want to read your own material, there it is.

MR. SHELLEY: I know all about it.

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, who is the former Tourism Minister, knows exactly what the problem is. We have got to get that fixed up, because in 1997 we had record numbers of tourists visit our Province. That is a service sector that employs a lot of people, and if you don't get that on target again we are going to be in for some serious trouble.

We already know that our fishery was down in revenue by $250 million this year, primarily because of the late start due to Raw Material Sharing. We don't know what report Richard Cashin is going to bring down. We do know that it is in the hands of government right now. We don't know what the recommendation will be for the new fishing season in the spring, but whatever it is we need to act on it fast and we need to consult with fisherpeople around this Province and get everybody on board, because we can't go through another year like that. In fact, I know that fishermen right around this Province have had to go out of our Province to get enough hours, a lot of them, to qualify for EI.

It is interesting when I look at the construction activity. While this present government were in Opposition I heard the now Premier say that you could drive a Mack truck through the Voisey's Bay contract. Well now, I haven't seen anyone getting run over lately by a Mack truck. Thank God we have Voisey's Bay, because I tell you the employment levels would look at lot worse than they are today. Thank God we have Voisey's Bay and White Rose, and thank goodness they were Liberal initiatives that we knew would bring in new money this year and particularly in years to come.

What are you going to do about the labour force? Over the next fifteen years, 39 per cent of the labour force will be in a position to retire. Thirty-nine per cent of our labour force in this Province will be in a position to retire in fifteen years' time. What plan has come forward by this government? What are you doing to identify career choices for young people in this Province? Are you driving them away? You must me; because, I tell you, with what you have been doing to try and stimulate the economy, it is unseen.

The economy is probably robust, as we know, here on the Avalon, but turn your attention out beyond the Overpass. Have a look and see what is really going on outside the Overpass. It is heartbreaking to look at Harbour Breton. Harbour Breton is a community that had a lot of community pride, beautiful homes, everybody working, properties kept in tip-top shape, spent a lot of money on building supplies, getting paint and doing renovations every spring. We found it in Grand Falls-Windsor because Grand Falls-Windsor, along with being a paper town, we are also a service sector for a lot of communities. Actually, we service a population of 75,000 people; but, I can tell you, our stores and businesses found a difference when the people from Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula did not have the money to spend this year. It is so demeaning when all of them, all of their lives, had a good income, they enjoyed what they were doing with the fishery, and they have been left high and dry. Over a year has passed.

I meant to bring to this House tonight - I do not have it with me - there was an all-out request from the community of Harbour Breton to go to their Web site and put in a few comments to help government realize that they have not been doing anything for Harbour Breton, and I made my comments. I said: Government must respond. They must find a quota for Harbour Breton, they must go to Ottawa, they must initiate the promises that they said they would do.

I bet it was only ten or twelve entries after that, that there was a response from Steve Marshall from Outer Cove. It is too bad that I do not have it with me, because I would read it for you verbatim. He must have been watching what was said. What he said - I do not have the words in front of me - he more or less praised up the Premier. He said the Premier could be down in the Bahamas, off in a yacht, instead of dealing with this stuff every day, but this is what he is doing.

Anyway, maybe before the House closes I will be able to dig out what was said, and I will bring it in and let everybody hear it.

The Premier has let down the people of Harbour Breton. I watched him on television when he said - he pledged - that he would do all in his power to renew the fishery in Harbour Breton. What did he do? He left them high and dry. The only thing I have heard about it since has been a hurried letter, an eleventh-hour wish list that he sent off to the Prime Minster the day before the federal election was called.

He feels that since he has added that on his wish list to the Prime Minister a day before the election was called, his job is over and the Prime Minister must deliver, but if the Premier had been doing his job, he would have been already up to Ottawa several months ago leading a delegation from Harbour Breton, along with the Fisheries Minister, and would have made sure that Harbour Breton would not have to remain in the position that they are in today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her speaking time has lapsed.

MS THISTLE: My goodness, where did that twenty minutes go?

Can I have an extra minute or two, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member gets fifteen minutes for her opening remarks, not twenty, in Committee.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

MR. REID: She asked for leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, and thank you to the Minister of Finance for being so generous here tonight. We hope that he will be just as generous when Budget time comes, because I know there are a lot of things hidden, and I hope that he will pay attention to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because there is a great divide in this Province and the gap is getting wider and wider and wider. There is a great divide between urban, St. John's, actually, and the Avalon Peninsula, and every other part of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was interesting when I went to the Business Awards in Grand Falls on October 20 and we had before us a little pamphlet that was put out as part of the promotion of Business Week in Grand Falls-Windsor. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development was very excited that she had been able to fund some very important projects in the Exploits region. I almost rolled over in my seat, when I look at the zillions and millions of dollars in that department and the only money that was actually allocated to the Exploits region was $15,000. Fifteen thousand dollars. Now, if that is something to be excited about, that tells me a lot. There is no money being put in Central Newfoundland from this department. I do not know if the applications have been rejected or people are not doing their work, but for the minister to get excited about putting $15,000 in Central Newfoundland, there is something wrong with that.

Mr. Chairman, what we have to look at here now is, this government is now into their third year and I would like for some member on the government side to tell me how many jobs have been created in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by this government. How many? The Minister of Finance is scratching his head. He cannot think of one job that was created by this government.

If you are going to face the reality of an aging population and 50 per cent of our population being fifty years old in twenty years' time, what are you going to do to entice young people here? What are you going to do to keep young people staying here? Not with the policies that you currently have on your books. You are driving people away, and that is a very poor outlook for a government that is in their third year of their first mandate.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by saying that this government - I cannot use that word, it would be unparliamentary. When I look at the blueprint that this government put forward, it is totally different from what we see today. They made promises in every sector and they delivered nothing. They did quite the opposite. How are we going to get our economy on the move?

You cannot live forever on the excitement of the $2 billion Atlantic Accord. You must get busy and you must create jobs in our Province. If not, we are going to go the way of your own predictions here. We are going to be an aging population. Our young people are going to be gone out, and there is going to be no employment here. It is time to get busy and deliver on what you promised.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I just want to stand and have a few words on the bill tonight.

I just want to explain to the viewing audience what we just did, Mr. Chair. We just fired Fraser March.

MR. REID: We didn't, the government did.

MS FOOTE: The government did, (inaudible) the government money.

MR. JOYCE: The government did. The government just fired Fraser March here.

I look at my own personal situation and I look at the Premier, the commitment he made on provincial television, when he said that he is going to put the most qualified people in, he is going to be rid of all this political patronage. Every time I hear about the Fraser March situation, I look back at my own case, I look at no patronage by the Premier, and I look at Mike Monaghan who happens to be the defeated candidate for the Bay of Islands, all of the sudden to be rewarded for his duty as Vice-Chairman of the Liquor Corp. Then we have John Sweetland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands. I ask members if they would be kind enough to keep their conversations a little quieter and stop shouting back and forth across the House, please.

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know they don't want to hear the truth, they don't want to hear about the commitments broken by the Premier.

Then we hear about John Sweetland, Vice-Chairman of the Labour Relations Board who never worked on a labour relations case in his life, as a lawyer. Then we have Kimberly Burridge, review tribunal, Workers' Compensation Board, another big appointment. That is what the Premier promised to get rid of. That is what all these members opposite clapped about and were so happy, that the Premier was going to do that. They all stood by him. You don't see too many of them standing up now and saying: Premier, oh no, you are breaking your word, you are breaking your commitment. We don't see that.

The highlight, Mr. Chairman, was Nada Borden this week. When we have an $89.6 million White Paper by this government, under the Freedom of Information, access to information, we get the report that Nada Borden is a White Paper consultant. When the Minister of Education was asked in the House, she didn't know what her duties were. She knew a person by the name of Nada Borden who was seconded, but she didn't know what her duties were, she did not know her rate of pay, she did not know where she worked from, and she did not know who was paying the benefits. All she knew, from what I can gather, is that she was the Vice-President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and she is the Premier's Chief Financial Officer. That is the person who was out when the Premier was going to do the school board realignment. That is the person he put in charge to head up the school board. That is the same person, Nada Borden, when there was a problem going on with the North Shore Academy, when they were going to raise the roof at $25,000, who was supposed to stand up for the people, but she never spoke a word. I wonder why. I guess she was fighting, I have to give her credit, but it was not for the people of the North Shore, it was to make sure that she got seconded. Here is the person the Premier appointed to oversee the school board, who was supposed to stand up for the people she represented.

I will tell you what happened, Mr. Chairman, and the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, was at the meeting. I came in and I met with the former, former Minister of Education about the school. I sat down in his office, six or seven officials, and the Leader of the Opposition came with me because he was the former Minister of Education, I sat down and put the cards on the table. I said: Here is what is going on. Let's see what we can do, let's get a report done. If it is too much, I will go out and explain it to the people; not a problem. He agreed. The Leader of the Opposition agreed to meet with the residents out there, the school council, if they wanted to, and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was sitting at the table.

I went back to the people on the North Shore and I said to the people on the North Shore: The minister will get a report done on the cost and he will come and meet with you. That was the commitment that I had from the minister, face to face with people there. That is the commitment I had. I go back and meet with the people, and the roof going ahead, and I called the minister and said: You have to have your commitment. Through Nada Borden he came back and said: No, I am not meeting with them now. All of the sudden the Premier was coming into town, I think it was for the triathlon, he was making an announcement for the triathlon -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, no. He was going to have a meeting about the triathlon. The Premier was coming to town and these residents on the North Shore were fairly upset. They were upset and they called, I think it was to Linda Roach, and said: Okay, we are going to go up where the Premier is, that is what we are going to do. We will meet the Premier if he will not meet with us, we will crash with the Premier. That is what they were going to do. That is how adamant they were and that is how sincere they were. They were willing to go up and meet with the Premier right where he was going to have his press conference to push their case.

The former, former Minister of Education, the Minister of Health now, phones out to Nada Borden - now, this is factual - phones out to Nada Borden and says: Okay we will meet with you and we will meet with the District 3 people Monday morning in St. John's. They called the residents and they said: Okay, fine, we will have the school council come in also and we will see if he will meet with the school council; nice people, very concerned, very nice people. Anyway, between the jigs and the reels, the Premier comes in and they, upon their word, don't bother with the news conference, leave the news conference alone, because they have a commitment from the minister. The Premier is out of town 12:01, they get a call at 12:02 saying the meeting is called off for Monday. That is what they did That is what they did! Nada Borden, the person the Premier appointed, was the one who was suppose to coordinate the meeting. As soon as the Premier got out of town they got a call - something like the Member for Trinity North, very trustworthy I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: She should join you as poster boy, I would say. Two of you guys make a good pair, that is what I say.

That is what happened. So, we wonder if the political appointments the Premier make are there to serve the people they are supposed to represent, or if it is just so they do not embarrass the government. In my case, with Nada Borden, when the minister did not even know what her duties were last Thursday, has confirmed to me that she had no idea who this person was. Consultant to the White Paper; she still does not know where her office is. Her office, Madam Minister, is on the tenth floor, Sir Richard Squires Building, just in case you ever want to visit her or speak to hear; just to let you know, if you ever wanted to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a provincial building?

MR. JOYCE: That is the Premier's office, that is.

I hear, today, the minister - and I understand the minister just took over this portfolio and the road going to the Premier's golf course. That has been a hot issue. That is fine, I have no problem with that.

The Minister of Education who got up last Thursday trying to defend it, got up and said: They have expensive houses out there, they do not like dust. When I heard that statement I was thinking about the summer when the now Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I was trying to get a piece of road on the North Shore fixed up because of safety concerns, a piece of road on the North Shore with everybody driving by on a regular basis, fish coming out. The media wanted to look at this road, and they looked at it. It is unsafe. Everybody declared it was unsafe. His own officials declared it unsafe. What happens? Nothing. Nothing happens. It took me almost four months to get it done, and here is the Minister of Education standing up and saying, they did not like dust, so they spent $29,000.

MR. REID: Expensive houses.

MR. JOYCE: Expensive houses. The amount of traffic that was going back and forth- arrogance and elitist, they are two good words. That arrogance, that they have to have expensive houses.

The people on the North Shore for safety concerns, if you want something done, improve your houses. They may not be expensive enough to have it done. I was in amazement when I heard the minister make that statement, with the fighting I had to do just to get a piece of road fixed up this summer. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is very well aware of it, even though his own officials at the time recommended to have the road done, and it was not a big part of the road. I was saying: Listen, let's do the whole North Shore, let's re-patch. I am talking about a safety concern that we had. Here we have the minister, who is filling in for the minister who is taking care of housing, stand up and say that the houses were expensive and they did not like dust. I was shaking my head and -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for the Bay of Islands that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and I will be back again.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am standing to speak to the money bill that is before us, and I have to say that when we talk about money and talk about what it means for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you that the disparity that exists between rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the urban centers of this Province is astounding. I think, if you were to talk to anyone who has had a chance to spend some time on the Avalon Peninsula, in particular, and then leave and drive to rural parts of our Province, which many of us represent in this House of Assembly, you would be astounded at the difference in terms of where the Province is going.

I know, when I speak with people on the Burin Peninsula in particular, of course, which is very near and dear to me, it is a sad situation with a lot of the communities down there where we see families, not just fathers or mothers but families, actually leaving the Burin Peninsula. I am sure it is the same on the Northern Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula, and in other rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The sad thing about all of this, of course, is that they are taking with them the very young, so that when we talk about an aging population, that is exactly what is going to happen in our Province. There are going to be a very few families around to make a difference. The sad part of this is that we are going to see a Province that is going to become, particularly in rural parts of our Province, a retirement community. That is exactly what we are going to have, without all the services that we are able to provide to families, because we talk about school closing and we talk about businesses closing.

Take Marystown, for example. Marystown is a lovely community. It serves, kind of, as the focal point for the Burin Peninsula. What we are seeing in Marystown today, as a result of what is happening down there with no work at the shipyard or Cow Head, with what is happening with FPI, we are seeing businesses close. For instance, the Keg has closed in Marystown, Zellers has closed in Marystown, and Jungle Jim's has closed in Marystown. Of course, that is really sad because, when these businesses close, it means that jobs are gone, services are gone, other things are gone that people would normally come to expect in a community the size of Marystown.

If the employment opportunities are not there in terms of a project like White Rose, which, by the way, as a former colleague mentioned, was, in fact, an initiative, something that the Liberal government in this Province made happen, just as we did with Voisey's Bay, and thank heavens we did; because, given the fact that we are seeing our unemployment rate go higher and higher on a weekly basis as a result of the fact that this government has done so little to try and get things going in the economy of this Province. No matter how many times the Premier talks about his business success, and how successful he has been in the past, I keep asking: Where is that record of success in terms of this Province? Why is he, or his expertise, not somehow wearing off in terms of the Province's economy?

It is interesting, when you look at an article that appeared in The Telegram back in May, 2004, it was the Premier, in fact, who was saying - the headline was: Second shoe drops, Government turns focus to ‘growing economy'.

This was after six months in office and the Premier saying, "As you can appreciate, we're probably six months and a day or two in office, since we've actually taken power. We've been totally preoccupied with the fiscal situation of the province ... But now, basically, the next approach is that we're going to get on with the business of the province as well. Part of our two-pronged approach was to grow the economy." Then he goes on to say, "I've enjoyed more success in the business world than I ever dreamed possible."

Interestingly enough, that was six months into the mandate, the government's mandate. He says, "You'll start to see some action and some good initiatives over the course of the next two or three months," Williams said

Over the course of the next two or three months! That was like a year ago, and we are still waiting to see these wonderful announcements, these terrific new initiatives, all of these things that were promised in the Blue Book.

What did we hear? We heard the Premier stand in the House last week and talk about branding, talk about having to improve the government's image, talk about the importance of having a company trying to sell the Province. Nothing new, nothing different, something that has been done since time immemorial, as far as governments are concerned, where you have some kind of a logo, something associated with the Province, and try and build on our economy. Lo and behold, here we are, with rural Newfoundland and Labrador going through one of the most difficult times in its history, and our Premier stands to read a Ministerial Statement about the importance of branding and improving the government's image. Now, that meant a lot to those people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who are having to uproot their families, move to Alberta, and not know whether or not they are ever going to get back to our Province to work again.

In fact, Mr. Chair, as my colleague said earlier, even their own projections of out-migration, they are projecting some 20,000 people leaving this Province over the next ten years. There seems to be nothing happening to try and ensure that does not happen. In fact, it almost seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy where they are doing so little, they are sitting back and, in terms of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, allowing things to just deteriorate daily.

I know that if you talk to people, particularly in my district, there is no shining light, there is nothing to look forward to. We have Clearwater down there now, who just announced that they are laying off people. You have FPI, and we do not know what the future holds. We do not know what FPI's plans are for Marystown and Burin. We are pretty clear what they are for Fortune, and it does not look very good. My problem with all of this is that we have a government that is saying: Let's wait for the internal review that FPI is doing before we decide that we are going to do anything about it at all. Of course, that is a little late, isn't it, once the horse has left the barn? Then you decide: Whoa, hold on just a second, now.

It is a little like Abitibi, and what is going on with Abitibi. Again, these are two files that the Premier has proudly announced he has been all over, and what are we seeing? We are seeing failure. We are not seeing any success at all. Certainly, when it comes to FPI, they are doing just what they want. They are riding roughshod over the people of the Province, particularly over their employees. They seem to be riding roughshod over this government, and the same could be said for Abitibi.

Where is the Premier with all of his expertise when dealing with companies? Today he talked about Abitibi being such a difficult company to deal with. Well, certainly a man with his expertise, his success, as he touted his own horn in the article in The Telegram, would be able to have some influence over a company like Abitibi, would be able to negotiate, would be able to make things a little different and of a different outcome. Instead, we are seeing a company pulling out of Stephenville. I am hoping that is not right, but we are seeing them wanting to strip a union and we are seeing a Premier who is not being able to make one bit of difference with respect to Abitibi, any more than he has been able to make any difference when it comes to FPI.

It is a sad state of affairs when you have a Premier who campaigned and told people: Elect me because I have such varied business experience. Look how successful I have been. Look what I have been able to accomplish as an individual. Elect me and I will do the same for this Province.

What are we seeing? We are seeing a Province in turmoil when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are seeing out-migration. We are seeing people leaving, not knowing if they are ever going to be able to come back. I know, in terms of medical care - we are asking for a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula. I do not think that is too much to ask, when you have had additional federal money, health care money, you have a cash surplus, and I do not think it is too much to ask that people who live and work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who are going through such difficult times, be able to access quality health care.

Anyone who knows anyone who has had difficulty with dialysis, and knowing that they need access to that proper medical care, would understand the need to do everything we can to make life a little easier for them, given that it takes its toll not only on the individual who is being impacted but certainly on the family as well.

Then, of course, we have a government who talks about what it does in terms of being able to deal with the bottom line. You know, when you look at Voisey's Bay and you look at White Rose, initiatives of the former Liberal government, the only thing I can see that this government has done to even add to the bottom line is the $25 million in taxes that you instituted. Whether it was ambulance fees, death certificates, drivers' licences, or to register your vehicle, all of these fee increases, that is what you did to add to the bottom line. The harm that was done to people throughout this Province because of that action by this government just goes to show again a lack of concern, a lack of appreciation, a lack of understanding of what hardships people face, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said before, actions speak much louder than words. The actions of this government have been such that you really do not need to say anything because people know. People who are living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador know. They know only too well how hard things are for them. Whether it is health care, whether it is the crisis that we are facing in the fishery, it is difficult in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is like two different worlds we are living in here. If you were, in fact, to drive, if you took the time - those who represent urban areas - to really visit and speak with people in rural districts, you would have a better appreciation for what they are going through and how scared they are.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time for speaking has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, you would hardly believe the speech from the hon. member, when you think about it. Here is the foundation of her argument: that this government is not doing anything for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will ask you this question, and I will ask her this question. Maybe she will get a chance to get up and answer it. We are debating a piece of legislation tonight called Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No 2. Now, not a member opposite has spoken to what this bill is about, but I am going to. I am going to highlight what is in this bill. Do you know what it is? We are making investments in two fisheries operations. Where are we making those investments? Is it on Water Street?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it on Military Road?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it in Corner Brook?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it in Grand Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I say to you, Mr. Chair.

I know where it is. I know where it is, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: They can laugh all they want.

MR. RIDEOUT: You didn't interrupt them.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did not interrupt the member. I listened intently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: They do not want to hear the truth.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Government House Leader speak. I ask that members would respect his right to speak and allow him to be heard in silence.

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

We are making significant investments in two operations in two of the members' districts who sit in the Official Opposition. One on the South Coast - and, let's read the bill. "Nature Sea Farms Inc. has purchased the assets of an aquaculture business....". In the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune's district, this bill that we are debating right now will provide a $9 million line of credit for an operation in his district in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Right there - and the member stands up and says we are making no investment. Where are we making the other investment? If we pass this bill tonight, let me ask members opposite, if you believe what you are saying to be so true, then you should pass this piece of legislation right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition can get up when he is ready. I listened to members intently, never interrupted them.

The second part of this investment, where is that being made? It is being made for Torngat Fisheries, in the Member for Torngat Mountains' district. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I guess, if you use the Member for Grand Bank's logic, that is a real big investment in another big urban part of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to members opposite, Mr. Chairman.

Just listen to the rant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just listen to the rant when I cross along the way.

Here is what she said. This is what really struck me as being comical. It is actually comical. She said, the only thing this crowd have done to add to the bottom line were fee increases.

I don't know where she was when the Premier leveraged $2 billion out of the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Where was she then, Mr. Chair? Where was the member when the Premier of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, see, the member opposite cannot take it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member - the Chair will not hesitate to name members if they continue to shout back and forth across the House. The member has been recognized, and I ask that he be heard in silence.

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

I say to the Member for Grand Bank, I never interrupted you once. I never yelled out. I listened to you. Everyone listened to you intently, and I only ask the same courtesy.

Where was she when the Premier leveraged the $2 billion from the federal government? That did nothing to increase our bottom line, I suppose, I say to members opposite; and, what about the ability of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. Danny Williams, when he leveraged more equalization money from the federal government? I guess that did not improve our bottom line.

Mr. Chair, let's talk about - she referenced Abitibi. Now, members opposite, as a group, have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on the issue, and I am going to explain to you why. Like I said in Question Period, to the Leader of the Opposition, Abitibi announced on July 27 that they were going to close their Stephenville operation unless government, number one, spend $350 million to build two projects on the Exploits, which his member, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, did not want. Then they wanted us to give them $455 million on top of that, over a thirty year period, and the member - I think it was after he met with Abitibi - said: There is more to this. I am not sure Abitibi is asking for that much.

When we announced the framework agreement that met the objectives of the company in terms of what they consistently asked of this government, which was a $10 million benefit, we did it over fifteen years. It was a $150 million investment as compared to the $750 million they were asking for. What did the Leader of the Opposition say then? We gave them too much.

You cannot have it both ways.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, I am not going to sit idly by here tonight and listen to the member opposite put words in my mouth that I never spoke. Never did I say that you gave Abitibi too much to keep the Stephenville mill open. The day that it was announced, I went on and I said -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member if he could make his point of order, please.

MR. REID: I am getting to it, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member is on a point of order. I ask the member if he would make his point of order, get to the point, and the Chair will rule whether it is a point of order.

MR. REID: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the man is over there saying things that I did not say.

When that happened this year, I said I was delighted for the people of the Stephenville region, that they were going to be able to still have a future in that plant. Never did I say that we gave them too much money!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if that is the case, let me apologize to the member, but let me say that his colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair certainly said that we gave Abitibi too much. The Leader of the Opposition even referenced - and I can quote it - and talked about doing a development on the Exploits River that could potentially help Stephenville. Yet, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans does not want anything to go from Exploits to help anybody but in Central Newfoundland.

The point is this, Mr. Chairman: there are so many positions that have been articulated by so many members opposite that it is hard to sit down and listen to an argument being made that absolutely has no validity.

Let's talk about the investments in agriculture that this government have made. Where is that happening? It is not happening on Kenmount Road. It is happening in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Parts of the investments that we have made today are bearing results. Let's look at Wholesome Dairies, for example, and their Good Natured product, that are now in the process of exporting product, since this government has come to power, that they were not when they were the government. Where is that taking place? Where are the jobs being created by that? They are being created on the West Coast of our Province, in rural parts of our Province.

What about the investment that we made in the Land Consolidation Program? What is that going to do? It is going to put the dairy industry and the agrifoods industry in a position to continue to grow to a point that, over the next fours years, it will actually double in size. Where is that going to take place? It is going to take place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, to say with all sincerity and honesty that we have absolutely done nothing for rural Newfoundland Labrador is not true. Are there challenges? You had better believe there are. There are significant ones. There are significant challenges in parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but I can tell you this: as a government, we will be measured by what we believe is in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and our attitude is not going to be let them pack it up and move it away. Our attitude will be reflected in legislation right here that we are debating right now about investing in members' districts. irrespective of where you sit or irrespective of your label, by investing where we believe it should happen - like down in the member's district, for example, in Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, like in the member's district in Torngat Mountains, like the investment we made in the Member for Bellevue's district to keep a plant operating out there. We will not hesitate to do it when we believe it is absolutely right to do so, because it means, it only means, from our government's point of view, that an investment that we make must be worthwhile. We will not hesitate to make them, because people have seen those examples of where we have made them.

Let's talk about forestry. The study is just about to be completed on the value-added forestry study for Labrador. Now, why did we invest $350,000 and bring the right people in, in terms of the knowledge and consultant, to work with people in Labrador to talk about adding value? Because, there is a tremendous opportunity in Labrador itself for the growth of the forestry industry, both from an integrated sawmill point of view, from a value-added and secondary processing point of view, and we are looking forward to the opportunity to work with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, to work with the Member for Lake Melville, and to work with the integrated sawmill industry and those who are interested in growing that industry because we believe there is an opportunity, but no opportunity will exist unless there is an investment made to ensure that a blueprint is created on how we grow that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, that is the type of action that we have taken to invest strategically in different areas of the Province to grow the revenue base, to grow jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Is it going to be done overnight? No, it is not. Is it going to be done? Yes, it will, if we have anything to do with it, because we believe in our ability and we believe in the ability of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, with the right help from their government, with the right strategic investments, that they, in rural parts of the Province, our sisters and brothers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, will have the opportunity to take advantage of their own natural resources, not like in the past where many other companies took advantage of them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad to see that the members opposite have had their supper, had their little siesta, and now they are all awake and well. We did not hear much from them all night, but I guess now that we are in debate, and it is 9:45 in the night, we are in for a lively debate, I do hope, before we close this off some time tonight or tomorrow morning.

Mr. Chairman, before I get into the speech I was going to give, I would like to talk about the minister's little charade that he just had on here. What I have noticed in this sitting of the House of Assembly -

MS FOOTE: Tirade.

MR. REID: Tirade, or charade, or both, I say to my colleague.

What I have noticed in this sitting of the House of Assembly is, any time that you ask a minister on that side of the floor a question, or make a remark that they do not like, or a question that they do not want to give you the answer to, what do they do? They go on the personal attack. They have to get up then and bawl, shout, beat their chest and scream and try to intimidate us. Well, I tell you, and I tell the minister, he is not going to intimidate anyone on this side of the House because we know the facts. We know the answers to the questions before we ask them. If we cannot get the answers that we deserve in the House of Assembly, we will get them elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, let's talk about the great display that the Government House Leader just made when he talked about the investments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and he waved around the bill that is here tonight.

Well, I can educate some of you opposite about the bill that he is waving around here tonight, and his investment into the fish farms of Bay d'Espoir. I say to the minister, maybe he should do a little history himself, because his is not the first government to put a loan guarantee into the Bay d'Espoir salmon farms. I would go so far as to say that the current Minister of Fisheries, back in 1985 to 1989, put money into the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir. The federal government certainly did it at the time. The Liberal government, from 1989 up until 2003, continued to put loan guarantees into the Bay d'Espoir fish farms, and continued to pump money in there, so there is nothing new with what the minister said here tonight. It is just another continuation of initiatives that were undertaken by the governments that came before him.

Let's talk about Torngat Fisheries, that he talked about in my colleague's district of Torngat Mountains, and how great it was that he was investing money in the Torngat Fisheries, in one of the more rural areas of this Province. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that loan guarantee has been on the books for at least fifteen years. At least fifteen years. All the Minister of Finance is doing tonight is to correct an error in the piece of legislation and saying that we will continue that loan guarantee up until 2006, until April of 2006; and, if we are here next year this time, he will be standing and saying: Let's continue it again.

I know, when I was Minister of Fisheries, and I know when Walter Carter was Minister of Fisheries from 1989 to 1996, he renewed that loan guarantee, so I do not need the Government House Leader to lecture me on what they are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not need him! I say, check the facts, get it right with the history.

Mr. Chairman, before he got me off into a spat like that, here is what I wanted to talk about tonight. When you look at the economy of this Province, and what is happening in this Province, it always reminds me of that great author, Charles Dickens, who wrote A Tale of Two Cities. It was written in 1859, Mr. Chairman.

MS FOOTE: And it's not Mount Pearl and St. John's.

MR. REID: It is not Mount Pearl and St. John's.

Dickens was talking about life in two European cities - one was London, England, and the other was Paris, France - and the difference that existed at the time. In London, things were peaceful and tranquil. People were prosperous, and they were looking forward to a great future. Across the Channel, in Paris, France, we had a revolution on the go. Why? Because the people in the country were revolting. Why were they revolting? Because they were starving to death. Every time that I look and drive from St. John's to my district, or drive from St. John's to any other part of this Province, especially the rural parts, I am reminded of Charles Dickens and A Tale of Two Cities.

Here we are today, looking at the Minister of Finance out talking, and all of the economists, and what are they saying about the economy of this Province? What are they saying about it? They are talking about: the economy is booming. To quote the Minister of Finance, when he was sitting over there talking about the GDP, we are talking about we are going to lead the country this year. We are going to lead the country this year in economic growth, in GDP. We are also talking about a surplus budget. The economy is booming. We expect to lead the country in economic growth this year and for the next three or four years, into the foreseeable future. We are talking about a surplus on a budget that the same group that is sitting opposite to me told me two years ago that they are running a billion dollar deficit and there was no way they were going to pay it off for eight years. Now, two years into the mandate, the budget is paid off, there is no more surplus, and they are still talking about cuts.

We are sitting here today asking questions of the Minister of Education about the elimination of twenty schools in the Avalon region - twenty schools - and, what did we hear from her? One minute she says we are going to study the report and we are going to give people the opportunity to consult. Then, five minutes later she walks through the doors of the House of Assembly and tells her buddy down at the board, Darin King, to shred the report. Then, today, three days later, she walks back in the House and says: I suggest that the parents consult with the board.

Make up your mind! What are you going to do? Make up your mind! Get your answers straight. What are you going to do?

You talk about the economy. If you drive around St. John's tonight, or Mount Pearl, there is a good chance, if you check fifteen stores or service stations or fast food operations in this city, you will find a help wanted sign. More power to the people of this region, the economy is booming, but drive outside of the Overpass and head west along the Trans-Canada and take the opportunity to go down the side roads and by-roads that are not paved like the road up to the Premier's golf course out here in the West End. Visit those people and see what is happening to the economy of this Province. Visit Harbour Breton and see what this government has done after they turned their backs on them and allowed the Board of Directors of FPI to take their lifeblood away from them, and let them bleed out down there. All that you have done for them, I say to the members opposite, is offer them a make-work program and say this: We will not forget you. The Premier, standing on his soapbox many times this year talking about: We will not let the people of Harbour Breton down. We will not forget you.

What has he done? It is a year ago almost to the day that FPI came in here and announced they were closing Harbour Breton, and this government said nothing, and they said nothing since except talk. Now they have taken the attention away from FPI and their own inadequacies, not being able to deal with the problem, and they are pointing it at the federal government now because there is a federal election on, looking for commitments for quotas, quotas that they never asked for, I say, or were not serious about; because, if they were, they would have told the Board of Directors of FPI: You leave Harbour Breton, you leave your quota behind.

That is what we would have done over here, I guarantee you that. That is what we would have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Let's go a little further along the coast. What have you done for Ramea? What have you done for Burgeo? Go around the coast and go up to Stephenville, when the Premier stood in front of the electorate in Stephenville during the election two short years ago and held up his paper and said: I give you a commitment - it is in the papers there; we have copies of it - I know what the problems are out here associated with your mill. You have a problem with fibre. You have a wood supply shortage, and you have a problem with energy. You need electricity or a cheap source of energy to keep that mill open. Believe me, I know your problems. I have the solution, and Stephenville will not close under my watch.

MS FOOTE: The Premier said that?

MR. REID: That is the Premier of the Province: Stephenville will not close under my watch.

Let's see what happens to Stephenville when a multinational company that just showed a $99 million profit in the last quarter is out there now trying to strip the contract from union workers and lay it on them if the mill closes tomorrow or some time this week, because that is who is going to get the blame for it, the union workers, because they did not grovel. The did not bow down to Abitibi. They did not bow down to a multinational corporation. They said: Enough is enough. We are giving you no more. The taxpayers of the Province just gave you $175 million and now you are trying to take a dollar out of my pocket.

That is what Abitibi is saying - that is what the union workers in Stephenville are saying. You should be ashamed, after making the commitment that you would not allow Abitibi to strip contracts.

I heard an individual, a union worker with Abitibi, on Friday afternoon on the CBC news at 5:20, and the reporter asked him: What are they looking for in your contract? Well, he said, if you took the contract cover to cover and you removed everything between the two covers, that is what Abitibi is looking for. That is what the gentleman said on the radio on Friday afternoon. Yet, I hear the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Premier say: We will not tolerate Abitibi stripping the contract. Well, if you remove what is between the covers of a contract, what is left?

Now, we can move from Stephenville, and we can move up the Northern Peninsula where the Premier made that great speech. The Member for St. Barbe was there and the Minister of Transportation was there. After winning two by-elections, what did he say? I will not forget the people of the Northern Peninsula. Never again, if I am elected Premier, will you be up to your waist in snow in the fall of the year and the winter on a make-work program. Then I hear a woman from the Northern Peninsula saying: Yes, I was there when the Premier made the commitment. I was there when he said he would not forget us. I was there when he said you will not be up to your waist in the fall and the winter of the year on a make-work program. Guess what she said? He honoured that one too, because he will not even give us a make-work program. Talk to the people -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. REID: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am telling you that we have a lot of ten minutes between now and 4 o'clock tomorrow morning and I will exercise most of them.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly not going to be intimidated by threats from the Leader of the Opposition. If he wants to stay here until 4 o'clock tomorrow morning, if he wants to stay here until 4 o'clock tomorrow evening and 4 o'clock the morning after that, we could not care less, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I will begin my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying this, the hon. gentleman started his remarks when he got to his feet by saying how the government, when it wants to get up and defend itself, works itself into a fit and goes into a rant and starts pounding our chests, yelling and screaming and bawling and all of that. Well, what did we just hear from the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman? There is a saying in Newfoundland of the pot calling the kettle black bottom.

Mr. Chairman, if he had been cool, calm, collected -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I make no apologies for the way I speak in this House. I have been speaking the same way for thirty years and I have no intention of changing that approach, none whatsoever, but neither do I get up and criticize the speaking style of somebody else. We are all individuals in that regard and we all do it our own way, in our own time, in the best way we know how, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a few comments on Bill 62. If - as the Opposition House Leader would describe it - you were watching this out there tonight in TV land, you would think that we were debating - well, you would not say we were debating two loan guarantees, that's for sure. You would think we are debating education, we are debating roads, we are debating health care. We just brought down the Budget a few minutes ago. That is the conclusion you would come to out in TV land tonight, as the Opposition House Leader would say, if you were to listen to this debate.

Now, we know it is a money bill, Mr. Chairman. We have been here long enough to know that there is a wide latitude in a money bill, but this particular money bill deals with two things. One, putting in place the legislative framework to ratify Northern Council for a loan guarantee to Natures Sea Farms that the Cabinet approved on October 12, 2005. Not the Tory government back in the 1980s, not the Liberal government the fourteen years they were there, but this Administration approved for rural Newfoundland an operation in rural Newfoundland in 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Torngat Mountain guarantee, Mr. Chairman, has been in place for some time. The government, if we did not have any sympathy or compassion or understanding in our psychic and in our being for the well being of the North Coast of Labrador, we could have let it lapse. Nobody said we had to approve it. There was no gun to our head saying that we had to approve this, but this government knows that if we are going to have some economic activity in the fishery in Nain and Makkovik, because that is where the two plants are, Mr. Chairman - if we are going to have some opportunity, some economic opportunity in the most isolated part of rural Newfoundland, then it was the right thing to do, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, we make no apologies. Not one person, man or women, on this side of the House makes an apology for doing something for the North Coast of Labrador. We did not have to do it but we did it because it was the right thing to do.

Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I can only come to this conclusion, Mr. Chairman: There is nothing more self-righteous than the ragtag leftovers of a defeated Liberal government. Nothing more self-righteous!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: They get over there and they talk about our investment in rural Newfoundland. Well, we can hold - in two months in office - our investment in rural Newfoundland against fourteen years of Liberal investment. I can tell you that, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: There was one year, Mr. Chairman, in the Department of Transportation, when that hon. crowd, when they were the government, had a capital works program for provincial roads of less than $6 million. That was their commitment, Mr. Chairman, to all of Newfoundland. The year that they went around this Province trying to buy their way back into office with the taxpayers' cheque book, they invested the godly sum of $23 million into a provincial roads program. The first year that we took over office, despite being faced with one God-awful horrendous financial problem, we invested $30 million into our roads program, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This past construction season, Mr. Chairman, we jacked that to $48.7 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We already announced that we have pre-committed our Budget for next year, Mr. Chairman, at $58.3 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: How much of that is going to be spent in the urban core of this Province? Hardly any of it, Mr. Chairman. The Minister today of Transportation and Works put $50 million on the table and challenged the federal government to match it to put a hard surface on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: It sounds to me like that is urban Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman. It sounds to me like that is pretty rural, Mr. Chairman.

What did we do in terms of the Trans-Canada Highway? This government dithered and dithered and dithered and left $24 million - the previous government, I mean, left $24 million in round one infrastructure financing. We were finally able to get an agreement. As a result, there is a $53.7 million investment in the Trans-Canada Highway!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Does that serve rural Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, or only the urban centres? We invested a new $40 million in the Trans-Labrador Highway this year. Is that rural Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, let me tell this House, and anybody who is listening. I was born and raised and grew up in Fleur de Lys in the heart and soul of rural Newfoundland. I represented Baie Verte-White Bay in this House for seventeen years in rural Newfoundland. Not always as a Liberal, but I say to my hon. friend, while the light holds out to burn the vilest sinner may return.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I say further to the hon. gentleman from Bay of Islands, don't take that as an invitation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I was after elephant tracks and I got diverted by rabbit tracks. I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: My point then, Mr. Chairman. I am representing a riding in rural Newfoundland today. I take no lessons from any Liberal in any part of this Province when it comes to dealing and understanding and being part of the heart and soul of rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I will defend this government on any stage, in any auditorium, on any platform anywhere in this Province, rural or urban, because this government has a record and this Premier has a record that is very defensible anywhere in the Province. Why do I say that, Mr. Chairman? Because here is the problem with the Opposition, despite the fact of the gloom and the doom and the preaching that they have been trying to do, 78 per cent of the Province do not believe them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Seventy-eight percent of the Province think that this government, this Premier, those ministers are doing a super job. Sixty-two percent of the people in this Province would vote for this government if an election were held today. Sixty-two percent of the people of this Province feel that this Premier would continue to make the best leader of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, is in single digits and sinking and fading fast. That is the real trouble with this Opposition, they have no vision. They have no clout. They are a defeated bunch of depressed Liberals. That is what they are, Mr. Chairman. It is in that vein that they cannot say anything good. At least the second or third party in this House from time to time admits that the government has made a right move, the government has made a good investment.

The Member for Labrador West today had to say that us putting $50 million on the table and challenging the federal government to do likewise so that we got $100 million to invest in putting a hard surface on the Trans-Labrador Highway, from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in the first instance is a good thing, is a good first move. Thank you, I say to our colleague.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: So, Madam Chair, we are not going to make any apologies to anybody on the other side. We are not going to be intimidated into sitting back on our hands here and taking all of the guff -

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: - and the gobbledygook that they are sending over. We could not care less if we were here until 4:00 on Christmas Eve. No, we don't care. We are going to pass this bill!

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I will only be two minutes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: - because I know the minister, while he is sitting in his chair there just talking about gobbledygook - I will tell you about gobbledygook and safety on your roads, I say to the minister. We had a piece of road in McIver's this year and that minister, right there - I spoke to the man, personally, twice about a safety concern where there is about a five-foot drop in a road with transport trucks going over it, people going back and forth and school buses. This is the minister talking about gobbledygook. I spoke to the man twice. I wrote the man twice. It was in the media on several occasions, and the minister has the audacity to send out a press release, Madam Chair.

Here is what this minister said in a press release: At no point has Route 440 been brought to my attention as requiring immediate upgrades by my senior officials or the MHA for Bay of Islands. If he had something specific to bring to my attention, he should have done it in an appropriate manner. Minister Rideout said: The Bay of Island's MHA has not approached the issue with appropriate protocol. Here is the minister out saying I never brought it to his attention. I went to the media. I went out and said: The minister is misleading the general public. That is what I said. The minister is misleading the general public. That is what I said. The minister got on and said: At no time - he stood by his press release - was that safety concern brought to his attention. At no time; if you want to listen to foolishness.

Madam Chair, what I did, just for the minister's sake, I sent him the letters that I wrote him. After speaking to him twice here in this House in June, I wrote him twice. I forwarded him the letters which showed confirmation that his office received it. I got a letter back from the minister apologizing, that his office had the letters. His senior staff were reviewing the letters. That was after sending a press release out, I say to the Government House Leader, a month before or three weeks prior saying it was never brought to his attention.

I followed every proper protocol, and while the road was out there - I say to the Government House Leader, while the road was out there with five signs both ways for danger, school buses going over it, transport trucks going over it, and his department crying, saying: Minister, please do it. He turned around because the Member for Humber East wanted to get a bit of credit up in his district, $400,000 to hook into a by-pass road given to Massey Drive and I could not get $30,000 for a safety concern. That minister was going out in the public saying it was never brought to his attention. It is just not true, and you expect me to listen to him and his foolishness here tonight. He writes me back on August 12, and says: Oh, I'm sorry. We had the letters. My officials had the letters a month ago - and you wanted me to listen to this minister and all of this foolishness about the amount of money he is spending. What he is saying is just not true, because I dealt with the minister personally.

When the minister talks about he is taking care of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, he is doing all of this, it is just not true. My first-hand experience of what happened here in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when the minister stands in this House and says, oh, yes, we are doing all of these (inaudible), it is not true. I just do not care what anybody says here. My first-hand experience with the minister, when he talks about roads being put in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when he is talking about priorities, he is not doing it on a priority basis, because there is absolutely no one can tell me that a safety concern with five signs going one way, five signs going the other way, with a five-foot dip in the road, with school buses going over it, that it is not a safety concern. Absolutely nobody can tell me that.

This minister can stand up, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and rant and rave and bawl and shout saying who is going to intimidate who, who is going to do this, but what he is saying is just not accurate. They are not putting the priorities of the funding for the roads where their priorities should go.

It is me, in the District of Bay of Islands, who will stand up and say - except for that funding, which I had to pressure this government into, which I had to actually embarrass the minister to do, actually embarrass him, because of the embarrassment, that was the only funding that was spent in the Bay of Islands in the last three years.

I challenged that minister when he was the Minister of Transportation and Works. I challenged him. Lay the priorities of the Department of Transportation and Works -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, after all the accidents on the road, and all the equipment, you stand up and say on CBC: I am no poster boy for safe driving.

Who wants you to be? All they want you to do is fix the trucks and get them on the road. That is what they want you to do. You, with your smart statement: I am no poster boy for safe driving.

What a smart comment to make. Go do your job and fix the road. If you want to see the reports that you will not even read, I will show them to you, boy. For God's sake, I am telling you.

I am no poster boy for safe driving. That is some statement to make on CBC Radio after major, major accidents in this Province. That is something. That is why I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I just want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for writing me back and saying yes, I received the letters. I apologize for going out in public and saying that we did not have it. Sir, thank you very much. At least the road was fixed. The safety concerns were done. At least you are man enough to write me back and say: Ed, I am sorry. We did have the letters. I apologize for going public saying we never, when I know we did, and the road was fixed. Let's hope I do not have to go through the same rigamarole if there are any more safety concerns in this Province.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, you sit here in the House and listen to what the people on that side of the House, the nonsense they are getting on with - a government that put us on almost the brink, in this Province, over $1 billion a year, going under, spending more than we were taking in. Then they see, all of a sudden, we have a balanced budget. There are reasons for that. There is a reason why we have the lowest unemployment rate in this Province in over a decade, Madam Chairperson, the lowest one.

That crowd over there, when they were on this side of the House, had no regard whatsoever, no regard whatsoever, for safeguarding the public purse and using money efficiently for public services. The reason for it is that the Premier got a commitment out of Paul Martin, in June of an election year, to give us 100 per cent of our offshore revenues, and it took us about seven months later, almost eight months, to try to get that commitment.

That did not start in June of 2004. It started in December of 2003, when he kept pressing for a commitment and, on the eve of an election, when it was not looking too good in the chance of forming a government, he gave that commitment, and ever since it took us awhile. That is one of the reasons why this Province is turning around. They laughed at us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They laughed at us in our platform, when one of the parts of the platform was to get more money out of the federal government. Well, they delivered big time with a $2 billion up front payment on the Atlantic Accord. They gave us 100 per cent of revenues that they spent years and could not achieve anything at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Another reason, Madam Chairperson, is that in September of 2004 the Premier, at a First Ministers' Meeting dealing with equalization and health care, and the Health Accord, came back to this Province with a commitment of $284 million over six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why our fiscal situation is improving - and, on equalization, tens of millions of dollars more, over $60 million in that year extra revenues into this Province. It took us from a billion dollar deficit to a balanced budget, almost, in this year based on those efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What did we do? Did we ignore the social agenda? We put into this year's budget $128 million more into health care, $113 million at budget time and $15 million we passed in this House last week, $128 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We announced 43,344 more procedures for people who are sick -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - dealing with cancer, with cardiac care, eye restoration, diagnostic imaging and also joint replacements, five areas of focus under the health care plan so people can get better access to health care, not the 300 on a waiting list for cardiac surgery when they were in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Today, there are less than 100 people on a waiting list, and various reasons contribute to that, but nothing except the graph went up when they were in power, absolutely nothing. They did nothing about it, and now they are afraid we are going to have success. I think they would have been the happiest people in Newfoundland and Labrador if we did not get that $2 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They would be happy. They want something to complain about.

What did we do? My colleague there, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, just talked about the road network, what we put into this Province, over $100 million in total announced earlier this year. We allocated another $15 million since, in total provincial and federal commitments in the road structure in the Province.

We put seventy-five units back in the schools beyond the formula that government created when they were there, and what they said should be in the teaching system in our Province. We put funds back in to allow class size to stay down in the primary grades in our Province. We put money back into fine arts, to keep music teachers to teach our kids in the Province; a tuition freeze, $90 million, White Paper on Post-Secondary Education, to freeze tuition at considerable cost to our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The only province in Atlantic Canada that did well in tourism this year, when the other three provinces went down; because this government said, we are going to increase our commitment to tourism by $1 million a year; $8 million into tourism this year, Mr. Chairman, $8 million; $200,000 to the Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; over $900,000 to the Arts Council this year; $2.3 million to the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation; Heritage Foundation, $250,000; $1.1 million to the Bull Arm Site Corporation; $300,000 to Destination Labrador; $1.3 million to a provincial training centre to train our athletics to see the likes of Brad Gushue and them make you proud in our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and, to allow the people of Labrador to participate in recreational activities, $500,000 for the Labrador Winter Games.

We looked at business, $10 million into a Small and Medium Enterprise Fund to assist young growing businesses in this Province to get a footing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: A million dollars in the business of marketing development. We increased the Ireland Business Partnerships from $100,000 to $300,000; $5 million into a Community Economic Development fund. We have increased funding in business activities, and $23 million in new strategic economic initiatives, we have invested there, so that there would be jobs in the future and put money into the coffers so we can provide the people of this Province with education service, with health services, with roads, and with all other things that people value and want in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as well as in urban parts of our Province.

Forty million dollars this year to Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. When they came back from Ottawa, they said: We have money to finish the Trans-Labrador Highway. I asked from that side of the House - there is not enough for Phase III. They would not even admit it until a former member, Ernie McLean, stood on his feet, the only one who would tell the truth on it, and he said that it was not enough to complete it. That was the first time we heard it, two years after getting the money. We knew the difference. They were trying to pull a fast one on the people of the Province. We committed to do it on provincial funds if we have to, and now the minister stood today and put $50 million on the table and asked the feds -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope that Todd Russell, and whoever else is running in Labrador, will put it to their parties and get that $50 million commitment, because the people in Labrador deserve a right to drive on a proper highway the same as in any other part of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have looked at the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund in a shared contribution, $84 million. We have looked into areas for mental health. We doubled the amount of money for the Mental Health Initiative from $1 million to $2 million this year. We looked at $1 million to assist those who are suffering from a variety of problems associated with the misuse of prescription drugs, particularly OxyContin.

We increased the budget in one of the toughest periods in our Province's history financially, in our first year, for women's centres, and we increased it again this past year, a 30 per cent increase in two years, and all that side talked about our contribution to women in this Province when they did absolutely nothing about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, we put $3 million into a fine arts and culture strategy for our schools in our Province.

We increased RCMP positions in our Province. We gave a commitment to the RNC, an increase of about thirty a year, I believe - twenty-five to thirty a year for each of three years - and training them here in our Province at Memorial University instead of sending them away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We increased support for native workers, the court program in our Province. We increased the court security program we initiated in this Province, and increased it. It did not happen under that government. We used $3.5 million to my colleague for farmland consolidation and to grow the industry in our Province, so there is an increase in the potential area for future jobs in -

MR. E. BYRNE: Every year for five years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Every year for five years, $17.5 million, a five-year commitment.

In addition to the agricultural policy framework of $10.1 million, we committed another $4 million for new agricultural initiatives there in our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and $7.3 million in silviculture in our Province; $3.5 million for forest resource road construction in our Province. We have inland fisheries enforcement. When the federal government would not do their job, we took $360,000 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We took $360,000 and increased that to $800,000.

We have touched the lives of almost every individual in this Province with our initiatives. We increased income support for single people and people with children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have doubled - my colleague announced she doubled the supplement for people on income support for home heating subsidies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are looking at a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy so the people of this Province, regardless of how they get their income, if they are in a low level, whether it comes from pensions from any source -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, I allowed my counterpart leave when she spoke. If I could have the same courtesy and have a few minutes, or an hour or so to wrap up.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: A very small amount of leave.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: A small amount of leave, she said. I want to thank her for that.

We have contributed significant money to touch the lives of everybody in this Province, Madam Chairperson. We have hit people in health care. We added twenty-five new drugs to the program, $114 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - the most ever spent on drugs for low-income, income support people and seniors in our Province's history. We have increased that this year by an additional $8 million over last year's budget, about $11 million over what was actually spent last year.

In addition to that, we have just recently approved, this year, Herceptin for cancer patients. We put funding for a cancer centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, and to my colleague in Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We announced a clinic in Grand Bank, a CT scanner on the Burin Peninsula. We announced a long-term care facility for Corner Brook, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We allowed funding for Clarenville, and there are a host of others that are needed in our Province that we will get to as finances permit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have done what that government could not do in fourteen years - deeper into debt and complaining. They spent more money in advertising and promotion on an announcement to do something than they spent on what they were doing. That is what they did.

I remember in Labrador, they put a big trailer in Labrador, a big platform there, $20,000 for a speech for the Premier and tens of thousands of dollars, up in the hundreds, a little promotional event to make announcements. Grandstanding! Announcing millions of taxpayers' money to do announcements instead of putting it to good use in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are half afraid that if we are here too long -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - we are going to put this Province on a road to recovery that we will never look back again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And, Madam Chairperson, we have only just begun. The Lower Churchill, Hebron Ben Nevis, we are going to strike deals, not like the former government struck that transferred costs and let the big companies off the hook. We have kept their feet to the fire to make sure that we get every possible thing we can for the benefit of people in our Province. The resources off our shores, the resources underneath our soil, and beneath it in our Province, are the people's resources and they deserve a price to pay it to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, it must gall that crowd over there - I will call them, that crowd over there - to stand and think that the people of this Province are going to listen to the nonsense they get on with when they put us where we are. It was almost an insurmountable job. We figured it would take eight years to get us to where we are today in two years. I can say without the commitment that Paul Martin gave to the Premier of this Province, without the effort in getting that commitment and to follow through, without the hard battles he fought on health care and equalization, without all of these, we would never get it. We had to use the strongest force possible. We went through -

MS THISTLE: Have you gotten anything since?

MR. SULLIVAN: Stay tuned, I say. Stay tuned. We hope it is going to be a sharing of the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is right. We hope it is going to be other things. They are half afraid we are going to accomplish. They are scared out of their lives that we are going to get something because everything we get makes them look bad. What do you expect when the former Minister of Transportation and Works, the Member for Bellevue, went to Ottawa armed with an arsenal of a power-point presentation and nothing else he went with? We went with a team of people who did their homework, who sharpened their pencils, who knew what we were talking about. We engaged the best we could to give advice and use that advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You do not take on an elephant with a little peashooter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have to take on people armed to the hilt, that is what they are doing. If you are in the big leagues, you have to play in the big leagues. You cannot be sitting out.

If we went back through the history of what that government has done when they were in power - it is shameful when you see what they did in Central Newfoundland, to allow a multinational company, like Abitibi, to get access to the rights of power in this Province without guaranteeing one job in Central Newfoundland or anywhere else. That is shameful! Why should that company be allowed to develop our resources? What right have they got to take our power and develop it without guaranteeing anything in return? These are some of the things they have done in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I got leave and I gave the other member leave. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to withdraw it, that is his prerogative. Well, he has not withdrawn it yet, so I will continue, Madam Chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He does not like to hear it and I am glad. The Leader of the Opposition is a little testy there because he cannot stand success. He is not used to it now but he is going to have to live with it if he is going to stay in politics for the next number of years.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Now, Madam Chair, if you wanted to hear gobbledygook, you just heard it. You just heard fifteen full minutes of it, Madam Chair, I am going to tell you right now.

When you listen to the Minister of Finance it is like listening to the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Status of Women. They think they are infallible, Madam Chair. They think no one can touch them, that everything they say is right and it is the way that it is. Well, I got news for the minister. He gets up and talks about all the new investments in this Province and the new investments in health care. Well, Madam Chair, the reality is this. That the health care transfers were federal government transfers of a new money investment in health care in this country and it came from a Liberal government in Ottawa. I want to remind the minister of that because when he stood here today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and he talked about these new investments being made. These are investments, Madam Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: - that are being made by a federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin. You sit back and you wonder why the Conservative Party -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Madam Chair, I sat down and listened to the Minister of Finance when he gave his speech for the past fifteen minutes. I only ask for the courtesy of the members opposite, especially the Member for Mount Pearl, who don't want to stand on his feet in this Legislature and give his perspective but wants to sit in his chair and bawl across the floor. Now, Madam Chair, I only ask for the same courtesy in being able to say what I have to say.

Madam Chair, the reality is this. You wonder why the Conservative Party cannot get candidates in Newfoundland and Labrador; why they cannot recruit people; why they do not have names to go on the ballots. Well, it is quite obvious, Madam Chair. The speech that the Minister of Finance just gave. It is quite obvious, because the federal Liberal government under Paul Martin has invested huge amounts of money in Newfoundland and Labrador, everything from the $2 billion Atlantic Accord deal to the health care funding that we saw in the last Budget. The equalization, the municipal operating money, the gas tax money, the money for daycare, the money to fight child poverty, all of this came from a federal Liberal government led by Paul Martin. I can guarantee you, there is no wonder they cannot get people to run for them.

The minister got up and talked about all of these great things they are doing. Well, let me tell you some of the things that he didn't talk about, Madam Chair. He did not get up here this evening and rave about the fact that they increased the ferry rates to all the rural areas in this Province in the last Budget year. When did they do it? After the Premier of the Province went out and made a commitment in the 2003 election that they would not increase ferry rates. They would eliminate them. In fact, if they formed the government they would eliminate these rates. But what did they do? The first thing they did was they brought in an increase of 25 per cent in ferry rates across the Province. Now, Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance did not mention that this evening. That added to his bottom line. It was not only the federal government transfers, it was the extra money on the ferry rates that added to his bottom line as well.

Let's talk about the other things that they did. They increased the fees on every single service being provided in a government department, Madam Chair, right from motor vehicle registration, right from the renewal of your licence, to renew your vehicle, to a death certificate. From birth to death there was a fee. The fees alone - the minister did not tell us how much money that fetched to the bottom line of the Budget this year, probably in the vicinity of $25 million to $30 million on an annual basis. Do you know where that money is coming from? It is coming out of the pockets of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is where it is coming from. In my district and in a lot of other districts around this Province, it is coming from the people who can least afford to pay it

Let me tell you something, Madam Chair. Every single fee on every single service, from a hunting licence to a vehicle licence, to a land application, to a birth certificate, every single one of those fees, my constituents are paying more today than they were a year or two years ago because the Minister of Finance wanted to add to his bottom line figures, the figure that he brags about tonight. Well, he didn't get up and talk about that did he? How he increased all of these fees.

Let's see what else he didn't talk about. He didn't talk about all the jobs they cut in the public service, after taking out full-page ads in newspapers saying: We will not have layoffs. Signing letters down in union offices, I believe it was, saying: We will not have layoffs in the public services. Trust me and I will make sure that you don't lose your job. Elect me. Let me be the government and I will make sure you are looked after. They got looked after all right, Madam Chair. Hundreds of them got looked after. They were guided right out the door, right into the parking lot; nothing only a box with their stuff out of their office, the top drawer of their desk. That is what they left with, Madam Chair. He didn't get up and talk about that tonight did he, about the agreements that were signed that there would be no layoffs, yet there were hundreds and hundreds of them?

He got up and talked about how they saved seventy-five teachers in the school system. What a joke, Madam Chair. There were hundreds of teachers laid off.

MR. REID: Five hundred.

MS JONES: There were hundreds of teachers laid off, Madam Chair, hundreds under this Administration. Hundreds of teachers were taken out of our school system, taken out of our classrooms under this Administration, and to stand here tonight and say we put seventy-five teachers back. What a joke! We know, the teachers know, the NTA knows, the parents who have children in those classrooms know it. There are hundreds less teachers in the school system under this Administration. He didn't get up and talk about that this evening, did he?

He didn't talk about all the HRE offices that closed down. Two in my own district. HRE offices all over the Province closed down, shut their doors. Do you know what people have to do now if they want to apply for benefits? They have to do out an application. They have to put it in the mail. They have to hope it ends up somewhere and hopefully they will get a call up on the Coast of Labrador from St. John's or Gander or somewhere, where someone is going to pick up their applications, process it and ask them a few questions. That is what we have now. We have a central data base. We have a computer run social program, that is what we have. A computer run and operated social program that people have to depend upon to try and get some money to feed their families. It is not easy, Madam Chair.

I dealt with a client in my district up in Black Tickle this week, a women who did not know what to do or where she had to go because there are no services left up there. They are all being taken out of it, closed up. If you cannot access the service through some kind of a telecommunication devise, well you are just not getting any service. That is what is comes down to. Nobody got up and talked about that this evening, did they?

I cannot believe the rhetoric that came out of the Minister of Finance and I certainly cannot believe the comment that he made with regard to the Labrador Highway. I have to address this, Madam Chair. I cannot let this go. The people in Labrador, the people in my district - I grew up there. For twenty years I watched these people go to meetings and lobby to have a road connection. For twenty solid years, every single form that they could get into to make a case to have a highway to connect their communities, they did it. Do you know something? Through years of Tory Administrations they were ignored. Through years and years, not one dollar spent in roads in these communities. The only money that was ever spent in any of them was a federal program, again, to put a few airports up there back in the early 1980s, and that was it. There was never any other money spent.

Brian Tobin did an agreement on $340 million with the federal government to build roads into these communities. Madam Chair, I will stand and defend that agreement until the day that I die because it is the best thing that has ever happened to the people in my district. The best thing that ever happened to them. When they were able to have road connections, when they were able to overcome the isolation between their communities and be able to have a real shot at economic prosperity. I will never make an apologize to no one when it comes to that agreement because that is one of the most prosperous, most beneficial, most substantial investment ever made into a rural community in my district, was under that highway initiative.

Madam Chair, when the minister came in today with a statement - and I have to say, he is the only minister over there, it seems like, who can get a bit of money to announce -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: - although it is pre-committed for so many years in advance, but he came in today offering up $50 million to resurface the highway between Labrador City and Goose Bay.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: May I have leave, Madam Chair? Can I have about five minutes leave like the Minister of Finance just had?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has a few minutes to clue up.

MS JONES: Madam Chair, he came in to make the announcement today and I can honestly say I am pleased that the government is going forward to the feds saying: Listen, we are going to cost-share this initiative with you; where is your money?

I mean, here we are in the middle of an election, a federal election, and the way that they put the proposal and the way they challenged this evening in the House to go up to Todd Russell and tell Todd Russell, the MP up there, to get this done, well, I am sure that when the election is over and the government is back in session, the Liberal government in Ottawa, that Todd Russell will, indeed, do his part.

I know he will be elected unless somebody gets a candidate to run against him up there; because, so far, there is no one coming out running against him. I think he is going to win by acclamation, Madam Chair, because he is doing such a great job, doing such a great job up there, he could possibly win by acclamation, I say to you.

Madam Chair, I am sure that he will do his part and, indeed, I will do everything that I can to support it; but, do I think it could have gone a step further? Absolutely. Absolutely, it could have gone a step further, because it could have gone to take in the roadwork in the Liberal District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I say to you minister. Why wasn't that included? Why was that section of gravel highway in Labrador so conveniently omitted from a proposition to the federal government to cost-share on resurfacing roads?

I would like to know the answer to that because, I can guarantee you, every person in Labrador deserves to have access to roads just like they do on the Island of Newfoundland. Every person in Labrador deserves to have a decent road to drive over.

I will support what you have before the federal government right now, and I will do my part, but, I guarantee you, I expect no less of an agreement being put forward for the people on the South Coast of Labrador as well, and I hope that I am going to see it sooner rather than later. Then, Madam Chair, I will say that the initiative is sincere and representative of all the people in Labrador and not omitting one section of Labrador and one small region, because I think that was unfair.

Madam Chair, there are a few other things I wanted to talk about. We were talking tonight about the rural-urban divide. I want to speak to that for a minute, because I am going to tell you something. You know, some of the hon. members here are sitting down with rose-coloured glasses on, okay. They are sitting here with rose-coloured glasses, because if they think that everything is rosy and peachy and going wonderful in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, boy, you are in for a real lesson now. You are in for a real lesson now, and you may as well take off your rose-coloured glasses because, I guarantee you, it is not all hunky-dory out there.

I have spent the last three weeks - the last three weekends, actually, I think it was - in different regions of this Province, in rural areas of this Province, and I can guarantee you that it is not as rosy as the hon. members opposite would like to paint the picture to be. They might get up and talk about putting loan guarantees into Torngat Mountains, one of the poorest and most isolated and most rural regions of the Province, but that has been going on for fifteen years. There is nothing new about that.

You can get up and pound your chest all night and talk about how wonderful it is. We don't want it cut. We put it there when we were in government. We supported it, and we support the initiative now, but let me just say this: It is not all perfect out there.

There was an article in the Canadian Press and I have never seen it, I do not think, explained any better, the contrast, and it goes like this. They talk about the boom in the offshore oil, in a Province that is rich in oil and gas, and a Province with a $2 billion deal in revenues, in our coffers right now, thanks to the federal government in Ottawa, but what has it done to change rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

The journalist here talks about how it is the starkest comparison that they have ever seen, but I think the explanation here -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: All right, I will get an opportunity to finish this later on, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am always awake over here, not like over there.

Madam Chair, what I am going to do, because of the lack of referring to the bill that we are dealing with now, I am going to read exactly what it is, because over there they are losing sight of exactly what we are discussing here. They are off on a number of tangents and they are not being focused, as usual, because they had thirteen years of not being focused on the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and now we are paying the price, so I am going to out them back on the right track.

Madam Chair, this bill is about two companies: Nature Sea Farms for $7.2 million, $9 million on our operating grant and a $7.2 million guaranteed loan. Clause 2 is also to extend the loan guarantee for Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative in Labrador. Now, both of those, as pointed out by the Deputy Premier and the House Leader, deal with rural Newfoundland, and these will create employment and opportunities that Newfoundland and Labrador want to have in rural Newfoundland.

Madam Chair, when I talk about all of the thirteen years previous to us taking over the government, every time I sit here, anything that is bad we have done it. Anything that is good, they did it. That happens back and forth all of the time, and I am getting kind of sick and tired of it because this government has taken the right road to the recovery of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are on the right road, and it is proven time and time and time again.

Madam Chair, over here tonight I heard talk about tourism. Now, I am going to go back to tourism because something happened yesterday that I think is going to help Newfoundland and Labrador significantly, and that was the curling championships, the Olympic curling championships. That was won by the Brad Gushue rink. Now, that put Newfoundland and Labrador on the map of curling, no question about it, as did previous curlers who have gone to different briers, but that is significant because right now we have a curling team going to the Olympics, and that is something that Newfoundland and Labrador can be very, very proud of.

A little aside to that, it is a little bit prouder for myself because Brad Gushue attended the school that I taught in, Madam Chair, and he is an exemplary person to represent Newfoundland and Labrador, as are the other four members of that team, and they are going to represent us very, very well in Olympic trials. Who knows? They are going to come back with a medal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: That will help with tourism, because it is going to grow Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, they talked about tourism over there. They talked about a new branding for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: They got all upset with that, Madam Chair, because it does put a new, fresh image on Newfoundland and Labrador. What it will do is, it will show a new and fresh approach to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are trying to get at, because the stale approach that was given thirteen years prior to us taking over this government was not what we need. We need a new, fresh approach, and branding Newfoundland and Labrador in a new way will make that happen.

Madam Chair, there are other things here, and I am going to talk about them. We wrote a letter to the federal leaders, the federal leaders here. We wrote a letter to the federal leaders outlining the priorities of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, prior to the Premier announcing the letter was written, and tabling it here in the House, everyone on the other side were saying: Where is the letter? Where is the letter? What is it? Where is it? Where are your priorities, Mr. Premier? Where are your priorities?

We laid them on the table. Now, the question I ask: Did the Opposition ever decide to write about their priorities, or what they want to see? Did they write a letter to the Prime Minister, to the leader of the Conservatives, to the Leader of the NDP? Did the Leader of the NDP do the same? No.

MR. SULLIVAN: Percy gave them a power point once.

MR. DENINE: Power points are no good in this, because you need something to substantiate what your priorities are. They never did; but, Madam Chair, we did.

Now, they talked about federal government jobs, which is one part which we addressed in the letter. In the years that they had, there were a significant number of jobs left this Province and gone to Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada under their watch. Under their watch. They did nothing. If they want to go through Hansard and all the news and all the news media to see what they spoke about, jobs being lost, they never spoke up once, not once. Now they are talking about us.

We put it on our letter and we are waiting for a response, because the federal government should live up to their responsibility to Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador deserves the respect of all other provinces, the same as every other province, and we deserve our fair share.

Madam Chair, when we talked about the $2 billion, the offshore, a member of the federal government came down here and said: Take this or leave it. This is the final offer.

Do you know what happened? If that had to be a Liberal government in power then, they would have taken that $1.6 billion and they would be shortchanged as usual. As usual, they would have been shortchanged on that. That is the lack of vision that occurred under the Liberal rule.

Madam Chair, our leaders have talked about the roads. We talked about here, tonight, some of our members on this side talked about the investment in roads. We are not talking about tens of millions; we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, a significant number of dollars. Madam Chair, there is a significant amount of money being put into roads, an awful lot. Not one of them over there will give any credit.

The Minister of Transportation announced major road construction in Labrador, $50 million, and that is not small change. That is a significant amount of money, and not one of them - there is one person over there, the member for the NDP, who said it was the best thing he ever heard. He liked it, it was a good investment, and that is all we heard on it.

MR. REID: Let's talk about the Co-op, and the loan guarantee.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, when the Leader of the Opposition gets on this now, he can talk about it later on, and he is really anxious to get on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never even raised it.

MR. DENINE: No, he never even raised it. Someone must have rang a bell over there. A light went on over there; that is what happened. It must have been the glow of the Christmas tree.

This government has taken a number of initiatives. In education: dealing with pupil-teacher ratio, infrastructure in schools. We are putting more money into health care, more money into drugs, more money into drug prevention. These are some of the things that we have taken on and made a significant, significant, step forward.

Madam Chair, the letter in which we wrote to the federal government deals with a number of significant priorities, and each one of them will be responded to by the appropriate leaders. They will be there by the appropriate leaders. Now, not one of them over there has written a letter or given support for the letter that was written here, not one of them. We have taken the lead on this, as we have done since we have been elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: We have done that, and we will continue to take the lead because we are looking at a new approach to governing Newfoundland and Labrador, and the initiatives that we have taken in education, health, fisheries, in all of these, we have been leading the way. The problem with them getting upset over there is that they -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. DENINE: By leave?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. DENINE: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was going to address the fact that the minister wanted to talk about the bills, but he seemed to want to talk about that for the first thirty seconds and then wanted to join in the general debate. So, I will not bother with the specifics of the legislation except to say, Madam Chair, that when they talk about government guarantees for rural Newfoundland, we had a report the other day, the Ministerial Statement from the Minister Responsible for Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal, and she got up in this House - nothing wrong with what she said, but the report card for all her work and all this government's work was three seasonal jobs in one location and seven jobs in another location and this called for a ministerial statement to talk about what the great things her department was doing. Madam Chair, that, to me, says it all.

Now, if they were coming in and saying: Well, we had ten projects and there were fifteen jobs here and there were forty-five there, and there were 100 somewhere else and there were thirty somewhere else and we have a total of a couple of hundred jobs. Then I think there would be something to crow about, but we did not hear anything like that. We did not hear anything like that at all. What we did hear, Madam Chair, over the last number of months is something very interesting. I was doing a little research earlier today because I wanted to talk about the Budget of last year and the budget that I proposed that we get into in the fall, and I looked back at a press release that I issued last March. What I said was that the government was understating their revenues by $150 million to $180 million and that there was lots of room for new programs and services that could really make a difference to people's lives. Well, I was wrong. I was absolutely wrong. I was off by an order of magnitude of, at least, two. They understated their revenues by $495 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: The price of oil went up, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Government House Leader says the price of oil went up. Yes, it miraculously went up. It was $38, I think, according to the minster, when it was really $50 and then it went up to $60 and $65. So, Madam Chair, we knew back then that they were understating their revenues. I was not making it up. I said it was between $150 million to $180 million. That was my guesstimate then. The price of oil went up after that and now we have the minister admitting, a month ago or three weeks ago, that they had $495 million more dollars now than he projected having last spring. Last -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that's good news.

MR. HARRIS: I am not - it is great news. It is great news, but the bad news is: What is he doing with it? I mean, when you look at government as a government budgeting exercise as a plan, I go back to when this government was elected. I have a newspaper clipping here. It is actually the picture of four new faces in Cabinet, four women ministers in Cabinet. Four women named to the new Tory Cabinet.

In the same article, November 1, 2003, they say: The first Tory budget will have a deficit but there is to be a balanced budget in four years time on a cash-consolidated basis. That was the plan, and it is a plan that everybody felt comfortable living with. We are going to balance the budget on a cash basis in four years time and on a consolidated basis within an eight year period. That was what everybody ran on last time. Now, all of a sudden, we are flushed with cash because the price of oil went up and: No, we can't do that anymore. We are off that plan now. We balanced the Budget on a cash basis last year. This year we now have a balanced Budget on a consolidated basis but we are still not going to spend money on the things that people need.

Last spring when I said there was a problem because they were underestimating by $150 million to $180 million, and there was an opportunity to have, in our school programs, a nutrition and physical health program that was equal in size, budget-wise, to the Arts and Culture program, that was something that could have been done, that should have been done. Because of the situation in our school children and the high obesity rate we have and the knowledge that we have, that if we do something about it now, we will make kids' lives better and we will save health dollars down the road.

Having a province-wide school nutrition program, a school meal program eliminating the financial barriers caused by school fees and textbook costs. In other provinces, like Ontario, which we try to emulate, there are no textbook costs. They are given out by the government free of cost. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, parents have to pay. This will make a real difference to parents trying to educate their school children but, no, it did not happen. Despite - and this is what I said then - the enhanced situation of the Province, there were still collection agencies going after families who could not pay school fees. That is the reality that we are facing today, Madam Chair. At $495 million later, it is still the reality being faced by poor families in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

I raised questions in the House the other day and the Minister of Finance came back with a whole bunch of sputtering saying that we are looking at this, we are looking at that, we are looking at something else, we are looking a school meal program. You might be looking at it but you are not doing anything about it, I say to the members opposite, because if you were going to do something about it we would have a universal school meal program. We would not have kids going to school hungry and we would not have the kind of problems that we have.

We have programs that we have been fooling around with as pilot projects over the last number of years, providing funds to single parents who need to get into the workforce by enhancing benefits to single parents, providing special transportation allowances, giving them access to special child care monies, giving them opportunities to get back into the work force by providing training programs. These have been done on a pilot project basis and we used to have reports every year saying how wonderful it was that they worked. Well, they did work, Madam Chair, because this is what people need, but instead of continuing with pilot projects these should be universal programs available across the Province. We have not done that.

What about prescription drug coverage? We all know the horror stories. We all have constituents who have diseases that cost an awful lot of money to treat because drug therapies are the answer, not putting them in institutions. Putting someone in a hospital, Madam Chair, the costs are paid; not the transportation costs but the cost of hospital care. The cost of drugs while in hospital, the cost of medical care, the cost of doctors, all of this is covered by medicare, but you take someone who goes and gets a diagnosis for a disease, the treatment of which is a drug that might cost $2,000 a month, forget it, you get no help; no help unless you are a senior with a drug card -

MR. COLLINS: And we are the only Province in Canada.

MR. HARRIS: - or unless you happen to be on income support or earning a level of income without income support. It is happening everyday in our Province, Madam Chair, whether someone has a disease like MS and the drug is not available or whether - the problems that I have encountered recently was someone with leukemia and had a drug that cost $3,000 a month to get. They could not qualify for a drug card because they had some modest savings in RRSPs. They have to spend that first. You would have to impoverish yourself first. Get rid of any savings. Get your income down to the income support level. Members opposite know the problem. So, what are we going to do about it?

In one particular case a person who was turned down by the government on a Monday was told by the drug company on a Tuesday: Well, we have a special program for people who cannot afford our drug. You can get on our program. That was a good thing. That probably added years to this person's life, maybe even saved her life because she had access to this drug in a timely fashion. That was a very lucky case, but there are lots of cases that are not so lucky, Madam Chair.

We have to start addressing some of these problems because the new medicare issue - and I go back to the time of Tommy Douglas. The whole reason for medicare was because people were suffering and going without medical treatment because they did not have the money. Financial ability to pay was what decided whether you got treatment or whether you didn't. Well, we are into a new era of that now with drugs, because fifty years down the road drug therapies are much more common as a way of dealing with diseases. So we have this dichotomy between people who can afford to pay, or more often than not, because most people can't afford to pay, reach into their pocket and pay big costs for drugs.

People who have access to a drug plan, Members of this House of Assembly, public servants, people in workplaces who have a drug scheme that they pay into and the employer pays part of, they get access to drugs because the drug plan is there for that. Well, why can't this government, or any government, move forward as other provinces have and provide some drug plan which is contributory in nature or co-pay, or some system or other, where collectively the responsibility for drug costs are taken care of? It would make an awful lot of people in this Province sleep better at night, and it would make an awful lot of people in this Province know that they do not have to choose between filling this prescription or that prescription, or choosing to fill this prescription or turn up the heat or turn down the heat, because that choice is going on every single day in this Province, I say to all members. I think members here know it. They are doing it because they have no choice.

When we see those kinds of problems occurring, and we see the Minister of Finance with an additional $495 million - and we are happy that we have the money. We are very happy we have the money, but we would like to see some results. Let's stick to our four-year plan of getting the cash budget down to zero, or even do better than that. We have the means now to do better than all the forecasts that we had, that any party going into the last election made; that any party made going into the last election, we are doing way better now.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: We are doing better now than anybody thought, than any party thought was possible to be. So why can't we ensure that the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are better than we thought we could make them? Why don't we move up some of the ideas that we probably all share? I mean, people who are in this House, there is not a big ideological divide, I want to say. There are those who are on the far right and there are those who are - most people in this House probably share the notion that we should be making society better for people. Not the right wing ideas that we hear south of the border, that is every person for themselves and that if you don't do well it is your fault and too bad about you. Most people in this House and most people in this Province don't share that idea.

Let's move the agenda forward because we have the means to do so, and I have figures here. I am not going to go into all the detail. The revenue forecast that Wade Locke has put forward and given to the Federation of Labour, government has the same figures. Things are a lot brighter today because of oil prices and other means than they were six months ago or when this government was elected in 2003. So, let's move the equality agenda forward, Madam Chair, if we have the means to do it. Let's not just take all that money and say we are going to improve our bottom line to make us look good for our balance sheet because that is not what it is all about. That is not what government is all about, in my view. Let's move up the equality agenda for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I would just like to say before I get into the substantive part that I was going to say, Madam Chair, what a difference in approach. What a difference in approach when you listen to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Listening to him talk about how the fiscal situation of the Province has changed under our watch in the past two years and how, from a budgetary perspective, the changing fiscal situation and the changing financial position of the Province and the government, and how that should be used when it comes to budgeting and how we should use that to deal with substantial social problems in this Province. You take that, Madam Chair, and compare it to the approach taken by the Leader of the Official Opposition who stands up here, and while he condemns what the government is trying to do, he never stands up with any worthwhile suggestions on how we, in an improved fiscal situation, can take that money and use it to move forward the social agenda in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What a difference, Madam Chair.

If you listened here earlier today when we had a ministerial statement on roads and on the roads network in Labrador and the substantial commitment by the government, the $50 million and a request of the federal government for $50 million in matching funds to surface the Trans-Labrador Highway between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. If you listened to the Member for Labrador West, take that for what it is worth. Take that commitment for what it is worth, Madam Chair. Look on it as step one in a process to see the Trans-Labrador Highway, from the Quebec Labrador border in the west to the Quebec Labrador border in the south, eventually get a hard surface. He sees it as step one, as Phase I. We all see it, on this side of the House, as step one, Phase I.

When the Trans-Labrador Highway, Phase III is completed, with provincial funds - because we know that is how it has to be completed. When it is completed with provincial funds, we will be in a position then, we hope - hopefully after completing the Trans-Labrador Highway, Phase I, the surfacing of that from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to then begin the surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to L'Anse au Clair and the Quebec Labrador border in the south. That, Madam Chair, is the approach that we want to take. We want to do things in a planned way. That is why we took the initiative a couple of years ago to try to change the fiscal situation of this Province, so that we could have the cash on hand; so that we could be in a position where we could borrow and improve our credit rating; so that we could be in a position to be able to invest in highway infrastructure; so that we could deal, as the Minister of Finance said earlier today, deal with the substantial issues that we have in our health care system and be able to add forty-odd thousand new procedures to our hospital procedure list, so to speak, this year.

Those are the types of things that we are able to do when we change the financial situation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but if you continue drilling yourself down in a hole - there is this old saying: When you are in a hole, you should stop digging.

Well, two years ago we realized how big a hole this Province was in, and this government was in, after fourteen years of Liberal rule, and we decided to stop digging. We decided to put the shovels away and try to find a way to get up out of the hole and, if we were going to be digging, to start putting some dirt back in the hole so we could get ourselves back up out of it.

That is what we have been trying to do for the last two years, and we have had some great success at it, and we hope to have some more great success. As the Minister of Finance said to the Leader of the Official Opposition: If you don't like success, then the best thing for you to do is to get out of politics in the next couple of years because you are going to have to get used to a whole lot more of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chair, let's look at some of the things that have happened over the past couple of years. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair spoke earlier in the evening, a couple of speakers ago, about what would happen to the highway through her district. Well, we are not in a position to surface the highway in her district at this point. We are not in a position to surface it because of the way the road was built from Red Bay to Lodge Bay. It is not an all-season road. That happened under her watch. That happened when they were the government. We are trying to deal with that.

We are in the process of investing $1.5 million to build a Highways Depot at Shadow Pond so that we can be able to hopefully get ourselves in a position where that road can be maintained year-round. We try to keep it open as long as we can. When we get the Highways Depot in place there, if we have to do some work on the rock cuts in that area to try and correct the problems that they created when they built that road, we will do it. We will get ourselves to a position so that when Phase III is completed on the Trans-Labrador Highway, from Cartwright into Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we will have an all-season all-weather road from Labrador West to Labrador South. That is the aim of this government, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: When we get to that point, I am sure that the government of the day will make the necessary financial commitment to put a hard surface on that highway, because we recognize the importance of that highway in Labrador, to Labradorians and to all people in Newfoundland and Labrador and, for that matter, to the people of Canada. That is what we are trying to do.

That is why the former Minister of Transportation and Works, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture right now, put such an effort over the past couple of years into getting the National Highway System to include the Trans-Labrador Highway and the Northern Peninsula Highway. Were they successful in doing that? No, no, absolutely not. That was Phase I of getting those highways dealt with, getting those highways up to a national standard, getting it included in the National Highway System. That was no small feat for the Minister of Transportation and Works of the day, convincing thirteen jurisdictions in this country to support the changes that had to be made in order to get northern and remote roads, which is what the Trans-Labrador Highway falls under, included into the National Highway System - no small feat whatsoever.

Today, we announced our commitment of $50 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway, and the surfacing of it. Why did we announce that today? Well, there are a couple of reasons. It was only September, or early October, that the Trans-Labrador Highway got included in the National Highway System. It was only last Thursday or Friday - I am not sure if it was Thursday or Friday, but I believe it was Thursday - that the Council of the Federation released their report on a National Transportation Strategy. The National Transportation Strategy deals with funding for transportation infrastructure throughout Canada; transportation infrastructure such as highways, ports and airports that are of strategic importance to the people of Canada from a trade, economic and social perspective. That, Madam Chair, was released last week.

It is timely that we make this commitment today. It is timely because it is time now for the federal government, first and foremost, to move on the National Transportation Strategy that has been developed by the provincial premiers and territorial premiers throughout our country. Also, it is timely because the National Highway System has just been extended throughout this country to include the roads like the Northern Peninsula Highway and the Trans-Labrador Highway.

It is timely also, Madam Chair, because right now we are in the middle of a federal campaign. We are in the middle of a federal campaign, and I am certain that somebody who wants to form the government of this country will, between now and January 23, if they have any foresight whatsoever, see the need, the necessity, and the urgency, of making a commitment to the National Transportation Strategy. They must, Madam Chair, see the need for the commitment of the federal excise tax on gasoline to this very worthwhile strategy throughout our country, so we have taken the initiative, stepped up to the plate, laid our money clearly on the table, and said: Here it is, $50 million. Where is your $50 million? We are ready to start construction.

That is what we have said. That is our commitment to Labrador. That is our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not like what the previous Administration did. Where did they spent the bulk of their money on roads when they were in power? I will tell you, the vast majority was spent in very close proximity of the urban centers. God knows, the urban centers need infrastructure development as well, but don't stand up here in this House tonight and pontificate and criticize us for what we are trying to do, or what they believe we are not doing in this Province, while at the same time I can think of $100 million in two projects here within the capital city area that their government spent major dollars on - as I said, $100 million on - while they were in the dying days of power in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, if that is the appropriate way of putting it, and stand up here and say that we are not doing anything when clearly, over the past month, we have laid out $60 million for a pre-commitment of roads work in the Province and we just laid out today $50 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chair, look at what we are debating here tonight. The bill here tonight is about an aquaculture feed financing program. That is what it is about, and the Leader of the Official Opposition should recognize, while he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, what was the biggest challenge facing finfish aquaculture development in this Province. The lack of appropriate, affordable, feed financing for the aquaculture operations on the South Coast. We came to power and, within six months of us coming to power, there was a company in receivership because of a lack of a feed financing initiative under their watch. We dealt with it and we got one of the biggest traditional seafood companies in Atlantic Canada now in the aquaculture business on the South Coast. As a result of our initiative, Madam Chair, we have two Norwegian interests who are now in the aquaculture industry on the South Coast. We are in a position now, Madam Chair, where we have the largest production of finfish aquaculture in this Province's history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - the largest production of mussels in this Province's history and, to borrow a phrase from the Minister of Justice: Stay tuned, because the best is yet to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I tell the Minister of Transportation, I hope there is better to come because the people out in the rural areas of this Province are certainly waiting for it.

Madam Chair, when I got up earlier in the evening I talked about, when you ask a question of the group opposite, or you make a comment about an issue, that they do not like, they go into a rant. They yell and scream, and then they try insulting you. Then they attack you. They attack the person and not the issue. Then the current Minister of Transportation, the previous Minister of Fisheries, gets up and yells about: Well, you can't debate the current Minister of Fisheries.

I say to the Minister of Transportation, he should look up the word debate some time in the dictionary, because a debate is a reasoned discussion. I will guarantee you, what the Minister of Fisheries got on with tonight was far from reasoned. I guarantee you that.

When I was up earlier, Madam Chair, I talked about what this government is not doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I started with Harbour Breton, and the complete failure this government had in dealing with the issue concerning the closure of the FPI plant down there, and how they let FPI walk away and leave 350 people destitute and would not force the company to honour its commitments, and neither would it force the company to leave a part of its quota.

I talked about the Premier's failure in dealing with Abitibi to date, and I hope that we do get some positive results on that before the end of the week.

Then I moved up the Northern Peninsula and I talked about the Premier's commitments to those people when he so proudly stood on stages up there and said that he would never forget them, and that no longer would they have to do make-work programs in the snow. We know what has happened up there since then.

Look at New Ferolle on the Northern Peninsula in the District of St. Barbe. It is one example of what they did on the Northern Peninsula. Because the company that owned the plant in New Ferolle owed a loan guarantee to the government, and defaulted on that guarantee, the government took the plant from that company this year. Whether that was right or wrong, that is a decision that the Minister of Finance made. We know why he did it. I am not questioning why he did it; but, then, when the government takes control of any business, or any entity, or any piece of machinery, if they dispose of it, they usually go to a public tender - something we had a long discussion today about when the group opposite fired the Citizens' Representative - but, rather than go to a public tender or even a Request for Proposals for the plant in New Ferolle -

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not hearing you.

MR. REID: I say, if the Minister of Finance is not hearing me, put in your hearing aid right there because I am speaking into the microphone and I do not want to yell much louder. We are all fitted for headphones here. Put one in your ear, I say to the minister.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, in the case of New Ferolle, this government did not go to public tender. Neither did they ask for proposals to operate the plant there.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Leader of the Opposition has made a statement here that is entirely not factual.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is misleading to the people of this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The government has not -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - in any way -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - disposed of the assets.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is another thing they do. Besides attacking the person, and insulting them, they also try to jump up, when you are making a point on a point of order, to throw you off. Inevitably, Mr. Chair, you sit them down and tell them there is no point of order.

To get back to New Ferolle, they did not go to public tender on the plant. They did not ask for proposals to operate the plant in New Ferolle. What happened as a result? They cherry-picked a company to go in there and it has left a trail of misery, not only up and down the Northern Peninsula but around this Province.

There are constituents of mine, 400 miles from New Ferolle, who have been left this year, having sold a catch of pelagics to that company, who have not been paid for it. There are workers in the New Ferolle area who worked in that plant all summer who have not been paid their wages. There are fishermen all up and down the Northern Peninsula who sold fish to that plant, who did not get paid for it. What has this government done about it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, I would go so far as to say they still hold a licence on the plant and they could be up there again next summer, leaving another trail of misery.

Let's move up the coast to Englee where, for almost two years now, a company -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, can I get some protection from the Minister of Finance, instead of yapping across the floor all of the time? He cannot take the truth so he tries to distract someone from making a statement.

Mr. Chairman, let's talk about Englee. An operator has been up there for a couple of years now, or close to it - it will be in May or June of this year - and has not been active. I asked the minister, on an Open Line show this summer, to go in and pull their licence and let someone else go in and operate that facility. Instead, what he did, instead of leaving the licence in New Ferolle and telling the operator there that if he did not operate then he was taking their licence, he took the licence and now that licence has been advertised in the Canada Bay region, with no guarantee that the people in Englee will ever see a licence for that community.

I have talked to community people there, and they are not very pleased with the previous minister's decision to do that, and they had very little response from him when they questioned him about why he would advertise for the region of Canada Bay when the licence existed in that town.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to move up to The Straits of Labrador, along the South Coast, an area that had four or five crab plants that operated there for the last five or six years and did very well, I might add, very well in the crab fishery, very well with regard to employment; then, if you move down the Northeast Coast from St. Anthony all the way down to Bonavista, you will find that this year was the most devastating crab fishery they have had in memory - not the crab fishery, but any fishery.

If you talk to the fish harvesters along that coast from Cartwright right down to Bonavista, they will tell you - and you can go even further than that; you can go along from Bonavista right down the South Coast of the Province and they will tell you - the biggest problem that they had this year was a government intent on shoving a raw material sharing system down the throats of the harvesters against their wishes, even though they promised to consult with them. As a result we lost eight weeks in the fishery, which caused devastation and contributed greatly to the landed value of fish products in the Province being down this year by $200 million. I can tell you, by the end of the day, when it is all added up at the end of the year, you are going to find that there has been far more than $200 million lost out of the fishery this year just because of the callous move by the previous Minister of Fisheries and the Premier.

Now, what we have in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is a group of fish harvesters and crew members who are finding it almost impossible to live this year because of low incomes and no EI. Many of them have left the Province. They are leaving in droves. I remember the members opposite, when they sat over here, talking about the out-migration and the U-Hauls. Well, I will tell you one thing, the numbers were never as great as they are today.

I have an individual for whom I have the greatest of respect in my own district, who is sixty-four years old, who has always managed to make a living out of the fishery. He now has a ticket booked to go to Northern Alberta on December 30 to cut brush for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for the first three months because he is in a camp and there is nothing else to do. In order to take the job he had to sign on to that. The man is sixty-four years old and never had to do it before because he has always been able to make a living.

When this government was asked to spend some of the money that they had in for the crab assistance program for plant workers - trying to help out harvesters and crew members along the coast of this Province - the answer was no; a categorical no. The reason for it, Mr. Chair, is the Premier of this Province did not like what he saw last spring. He did not like the fact that harvesters, who have been in the boat for years and years and years in this Province, would dare challenge his decision to implement a raw material sharing system. The gall, he was saying. The gall of these fish harvesters and crew members to question me, the Premier of the Province, the man who got you the Atlantic Accord, the man who is an astute businessperson, the man who is a Rhodes Scholar, the man who is a lawyer. How dare you even question me? As a result of you questioning me, you will suffer. You will not demonstrate against me next spring because you will not be here. You will be forced to go to Alberta.

Talk about the letter that the Premier received from one Newfoundlander saying to him that the oil industry in Alberta does far more for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than the oil industry off the coast of our Province, because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find their way to the oilfields in Alberta and eke out a living and come back here; come back here and draw unemployment later in the year, or never come back, go to live in Alberta and raise their families. Talk to them and tell me what you are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Tell me what you are doing for the Stephenville's of the world. Tell me what you are doing for rural Newfoundland. Tell me what you are doing for my district.

I have an island called Change Islands. There are approximately 300 people on that island and the road leading into the community is not all paved. They eat dust every time that they drive from their community to the ferry. We will talk about the ferry rates later. To hear the Minister of Education, the member who represents Stephenville, make that callus, elitist, condescending, arrogant statement that she made in this House on Thursday is almost shameful. When asked the question: How much did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pay to pave a road to the Premier's golf course in the West End of St. John's? The best answer she could give is because there is a cul-de-sac in that area. The cul-de-sac has a paved road leading into it and all around it, but there is a dirt road which leads behind it to the Premier's golf course. The best answer she could give is that some people in some very expensive houses in the West End of St. John's were experiencing a dust problem and as a result, we had to pave the road.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: What is she saying to the people of Change Islands?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, they withdraw my leave but I will be back in a few minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's speaking time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have to set the record straight on New Ferolle, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will hang around so he can hear what is being said because he obviously has no clue of the facts. He wants to forget the history of New Ferolle when they were the government and he wants to disregard the facts that we had to deal with last winter and last spring when the court awarded the property in New Ferolle to the government.

I will tell you what the facts are in New Ferolle. There is $2.2 million in government money in that facility, and while there is $2.2 million, $771,000 of which is a debenture that was taken out because the operator failed to make his loan payments to the Bank of Nova Scotia, I believe it was, and as result of that, the government had to honour a loan guarantee. Also, there is $1.4 million, if I am not mistaken, in preferred shares into the operation which was also a debt that was converted to equity by the previous Administration. While that government put $2.2 million into that operation, they did not have clear title to the property; the land on which the building was built. That is the fact of the matter.

There is a parcel of land up in under the building, while James R. Doyle & Sons Limited held the licence and held the building - that is who held the loan, Mr. Chair. While they held it, somebody else, another Doyle operation who was not referenced in all of the legal documents, owned a piece of property up in under the building. As well as that, Mr. Chair, another operator, who currently owns the cold storage facility adjacent to the plant, owns the land surrounding the plant.

So, Mr. Chair, the predicament that we had last winter when the court finally got around to awarding the property to us, was: Do we put this up on public auction or do we do a lease with somebody who can operate it? Mr. Chair, if we had put it up on public auction, there was no way that anybody could get clear and free title to the property because there was a piece of property up and under the building owned by another Doyle, and the land surrounding the building was owned by somebody else. So, whoever got it could not get access to the building. Now, that was a fine predicament to put somebody in to try and get them to go into the New Ferolle.

As well, Mr. Chair, the people in New Ferolle, the plant workers and the fishermen had had a very good experience in the previous two years with Ice Cap Fish Company operating that facility and they wanted us to cut the deal with Ice Cap Fish Company. Now, everybody might want to forget the history of it right now when everything got jammed up in July. People might want to forget it but those are the facts.

The Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, his government, the government that he was a part of, if they had done their work, if they had done their due diligence, if they had insured that the property that they were putting $2.2 million into was owned by one entity of which they had a legal contract with, that they were able to, at the end of the day, collect against, that they were able to go into and get a court to award the property to them, if they had done all of those things then last spring - in late March, I believe it was - when the court finally said to us: Yes, you have the property; you have possession of the property. Then we could have, very quickly, went to public auction with it.

Mr. Chair, we could not go to public auction because, as we have to do right now - we have, if we want to go to public auction - and that will be going before Cabinet shortly to make a decision on that. If we have to go the public auction route, if we want to go the public auction route, or whatever route we want to go, we have to expropriate a block of land from in under that building, from somebody amongst the Doyle's and we have to expropriate a parcel of land surrounding the building so that whoever decides to take over that plant can actually get access to it without fear of being blocked by some other operator.

Now, those are the facts, Mr. Chair, and if that government had done their work - the work that they did with James Doyle & Sons and Cliff Doyle when they gave them $2.2 million, when they lend them $2.2 million, it is the same kind of work they did with Trans City, it is the same kind of work they were doing when they were negotiating with Hydro Quebec, and it is the same kind of work they did with every other deal where they ended up losing when they ended up in court over the years that they were in government and costing taxpayers of this Province millions and millions and millions of dollars. That is what happened. That is the kind of deals that government did when they were in power, Mr. Chair. That is why we take our time. That is why we try to do things right. That is why, when the facility in New Ferolle is transferred, the ownership is transferred, when the place is finally sold, it will be done right. People will be able to get access to the building. Please God, the plant workers in New Ferolle will be able to go to work and get a paycheque and the fishermen will have a reliable operator to sell to. If the people who are now criticizing our actions in New Ferolle had done their homework and done their due diligence and made sure that the legal framework was tight when they did their deals and put $2.2 million into it, the people in New Ferolle would not have the mess that they have up there currently, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. I, certainly, will not be screaming and shouting. We seem like we have had a lot of it here tonight and, I guess, fortunately for the people out in TV land, they have a volume button on their TV and they can turn down the shouters as much as they want to.

I would like to make a few points. I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, who has just made a few comments about the court cases piece. I do recall, in my short stint here, that the same advisors that - at least on my watch when I was there - were the same advisors that he has when it comes to a legal situation. I do not think these decisions get made foolishly by any government. Any minister in any department who would make a decision contrary to the legal advice that he was being given, would certainly be foolhardy. You make your recommendation and you take your course of action based upon the advice that you get. Sometimes, the route that you chose to go does not work out, and several times, many times you can, indeed, be sued. I say to the minister, choose your words sweetly because you never know when you have to eat them. You have only been there a short time. You have the same advisors. I know of what I speak when I talk about the Department of Justice. You have some of the best in this Province, if not the best, and that is who is advising the Cabinet and the government of this Province.

I would say you are in good hands when it comes to the people you have advising you, but that is not to say that you are not, over the course of time, going to choose some wrong roads. So, do not go browbeating anybody about court decisions and what did or did not happen. They did not come about because someone foolish and off their rocker made a decision without contrary and absolutely to the advice. People make wrong decisions. I also agree that quite often when they are made wrong sometimes a little bit of politics might have entered into the making of the decision. If you looked at things in the cold, grey light of dawn, you would probably, on second thought, might have done it differently if there hadn't been some political light shining on the decision at the time it was made. This government is no different than the governments in the past when it comes to making decisions based upon circumstances as they exist.

I noticed, too - I must say, and I am not a humourous by any means, but I really appreciate it when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture gets on his feet. Love the approach. A little bit of criticism comes from this side over here, of course, and we get, what I call, the Statler and the Waldorf. They are the two fellows in the Muppet Show who used to be up in the balcony and whenever things get tough, down come Statler and Waldorf. I speak, of course, of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Natural Resources. Bring down Statler and Waldorf and let them go. The evangelist gets right on his feet and away he goes. I happened to be in our Caucus room watching him when he was up on his latest preaching, sermonizing stint. The problem was, I could not see his face because he turns around. He has his own little audience, his own little enclave over there. He doesn't talk to, as he says, the people out in TV land, that I call them. He has his own little audience over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, it is. He is like a poster boy for the rave. One talking head talking to twenty nodding heads. Yet, the audience out there cannot see who he is talking to, but I appreciate it because he does say some good things.

Now, not everything he says makes sense either but I know him to be a very sensible man. He talked about polls. I guess now him of all people to talk about polls and where they are and that brings up the word arrogance and that kind of thing, snobbery, smugness comes to mind, and he talked about polls. Well, I guess the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knew all about polls in 1989. Yes, he was the shortest lived Premier we had because he went on a poll and the people of the Province in a very short time period told him where the poll stood.

So, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture again, that how the water runs today is not necessarily how the water is going to run tomorrow. That is right. Things can change very quickly and nine times out of ten, I say, it changes most often I would think in the public view because either you do stuff that people finally say: We have had enough of this, we don't want it anymore. I believe, for example, in 2003 that is what the people of this Province said. They looked at the Liberal government and they said: Enough of this - and they gave us the flick. No question about it. We have had enough of it. There were a host of reasons why they did that, and nobody over here can deny any of those reasons and we all know what they are. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the same thing can take a hold very quickly in any government if arrogance sets in and that smugness. I say in all sincerity, that arrogance and that smugness is being seen by the people of this Province. Maybe only in little doses, maybe only in a little incidences but some people over here may get up and shout and scream about how the Minister of Education answered that question last week, but in all seriousness, I had at least fifteen different people tell me - and I was here in the city this weekend. I did not go back to my district, and I do not know a lot of people in here, but I had fifteen different people comment to me this past weekend about that comment, and the way it came out, the smugness and the arrogance, and that is what happens.

I, for one, will be a critic when it requires criticism. Hopefully, it will be constructive. I expect that we are going to have our times here in the House when we go back and forth. Sometimes we all get hot and bothered under the collar and so on. I agree, there are going to be problems.

If you look at the short life of this government, there is what I call the planned stuff and the unplanned stuff, and that happens in any government. The Blue Book was what I would call your vision and what you had planned, and the unplanned stuff that we have seen - for example, the Minister of Fisheries had to deal with the unravelling of the bankruptcy situation of the aquaculture farm down on the South Coast. That is what this piece of legislation is that we are dealing with here tonight. Somebody has given a guarantee for the company who agreed to come in and take over that aquaculture farm.

The government, not because it was great vision on the part of the government - that was not in the Blue Book, that was not part of the plan, but - you came to the front as you ought to, as any responsible government, and said, we are going to stand by that person.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of Transportation and Works who says, the individual who took that over is well-known, is well-versed, experienced in the fishing industry, and he is a man of vision, Bill Barry, no question about it. That is not because you people came up with the idea that it was great to invest in rural Newfoundland, so don't spin it to the people that way, that it was your idea to come up with this great plan to guarantee a loan to Bill Barry so he could take over the bankrupt aquaculture thing.

People would appreciate it much more if you would tell it straight. Tell it like it was. We had a bankrupt company who was trying to do something, had some vision on the South Coast in the aquaculture industry, but could not do it because of certain things, such as cost, and they came to you and asked for help.

I do not even know but it was the government who when to Mr. Barry and said: Could you help us? - and, Mr. Barry, being an entrepreneur, saw it as an opportunity and said, yeah, I think I can do something with that. It might fit my plans as well as government's plans; and, you rightfully got involved as you should have. It is not a case of you had all of the ideas in your head. You did it for rural Newfoundland - that is the by-product of what you did - but you did it because you ought to have done it as any responsible government would do.

That is like Stephenville. Some people would agree or disagree - and we get it thrown back and forth here, the Leader of the Opposition said this one day and something the other day, but you only need to listen to the public and you hear the same thing. There are people in this Province who disagree with the fact that this government was going to throw $150 million, the way they put it, throw it at the Stephenville problem. That is how some people who are cynical in this Province would look at that. I am sure there was no thought, when you people came on watch, that you were going to have the Stephenville Abitibi problem unfold like it did. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources probably wished his summer did not turn out to be what it was. That was a problem that came up and any government has to deal with; but, as a government, instead of getting upset, instead of getting saucy sometimes, I think, as a government, instead of chastising us ragtag leftover Liberals who are left over here, according to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, sometimes there might be some civil rational comments that might come out of here, too.

Again, I say, it is when you close your eyes and you only take the approach that we are only a bunch of ragtag defeated Liberals, that again shows smugness and arrogance. People do not like that. People do not like anybody who gets too high and mighty, and that is what I sense over here sometimes when this crowd over here, ragtag may we be, who try to suggest something and say something, especially when somebody gets up and does it with cynicism and sarcasm. No place for it.

The Stephenville problem, again: I, personally, do not think there is anything wrong with the plan the government made. I wish we could have done it for a lot less money. I wish we did not have the situation now where the company is beating upon the union, but it is a problem and you had to deal with it; but, you must understand and accept that, along the way, people are going to ask you questions about what you are doing. Sometimes it is because we do not understand it. You people have the inside information. The Minister of Natural Resources has more information about what is happening on the Abitibi thing than I am going to get between here and the next two weeks if I studied it continuously, because he has lived it, but that does not stop me from having the right to ask questions about it. I believe - firmly believe - there is no such thing as a stupid question. If you ask a question from the point of view of wanting to be informed, the government not only has an obligation to try to solve the problem, but the government has an obligation to inform the people, and that includes us, when we ask these questions.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not necessarily disagree with some of the commentary made by the Opposition House Leader in terms of the questions and the debate, et cetera, that has come forward, but he has talked about situations that relate to Stephenville. Government has an obligation to assist on any important file that is important to regions of the Province, that is important to people in the Province, or important to the economy of the Province. On the one hand, in trying to assist and develop that, whatever it may be, in this case he has talked about the Stephenville situation with Abitibi.

Yes, we have an obligation to negotiate fiercely, protect the public purse in the process, always advance the interests of the people in the region, with one objective in mind, and that is to ensure that an operation that provides the type of economic impact such as the Abitibi Stephenville operation, that is continues to thrive and survive. Trying to ensure that, you try to reach some balance and you do not try to give away or leverage yourself. You try to put in place some protection for the future. In saying all of that, the member and the Opposition House Leader is probably correct in saying that, as the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources on behalf of the Province, yes, it has been an interesting eighteen months with respect to the objectives that Abitibi have put forward.

The Opposition House Leader is also right when he says that we have an obligation to try to answer any and all questions that come forward, and we do, and we should. On that particular note, just let me say in this government's own defence in terms of the questions that have come forward: For a full year, if you look at July 27 as the date where Abitibi announced that it was going to close Stephenville mill, and announced the potential closure of number seven machine in Grand Falls, unless certain things were going to happen - and they were going to try and leverage whatever they could out of government - for a full year before that announcement was made, we were engaged with Abitibi. We went through a deputy ministerial committee, trying to seek options. We entered into direct negotiations. All the while that was occurring, every two months I met - and every request that was made of me - with all the elected leadership in the Stephenville-Bay St. George area. I met with the union leadership in the Bay St. George area. In the community of Grand Falls in Central Newfoundland, the same thing. Every two-and-a-half or three month I met with the six locals in Grand Falls. Why did we do that? We did it because people were legitimately concerned about where their economic futures would be, what would be the economic impacts of the regions in which they were living should these operations move in a direction by where Abitibi said they were going to move. We did it because people had a right to be engaged.

Throughout that year we tried to inform people, engage people, ask them their ideas and notions, and I want to say something tonight that is very important. I learned a lot in the last eighteen months from people like Ron Smith in Grand Falls, and Harold Smith, the union leader in Stephenville. I learned a lot from people like George MacDonald, head of a local, and Gary Healey. They taught me a lot, as a minister of the Crown. They taught - their experience in dealing with the company that this government - a new government by the way, over the last two years - these were individuals who had spent their lifetime negotiating with this particular company. The individuals knew, with respect to the company and how they operate, the company's tactics, all of those sorts of things, they knew probably better than I did, but I recognize that. That is one of the reasons I engaged them. That is one of the reasons why the government engaged people, to get their advice, to learn, and vice versa - a good, frank exchange of information.

It continues tonight, for example, in Stephenville, to be a difficult situation. Here is the dilemma: We spent eighteen months, in good faith, negotiating with a company who said to us, for eighteen months, that the only real impediment to the continued operation of the Stephenville mill was the energy side, was the dramatic increase in energy costs associated with the rising cost of oil. No question about that, their energy bill had gone from, in 1999-2000, about $12.5 million to $13 million a year, had increased in the vicinity, up to last year, to $26 million. That is a legitimate problem.

Stephenville mill did not have a strategic advantage like Corner Brook Pulp and Paper sitting on a river system generating very cheap power, or like the Exploits River, so we legitimately tried to put in place a framework that would help them. It did not mean, though, that we were going to build a project at a cost of $350 million and then provide $450 million over thirty years on top of it while there were no commitments made by the company to continue their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador - in other words, to continue milling and logging. No government, being possessed of sound mind and having the public interest at heart - and I do not believe any member in this House would have wanted anybody to sign on to such an arrangement, but we did reach one. We reached an arrangement, over a fifteen-year period, that met the objectives of Abitibi in terms of the cost of energy in Stephenville. We met those objectives.

Now, you turn around to the situation that community finds itself into today. Abitibi did not talk to us about problems with the collective agreement. Abitibi continued throughout that time to tell us how good their workforce was in Stephenville, how efficient that workforce was, and is, in Stephenville. There were discussions, or notions put out publicly that Abitibi Stephenville has a problem with wood supply. Abitibi said to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: Wood supply is an issue that we believe we can manage.

Government continues to invest heavily in the infrastructure in the forestry industry, in building roads, for example, forestry roads, that provide more access to fibre. They first asked us, for example, eighteen months ago, that when it came to the fibre issue, they wanted to have priority access. Just get a load of this. They wanted to have priority access to every stick of timber in Labrador, and they wanted priority access to every stick of timber remaining on Crown limits in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, what does that mean? It means that they would have the first choice of if they were going to get it or not. Just think about the impact on the integrated sawmill industry had we entered into that type of arrangement - Jamestown Lumber, Sexton Lumber, Mr. Fred Osmond's operation out in Hampton, or any other integrated sawmill in Newfoundland and Labrador that provides significant employment benefits, that provides high salaries in very rural parts of the Province. Just imagine, had we capitulated to that request. We did not, and we would not, because that would not have been the correct public policy stand for a resource in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We said to Abitibi: If you want access to Labrador timber, we are not going to give it to you as a matter of priority access. Go up in Labrador and develop the relationships with the people in Labrador like everyone else has to do. Go up and develop and assist in the development of that industry, to help grow the forestry industry in Labrador. That is what government is going to do.

This year, for example, we had $3.5 million in the forestry road budget. The vast majority, or the bulk of that money, was spent in Labrador. That is why we are investing in trying to understand, how do we grow the forestry industry in Labrador? Because there is significant potential, but it cannot be by just cutting sawlogs or timber for the sake of exporting out. There has to be a way to add value to a resource in Labrador, and we believe there is and we believe we can get there, but you do not do it by signing priority access or first right of refusal or a priority right.

MR. HARRIS: It didn't work on the Island.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is absolutely right. It did not work on the Island in terms of giving them unfettered access. It did not. So, from our point of view, we believe that we met the objectives.

Now, what is occurring in Stephenville tonight? For the last six weeks when we entered into the framework agreement, the senior vice-president from Abitibi says to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, this arrangement or framework, some issues - some issues - said that we have to work out with the union but we should be making paper by the first or second week of December in Stephenville.

Now we have a situation where you have a senior vice-president for public relations and government affairs making types of statements yet again that - we will let you know when, but it could happen sooner rather than later in closing the mill.

You have a town and town leadership legitimately concerned about their future. You have a duly elected union body, or duly elected executive, struggling, and the membership struggling, with how they move forward with what is on the table. From government's point of view, we have been engaged in trying to find a way forward with that but we cannot put our finger into the middle of a union executive and try to dictate to a union executive and to a union membership on what they should or should not do.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Government House Leader that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: Could I have some leave, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

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

What do we do? Do we go in and start dictating the terms of collective agreements as a government? I do not think anybody in this House would want any government to begin doing that. We provided, for example, the Premier said it was his understanding that both sides potentially would want mediation. We offered mediation services to both the company and to the union, to try and find a common ground and a way forward, and the company said: Absolutely not.

From our point of view, and from government's point of view, and I believe all of our point of view, I think we all want to see that operation continue to thrive and survive, but the frank, cold, hard reality of it is this: We have achieved, in our view, an objective that Abitibi said they needed to keep that operation going, and we did. Now they are into a situation where the gun is at every worker's head in Stephenville.

I remember the Leader of the Opposition said, I thought it was psychological warfare, he called it, and I could not agree more. Right now, given the intensity of the public comments by the company and the union executive in terms of saying what their view of it is, where does that leave government? Where does that leave members in this Legislature in terms of how we try to achieve the absolute objective of ensuring that the place stays open?

I don't think any of us in this House would want to see or participate in an exercise that would see, in a heavy-handed way, government going in and taking a side, one or the other. This is a significant debate that is going on between an employer and an employee, but I think we need to recognize and understand what the government of the Province has done. We have met the demand of Abitibi, of this government, in terms of achieving the objective on the power side that would provide them with the same strategic advantage as if they were sitting on a river system. Are we still involved? Yes we are. Will we continue to be involved? Yes, we will. We will try to find whatever common ground we can, but that is the perspective that we are coming from it on.

When you look at, for example, in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Abitibi's view of number seven machine, close number seven, flying in the face of legislation that is in this House that we all supported, a good piece of legislation in Bill 27. The company's objective, once again, come in, put the gun to everybody's head and say: Well, number seven has to go, it is an old machine, and we will reinvest in the remainder of our operations. They are saying somewhere between $40 million and $60 million is what they have told us.

Now, from my point of view, someone who says they are going to make an investment in their operation, whether it is in Abitibi Grand Falls, whether it is in an integrated sawmill, whether it is in any body or any sort of operation in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they tell me or they tell you, as members, that they are going to make an investment of $40 million to $60 million, they do not have a plan. That is not a plan. That is a notion. How much is it going to cost to get your operations to where they are? Well, somewhere between $40 million and $60 million. That is not a plan, in my view. What is that going to get you? Well, we think we are going to improve the wood room; we are going to speed up the machine. What is your production level going to be? Oh, it might be up around 550 or 600.

That is not a plan. How do you sign on to that? No government or no member worth their salt would sign on to such a notion up front without understanding the details. That is why we took the stand that the community in Central Newfoundland wanted us to take, because it was the right one. I think it is the right one today. It was then and it is today. After all, the resources that we are talking about are supposed to provide better for people in the regions that they operate in.

That is the type of process that we have gone through, and that we will continue to go through; but, when these issues hit any government, they have to be dealt with head on and you have to be able to look companies like this in the eye from time to time and stand your ground. You have to be able to stand your ground on this.

Since July 27, it has been a difficult issue for many people, but we believe we have tried to work our way through it and we believe we done a good job working our way through it. I think the Opposition House Leader is right. He said there are some people in the Province saying that you threw $150 million at a problem. I do not see it that way, personally, and I am prepared to defend the decision that we made.

When you look at the economic impact of not trying to provide such an incentive, or create a strategic advantage, I think the analysis that we did would be equivalent to 910 full-time jobs in the Province that would not now exist. That is a lot of jobs, the economic generator of a region, the heart and soul of a region at stake.

Yes, they are not the easiest decisions to make, but we have an obligation to make them. In doing so, you hope and you pray that the decisions that you have made, and your defence of them, at the end of the day, work for the people in the towns that are living this right now.

What I will say is the apparent acrimony, sometimes, of debate, and the apparent acrimony of Question Period, that is fundamentally - sometimes it is apparent, sometimes it is not, it depends what is happening, but, fundamentally - the system we operate in, where in a very direct, raw and adversarial way, without any prior knowledge, the Official Opposition has a chance to directly challenge the government on every public policy issue.

With respect to that, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time, the leave, that has been provided by members. I appreciate participating in the debate and I am looking forward to hearing from others on other issues that they may wish to raise.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is with somewhat of a somber note that I would speak in the House of Assembly tonight because of the accident, the tragic accident, that occurred back in my home community earlier today.

It has been a difficult situation for me over the last number of months, where four people from the Town of Belleoram lost their lives in the fishing industry. Then, earlier, a resident from St. Alban's, this fall, got killed in a construction industry job on the mainland, a man in his forties with some young children.

Mr. Chairman, I need to, I think, speak on what was said earlier tonight because, really, it goes to the core of what this is all about in the House. I do not intend to lecture. I have never done that, and I am not going to do it, but I refer to some comments that were made earlier tonight by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture when he referred to us as ragtail leftover Liberals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ragtag.

MR. LANGDON: Ragtag. It was a great laugh over on that side of the House.

I have been in the House for seventeen years and, I am telling you, I sat on both sides of the House. I came in as Opposition and I had a chance to be in government for a number of years and back to the Opposition again. Never once did I say that to any member in this House, because I had more respect than that. The people who elected me in my District in Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune did not put that tag on me. They gave me their trust over the last five terms, seventeen years come April, to be their representative.

This past weekend I visited a number of the communities and, do you know what? The support is there for me now, and I will tell you why: Because I am not presumptuous; I am not arrogant. I try to deal with the problems that come my way in the best way that I can. I do not slinge my time. I work every day to the best of my ability. Do I solve every problem? Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

The thing for all of us, I guess, sometimes when we get elected, and it happens to all of us when we are in government and we are ministers in the government, we are ministers of the Crown and we move up the ladder, the thing to remember is that the people you pass when you go up are going to be there when you come down. They are going to be there.

I will make a prediction. Some of us who are here will probably not be here the next election. The people out there in the district will be the people who will judge that, whether we come back or not. These are the types of things that, when you really come here to work - and I think all of us did; we were all given the same mandate. We are all equal as people when we come to the floor of the House of Assembly. I know sometimes it is raucous and we say things, but these are the type of things that really hurt. It really does. I do not think there is any need for that type of behaviour in the House. We go back and forth and we say that, but I never say that about a person individually, or talk about and demean them in any way. I will leave it at that.

The other thing we are talking about in the district that I represent, in the aquaculture industry, it has been a difficult time, and it was a difficult time when I was a member of government. It was difficult when the particular company in Bay d'Espoir had gone bankrupt before, and it came to Cabinet when I was a member of the Cabinet, and we put in $8 million to bail them out. The aquaculture industry, you really need deep pockets. It really does. Just think about what happened in New Brunswick only recently. The federal government came in there and they bailed them out. I will make a prediction, that there will be more government money have to go into the industry yet, but it is worth it. It is really worth it. There will be more money to go in and it will be worth it, creating jobs along the South Coast.

I believe, in the district that I represent, we have the capacity to build even greater than we already have, and we can employ many more people than we have already employed, and I would like to see it grow. It was said across the floor again, somewhere tonight, that Opposition members would like for us not to see things happen. How could I, in all conscience, when I think about the people I represent in Harbour Breton, look at them and say: I hope your plant never opens again.

When you go down to that town and see the people who are hurting, cars going out over the road, repossessed, people who have had their television cable disconnected, teenagers who are used to Internet have seen it disappear, people whose houses have been repossessed, people who have had to declare personal bankruptcy, would anybody in this Legislature ever hope that, as a government, you would not succeed? I do not think so.

I would certainly hope that, by tomorrow morning, I would turn on the radio and things are happening in Stephenville and the 300 people who are there are back to work. That would be a great boost for me for Christmas, and for everybody else concerned. Why would we not wish it? Everybody here was elected, regardless of where we are and whatever. I guess the ultimate aim is to be in Cabinet, and some of your people over there are Cabinet ministers and the responsibility is heavy.

I heard earlier, when the Minister of Natural Resources talked about people like Ron Smith, Harold Smith and Harold Tremblett. You did not mention that name, but I remember dealing with all these guys, and do you know what? They forgot more than I knew as a Minister of Labour, in dealing with the large companies. I think Harold Tremblett is retired but, I am telling you, he has a wealth of knowledge -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Frank Tremblett.

MR. LANGDON: Frank Tremblett, I am sorry.

I remember one time having a strike in Abitibi, and I met with the union, and there was the same type of arrogance, the same type of abrasiveness, that the minister is dealing with now. It wasn't any different when we were there. They told us, when we were ministers of the government and in Cabinet committees, they would like for us to go into Labrador and give them everything. The same words I heard before, and our words to them were: You go and earn it. You go and earn the trust. You build the relationship. You build the bridges.

They did not do it, and they are paying the consequences of it now. It is the same basic thing that has happened, when we talk about government reacting and so on, the problem government has with FPI. Do I want to see Marystown close down, or Burin close down? Not likely, none of them, and I hope you can find a way to make it happen. It would be the greatest Christmas gift that I could have, or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could have this Christmas. I would hope that tomorrow we could find jobs for everybody, not one person would be unemployed. That would be the ultimate, but there are people hurting. That is the reality of it. There are people out hurting in the district, particularly in Harbour Breton. I cannot deny that. When I was there on the weekend, eight of the people are leaving on December 28 to go to Alberta to work. Do you know why they are going? If they do not go they will lose everything they have. They have so much invested they have no choice. They have to go. They have to go up into Northern Alberta and cut trails in the wintertime with temperatures 20 below, 30 below or 40 below, people in their forties and fifties. Do they want to do it? No, they do not. Do they have to? Yes, they do. Would I hope tomorrow there would be news that something would happen for Harbour Breton that they would not have to do it? Sure, I would, the same as the Minister of Natural Resources. It would be only logical for it to happen.

Whether I have an opportunity ever to become a minister in government again or to sit on government side, that is immaterial. While I am here in the House I have an obligation to try to represent the people that sent me here. I can honestly say that I have had good co-operation from the people on government side and the ministers. I have to say that. Do you know why? I did not do everything perfect either, but I tried to do what I could for people who were on that side. When the Natural Resources Minister came to see me I tried to do what I could. Could I do everything? No, I could not because finances would not allow us to do it.

There were years when we would have liked to put three times, or four times as much money into roads. Could we do it? No, we could not. We did not have the financial resources to do it. Where there mistakes made? Sure, there were. I was not a member of Cabinet when Tri City was done. If something happens to this government today then people who are sitting in the back - like the Member for St. John's Centre - will wear it even though he did not make the decision. That is the natural process. I cannot say that I was not with the party. I was reminded by Clyde Wells one time when he said to us - I think it might have been Larry Short, the Member for Bay of Islands, or up that way in Burgeo & LaPoile or whatever -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. George's.

MR. LANGDON: St. George's, I am sorry.

He said he was a member of government. Clyde Wells said there are two groups, there are two circles. The inner circle, these are the government, the Cabinet people. Outside in the second are people who are backbenchers. You are not government, but you are part of it. If you go back to your district today the people will refer to you as our government. You have to stand and defend the decisions that are made. That is the process. I have been there, done that and it is very difficult sometimes to do it. I would venture to say that there is not one person sitting in this House who have agreed with every decision that their government has made. You have taken exception to it, but when the decision is made then you go out and support it. That is what it is about.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that his speaking time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute or two to clue it up, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: Like I said, it is very difficult for me to be able to even get up and speak. It has been very difficult. These people live next door to us all of our lives and I stayed around here to support the people who are here.

Sometimes you hear the response being made that you are tired, you are worn out, you cannot do your job or whatever, but as long as I am here, whatever the situation is, when I get to the point where I feel I cannot represent the people who have sent me here, they will not have to tell me to go, I will make my own decision and move out and let them have somebody else there that will do it for me.

So, it is with that, Mr. Chairman, that I said it is kind of heavy for me to do it, but I feel obligated to do it and to make these couple of words on that particular money bill.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chair, I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune or the hon. Opposition House Leader. They had some very good words of wisdom, as a matter of fact, when they spoke tonight in this House. I have heard a lot of things said in this House tonight, back and forth across this hon. House.

When I entered government - I have only been here a short period of time, probably a little over two years - I remember the financial state that we were facing at that particular time. As a matter of fact, coming from a business world I was frightened to death. I did not envy any of the minsters who were tasked with the deal, as a Cabinet, to deal with that financial mess at that particular time in this Province.

I do not have a problem - I have heard, as people spoke in this House tonight, in regards to the things that we have done in health care, things that we have done in education, things that we have done in tourism, things that we have done in transportation, things that we have done in natural resources, things that we have done in every department. I am not afraid and this government is not afraid to talk about the things that we had to do. There were some hard decisions that were made over the last couple of years. Not so hard now, I can tell you, after the things that the Premier and the Cabinet have done in regards to the Atlantic Accord and some things done in health care, equalization, et cetera, but we had to make some hard decisions.

Yes, we did put up fees, Mr. Chair. Just about in every aspect we had to put it up, but I heard time and time and time again from the people out there in this Province, when I travelled throughout the Province, that they did not mind fees going up just as long as you used those fees and that extra revenue in a prudent way. I think that has actually been shown here over the last period of time in regards to some of the things that have been said in this Province and some of the polling. We talked about polling. That has been thrown back and forth across the House and that kind of stuff, and you can take polls for whatever it is worth. A poll is a poll is a poll, but the bottom line of it is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that we are on the right path. I am convinced of that. I am sure of that, as a matter of fact, I will be honest with you.

I will go back to it again, yes, we did have to make hard decisions. Absolutely, we did. We had to cut things. We had to cut things in my district, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, I think I had one of the first closures that happened in this Province after we took government in regards to the youth assessment centre. We had to close that down and we kept the one open in Grand Falls. I got hell from people and community leaders in my district over that but it was felt that the better place for the youth assessment centre was in Grand Falls because the stats showed and the psychologists showed that it should be kept there, for numerous reasons. We will not get into that tonight because I have talked on that before, and I do not mind getting up in this House and talking about that.

I had the redevelopment of the James Paton Memorial Hospital, which was put aside and cancelled. Something that I campaigned on in 1999. Something that I campaigned on from 1999 to 2003. That is a fact, but the bottom line of it is that the people of Gander and the people of the district believe that we are doing the right thing because we did not have the money to do it. That is absolutely right and that is what we did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: No, we did not make a promise, I say to the hon. Opposition Leader. I did not make a promise to them but I will tell you right now, Sir, piece by piece we are doing it. That is absolutely right.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: I say to the hon. Opposition Leader, I listened. I listened here intently tonight. I have been here the whole night. That is it, I have been here. That is what I did, listened very intently to everything that was said here in this House tonight.

I have seen things happen. Things happen in districts that belong to Liberals, who sit in Liberal - absolutely! Did I feel good about having something cut in one of your districts? Absolutely not! Did we go out there and try to paint a rosy picture about Newfoundland and Labrador, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular? No, we did not. I have always said that we have opportunities in rural Newfoundland. We have opportunities but, yet, we have great challenges. That is a fact. Now, is that unique? Is that unique to Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely not! It is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a part of Canada. I have heard time and time again, from the economists all across this great land, that there are challenges in rural Canada. As a matter of fact, I met out in Twillingate, just a little while ago, with a federal MP. He was a Parliamentary Assistant and responsible for their rural strategy and for their Rural Secretariat. He agreed with me fully, that we have big problems in Canada in regards to rural Canada. That is a challenge and it will be a challenge.

I heard the hon. Minister of Transportation talk about being in a hole, and they have to be wise enough that when you are in that hole, you have to stop digging. I heard him say that once before, actually, and it sunk into my mind and it sunk into my mind again. That is exactly what we had to do, was stop digging, because we just could not afford some of the things that we were doing. We could not afford some of the extra expenditures that we were using, for whatever reason that we were using it.

With all that I heard from an educated Newfoundland and Labrador, we are not back in the 1930s and 1940s anymore. We have a very educated population base. We have a population base who are in tune to the Province, who want to be engaged in the Province. They want to see where this Province is going to go and they want it to exist for their children's children. That is exactly what they want. They expressed to us, to people who when we went out and campaigned, that they wanted to see some action in regards to the financial situation in this Province, and that is what we aim to do.

I heard after the 2005 Budget - and I always go back to the budgets and look at the 2004 Budget, 2005 Budget, just to remind myself of where we came from, where we are going and the path that we are taking. The Bank of Nova Scotia issued a statement in regards to the 2005 Budget. What it said was is that we are balancing fiscal restraint to social spending. That is exactly what we did, fiscal restraint.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what we tried to do.

MR. O'BRIEN: That is right. That is exactly what we tried to do. We sat down and we made hard, hard decisions in government. Yes, and I was a part of that. I am not in Cabinet, but that does not mean I am not a part of this government, that I did not have my say at the caucus table, that I did not have my say to the ministers. I went to the ministers and said: listen, this is this and this is my view on that, and they listened intently. That is what it is all about. That is exactly what it is all about.

I was not here when any of the Opposition were ministers. I did not have to deal with them, but I have dealt with them as caucus members and some of them I find quite reasonable. I think that is why they are getting the results that they get when dealing with our ministers, because they did treat them in a very good way when they were in the Opposition, and vise-versa. We are not here, regardless of your political stripe, to decimate Newfoundland and Labrador just because you might be living in a Liberal district. That is not the way this system works. That is not the way it works at all. Absolutely not!

I have seen things happen down on the South Coast of Newfoundland recently, a lot of things. CT scanning that was not budgeted in the 2005 Budget. It was not budgeted at all. Down on the South Coast I have seen a new clinic that has been budgeted for and announced. These are the kinds of things that we have adjusted to as we go along. We are not going to say - and we are going to make, absolutely, as the hon. Opposition House Leader has said, make mistakes as well. We are all human in this House of Assembly. We ran in elections and we got elected but we are still all human. We are just one, one. Each one of us, forty-eight of us, are all just one, one, one making up forty-eight. I have always said to people in Gander that I am only as good as the people who are around me or however good you want me to be. That depends on the information that those people, those constituents are going to give me from time and time and time again, to make me better and better and better at what I do.

I enjoy in this House of Assembly. I enjoy listening to all Members of the House of Assembly. I listen to it intently. I listen to Question Period intently and I learn and learn and learn. I think - if I am to say myself - I have come a long way in the last two years with regard to when I was elected and where I am now. Sometimes that is exactly what you need, is good advice.

I have heard things said here tonight - we talked about a company being bankrupt. Essentially, what I looked at as a person, as an individual, when I heard about the financial situation the Province was in, I looked at this Province as being bankrupt. Now, that may not be the right way to look at a government, that might not be the right way to look at a Province. People might say you should not treat the Province as a business but, essentially, that is exactly what we have to do. At this point in time in history, that is exactly what we have to do. We have to look at this Province nearly as a corporation, to a certain degree, but still keeping in mind the social aspect of it as well. We have social responsibilities to people, that people do not have as much as we have, do not have as much as their neighbour has. That is a social responsibility that we have. So, we have to certainly balance it out; balance it out over time and make wise decisions. I have seen some -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Gander that his speaking time has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

I thank the hon. member, and I will not go on much more, Mr. Chair.

I will go back to it again, right back where nobody will forget this, that I do not mind, as a government member, an MHA for Gander, getting up here and talking about fees and talking about putting up fees. I do not mind getting on the open line shows and that kind of stuff, not at all. I will get up whenever. I will call or whatever and do it, and that is all that is to it.

I thank the hon. members for giving me the extra little bit of time to clue up. I take great pride in getting up in this House and I always will. I will always be listening intently to whatever is said on that side of the House and on this side of the House. I will clue up with that, Mr. Chair, and I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I started this debate about four or five hours ago, I guess, from our perspective over here, when I talked about A Tale of Two Cities. I talked about what the economy was like or what the perceived economy of the Province was like in listening to the government and what the economy actually is like and the difference between the economy on the Northeast Avalon and that in the rest of the Province. We have had some heated debate here tonight and we have also had some very serious debate.

I want to talk about, for a little bit - because every time someone gets up to speak, I think of another speech I would like to give. I know it is 12:25 on a Tuesday morning, but I would like to talk about a number of things. One of them, the Member for Gander just raised, about when he inherited the government he found it in a bankrupt situation. What really galls me - and I guess it is also something that galls the electorate and makes the electorate so cynical. When you talk, right across the country, why people are cynical about governments is because they make commitments and they make promises and it has come to the point now when no one believes us, because political parties makes commitments and promises during an election - it has come to the point where no one actually listens anymore. That is the reason why our voter turnout on a general election is getting around the 50 per cent mark. We have turned off 50 per cent of the general population, and that is a sad scenario.

Let me go back to 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 when today's government was sitting here in Opposition. We have a Minister of Finance who was the Finance critic for two or three years and he knew the books of the Province. He knew the financial situation in the Province because he ate it day in and day out. He talked about the debt, but he also talked about the need to spend money because everyday there was a new issue in health. He was also the critic for Health. There was an issue in transportation, and I know the Minister of Fisheries, or the Minister of Transportation today, standing over here day after day after day about a plan for the fishery. We saw his plans unfold.

Then, during the election, we talk about the commitments that this Premier made and printed in a blue book, and they were not worth the paper they were written on. Then shortly thereafter, shortly after winning a government on the commitments that he made throughout the Province in every single district - basically, it was almost, go into a town, find out what they were looking for and say: Yes, I am going to give it to you. That is what he did. Now, to be elected and a month later say: We opened the books and brought in a group from the mainland - because they could not analyze the books themselves, paid them to tell us that we were bankrupt. To say then that they did not know I think is quite a misleading statement, that he did not know the finances of the Province. The man is a businessman himself, the Premier. He should have known. He sat in this House of Assembly for two years before the election. He had a Finance critic who was scrutinizing the books on a day-to-day basis, finding something to complain to the government about, the government of the day. But, the crown jewel was the Auditor General, who was a candidate in the election in 2003 for the PC Party representing Topsail. If there was anyone in this Province, at that time, who knew the financial shape of this Province - anyone who knew it better, I do not know who they are. She was the Auditor General for five years, I think.

MS THISTLE: Ten years.

MR. REID: Ten years, here you go. She was the Auditor General for ten years, and I challenge anyone in this House of Assembly or anyone in the Province -

MS THISTLE: We made her the Auditor General.

MR. REID: We made her the Auditor General, I might add, when we were the government. The Liberal government made her the Auditor General because we had faith in her knowledge and her ability to do the job. To stand in the House of Assembly and say today, or say two days after they were elected: We did not know the finances and we cannot honour any of the commitments. You wonder why then people are skeptical, because here was an individual who scrutinized those books, got paid to scrutinize the books, got paid to tell you where every cent in government was, every single penny in government. The only one who could even come close to her, that I know of - having been in Cabinet - was Florence Delaney. We know what happened to her. He fired her. The Premier flicked her, showed her the door. To say - for the Premier and this government across the floor - that they were campaigning and did not know the finances of the Province while they were out making commitments, and they made them everywhere.

I remember them sitting in Opposition when I was Fisheries Minister, today's Premier himself and the previous Minister of Fisheries, saying we were not vigilant enough with FPI. Just imagine! We were not vigilant enough in keeping an eye on FPI. Well, I can say to the Premier tonight, looking right across, right in the eye: FPI did not close the fish plant or lay people off under my watch as the Minister of Fisheries, and that is more than you can say. So, I ask the Premier tonight: Who has been vigilant when it comes to FPI?

Let's talk about some of the commitments and the rural plan, because I am telling you tonight, if you are serious about what you are talking about and you really know what is going on in the Province, drive west from the Overpass, just out the road here, and look around you. I challenge any rural member in this House of Assembly, whether it be a Tory or a Liberal or an NDP, to tell me that all is fine in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Tell me that the Tory plan for the rural communities is working because you had it when you were in Opposition, and where is it today? Go west of the Overpass and tell me that the economy is great, because it is not. To say that you could not make it great is because you did not know the finances of the Province when you were out making the commitments you made. I do not know how you can look at yourselves in the mirror and say it. I do not know how you can do it.

The Member for Trinity North over there sat on both sides of the floor. When it was convenient, he bailed. He knew the state of the finances. He was part of the government and the Opposition in two years because he was looking to his future political career and not to the people of his district or the Province.

Let me talk about some of the commitments that this Premier made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when he sat in Opposition and when he campaigned. When he sat in Opposition and there was a soul in the civil service laid-off, we were condemned as a government. What did the Premier say about laying off civil servants? The last day of the champaign, the last caller to an open line show was Leo Puddister, the head of NAPE, the last day in the campaign, the last caller to Open Line said: I just met with the Premier. I have known him for quite some period of time. I consider him a friend and he has given me the commitment that he is not going to scuttle the civil service of this Province; that he will not have massive layoffs in the civil service. He said: Because I know him, I believe him. Just imagine! Less than twelve hours before the vote was going to be cast. That is the commitment he made.

How many times did I see the current Minister of Tourism stand over here on this side of the floor and say, when he was in Opposition: The laying off of one teacher is one teacher too many. We should be investing in our youth and the education of our youth. What did they do? While he and his colleague - what did they do? They laid off approximately 500 teachers in two years. That is what they did.

They made the pledge not to close hospital beds. How many issues were raised in this House of Assembly in the years leading up to the election about hospital beds and the problems in health? We have gotten so much more money from the federal government in the last two years in health than we probably did in the ten leading up to the election. What have you done? You have closed hospital beds. If you wonder why people don't trust politicians -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

MR. REID: - ask yourself this question. There is a very good possibility that tonight on Fogo Island, in a brand new facility that the Liberal government built - and, unfortunately, we could not get it opened before the election was called but it was scheduled to open the month after. There is a good chance that tonight on Fogo Island, in that twenty-bed facility, there is someone laying on a stretcher in the hallway adjacent to a door that leads to a room with no bed. There are ten of those out there, and you wonder why we get angry. You wonder why we say things in the House of Assembly -

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible) the Premier laughed about it.

MR. REID: - and the Premier laughs. He turned red in the face laughing because he went to the Island and made the commitment that he was going to open their hospital. He did not mention he was only going to open ten beds. He did not talk about the fact that he was going to send workers from the Gander hospital -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member his speaking time has expired.

MR. REID: I can go by leave or I can stand again. It is up to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has leave.

MR. REID: You wonder why they are so cynical, when he said we are going to open your beds and then sent workers from the Gander hospital in under the cloak of darkness before the hospital was opened and took the beds and left the next morning on the ferry before anyone knew what was happening. There are people waiting - senior citizens, I might add - who are being forced to leave the Island to go somewhere else to get chronic care knowing full well, their families know full well that they will never return. Just like they are doing in Corner Brook, sending elderly people against their wishes, and the wishes of their families, from Corner Brook to Port aux Basques with beds closed in that hospital in Western Memorial on the very floors that they are moving these individuals from, and you wonder why people are cynical of politicians and their commitments.

No school closures. How many times did we hear that from this crowd when they were in Opposition? What do they do? They allow boards to close them when it is politically correct and politically advantageous to them; as they did in Bishop's Falls this summer in the middle of a by-election, when the board said we are closing the school, the government said we are not. The board went out and met with the people in the town, they said we are closing your school and the Premier came on the air and said they are not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Let's talk about where in your Blue Book you talked about closing court houses, social services offices and highway depots. How many times did I hear the Member for Bonavista South - I do not think there was a day in the House of Assembly that I sat there for the eight years prior to this election, that the Member for Bonavista South did not stand and talk about road conditions in his district. He did not talk about closing highway depots when they got in government. He was going around talking about pavement for all.

That gets me back to the arrogant, elitist attitude that I heard this week from the Minister of Education when questioned about paving the road to the Premier's golf course. I might add, it is not the main road to the Premier's golf course, because it is my understanding that one was paved already. This is a byroad leading from the Premier's golf course to somewhere else in the west end of this city. When questioned about the cost of it, the Minister of Education jumps upon her feet because she wanted to give the answer. To say that the reason they paved this road on which nobody lives - nobody lives on the road, I say to the Premier. Nobody lives on the road. Then you have your Minister of Education get up and so proudly and so arrogantly say, the reason it was paved is because the people adjacent to the road, or have the road running along somewhere on the back of it, I do not know how far behind it, that these people live in expensive houses and they were experiencing a dust problem. They were experiencing a dust problem. So, we had to pave the road to the Premier's golf course because the people in the expensive houses were complaining about dust.

I have people on Change Islands who have been eating dust for 500 years. I have people in Bridgeport, I have people in Moreton's Harbour, I have people in Tizzard's Harbour and throughout my district who deal with a dirt road everyday, and to listen to this minister stand in her elitist way and talk about: Well, there are very expensive houses on this road or near this road. They do not have to drive a dirt road to get to their houses. I have to make that clear. What they wanted to do is - they were experiencing a dust problem, which leads me to believe that the minister has to go to my district, the Minister of Education must go to my district, to determine if the houses are expensive enough to pave the roads. That is what we are talking about, paved roads.

We are talking about ferry rates. We have all heard about ferry rates. From the time that I was elected, in 1996 up until 2003, the ferry rates did not rise in my district, and I represent two of the islands that are connected by ferry in this Province. The ferry rates were frozen, but the Premier, in his Blue Book, in his bid to win votes and make commitments he knew he was not going to honour because he did not know the finances, a Rhodes Scholar businessman and Auditor General for ten years, and the Finance Minister, did not know, but they did not mind making commitments about no money.

I say to the Premier: If you did not know the state of the finances in the Province, why did you make commitments? That is a question I would really like for you to answer. Why did you make commitments to the voters of the Province, to get their vote, if you did not know the finances? I did not do it. We wonder why politicians get a bad name.

When you go to Fogo Island, Change Islands, Ramea, and the other islands in the Province, and you tell the voters there: Guess what, folks? If you vote for me, I am going to eliminate ferry rates. Then, lo and behold, two months later, after getting the financial statement of the Province, he walks into the House of Assembly and says: Boys, I am sorry. I said I was not going to lay off civil servants; I am going to lay off 1,000 - or was it 4,000 they were suggesting first?

They were not going to lay off teachers, and they laid off 500, and a whole host of other measures that you promised during an election you could not do. Then you get to the ferry rates. No longer am I going to honour my commitment to eliminate ferry rates. That would not be so bad if you froze them, or kept the status quo that was in effect for the eight years prior to the election, but, no, that was not good enough. If you are going to break a commitment, you have to do it in a good way. You have to make a splash of that, too, I say. Instead of reducing or eliminating the ferry rates, what did you do? You raised them by 25 per cent, and we are here tonight asking why people behave the way they do, why people think the way they do about politicians. Why? Because, their promises and their commitments are not worth the paper or the voice that was used to make them. If you wonder why we get angry on this side of the floor, it is because we could not stoop that low to make commitments we knew you could not honour. I certainly did not do it.

If you ask some of my campaign workers in the last election - I can remember the first campaign that I ever worked on. I ran into an individual from Fogo Island, on the ferry - and the Member for Humber Valley can laugh all she wants. I don't know if you have a ferry in your district, but I do. I ran into an individual on the ferry in the election of 1996, and I was a novice, I was shy, I was nervous, I was going to an area where I knew very few people, and I was going to try and convince them to vote for me. The very first person I met from Fogo Island on the ferry was a worker on the ferry, and he said: If you commit to pave my road, I will vote you. I didn't know the man.

Now, if I were today's Premier, I would have said: No problem, my son, I am going to send you out a cheque as soon as I am elected, and then write him a letter two months later and say: I am sorry, boy, I didn't know the finances of the Province.

You know what I said to the man? I said: I will commit to you that I will work my best to get your road paved, but I cannot commit to paving the road because I do not know if I can do it - and I would not do it.

All through that election, and the two after that, I did not make commitments, and we were in government at the time and I knew the situation with the finances. I did not do it, but this group had no problem making commitments. One of my campaign workers told me, after the election in 2003, she said: Gerry, you will be making commitments the next time, buddy. You will be making commitments the next time, if you are going to keep up with the Premier. But, I will not because that is not the way that I operate. If I give a commitment, I feel like I have to honour it, and that is what irks me the most about the commitments that FPI made to the people of this Province, and more particularly the people who live in the towns in which they operate fish plants. Because I keep my commitments, I expected that others were the same - until I ran into the Premier, I should say.

What really galled me is that FPI made a number of commitments to me and my colleagues about what they were going to do with the plants in this Province, and when they double-cross you and walk away scot-free while the government of the day sits there and allows it to happen - the same government that, when they sat in Opposition, said we were not vigilant enough with FPI. - but, we did not let them lay people off. We did not let them close plants.

I will tell you one thing: they would not be doing it today, because I would have found a way, through the legislation on the floor of this House of Assembly, to prevent them from doing it; and, if they did not want to honour their commitments then they could walk, but they would not be taking anything with them. They would not be buying fish plants in Great Britain, that is of no benefit whatever to the people of this Province.

I talked to an individual today, right outside here by the elevators, who used to be the President of FANL at one time, and now he is a lobbyist in Ottawa. He used to be the President of FANL, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure the Member for Bonavista North would know him, Mr. Bruce Chapman. You have heard of him. I looked at him today and said: Why did they buy the plant in Great Britain? Of what benefit is that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, he said, the balance sheet looked pretty good, but I have no idea what benefit it is to the people of this Province.

When I asked the current Minister of Fisheries the question about why they bought the plant in England, the only answer - because I caught him off guard and he did not really know the answer to the question - was: Da!

I was stupid, and he got up, stood, and tried to teach me how to spell shrimp. Now, there was the answer. He tried to teach me how to spell shrimp. When the minister was the minister before, we did not even have an inshore shrimp fishery in this Province. I found that to be insulting, and you wonder why we attack each other in this House of Assembly.

I got up tonight in a debate and he attacked me again. He called me a ragtag Liberal leftover. I don't think I am a ragtag anything. I happen to have been elected three consecutive times by the people of Twillingate & Fogo, and I find that an honour to do that, to represent them. If the people of Fogo think I am a ragtag leftover, then maybe they will make a decision in a couple of years from now as to what they are going to do with me. I will tell you one thing: I will be reminding them in the next election about the commitments this Premier made to them, and I will remind them of it every day, because he did not do the right thing in making the commitments to the people and then not honouring them. I find that just as offensive as I find the commitments that FPI made to this Province and did not honour.

Where are we today with FPI? Harbour Breton is gone. We sat here in the spring and all of you people talked about the soul-searching you had to do as to whether or not you were going to let FPI do an income trust, and the commitments that they made to Harbour Breton, and the commitments they made to Fortune and Burin and Marystown, and the commitments they made to Bonavista. The commitments today are not worth the voice or the letters or the words they were written in just six short months ago - because that is when we debated it, six months ago. Now, today, they owe the people of Harbour Breton $1.5 million in lieu of severance. They have not even paid that. They have not even paid that. Where is the Burin Peninsula? What is going to happen to Fortune? It is all contingent upon an income trust that is not going to happen. Now the rumours are rife throughout the fishing industry that FPI is closing all of its groundfish operations in the Province, and I am not scaremongering. Because, if you walk the streets anywhere in this Province, that is what you are hearing. If you talk to processors involved in the industry, that is what they tell you. If you talk to fishermen, they have the same idea of what is going to happen. If you listen to Derrick Rowe, the previous CEO of FPI, a year ago he predicted this when he was on the Fisheries Broadcast. When asked the question: What does the future hold for FPI in the Province? do you know the answer Mr. Rowe gave? FPI will be a shellfish operation. The future of FPI, it is going to be a shellfish operation.

At least he had the gall, I suppose, to at least sneak the truth in there at one point; it is going to be a shellfish operation. I can tell you one thing: if it is going to be a shellfish operation, that means Harbour Breton can kiss it goodbye. Fortune will never reopen. Marystown, God forbid, 650 workers - closed. Burin, one of the greatest plants in North America, secondary processing, that survived fifty-two weeks a year for what, twenty or thirty years? If it is going to become a shellfish operation, that has no future and the question then has to be raised: Where do their quotas go? Where do their quotas go?

Madam Chair, there are a thousand issues we can discuss here tonight, and we are going to close the House of Assembly. I talked to my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, and he agreed tonight that it is the shortest session that he can remember since he came here to sit in the House, what, ten or twelve years ago?

MR. HARRIS: Fifteen.

MR. REID: Fifteen years ago. I have been sitting here for ten, and it is the shortest session of the House of Assembly. We started the latest date and we are going to close the earliest date. Every member opposite would sit over here a few years ago and talk about the hobnailed boots and talk about eating turkey dinners here on Christmas Day; we are not going to close the House.

The fact of the matter is, we have no legislation. We passed six or seven or eight bills here in the last three weeks where you needed to change a word in the optometrists bill or the denturists bill or the physiotherapy bill, and the Tobacco Act.

The Minister of Justice brought in the Tobacco Act. They may be important, and I am not saying they are unimportant, but they are not the type of legislation that you fill the Legislature with, in the only sitting in the fall of the year, and have nothing else of any substance to discuss. The Tobacco Act - I think they are going to insert somewhere in the bill itself, in the Tobacco Act, the words: the Province. You wonder why we didn't stand and debate that until 4:00 o'clock in the morning.

The point I am trying to make is that there are very important issues affecting this Province today. I listened to the minister talk about Abitibi tonight, and I know we play political games in this House of Assembly. I do not like it when you misquote me, I say to the minister. I do not like it when you misquote me. You have apologized once and you tried to do it again tonight. You did not apologize but you did retract it and blame it on somebody else.

The fact of the matter is, we have some very serious issues - very serious issues - and, for those of you who want to put blinders on when you are driving from here across the Province, those of you who do that, because I have done a lot it in the last four or five months, look at the economy of rural Newfoundland and you wonder why we say that the plan that this government has for rural Newfoundland is not working. You do not have to take my word for it. Go out there. Listen to the Open Line shows. Talk to the leaders of communities and they will tell you that the only plan they see from this government is a plan to resettle them. It goes to the hospital boards; you have eliminated half of them. You have eliminated more than half of the school boards. You have increased the cost of services that you have left in rural areas of the Province; and, those that you have not increased the cost of, you have eliminated.

Besides what is happening with Abitibi, FPI is down there in the last two years and they have a habit of frightening the living daylights out of the people who work for them just before Christmas. Then they call themselves a good corporate citizen, and this government says they can do nothing about it. They are waiting until after Christmas to make the announcement which plants are going to remain open, which plants are going to close, which commitments they are going to honour. We spent two full days in June discussing these commitments. I voiced my concerns and criticisms at the time. I still have those concerns and I have more criticisms, but obviously we are not going to have the opportunity to talk about that.

The Member for Bonavista South can give me the old signal it is time for your to shut up all he like. When I am finished - you can sit me down, if you like. All you have to do is withdraw leave. That is all you have to do, withdraw leave, and you will sit me down for a few minutes.

Besides FPI and Abitibi, which is - I only hope and pray, because like my colleague, the Member for the Connaigre Peninsula, I do not want to see it happen. It is not worth it to us folks for a vote, and I mean that. It is not worth it. If I thought I could keep all of the FPI plants and the Abitibi plants open in this Province and provide employment for people and increase employment around this Province, I would resign today. I am not here because I want to be the Premier of the Province or a Cabinet minister. I am here because the people in Twillingate & Fogo District pay me to come in here and represent them, and I happen to feel for the other communities around this Province, like we all do. Let's not bluff ourselves, things are not rosy in this Province.

We talk about the Atlantic Accord. That is all we have talked about for a year. Every time someone opposite stands on their feet they have to talk about the Atlantic Accord. I listened to it ad nauseam during the by-election out in Exploits touting the Atlantic Accord. Yes, we have the Atlantic Accord, but what good is it going to do us if Abitibi closes two mills in the Province? What good is it going to do us if FPI close their plants? That happens to us. I do not know if we are doomed, it happens to us - because I was not part of the government of Clyde Wells in 1989 when he took it over but I watched it from up here in the gallery because I was an assistant to a minister, the Minister of Fisheries at the time.

Then, all of a sudden, when we got the deal that we were going to build a Hibernia platform in Bull Arm, everyone was exuberant, delighted because there were going to be 5,000 jobs in Bull Arm. Guess what happened to us in 1992? The collapse of the groundfish fishery and the layoff of 30,000 people. You have the 5,000 jobs in Bull Arm and you lost 30,000 of them. We got the $2 billion from the Atlantic Accord and today we are threatened with 300 people - or 902, I think, the Minister of Mines and Energy said, direct and indirect spinoff jobs in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine hundred and ten.

MR. REID: Nine hundred and ten in Stephenville and the Bay St. George area. Just imagine! On top of that, we could be faced with another 1,000 layoffs in FPI plants in the Province. There are 650 in Marystown alone. There are 300 in Fortune, I think, isn't there? I suppose there are 100 or 150, 200, there could be in the plant in Burin and there is 350 gone out of Harbour Breton.

MR. BARRETT: One hundred and fifty out of Arnold's Cove.

MR. REID: One hundred and fifty gone out of Arnold's Cove. If you weigh that against the $2 billion - I am glad we got it, but I hope and pray that the analogy I am making between what happened to us when we got the Hibernia platform in Bull Arm and the closure of the fishery is not going to happen with the $2 billion and what possibly could happen to employment levels in this Province. Not to mention what is happening in the fishery this year, because I think that anyone who represents a fishing district in this Province could not stand in this House today and say everything is rosy and great things are happening in the fishing industry because they are not.

What bothers me is that we do not take it seriously enough, the plight of the people who are involved in the fishery, especially the harvesters and crew members this year because they have not witnessed a summer like it. They have not witnessed a summer like it, and I can point the fingers and say who contributed to their plight this summer. I have talked to a number of very senior fishermen in this Province and they are all saying this is the worst year in history.

I talked to one individual from my colleague's district down on the Burin Peninsula, or thereabouts, in Clarenville about a month-and-a-half ago -

MS FOOTE: Joe Edwards.

MR. REID: Joe Edwards, I think he was -

MS FOOTE: From Lawn.

MR. REID: From Lawn, sixty-four years old. He said he has been in the boat all of his life, the worst year he has ever seen.

I talked to a gentleman - and I say a gentleman and I mean it - from my own district who is heading off to Fort McMurray or the environs around Fort McMurray to cut brush for the winter, sixty-four years old. Think about it, folks. We are here tonight, it might be 12:58 but we are well fed, we are warm. We are not cutting brush somewhere in Alberta that you have never seen before.

MR. JOYCE: Minus thirty.

MR. REID: Minus thirty, minus forty. The harshest climate in the world they called it, a little while ago on a National Geographic program that I saw. The harshest climate in the world. He is going to leave Twillingate Island, which is not a forgiving climate, and go up there and do something that he has never had to do before. When asked by the government, what we can do for these individuals to help them out to try and keep them through the winter so that you could live like a fisherman lives in the hope for a better season next year - because most of them, that is what they hope for. They live from one year to the next hoping that the next one is going to better but rather than be able to sustain themselves on this Island or in Labrador this winter, he is forced to go to the mainland.

Then I hear the Member for Mount Pearl, the member representing Mount Pearl, tonight standing and telling me that I was not speaking to the bill that was before the House of Assembly tonight about the loan guarantee to Torngat Fisheries and the loan guarantee for a fish farm down in Bay d'Espoir. Well, I know full well what those two bills are about. There is nothing new in them, giving loan guarantees. You are not giving them money, by the way. You are not giving them money because Torngat Fisheries has had that loan guarantee for fifteen years. All you are doing is renewing it. They haven't taken it and spent it. It is not a loan that they took and spent and they are back looking for another $2 million. It is a loan guarantee. What that means is if they go out and spend the $2 million and they default on payment, the government picks up the tab. They have not done that in the fifteen years they have been down there.

We paid out a lot of loan guarantees on the aquaculture industry down in Bay d'Espoir; a lot of loan guarantees, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, and to tell me that I was not speaking to the bill and the next thing he is up congratulating Brad Gushue. I am proud of Brad Gushue and his team as well, but when you question me about the relevance of what I am saying with regard to the bill and then you start talking about curling when you are talking about a loan guarantee to a fish plant and a fish farm, I ask the relevance there. Then he went on to talk about the sixteen demands that the Premier has made to the Prime Minister. The Premier has written the Prime Minister and he has put it in writing.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I will get to it. Just you listen now for a minute, you might learn something I say to the Member for Mount Pearl. I do not mean to walk on your toes tonight and get you angry.

The Premier, after the election was called or just about when the election was called, all of a sudden he had these newfound concerns that he thought were so important that he had to write the Prime Minister to get the commitment about and sent off a copy to the other two leaders, to the other two national parties and asked them to give us these sixteen commitments before we get a vote out of them and then he says we did not do it. One of those commitments, I say - and the Member for Mount Pearl need not go taking off now. He asked me if I did it, sit down and I will tell you about it.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible) use the washroom, do you?

MR. REID: I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, if the Member for Mount Pearl wants to go to the bathroom he does not need to ask me and I am sure that he does not need you to ask me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Madam Chair, the point I am trying to make is that he asked me if we put the commitments on paper and asked the Prime Minister. Well, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl and to the Premier: To little too late, with regard to a lot of these issues. He is only paying lip service to it now because there is an election on. Again, it is the old trick of commitments during elections, because we have been asking about early retirement in this House for the last two years.

Earle McCurdy of the Fishermen's Association in the Province has been asking for an early retirement for more than two years. The plant workers in my district, and every district in the Province, have been talking about an early retirement program for the last five or six years when we were in government. I wasn't in government but when the Liberal government was in when the fishery failed in 1992, we put it to writing. We went to Ottawa and fought for an early retirement package and we said we are willing to co-share it. If you are talking about being bankrupt, go back to 1992 and look at the financial situation of the books. We did not have $2 billion, $2,000 million sitting in a bank account drawing interest. We had 30,000 fisheries people in the Province thrown out on the street on that fateful day in early July of 1992. Yet, with that, the Premier of the day, Clyde Wells, could find it in his heart and in the pocketbook or borrow it to finance an early retirement package with the federal government.

I see my colleague from Mount Pearl is back and he is waving to let me know that he is here. I am glad you are. I hope you did not miss too much.

What bothers me is that we have checked with the federal Minister of Fisheries - no, we have checked with the federal Department of Fisheries. First of all, we asked the previous Minister of Fisheries in the Estimates Committee, just upstairs here, myself and the Member for Grand Bank, back in May: What representation have you made to the federal government a year-and-a-half into your mandate, a year-and-a-half after being elected, what representation have you made to the federal government for an early retirement package for fisheries workers in the Province? Well, he said, I mentioned it to the minister in passing. If you do not believe me go and get the Hansard, because the minutes of that meeting, every word was written down and you can get a copy of that here somewhere in the Hansard, just like every word I am saying tonight will be written down. There are a group of individuals down the hall here and all of this is being recorded on tape and by tomorrow morning I can pick up and read every word that was said here tonight.

Just like the in the Estimates Committee when the minister of the day, the minister who brought in the raw material sharing plan - I might say, the minister had the plan when he was sitting over here and lost it somewhere going across the floor for the fishery - said that he did not do anything. He mentioned it in passing. We have questioned him in every session of the House of Assembly and we find, after the election is called, that there is no written correspondence in the federal Department of Fisheries from this government asking for an early retirement package or if the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to co-share it, nothing. So, all of a sudden now it is an issue, and I guess the Premier will come out sometime between now and January 23 and say: You vote for this one or you vote for that one because this one or that one did not honour his commitment that we have asked him.

He talks about custodial management, an issue that has been raised in this Legislature, in this Province, across Canada for at least sixteen years, I say to the Premier. Tell me if I am wrong, but when I was the Minister of Fisheries the Premier and the fisheries critic at the time, today's Minister of Transportation, used to say: You are not doing enough. First, when I was minister, I was not doing enough for custodial management. We were not saying enough about it. Then when we got onto it, put some money in the budget to fight the foreign over-fishing and to fight for custodial management, what did he do? He established his all-party committee with the exception of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not want us. They might have to share some credit. They were going to fight for custodial management. What happened to that committee? What happened to Gus Etchegary and Jim Morgan and those fellows who sat on that committee? I heard the Minister of Transportation's response to Mr. Etchegary on an Open Line Show the day of the PC convention here in St. John's when he berated him; unlike I have ever heard a person being berated on a public radio program.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I cannot repeat half of what he said because I could not be that rude, I say to the NDP Leader.

The member who sat on his all-party committee when he was in Opposition and then all of a sudden when they formed the government, the custodial management: We are no longer going to practice what you fellows did, the art of confrontation, bawling and screaming and shouting at the federal government. Now, when they were in Opposition they said we were not doing enough of that. As soon as they take the government over: We are changing our approach because Paul Martin and I are buddies, the Premier said. We know each. We can do some things and I think that if we are nice to the Prime Minister we can get some more things. We have to change our approach. This confrontational attitude has harmed us.

From that day on, for almost two years, he and his previous Minister of Fisheries have been out talking about, yes, we are making good strides with overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. The Prime Minister is mentioning it wherever he goes in Europe. We have a couple of cod committees set up, and we are making great progress. We are making good progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I would say to my colleagues, if they want to go to the bathroom I can sit down and you can all go and I can stand up when you come back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Anyway, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister and his government were making good strides towards foreign overfishing and custodial management. Sure, everybody remembers the CBC and NTV news one night, and the front page of The Telegram, with Minister Taylor from Newfoundland and Labrador and Minister Regan from Ottawa out flying over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. You all remember that, don't you?

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes, we do.

MR. REID: A mutual backslapping contest out there at the airport saying what a great crowd we all are. We are working well together, boy, and we are doing things. Now, all of a sudden, there is an election called and custodial management comes off the bottom, where everything is rosy and they are doing the right thing in Ottawa, and placed up at the top. One of the first things: We want custodial management, and if you do not promise it to us....

That is another issue. If you wonder why people think politicians are hypocritical -

MR. JOYCE: Cynical.

MR. REID: - and cynical, all they have to do is read and listen.

I can talk for the rest of the night and into the early hours of not this morning but tomorrow morning on issues in the fishery, and the disastrous things that you have done to it in the last two years, and the fact that you are sitting on a copy of the Cashin report and every fish harvester in this Province wants to know what is in it and they are not allowed to have a copy. We have to close the House some time between now - when I get tired of speaking, I suppose, you will shut her down, because you have the votes to do it. You will stop me from speaking, and shut her down, and you have the Cashin report sitting on a desk over in the Fisheries Minister's office and we are wondering what is in the report and if we need to change the legislation.

MS THISTLE: That is a Friday afternoon report, Gerry

MR. REID: That is a Friday afternoon report, to go out under the cloak of darkness on Friday afternoon and hope that no one notices it.

The fact of the matter is, it is a very, very, very important report and we would like to see it released so we can ask some questions on it. We would also like to determine, having read the report, if we need to change legislation; because, believe me, folks, if you wait until this House opens in March, we normally do not open it until after March 20, the shrimp -

MR. HARRIS: I thought they were going to table all the reports.

MR. REID: Exactly. That was another commitment, I might add, that people find a bit cynical. They were going to table all their reports, and they were going to be open and accountable and transparent. They were going to table all their reports as soon as they got them.

We are sitting on a Cashin report and, if we wait until March - and I hope I am wrong - and you need legislation changed, and no one sees that report, we could very well end up with the same situation that we had in the spring of last year when fishermen refused to fish, and we threw the fishery in turmoil, and the Premier's only solution was: You can stay out. We are prepared, he said, to lose the fishing season in this Province to prove that I am right. We are prepared to close the fishery down for the summer and we will look after the plant workers.

MS THISTLE: At what cost?

MR. REID: Two hundred million. That is underestimating it by a long shot, because anyone involved in the fishery will tell you that is underestimating by a long shot.

So, they are going to wait and see if they are going to do the same thing this year. Release the report, I say to the Premier. Let the people in the industry know, because I am getting calls every day on it, and I am sure that members, like the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Bonavista North, who represent fishing districts like my own, are being asked the question: Where is the Cashin report? When are you going to release it? What does it entail? Do you need to change the legislation? When are you going to do it? Are we going to be faced with a fishing season like we were last year, and the Premier will look at us again and say: We can close her down; I don't care. I am having my own way or the highway. Just like he said to NAPE: You will be out until the cows come home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like he said to Debbie Fry.

MR. REID: Just like he said to Debbie Fry and a whole bunch of other high-ranking civil servants in this Province: My way or the doorway.

MS JONES: (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: A good question. They are still lined up, I think, getting ready to be pushed out.

My colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, asked about the schools. That is another report. It was commissioned by a government agency, the Avalon School Board, and they have been working on it for months. I would say that the previous Minister of Education, the member for Qatar. I mean - no - the member for where is it?

MR. BARRETT: Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. REID: Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the member who went to Qatar, spent a lot of government money. I would hazard to guess that it was at least $50,000 and probably a lot more. It could have been $200,000. Who knows? They will not give us the information. They do a report on the Avalon School Board that stretches from here to Bonavista and Grand Bank, I guess, is it?

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) Burin Peninsula.

MR. REID: The tip of the Burin Peninsula. They make recommendations and, because we have the gall to question the minister before the report was released, what did she say? Oh, yes, it is a consultation document. When asked: Will the people get the right to consult? Oh, yes, we will ensure that they get the right to consult. That was on Tuesday, I think. No, that was Wednesday that I asked that question, 2:00 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon, parents will be given the right to consult. It is a consultation document prepared for the school board in the Avalon region, and that, guaranteed, everyone will get the right to have a look at all of this before any decision is made by the board. Wednesday night or Thursday morning she was given the report.

When asked a question in the House of Assembly, she said: Yes, it is a consultation document. Parents will have a right to consult. Then she walked from right there, out through that door right there, a distance of some forty-five or fifty feet, and stood in front of a camera and, when asked what she was going to do with the report that was bought and paid for by the Avalon School District, she looked straight into the camera and said: They should shred it. They should shred it.

Then, when asked in the House of Assembly today by my colleague from Port de Grave and my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, about what they were going to do with the report: Oh, no, yes, boy, we are going to give the right now to consult again.

I have heard of flips, and apple flips and double flips, but I think that was the biggest backflip I have ever seen. She went from, Wednesday afternoon, they were going to consult -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thursday afternoon, wasn't it?

MR. REID: No, Wednesday afternoon going to consult, Thursday afternoon shred the report, Monday afternoon consult.

You wonder why people are confused and cynical. I must say, I was the Minister of Education for a period of time and I am very confused. I am confused as to what the minister said in the House of Assembly today, and I was incensed about what she said about the roads to the Premier's golf course on Thursday.

That is why I would like to see the House open for a few more days, so we could question the minister on the report and find out the answer. What is it, shred or not to shred? Consult or not consult? Or, is it going to be a case that the minister and her colleagues are going to cherry-pick which schools are going to close, like was done in the by-election out in Exploits? Maybe they will sit down with their electoral map and say, yes, you can remove a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly, sit down with the electoral map and determine which schools could close based on what way the people vote.

I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is the reason the ten beds in my hospital are not open today. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The question I would like to ask is: Which schools are going to remain open, and which ones are going to close? Who is going to make the decision?

I would like to ask questions on the Cashin report. The report, I guess, will be released when the House is closed and you are not under the watchful eye of the people of the Province who are looking at us now, believe it or not. You can hide that away and hope that we all go home for Christmas and there will be no discussion; but, I tell you right now, there will be discussion, whether it is in the House or out, because the harvesters of this Province are not going to let it go. If there is something in the report that they do not like, you are going to hear from them and you are going to hear from us. We get paid, even though the current Minister of Fisheries gets up and berates us for asking questions.

The word opposition comes from the word oppose, and it is our job to oppose. It is our job to ask questions of government, to ensure that what they are doing is the right thing to do; and, believe me, there are a lot of wrong things that you have done and you should not be overly exuberant about what you have done in the past two years. I know you all get up and beat your chest and say what a wonderful government you have.

He called us ragtag Liberals from a previous era, leftovers! Well, the Minister of Fisheries sat over right here in the seat that is now occupied by my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, for three years, and I sat across the floor from him. Not once did I insult the man, and I have not done it here yet. I have not done it since he has been over there, not to the degree that he has been doing it. If I did it, I did it a bit more tactfully, I think. There are lots of things we can do, in talking about ragtag leftovers from a previous era, that I am not going to get into tonight. There are lots of issues that we can take you to task on. I guess when we sit down, the next time this House of Assembly is going to meet will be some time toward the end of March. I see the Member for Trinity North nods, but it does not surprise me that he nods in unison.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier said in Maclean's that he had no time for (inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly.

It does not surprise me that the House was only open for thirteen days this session, the shortest in the history, or at least the shortest in the history since 1990.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except for the first year they got elected; they did not open.

MR. REID: That is right.

It does not surprise me when you listen to the Premier, or read the Premier's comments in Maclean's magazine, when he said the House of Assembly was a waste of time, because the Premier does not like answering questions. He gets rather angry, rather irate, and starts throwing paper on the floor. I am half afraid sometimes there is going to be a chair come across at me, if he could lift it.

Madam Chair, we can ask questions.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: My colleague, the House Leader across the floor, is saying it is time for me to give it up. Madam Chair, I know that we cannot keep the House open forever. We are small in group, but we are feisty. We are small in numbers. I am sure some of my colleagues, when I sit down now, would like to stand up and have a few words, because it is the last few words you are going to have in this House of Assembly until the end of March. It is the people's House, and it is here to do government business. He never had much to do in these thirteen days, thought.

I have to laugh when we say we have Question Period. We do, indeed. I can see why they call it Question Period. I guess our forefathers knew what they meant, the parliamentarians who preceded us knew what they meant, when they called it Question Period. They never called it question and answer period because we have not gotten any answers and we are liable to get any more.

Madam Chair, I will go back to when I started my speech earlier, five or six hours ago, about A Tale of Two Cities, and I will close by reiterating it because that is one way you can close to make things coherent in your speech, and it is called close by return. Anyone who has done some English courses will know that you there are number of ways you can close an essay.

MR. SHELLEY: You can say in conclusion.

MR. REID: You can say in conclusion, as the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment said tonight. You can say in conclusion, there is no doubt about that. You can say in conclusion, and list off what you conclusions are, or you can close by return. That means you close by referring back to how you opened. I opened five or six hours ago. I have not been speaking that long, because we got the ire of the members opposite and woke them up after they had a good meal tonight and they had their little siesta, and they came to life around 10:00 o'clock. Maybe they thought the cameras were off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, I am going back to where I started, A Tale of Two Cities . It is Charles Dickens, written in 1859, in which he talks about life in London, England, and compares it to life in Paris, France, at the time of the French Revolution. They were talking about the peace and tranquility of life in London, England, where things were rather rosy and the future was looking bright in London, England; and, across the Channel, a very short few miles, in Paris - I understand now you can go through the tunnel by train from London to Paris in about two-and-a-half hours, about the time that it would take you to go from here to Terra Nova district or here to parts of Clarenville, two-and-a-half hours in that short distance.

In Paris, France, there was a completely different life at the time because there was a revolution on. You all know the story about the revolution and why the revolution took place, because we had a very arrogant royal family who were living off the fat of the land while the people they ruled over were starving to death. At some point in the years leading up to the revolution, the people said we are not going to take it anymore because there was a dichotomy there. You had the rich and royal family, and the courtesans around the palace who were doing quite well, and you had the poor who were starving to death.

I remember one saying by the Queen of France at the time, her name was Marie Antoinette, and one of her royal servants came to her one day and told her that the people are revolting in the streets. She said: Why? Her loyal servant says: Ma'am because they have no bread. Guess what she said? Well, if they have no bread, let them eat cake. Now that is how far out of touch Marie Antoinette and the royal family were from reality.

I certainly do not hope that we are going to have anything similar to that, but I guarantee you, I think the analogy is a good one because we do have a group in this Province who think that everything is rosy. If we go a short distance out the road, we find out that it is not. Unless we take off the rose-coloured glasses and the blinkers, I think we could be in for serious trouble because people can only take so much. I am certainly not encouraging anyone to revolt, but I think we have to find it in our hearts in this House to work together to try and solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador before it is too late and there is no one left out there.

With that, Madam Chair, I am going to sit down now at 1:26 in the morning.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows:

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No.2

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report the Committee has adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same. It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A reading of the resolution.

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

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

Before I put the adjournment motion, I do want to take the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hold on now (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize, sorry. Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that we have to do the first reading of the -

MR. E. BYRNE: I am getting ahead of myself a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move first reading of Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2. (Bill 62)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2," carried. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 62, be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2. (Bill 62)

On motion, Bill 62 read a first time..

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

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

I move second reading of Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2. (Bill 62)

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2," read a second time.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 62, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2, has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 62)

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

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

Before I put the adjournment motion, I want to take the opportunity, on behalf of the Premier, to just wish a Merry Christmas to, certainly, the caucus, both caucuses, the Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, of course, the Leader of the NDP, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Deputy Speaker and to the Chair of Committees and your staff, staff of the House of Assembly, including all of the Clerks, Pages, Hansard staff, those in the Broadcast Centre, and, obviously, in the Library who serve a pretty important function for us as members, and to the Sergeant-At-Arms and her family, and to the RNC representatives who work with the Sergeant-At-Arms, in terms of providing their presence in the House -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I will say to the Member for Bellevue, as soon as I get through the list, and if I have missed anybody, I will ask you and you may be able to tell me who I have missed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the Commissionaires who are here with us whenever the House is open until whatever time at night, obviously to the media in the gallery, and to staff of all Members in the House of Assembly. If I missed anybody, I am sure the Member for Bellevue might get up and add to that list.

Having said that, I want to take an opportunity, certainly in my role as Government House Leader, to thank once again my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, for a productive session in terms of working our way through the parliamentary business of the House.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to wish all members a Merry Christmas. I know that it certainly is a tradition for at least a representative from each side to say a few words before I put the adjournment motion forward.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in cluing up this session. Likewise, I would like to thank my colleagues here in the Liberal Party, and I say this on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition as well, and to the NDP members and to government members. We sometimes get heated here in our exchanges, but at the end of the day, of course, we all have a job to do and we all have a role to play here.

I would like to say thank you as well to yourself and to all of the House staff associated with the operations of this place. Without everybody doing their jobs, it would not work efficiently. Merry Christmas to everyone, and a Happy New Year.

I would like to say a special thank you to the Government House Leader again. Albeit sometimes we do not always agree on everything, if it wasn't for a co-operative and accommodating relationship, of course, things could be much more difficult than they are. I appreciate his co-operation and I wish everybody here, who has to leave the city area to return home, a safe journey.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to also take this time on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Member for Labrador West, to wish everybody here in the House of Assembly, and the members of the House in particular, a Merry Christmas to them and their families who are seeing them on televison tonight as opposed to being around their fireplaces, but that is one of the things that we end up doing as members of this House.

I would also to pass on our best wishes, of course, and Merry Christmas to you, Mr. Speaker, the Table Officers, the Clerk, the Clerk of Committees, the Hansard staff who work behind the scenes trying to translate our verbosity into print.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to have their hands full tonight.

MR. HARRIS: They are going to have their hands full tonight. Maybe that is something they will do after Christmas, I guess.

Also, of course, to the Commissionaires, to the Legislative Library staff who help us out as well, and to you, Madam Sergeant-at-Arms, and your staff who also make it possible for us to conduct our business here on the floor of the House of Assembly.

People have their differences of opinion about matters before the House of Assembly in terms of policy; but, when it comes right down to it, we are all ordinary people with families to be concerned about and worried about, and Christmas is always a time when we spend a lot of time together with our families, so I hope we all do get to enjoy that and be with our family and friends over the holiday season.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, thank you all for your co-operation (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of our staff and the Table Officers and all of the people who work for the House of Assembly, I want to say that we appreciate your good wishes. Also, on behalf of all of our staff, we wish you all a very, very Merry Christmas. Those of you who do journey, have a safe journey.

We look forward to the House of Assembly. It is an honour to be here, and we thank you all for participating so - aggressively at times, but, while we disagree with each other across the floor of this House, Parliament is like that. It functions best when people engage in it wholeheartedly.

On behalf of all of us who are servants of the House, we wish you all a very, very Merry Christmas.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is moved that when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until the Call of the Chair. The Speaker or, in your absence, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting.

It is moved that this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until the Call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until the Call of the Chair.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the Call of the Chair.