MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the gallery, twenty-one students from the Ecole Des Grands-Vents in the District of St. John's North. These students are accompanied by their teachers: Madame Emmanuelle Tessier, Madame Agathe Robichaud, and Monsieur Ted Bonnah.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier read a letter into the record of the House of Assembly on Friday, which he said was from the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune. The letter was signed by Jake Thornhill, the Chair of the Committee, and the Vice-Chair was not even aware that the letter had been written. I had not seen a copy of the letter, and requested that it be tabled. The letter contained false information, and Mr. Thornhill had to know that when he wrote the letter.

I called Mr. Thornhill and asked him why the letter was written in the first place. He told me that, after I asked a question of the Premier in the House of Assembly last December about not responding to a request for a meeting with the Concerned Citizens Committee, he received a phone call from someone in government, but he would not tell me who it was who had called him. He did tell me, however, that he did not hear me ask the question, himself, of the Premier.

I also asked him why he said in the letter that the Concerned Citizens Committee have had no dealings with me since March 2005 when he knows differently. At first, he insisted the Committee had not, until I told him that my office records every telephone call and the action taken on behalf of my constituents. In fact, fifty calls had been recorded from the executive of the Concerned Citizens Committee in 2005 alone, several of which came from Mr. Thornhill. It was then Mr. Thornhill told me that the executive of the Concerned Citizens Committee was told in no uncertain terms that, if the Committee wanted a meeting with government, their MHA could not be included or the meeting would not go ahead.

I do not believe the Premier knew the information in the letter was false, but what he did on Friday was further evidence of his attempts to bully into submission anyone who dares to question him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: The letter from Mr. Thornhill was written last December and had nothing to do with the serious question I put to the Premier on Friday, on behalf of the Town of Fortune. It would appear the Premier was waiting for the opportunity to use the letter written last December; a letter, by the way, that Mr. Thornhill told me he never expected the Premier to raise in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, if I cannot ask a question in this House without someone calling my constituents and questioning them about it, and if a directive has gone out that meetings my constituents are seeking with government will not go ahead if I am to be included, certainly my ability to do the job I was elected to do by the people in the District of Grand Bank is being impeded by government.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, it does not appear on the surface that there is any question of privilege here. The member may take a different view, and a difference of opinion may exist between the view of the hon. member and the view of the Premier. The fact of the matter is that the Premier quoted from a letter - a letter that had been sent to him by an individual in the Province - and, on request from the Opposition, the letter was made public.

I do not see anything here that constitutes a point of privilege. There may be a difference of opinion. The hon. member may want to put her spin on it, and that is her right, but there is certainly nothing here, Mr. Speaker, that constitutes a point of privilege. Therefore, I would rule there isn't a point of privilege, or ask you to rule that there isn't a point of privilege.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would concur that it is not the position of the Speaker to rule on a point of privilege. My understanding is that it is the Speaker's place to decide if it is a point of privilege, that the Speaker does rule upon points of order but not upon points of privilege. That is, of course, the reason why any member in this House is allowed to stand on a point of privilege, to make his or her case to the Chair so that Your Honour can make a decision, if it is indeed a point of privilege.

I think we are just at that stage right now. I would assume that the Chair wants to take it under advisement and decide if it is, indeed, a point of privilege. If it is, fine, we will deal with it in due course, and if it is not a point of privilege, we will await your ruling in that regard.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under advisement. The Chair will need to review the transcripts of the House and also look at the correspondence that has been referenced. We will look at our precedents in this House, together with other precedents in the Canadian jurisdictions, and we will make a ruling at the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Topsail, the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, the hon. the Member for Port au Port, and the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual in Conception Bay South.

Mr. Scott Crocker is the principal of Holy Spirit High School in Conception Bay South. In January 2007, Scott was selected as one of Canada's outstanding principals for 2007. He was one of thirty-two principals from across Canada and the only principal from this Province to receive this prestigious award.

Last year, Scott was chosen as this Province's school administrator of the year, and was nominated by his regional office for the national honour of one of Canada's Outstanding Principals.

Since Scott became principal of Holy Spirit High School six years ago, he has spear-headed many initiatives, including a Community Outreach Program for students, participation in the Run for Cancer, other fundraisers and many other school events, including the Frog Pond Ecological Restoration Project that was raised in this House on a previous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Scott Crocker on being selected as one of Canada's Outstanding Principals in 2007.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend, a devoted mom and a faithful soldier in her church, Mrs. Elsie Keeping of Port aux Basques. Mrs. Keeping passed away yesterday morning at the age of eighty-six. Except for a brief illness these past few weeks, Mrs. Keeping lived a very active life.

It has been said that Mother's Day was patterned after Elsie Keeping. By the time her husband had died in 1965, when she was just forty years old, she had given birth to seventeen children. We jokingly call them Elsie's finest, and indeed they are. Despite the financial challenges she faced, being left with a large and young family, the Keeping's home had a surplus of love and nurturing from Elsie Keeping. There were, no doubt, many meals of homemade bread and butter, and whoever got up first in the morning got the mitts and the vamps, but they were, and still are, a very close-knit family.

Mr. Speaker, Elsie Keeping was a friend to everyone, young and old alike. She was devoted to her church, the Salvation Army, visiting the sick, playing her accordion in church and for extended care patients at the LeGrow Health Centre or the seniors' homes, or countless hours at the army's kettle drum in the Grand Bay mall.

A small woman physically, but with a gigantic heart. She was not a doctor, a minister, a nurse or a social worker, but she touched hundreds of lives in a positive way. Our community has lost a shining example of kindness, compassion and caring, but heaven has gained an angel. God bless you, Elsie Keeping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about four exceptional individuals from my district who have been inducted into the Conception Bay South Sports Hall of Fame.

The eleventh annual ceremony inducted Derrick Baggs and Graham Tibbo in the Athlete category, and Robert (Bob) Hillier, as we call him, and Mont Pritchett in the Builder category.

Derrick Baggs is a talented athlete who has participated in hockey, softball, soccer and a variety of high school athletics. On many occasions Mr. Baggs has taken on the role of team captain and is an award winning member of many championship teams. He even had the privilege of coaching me one time, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure he never got over yet.

Graham Tibbo is also a multi-talented athlete who has taken part in fast and slow pitch softball, volleyball, swimming, soccer and darts. Mr. Tibbo has competed at the provincial and national levels, including the Canada Games. Graham has also won many awards and has been a strong member of several championship teams. I must have played with him on the teams that he did not win championships with.

As well, Mr. Speaker, Bob Hillier is a soccer enthusiast who, among other responsibilities, was the president of the first Minor Soccer Association in Conception Bay South. Mr. Hillier helped grow this organization to 200 participants. Due to his hard work and dedication, local soccer registration through the association now exceeds 1,200 athletes.

Mont Pritchett has received many awards in his role as a dedicated badminton coach. Mr. Pritchett's success is well known throughout the community. He is unwavering in his commitment to volunteer his personal time in the development of sporting talent in our community.

I would like to congratulate the Hall of Fame Board of Governors on an excellent banquet again this year and, of course, the selection committee on their choices for induction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a gentleman from the North Coast of Labrador who has played a vital role in maintaining our history, our culture and way of life in the Province, especially in the Labrador Region.

The year 2007 marks the sixty-third consecutive year that Douglas Jacque, from the little community of Postville on the North Coast of Labrador, has owned, operated and maintained a team of sled dogs known as the Labrador huskies. At the young age of thirteen years he owned his first dog team, and today, at the age of 76, he still continues to maintain and operate a team of Labrador huskies.

This past weekend, in the community of Hopedale, I had the opportunity and pleasure to witness the annual Labrador Heritage Husky Dog Team race, which was won by another veteran dog team driver, Frank Dicker from Hopedale.

In the early 1960s and mid-1970s, the snowmobile took over from the dog team as a way of transportation. Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the efforts of Mr. Jacque, the Labrador husky today would probably become non-existent.

Uncle Doug, as he is affectionately known up and down the Labrador Coast, proudly boasts, with a twinkle in his eye: 63 years, boys, a record that even Wayne Gretzky will never beat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me today, not only to congratulate Mr. Jacque but also to sincerely thank him for keeping a vital part of our culture, history and way of life alive and well in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

I rise today to congratulate the newly formed Bay St. George Folk Arts Council. The mission of the council is to promote folk art in the Bay St. George, Stephenville, Port au Port areas. Through this association, it will be able to promote and celebrate our culture and heritage by offering workshops in such things as step-dancing, music, storytelling, songwriting and so on.

The plan is to hold monthly folk nights in the area. This will be of significant economic and social benefit to the region. It will highlight the French, Acadian, Irish, Scottish and Mi'kmaq cultures. It will showcase our musical and storytelling talents. It will encourage our youth to participate and share their culture and heritage. It is the goal of the association to bring together as many of our artists and artisans and promote their talents to the rest of the Province, the country, and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the efforts of Cal McNiven, Doug Benoit and Don Dunphy on their commitment and determination to bring together the proud and talented artists of the region.

Mr. Speaker, the late Emile Benoit once said that to appreciate and live our music and our culture it has to come from the heart.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations and best wishes to the executive and membership of the Bay St. George Folk Arts Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gordon Pinsent, a Grand Falls native, who has been inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame Honour for his impact on Canada's cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Pinsent is an icon in the Canadian entertainment industry. This Grand Falls-born actor and writer has participated in stage, radio, television and film. He left Grand Falls at the age of seventeen and began his career on stage in Winnipeg.

From that moment on, he acquired a great deal of experience with the first live radio drama out of Winnipeg. He returned east, working in Toronto and Stratford. Radio, television and movies have taken his talents across Canada, the United States, and even Greece. He has since won numerous credits and awards, and is one of Canada's most respected artists. In addition to acting, he directs and produces, and has written a number of novels and screenplays.

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Pinsent received the Order of Canada in 1980, and the Companion Order in 1998. He has receive several honourary degrees from universities across Canada, and we were delighted to see our own Arts and Culture Center in Grand Falls-Windsor named in his honour during our Centennial Celebrations in August 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Gordon Pinsent, who has been inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the competitors of the Second Annual Cain's Quest Endurance Race that recently took place in Labrador.

The Cain's Quest Endurance Race is a snowmobile competition in which teams of two traverse over 2,000 kilometres of Labrador wilderness. The race begins in Labrador City, continues to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and ends back in Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, this race is not for the faint of heart. The terrain in Labrador can be as gruelling as it is majestic. Teams have to travel over deep gorges, across open waterways, and brave Labrador winter nights, relying only on the supplies at hand.

I am delighted to say, Mr. Speaker, that eighteen teams took part in the challenge, with some coming as far away as Maine and New Hampshire. I was also very pleased to see several teams from Labrador City and Wabush, as well as the team of Roland Barth and Jason King from my own district.

The race took an unexpected and exciting turn halfway through the event. Teams realized, in order to complete the journey, they would need to work together, and the standings reflect the team spirit of this competition.

Mr. Speaker, first place was shared by three teams from Labrador City: Toby Myles and Jocelyn Tremblay; Dixon Clements and Dion Hancock;, Garrett Hunt and Kent Careen.

Mr. Speaker, a race of this caliber can only happen with a large volunteer base. The people of Labrador City and Wabush, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls, made this a world-class event. I believe this competition is as unique and challenging as the Alaskan Iditarod dogsled race and that Labrador will become a mecca for long-distance snowmobile racing.

I am also proud to say this government, Mr. Speaker, invested $57,000 to support this event and the ever-growing winter tourism industry which contributes greatly to our Province's economy.

I would like to ask all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating the volunteers, the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Labrador City, and especially all the entrants in this year's Second Annual Cain's Quest Endurance Race.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and join with the minister, and all of us on this side of the House, in congratulating the competitors and the winners of Cain's Quest.

Mr. Speaker, as most people will know, we in Labrador take our snowmobiling very seriously, and 2,000 kilometres through Labrador's wilderness is no small feat for anyone to sign on to. It certainly takes a great deal of courage and a great deal of stamina to endure a race of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Labrador West, when they were getting ready to start this race, I did talk to some of the competitors who were there from New Hampshire. That was their second year in this competition. They had told me that this was probably one of the most rugged and challenging courses for snowmobiling anywhere in the Eastern Seaboard.

I think that this race not only allows you to go out there and take on what is a unique challenge, but it also gives you the actual bliss of being able to enjoy the tranquility of Labrador's wilderness, and to be able to embark on an experience that will leave you, I am sure, rekindled and rejuvenated, and in doing so have a tremendous amount of comradery in that whole process.

What I really enjoyed about Cain's Quest was the fact that, as an individual anywhere you wanted to watch or participate you could do so on-line through their electronic tracking system. Of course, I enjoyed doing that everyday while the race was going on.

I have to say, I was somewhat biased. There were two competitors from my district, Miles O'Brien and Joe Hancock, and this was their second year competing in this race. They made the trip from the Labrador Straits up through and into Labrador City to get ready for the competition. They did very well, and I am very proud of them.

I want to congratulate all the people who partook in this event, and also to congratulate the organizers, people like Todd Kent who is, I think, the only employee with the Department of Tourism now in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I by leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Kent is certainly an individual who has been involved with this initiative since the beginning. It shows the creativity and ingenuity of the people in that area to be able to embark on a competition like this and be able to attract people to compete.

I congratulate them all and I wish them well. I am sure that, as the minister said, this will grow to become one of the most renowned races in snowmobiling throughout the Eastern part of the country and the United States.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 22, the House of Assembly passed a resolution that calls on the Auditor General to investigate all the details and circumstances of the fibre optic deal. Since then, Cabinet material has been exempted and a new special protocol has been established by the Department of Innovation, Justice and Executive Council that includes the vetting of all documents before they are approved for release to the Auditor General. The Auditor General himself raised concerns in correspondence earlier this month when he stated, quote: I reiterate, that as a result of the vetting process by the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, Executive Council and the Department of Justice, I will never be in a position to conclude whether government has provided me with all information relating to the fibre optic review.

I ask the Premier: If there is nothing to hide, why is government going through such trouble to establish a new special protocol, one the Auditor General has never witnessed before in the history of this Province that restricts what information the Auditor General can have access to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can just quite simply say that we have provided the Auditor General with every single scrap of information that he is required under law; every single piece.

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

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Premier, when the resolution was passed by this House back on November 22 there were no caveats and exceptions to the Auditor General doing this review, such as the Auditor General's Act or Cabinet secrecy. That was imposed by this government after, only after, the fact. If they wanted to do it, they had lots of time to put it in the resolution and they did not.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Premier state time and time again that the Auditor General would not be allowed to look at Cabinet documentation because the Auditor General Act prohibits him looking at the documents. However, nowhere - nowhere! - does it state that Cabinet cannot voluntarily allow the Auditor General to look at these documents. I am certain that Mr. Noseworthy would not be disclosing this document to the public. It is only for him to have, for him to review, so that he can do a thorough, comprehensive review.

I ask the Premier: Does this deal reek so bad of cover-up that you are afraid of what the Auditor General might find in the Cabinet documentation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, since we first said that we would provide the Auditor General with all the necessary information, we have done so. As I said before, we have provided him with every single scrap of information. In fact, we provided the Auditor General with 6,200 e-mails alone. I will give you some idea of the volume of information that we have actually provided to him.

That is one box, Mr. Speaker. That is two boxes, Mr. Speaker. That is three boxes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That's four boxes, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that the use of props is not permitted in the House and I would ask if these props could be taken off the table.

MR. REID: Danny, we can't see you, boy. Stand up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The thing is, Mr. Speaker, they want this information, and we are prepared to table all of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier has every right to table the information.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) if you want to go through it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank the hon. the Premier for his co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a joke! What an absolute joke and disgrace to the people of this Province, when the Premier is asked a legitimate question and he stands up here and plays jokes and plays tricks. How despicable! How absolutely despicable!

I say to the Premier, you might need those boxes to hide behind when the investigation is finally done. You might need them to hide behind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has also raised questions regarding an affidavit signed by the Premier and released to the media earlier today. This affidavit appears deliberately evasive and states that the Premier was not part of the Cabinet decision of October 26, 2006. As it was pointed out by the Auditor General in meetings last month, it does not state which other meetings the Premier was involved with or if he was involved in any Cabinet deliberations.

I ask the Premier, very straightforward - you are a lawyer, you can understand this - very straightforward and clear: Will you state emphatically and provide an affidavit that you were not involved in any other discussions on the fibre deal with your Cabinet colleagues, bureaucrats, and the proponents themselves?

MR. BUTLER: Now, where is the box with that information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these are not props. This is the information, in those boxes, that was provided to the Auditor General. We are now saying, to hon. members opposite, that they can have a copy of all of that information. Just for the record, let me clarify that these were not props.

Secondly, I am a lawyer, Sir, and I know when I am being deliberately evasive. You don't, you cannot read my mind and you cannot accuse me, in this House of Assembly, of being deliberately evasive in an affidavit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this was an affidavit that I, in good conscience, provided voluntarily to the Auditor General. I have spoken to the Auditor General since, on two occasions, as recently as last Thursday morning before this hon. House opened, and I asked him: Is there any other information that you require? Are we withholding any information that is outside the act? Is there anything else you need? He said: Absolutely not! Those were his words to me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I tremble at the fear of being sued again. I used words I should not have. I fear I might be sued again.

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding from the Auditor General that the bulk of the documentation provided by government on the fibre optic deal is indeed - in fact, the only information provided by this government to the Auditor General, to date, is somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 pieces of e-mail. Now, that is the first time I am ever aware of - I was a former member of government at one time - any government having spent $15 million of taxpayers' money untendered over e-mails. I think there is a bit more behind there than this number of e-mails.

I ask the Premier: Where are the real documents of substance related to this deal? Why are you only providing e-mails when the hardhitting, real substantive facts of this deal are being hidden? Premier, what are you hiding and why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for this department is overseas representing the Province on behalf of the seal hunt, so if I may, I would like to refer to a letter that he forwarded on March 22 to the Auditor General. I am just going to read some selected excerpts. A copy of this will be available. A copy of this will be available for the press as well.

"I understand you have raised concerns over the documentation my department has provided you with regards to the Trans Gulf Fibre Optic Proposal... I understand all appropriate documentation has been submitted to your office, and technical briefings have been held for you and your staff, but should you or your officials require additional information or encounter any problems whatsoever during the course of your review, please feel free to contact me...

Reports, Briefing Presentations... I am advised that all the reports, briefing presentations, consulting contracts and legal opinions requested have been provided to your officials." That is a lot more than e-mails.

"The non-Cabinet confidence Novell Groupwise emails of the lead official on this file, Robert Parsons, and the former Deputy Minister... comprising some 6,200 emails and attachments were also provided."

Also, with respect to Cabinet confidences, we are not allowed to break the law. You should know that. We cannot break the law and we are not breaking the law. As well, Mr. Speaker, there is also a memo, a protocol that went out from the Deputy Minister of Finance in August of last year indicating to deputy ministers that there is a proper protocol to be followed here and they have to make sure when they go through e-mails, that it does not violate Cabinet confidences. That is normal. That is proper procedure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a case of Cabinet would be breaking any laws. This is a case of Cabinet hiding behind the law. That is what this is all about.

I spoke to the Auditor General as recently as this morning - got him out of bed in Toronto, actually - just to be sure and certain as to where he stood on this issue of providing information to him. He says: I have all I am allowed to have.

You take the roadblocks that this government has put in front of him from the Cabinet documentation issue, which is a total farce, and the issue of the special vetting program that has been set up, and he is not getting any more e-mails - and the media spin that this government put out, which Mr. Parsons, that he alluded to, gave in public presentations to the media and everybody else who wanted it. We are not getting the real facts.

Mr. Speaker, we recently heard in the media that Persona communications, one of the proponents in the fibre deal, had spent in excess of $90 million to acquire cable companies in British Columbia.

I ask the Premier: Why are the taxpayers of this Province subsidizing this company, Persona and others, to the tune of $15 million when Persona has no problem spending close to $100 million in other parts of the country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is an Opposition that gets up time and time again and talks about out-migration and lack of jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not doing anything to create employment, and we are not doing anything at all; we are just throwing our hands up and doing nothing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We just spent $15 million on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and here is an excerpt from the Coaster. Here is what was said in the Coaster: The fibre optic deal is seen as a good thing for the Province and for rural, remote areas such as the Coast of Bays. It has been needed and long overdue for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is a wonderful opportunity. The economies of scale did not exist for a single service provider to upgrade the types of IT service that we have in rural areas. The fibre optic cable, particularly with it landing in the Connaigre Peninsula, is going to significantly improve telecommunications infrastructure. It is going to open up new opportunities for things such as call centres. It is going to impact our existing businesses in terms of our ability to sell products on-line -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - our ability to attract businesses because they will just be able to have an IT system that is compatible with anything on the globe.

That is what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to make rural Newfoundland and Labrador world-class.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier as well.

I say to the Premier, the only jobs that he is creating in this Province are for his close friends and business associates when he is giving them $15 million. What the Premier should check on is the fact that the Connaigre Peninsula is already being serviced by a fibre optic cable or broadband initiative that was provided by Aliant, so you should check out your facts before you make those statements, I would say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power back in 2003, the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International has run roughshod over its employees and now is prepared to break that company up and sell it off piecemeal. This is happening, I say, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of this government, and has occurred with the consent of this government.

Last spring, at the infamous fisheries summit that we held down at the hotel - hosted by the Premier, I might add - he stated that FPI's marketing division in the United States was of such vital importance to the people of this Province that we should consider buying it, I say, Mr. Speaker. We should consider buying it a year ago. Now we hear that FPI is considering breaking off that marketing division in the U.S. and selling it off to its competitor, a competitor of FPI, Highliner out of Nova Scotia, and this apparently is going to be done with the consent of this government.

I ask the Premier: Why your flip-flop in just one short year over FPI's marketing division?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I would categorize as infamous related to the summit, the fisheries summit that the Leader of the Opposition refers to in the preamble to his dissertation, would be the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition cowering at a table up in the end of the room, not even taking a note, Mr. Speaker. You did not even know he was there. He had no interest in it, no participation in it, said nothing, and did nothing except occupy a seat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the marketing division of FPI, the Premier made it clear on numerous occasions to anybody who wanted to listen, including the industry, including the union, that this government was prepared to stand behind a Newfoundland consortium of any sort - whether it be a co-operative, whether it include the industry, the union and others - of the Newfoundland Government standing financially behind the acquisition of that asset for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier not only did it on one occasion, Mr. Speaker; he gave people time to go back and consider, and come back and talk to us as a government again, and he did it on a second occasion. Neither time, Mr. Speaker, on neither occasion, did we have any take-up from the union, from the industry, or anybody else associated with the industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a recent interview with The Telegram newspaper, the Fisheries Minister stated that no asset belonging to FPI, Fishery Products International, would be sold unless it was in the best interest of FPI workers and the people of this Province in general.

I ask the minister if he could tell us how the sale of the American division of FPI - the same division, Mr. Speaker, that subsidized the groundfish division all through the moratorium in this Province - how can you say that would be of benefit to the 2,200 FPI employees in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I just answered the question: that this government made it abundantly clear through the Premier, not on one occasion but on two occasions, two separate occasions that I can recall, when this government indicated to the industry, to the union, that we were prepared to financially assist any group or consortia of groups, or amalgamation of groups, that wanted to acquire the marketing division of FPI. We tried that as a Newfoundland initiative, as a Newfoundland-based way of controlling that piece of FPI, and we had no takers.

Now, it so happens that High Liner, a company that the people of this Province are intimately familiar with, whether it was at Arnold's Cove or La Scie in the past, and a number of other communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, it so happens that High Liner has expressed an interest in that and other assets of FPI, including Burin on the Burin Peninsula. That piece of negotiation is continuing. Where it will go, we will see.

In terms of the marketing division, Mr. Speaker, we have offered to financially assist in acquiring that asset by the people of this Province, by businesses and the people of this Province, with no luck so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

The minister wrote, or his department was responsible for, the first FPI Act. He is missing the point in that the only way that FPI can sell its marketing division, even if the Province does not want to buy it, the only way that they can sell it is with permission from your government. So you are willing to allow them to go out and sell it off piecemeal.

I am asking the question: Why are you allowing them to do it in the beginning? Because you can stop them from doing it even if you do not want to pay for it, even if you do not want to buy it.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is again for the minister or the Premier. I ask the minister if he can also tell us, when you are talking about the sale of any asset will only be done if it is for the benefit of the people of the Province, how the sale of FPI's two draggers recently - which was done with the approval of Cabinet, I might add, and unbeknownst to the minister, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, who sits around that Cabinet table - of what benefit was that for the people who worked on those boats, and of what benefit was that to the people who work in the plant in Marystown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker on the preamble, I suppose you would call it, to the hon. member's question.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, it was this government, this Premier and this government, that amended the FPI Act to ensure that no asset of FPI could be sold without the consent of the government. That was not there, Mr. Speaker. We did not inherit that from the Leader of the Opposition. We did not inherit that from a Premier, who never had the time of day to ask those questions, and a government who never had the time of day to ask those questions to FPI when they were doing the thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: They never had that time, Mr. Speaker, but we had the time and we amended the Act to ensure that it did not happen.

In terms of the trawlers, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows, including the Opposition - but he does not want to be blinded by the facts - but everybody knows that FPI divested themselves of some trawlers and purchased certain other trawlers, which they are now refurbishing and redoing to put back into the industry, that are more efficient, fuel efficient and fishing efficient and everything else. There has been no detriment done to the ability of FPI to harvest their offshore resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, in 1973 an agreement was negotiated between the federal and provincial governments to develop Gros Morne area as a national park. Since that time, snowmobiling has been a permitted activity that has been enjoyed by thousands of residents and tourists in the Province. Unfortunately, a park management plan has now been developed that would restrict snowmobiling to less than 10 per cent of the park, even though Parks Canada has found no evidence that snowmobiling is causing any damage to the area.

I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: Since the Province is one of the signatories on this plan, is the provincial government supporting the decision to place restrictions on recreational snowmobilers and tourism operators in the area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In response to that question, I have to say that, first of all, we are talking about federal jurisdiction and a national park. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this is the only national park in all of Canada that does allow snowmobiling within its boundaries. In order to get to that point, they did a consultation with all stakeholders and came up with a plan, implemented a plan, and certainly we go forward from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I like the idea of being a little unique in Canada and I think that would have given us one unique opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, not only does Parks Canada want to restrict the area for snowmobiling, but they also want to cap the number of people who can use the park. The Deer Lake area has just been designated the snowmobile hub for the Province and Gros Morne National Park is one of the key destinations. The minister, himself, released a winter tourism guide which encourages snowmobiling as a key activity to promote winter tourism in the Province.

I ask the minister: If we are to encourage and protect tourism in this Province, why would we permit the removal of snowmobile rights in this area, especially where there is no evidence to support such a move?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, looking at the question, I reiterate that this is a federal jurisdiction and a federal decision that was made. We did, as a government, certainly involve ourselves in that decision to ensure that all of the concerns of the stakeholders were raised; they were raised. We did look at making sure that the decision that was made was in the best interest of the people concerned.

I say to you, once again, that this is not a jurisdiction of which we are a part, and that we did bring forth the concerns of the residents. The residents concerns were put forward. Again, the decision was made on the part of the federal government, not the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The management plan suggests, if an individual lives in Gros Morne National Park they will be permitted to snowmobile in 85 per cent of the park. However, if an individual lives outside the park they are limited to only 10 per cent usage.

I ask the minister: Why the difference?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, these were decisions that were made as a result of a consultation process brought about by the federal Parks Commission. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this goes back to the formation of that park back in the 1970s, where the rights of the individuals who were within the boundaries of that park were protected and protected well. We want to make sure again, as a government, that we lobby the federal government to look after the concerns of the residents. This consultation did take place. Again, I say to you, that the decisions that were made were made on behalf of the federal government. Again, we represented the people, we represented them to the best of our ability, but the decisions were made and that goes back over a number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last fall we questioned the Bull Arm Site Corporation's process of awarding contracts without following through on proper procedures as set out by law. It was discovered that the former Chair, Ms Joan Cleary, who was fired and dishonourably discharged from her duty, had been awarding contracts without going to tender. Since that time, we have submitted several Access to Information Requests to the Bull Arm Site Corporation, which comes under the minister's control, only to discover that board never held a single meeting between November 15, 2005 - when Ms Cleary was initially appointed - up to October 30, 2006, even though contracts were awarded, many of them, during this twelve-month period.

I ask the minister: How can any corporation which comes under the provincial government, and in this case a board upon which the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources supposedly was sitting, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money and award contracts without ever having a board meeting and receiving proper approvals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will review the information as put forward by my colleague, but I can only speak from the time that I became Minister of the Department of Natural Resources. Very soon after that a new board was put in place. They met for the first time in the fall, in October. The winterization contract was one of the very first things that they dealt with and sent the CEO to look for new information.

We have looked at all of the contracts that were awarded since 2005. There were anomalies found in three. We have corrected all of the information made available and provided all of the information that has been requested by the Opposition and by others under the ATIP request.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in this 2004 Conflict of Interest statement, Premier Williams listed that he was a director of a company called Spectrol Energy Services and also declared that he had a loan guarantee, at least at that time, to the company. Mr. Bill Fanning is the head of Spectrol Energy Services and was appointed to the Bull Arm Site Corporation last year. Mr. Fanning is, in essence, an employee of one of the Premier's private sector companies.

I ask the minister: Is Mr. Fanning still on the board? Who has replaced Ms Cleary as the new chair of the board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fanning is still on the board and I have to tell you that we are absolutely delighted to have him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: He brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise that he is willing to share with this government and with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to see the full use of that site to the benefit of the people of the Province.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, a blind trust is a blind trust, and the Premier was obligated to put his companies in a blind trust so that he could do his job here. If his companies are in a blind trust, what we are doing with the employees, or how those people participate in the life of this Province, is not an issue for the Premier or for the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, conflict of interest guidelines is based not upon whether the conflict actually exists but even if it is perceived to exist. It is like the old saying, justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. That is the nature of our questions about Mr. Fanning being so close in his employment relations with the Premier and you putting him on a board.

Mr. Speaker, we have also discovered in the minutes of the Bull Arm Site Corporation meetings - those are the ones that were held, when they did have meetings - that the Auditor General raised concerns regarding the issue of severance pay to a former site manager. I believe Mr. Greene is the current site manager, but the person whom he replaced, the site manager, after the termination of his contract.

I ask the minister: Could you explain to the House the concerns that the Auditor General raised about severance pay being made to that individual, and also whether Ms Cleary was given a severance package once she was removed from her position as a result of her inappropriate actions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Severance was issued in accordance with the terms of the employment of the individuals who work for the Bull Arm Corporation. I will certainly find the details with regard to the former employee. I know that Ms Cleary was entitled to severance, and I expect that she received severance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise an issue that I believe is a point of privilege coming out of an exchange by the Opposition House Leader during Question Period. As everybody knows, we do not normally do this in Question Period because it would take away from the time allocated for Question Period, so we generally do it after, if it needs to be done.

The Opposition House Leader, in putting a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, used the words, in describing an action by the Premier, as "deliberately evasive".

Mr. Speaker, I know from experience that in this Legislature we are not allowed to use the phrase "deliberately misleading". That is unparliamentary and has been ruled so by Your Honour and any number of predecessors over the years. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the phrase "deliberately evasive" is no different than the phrase "deliberately misleading", that it means exactly the same thing, and that it accuses and imputes to an hon. member that a member is deliberately misleading or not being forthcoming with the House in a response.

I would ask Your Honour, as is appropriate, to look at this matter and to make a determination whether or not the phase "deliberately evasive" is parliamentary, and I would suggest to Your Honour that it is not.

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

MR. PARSONS: Your Honour, I look forward to your rendering a decision on that. We are all aware that the word deliberately, if you impute any improper motives to a person, would be unparliamentary, and I await your ruling as to whether the words "deliberately evasive" are indeed inappropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look at the matter. I do believe that when the hon. the Government House Leader began his address he mentioned a point of privilege. I do believe he meant to say a point of order. I wish to seek the guidance of the hon. the member, because it would fall under a point of order rather than a point of privilege.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take it as a point of order and will review the tapes and come back with a decision at the next sitting.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order.

Again, I waited until the end of Question Period because that is the accepted process, not to disrupt Question Period.

We would be pleased to accept the props that the Premier referred to and placed on the desk today. We certainly would appreciate having them, and I hope there is more in there than the e-mails that he referred to. We look forward to getting them immediately, if we could, so we can start our study of same.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I do understand the Premier has already indicated that the items that are under discussion by the hon. member, he has agreed already to have them tabled in the House. We will facilitate that at the earliest possible opportunity.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Another point of order, or maybe clarification might be more proper.

The Government House Leader made reference, I believe, during one of his responses to the Leader of the Opposition about the sale of certain assets under the FPI Act and claimed, I guess, responsibility for having provided the piece of the FPI Act, when amended, about the selling off of assets.

I have asked the Deputy Clerk to check, because I am pretty certain that the amendment to the FPI Act that talked about the sale of assets came from the Opposition and not from the government.

I would like to get that point of information clarified so we do not have the people of this Province thinking, for goodness gracious sake, that this government actually did that when it was an effective Opposition.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is up to any member on either side of the House to propose an amendment, but it is up to the government to determine whether or not it is going to pass, and this government passed the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their submissions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is not a point of order.

I do believe that clarification has been sought by the hon. the Opposition House Leader and clarification has been presented by the hon. the Government House Leader.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the North Shore of the Bay of Islands, concerning the condition of the highway.

Again, the people from the McIver's area had it faxed over from the Town Council of Irishtown, Summerside, from people from Irishtown, Summerside, in excess of 1,500 names on the petition. Again, I promise today not to get too upset with the minister unless he laughs at my petition again, and the sincerity of the people.

I know the minister said publicly that it is just me causing a few problems. I will just let the minister know, because I am not sure if he is aware of it, that the Great Humber Joint Council just passed a motion to write a letter to the minister to support the town councils on the North Shore with the condition of the highways. I just want to let the minister know that the whole Great Humber Joint Council for the whole region is in support of the town councils on the North Shore.

Mr. Speaker, these conditions are extremely serious. It is a matter of safety. It is a matter of people now not even being able to get back and forth to their work and employment under certain conditions, especially in the wintertime when ruts are on the side of the road. When the snow is built up, when they go off the side of the road they are not sure if the ruts are there.

The maintenance on the highway is extremely poor. The conditions - even some culverts are extremely bad. I know personally, I know I challenged the minister to release this before, the recommendations from the staff on the West Coast, because I know the recommendations from the staff on the West Coast have a lot of areas on the North Shore and the South Shore recommended to be done, funding to be approved. I know again, that the minister will not release these recommendations because they will show, once again, that the people of the Bay of Islands are not being treated fairly. Their safety is being put in jeopardy.

Any minister in this government - I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs met with the Great Humber Joint Council just this past weekend to discuss several issues, but yet I cannot get the minister out to meet with any town council. There are three or four different requests. There is another request gone in to the minister to meet with him. I know the minister is avoiding meeting with the town councils, which is a shame. I know the Minister of Environment and Conservation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a number of conversations going on that are rather loud and the Speaker is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. The member has about another half of a minute left in his presentation.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Minister of Environment and Conservation was out meeting -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Here goes the Minister of Transportation laughing again, Mr. Speaker. I committed to myself that I would not be upset, but when you come to the safety of individuals, this is not a laughing matter, I say to the minister. Do your duty, go out and meet with the town councils and look at the concerns. You may not be aware of it. I doubt it. You may not be aware of it, but don't laugh at the people who are presenting petitions in the House of Assembly for safety reasons, for God's sake. Take the responsibilities a bit seriously, that there are people who are getting damages to their cars.

Mr. Speaker, this minister should at least have the courtesy of meeting with the town councils and stop standing behind the microphone and laughing. This is a very serious matter. If you do not have the ability to put politics aside to go meet with these individuals, do not stand there laughing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired, but I also recognize the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Labrador Affairs on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of order. Let me say to the hon. member, I have said in the past and I have sent messages to the communities of the Bay of Islands, that I will meet with their councils as time permits.

I have to say, as far as the member is concerned, if he had done his job when their government was in power they would not have the road conditions, I say, on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands that they have there today. If he had of done his job -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I assume that the hon. the member is not rising to speak to that point of order.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair recognizes the hon. Opposition House Leader on a petition.

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

I would concur that that was absolutely not a point of order that the Minister of Transportation and Works was talking about there.

I have an issue here that I would certainly like to get his attention to as well, and this is a petition I am presenting on behalf of the people of LaPoile and Grand Bruit. I went through this in this House eighteen times before Christmas in regard to the porta-potties that ended up in Burgeo and Ramea. The minister likes to weasel out of stuff sometimes, you know. I say: Can you give us a few porta-potties at least until spring breaks and the ground thaws and you can get something of substance done? He sends a letter back saying: Well, all Parsons ever asked for was the porta-potties. You know, those kinds of games - people do not appreciate that kind of stuff, Minister.

Anyway, I am going to give you a bouquet today because I understand that it is in your budget this year to do something for the people of Burgeo and Ramea, and I thank you for that on their behalf. Mr. Marston of Ramea, in particular, thanks you for what you have done in Burgeo and Ramea, or we hope is going to get done in this budget. That is good that you have reacted positively to what is definitely a health and safety need.

The problem is, I have it further up the coast now. It was brought to my attention that the residents of LaPoile and Grand Bruit need the same service. In fact, they are a bit worse off, because when they wait for the boat in Diamond Cove they do not have a motel or a hotel or even homes where they might run to if they needed to. The ferry docks in a little place where the fish plant used to be in Rose Blanche years ago and there are no homes within kilometres. Anybody waiting for the boat to come to take them back to LaPoile and Grand Bruit, they have to stand outdoors and we all know that is not appropriate.

Now, the cost I would think is not substantial. We are not asking for any visitor information centre tied in with tourism and whatever. We are asking for a very basic, practical solution to a health and safety issue, that people should have a washroom available to them whenever they are waiting for the ferry service. That is all we are asking now on behalf of the people of LaPoile and Grand Bruit. They have the same needs. You have recognized the need further down the coast in Burgeo and Ramea and we thank you for that, but we just say: Can we borrow the porta-potties from Burgeo and Ramea while you are finding a bit of money to do what needs to be done in Rose Blanche for the people of LaPoile and Grand Bruit?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker; the member opposite asked for porta-potties, and we, the Department of Transportation, provided porta-potties. That was not, I can tell you, our permanent solution.

I can also say, Mr. Speaker, that during his time as the member representing that particular district, during his time when they were in government, they did nothing about those type of situations down on that particular coast.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that points of order should deal with the order of the proceedings of the House. We should not use points of order to engage in debate. There is no point of order. I ask all hon. members to respect the rules, the rules are there for a purpose and I ask them for their cooperation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader who has about one minute left in his presentation.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I was being very kind to the minister today. I would remind him that I can table and will table in this House, a copy of the documentation that came to his department about the request for restroom and washroom facilities.

In fairness to him, he was not the minister when that letter was written. The member for St. Anthony was the minister at that time. But I will table the letter because he is deemed to understand, once he becomes the minister - and I am assuming he goes back and reads the files. He would have come across that letter from the Town of Burgeo which, by the way, was cc'd to me as their member. Guess what? When the minister formerly wrote back to the council he did not have the courtesy to cc the MHA; never cc'd the MHA and that is unacceptable. This is the open and accountable government we are talking about.

All I ask the minister for - and not for me, I ask it on behalf of the people I represent in LaPoile and in Grand Bruit in this case. Do your job, Minister, put money in this year's budget that will provide proper, fit, necessary facilities in Rose Blanche to accommodate the ferry users of that service. That is all we ask. Do the decent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is considerable shouting from both sides of the House and it is preventing the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair from presenting her petition. I ask members for their cooperation.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the intervention because this is an important petition on behalf of the people of the Community of Williams Harbour. It is important that the Minister of Works simmer down so he can hear what the plea of the people is in this particular community.

Mr. Speaker, I presented two petitions on behalf of residents in this community and also residents in the surrounding communities of Williams Harbour in the last couple of days of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, these people are desperately asking government to reconsider the decision to cancel the building of a highway into Williams Harbour. The community is only about twenty-two kilometres from the Trans-Labrador Highway, at the end of the highway at Pinsent Arm junction, and it requires a bridge to be put across a small tickle to allow these people to access, not only the mainland but also the highway. What we have had is a problem in the winter whereby this small tickle of water does not freeze up and therefore they cannot get out of the community by snowmobile and are, in essence, stranded and unable to get to any of the services they require.

In this community you do not have a health care facility and you do not have a lot of other facilities that many of us take for granted in the communities in which we live. In order to access those important services today, they have to go by snowmobile. In this case, they cannot because of the global warming issue, or in summer they have to go by boat.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Transportation and Works is very familiar with this community and with the situation that they are in. He has spent a great deal of his life in Labrador. He knows the challenges of the residents of Williams Harbour. I can only appeal to him, as the minister, to do something to help this community.

I actually had an opportunity to meet briefly with the Minister of Finance about this particular issue. He knows as well, it is an important issue for me and for the residents of Williams Harbour and the residents of my district. In fact, if you go back through budget consultations in the last three years that this government opposite have carried out, almost every representation that would have came from a zonal board or anyone affiliated with that part of the district which represents Williams Harbour, would have put forward that as a key priority for government to look at in terms of infrastructure spending.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, in the advance of a budget going down, once again ask the Minister of Transportation and Works, the Premier, and the Minister of Finance to reconsider a decision that they made back three years ago to cancel twenty-two kilometres of road into Williams Harbour and ask them to reconsider that decision, to look at building this piece of road to connect the residents in that community to the rest of the communities on that part of the Southeast Coast and to the highway so that they can get off the Island and be able to access the services that they need in order to have any quality of life in this Province in a small, rural outport community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask him to reconsider and do the right thing, and find the money to build this highway into Williams Harbour.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 200 residents of the Isthmus area. They are calling on the House of Assembly and calling on the Minister of Natural Resources to extend the cutting permits for firework in the Isthmus area of my district. This year there was a lot of snow in that particular area. We all know that Doe Hills and all that area around there had a lot of snow which impeded people from going in the woods to cut their firewood. We all know that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador wood is essential in terms of the home-heating process. Unfortunately, in that particular area - and the new member for Long Harbour will be interested in that.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Mount Pearl, be quiet, please.

They only have three months of the year to cut their wood. In other areas of the Province -

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can you tell the Member for Mount Pearl to be quiet, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: This is a serious issue for the people in the Long Harbour-Norman's Cove-Long Cove-Bellevue area. This is a very, very serious issue and it is not something to be joking and carrying on about. The Member for Mount Pearl should be quiet.

Right now they get a permit and it is only good for three months. In other areas of the Province -

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, there must be a way you can shut him up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The hon. the member is presenting a petition on behalf of his constituents and he has a right to be heard in relative silence.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I guess we understand now where this government is coming from when we hear the Member for Mount Pearl getting on the way he is here this afternoon, how sensitive they are to rural Newfoundland. Here I am presenting an issue from the people of my district that affects people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and he is over there shouting and bawling.

The reason I am here today is the residents, these people, have written the minister requesting an extension to the wood cutting permits for this particular area. I call on the minister to treat the people in this particular area no differently than other people in the rest of the Province and extend the permits so these people can go in the woods. Because at the end of March they expire and April month is a good time to be able to get out there. If they are out there in January and February cutting wood, do you know what happens? Half the wood is on the stump because the snow is so deep and so high that they cannot cut down to the base of tree. What we are doing here is actually saving the forest by being able to extend the season for the extra month of April.

I am calling on the minister to, please, request that the 200 people who signed this petition - there is a letter gone to the minister's office dated March 15, to which there has been no response. I am asking the minister, to please extend the wood cutting permits for this particular area to the end of April.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, before moving to Orders of the Day, there is a housekeeping matter that I need to attend to.

Standing Order 65 prescribes for the appointment of various committees, one of which is the Standing Orders Committee. The Standing Orders Committee needs to be updated because certain members who were part of the committee are no longer part of the House.

Just for the record, I will read - there is no change to the Opposition members' composition on the committee. I have already consulted with my colleague across the way, but just for the record, the following members, from this day forward, will constitute the Standing Orders Committee pursuant to Standing Order 65.

Your Honour, of course, is Chair of the committee; myself as Government House Leader is a member of the committee; the Opposition House Leader is a member and remains a member of the committee; our colleague from Bonavista South is a member of the committee; and the Deputy Opposition House Leader, the Member for Port de Grave, is a member of the committee. A new addition, in addition to myself, will be the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, replacing the former leader, and two new members from our side replacing members who have moved on. It will be the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SPEAKER: I say thank you to the hon. Government House Leader for apprizing the House of the changes. There are a number of issues that need to be reviewed by the Standing Orders.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: On Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would next like to move to Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Monday, March 26.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3 is to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, Monday, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions for granting Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 71, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to continue debate on Bill 71, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

The Committee is ready to continue with debate of Bill 71, and the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to make a few comments with respect to Bill 71, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is quite standard, and one that will give the government authority to spend certain amounts of monies until the Budget for the coming year is presented and debated.

Mr. Chairman, we hear from time to time the Opposition talking about government not doing anything at all for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say, on a number of occasions when he has been on Open Line, on the Open Line shows, to the people of the Province, asking the question: Are you better off today than you were one year ago, two years ago, and now three-and-a-half years ago? That is the question he has been asking: Are you better off now than you were when this government took office in 2003?

Mr. Chairman, I think if they want to find the answer all they would have to do is listen to the poll results that have been coming out every quarter for the past three-and-a-half years. It has been fairly consistent, Mr. Chairman, the fact that these polls show that this government is performing more satisfactorily to the people of the Province than any other government in its history. I think that is where the answer is, Mr. Chairman.

In the meantime, I would like to make a few comments with respect to a couple of our government departments. The first department that I would like to speak to, with respect to some of the things that we are doing, is the Department of Health and Community Services. I guess with that department alone, Mr. Chairman, the people on this side of the House can stand up for the full seventy-five hours talking about the good things that we are doing in that department, but I would like to make specific reference today to three or four items that affect the District of Bonavista North; because, when we talk about expenditures for the Department of Health and Community Services we are talking about expenditures that affect every citizen in this Province, whether you live in St. John's or whether you live in the smallest community of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, this year that is just ending now, our government spent an additional $200 million on health and community services in the Province. I would like to mention a couple of things, like I say, that affect the district and the people of Bonavista North.

One thing in particular is the money that we spent on the new cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. That, as you know, was ongoing for a number of years, and delayed, but a year after we took office we started to make arrangements to have that cancer clinic put in Grand Falls-Windsor, and it was done, Mr. Chairman, this past year. Not only the clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, but we went even further when it comes to providing services to the people, the cancer patients, in the Central Region of the Province. We went even further, a total of $1.5 million all together, which took care of not only the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Chairman, but we also made renovations to the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander.

With those renovations, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition to go out and ask the cancer patient in New-Wes-Valley, or the cancer patient on Fogo Island, who can now go to Gander, a couple of hours drive - an hour-and-a-half or two hours drive - ask those people if they are better of today than they were three or four years ago. I am sure of what the answer will be, because any time you can drive and get that kind of service, just an hour-and-a-half from your home, rather than drive four and five hours, I know what those people are going to say.

On another point, Mr Chairman, monies that we spent this past year with respect to dialysis in Gander, our government provided the funding to set up a dialysis unit in the Gander hospital. Before, people in New-Wes-Valley, people in Twillingate & Fogo, Musgrave Harbour, had to drive the extra hour to go to Grand Falls for those services. Those are people, Mr Chairman, who had to make that drive three times a week. I can tell you, that two hours that they are saving is a major benefit to the health and well-being of those people who have to avail of that service.

Another point, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Department of Health and Community Services is the new drug program that we just brought in, that just came into effect a couple of months ago, where people on low income can now avail of the opportunity to get contributions, financial contributions, toward the cost of drugs, whether it is 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or 70 per cent or 80 per cent. Whatever it is, Mr. Chairman, it is a major benefit to people who need these drugs.

Mr. Chairman, this Province alone, just about half of our budget is spent on health care services. I do not care where you are, whichever province you live in in this country, there are problems with respect to wait lists and waiting for procedures and so on. I do not care. Even in Alberta, the richest province in the country, you will find that these people have similar wait lists to what we have here in this Province. Whatever you do or however much money you spend on health care, you will always have these problems to deal with. There will always be specific cases that you never have the funding to take care of in the immediate time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move on from that department to the Department of Transportation and Works. This year, in this Budget coming up now, effective April 1, our government is spending a total of $171 million on road upgrading and paving transportation infrastructure in this Province. Out of that, Mr. Chair, 97 per cent of that $171 million is going to be spent outside of the Avalon Peninsula. There is another area where we are making a major contribution to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Of that $171 million, $60 million is being spent on secondary highways, the trunk highways in the Province. Last year, as well, we spent $60 million.

When we took office -

MR. JOYCE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I have committed to myself that every time there is information put forth in the House that I feel is inaccurate - the member just said again, $60 million. I will just invite the member to look at the annual report from the minister himself, the minister's own annual report that he has there.

The highlight of the Budget was $33.7 million spent on roads, not $60 million as being put out by the government. If you want the correct information, look at the minister's own report, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you say, there is certainly no point of order there. The hon. member brought up the same issue a few days ago when someone else was speaking on this side. He got the answer then, so why ask it again now and waste the time of some other member who wants to speak on this topic?

Mr. Chairman, what I want to say is, back when we took office in 2003 that government of the day then spent $23 million on roads upgrading and paving; $23 million, Mr. Chairman, in an election year. I will also go back further than that. It has been referred to here on many occasions, they were as low as $6 million on roads upgrading and paving in this Province. Is there any wonder why we have the state that we have today, the dilapidated condition of roads in this Province?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. HARDING: The hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is speaking. She was Minister of Transportation when some of this money was needed to go into roads upgrading and paving and did not see the need to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that if this government, or any government, is going to do anything with rural Newfoundland in terms of sustaining what we have out there or development in those small communities -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. HARDING: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition over there is saying something. I do not know what it is, but I would say, Mr. Chairman, that he is just jealous of the amount of money that we are putting into road work in this Province.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: I would like to tell the Member for Bonavista North what I was saying. I was saying that you could have leave to clue up, I say to the member opposite.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you very much.

That is normally what he does not say when I have been standing up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I am really surprised to get that comment, Mr. Chairman.

In cluing up, I have a lot more to say on this, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make the point with respect to the Gander Bay Highway, a highway that the Leader of the Opposition drives over maybe once or twice a year. I do not know. He will be out there when the election is on probably four or five times. Anyway, what gets me now, Mr. Chairman - over the past four years, between myself and my hon. colleague from Gander, we have worked together in putting major expenditures into the upgrading and resurfacing of the Gander Bay Highway. It is to the point now, we are going to do another ten kilometres this year and after that there will only be about ten left.

Mr. Chairman, over the fourteen or fifteen years that those people were in government there was hardly one cent spent on upgrading and resurfacing that highway, the Gander Bay Highway. Whenever I go into the Gander Mall or anywhere now, there are people from Gander Bay, Carmanville, Main Point and Davidsville coming to me and giving me credit for what we have done over the past three or four years. One thing that sort of turns me off now, Mr. Chairman, is to know that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is going to have that good road to drive over on his way to Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Chairman, on that, I would like to clue up. I will have some time later on to carry on with this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have a few words with regard to this bill on Interim Supply, and I think everyone understands what Interim Supply is. That is a bill in which the government is granted sums of money in order to carry on with its expenditure until such time they are able to bring in a Budget into the House of Assembly. Anytime there is a bill like this in the Legislature, hon. members have the opportunity to stand and debate any particular issues they want and to bring to the House any particular issues they want.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as one of my previous colleagues, who has since moved on to retirement, used to say: Words are important, and you should get your facts straight when you are making statements in the House of Assembly. I want to remind the Member for Bonavista North, that I was never the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If I had been, I would have had every road in my district paved before I ever got out of the department, I say to the member, if the money was there.

Having said that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, I am not going to make any bones about it.

Mr. Chairman, I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Works for a short eight months or so, and I have to say that during the time we were in government we did built, I think, over 400 kilometres of road in my district alone, in which there were no roads. For none of those things will I apologize.

Mr Chairman, there is still a tremendous need in the area that I represent for roads to be build, to be paved, to be resurfaced and upgraded. When the member opposite stands up and talks about all the money that came out of the Provincial Treasury in the last two years to be invested on the Island of Newfoundland in road work, I guess it makes me a little jealous, not the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Because in Labrador we have not seen that kind of commitment from the government opposite when it comes to provincial revenues going into roads in Labrador. We all know that. In fact, in the last three years the government opposite has been talking about putting $50 million of provincial revenue into resurfacing the highway between Goose Bay and Labrador City, but that $50 million is over five years, of which the Province is prepared to contribute only $10 million a year to that project, but at the same time they are prepared to put $60 million, in excess of $70 million a year, on the Island of Newfoundland.

It is a double standard when it comes to highway spending in the Province by the members opposite, so I have no doubt that the member would get up and gloat but at the same time realize that there are a lot of people in this Province who are not getting a fair shake when it comes to road development and road resurfacing.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk a little bit today about a comment that was made by the Minister of Business in his comments on Friday. He stood in the House in debate on Interim Supply and he was referring to us, in the days that we were in government, and said: They did not grow the economy; they did not have any revenues.

Well, I want to speak to that for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, because maybe the hon. minister himself needs a little lesson in where the revenues come from that filter into the provincial coffers in this Province. Although he sits at the Cabinet table, maybe he needs a little refresher in where the revenues actually are generated, in what sectors of the economy, and who created the opportunity in those sectors of the economy.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to start with this. We hear a lot of talk these days about the Atlantic Accord, about the wonderful deal that was secured with the Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in his days of government in Canada, with a great deal for Newfoundland and Labrador that would see us not only grow and maintain equalization but also grow our revenue through those royalties that we would gain on the oil and gas sector.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the only reason that a deal like the Atlantic Accord is ever possible is because you have an oil and gas sector to start with, because you actually have an oil industry in this Province that has been developed, is producing a tremendous amount of wealth, and because of that you have an opening with the federal government to renegotiate on the royalties from resources like that. That is where the Atlantic Accord comes into play.

Let's talk about where the developments in the oil industry came from in this Province; because, as you know, today in Newfoundland and Labrador the major contributors to the revenue that builds the roads the hon. member talked about over there, that builds every other piece of infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador, it comes from the oil industry, it comes from the mining industry, which are probably the top two contributors of royalties to the provincial coffers.

Let's talk about the oil industry. The Hibernia deal was the first oil development project in Newfoundland and Labrador. While it might have been initially discussed under the Peckford government, it was actually signed under a Liberal Premier, Clyde Wells. That was when the Hibernia deal was signed off. In fact, at the time that Hibernia was signed off, it was done so on projections, I think, of barrels of oil that were somewhere around $12 a barrel, in terms of looking at paying for itself and balancing out at that time. I stand to be corrected on that figure, because I am trying to draw from my recollection of what was happening with the various deals at the time.

Mr. Chairman, we know today that the price of oil is a lot greater than $12 a barrel, so we know that not only is Hibernia paying for itself in generating a revenue but it is generating a tremendous amount of royalty and profit to the people of this Province.

What were the other oil deals that were done? Let's look at Terra Nova. Terra Nova was an oil deal again done by a Liberal government, under a Liberal Premier, I would like to remind the Minister of Business. It was done by Premier Brian Tobin, when he was here, who negotiated the deal under Terra Nova, who saw the contracting out of hundreds and thousands of jobs in this Province to the private sector, that allowed companies to move in here, national-based companies that would have ordinarily only been in places like Norway or Sweden or Calgary or Texas, moving into Newfoundland and Labrador to set up shop to service the second oil field in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then what happened, Mr. Chairman? We had White Rose. Again, the third oil development project in this Province done under a Liberal government, done under a Liberal Premier who signed it off at the time. Premier Grimes was the Premier at the time when White Rose was being done. What happened under White Rose? Eighty per cent of some of the work under the White Rose development project was done right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of it was done in Marystown, at the fabrication site in Marystown, where today I don't know if we have a single soul left working there. At that time, under the Liberal government's deal on White Rose, we saw up to 1,500 jobs working at the Marystown Shipyard. Where are these 1,500 people today? You go down and ask the leader of the union in Marystown, and he will tell you where they are, because they left forwarding addresses and phone numbers with the union. They are all out in Western Canada, because they had to go there to go to work.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Business will get up and talk about how Liberal governments did not create and diversify the economy. Three oil fields developed in this Province, today contributing the greatest amount of revenue to the provincial government of any other revenue-generating resource in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the Minister of Business. He needs to get with the program and start learning where the royalties are coming from in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What have we seen from the government opposite when it comes to oil development deals? We have seen them not taking a negotiating approach at all. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you have people today out there in the oil industry who are actually saying that there could be net losses of jobs as early as this year, up to 500 jobs. Guess what? They are pinning it on the backs of the government, because they know that the government opposite has failed to negotiate deals with oil companies that have continued to allow us to grow the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you get people out there making statements like this, with no energy plan in place, no gas royalty regime in place, no Hibernia South, no Hebron, and now no exploration activity, where are we going to see this industry develop?

Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of questions that people are asking, and these are the kinds of comments that they are making, the people who are working in the oil industry: As far as everyone is concerned globally, we are not open for business. We are not open for business, and no one wants to deal with him - referring to the Premier of the Province. All he does is fight, and the business community here is sick of it.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to tell you something. The oil industry in this Province has been the catalyst for deals like the Atlantic Accord, and if we do not have a thriving oil industry what is the good of deals like the Atlantic Accord, I have to say to hon. members? In order to ensure that there is continuous growth in this sector, there has to be a hand of government that is willing to negotiate, that is willing to do deals that are going to be beneficial to the people of the Province.

We cannot continue to see platforms leaving out there. I think the Henry Goodridge is going to leave this year. I am also hearing that the Eirik Raude could be leaving. These are hundreds of jobs that are going to be lost on these platforms, and what is replacing them? Is it the same thing that is replacing the amount of work from White Rose that was occurring at the Marystown Shipyard? Because we know what replaced that work at the Marystown Shipyard, and that was absolutely nothing, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for speaking has lapsed.

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, do you know what replaced that activity at Marystown? Absolutely nothing! That was the reason you seen the exodus of skilled workers leaving this Province from that area.

Well, what is going to happen when these two particular platforms come off this summer and we see hundreds of more jobs gone and not being replaced in the exploration industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, with no new deals on the horizon, no new oil project to be started under the current Tory government that likes to be the big deal maker in this Province? We are not seeing it. Where is the new economic stimulation for Newfoundland and Labrador going to come from? The Minister of Business could not tell us that. He has some files that he is working on, he said. He does not know what is going to materialize. He has some files that he is working on up there.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this to the hon. members, if they think that pumping $15 million into a private cable company is stimulating the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, well boy, I got news for you fellows, because it certainly is not. No, Mr. Chairman, it is not.

When I listen to people, like the Minister of Business, get up and talk about how there was nothing done under a Liberal government to drive the economy, and to sit there and know full well that today, without the oil industry in this Province, all of which was done under Liberal governments, I say, and Liberal Premiers, that there would not be an Atlantic Accord deal to even sit down and negotiate. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, members tend to forget very important and significant developments like that, that have been the catalyst for development in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only for the last decade but will be for the next decade, even in the absence of the lack of activity and the no negotiation and the no deals by the members opposite, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to take my leave now because I know I have ten minutes that I can get back up again while we are in Committee. I will reserve the rest of my comments until then.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I wanted to respond a little bit. I was not intending to respond to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair because I did have things that I wanted to talk about, but I do want respond to that to some degree. She did start out by saying that the Atlantic Accord and the oil deals were done by previous Liberal Premiers and Liberal Prime Ministers. Mr. Chair, that is absolutely incorrect. I was involved in politics a long time before I was elected and I remember going to the Hotel Newfoundland when former Premier Peckford and Prime Minister Mulroney did the Atlantic Accord deal. That was done by the former Premier Peckford and Prime Minister Mulroney.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you this, the full intent of the Atlantic Accord was broken by former Liberal Premiers, which is what the Premier of this Province, the current Premier, Premier Williams, fought to have reinstated. That is what we did. That is what we did under the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what we did, Mr. Chair, because former Liberal Premiers allowed that Accord to be broken and allowed our resources to be taken without the full benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what happened by former Liberal Premiers, Mr. Chair. Former Liberal Premiers had further giveaways, such as Voisey's Bay, something that this Administration would not do. We are not going to sign a deal just for the sake of signing a deal unless it gives full and fair benefits to the people who own the resource, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what we are all about, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: She says we are not open for business. I will tell you what we are not open for, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will tell you what we are not open for, Mr. Chair, we are not open for giveaways.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: There will be no more giveaways under our watch, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Justice. I ask members for their co-operation and allow the Minister of Justice to use his speaking time to deliver his speech here in the House of Assembly.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, I will tell you what, all we need to do is look back at former Liberal Administrations and deals, such as the Upper Churchill deal and deals such as Voisey's Bay, to know what we want in this Province.

MS JONES: Tell me, what's wrong with Voisey's Bay?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is asking us to tell her what is wrong with Voisey's Bay. Over the next ten years, if we were to take all of the royalties that we are going to get out of Voisey's Bay we would have enough for a party for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, enough for a snack pack-and-a-half. That is about what we would get out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are not interested in giveaways, Mr. Chair. What we are interested in is good deals for the people of this Province, and I think the approval ratings for this government speak very loudly and very clearly to the job that we are doing, because the people of this Province, knowing that Newfoundland and Labrador is the wealthiest Province in all of Canada, resource-wise, with the second smallest population in Canada, this Province should be the wealthiest Province in Canada. Do you know what, Mr. Chair? Because of bad deals, because of giveaways, because of the people of this Province not getting the full and fair benefit for our resources, Newfoundland and Labrador is fiscally the poorest Province in Canada, and that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, Mr. Chair, to this Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is not acceptable to the Premier of this Province and it is no longer acceptable to the people of the Province.

I remember last year as Minister of Health, just to give an example, we had to do a re-registration on MCP. Why did we do that? Because there are 80,000 more MCP cards in circulation than there are people living in the Province. That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Chair, because there are people who have left the Province in order to find work elsewhere. Do you know why they have left? Because we have not taken full advantage of our resources to give full benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is changing under this Administration, Mr. Chair. That is changing under this Administration. We are no longer prepared to allow our resources to benefit everybody else and not us.

Mr. Chair, there was a review done in 1997, and I remember at the time because I was the critic for the Department of Industry. I remember that review. There was information released by the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development in 1997 which compared Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario and how they were benefitting as a result of exports from this Province and how we were benefitting as a result of imports from Ontario. Mr. Chair, let me tell you what that review found. There were 4,000 jobs created in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of products that were imported from Ontario. Most of those 4,000 jobs were low paying jobs, clerks and cashiers at places like Wal-Mart and Dominion and the like, because we are importing manufactured finished goods from Ontario.

The reality is, there were 22,000 jobs created in Ontario as a result of imports to Ontario from this Province, Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of our exports directly to Ontario, most of those jobs were manufacturing jobs as a result of raw resources from this Province going to that province. They were relatively high paying jobs, 22,000 of them. That is what we are trying to change. That is what we are trying to turnaround, Mr. Chair. That is what we do not agree with. That is what this Administration does not agree with. That is why we fought for the Atlantic Accord. That is why what the federal government are doing right now is so unfortunate and so unfair to this Province. When you find that we are now put in a position, under their - the promise that they made to remove natural non-renewable resources from equalization, they made that promise to this Province and to Nova Scotia and to every other province in Canada, but they broke that promise.

What that means to this Province is similar to what Nova Scotia had to do just last week when they weighed both sides of the debate and made the determination that it was better for them to get out of the Atlantic Accord, which this Province and Nova Scotia fought so hard for, they made the determination that it was better for them to get out of the Atlantic Accord. We are now faced with the same decision. Do we take the deal that Harper is giving, or do we stay in the Atlantic Accord? We should not be faced with having to make that decision. We should not be faced with having to make that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Do you know why we should not be faced with having to make that decision? Because of the promise that the Prime Minister has made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chair, these are the words of Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he said, "This is a commitment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has it origins in the intentions of the Atlantic Accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100 % of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, before the election, and it remains our commitment today."

Well, what happened, Mr. Chair, to his commitment, when you have a Province like Nova Scotia who has pulled out of the Atlantic Accord, and a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador who have to seriously consider our options? It is a broken promise.

Mr. Chair, he goes on to say, "The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign. Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out." Non-renewable resources that will run out. "Why is the government..." - of Canada - "... so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?"

Well, Mr. Chair, that is a good question, and it is a question that perhaps Prime Minister Stephen Harper should answer today, because what has happened here is that the election promise that he made after the Atlantic Accord deal was signed, sealed and delivered, after we had the full benefits of the Atlantic Accord deal, the full intended benefits that were signed under Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Brian Peckford, after that deal was recognized by Prime Minister Paul Martin and our Premier, and we finally got what was intended under the Atlantic Accord, he made the promise that non-renewable resources such as nickel, that the former Premier, Roger Grimes, allowed to be shipped to Ontario and Manitoba, iron ore which former Premier Tobin allowed to be shipped out, when we see all of those non-renewable resources such as pulp and paper, such as other resources, that are considered non-renewable in many circumstances, it was determined that these non-renewable resources would be exempt from clawback under equalization.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Justice that his time for speaking has expired.

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

I have another ten minutes later on today, and I will certainly be glad to stand and speak again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand today to speak to this particular bill and talk about Interim Supply.

As I listened to the Minister of Justice, he has very selective memory. The irony in all of this, of course, is that he talks about whether or not they will sign a deal, no giveaways. Well, the reality of it is that by the time they do get around to signing a deal there is not going to be anyone left in this Province to take advantage of it. We have people leaving daily. It is fine and dandy to say no giveaways, but there has to be compromise, and anybody would know that when you strike a business deal there has to be compromise. You do not give anything away; you do what is in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whenever they want to talk about bad deals, things that the Liberal Administration signed, what do they talk about? The Upper Churchill, Voisey's Bay, and that is it. Then they stop. It is all so general. They throw out these statements and they do not back them up, because they know they cannot back them up. The irony in this is that Voisey's Bay is going well, people are employed in this Province, they are not having to leave and go to Alberta, but what does the Minister of Justice say? Give it ten years. Like his boss said from time to time, you could drive a Mack truck through it. Well, we are still waiting to see where that Mack truck is, because I have yet to see where it can go through the Voisey's Bay deal.

We have thousands of people employed in this Province as a result of the Voisey's Bay deal. Most of the people who are employed in this Province, up until they had to go away, were employed because of deals struck by the previous Liberal government, deals that made it possible for people to be employed, to support their families and to see this Province move ahead. In fact, we were leading the country in growth. Then we were at the middle of the pack. Where are we now? Where are we going to be in 2008? We are going to be at the bottom of the list, the bottom of all of the provinces in the country.

So, tell me what this government has done to make a difference. We were leading the pack and we were in the middle of the pack all because of initiatives of the previous Liberal Administrations. Now, in 2008, we are going to be at the bottom of the pack and this government has been in power for four years, and what has it done? Absolutely nothing.

Wait now, there is this infamous Accord. How can we forget the infamous Accord, the only thing that ever gets raised as a major accomplishment of this Premier? Well, you know, if it was not for a Liberal government in Ottawa looking to get re-elected, wanting the seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, you would not have had the Accord. I mean, how foolish to think that a government in Ottawa would do what it did if they weren't desperate for seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, and desperate to win an election? For the Premier to be standing and patting himself on the back is so silly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: As I listen to them talk about general statements about this and about that, and why you have not done anything or cannot do anything on giveaways, no specifics, as always, no specifics, because they know that where we are in terms of people working in this Province is as a result of initiatives of the previous Liberal government. They know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: I can talk about that, Mr. Chair, because I have a community in my district, in Fortune -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - a community in my district called Fortune, and it came up today in the House of Assembly. This is a community that is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I do not mean to disrupt and take away from the time that the hon. Member for Grand Bank has, but we are getting a lot of sniping here coming from the other side. I say to the members opposite, we are here, possibly until as late a ten o'clock tonight. I invite each and every one of you to stand up in your appropriate times and do whatever shouting and bawling and screaming you want to do, but please, please, do the courteous thing, the respectful thing, and allow the Member for Grand Bank to finish her speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, to that point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, I am not about to give a lecture or anything. I agree with the essence of what my colleague has said, but I mean this cuts both ways. I mean, the Minister of Justice was just on his feet and indeed gave a fine speech, but I hardly heard a word he said because of the yelling, particularly from Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and others on the opposition side. You know, I agree and we should do, and it is the right thing to do, but it cuts both ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Simmer down, I agree, yes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has been hearing and listening to the heckling and the conversations across the House ever since the committee began. The Chair has been reluctant to name the person by their district, the person that is doing most of the calling, but let me assure you, from here on in this afternoon, when people are interrupting other people talking, the Chair will not hesitate to say the person's name and the district that they are from in order to let people know who is causing the disturbances in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: And I hope that interruption does not take away from my time, Mr. Chair, because it is you that I rely upon to protect us when we stand up here making some remarks about where we are today in this Province and who is responsible for what from different perspectives.

I want to talk about Fortune, and you know that Fortune came up today. It came up because of a letter that was written in my district that contained total, total, false information, but I will not go there. I will talk about Fortune though, because I had asked the Premier a very important question on behalf of the town of Fortune and it was one that he totally ignored, just to come back at me with a letter that was written by the Chairman of the Concerned Citizens Committee. It was a serious question, and it was a serious question because we have a town that is in desperate need of help, desperate need of support from this government.

I say from this government, because if you look at what has happened in Fortune, a town that had a fish plant that employed hundreds of people, and not just from Fortune but from different communities in my own district, and I have twenty communities in my district, the reality of it is that the fish plant closed under this government's watch. They allowed FPI to ride roughshod over not only the people of Fortune but in other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, wherever there was an active fishery going on.

Here we are now in Fortune with a plant that has been closed, they have not been working. They have been waiting, they have been hopeful that something will materialize. Discussions have been held with interested parties, but nothing has materialized.

Here we are today in a community where they have an arena. Let's take that for an example, an arena that the town usually puts in a sum of money to help that arena so that it can operate. Guess what? They came to this government looking for some financial assistance to keep that arena going at a time when people are in desperate shape, when people want something to take their minds off where they are today, the fact that they do not have enough money to make ends meet and they cannot provide for their families. The town thought that they would go to the government who would obviously understand the situation they find themselves in, because government was a part of the process that resulted in the fish plant closing. What they got back from this government was: Sorry, we do not have appropriate resources available. They were looking for $60,000 and that would be the town's contribution to ensure that the arena continued to operate. They were told that the government does not have appropriate resources available. They were told that from the Minister of Tourism and they were told that from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If you look at where the money is going, and I looked at the Interim Supply Bill here, I am sure that this government could find $60,000 to help that town continue the operation of its arena.

That is one part. The other part is that we have hundreds of people having to leave Fortune and other communities just to make ends meet. These are people who are in their fifties and sixties. These are not just the young people. These are grandparents. They are having to go away because they really cannot find employment. There is so little activity happening in Fortune that the fish plant was always the mainstay in terms of the employment possibilities. Today, that fish plant is closed.

While we sit here and we debate back and forth about all of these issues, I can tell you that there are a group of people in a community called Fortune, and in other communities where they work out of Fortune, who are desperately in need of this government to sit up and take notice of the situation that they are finding themselves in.

Early retirement package, for example: I heard the Premier say: We are going to go it alone. We do not need Ottawa. We are going to go it alone on some issues. Well, I hope the early retirement package is one of them, because if you are waiting on Ottawa to come through with money for an early retirement package it is not going to happen.

You have all said, the Premier has said, the Minister of Fisheries has said, that your 30 per cent dollars are on the table, but we are not going to let the feds off the hook. How come you are not going to let the feds off the hook on this issue, but you are prepared to let them off the hook on other issues? We have people who need you to let the feds off the hook if it means that they are going to have an income, if it means that they do not have to go away to camps in B.C. or go away to camps in New Brunswick or go away to Alberta. They need you to come to the table, to put your money on the table and find a way of helping support these individuals who have worked so hard all of their lives to make a living in the fishery, and not just in the fish plant.

We do need you, as a government, to acknowledge that this is a serious issue. You keep paying it lip service. You keep saying, well, we have our money on the table, we are waiting for the feds to come to the table. Well, now is the time. The Premier has said we are going to go it alone on some issues. Well this is one you need to go it alone on. If not, all these fine things you are talking about that you are going to do - I do not know when you are going to do it, mind you - but all of these great things you want to do, there is not going to be anyone left here to take advantage of it.

Fortune is in a desperate shape, and when I raise questions on behalf of that community I do it on their behalf. They ask me to do so. The Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune is comprised of about twenty people and it is people of different parts, as I said, of my district, not just Fortune. When the executive of that committee write a letter, it does not necessarily reflect what the concerned citizens mean and want. Lets keep that in mind. Because you have an executive it does not necessarily reflect what the members of the town or the Concerned Citizens Committee want. I would not say that if this had not happened in the last week, where in fact there was a letter written that contained false information and was in fact written for no other reason, I think, then because they received a phone call asking what I was up to, asking questions on behalf of a meeting, about a letter or asking the Premier about a meeting on behalf of the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune.

I was asking that question because I was asked to do it and I was asking it because it was the right thing to do. What is wrong with trying to get access to ministers and the Premier for people in our Province who are having a difficult time making ends meat and who are looking to their government for the type of support they are going to need to just make sure-

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - that the community continues to exist.

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will have another ten minutes later on. I will come back.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, we hear so much from the naysayers and the doomers and gloomers in this Province about, the sky is falling with out-migration and no job creation and unemployment and everybody leaving and nothing happening and the demise of rural Newfoundland. I am going to cause some grief and consternation for the other side today, because I am going to speak about some good things that are happening in this Province. I know they do not like to hear that, but the fact is that the face of rural Newfoundland is changing. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of pressure in rural Newfoundland and this government understands that and recognizes that and recognizes that it is perhaps our biggest challenge, to combat what is happening in rural Newfoundland. The government did not cause this trend. We did not cause it, but it is a favourite pastime to associate it, of course, with the government in power. All the negativity associated with what is happening in rural Newfoundland with out-migration and so on all falls on the shoulders of the government, even though we have had very little to do with it.

Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is that the future of this Province has never been brighter, and that is what I want to talk about today. Obviously, between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of Newfoundlanders agree with that. They agree with that! Over 70 per cent of Newfoundlanders do not agree that the sky is falling. They support the initiative and the trust and the confidence that this leader and this government portrays, and that is reflected in the polls. The popularity of this government continues to soar, so the sky cannot be falling.

I want to take a few minutes, Madam Chair, to reflect on some of the positive initiatives that this government is doing; sorts of things that inspire the hope and confidence in our people, the sorts of things that inspire the polls to reflect what they are, the sorts of things that offset what the naysayers and the doomers and gloomers are talking about. If you only get one-half of what we have on the table, Madam Chair, then we would be in great shape in this Province; great shape.

Let me talk, first of all, Madam Chair, about our resource-based industries. Our resource-based industries are the most significant drivers of the economy. The strategic development of our natural resources holds considerable potential for future prosperity in this Province. In particular, I want to talk about the mining industry.

The mining industry of Newfoundland and Labrador produces more than a dozen mineral commodities which contribute to our economy and quality of life. The mining industry of Newfoundland and Labrador today accounts for 3.0 per cent of the GDP, and direct employment in the Province's mining industry is estimated at more than 3,450 full-time jobs. That is in rural Newfoundland, most of them; a very exciting time in our mining sector.

For the first time, as the Premier alluded to the other day, for the first time in our history a mineral resource is being brought into this Province for processing. The arrival of gold ore from Greenland for processing at Nugget Pond Mine in February, just one of the many good news stories happening in this Province, will bring prosperity and economic development to the Baie Verte Peninsula. The value of our mineral shipments is expected to reach a record $3 billion in 2007; a 400 per cent increase in just three years. A significant part of this comes from Voisey's Bay nickel-copper-cobalt mine - which our people across the way will jump quickly to acknowledge - which just completed its first full year of production.

So far this year, the Province is seeing significant new mining activity and that is a tremendous boost for the companies involved in the industry and for many of our rural communities, because that is where these mineral resources are located. The last time I looked, there were no mineral resources in St. John's or no mining being carried out on the Northeast Avalon.

The new Duck Pond base metal mines are now in production in Millertown, and the department expects to see the opening of the Anaconda gold mine near Baie Verte, and the reopening of the Beaver Brook antimony mine near Glenwood later this year.

With regard to exploration and new mineral development, Madam Chair, the benefits of exploration activities are realized with all Newfoundland and Labrador, and our government recognizes the importance of the mining industry and its contribution to the provincial economy, particularly in the more rural parts of this Province; and we emphasis that. We are seeing record exploration expenditures in our Province; $98 million spent last year and $116 million to be spent this year. The sky is not falling, Madam Chair.

Also, our government has increased funding under the Mineral Incentive Program, about 55 per cent last year, and are committed to continue to invest in exploration geo-sciences programs to help promote resource development.

Madam Chair, our colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, recently returned from the premier industrial mining conference in Toronto where the Province received the highest turnout ever at the Newfoundland and Labrador sponsored reception. The minister was very encouraged by the level of interest expressed by mining companies over the mineral prospects of Newfoundland and Labrador and the positive regulatory climate that exists here.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best place in Canada.

MR. COLLINS: The best place in Canada.

Great things are happening in the resource industries of this Province, and this government is committed to continue to foster the positive relationships and provide a supportive environment for these industries to grow in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chair, let me quote from The Telegram of last Wednesday. A report of Scotia economics which provides clients with in-depth research and, in fact, they are shaping the outlook for Canada in a global economy. Growth economics say that oil and mining is expected to push the Province to lead 2007 growth. Canada is expected to post slower output growth for the third consecutive year. However, Newfoundland and Labrador nickel mines and offshore oil fields and non-residential construction will remain a key source of growth in such areas of public infrastructure, sea and airport expansions and commercial building developments.

Madam Chair, I want to refer briefly to activities going on in that far greater bay, Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Long Harbour.

MR. COLLINS: Well, we will mention Long Harbour; absolutely. I will mention Long Harbour first of all. I fully anticipate that our colleagues on the other side will take credit for this. Unfortunately, we would much rather have a much stronger agreement than was signed for the benefit of Inco. We would much rather see higher royalties. We would much rather - in the Placentia area, I am sure - have kept them in Argentia. However, be that as it may, we look forward to the construction. If the agreement is solid enough to bind it, if the agreement is solid enough, we are keeping our fingers crossed that construction will start in the later part of 2008, early 2009 in Long Harbour. We are looking at 3,000 jobs in construction if that comes to pass; 400 permanent jobs in operation. That is a lot of growth and prosperity for an entire region and Province. We are keeping our fingers crossed, Madam Chair, that will come to pass. BBNC is currently going around the Province having supplier information sessions, giving updates and special considerations for contracting and procurement services relating to that project.

Madam Chair, as well, in The Telegram on Friday we had a very interesting article called: Location is Everything. It is a report of Brian Dalton of Altus Minerals to the Rotary Club of St. John's about a very exiting second refinery project in Placentia Bay. It is not in my district, Madam Chair, but I am sure all of Placentia Bay will benefit. It is a privately financed crude oil refinery, one of the best in a class refinery in all sorts of ways. It will offer this Province the opportunity to develop a petrochemical industry and be a key element in the future development of this Province. Seven hundred and fifty permanent jobs if it comes to fruition, Madam Chair, and another 3,000 jobs during construction, and if the stars are aligned right the construction period will overlap the construction period of Voisey's Bay at 6,000 jobs. There is a lot of potential there. The sky is not falling, I say, Madam Chair.

The environmental assessment processes for both projects are ongoing and in various states of progress. We look forward to seeing both of these things come to fruition.

Madam Chair, if we combine these projects, the Voisey's Bay Project, the second refinery, the liquified natural gas project, and the current Come by Chance refinery, the activity in Placentia Bay will be intense. Discussions are ongoing now with all the stakeholders, including the fisherpeople, environmental people and tourist people, to make sure that all these interests can exist in harmony in Placentia Bay. It is being done right.

When one considers the spinoff of all of this in terms of increased Coast Guard facilities, vessel monitoring facilities, and oil spill and clean-up facilities, the potential is tremendous. The possibilities are heady, actually. When we combine that, Madam Chair, with the other provincial initiatives such as aquaculture, offshore oil, the lower Churchill -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just a few minutes, Madam Chair, to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, to clue up.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave, to clue up.

MR. COLLINS: If you combine all of these with what is on the go, if we get half of what is on the table, just half of what is on the table, we will be in great shape in this Province.

The sky is not falling, Madam Chair, far from it. The future of this Province has never looked better, and hats off to this Premier and this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who are leading this Province in that direction, supported by almost 80 per cent of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say thank you to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for his acknowledgment of all the fine work that the Liberal government has done over the previous years. There was not one statement, unfortunately, in his speech, that gave credit to one piece of new industry that this government has undertaken over the past four years. You know, the sky is not falling, that is what you are saying, but this is a reality check. I am a realist; I like to call it where it really is.

You mentioned industries that had been brought to fruition by the Liberal government. I think you were one of the people who campaigned against Voisey's Bay going to Argentia. Voisey's Bay has been the bright spot for our government, when we were in power, and for this government. I would not want to think where we would be today without Voisey's Bay. Right now, there are over 600 people employed at Voisey's Bay. Next year, with the treatment plant coming on stream, there will probably be another 600 thanks to the Liberal initiative.

I remember sitting on the government side and I heard arguments presented by the government of today, which were the Opposition then, and everyone sitting over there today was against the Voisey's Bay deal, particularly the Premier, and his words echoed in everyone's mind across this Province, that you could drive a Mack truck through the Voisey's Bay deal. Now, I have not seen a Mack truck parked outside of this Confederation Building waiting to drive through the legislation that was put in place for Voisey's Bay.

MR. REID: They were bragging about it over there today, and they voted against it.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I know. You have to tell it like you see it. Without that Voisey's Bay deal, I tell you, we would be in hard shape here today.

The Minister of Finance, in his own publication that came out a few days ago, said: We are heavily reliant on securing our future. We are heavily reliant on volatile oil prices.

Now, where would you be without oil today? I understand CBC are doing a documentary tonight on the importance of the oil industry to our Province, and what it means to us.

It is true that the federal government came down a few days ago and hit us hard when they said that we could not have all of our natural resources exempted from equalization if we were to take Option B. They clearly broke their promise, so what is that going to mean to us as a Province? We do not know, really, what Option B is going to cost us. That, I would like to see analyzed, and I would like to see a good report of that out in the public so everybody could have a look at it. We know that we can stay in Option A, stay like we are, but I would like to know, if we choose Option B, what it will mean to us as a Province.

I am very concerned as well, the federal government has just made a change to their Canada Health and Social Transfer to our Province. One time they based it - there was a base - it did not matter how many people lived in our Province; there was a comfortable base of money that we were going to receive, regardless, whether there were 300,000 people here or a million. We had a base of funding that was guaranteed from the federal government, and we knew we were going to get X number of dollars for that Canada Health and Social Transfer, but the federal government has changed their mind on that issue and we are now going to get that funding based on the number of bodies in this Province, the number of people.

A few weeks ago, Stats Canada came out and said our population had moved down to 505,000 people. So, based on what has happened over the past four years, this time next year our population is going to be down under 500,000 people, so what is that going to do to our funding from the Canada Health and Social Transfer funding? Now, nobody has spoken about that. I do not know if they want to make it an issue, because we already know that the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador, our Premier and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is very sour. If the Premier brings up this issue, there are a couple of rippling effects. Number one, he will have to admit that our population is decreasing, and the federal government has decided to put in the funding based on the population. He knows full well that he does not have a chance of getting that decision reversed because he has not been asked by the Prime Minister to take part in any kind of talks or consultations regarding this funding. He has not been invited to the table, and he knows he will not be invited to the table, so this is one issue that is really troubling and we should all be concerned about it throughout our Province.

The money that comes in through this funding arrangement is for child care, it is to look after education, and all the social programs that go on in our Province, the funding, or a large part of it, comes from the Health and Social Transfer funding. Right now, it is going to be based on the number of actual people living in our Province instead of just a baseline, whether or not the population is 200,000 or 700,000, so that is a big worry and a big concern.

It was interesting to hear the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talk about the mining going on in our Province. One of the issues here was the acknowledgment of Aur Resources in Millertown, Duck Pond, and the contribution that they have made to mining in our Province. They have invested, to date, $120 million into Aur Resources, Duck Pond mine, just by Millertown.

I, and many more like me, the Mayor of Buchans and others, we have petition after petition, asking that this government acknowledge the condition of the road leading to the Duck Pond mine. After repeated petitions, news releases, radio interviews and media interviews, you will not believe what I am going to tell you. The government of the day decided they would provide $600,000 to repair the broken shoulders on the Buchans Highway that leads to 250 full-time jobs that this government never had two years ago.

Out of $600,000, how much money is actually going to go on that highway for work? Four hundred and seventy-five thousand. There is going be a 14 per cent HST come off the project and there is going to be a 10 per cent engineering fee. Take that off your $600,000 and you have $475,000. What can that do for upgrades to a highway where you have 250 people going in and out to work, there are goods and services being sold, the treasury of this Province is collecting income tax and tax on everything that is bought and sold, and on everything that happens at the mine? In their wisdom, they have given $475,000 for upgrades to that highway, when they are reaping so much from it after government putting absolutely not one penny into it.

If that is an acknowledgment from this government on what they intent to do for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they are just speaking to the wrong people, it is falling on deaf ears.

Then we see member after member getting up and talking about all the wonderful things that this government has been doing to improve the economy of our Province. Well, I could not believe my eyes last week when I noticed that the fees that were brought in, in 2004 - someone wanting to put up a garden, a little bit on their own to grow a few vegetables to put in their pot and try to live a bit healthier, this government, in their wisdom, decided to increase that Crown land fee from $10 to $25 a year. Now, anyone who has had an occasion to drive up the Northern Peninsula knows that there is a garden on every part of the highway with markers of flags and plastic bags, or what have you. Everyone has a garden going up over the highway on the Northern Peninsula. I am sure the Member for St. Barbe knows all about it, he is looking over here.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just one minute, if you would not mind, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, of course.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for your generosity, I will not abuse it.

I just want to say in closing, that it is difficult for anyone out there in the general public to see what has actually been done over the pass four years. You had a couple of big infusions of money from Ottawa that did a few things to Civil Service Pension Funds. But, what have you created in the way of new industry? I can tell you, they are not in these two books from the Minister of Business or the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. It talks about strategies, you cannot eat strategies. There is a book with not one of these plans in place.

I say to the voters out there today, take time to look and see what this government has really done.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure to rise and have a few words on Bill 71.

Following the remarks of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I would like to avail of this time to wish her well now that she has announced her retirement from politics. She has certainly made a contribution to the House. She is always very creative in her remarks and can paint something black when it may not necessarily be black. That, I guess, is the job of the Opposition. I do wish her well.

Madam Chair, just to remind the members again, and those who are listening, what we are talking about here is Interim Supply. It is in the order of about $1.6 billion. Just looking quickly at it, there are about twenty different departments or line items on the page where that $1.6 billion is being allocated. This, of course, is not all of the money that will be spent by government, but is a portion thereof.

Of that $1.6 billion, if we look at the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Community Services, those two departments alone take up roughly $1 billion of that $1.6 billion that we are looking at here today. Then, if we go to a third item, which is the Department of Transportation and Works, there is almost another $300 million there. So, after those three departments are looked after we have roughly $300 million of the $1.6 billion left for the other seventeen departments or agencies that are listed on this Interim Supply Bill.

That will kind of tell you that even though we are approving here $1.6 billion, after a couple of big items kick in there is really, really not a lot of money to go around for the other seventeen. Among those other seventeen we do not have just small departments, Madam Chair. We have the Department of Environment, the Department of Fisheries, Innovation, Natural Resources, Tourism, all very demanding departments which are there to share some $300 million. Also, among them is the Department of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and if I have time I will make some more detailed remarks about the expenditures in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

There are always choices that have to be made by a government. It is not hard for me at this time to support this $1.6 billion or to support this Interim Supply Bill, because I know that by approving this money we are not going further in the hole. Our past two budgets from this government have shown that we have stopped the decline, we have stopped the overspending and we have gotten the Province on a sound financial footing. Also, Madam Chair, it is not difficult to support it because I know that the money is being spent wisely.

As I say, there are always choices that have to be made and some of those choices are very difficult, and those in the various departments will understand the difficulty in making those. Anyone who listens to the news any given day of the week will hear the Multiple Sclerosis Society campaign for the drugs for MS, and we hear the Alzheimer's Society campaign for the drugs for that particular disease. There are the schools that need money, and of course, the constant demand for repair and paving of roads within the Province and the infrastructure. The municipalities need money. But there is only a certain amount of money to go around and that is why, Madam Chair, we have to make choices.

We, as a government, are trying to be responsible in the choices that we are making, but I guess the one choice that we are not prepared to make is to go ahead and spend money that we do not have. We have stopped the overspending. We have stopped the practice of spending on the government credit card and going farther and farther in the hole.

I do not understand, Madam Chair, some of the Opposition remarks over the past couple of days. This is only the third day that the House has been open. I do not understand exactly where they are coming from in terms of talking about the expenditures that we are making.

My colleague, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, just spoke about the constant message that is being put out by the Opposition that the sky is falling, everything is black in the Province, we better get out now while the going is good. Of course, if anyone listened to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's they would understand that there is a lot of positive news on the go in the Province.

Again the hon. Member for Grand Bank was up today and reiterated - these may be words that are stuck in her head because a couple of days ago the same words came forward. She was saying: People are leaving in droves. It is a tragedy. The way it is going now there will not be anybody left in the Province. Now this was from a couple of days ago in the House and we heard the same words again today.

The other choice that we could make, Madam Chair, that I guess is being advocated by the Opposition is that we should have done these deals, we should have been better at negotiating, we should have done this, should have done that. Somebody had the phrase today, there are hundreds of jobs being lost. But this has been the practice over our history. Let's take it now and have those couple of jobs or that 100 jobs and keep people happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDGLEY: The other aspect that goes along with this, Madam Chair, is the aspect of the lineup on Kenmount Road there before Christmas. How many times have we seen the Opposition - I think it is absolutely abhorrent to wave that around and grin and laugh and say that this is somehow the fault of this government. This is a global occurrence, Madam Chair, that is on the go where people here in this Province - why would you deny somebody in this Province when there is a bonanza on the go in Alberta, to avail of that? We are bringing a lot of Alberta money back to this Province. In any community here, from the West Coast to the East to the Northern Peninsula, I would say there is money in all of those communities that is being spent, Alberta money being spent here in this Province.

The Opposition would have you believe that somehow the Premier's stance is wrong. They would have him sit down and negotiate, for example, with Exxon Oil, who last year was the largest corporate profit maker in the whole of the United States. Now, when you look at that, we are supposed to sit down with these people and apologize for demanding 4.9 per cent equity in our oil. We wanted an equity position of 4.9 per cent. We are supposed to say to these people - and apologize for the fact that we have demanded a little bit more, Madam Chair.

What is wrong exactly with the Premier's position? The word that is being used by the Opposition over there is the Premier's confrontational style. Over the past, I guess, three days we have heard it no fewer than perhaps thirty times that there is something wrong with the Premier's confrontational style. In fact, Madam Chair, the Opposition would have the Premier painted in a bad light. I jotted down, before I got up to speak, another nine words that they could have used which means the same thing as confrontational but casting a more positive light. They could have said that the Premier is taking a very forceful stand. He is taking a very strong stand, a firm stand, a vigorous stand, an unyielding stand, a confident stand, a solid stand, a robust stand, a steadfast stand; all positive things -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: All positive things for this Province. Instead, they have chosen to use the word confrontational and to imply some negative effect to the stand that is being taken by the Premier. Madam Chair, even if we use the word confrontational, there are times that people have to be confronted. For example, we confront people in the courtroom. A person is confronted by the fact that he was seen at the scene of the crime holding the gun. He has to be confronted with that evidence.

Madam Chair, the Prime Minister of Canada has to be confronted with the fact that these are his words when he talks about: We will leave you with 100 per cent of your oil and gas revenues. These are the words of the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, when he says: 100 per cent of your resources, no small print, no excuses, no caps. Once again, the Prime Minister needs to be confronted. If that is what confrontational means, I say let's go for it. Let's confront him with the fact that he said no small print, no excuses, no caps. And we have our three Conservative MPs up there who also need to be confronted. If that is what confrontational means, let's confront them with the fact that they need to stand up for this Province and not say that nothing is being lost. Something is, in fact, being lost. Something will be lost a couple of years down the road.

What is it exactly that the Opposition would have us do? They would have us call up the people from ExonMobil who made into the billions of dollars last year and simply say -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. RIDGLEY: - would you come back to the table, ExonMobil? Would you come back? We are sorry. We did not mean to ask for any ownership in our oil.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. RIDGLEY: I thank you for your reminder, Madam Chair. I will just clue up here now -

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDGLEY: - and simply say that the black picture that is being painted by the members of the Opposition - and I do not understand exactly what they are talking about. I believe the Member for Port de Grave stood up the other day and said - maybe I misheard him - that the population in his area was growing. I believe that is what he said. So it is not altogether black in the Province, Madam Chair, despite the rants and raves and the hollow yelling that I hear from across the floor. I would remind some of those who are yelling at me right now, it is always the hollow base drum that makes the loudest sound.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words again in debate here concerning Interim Supply. I say to the Member for St. John's North, I believe it is as well, that one should always keep one's words soft and sweet because you never know when you might have to eat them.

I will start by saying, that you people have only been on watch for three-and-a-half years, folks. I have heard several members over there today get up and tell us about the doomers and the gloomers from over on this side; paints everything black, pictures like that. But I remind the people of this Province today that the crowd who currently form the government, you have only been here three-and-a-half short years.

MR. HICKEY: Look at what we have done.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, indeed look at what you have done in such a short time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will point out to the public, that whenever it is necessary for you to rise, to claim quiet like that and to ask for order, that is because people opposite here, these same government members who I am trying to make a few comments about, before I ever have a chance to open my mouth they shout you down. That is the kind of respect that these government members show to members of the Opposition here who are trying to make a point.

I will make my points, regardless of how loud you scream, because they need to be made. I say to the members opposite, that is why I say choose your words sweetly and softly because you never know when you might have to eat them. The members over on this side, there have been a few things that we did when we were members of government that you wish now had turned out differently, that you wish there had been more information on when you made a certain decision back when, that you wish did not go the way that they went, but that is hindsight and it is easy to talk from hindsight.

For example, I could point out, in three short years you talk about little scandals that have been on the go, like fur coats to premier's of other provinces, fibre deals where $15 million bucks gets given to certain people, certain friends of the Premier. We can talk about the former MHA candidates who ran in places like Bellevue, Ms Cleary, who got appointed to the Bull Arm site corporation at one hundred-and-some-odd grand a year and handed out contracts in breach of the law, did not comply with the Public Tender Act and got fired because of it. You talk about your trans-cities and everything else of the past, we can talk about in the short time you fellows have been on watch, about the Max Ruelokke's cases and the C-NOPB which cost this Province hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs. If you want to go to that, if that is where you want to take this debate, which ought to be an informed debate, we can go there. God forbid what is going to be coming out of those benches if you are there for another three-and-a-half years because we have seen that in just three-and-a-half.

Let's get into one of the deals that one of the members over there today was talking about. I believe it was the current Minister of Justice who talked about the great failure of the past, the Upper Churchill. I do believe, historically, that everybody in the House at the time voted for that unanimously. I believe that is a fact, and I believe the Government House Leader - he has been around a long time but he has not been around that long - will verify what I am saying, that everybody in this House voted for the Upper Churchill contract at the time. There was not a single person, no matter if you were Liberal, PC or whatever - there were no NDPs at the time - who voted against that Upper Churchill contract. So don't go standing here today, when we all have the benefit of hindsight, and say: My God, why hadn't we thought about an escalator clause back then? We wouldn't be in this mess.

No, you have to politicize it. It is like the Lower Churchill deal. Didn't get it, haven't got it yet. We will see if we are going to get it. I hope we produce enough power in the next five or ten years that everybody on the Eastern Seaboard needs it and will pay top dollar to get it. That is what I wish. That is what I would like to see. Now, whether we are going to get there or not we won't know. In fact, the Premier has even said himself, it is 2009 before we are ever going to get sanction on the Lower Churchill.

Now, we have a lot of other issues. That is just the environmental piece. We need to know, are the feds going to come on side? Are we going to be able to route it through Quebec? Who are we going to get as the final engineering people who are going to put the engineering work together? There is a multitude of issues that have to be resolved, so let's nobody go tooting their horns yet about the Lower Churchill.

It is like Voisey's Bay; the Member for Placentia got up here today and talked about what Voisey's Bay hasn't got and did not do. Well, I do believe he is the member who represents a district that got a pretty big piece of Voisey's Bay, or are going to get it. I do believe, out of the billions of dollars that are going to come into this Province and have come in so far, the people and the constituents of his district stand to benefit. In fact, the former member who he replaced, Mr. Manning, voted for it. So, I would not think he would be any different if he had been in Mr. Manning's shoes that day. He would have voted for it.

Again, we can sit down and say, I believe it was the member for - I am not quite sure now the name of his district there, Mr. Oram's district.

MR. REID: Terra Nova.

MR. PARSONS: Terra Nova. Pardon me for using his name.

The Member for Terra Nova talked the other day: Well, what about the copper that did not get dealt with in the Voisey's Bay deal, and what about this and so on?

I sat in this House on June 20, 2002, in final submissions about the Voisey's Bay deal, and I asked the Premier of this Province - as a matter of fact, I asked him the day before that, before he ever did his speech - to stand up and tell me exactly where the loopholes are and where you are going to drive the trucks through this deal.

I explained to him, at the time, who the lawyers were who drafted it and played a role in drafting it, which included his own uncle. I made that point that day. The Minister of Justice here today was there then. We never did get an explanation as to where the loopholes were that you could drive a truck through in the Voisey's Bay deal.

In fact, I do believe if you check any financial analyst reports in the last six months, that have come out about this Province, there are two things driving this economy right now. Two things, folks. It is not the fishery and it is not forestry. It is the offshore industry that is driving this Province right now in terms of dollars, and it is Voisey's Bay, the mining industry. I dare anybody over there to stand up and say that they are wholly, solely responsible for the offshore industry in this Province. Dare you to even suggest that you are responsible.

Meanwhile, we have to give credit where credit is due. For example, I would be the first one to let it be publicly known again that if it were not for people like Brian Peckford, who was a Conservative Premier back in the 1980s - we were not successful; we took it to the Supreme Court of Canada because we wanted a whole loaf of bread - we wanted complete ownership of the offshore interest, the same as Alberta has, because theirs is on land. Tried it, never got there. The Supreme Court of Canada shut us down and said no, but I applauded that day and I still applaud to this day the efforts of then Premier Peckford to try to do that. You have to give credit where it is due.

I do not take credit, for example, or say the Liberals of the 1990s should take credit because of Hibernia, which was the send off, the start off, of all of our offshore industry, and put millions and millions of dollars into our coffers today. You have to give credit to Mr. John Crosbie, who was then the Minister of Finance, I do believe. Who can remember when we had those initial shareholders, when some were saying: Oh, we are out of this, it is too expensive. We cannot stay into this, the exploration costs; a barrel of oil is going for twelve bucks, U.S. We just cannot make it. We have to give it up.

So, you had partners who said we have to get out of this, but somebody in the federal government, who happened to be a Conservative, Mr. Crosbie, our regional minister of the day, said no way. He made it happen. He did the deal whereby the federal government put the necessary money in place to see that Hibernia continued.

You have to give credit to individuals like that. Now, that is standing up for this Province. That is a fact. That is not political favouritism or cronyism or anything. That is a fact. That man did that, and he deserves full credit for doing it.

People over there today who are riding on the backs of the money that the offshore oil industry is putting into this Province, none of you people can claim it and take credit for it. The Premier cannot take any credit for it, so do not dare try to take credit for it. I do believe it was a gentleman named Clyde Wells who was on watch when the Hibernia piece was done, thanks to the help, as well, of Mr. Crosbie. I did not see any Tories provincially then signing on the dotted lines. I do believe it was a gentleman named Brian Tobin who signed on the dotted line for Terra Nova.

By the way, does that ring a bell, Terra Nova? I do believe that puts a few millions of dollars into our coffers right now that you people are in a position to do something with and spend, because the groundwork was laid properly.

I do believe there was another one called White Rose.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do believe, just to clue up, there was another one called White Rose. It was an individual named Roger Grimes, who was the Premier of the day, who did that one, and that is where we are with our offshore industry now, folks. We get millions and millions of dollars -

MR. REID: Billions of dollars.

MR. PARSONS: Billions of dollars because we have an offshore industry, even have it.

The question is, are we going to have it down the road? I say that very seriously and sincerely. It is a serious concern in this Province today, if we are going to have an offshore industry in the future. If we do not get a Hebron-Ben Nevis, if we do not get South Hibernia developed, where are we going to be? I have heard comments from this Premier, and rightfully so, the Premier stands up and says we have to look after the futures of everybody here and the futures of our grandchildren. No one has a problem with that, but do not paint someone for asking the question, or try to tarnish them because they ask a question: How are we going to get there? Do not think that you are unpatriotic. I believe the term that Mr. Cochrane used in his speech to the Board of Trade was, patriotic correctness. Do not accuse me of being unpatriotic because I asked a question: If the talks are off the rails, how are we going to get them back on? What are we going to do? I cannot help it that ExxonMobil, as the Member for St. John's North said, is the largest company in the world and expects to come in here and take advantage of us.

I agree, we cannot do anything about the fact that they are the largest in the world, and I agree that they should not come in here and take advantage of us, but it is a legitimate question to ask: What are we going to do? If there are no talks and there are never going to be any talks, what are the options?

I tell you, folks, those grandchildren that the Premier wants to protect - my grandchildren, his grandchildren, our grandchildren - are not going to be here if we do not do something. They are not going to be here, folks. We can tell from this problem, this stone that is around everybody's neck, called out-migration, the grandchildren are not going to be in Port aux Basques and Rose Blanche and Black Tickle if we do not do something. The question that is being asked is: When are we going to do something, and what are we going to do?

We have some options. We have options, and I predict that it is going to take a change of government to get some reasonable option put in place. That is what it is going to take in this Province.

Again, the Member for St. John's North talked about what we accused the Premier of being. Don't call the Premier confrontational, he says. He had a whole bunch of words that he looked up in his thesaurus this morning and said, this is what our Premier is, don't call him confrontational. Then he turns around, in his concluding sentence, and says: We need to confront the Tory MPs in Ottawa because of what they did on equalization. Now, boys, you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot stand up on one end and say the Premier is not confrontational and then you turn around and say we need to get confrontational. What is it going to be?

That is what the people are seeing right now, confrontation. I am not criticizing the Premier. Don't take it as criticism of the Premier, personally. I criticize the style, the confrontational style. We cannot back everybody in this country and in North America into a corner so that they do not want to deal with us. We have to make it at the end of the day. There has to be another way. Just because I ask questions and someone else asks questions that he might not have the answers to, don't bash them. Maybe sometimes if you ask them if they have an option or a solution maybe they might have something of help. But we do not get that, all we are getting is the bashing and the confrontation. Folks, that does not work.

The people up along in Canada - and many people in this Province have seen it, and are seeing it and experiencing it. Maybe toning down the rhetoric and taking a different style might get us somewhere to where we need to go.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had a few things to talk about of what this government has come through over the last three years, but there are a few things I want to address made by the hon. member across the way. He talked about Churchill Falls and Churchill Falls is a deal that is not done. Madam Chair, it is not done yet because we are going to take the right avenue to get the deal done and to get it done properly.

The previous Administration before us were willing to sign away our rights of Churchill Falls for pittance in return. They said: Well, don't count on it. No, I can tell you, we will not have a videotape done of the signing prior to the negotiations being done. We went out with this government to look at worldwide options on how we are going to develop the Lower Churchill. Madam Chair, that was the right way to do it, not look at just one option, whether we do it with Quebec. Years ago, was there any idea ever given that this government would put forward that we would go it alone, or we could possibly do it by ourselves? Obviously, we are going to have to have help from other sources, but we would be lead on that. That was never thought of under the previous Administration.

The other part there, Madam Chair: He talked about Hebron. The hon. member across the way said: Well, we have to change our tune. So, what did we do? Change our tune to give away all of our resources? Madam Chair, this is Newfoundland and Labrador. We are tired of giving away our resources. We want to keep our resources for our own people. We do not want to be giving them away like before. We got in here and part of our platform was no more giveaways. Unlike the members across the way: well now, we have to change our tune. Do they mean change our tune so we give all the oil companies what they want and we take the pittance? I am sorry, Madam Chair, that is not in the cards for us as a government, never has and never will be. We are going to look at that and we are going to look at a logical way to develop all of that. We are going to look at what is going to benefit the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people. Madam Chair, so much on that.

The other part I want to talk about - and a lot of people alluded to it from our side of the House. One thing I want to talk about is our Poverty Reduction Strategy. Since we got in, Madam Chair, we have put a lot of initiatives in place to help reduce poverty. We developed a Poverty Reduction Strategy, Madam Chair, that is a working paper, a paper in progress, a paper doing something for the good of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: A paper that hits the homes of every household in Newfoundland and Labrador to help reduce the poverty that people face everyday, day in and day out. Madam Chair, the report that we did is only second - I think the other province that has a working document is Quebec.

I talked to the former Minister of HRLE and he is telling me that there have been six other provinces that want to see our document, want to see what it entails and how do we come to make one for ourselves. We have also been praised by different groups in Canada, praising us for our initiatives in poverty reduction. I am going to go down through a few of them because it is really worthwhile taking a little bit of time to see what is happening.

One, the Minister of Health recently announced a dental health program that will affect over 67,000 children in Newfoundland and Labrador; 67,000. Up to the age of twelve there will be universal dental care and after that, from thirteen, those families who are in receipt of Income Support will be supported up to age seventeen. Madam Chair, what does that do? Well, first of all, healthy teeth is paramount to a healthy person. We need to develop in our young people the idea of taking care of their whole body, not just the physical part of it but the dental part is very vital in their growth and development. This is going to be a tremendous asset to people who cannot afford to go to a dentist. Again, for those twelve and under it is universal, those between thirteen and seventeen on Income Support will receive the program free. That is $4.1 million of investment.

The next one, Madam Chair, is the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. That was $8.3 million in the 2006 budget, an additional $32.8 million annually. Now, that will affect 97,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; 97,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Those people who are earning $30,000 or less as family income will get proportionate support in that program. That is significant because a lot of people do not have private insurance, cannot afford it. This program will be prorated from $30,000 on down to the amount of contribution that this government will have. Also, that includes single people, single people out there who are working and cannot afford a drug plan, or are making a certain amount of money and can't qualify for it. Again, that is on a scale going down.

Fifty-two million dollars for health care infrastructure, renovations and repairs; $15.6 million to strengthen cancer prevention and treatment. Madam Chair, these are some of the things that we, as a government, looked at when we looked at poverty reduction.

Now, some of the other things that we looked at that are very important to poverty reduction: n education we put $1.45 million into delivering literacy skills to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We opened up ten new sites, and we partnered with the College of the North Atlantic to offer ABE courses in those districts. That makes it accessible to a significant number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to increase their literacy skills, and those are important. That eats away at the center, the root, of poverty. People need to have these skills to get ahead and to better themselves, so we, as a government, said that the best way to do it, or one of the better ways of doing it, is through education, and that is what we took upon. We took the lead role to make sure that there are centers throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where people can avail of ABE, to push themselves forward. The more learned environment we have, the best skilled labour we will have in the future.

Madam Chair, $500,000 in new funding will create an incentive for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for tenants who remain in school. The tenants will now qualify for a $25 rental rebate for every adult studying full time at a post-secondary institution and for every dependent high school student attending Level II to Level IV.

When you look at it, when people want to increase their education, get ahead, get the skills, they need some kind of incentive, and this is a good incentive. It is good incentive because you are going to school. Then I am going to get a reduction on my rent, $25 for each adult, and I am going to get $25 for each student who goes to school. Madam Chair, what better incentive?

Would we like to have more? Obviously, the answer to that is yes, we would like to have more, but it is a start. It is a start, and it is a part of the poverty reduction that was in our Blueprint when we started out as a government. Not only did we put that Blueprint, the Blue Book, on a shelf - but we didn't put it on the shelf. We took it down. We took it and we made it an active working document, and from that came the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Madam Chair, we also looked at $250,000 towards implementation of the School Food Guidelines in support of the Provincial Wellness program; $250,000 with the Canadian Tire Foundation for the JumpStart program. The JumpStart program is a program where people who cannot avail of recreational activities are able to take advantage of this JumpStart program. This JumpStart program will help with the registration of the children in Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where they are. If it has to be paid, for registration to take place - hockey, basketball, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, swimming, whatever sport - these funds are there to assist those people who need the assistance.

Madam Chair, when you look at our Poverty Reduction Strategy, not only does it look at the person health-wise but it looks at the whole entire person, the whole person. It looks at the social aspect of it, the recreational aspect of it, the health aspect of it, the educational aspect of it. So, when you look at our policy, it is sound, it is effective, and it will be efficient because it will deliver the skills that are necessary for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to become more active.

Madam Chair, between the dental program, the drug program, the incentive program for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to the educational program, to the -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. DENINE: Can I have just a few minutes to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Just another part of that, Madam Chair, and I mention it again, is the reduction of school fees. The students of Newfoundland and Labrador who are going to school, the hardest time people have to find money is when they start school. This year there were no schools fees, absolutely eliminated, $6.5 million. Therefore, the parents and the guardians of those children were able to take that $50 or $75, or whatever it may be, and put it into clothing and put it into other necessities for that child.

Madam Chair, when we talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy, it is all-encompassing; it includes everything. I am very proud that this government, in three-and-a-half years, have taken a theory and put it into practice. That is the reason why we have a document today that is living proof that we are on the road to reducing poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say a few words on the Interim Supply bill that we will vote for, I say, Madam Chair, some time later on in the evening; because, without that bill then obviously the government cannot pay its bills because it has to be done by April 1, I do believe, before the end of the fiscal year. We would not want to see people who rely on government incomes and assistance go without those cheques in early April, so we will be voting on it.

I have listened with interest all afternoon as various speakers got up and talked about the sky is not falling. That is what the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talked about this afternoon. He got up and said that he is a little tired of listening to the members of the Opposition talking about the sky is falling, and that the sky is really not falling and we have a bright future - a very bright future, he went on to say - and he talked about some of the initiatives that were being undertaken by the present government to make that future bright.

After he sat down, the Member for St. John's North stood up and gave a similar type of speech. He talked about how he is a little sick and tired of listening to members of the Opposition talk about out-migration and showing the picture that we often show of the lineup on Kenmount Road where 9,000 people, back in the fall of the year, lined up to seek employment elsewhere in the country. I have a picture of that here, and he gets rather irate. Actually, he called it abhorrent, the fact that we mention out-migration and that we continue to talk about it.

The ironic thing about it is, that actually took place in the member's own district, because I think that Kenmount Road lies in St. John's North. What I find abhorrent about it is the fact that these people were lining up, not the fact that the Opposition is mentioning it. I think that if you go out - and you have to be absolutely honest with yourself - and represent your people, I think that the largest issue facing the people in my district today is employment and out-migration, the largest two issues. The reason we have such out-migration rates as we have is because there is a lack of employment in the Province.

We cannot live on the bright future. If you are living in Twillingate or on New World Island, or on Fogo Island or Change Islands, you cannot live on the promise of a brighter tomorrow. We have been listening to that for quite some time in this Province, that things are going to look rosy down the road. I am very disappointed in listening to the Member for St. John's North. I can tell you, he can call me abhorrent all he wants for mentioning out-migration. I think that it is my job to represent the wishes of my constituents and to talk about what they want to talk about, because it is a serious problem. We are losing people at rates which we have not seen before.

Even though it is not completely represented properly in the latest statistics by Environment Canada, I say to the Member for St. John's North, there is nothing to brag about in this. There is absolutely nothing to brag about. The fact of the matter is, we lost 7,700 people recently in this Province.

I was just skimming down through the statistics this afternoon from Stats Canada, when the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's talked about the rosy future. Well, you would never think that if you looked at some of the towns in his own district. St. Shotts, for example, I believe, is in the member's district. That had a 24.3 per cent decrease in population in the last couple of years, a 24 per cent decrease. I do believe that St. Vincent's area is also in his district, and that had an 18.5 per cent reduction in population in the last little while. Placentia, which is the hub of that district, the Placentia-Freshwater area, that had a 12 per cent reduction.

In fact, the Member for Mount Pearl just got up talking about how great the future is. If you go outside the Avalon and you talk about Mount Pearl everybody thinks that it is a sprawling metropolis and it is continuing to grow and it is continuing to boom. In actual fact, Mount Pearl had a decrease in population during this time period of 1.4 per cent. It is not a big decrease, let's face it, 1.4 per cent, but it is still a decrease. It is still a decrease in population. That means it is not growing, it is shrinking. St. John's is supposed to be the boom area in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you listen to the government side, that is where all the people who are coming out of rural Newfoundland are supposed to be going, to the St. John's, Mount Pearl area. The population of St. John's only rose in the last four or five years by a little over 1 per cent, so where are the people going?

If the Member for St. John's North thinks that I am going to stop talking about out-migration because he finds it abhorrent, I think it is time that he took his head out of the sand and looked at what is happening around him. Maybe he does not know anyone. Maybe he does not have a relative who has had to leave this Province to seek employment elsewhere. I will tell you one thing, if he is he is one of the lucky ones. If he does not have anyone belonging to him who has left this Province in recent years to find employment elsewhere, then I tell you he is more of an anomaly than he is the rule. I do not know too many people who do not complain about the number of people who are leaving.

The reason we are not holding onto these people is because we have no work for them. Then he lambasted me. He or his colleague from Mount Pearl talked about how we want to give things away. If you listen to the Opposition they want to give things away. Every time that you offer some constructive criticism in this House, with this Premier and this government, they attack you by saying you are in bed with big oil, or you want to give things away. For some reason they think that they hold a monopoly on patriotism and love of this Province, and that the rest of us would certainly sell it out, like we were going to give it away so that we could gain something for our self financially as individuals. I find that to be abhorrent, that the Premier of this Province thinks that everybody else would give things away. Maybe the Premier is in a position, I say to the members opposite, maybe the Premier himself, personally, is in a position that he will not witness people leaving the Province related to him and his family. I doubt very much if he will see it because if they do they will be leaving by choice not because they were forced to leave. I find it abhorrent that every time we make a suggestion we are going to give something away or we are in bed with big oil.

Last week, I said because of what is happening offshore, that we have no deal on the Hebron-Ben Nevis field, that things are slowing in the St. John's area and in the Province in general. Simply because I said you should get back to the table and try and negotiate a deal, I am attacked personally; that I am unpatriotic, I give things away, I would sell out my children and your children and everybody else's children. I find that abhorrent. What I am saying to the Premier is, get back to the table and try and negotiate a deal because you cannot make a deal if you do not sit at a table.

There is no one from ExonMobil, Chevron or any other oil company in the world, who is going to send a fax or e-mail to this Province saying: Yes, we want to do business here and we will give you everything you want. I tell you one thing, we will never see a deal unless someone sits at the table and does something. If you talk about the giveaways that we have had, what is driving the economy of this Province right now?

The Member for Placentia stood a little while again and he talked about the mining industry in this Province and he talked about Voisey's Bay. One of the shining lights of the economy in this Province right now happens to be Voisey's Bay, and every single soul in the Tory Opposition back in 2002 or 2001 when we signed that deal voted against it with the exception of Fabian Manning, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. He voted against it. I think that was his first strike against him. That was the first reason the Premier wanted to flick him out of his caucus. He did it later, but I do not think he ever got over that and he would have flicked him out then only he knew it would not have been the right thing to do at that time.

What is wrong with Voisey's Bay? I have sat here during the Voisey's Bay debate when the Premier and every member of the Tory Opposition at the time talked about driving a Mack truck through it. That was back in 2002, and some of you members are still here today. The Premier was over here into a rant about it. He couldn't sign onto this because there were more off ramps on that deal then there were on the 401 in Ontario. Well, the Premier has been office now. He spent two years in Opposition after that deal was done and he has spent almost four years now in the House of Assembly as Premier. I challenge any one of you to stand up here today and tell me one clause in that contract that the Premier has singled out and said that you could drive a Mack truck through, because it has not happened.

If the Premier is actually aware that there are so many loopholes in that contract as he states, then the onus is on him, as the Premier of this Province, to try and plug these loopholes. Call the owners of Voisey's Bay up and say, get back to the table, we are going to negotiate this contract. He has not done that. That is one piece of evidence that something we did when we were in government is employing people, keeping people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because if we never had Voisey's Bay today in Labrador there would be more people leaving the Province.

I was told the weekend that 88 per cent of the people working in Voisey's Bay, Labrador are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. REID: Can I have a couple of minutes to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: That is one thing that we did that contributed not only to employment in the Province, but some of the tax dollars that the Member for Mount Pearl bragged about how they are spending, that contributed to the money that you now have that you are able to spend on health care and on education.

The others have to deal with, as my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, talked about today, the oil industry. I do not hear anybody talking about how the White Rose project was a giveaway. I do not hear anyone talk about how the Terra Nova field was a giveaway. I do not hear anybody talk about how Hibernia was a giveaway. So which giveaways are you talking about?

Just imagine, today the Premier's only claim to fame since taking on the job as Premier of this Province in 2003 is the Atlantic Accord: I got the Atlantic Accord. Well, folks, stop and think about it, if we did not do the Hibernia project and we did not do the Terry Nova project and we did not do the White rose project, there would be no need of an Atlantic Accord because we would not have anything to have an Accord about. That is what we are talking about. We did things when we were in government, we put people to work, we contributed to the Gross Domestic Product in this Province.

Today when you are talking about the great Premier because he got the Atlantic Accord, the only reason that he got an Atlantic Accord that is worth anything is because we laid the foundation with those projects. If you take those three oil fields that we are talking about and the work that is being done out there today on those three oil projects and the money that it is generating for this Province out, and if you took Voisey's Bay out, what would we have going for us today in this Province, what would we have going for us? Because we have witnessed in the last three years - we know what you have not done. You have not done anything to stimulate the economy, expect for the Atlantic Accord and that is not stimulating the economy, that is just putting tax revenue into the provincial coffers. What would you have?

We watched, after you making a commitment to the people of Stephenville that your plant will never close, we watched that close and hundreds - in fact, Ed Byrne, when he was Minister of Natural Resources, I said one night there were 300 jobs associated with the Stephenville mill and he got up and he said: Point of order, Madam Chair. I will have to correct the member opposite, there are 900 direct and indirect jobs associated with the Stephenville mill. Where is it today? Gone. That happened under your watch.

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't our fault.

MR. REID: Well, we will find out about that, that it was not your fault. No, that is it. All you want to talk about is something you can take credit for. You do not want to talk about the things that you did not do right.

So you have Stephenville and Harbour Breton closed down, 350 jobs gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, tell me what you have - now, the Member for Mount Pearl, that great fishing district, just told me: Look at what we have done down there. I will tell you what you have done down there, you have done absolutely nothing. That is what you have done, absolutely nothing. That is what you have done down there, outside of a short-term make-work project, I will have you to know.

It is Bill Barry and his money that went into Harbour Breton. What you have done is you have exchanged 350 well paying, good jobs - for what today? Get up and tell us how many people are working in Harbour Breton today, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl. Tell me what wages they are making and what the future looks like for them. You allowed 350 jobs to come out of Harbour Breton by allowing FPI to run roughshod over the people in this Province and in exchange you have forty or fifty people down there today who may get a weeks work here and there if they are lucky. Where have the rest of them gone? The rest of them have gone to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and elsewhere to find jobs.

What have you done in Fortune, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, if he wants to be over there yapping about what they have done, another plant with 300 people who worked there? No problem, a thriving community. What did you do? You let FPI run roughshod over those people too. You did not hold them to their commitments. You did not even hold them to your own legislation. You let them walk out of there and cut down that town adrift and you did absolutely nothing. Today we have Marystown down there that has not seen a days work since last November, some fifteen months ago, and I suppose you are going to tell me to look at what we are doing for Marystown. Fifteen months ago and there has not been a fish cut in the plant in Marystown.

I will tell you something, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl and the Member for St. John's North, who says we should not be talking about that because the sky is not falling. I would hazzard to bet that not since the first settler landed on the Burin Peninsula have they not seen a plant or some kind of fish processing going on on the Burin Peninsula. You should be ashamed when you think about that you know. It is the first time in the history of that general region that you have not had a plant open and processing, the first time on the Burin Peninsula that we have not seen a fish plant, because that was the home of the fish. What some of you do not realize is that down in that area, on the south coast and on the Burin Peninsula, all of these plants worked year-round one time. They used to have to fight for a couple of weeks off in the summertime because everybody wanted to take their holidays in the summertime and they could not get their holidays. Fifty-two weeks a year they worked.

Then the minister stands up here today - FPI built two new draggers. What they were going to do a few short years ago, the commitment they gave, they were going to build new vessels; they were going to increase the number of employees who worked in the plant; they were going to refurbish all the plants. They built these two new vessels, by the way, at least one of them since you people took government three years ago. FPI built one of those, a brand new vessel. They went out and sold them; sold the two of them. The minister goes out and says: we are not going to let them sell any asset unless it is of benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then he goes and lets them sell off their two vessels. What benefit is that to the people of the Burin Peninsula or the people who work for FPI, that you are selling two draggers? At least one of them is brand new. Of what benefit? What do I see happening? Of what benefit is that to the people who work in Marystown, Harbour Breton, Fortune or any of the FPI plants in the Province? Of what benefit is it? Absolutely none. If you do not want to hear the truth maybe it is because you live in Mount Pearl and you live in St. John's North. You think that everything is rosy and the sky is not falling.

What I do not understand is the Member for St. John's North, who finds it abhorrent that I should even mention out-migration. Where was he, I wonder, when these 9,000 people were lined up in his own district?

MR. RIDGLEY: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to be clear on what he is saying. I find it abhorrent that they, as an Opposition - this was my statement - saw the picture and waved the picture around as if it is some fault of this government and offering no constructive solutions to the problem. They wave it around and grin, is what I am talking about. Look at what your government is doing, that is what I am saying. Out-migration, by all means bring it up and offer solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he has gone seven minutes over on leave now and I ask him to please clue up.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can tell the member opposite, when he says that we waved that around and grinned, you have never seen me grin about 9,000 people lining up on Kenmount Road. What did we do? When FPI tried to layoff people when we were in the government, and I was the minister, we said no.

I will tell you one thing, I say to the Member for St. John's North, FPI did not close a plant under my watch because I made a statement when I was the Minister of Fisheries, that FPI would not be closing plants under our watch. We lived up to those commitments. That is more than I can say that you and your Premier did with the people of Stephenville. What can you do about it? We have an FPI Act sitting on that table here today that we can do anything that we want with. To see what FPI is doing to that company and to the people that it employs in this Province is nothing more than shameful. You should be ashamed to be able to sit there and allow it happen, and say absolutely nothing.

Then we have the member who represents Marystown, the Member for Burin-Placentia West -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to clue up his remarks now.

MR. REID: - who did not even know, who said on an Open Line Show that he did not even know that FPI sold its draggers when Cabinet had to give permission to FPI in order to do it. He sits around the Cabinet table and did not know that they were for sale, let alone sold. So God help the people in that district if they have to rely on him for being the voice at the table.

Madam Chair, I know I have gone over my time. I will have an opportunity later tonight to continue where I left off.

Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is, indeed, a privilege to be able to speak on Bill 71 this evening and to talk about some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I find it very ironic that the Leader of the Opposition talks about all the great things that they did. I find that quite ironic. In fact, I will be honest with you, he said that I was laughing yesterday when he was talking about health care. I certainly was not, I remind the hon. member. I have to tell you, I do find that funny and I do find that laughable, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition can get up here today and talk about all the good that they did, and yet in 2003 we saw a sweep by this government right across the Province. The people of the Province said: Do you know what? We have had enough of that old foolishness from that crowd. We want to put people in that have a better approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: We want to put people in that have a new approach, a better approach. We want to have a Premier that has a vision for Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the members opposite, and not a vision of the next election because that is what it was all about for years. It was all about: what do I do to get elected next? We are not about that and we are not going to be about that. We are about what is right for this Province, what is right to move this Province forward, and we have a plan, unlike the members opposite. I am very proud to be part of this government. People obviously did not like it. They obviously decided it was time to move them out.

They talk about the fact there was a great deal that was made, for instance, on the Lower Churchill. Well, I have to think about that for a minute. There was a good deal made on the Lower Churchill. Well, it is a funny thing about it, how members opposite can talk about this great deal but everybody else in Canada, and everybody else in the world, tell us, and we know, that we are getting little small crumbs from what is coming from the Upper Churchill. We are getting small crumbs from that compared to what Quebec is getting. Now, I am telling you, I don't know if I am stupid or I do not know if my economics are wrong, but crumbs are not as good as millions and millions of dollars. That is one thing I have learned. I can tell you right now, that Newfoundland and Labrador are not gaining the benefits that Quebec gains from the Upper Churchill. I tell you what, I support a Premier, I support a government that says enough is enough, we will not be doing any more deals like that. I very much support that particular government.

If you look at Voisey's Bay - and I heard the Opposition House Leader, just a little while ago talking about the great deal that Voisey's Bay was. Tell me what was done wrong. It had to be all right. There could not have been anything done wrong. Well, I will tell you one thing that was done wrong. One thing that was done wrong is very clear. That particular ore in Voisey's Bay - now, maybe they do not know this; maybe they do not know anything about this - that particular ore can be shipped out for processing. Can you imagine that? They are over there telling me that there are no jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and that people are lining up by the thousands to try to get out of this Province because there is no work. Yet, we had a government, previous government, who signed the deal to send the ore outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, by sending that product outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, what happened? The jobs were not in Newfoundland and Labrador.

How can you speak on one side of your mouth and then change the story on the other side? It just does not work like that. The fact of the matter is, we see another bad deal there. You can slice it up, you can try to sugar-coat it all you want. The fact is, that is a bad deal.

Then they talk about, what has this government actually done? They only thing they have ever done - and I know we have done more than this, because I am going to list a few things - the only they have ever done is just that silly old Atlantic Accord thing, that silly old equalization thing; that is all they have ever done. A measly, I say to the members opposite, a measly $2 billion. Well, let's just take $2 billion and put it into perspective.

Our total budget for a year is somewhere around $4 billion. Fifty per cent of a whole year's budget, this government, this Premier, brought back to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not just a promise; that is money in the bank that this Premier got for Newfoundland and Labrador, and you are telling me it wasn't very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: It completely boggles my mind when I hear anyone talk about the little deal that was done on equalization, the little deal that was done on our Atlantic Accord. It was a major deal and I give the Premier, I give this government, 100 per cent marks for making that happen to this Province.

Thank God, by the way, thank God that he did it before this new federal government got in, this new crowd that got in there, that said on a little bulletin here that my hon. colleague from St. John's North just showed a few minutes ago, where they said they would absolutely make sure that they gave us 100 per cent of our Atlantic Accord. They said for sure they would not put a cap on it. They would not do any of that stuff. Now, all of a sudden, we are talking about a crowd now that says: Hold the phone, now. We just decided that this deal is just a little bit too good for Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not really want Newfoundland and Labrador to have a great deal like that. Sure, we want Newfoundland and Labrador to do okay, we would like them to do all right, but we are not going to give them what they need to do really, really, well. Therefore, because it is not hardly so good for Ontario, or because it is not hardly so good for some other province in Canada, we have to stop that. We cannot let that deal go through.

What a bunch of silliness. Then, to listen to people opposite almost - I will not they are, I will say almost - supporting that deal. Well, I cannot believe it. The fact of the matter is, the Prime Minister of Canada made a deal, made an agreement, and now he has decided that he is going to pull back from that deal, he is going to put a cap on it. He cannot let Newfoundland and Labrador do any better than anybody else in Canada, and that is very, very scary. I wonder who we are going to be able to trust in the new election. That is the question I have to ask.

I can tell you now, this government has done more in three-and-a-half years than most governments do in a lifetime. Again, I will be the first one to say that the governments before this government, certainly Tory governments, certainly did good things, there is no question about that, but I will still take our record and I will put our record and stack our record as the government up against any other record and any other government that Newfoundland and Labrador has ever seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: You talk about, what do we see? You talk about, what do we see in Newfoundland and Labrador since this government has come into power? Well, we negotiated a better deal on health care. What does that mean for this Province? You know, when the Finance Minister came back from Ottawa saying that we have more money, more dollars, for health care, what does that actually mean for Newfoundland and Labrador? Because I have heard members opposite saying: How has your life improved in Newfoundland and Labrador since this party came into power, since this government came into power?

I will tell you how it has improved. One thing for sure is this: $15.6 million in new funding will be invested to help prevent and treat cancer. I am going to tell you, cancer is a rough disease, and I know that first-hand because my mother had cancer. She had breast cancer, actually. It was a very, very tough, hard, difficult time for our particular family and certainly for her. I can tell you that when our government makes investments and, in fact, $750,000 for breast cancer screening, I can tell you that I look at that as being good news for this Province, good news for the people of this Province. It is not just some silly old thing that does not mean anything. That is the kind of quality stuff that we do as a government and it touches every single family, every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am proud again, and I will keep saying that, I am proud and I am pleased to be part of a government that does things like this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: What else did we do that was not very significant? Because that is what I keep hearing, not significant. Two point seven million dollars was provided to reduce wait list for home support for seniors and persons with disabilities. More good things, but we are hearing from the opposite side: They have not done anything significant, nothing significant. I am going to tell you now that seniors who need home care, seniors who need home support, it is very significant for those particular people.

I hear members opposite always talking about the fact that, oh, my goodness, do you know what? This government is not doing anything for seniors; they are not doing anything for people with disabilities. Well, we put our money where our mouth is here and we put $2.7 million more to address those issues. One point seven million dollars was invested - and this was invested. These are not promises, by the way. These are not promises. These are things that we have done. This is last year's Budget and, if we could do this last year, I wonder how good is it going to be next year? How good is it going to be in this coming Budget? I suspect we are going to see even more and better things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: One point seven million dollars invested in new medications to the provincial formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: The Member for Bay of Islands can laugh about this because maybe he does not have people in his district who have these particular diseases, but I can tell you that I have people who needed part of that $1.7 million to treat Alzheimer's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: Alzheimer's is one of the worst diseases I have ever seen. My grandfather, in fact, had it, and I can tell you right now it is a difficult time for families to have to deal with their loved one when they cannot have their wits about them; they have this terrible, dreaded disease. Through being involved with these particular people, I can tell you now, there was a drug and the drug was called Aricept, and it worked on a lot of seniors. It did not work for everyone, but it worked for a lot of seniors to either, number one, slow it back, or, number two, it would actually make them a lot better. They could actually live their daily lives far, far better by being on Aricept.

The problem with Aricept was very simple, though, it was very expensive. A lot of people could not afford it. The Member for Humber Valley knows what I am talking about because he has been involved in these things as well. The fact is that this government, in the last Budget, decided that, look, you know what we are going to do? Even though we may have an $11 billion deficit, even though we may have that issue, that debt load, $11 billion, we are going to put money into Alzheimer's drugs and we are going to cover Aricept for seniors. Now, that is good news for seniors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I just cannot help but always wonder how somebody can criticize good news, how somebody can criticize good things that are being done in the Province. I understand the political part of this. You know, it actually took me a while, Madam Chair, to understand how this politics thing worked, and how you are supposed to do this and say that - you know, our side of the House is supposed to be against the other side of the House - and I understand all of that, but when we are talking about people's lives, because that is what we are talking about, when we talk about health care, we are not talking about mere politics. We are talking about people's lives, and our government has decided, even though we have this huge debt -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. ORAM: By leave, just to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. ORAM: Thank you for leave. I appreciate that.

Having said all of that, and realizing how important health care is, we have again allocated more money.

It was a funny thing. I drove by Clarenville the other day and I ran into, of course, most people's favourite spot, Tim Horton's, to grab a coffee, and when I drove along, I have to tell you, the Member for Trinity North, I was going to say to him, do you know what? I felt proud and I felt pride when I saw the steel up for this new seniors facility that we are putting in Clarenville. Even with an $11 billion debt load we still decided to go ahead and deal with a long-term care facility in Clarenville for seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: That is good news.

I can tell you today that, as a government, I am proud of our accomplishments. As I said, I am hearing the negativity; I am hearing that we do not do this. I am going to tell you now, I will be honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I will be honest with the Opposition - I do not mind being honest - the fact is, we are not doing everything. We are not fixing every problem, there is no question about that, but I can tell you, when I look at what we have achieved already, if we can spend another few years here we are going to achieve a lot more. I will be able to be even more proud after the next budget comes down to show the good things that we are going to do for the people of this Province and the people who are affected every day in this Province by disease through health care, by municipal affairs issues, and so on and so forth.

Again, I just want to say that I am very, very proud and very pleased to be a part of this government. We are going to keep doing what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador. We support our Premier on this side of the House and I know that Newfoundland and Labrador supports the Premier, supports this government, because when the polls show 74 per cent somebody is pleased.

I will just ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue to support our Premier, continue to support this government and we will see big and better things go on for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. I understand from the Government House Leader that we are going to be cluing up shortly for a supper break and we will be back here again this evening, but I do appreciate the opportunity to have a few words.

I spoke already this afternoon about criticism, constructive criticism, what one says or should not say or what you should say, but I am a firm believer you give credit where it is due and I think I have always done that here. If you deserve credit for something I am the first one to say you did it good, but what raises the hackles of somebody in Opposition is when someone in government tries to take credit for stuff that they did not do. That is where I have a problem. That is the politics of it, I guess. I have problem when somebody - it has nothing to do with honesty.

The Member for Trinity North was talking about how he likes to be honest and so on. I am sure he does. He is an honourable man. I am sure he is, but we are not talking about honesty here. We are talking about people who play politics with facts. He said, she said, that is your version, you are right, that is my version, I am wrong. That is the way you people get on, but that is not the way the public needs it. The public needs it shot straight to them, shot very straight. That is all the public needs to know.

For example, I will give you one example where this government professes to be one thing and has done exactly the opposite - there is a big, huge dose of common sense in people, I find, in Newfoundland and Labrador - and that is on the fibre deal. I will tell you why there is a disconnect between what happened and what the people are being asked to believe. The truth of the matter is that this government decided - that is a fact, and it is going to be in the Budget that comes up on April 26 - to invest $15 million in a fibre optic deal. That is a fact. The Premier has already said that.

It is a fact, for example, that some of the polls are already being put up across the Island, even though the contract, or at least the government money is not in the contract yet. That is a fact. It is a fact that the Premier knows some of these people involved in these proponents who are very close personnel friends of his and he did business with them in the past. It is a fact that that proposal did not go through the laws of this Province when it comes to public tendering. It is a fact. Now, normally, 99 per cent of everything you spend in government, there is a law that you go to public tendering. It is a fact that it did not happen here, folks. There was no Request for Proposals here. So the logical question that gets asked is: My God, how did you do that? How did you spend $15 million of the taxpayers' money and you did not go through a Request for Proposals or the Public Tender Act? That is a pretty legitimate question.

We heard all kinds of answers back. This is where we get into the spin of it, that I am talking about. We did not do it for this reason or that reason or some other reason. The bottom line is, there is no justifiable reason why you should not have. The only reason you did not go through a public tendering process is because exactly that, it is a public tendering process. For some reason, this Premier, this government, did not want what was going to happen on the fibre deal to be publicly debated and discussed, and it never got done. It was done on the Cabinet Table and the decision is popped out and you are told, we have $15 million gone to some people who happen to be buddies of the Premier and we did not follow the process, but that is okay, we needed to do that. That is justifiable.

Now that position and those facts that I just outlined, that is in direct conflict and direct opposition to a government that claims to be open and accountable. People see the disconnect. We are totally open and accountable, but this is what we did and we were not open and accountable. Now, that is pretty straight forward. Joe Chesterfield, as I call him, he knows that, he sees that pretty blunt. How could Premier Williams be telling us that he did it right when he spent $15 million, but yet he did not go through public tendering?

It is like now the issue of the Auditor General coming in. We are going to let the Auditor General go in and look at the books, but after that resolution gets put through, lo and behold, they come out then and say: Yeah, we are sorry, you cannot have any of the Cabinet papers. You cannot have any of the papers that we had in Cabinet that we might have talked about which led to that decision to do that. We cannot show you any of that stuff. So we go to the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Auditor General does, and he says: Oh, maybe you fellows, you put the deal together. That is where the proposal apparently came in first, walked through the door. Maybe we can get some information out of you fellows about what happened.

All of a sudden you get the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who runs back after having a chat with Executive Council, which is controlled by the Premier and the Department of Justice, they say: No, no, no just a second now. You are not allowed to follow your usual process of getting information out of a department. We are going to create a new protocol, a new process, and we will tell you what you can have, we will tell you who you can talk to. In fact, we are going to tell you when you can talk to them.

Now that is the process that we are operating under here. An Auditor General who, you say: come in and do an investigation. So, the first thing you do is you handcuff him with the Cabinet decision. That was not good enough. So then you blindfold him. Then you blindfold him by putting the new protocol in place. Now, I do not know about anyone else, they say justice is blind, but I know what we have here, we have a blind Auditor General. He has had his hands tied behind his back and he has a blindfold on. They say: Oh, by the way, what will we do is we will give you copies of the 7,000 e-mails that we have had circulating amongst everybody here. Make what you will of it. Oh yes, by the way, just so we are truly open and accountable, we are going to give you a copy of the briefing materials that we had prepared for the media. That is pretty public knowledge. We had that back in November, I do believe. That is a good move. That is very open and accountable. Here, have a copy of what we gave the public back in November.

I said to the Auditor General at one of these meetings: Excuse me, do you think that maybe this individual who is the IT director for the government, who did this public briefing, do you think he might have had a notebook somewhere along the way with some notes in it that he might have kept about who talked to who, when, and what he thought of all this? Did you get that from him? Well, no, we haven't got that yet. Are you going to get that from him? Well, boy, we don't know.

Now, I do not know what the response of the Auditor General is going to be, but I sent a letter to the Auditor General again this afternoon because the Premier went outside of the Chambers and gave a statement saying that he talked to the Auditor General, and he said that he had absolutely everything. That is the way that I understood it. The Auditor General said he had absolutely everything.

That is a far cry from what the Auditor General told me this morning. I talked to the Auditor General this morning, at 7:40 a.m. Newfoundland time, got him out of bed actually. He had the phones over at the AG office on call forwarding. When I called him, thinking I was actually going to have to leave a message for him to get back to me, he answered the phone. He was in bed up in Toronto. This was this morning. I told him what we were about, what we were going to do in our press conference, and said: By the way, do you have everything you want from the government? Well, he said, I got what they tell me I am going to get. Have you got everything that you need? He said: Well, I got what they tell me I am allowed to have. I said: That don't answer the question.

Now, that is what he told me this morning. That was less than twelve hours ago, folks, that the Auditor General of this Province, Mr. John Noseworthy, made that statement to me. I got what they tell me I'm allowed to have. Not everything I need, not absolutely everything. The Premier is outside today saying that the Auditor General told him last Thursday that he had absolutely everything.

I have just written the Auditor General, and I am really looking forward to his answer because the Auditor General, if that is the case, he is telling two different stories to two different people. He told me one thing this morning and he told the Premier something else last Thursday. I am anxious to see what his answer is. You cannot have it both ways, even if you are the Auditor General. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be telling me this morning: they told me I had everything I am allowed to have. Yet, the Premier to be out saying: he told me he had absolutely everything he needed. That is different. That is a disconnect again, and we need to know.

We are going to be following up on this again because this fibre deal is far from dead, far from dead. In fact, I do not know if I am going to be back here anymore after October, I do not know. Nobody knows, I guess, right now. The good Lord willing and the voters pleased, we will or we will not be back. That is something we will leave - as Mr. Manning says, we will leave to the voter to decide that. But, I hope I am back and I hope I am in here in years to come because I will pledge right here, right now, that if I ever live long enough to be a Member of this House of Assembly on the government side, there will be a full, complete, open investigation into this fibre optic deal, regardless of when it is. I don't care if it is ten years out or fifteen years out, I will make the pledge right here, right now, that if I ever get to form a part of a government again this issue of the fibre optic deal will be revisited because it is not right, it stinks, it was not done in accordance with the law and the usual processes of this Province and there ought to be full and open disclosure, which it is not.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Pursuant to an agreement between both sides of the House, we are going to take a break for the evening meal now. There is no need, as I understand it, to rise the committee or stop the clock or anything of that nature. We will just take a supper break and we will come back at 7:00 o'clock.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to continue debate on Bill 71 and the resolution that accompanies Bill 71.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to get up and speak on Interim Supply. I guess we all know the purpose for the bill is so that government can continue with the business at hand.

Mr. Chair, as I sat here today, and as I have sat here over the past two days and just listened, it surprises me sometimes the kind of debate that we get into. I guess people say that is the face of democracy. Well, we will have to leave it to the people to judge that, whether it is or not.

Mr. Chair, I am not one who can take the stance, and I guess you would not be expected to take the stance, that the Opposition puts forward from time to time, and that is the message, I suppose, of doom and gloom, nothing being created anywhere, nothing being done right and sometimes the types of spins that we put on it. Mr. Chair, I can tell you that, as I have said before, the fishing industry has been an integral part of the Burin Peninsula from the outset of the first settler there. Not everyone sees that that is a recipe for disaster for the future; or the inshore fishery. Some people will say that we are trying to bring about the demise of the inshore fishery. I just cannot agree with that either.

In fact, Mr. Chair, a good friend of mine - I cannot say for sure his age, he is probably about twenty-nine-years-old, and a couple of days ago I was speaking with him. He is a young fellow from the community of South East Bight and spends a fair bit of time in my community of Baine Harbour. He told me that he bought a fishing licence. Now, I would assume that if he thought everything was doom and gloom in the fishery that he would not even go to that venture. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chair, knowing this young man, I can tell you that he will make a go of it. He is a hard-working young fellow who has spent, I would say, the majority of his life in a boat. The community is only accessible by ferry, therefore he spent most of his younger days around boats. He knows them as well as a lot of us know vehicles. He sees a future in the fishery. Therefore, he will spend his time and he will make a living from it. I predict, Mr. Chair, that he will make a good living at it.

We hear the Opposition talking about rural Newfoundland and not sustaining rural Newfoundland and what we are doing for rural Newfoundland. Mr. Chair, my view on rural Newfoundland is that we are going to definitely see a facelift, if you want to put that coined phrase to it, in terms of how rural Newfoundland will look in a number of years to come. We have a younger generation now that have different expectations than we had years ago. The demise of the fishery and the collapse of the cod fishery in the 1990s saw to it a type of different lifestyle. The young people that we have in our communities today are a different breed than they were thirty years ago, simply because of the exposure they have to things like the Internet, the different technologies, even as much as cable television. I mean, thirty years ago maybe you had one or two TV stations. Today you know the multitude that you can get through cable and the satellite dishes. You are exposed to the entire world. We have the changing face of a population, not only in rural Newfoundland but globally, and therefore they have different expectations.

Mr. Chair, the Opposition can put what spins they want on it, and we can say: Well, we can let the process evolve and rural Newfoundland will be what it is because it is going to evolve that way, or we can kind of step in here and help it along the way into that evolution, and I think that is what we are doing as a government. We will not just let it evolve - and we work with communities. I am seeing the results of some of that in my district, as I said here a couple of days ago.

One of the things that I think people are recognizing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is that no longer can every community have their little piece of the pie. If we are going to have rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive, we have to strengthen certain areas. It is the young people of today, that if they have children they want the arenas, they want the swimming pools, they want the medical services, they want the infrastructure and roads to travel on. Therefore, we have to move in a direction where we spend as wisely as we possibly can and get the best bang for our buck.

If you want to look to the present debate about what we should be getting in our equalization - let's use the example of the fishery. For years and years and years, anybody who lived in Marystown or the surrounding area and worked in the plants knew what came in over the wharves. A dragger arrived every day with up to 250,000 to 300,000 pounds of fish. One of the sayings that was always present was: Why are we not able to do more with the fishing resources that we have? What happened to it? It came into a fish plant, it was processed often in bulk and then shipped out to other places where it was produced to a second product and then marketed. Now, that may not fit today's scheme because of competing forces such as China, but it was back thirty years ago and we probably could have gotten more for those resources. Now we are in the same kind of battle with our offshore oil resources.

I knew that when I entered this arena three-and-a-half years ago, one of the reasons I did so was for the simple fact that we had a leader who was talking about no more giveaways. I heard past governments say it, but I did not see the same conviction there as I saw with the leader that was coming forth. Therefore, I put my name out there as someone who wanted to support this Premier and this government as we move forward.

I am finding that the stance that has been taken is supported out in my district. Most of the people I have come across have said: You know, this is right. Oftentimes, what we do is say we are going to put the hard fight in there and we do it for a bit, but then we cave in and walk away. Then we kind of go crawling back looking for the best deal that we possibly can.

Here is the time for us to stand, and stand together. I think the commitment is there from the people of the Province to stand behind government on this, and we will hopefully be successful in the end. The benefits that we are receiving from our resources, we are seeing the benefits of it through what we have put out there in the budget in the last number of years. We, on this side, really do not need a lot of documents to tell us what kind of things we have accomplished over the last number of years. I say to people over and over, there is one section on the highway between here and Marystown and Burin that needs a bit of work. Other than that, I am telling you, it is probably the best driving piece of infrastructure that we have had for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Someone spoke earlier today: What was invested in an election year by the Opposition was $26 million. Last year we put in sixty, the year before that sixty, and I believe in the first year we were in, we put in something like thirty-seven. Here we are reaping the benefits, therefore we have the investment.

I will tell you, one of the first things that I was confronted with when I decided to run, in my district, were issues around health care, specifically as they related to two important pieces of equipment, the CT scan and the dialysis. Mr. Chair, we did not wait until the election year to install those pieces of equipment. As a matter of fact, within the second year of our mandate - I can remember the first year getting letters and e-mails that we had faulted in our promise to the people that we were going to upgrade the health care in my district. Needless to say, first coming into politics some of the letters that you received were not all that kind, but as a result of working with the health ministers, turning our fiscal situation around a little, within the second year we had the announcement of the CT scan. I am very pleased to report that is up and running. Someone told me a little while ago that it is something like 1,000 to 1,200 scans that have already been carried out.

As we speak, the dialysis machine is being installed. This is certainly not only for my district, it is for the district of the Member for Grand Bank and Bellevue that will avail of those services. I know the Member for Bellevue was at the facility this past year.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly hope there will be more ample opportunity as we move into the Budget to speak further on this.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words concerning the Interim Supply bill again. I say to the minister, there is an old saying: Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn. I think we hear some stuff coming up from over on that side - I don't know. I have to be very careful about the words I use. I used the phrase, deliberately evasive, today in the House. It is under review right now by the good Speaker.

I say to the Speaker, by the way, I have checked my reference. He likes another reference but I usually refer to Mr. Beauchesne, and that is an accepted parliamentary one, but I cannot find the words, deliberately evasive, anywhere as being unparliamentary, but that is another story for another day.

I would like to go back to, again, who did what here in the last number of years. The story on CBC television tonight put it pretty good, by Mr. Cochrane. He put it pretty good as to, particularly, where we are going and where we are right now in the offshore industry; a pretty balanced story. It outlined the Premier's approach to things and outlined the reality of where we are in terms of the jobs and some of the concerns that companies in the industry have. I thought it was a pretty balanced piece and I think it is a very legitimate concern that the businessmen in question - Q-Max I believe was the name of the company, who said: If we had known four or five years ago what we know now we would not have come here. They put $7 million into the industry and they are concerned the work that they did is drying up. They cannot keep the employees they have at the same levels that they had unless there is some work that comes by. That is a legitimate concern. They are allowed to speak out, and they ought to be allowed to speak out. I am very pleased to see that gentleman in the industry speak out.

The Premier has not had a chance to rebut that yet. He might be swaddled in coconut oil by now for all we know, but I am sure once he hears what the gentleman had to say there will be some retort to that. It is like the comment here the other day: The Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier, made a quote in The Telegram from some unnamed source, a businessperson, an executive in the city involved in the offshore industry. The Premier's answer to him was not: Well, I disagree with the man or this is why he is wrong. He did not say that. The Premier's answer to it was: He is a gutless coward. That is pretty good. The words he used, he is a gutless coward. The people, I think, on the other side, and the people in the industry know why an individual would not put his name out in public these days, because that is the whole issue we are dealing with here, it is confrontation and smashing people. Instead of asking for input and consultation, it is confrontation.

Mr. Cochrane, I do not know where he is going to be after tonight. God knows, he might not get another interview from the government for the next six months. He might not get it. I understand he was a persona non grata for a while after he did his speech to the Board of Trade. A great speech, I thought it was. I got a copy of it and read it. I wish I could put into words sometimes as concisely as he did, what I feel about a certain situation. I do not have that ability to do that, but he did a fantastic job. He called it political correctness. We hear a lot of that in this House here. My Premier is right and you are all wrong. We hear it from reaction, such as you gutless coward if you dare question somebody. Even tonight in the interview the Premier did on NTV about the equalization piece, he said: Yes, we should not have a Tory MP standing at the end of the day. Nobody in this Province should vote for a Tory MP. Yes, I am going to confront them again. There is no such thing as consultation anymore.

I am going to quote from the speech of Mr. Cochrane, and it is quite clear that the members on the other side do not want to hear what he had to say. They do not want to hear what he had to say. "Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil, or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lop-sided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government." That is what it does. "What matters most is a public display of loyalty; of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal, best return and most benefits for the province."

I also heard the Premier in the same story tonight: That's a good question. He raised a good question and we will have answers. We will not be like you people as to be so cute as to say the last time, we will not show you our plan before the election because you might steal it. We will not do that. By the way, we are three-and-a-half years out in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - and we are still looking for the plan. Still looking for the plan, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he said, we do not want to show you because you might steal that plan. I guess one of the pages in their plan was this picture here that the Member for St. John's North said today we should not be showing because it was abhorrent. Yes, maybe so, but I say to the Member for St. John's North, it is a reality. They say a picture tells a thousand words, Mr. Chairman, but this picture speaks of more than a thousand words. This picture speaks of 9,000 souls who were on Kenmount -

MR. DENINE: Is that a problem?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, that is a problem. I have a real problem, Mr. Member for Mount Pearl. Maybe you can sit in your confines in Mount Pearl and talk about how lucky you have it, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, maybe you were fortunate to have a teaching job in your career, maybe you were fortunate enough to be the Mayor of Mount Pearl for a number of years and to sit in here as an MHA, but I say to you, Member for Mount Pearl, go tell any one of the families or any one of these individuals who stood on Kenmount Road looking for a job that it is okay. Sit there smugly and smile in your seat as if it does not matter. Yes, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, it matters a great deal because everyone of these individuals here are true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to do nothing but live here.

MR. DENINE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I get to the member's point of order, I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that props are certainly not accepted here in the House. I would ask the Opposition House Leader if he would refrain from holding up anything in the House that can be considered a prop.

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

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You are correct when you talk about props. The hon. Opposition House Leader thought I said problems. I said props.

Mr. Chairman, this member does not find anything amusing about people leaving this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Not once.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: To say that I am on this side of the House making fun of people leaving this Province is totally political. The Opposition House Leader is up there pontificating what he wants to see happen on this side, not exactly what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chairman, what is happening here is, every time something happens on this side -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, if he has a point of order, if he would be kind enough to get to it so that we can move on with debate.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

What happens is that they give an image - the camera is on them over there - that what is happening over here is totally incorrect, totally inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition House Leader knows that, and he should be (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is obvious there was no point of order. Maybe if the good Member for Mount Pearl sat quietly instead of shooting his barbs across the House, that are absolutely unjustifiable, we would not be wasting the time here. The people in this Province, who are sitting home watching this debate tonight, would like to hear something that is worth talking about, not somebody who is on the defensive.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point as well concerning the prop thing, because that is important. Here is this House of Assembly, I understand, and it has always been my understanding, that fairness and equality fits all. It does not matter if you sit on that side of the House or if you sit on this side of the House. Maybe it is not the role and the job of the current Chair here in Committee to respond to what I am about to say, but we need some clarification, I say with all due respect.

You just made a comment, before the Member for Mount Pearl got up, about props, and I have no problem if everybody in this House is going to play by the same rules. I have no problem with that, if we all understand the rules, but we had an example here today where the Premier of this Province stood up and put six boxes on top of that Table there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: That is only one example and you can rule, if you want, that it was not a prop because it was tabled. It was only tabled after it was demanded to be tabled.

I also make another point, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: We sat in this House on Thursday past and the Premier stood up in this House and read from, and referred to, and waved around here, a door-to-door poster that was taken around in the last federal election, and he was reading from it, saying: A promise not kept is like a perpetration of a fraud upon the people - words to that effect.

Now, I admit, you were not sitting in the Chair at that time - it was not your ruling - but the Speaker was sitting in the Chair. Nothing was ever said about it. It was mentioned to the Speaker while it was being done - props, props - no comment.

All I say is: Are we all going to be treated alike in this House or are we not? Because, if I am not allowed to be waving props, I think we all ought to have the same rule.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time for speaking has lapsed.

The Chair has been fairly lenient. The Chair does not look at somebody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I ask the member if I could be heard.

If the member holds up something and just flashes it then I, as Chair, do not stand up and rule that there is a prop being used, but when I see somebody taking something from the desk on two or three occasions then it is obvious that particular person is taking advantage of the rules of the House. Hence the reason for my ruling.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have sat in this House for about seven years now. In fact, seven years in April, I would have been elected, so I have been in for any number of sessions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have seen such a blatant disregard for the Chair, standing in this House and bringing into question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - the integrity of the Speaker and you, Mr. Chair, and your behaviour in the House, and your conduct, and bringing into question your ruling. I say, Mr. Chairman, never before have I seen such a challenge to the integrity of your position.

Members on this side of the House have nothing but the utmost respect for you, Mr. Chairman, for the Chair, and for the role that you play, and the impartial way in which you carry out the role that you have in this House.

On behalf of members on this side I apologize to you, Mr. Chair, and to the Speaker, for the comments just made by the member opposite, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and bringing into question the integrity and the conduct of one of the highest officers in this House. I might add, the first elected Chair of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to hear that kind of comment, and disparaging comments, about your role and how you conduct yourself.

I heard the member opposite talking about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - he said, in response to comments on this side of the House, that the people out in Newfoundland and Labrador listening to this tonight wanted to hear something worth listening to. What did we just hear? Nothing but negative comments, nothing but criticism of what the Province is doing, nothing but a slanderous degradation of the people who live in this Province.

When we start looking at some of the success stories, I can understand questioning comments made by people on this side of the House. That is politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I can understand that, but I say, Mr. Chairman, if we look at some recent publications - I picked up the paper in Clarenville last week, The Packet, and it had an insert that talked about the business forecast for 2007. When you got through that, let me just read some of the headlines: A small town's fish processor overcomes many challenges on the road to success. A small fish plant in my district, in a community called Hickman's Harbour, started out ten or fifteen years ago. One individual started with a small building, packing caplin, and today having a $1.5 million payroll, employing a couple of hundred people every single season. A success story. A success story.

We look at another one that says, the largest owned independent supplier of heating and oil gas products in Newfoundland and Labrador, Western Petroleum. Another great success story. We look at another one, again from my district. Headline: Diversity key to success for Milton Enterprises. A small family run business making fibreglass boats, starting out very small with one mould, now has a fleet of boats. I think it is three or four different models that he is now producing, employing individuals on a small scale but exporting around the Province and throughout the country.

I see another, Mr. Chair, in your district. The headline reads: Heritage group injecting new economic life in Bonavista.

A tremendous success story in the tourism industry, protecting our culture, recording our history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - creating employment, creating attractions, bringing people from around the world to world-class facilities, excited about their visit, pleased with the reception that they get, supported by government investment; supported by this government's investment.

I see another one: Central Region bustling with economic activity. Another headline describing what is happening in Central Newfoundland in mining, in technology industries, all success stories. Nothing written, nothing spoken by any member on this side of the House, cannot be accused of being political. These are factual statements. These are people's success stories throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another one talking about a theatre company in Grand Falls-Windsor, a great success. Coast of Bays Region poised to lead Province in rural economic development - a headline in the newspaper.

What have we heard from members opposite about the poor downtrodden people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador not having a sound economic base, not having any prosperous future, people leaving, out-migration? If you left it to the people opposite, the message would be clear: We should all get out; we have no future here - but, when you start look at publications like this, I am refreshed. In fact, I get excited when I start reading about: The first shipment of ore leaves and arrives - those kinds of headlines. These are people who are telling stories about what is happening in their region of the Province.

I look at my own District of Trinity North. I drive through Clarenville. A couple of days ago I came back in here, but, before I did, I drove up through Manitoba Drive - steel being struck for a new long-term care facility. Over in Corner Brook recently, the start of a project to build a new long-term care facility in Corner Brook.

These are tremendous investments and, as we drive through those communities that I just identified, what are we driving on? We are driving on newly paved roads connecting the economic activities of each region, connecting it to each other, providing a strong, sound transportation infrastructure.

Look at some of the commitments that we have made. In the gallery tonight we have the newly elected Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to him, and to the good people of Labrador West who sent him here, that we will join him - the Premier and I will join him - in the coming months to start the construction of a new hospital in Labrador City.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: A big commitment to developing infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we look at other investments in health services, my colleague, the Member for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, on government's behalf, will be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay in a couple of days time to launch the process to ensure that we have new dialysis services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: All good news stories, I say.

Last year we announced an improvement in access to health services and, in the process, created new employment opportunities in St. Anthony, in Stephenville and in Corner Brook - rural Newfoundland - new jobs, well-paying jobs, while at the same time improving access to health services in our Province. These are the kinds of commitments that our government has made.

If you look at our history, in the last three years - and I will just take the portfolio that I represent now, Health and Community Services - look at what we have done in terms of new health infrastructure. I mentioned Clarenville. I mentioned Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and Grand Bank, I say to the member opposite, the contract for a new facility in Grand Bank. We have Lab West, and we have done some redevelopment in Gander. We look at dialysis services expanded into the Burin Peninsula, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander, Grand Falls. New cancer treatment: Last year some $15.5 million to improve cancer treatment in this Province.

Look at what we have done to reduce wait times, an investment in new diagnostic equipment, new CT scanners, new MRIs. When we took over government, what did we have? We had one CT scanner in this Province. How many do we have now? We have three. It happened on our watch, a major investment in health infrastructure, and the list can go on.

When we start looking at the investment in infrastructure, health, education, our continued investment in Memorial, look at what we have done with tuition. We continued to freeze tuition fees in this Province. We now have one of the lowest - in fact, the lowest - tuition fees in Memorial University, the lowest in all of Canada, I say, Mr. Chairman, a continued investment in the youth of this Province, a continued investment in the future of our Province, because these are the people, I say, Mr. Chair, who are our future. If we look at who we are investing our money in, these are the people we will look to, to continue to drive the economy of the future.

I say, Mr. Chair, and I will put all politics aside, I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, as he stands and is highly critical of what is happening around the Province and points to all the negative things, you have the luxury in Opposition to sit and criticize and to talk about what is not happening, and to be pointing out to all of the people in the Province what is wrong in this Province, all with a view of trying to blame us for what is before us, but, if you look at the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have had challenges for many years. We have had challenges in the fishery, we have had challenges in the construction industry, the mining industry, but we have been a very resilient community. We have been able to respond to some of the changes that are occurring and continue to be prosperous.

We have a role, as a government, to ensure that we continue to grow the economy. We have a role, as a government, to create the kind of regulatory and legislative framework that encourages businesses to start here. Government does not have the role to create every single job that needs to be created in this Province, but we do have a responsibility to create an environment where people are prepared to invest.

The people who were identified in this business publication, Mr. Chair, felt that it was important, felt that the opportunity exists, felt that the climate was existing in Newfoundland and Labrador for them to invest in their business to grow the economy in the regions in which they live, to provide a living for themselves and the employees who they have working for them, and to continue to contribute to the economy not only in their region but the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the role of government, I say, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. WISEMAN: By leave, to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. WISEMAN: Just by way of summary, it is fine to be able to stand here, as you do on your side of the House, and talk about things that are going wrong. We may stand on this side of the House and talk about all of the great things that we have done, and there have been many, but I think when we look at Newfoundland and Labrador today, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to have a confidence in what is happening around them. They have to see a bright future for all of us to continue to live here and have a supportive climate, have a vibrant economy, and I think, as legislators, we all have a responsibility in this House, as we stand and talk, to create that balance, to create that understanding.

I call upon members opposite, as they stand here tonight, and there are another couple of hours and I am sure we will hear more criticisms and I am sure we will hear more things about the negative things that are happening, but before you do that just stop and reflect for a moment; because, as I look at each and every one of you, there is something great going on in each and every one your districts. It is not only the people on this side of the House who can stand and talk about the great things that are happening in their communities and districts, in all honesty each and every one of you can stand in your place there tonight and talk about the great things that are happening in your neck of the woods, in your region and in your district. So, be honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and stand tonight and talk about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I am just going to take a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Bay of Islands wants to have a say, and I anxiously await what he has to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I had to comment, before I forgot, about the Member for Trinity North, I guess it is, the Minister of Health, who got up here and, at the beginning of his comments this evening, was quite critical. Now, this is the same individual who has only been a minister for a short while and who we all jokingly call the poster boy for Trust magazine, because this is the same individual, by the way, who sat inside of one caucus, the Liberal caucus, before he decided to cross the floor but knowing he was going to cross. Now, that is the individual we are talking about over there.

More importantly than that is his comment about, don't always be critical. I fully agree with him. I said today, when I spoke earlier, I gave credit where credit is due. I gave credit to Mr. Crosbie, who had done stuff to help Hibernia, I gave credit to Mr. Peckford, and I will give credit to this government. Whenever you do anything that deserves credit, this fellow here is going to be on your soapbox giving you the credit.

Let's rewind for a second. Let's rewind and put it in context here, for example, the things that the minister talked about being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The minister talked about money going into roadwork; true. The minister talked about money going into health care; true. A new hospital going to be built in Labrador West; true. We are seeing a lot of these things being done, but the minister has to acknowledge two things. He has to acknowledge that a lot of those things started before you fellows came on watch, and, secondly, that they only continue because the proper foundation was put in place.

For example, I hear the Minister of Business talking about Qatar and whatever else. The relationship that we have between CONA, for example, and Qatar right now - Qatar, Katar, however you want to pronounce it, and I have heard it pronounced both ways, by the way, from residents of the country; I have heard it pronounced both ways - that relationship we have with CONA did not come about on this watch. That relationship came about because the former minister in the Liberal Administration inked a ten-year deal. That is how that started. All we are saying is, do not overlook those things.

The call centre thing - we talk about employment being started - for example, they are intending now to put a call centre down in Marystown. We are lucky here. We have Convergys in St. John's booming. We have call centres, I do believe, out in the Carbonear area, the Grand Falls area, some in the Corner Brook area, but, folks, the PC Administration did not start the call centre phenomenon. You are growing on something that a former Liberal Administration started. That is where that started. I say to the Member for Mount Pearl again, the man who knows all the facts, you have to get your facts straight. You have to read stuff. It was the former Liberal government that started the call centre process.

I will give you another example. There is the EDGE Program. A lot of these companies that you are getting into this Province now, they are here because of an EDGE Program. You people did not start that. You cannot take credit for that; you did not do it. You did not get the revenue for these new hospitals without an offshore being developed.

We hear about the mining. The Member for Placentia got up today and, quite rightly, read about all the progress in the mining industry. Sure there is, and I hope we are going to see it really boom, but it was not a PC Administration that started the incentive programs in the mining industry in the 1990s that led to many of these explorations that are happening now. That was all done on a Liberal watch.

You people are reading your own press clippings too much, and the sad part about it is that you believe them. Some of these young new MHAs who are over there: the Member for Port au Port, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Kilbride -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not young.

MR. PARSONS: Not young, but young to the Assembly. Young at heart, I say, particularly all spruced up in his new tie and new suit. He is young at heart.

You people will learn - because you have not been around here long enough yet, but you will learn - some of the facts, rather than what is in your own press clippings, about who started these things, and that is all I say to the Minister of Health. We are not critical of the fact.

Who would ever be critical of the fact, for example, that you are going to put a dialysis machine up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay? How could anybody possibly be critical of that? You cannot be critical of that. I do not care if you are a PC, a Liberal, an NDP, or a Communist, if you are going to put a health care facility in Goose Bay to look after dialysis - or anywhere else - it is a good thing, folks. Nobody over here is going to criticize it.

If you can put a new school somewhere, where there is an air quality problem, nobody over here is criticizing it. All we are trying to get at here is the reality that you cannot take credit for being able to do those things because you did them on your watch. You are in a position where you have some cash flow for a number of reasons. The Atlantic Accord, a good deal, that is good. I am the first one to say: Good shot, boys, great.

The other things that are happening, you would not know but somebody over there controls them. The Minister of Natural Resources, for example, controls, I suppose, the money that is flowing in from the offshore. I think there are a number of things that might impact that, that have nothing to do with the good, hon. Minister of Natural Resources. I would think there is a thing called exchange rates. I heard the Minister of Finance doing a story out of Corner Brook, on one of the programs, the first man to say that we have no control over a lot of this stuff. We cannot control the exchange rate. We cannot control the price of a barrel of oil. We cannot control, for example, the production rates.

That has all happened, folks, because of other factors external to Premier Williams, external to any of us here, but thank God they happened. Thank God they happened, and I hope they continue. If it is going to be better for this Province, I hope the price of oil goes to $200 a barrel, if it is going to allow us, as a government, to do things, but don't try to take credit for making that price be what it is, for God's sake, or take credit for the fact that we even have an offshore industry. You just happen to be the present-day current managers of something that the Liberal Administration started. That is the fact you have to look at.

Now, you have made all kinds of accusations, too, that we did not look after it very well when we got it started. We went through that in 2004, in the House, from Minister Sullivan of the day, repeatedly. You have to stop trying to take credit for things that you did not do, and that is the only point that I would like to make.

I am going to make mine short this time, before I am told that I am out of time. I just want to talk about that reality. That is the reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to get up again tonight and have a few words to say in this House of Assembly, of which I am so proud to be a part. I have a few comments on Bill 71.

Mr. Chair, I know a lot of people in this House today can remember the time before we got the Trans-Canada Highway, before 1965. I remember it well, because I was a young boy and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: None of our younger members, whom I am proud of, remember that, but I am sure there are a lot here who do.

You know, sometimes we forget that everything has to start somewhere. Back in 1965 we had the Trans-Canada Highway, and over the years things were done. The road was paved. It was repaved and repaved over a number of years. What we have to remember is, when a government comes to power, it has to take the responsibility of taking the infrastructure of the Province, the resources of the Province, and enhancing them and making them better.

What we have found the last number of years, since this government took over, we took deteriorated roads in this Province and made them better. For thirteen or fourteen years prior to that we had a government that did not. It is hard to accept sometimes, when we talk about all the things in our Province and our districts, how bad they are. Sure, we can always, in Opposition, say the sky is falling, that things have never been so bad, but when you get in power, when your form a government and you come on this side of the House, then you have to be responsible and you have to act on your responsibilities. I do not think there are too many people in this Province today who can say that this government has not been responsible and has not done a good job -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: - in taking the things that happened many years ago, the roads that were built many years ago, the infrastructure, the hospitals, the schools - no one in this House today can say that things are not better tonight than they were three-and-a-half years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: An election is coming in a few months and everybody is going to have their report cards done. Everybody is going to have their Blue Books, Red Books, orange books, and are going to have their platforms, and the truth is going to come out when the time comes. We can get up here tonight and say all the good and bad things, what happened in the last three-and-a-half years or the last thirteen or fourteen years, but it is not going to make any difference in a few months time because we are all going to be made accountable on election night.

When election night comes, people are going to look at Danny Williams, the Premier of this Province. They are going to look at his Cabinet. They are going to look at his caucus. They are going to look at all the good things done in the last three-and-a-half years. Regardless, if you believe it or not, it does not matter because the proof is going to be there. When someone gets in a car and drives over the Trans-Canada Highway, or drives over a branch road in the Province, or goes to a hospital or goes to a cancer clinic or goes to a school, the people of this Province are going to know that in the last three-and-a-half years a lot was accomplished - a lot more than I thought we could do in three-and-a-half years, to be truthful. I did not think we were going to come so far. To think we came that far in three-and-a-half years, it amazes me how we had a government for fourteen years that could not come even near or even close to what we have accomplished in the last three-and-a-half years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I guess politics is something like a ball game, you know, the ball is thrown and you catch the ball. Now, what are you going to do with it? Are you going to stay there and do nothing and say: Well, my glove is not good enough, my running shoes are not good enough, so I am not going to do anything. Or, do you take what you have and say: Look, we are going to make it better. I am going to run as fast as I can. I can throw it as hard as I can. I am going to make a difference. I am going to change things.

That is what our Premier has done in the last three-and-a-half years. With the government we have, we have made great inroads in just about every department and every aspect of infrastructure and job creation.

Sure, everybody does not like the fact that people are moving out of the Province. I do not like it. I have nephews, cousins and close relatives who are moving. A lot of them are moving, not because there isn't a job in Newfoundland and Labrador; they are moving because there is more money somewhere else. We have young people coming out of universities and post-secondary institutions with great debt loads and they are seeing an opportunity now to go for two or three years and come back with their debts paid off and settle down in this Province to raise a family and have a new home. That is great. They are good things. I think that is a positive thing. Now we have people in our Province who are a little older, who do not want to go and move and take their families, so they are going to work and commute; go to work for three months and come home for a couple of weeks. Guess what they are doing? They are bringing back big pay cheques, big amounts of money that contribute to our economy in every district.

The car dealers are seeing young people coming home at twenty-five years old with $50,000 in their pocket and going out and buying a new pickup truck or a new car. Some are coming home and going out and buying new houses, and I have seen it. I have seen it in my district, thirty year olds coming home and buying $150,000 houses. That is a good thing. Do we want to keep them here in the Province, all of us? Sure we do. We want to keep our families here, and our friends and our neighbours. Sure we want to keep them but they need the ability to make a difference in their own lives. They need a chance to get ahead. They need to do this right now. Is it going to last forever? I do not think so. I think this Province has a great future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I think no matter what happens in the next fifteen or twenty years, we are not going to help but do good. I mean, it just cannot happen unless the bottom drops out of the resource sector prices, the mineral prices and the oil and gas prices, and all of that falls apart. Well, guess what happens then? Fort McMurray dies, too.

The thing is, we have to take advantage right now of the good things that we are doing, the good times that we are in. I do not think there is anybody in this House or this Province today who wakes up in the morning and say: Well, I don't want to live in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not want to be part of it. I do not want to contribute to it. Everybody who is born a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, this is their home. This is where they love to be. This is where they want to be, but because of economic circumstances, sure, we have to go. We have to go places to make a living.

Mr. Chair, I think the day is coming when this Province will look back in time, look at the history of what we have done in the last three-and-a-half years, and I hope in the next ten or twelve years, whatever it takes, that our Premier does get the things done, his dreams come true, for this Province that he has alluded to from time to time, where he wants to see this Province back on track. It does not matter what the Opposition say, because no matter what any member on this side says about the positive things in this Province and about the positive things our Leader wants to do and will accomplish, and the government that we have, it does not matter what they say, it is not going to be good enough for you to give us credit for it anyway.

It is just going to be a matter of time when people are going to realize: Hey, Premier Williams was right, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was right, the things that we are going to accomplish are going to be great things. I do not know where I will be in a few years from now. No one here knows where they are going to be in a few years from now, but we do have to have a government and we are going to have, possibly, an Opposition after October 9. It is possible, but we will have a government, that is for sure, a government in this Province, under the leadership of our Premier and the good Cabinet ministers that he has. We are going to be in great shape.

Having said that, you look at a lot of things in the Province - and every one of us could get up here tonight and state facts and figures, things that have been done. I am sure the Minister of Health has done a great job on some items that he pointed out. The Member for Terra Nova pointed out some really good items there. They are all listed there. We can get up and brag all night long. The Opposition can get up all night long and try to bring it all down around our ears and say the sky is falling, but it is not going to work because the people of this Province are smarter now. They know. They know because it is in front of them. They are living it. Everyday people in this Province are living the truth of what is happening in the Province.

Will it get better? I think it will. Will it get worse? Possibly. But I think if we do not do what is necessary to do the right things, especially with our resources and get the best deals - sometimes when governments are in power they think they have the best deal. I know when I was in Opposition and we were debating the Voisey's Bay deal, and we spent hours and hours and hours debating that deal - the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans got up, I think today, and talked about the loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through. I mean, we have seen things here that we did not like. We kept the debate going day after day. The Premier of the day - when Premier Tobin was here he said that not one spoonful will leave the Province. Well, guess what? One hundred percent of what is coming out of Voisey's Bay today is leaving the Province. At that time, he guaranteed us that 100 per cent of the ore coming out of Voisey's Bay will come back to the Province and be refined in this Province. Will it ever happen? I do not know if you can picture this or not, but how were you going to bring all of that back in ten or twenty or thirty years time? It is not going to happen. That is a loophole. That is something you can drive a Mack truck through. But, the deals that we made then are deals that are done. We will live with it. We will change what we can change and what we cannot change we will deal with; we will live with.

This government is going to make sure that every deal that is made is the best deal for the people of this Province, the best deal for the money that we spend and invest in this Province. We are going to get the best bang for the buck. If not, then maybe in ten or fifteen years, yeah, someone might have to be the last one to leave and turn out the light on the way out. That could happen if we are not responsible enough and we are not diligent -

CHAIR: Order please!

I remind the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale that his speaking time has lapsed.

MR. HUNTER: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HUNTER: I, for one, am not prepared to leave the future of this Province behind me. I want it in front of me, and I want to make sure that there is not one person who is going to leave this Island in ten, fifteen or twenty years and be responsible to turn out the light. I want to make sure and do something, to the best of my ability, regardless of what I have to vote on and what I have to support. I have confidence in the Premier and this government, that I know this is going to happen down the road, that our future is going to be secure for our children and our grandchildren for years and years and years to come. The resources are here to do it and we are going to make sure it is done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand and have a few words on the debate. I thank the Member for Windsor-Springdale for his words, but there are a few things that I have to mention first.

The Minister of Health and Community Services talks about integrity. I am sure that someone must have handed him a note to speak about the word because I am sure that his integrity, when he was on the Liberal side, and when that member then was giving people questions to ask to speak on the Voisey's Bay debate - five days later he stepped across the House and gave me a list of seventeen questions to ask about Voisey's Bay at a caucus meeting. Five days later the member crossed the floor, got on Open Line and told Bill Rowe: I had this planned for five or six months. And you want to talk about integrity? Five or six months! Now, there are a lot of members over there who can speak and talk about integrity, that is fine, but the Member for Trinity North, myself, and the Member for Carbonear have firsthand knowledge, when you were giving us questions to ask and you turned around and said to Bill Rowe that you had this planned for five or six months. I say to the member, if you are going to use the word integrity, practice what you preach. For God's sake, practice what you preach.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Windsor-Springdale talks about how we all have our opinion, and that is true. We all, in this House of Assembly, get voted in and we all can have our own opinion. But there is something that I find very strange - extremely! - that if you stand up and have some opinion which is against the Premier, you are not patriotic, you are not a Newfoundlander, you are not a Labradorian.

What happened here with the Atlantic Accord and the Prime Minister? There is no doubt that the Prime Minister broke his promise to this Province. Absolutely no doubt! Absolutely no doubt that he did that. Should we stand up now and vote for the Prime Minister? Of course, we should not. There is no way in the world, and every member over there agrees we should not support the Prime Minister.

I will ask every member over there, every member on the opposite side, and even the newly elected Member for Port au Port: When the Premier was out in Stephenville and he broke his promise to the people of Stephenville, that the mill will not close under my watch, how many of you went out and said: Premier, you broke a promise, we are going to campaign against you? How many members across did it? Not one. Not one member over there stood up and said: Premier, you broke a promise, we cannot support you. Get out and deliver on your promise. How many people did it? How many members opposite did it?

When you are standing up now all of sudden because it fits your bill or it is because the Premier tells you that you have to - oh, we all can't go against the Premier. Oh, no, we have to go against the Prime Minister. We have such integrity on this side of the House, we have such power, that we can get rid of the Prime Minister of Canada. How many stood up? How many members opposite stood up when the Premier went out with the members of the executive out in the union, in front of eight members in the union executive meeting? They have it in a copy of the minutes. He said: I will expropriate the assets of the mill in Stephenville. That was a commitment that was broken. How many members opposite stood up and said: Premier, you broke a promise, we cannot support you? How many members opposite did it? Not one.

I will just give you a few personal examples, if you want to talk about broken promises. I said this when the Premier was sitting in his seat, so I am not talking about him, but he happens to be the focal point here. When they had the big floods back in March, 2003, in Cox's Cove, when they had all the floods in that area and the fire department had to step in, they had to go into people's houses and they had to bring some seniors out of their houses, actually physically carry them, the Premier jumped on a plane and went out and visited them, saw it all, got all the photo ops and everything, and thanked all the fire department. Then when he was leaving, he says: Is there anything that you need? They said: Yes, we need two pumps, two water pumps. He said: How much? Fifteen hundred dollars. Fifteen hundred dollars is what they said. He said: You will have the two pumps and you will have the money; no problem. If I cannot get it from government, I will give it to you myself.

The deputy fire chief at the time, Wayne Payne - anybody here can call him - said: Premier, why don't you come out to our Fireman's Ball. He said: When is it? He said: Boy, it is usually in April some time. He said: Yes, okay. Wayne, in his usual way, says: Eddie Joyce comes out all the time. The Premier turned around, looked at him, and said: Keep inviting Eddie Joyce. Guess what? They never got the pumps and never heard from the man since. So, when you want to talk about breaking commitments and breaking promises, you do not have to go too far; you do not have to go too far. When we ask a question about the Atlantic Accord, we are not unpatriotic.

I will give you another example, Mr. Chair. The last election, HIS fire department - I am going to their Fireman's Ball, I think it is this Friday night, going to the Fireman's Ball. During the election the Premier and Mike Monahan walked in and promised them a new fire truck delivered within one year; a brand new fire truck. So, I sat down and met with the fire department. I asked the fire department: What was the deal? They said: We are getting a new fire truck within the year. What do you think? I said: Guys, there is no way in the world I can stand up here and promise you a new fire truck. There are two reasons why. One, a fire truck is usually twenty years old before you can even apply for a new fire truck. I said: Yours is only seventeen years. The Fire Commissioner's Office will not even accept the application. The second thing, by the time you put the application in, by the time you go though the process, by the time you go through the tendering process to get your truck, by the time the truck is delivered, it will take about two years. It just cannot be done. I refuse to make the commitment.

Guess what? The Premier won the government. I won the Bay of Islands. Guess what? They have not gotten a fire truck in four years. They never got a fire truck. They are down there now with the same fire truck they had three-and-a-half, four years ago. You want to talk about broken commitments and how people should stand up to their commitments. If the Premier really wants to say stand up to the commitments that you made, send them down a new fire truck; send them down the new fire truck that you promised to have delivered within a year.

If you want to keep going, let's go to Lark Harbour in the Bay of Islands, the breakwater. The breakwater was a big issue out there in the Lark Harbour area. There was even a letter sent around to work with the government and the PC Association - that is who we were dealing with to get the breakwater - so I went out and met with them during the election. I said: There is nothing that can be done with the breakwater. Small Craft Harbours, that is their responsibility.

The Premier walked out - no, we will get the breakwater, no problem, $650,000. No problem, we will get the breakwater. Guess what? Three months later the people in the community are phoning me, asking me if I can arrange a meeting with the Premier because he will not return their phone calls.

You want to talk about broken commitments? Am I allowed to question anybody on any broken commitments? That is just very micromanaged in the Bay of Islands, the broken commitments that we have by the Premier.

I will tell you about one incident. You want to talk about how people are treated fairly and how people will judge you in an election. I know the Member for Windsor-Springdale - there was a group out in St. James, Lark Harbour, who were going on an exchange program over in Europe and they were looking for some funding. I think they raised around $50,000 or $60,000, and the parents had to put in so much money, so they contacted me looking for some funding. I wrote the Minister of Education, the Member for Stephenville East, and explained the program. She wrote me back and said: No, there are no such funds available.

I got the letter and was waiting to see what else I could do when I remembered - there was something wrong with this, so I went through the files, I keep all the newspapers - I remembered, here was the Member for Stephenville East, just a little while prior -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education.

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Education.

- giving a group out in her district $2,000 for an exchange program. I said, now, there is something wrong; she is saying there is no such money available. I did off another letter, with a copy of The Western Star where the minister was out giving the cheque to them, and said: You have to treat all students the same.

She wrote back and said: Oh, no, there was a program that we got from the Member for Baie Verte, who was a minister at the time. That is where that money came from, and it is for some capital program. I cannot even remember what it was for. It was $2,000.

Then I wrote that minister, the Member for Baie Verte, and I asked him, and he said: Yes, we have the money but it cannot be used for that; it has to be used for core funding for the group. So I sent that minister the letter and the picture from The Western Star and said: They are using it for an exchange program. Here is what the minister has in there, here is where they are travelling, here is where they are going - never got the money.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bay of Islands that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the member, by leave.

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, you may be 80 per cent in the polls tonight, but the way you treat people is wrong. When the Minister of Education can go out and donate a cheque, give it to a bunch of students for an exchange program in her own district, and here is a bunch of students from Lark Harbour-York Harbour, the first time they ever went on an exchange program, and they write the Minister of Education, who is supposed to take care of all students in an equal manner, who says there is no money but yet she is giving out funds to her own district, that is absolutely wrong. It goes beyond politics. It is just not fair. It is not the way you treat all the schools around. It is not the way you treat the students around.

When the Member for Windsor-Springdale says that in six or eight months we will be (inaudible) your record, I am pleased to say that when we were in government I know the Member for Baie Verte can honestly stand in his seat and say that I supported him on many occasions to get money for roads in his district because it was the proper thing to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is with pleasure that I rise in the House this evening and speak to Bill 71. I am sure, like all other members is the House, I will be supporting this bill, because on March 31 whatever funding is available there now and approved for government runs out and lapses, and we need Interim Supply on April 1 to continue the operation of government. So, of course, Mr. Chair, as I said, I will be supporting this bill.

One of the things I would like to mention, I would like to talk a little bit about some of the things that we spent money on in the last little while, like many of my other colleagues in the House of Assembly, but there is one point I would like to make, Mr. Chair, and that is the fact that the House is back and we are going to approve Interim Supply by the House of Assembly. This was not always the case.

I can remember in many years prior that the Interim Supply was approved by special warrant, that the House was not recalled to approve interim funding, and as a result the Members of the House of Assembly really did not have the opportunity to speak to Interim Supply. The fact that the House is back and we are debating Interim Supply, Mr. Chair, is a great measure of our democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, before I start talking about some of the good things that this government has done since it came to power in 2003, there is one point that I would like to make. That is, when the members opposite were in government - now, we have heard many people on the other side talk about, well, we could not do these things because we did not have the money, but when you look back over the record of the previous government you can see that they ran up year after year. There were quite large deficits, and the deficits were increasing every year so that the last year they were in power - they left power in 2003 - well, for that fiscal year 2003-2004, they had projected a deficit of $666 million. Actually, Mr. Chair, the deficit for that year actually ran to almost a billion dollars. That was the year, Mr. Chair, that we came into office.

While we had thought initially that it would take probably eight years to turn things around, I think that we have done a pretty good job; because, the first year we were in power, the first full year, 2004-2005, we projected a deficit of $840 million and actually we were able to bring it in significantly lower, Mr. Chair, at $489 million. That was a significant decrease and, of course, there was a little bit of pain put in that year but we were trying to get the finances under control.

Now, in 2005-2006 we projected that we were going to have a deficit of about $500 million, and we did very good that year because we actually brought in a surplus of $200 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Now, imagine, we went from a deficit of a billion dollars in 2003-2004 and within two years we had that turned around to a $200 million surplus.

The one point that I would really like to make is that we had that surplus even after all the increased expenditures that we had incurred in order to build up the infrastructure around this Province and to improve our programs, that we went from a deficit of a billion dollars to a surplus of $200 million.

For this fiscal year, 2006-2007, we were projecting a surplus initially of $6 million. Now, Mr. Chair, we think we might have a very, very small deficit this year of about $40 million; but, considering the expenditures that this government has made - improvements, like I say, in infrastructure, significant improvements in programs, especially in the areas of education, transportation, and also health - I think that our fiscal record speaks for itself.

Mr. Chair, earlier this evening, or earlier today, my colleague from St. John's North started to speak about the Interim Supply and indicated that most of the expenditures are in the area of transportation, health and education. Really, those are the areas that government should be spending its money in, so we have made a wise decision there.

I would like to comment on some of the specific areas where we have had increased expenditures. The first one is the roads. Everybody who stood in this House today, on this side of the House, indicated that the roads within this Province have had a definite improvement over the last three years; there is no mistake about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Anybody you talk to will say that there has been a definite improvement in the road infrastructure around this Province, both the provincial roads, the Trans-Canada Highway and the Trans-Labrador Highway. In my own district, there are not a lot of provincial roads. There is a part of the Trans-Canada Highway, and this government had put over $3 million in a very small section of the Trans-Canada Highway in my district and I am very proud of that, Mr. Chairman.

Another area in my district is Route 60. There are only about maybe seven or eight kilometres of Route 60 in my district, but this government has been putting money into that road every year since we took office. Even that road, Mr. Chair, has shown significant improvement, so I am very proud of that.

One of the other areas that I would like to speak to is the capital equipment. The previous government failed to put money into capital equipment and, as a result, especially some of the large equipment that is used for maintaining the roads and snow clearing had been deteriorating. One of the problems we were having was that a lot of that equipment was breaking down and had to be repaired because a lot of it was very, very old.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rust buckets.

MS E. MARSHALL: Right.

This government recognized the need to have additional money put into capital equipment. There was $9 million put in, in 2005-2006, and in 2006-2007 there was $12 million spent on capital equipment. That is quite a significant improvement, Mr. Chairman.

One of the areas I would like to speak to, Mr. Chair, and it is something that I have spoken to before in this House, and is an area that I feel quite proud of, is in the area of the marine services and the ferry services. We all know that, under the previous government, the ferries were allowed to deteriorate . In fact, I do not think there was any ferry in our system less than twenty years old; I don't think. I can remember there was one built by this government back in the 1980s, maybe a couple. There were also a couple of used vessels that were purchased in probably the last decade. The most recent one we are aware of is the one we call the Nonia. We used to call it the rust bucket because we had put so much money into repairing that and putting it into service that we really could have gone out and constructed a new vessel.

One of the commitments that this government made in its blueprint, in its Blue Book, back in 2003, is that they would have a strategy for its ferries in the Province. Last year, Mr. Chair, that strategy was released. It was called the BMT report, and I found the report very interesting. I have read it twice, and I think that it will serve as an excellent blueprint for the ferry services in this Province. We are seeing, now, some progress being made. The contract was awarded for the design of two new ferries. Also, I think, back in February - I think it was even just last month - the Department of Transportation requested an Expression of Interest for the construction of two new ferries.

The intention is to have those ferries built in the Province. It is estimated that those ferries are going to cost, I think the number might be around maybe $25 million. The intent, Mr. Chair, is that these ferries are going to be constructed in the Province and that they will be available to be put into service in the fiscal year 2008.

Mr. Chair, the fact that we have all of these ferries that are quite old, we are putting a lot of money into keeping them up to standard. We are having them refitted, and we have put a lot of money into ferry operations. In fact, this year we are going to spend probably about $65 million in current account - that is not including capital - on the ferry services. Mr. Chair, we have also reduced the ferry rates in the Province. I think that is something that we should be all very proud of.

We will not make big improvements all in one year, but the fact that we are going ahead with two new ferries, we reduced the rates, and we do have a blueprint for the future, I think that is something we should be very proud of, Mr. Chair. It is something that we had committed to in our blueprint and we did it.

One of the other areas I would like to speak to, Mr. Chair, is the area of education. My district is situated just outside of St. John's. Actually, it is a growing community. The population out there is exploding, and both the communities out there, Conception Bay South and the Community of Paradise, are working hard to keep the infrastructure in place to accommodate the growth in the area out there.

There are a lot of young families out there, with children who are going to school, so, of course, they are very interested in what is happening in the area of education. When this government eliminated school fees in this year's Budget, of course, that had a very positive reaction in my district, as did the capping of class sizes. Initially, when we first came into government, a lot of parents were complaining about the size of the classes. Over the last number of months parents have seen that the class sizes at the lower grades have capped, and they are expecting the class sizes at the higher levels to be capped. I have been getting quite a bit of positive feedback on that.

Some of the other areas out in the District of Topsail, my district, both in the community of Paradise and the community of Conception Bay South, involves the schools -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Topsail that her time for speaking has expired.

MS E. MARSHALL: By leave, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS E. MARSHALL: Yes, I would just like to finish up with my discussions on my schools out in the District of Topsail. The Paradise Elementary School has had problems. There has been quite a bit of money put into that school by this government, but there have been some problems out there with regard to mould and things of that nature. The government and the school board are working together to try to address that issue. There are also issues with regard to whether there is adequate space for all of the children out in those areas and that, of course, is being addressed by both the school board and the government.

Mr. Chair, I will finish my comments there, but I look forward to having some more comments regarding some of the health issues in the Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason I am smiling is because of such an applause that the members opposite are giving to the Member for Topsail tonight. I find it somewhat strange, I suppose, and ironic that recently, I think as late as last Friday I read with interest in The Independent, which is a local paper here on the Avalon, that she has not yet ruled out a stab at the nomination for the federal Tories in the District of St. John's North, I think it is called - is it, or St. John's East? St. John's East.

What I find even more ironic about that is before she has even considered or made up her mind 100 per cent that she is going to run for the federal Tories in the next election, the Premier is already out saying don't vote for her or anybody else who is running. That really is ironic when you consider what he did to her simply because she did not agree with the principle that he adopted with regard to the VON in Corner Brook a few short years ago. I thought that she was a good Minister of Health and she was a good Auditor General. I had the pleasure of working with her in the past when she was the Deputy Minister of Transportation and also the deputy minister of social services. I wish you luck if you do consider running in the federal Tory race because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you vote for her?

MR. REID: Let's put it this way - how about if I say it this way. I will vote for her in the nomination. Never mind what the Premier says, I say to the Member for Topsail, because we all know how you all voted the last time. We have your pictures, actually. We have your pictures of who supported whom.

Loyola Hearn is pleased to announce that all members of the provincial Progressive Conservative caucus from his riding are endorsing his stand or endorsing him during the federal election. On the cover of that, His Excellency, I suppose Loyola Sullivan, moved on to better and bigger things I guess. Then we have the Speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley, and then we have the Member for St. John's North, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's West and the Member for St. John's Centre. The Member for St. John's North, not to be outdone by anyone else in pledging his undying support for the federal Tories, not only was he seen in the brochure for -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Not only was he seen in the brochure for -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition again about displaying props here in the House. The ruling has already been made. The hon. member continues to display props. I ask if he would refrain immediately.

MR. REID: All right, Mr. Chair, I will do that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Chair, the Member for St. John's North just about did cartwheels because he wanted to outdo all the rest of his colleagues over there in his undying support for the federal Tories. Not only did he want to be seen with Loyola Hearn, the Member for St. John's South, but he also had to have his picture in the brochure with the Member for St. John's North, Norm Doyle, as well. Now he is up tonight tut-tutting us over here because someone mentioned the fact that you should not be out slamming the Tories so hard. Now he is trying to kill himself to get out to slam them.

You never know, I say to the Member for Topsail, he might vote for you yet. He might just come out, sneak out and vote for you in the next election. He might vote for Mr. Hearn as well.

I want to talk about the comments that were made by the Member for Burin-Placentia West tonight because he, like other members over there, got up and talked about how the sky is not falling and things are a lot rosier than they appear to be and that we should not always be sitting back waiting for things to happen, we should be more proactive. He started talking about an individual, a young man twenty-nine years old in his district. I think he was involved with the inshore fishery. He talked about how the fishery was not dead and there are things in the fishery. Well, I tell you, Mr. Chair, I will never say that the fishery is dead in this Province. The fishery is what brought us here and the fishery is going to sustain us long after the Voisey's Bay mine runs dry, long after the oil and gas reserves on the East Coast of our Province are gone.

I say to the minister, when you were talking about proactive things being done, you talked as well about the need to do secondary processing in this Province because we do too little processing. We do a minimum amount of processing on our fish products. Well, I say to the minister, to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, all he has to do is go to Burin to see about secondary processing. It is too bad that we do not have more secondary processing plants, the likes of which you have in your district in the Town of Burin. Unfortunately, we heard today from your fisheries minister that this was probably going to be sold to Highliner, and that concerns me. That concerns me when a Nova Scotian company is going to own that facility, because it concerns me what they are going to do with it. Obviously, they are not going to have the same regard for that facility as the companies that they own in Nova Scotia.

Let's go back. You talked about being proactive and doing things, not just sitting back and waiting for things to happen. Well, I remember in 2002-2003 what was happening on the Burin Peninsula. I would say you had thousands working in the Marystown Shipyard and the Cow Head facility. You had so many people working in the Marystown area, in fact, that people who were on social assistance and renting apartments there were asked to leave. The reason for it is because people who were moving in there to take up employment in the Marystown Shipyard and in the Cow Head facility were paying more, they were willing to pay more for rent. They could not find accommodations in that area so they were asking social service recipients to leave their accommodations. In other words, they were kicking them out, the tenants were, so that they could charge more to those highly-skilled labourers, or highly-skilled tradespeople, who were coming into your town, in Marystown, to go to work in that facility. I ask the minister, what is happening down there today?

Again, Mr. Chair, I tell the minister that three short years ago there were 650 people working in the plant in Marystown, 650 plant workers going to work there on a regular basis getting twenty, thirty weeks a year - they used to get fifty-two. How many of those are working today, I say to the minister? How many of those are working today? How many of them have worked in the past fifteen months? If you are talking about looking to a bright future and you are talking about being proactive, you have lost, I would say, at least 2,500 to 3,000 jobs in your district in the past three years under your rule, since you were elected. And you are talking about a bright future!

The other day I listened with interest as you were on Open Line, and someone asked you about the sale of the two draggers in Marystown that were owned by FPI, two new draggers that they built just a few short years ago. In fact, I would say that both of those boats were christened since you were elected and cost tens of millions of dollars. All of a sudden, your government, of which you are a part, your Cabinet, which you sit around the table with, made a decision to allow FPI to sell both of those draggers. You went on an Open Line show and when asked a question about the sale of the draggers your answer was, when you were asked, you said you did not know about it. You did not know that FPI had sold two of its draggers; tens and twenties of millions of dollars worth of vessels that were integral to the operation of the Marystown plant that employed 650 people.

They heard Earl McCurdy on today from the fisheries union. I was saying there were 650 people without jobs down there, I was low balling it. What I forgot, what Mr. McCurdy mentioned today on the broadcast, was the fact that there were 100 or 150 people employed on those draggers. They were employed on those draggers and you did not even know they were sold. One hundred-and-fifty of your constituents do not have boats on which to work, even if FPI were to go back to work today. One hundred-and-fifty, and you did not know they were sold. That is what he said: I will have to check into it. One hundred-and-fifty of the families in your district. You should be ashamed, minister. You should be ashamed to go back to those people and say that you did not even know that they sold the boat which displaced 150 workers.

You are talking about being proactive and talking about how you have to look on the rosy side of things. We cannot be always doom and gloom, like we are here. Well, boy, I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. I just praised the Member for Topsail, because she has done some good work in her day as a bureaucrat. She still continues to toe the party line, even though every time she turns around someone is trying to push her down over there. They do not really want her. The Premier put the edict out on her; defeat her before she gets her name on the nomination papers.

They talk about how things are rosy and they talk about a bit of pavement being laid here and there. The Member for Bonavista North got up today and bragged about the bit of pavement they got down in Gander Bay last year. Sure, I stood in this House last year this time, just before the budget came out, and told you about a petition that the residents in my district were being asked to sign by your constituents; if we would support them in trying to get a bit of pavement through Gander Bay. I am glad to see that you got a couple of kilometres and I am glad to see that the residents in my district helped you get those by getting that petition sent into your own caucus and your own Minister of Transportation. So, I am glad to know that we played a small role in you getting a bit of pavement. Maybe you will do the same for us this year, I say to the Member for Bonavista North.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: A couple of minutes to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. REID: The other day I talked about all the rosiness that has occurred in the last three years under their watch. I ask them to stand all the time and tell me what you have done to create a few jobs in this Province. I can tell you jobs that were lost under your watch. In Stephenville, Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown, Englee, Goose Bay, Little Bay Islands, I say to the minister.

I say to the Premier, what are you going to do with Little Bay Islands? A plant over there on an island - Mr. Daley has informed them, if the e-mails I am getting are correct, that he is not going to open his plant this year. What is your plan for those people? You are not going to go out there and say it is not going to close under your watch are you, Premier, and then come back here and tell me you are naive? Is that what you are going to do?

What about Lewisporte Wholesalers or Atlantic Wholesalers, ready to close and going to lay off seventy people in Lewisporte? Tell me the bright future there is for those seventeen employees. Tell me the bright future there is for the one hundred-and-some-odd employees in Little Bay Islands. Tell me what you are going to do with all of these people. You are going to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, as I heard the Premier say on many occasions to the people of Harbour Breton. Well, Premier, I hope you have broad shoulders because many of the people you said you were going to stand shoulder to shoulder with are now working in New Brunswick. What have you done about it? You talk about everything you have done for Harbour Breton. What have you done? You have let John Risley and his gang go down there and close the plant and throw 350 employees to the wind and now you are bragging to me about what you did for Harbour Breton. Why don't you stand tonight and tell us what you did for the people of Harbour Breton - why don't you do it? - where you have forty or fifty people down there now who, I doubt very much, are getting a full week's work any week

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

MR. REID: How long are they going to continue to work? What did you do for that plant? Mr. Barry purchased it, not you. So what did you do? What did you give them besides a bit of make-work?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Madam Chair, I will be back later on tonight.

Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave withdrawn?

MADAM CHAIR: No, leave was not withdrawn. He asked for a couple of minutes leave and the couple of minutes leave was up.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: We have no difficulty, Madam Chair, with the Member for Exploits starting now, but I just thought, for the record, you did indicate that it is up to whoever gives the leave, as I understand it, to withdraw it. The Leader of the Opposition has been given leave and nobody withdrew it, to my knowledge.

MADAM CHAIR: I did hear some members on the other side -

MR. PARSONS: You indicated that he had a couple of minutes to clue up. That is not the way I understand the system works. If somebody wants to withdraw, they should say withdraw, otherwise the member will keep speaking.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point order.

I will clarify it by saying that when the hon. member asked for leave, he asked for a couple of minutes to clue up and I heard some members on the opposite side say that he asked for a couple of minutes and that his couple of minutes were up. Taking that direction, I reminded the hon. member.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this Interim bill tonight.

I am sure I could talk about a lot of things that are going on in the Province, but for the naysayers who say we are not doing anything for rural Newfoundland, and coming from a rural area, I think I would rather stick with rural Newfoundland and maybe in the Exploits district.

I listened to my colleague from Kilbride when he spoke and said that not too many people have mentioned about agriculture and agrifoods. Well, on the Northeast Coast aquaculture is also a growing concern, and because of the investment that is being made on the South Coast as well by this Administration in aquaculture, there are plants in my district that are now doing well.

I had the very fortunate opportunity to attend the tenth anniversary of Newfoundland Styro a little while ago and, of course, they supply a lot of products for commercial and residential buildings. However, probably their biggest product of all is for the aquaculture business. When I was there that day talking to the manager, he explained to me that the deal that came down with Cooke Aquaculture was certainly going to keep his business growing. This is a manufacturing business in rural Newfoundland with seventeen employees. They have been there for ten years and are now looking at their third expansion for rural Newfoundland. So, anybody saying we are not doing anything for rural Newfoundland, I think they had better check again.

When we talk about agrifoods and aquaculture, which again is big in my area and the Exploits area - we have the egg-grading plant there that employs fifteen to seventeen people. We also have a vegetable marketing system there that employs fifteen to eighteen people, and this has all been supported by this Administration and this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: They have been allowed to keep going, they have been allowed to invest, they have been allowed to produce and process primary cuts, which are shipped right across the Province, and they are still growing. Because of that particular sector of business, they can also support the vegetable growers as well. In Central Newfoundland we have quite a few root crop vegetable growers and they can avail of that service. The egg-grading plant there employs about fifteen people. They supply somewhere between 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the product for the Province. They also take from two farmers - these are more jobs, of course - in Central Newfoundland, one from the Exploits district and one from the Lewisporte area, in Minister Rideout's area. These are industries that are growing and maintaining, have been there for a number of years, all because this Administration, under the Natural Resources - the minister and this Administration see the need for aquaculture and agriculture in that area.

We have also been very fortunate in the area that we have a lot of small manufacturing businesses. These manufacturing businesses employ ten, fifteen, twenty people. We all know that the gas and oil and the mining are the big ticket items. That is where a lot of people want to go to probably make the big bucks. However, we also need services and spinoffs, and these people are doing it. Not only are they doing it in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are doing it in rural Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, last year - and I have said it here before - Hi-Point Industries won the Exporter of the Year Award for shipping to seven different countries.

I think we are doing well in the rural areas, actually. If we did not believe in rural Newfoundland we would not be spending and investing in education, health care and road improvement programs. Just last year, in the Exploits district alone, we spent a little over $2 million on road improvement. Ten years prior to that, we had $2.5 million in road infrastructure. It is no wonder our roads are like they are and that we are working hard to catch up. When this minister today, Minister Hickey, comes out with another $60 million in road improvement programs, that is welcome news to this Province and to rural Newfoundland, I will guarantee you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: We have bridges in our district, and I am sure right across the Province, that have not been touched. They are rusted, they are falling down and pretty soon we will not be able to go over them. This Administration and this minister have taken the initiative to make sure that these bridges are brought up to standard so that we can get to each community because that is how we are going to get there, by crossing over these bridges. Our minister is working towards that. We are getting the investment, and I tell you, for us in rural Newfoundland, that is what we need, and it is greatly appreciated, minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Education: If we do not educate our people and if we do not start in our small communities to educate our people, then we are not going to progress. We are not going to excel in the IT industry, in the skilled trades industry. We are not going to be able to do that. There are eight schools in the Exploits district; eight. Seven of them were in dire straits and needed maintenance and upgrades. We were very fortunate, under this Administration, to invest $2.3 million into these buildings in upgrades. I think that is the most money that was spent in these schools in over fifteen years, so we have been really behind the eight ball.

We have spent money in health care, and of course none any better than what happened this year when we opened the cancer treatment centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, something that probably took the previous Administration eight or nine years looking at it and did not do anything about it, but this Administration saw the need and they came through in flying colours. Last fall I was pleased to be there for the opening. I spoke to some of the nurses there, some of the cancer nurses, and they talked about how different it was, the environment, and how clean and bright it was, and the patients, the difference that it made to their lives. Those are the kinds of things we are doing.

I can remember in Grand Falls-Windsor - because I am only ten kilometres away - there was a young fellow who went on a crusade to try to get a dialysis machine in Grand Falls. Actually, it was at the same time that my brother-in-law was on dialysis as well, because he picked up the crusade and they campaigned and raised money, his friends and family, to try to get that dialysis machine there. Well, we have it, but we have it because of the efforts of a young man who saw a need, and his family and friends helped him out. What did we do this year? We put in three new renal dialysis machines. What a difference for these people who do not have to travel 400 and 500 kilometres for dialysis. They are enjoying the short trips. They are enjoying the atmosphere and they are enjoying the opportunity to have a full life and spend more time with their families.

Getting back to education, we were very fortunate this year in one school to put in a skilled trades program. I spoke to one of the teachers there who is involved in it. He said he has students there who are not really that interested in learning, but when they started the skilled trades, he said, I have one student in particular I can put in a carpentry shop and he is at home, and he is good at it. That means that these people, these students, young boys and girls, can come out with a skilled trade that they can use in this Province, and even out of the Province if necessary. The way that this Administration, this government, is going with the investments -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. FORSEY: I am ready to clue up.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has one minute.

MR. FORSEY: Basically, I would just like to say, this government is investing in education, road improvement programs, health and community services, aquaculture, agrifoods, everything that affects rural Newfoundland. We are doing it because we want to support rural Newfoundland because that is our commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to talk about a couple of issues this evening, and the first one I want to talk about has to do with the wind power development project that is being proposed for Labrador.

In addition to that, Madam Chair, they are involved in projects right across Quebec. The reason they are involved in projects in the Province of Quebec, according to the Chairperson and owner of Ventus Energy, John Douglas, is that, he says: With the delays in Newfoundland and Labrador with the Province's energy plan, Douglas says his company has to go where the opportunities are, and in this case it is in Quebec.

These are the members opposite who we saw all day getting up on their feet and talking about what wonderful things they are proposing to do. Yet, you get a company on your doorstep who is ready to invest more money than that which was equivalent to the Atlantic Accord that we hear everybody bawling about on the other side for the last week, but they cannot get a fair hearing with this government, with the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, or the Minister of Natural Resources, with the Minister of Labrador Affairs, with the Premier or anyone else. Now, Madam Chair, what is wrong with that picture? This is a government that claims they are deal makers.

Madam Chair, we have seen deals lost. We have seen deals go out of this Province. We have seen people displaced from the workforce. The only thing we have not seen out of the government opposite, in their almost four years in office, is a deal that they could sink their teeth into. That is the only thing we have not seen. When you get companies like this that are prepared to develop 1,000 megawatts of wind power, that are prepared to employ up to 500 people in this project, that are prepared to invest billions of dollars, and yet they cannot get their foot in the door - why is that?

You know, I only have to go back to a speech that was made by the Premier in 2003, on October 6, when he was campaigning. He made a statement in Labrador, and this is what he said: I believe that our Province has been treating Labrador like second-class citizens. This is what he said. He did not say that he was going to change that, and it is obvious that he has not changed anything. In fact, if there is any time when Labrador has been treated like a second-class citizen, it is now on this wind development project. If the real reason by the government opposite was that they would not register this project for an environmental assessment because the energy plan was not completed, I could accept that. I could accept it only if the same rule applied to the Island portion of the Province. That is where I have the difficulty.

That rule is not applying to the Island part of the Province. The minister knows that. The Minister of Environment knows that there have been several projects since January 1, 2006, that have been registered for wind power in this Province, under the environmental assessment process, that are ongoing right now in different regions of the Province. Why is there a double standard?

We also know that any time the government gives the go-ahead for an environmental assessment to be done on a project, it does not mean that they are giving the go-ahead for the project itself to become implemented or developed or to proceed. All they are doing is giving consent and permission to look at what the environmental impacts or benefits, or whatever the case may be, are on any particular project. It does not mean that they are giving them the go-ahead to proceed with a project.

Maybe that is part of it. Maybe, because they do not know where they are going on the Lower Churchill deal yet, maybe they do not know if they are going the Anglo-Saxon route or if they are going through Quebec, or if we are going to use it all in Labrador, or if we are going to do something else, or if it will ever materialize under the leadership of the members opposite. Maybe that is part of it. Maybe they do not want to use wind power to use up the capacity on their lines. Another option, maybe.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has lapsed.

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Half an hour to clue up, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: Just to clue up.

MS JONES: The Member for Baie Verte gave me half an hour, and I appreciate that.

Madam Chair, on that note, the point that I am trying to make is this: If using the transmission capacity is an issue with this company developing a wind power project, don't you think the government should at least have the decency to open their doors, to allow them into their boardrooms, to sit and discuss with them, to allow them to proceed with an environmental assessment process, the same as they did other wind projects on the Island of Newfoundland? No, Madam Chair, that has not happened.

When I see things like this, I have no other option but to question what the government's intentions are and what their ability is to really attract new investments in this Province. It is not everyday you are going to get a company with the reputation of this one, Ventus Energy, knocking on your door; a company, Madam Chair, that has twenty-five wind projects developing right across the country, a company, Madam Chair, that is heavily involved. They have twenty-five projects they are involved in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Madam Chair, the member opposite can get up as soon as I sit down.

I met with John Douglas, the President of Ventus Energy, and he told me specifically that there were twenty-five different projects that they had interest in and were working on in the country. How far advanced any of them are, I cannot say. I am familiar with the work they are doing in Prince Edward Island. I visited the site where they were doing the work. I also know, Madam Chair, that Prince Edward Island, because of its project with the North Cape Wind Farm, have been designated now as one of the key research centres for wind power in the country, and I know that Ventus Energy is heavily involved there.

Notwithstanding all of that, Madam Chair, I would like to know the answer to two things. Number one, why there is a double standard when it comes to registering wind projects in the Province. The second thing I would like to know, Madam Chair, is why the government is so insistent on barring a company out of this Province that has $2.5 billion to invest in a project.

I will conclude there.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, let me say this, it is a pleasure to stand here in my place tonight and to take a few minutes to talk about what we are doing in this Province, and what we are doing in Labrador particularly, and what we are doing in the Department of Transportation and Works.

Before I do that, Madam Chair, I would like to congratulate, certainly, my new colleagues on this side of the House. I can tell you that over the last number of by-elections the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have shown their support for the leadership of Premier Williams and this government. If you look at the results in Labrador West in the last election just a week or so ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: - I can say to you, Madam Chair, that the people of Labrador West, through a democratic process, chose to support this government and indeed the leadership of this Premier. Indeed, Madam Chair, the polls speak for themselves when the crowd across the way come in at a distant - I say distant! - fourth place, Madam Chair. That says it all in a nutshell, Madam Chair, as to how the people of Labrador West feel, and I am very excited about having my new colleague from Labrador, Jim Baker, join me in a number of days, as soon as he gets sworn in, to sit with us here and to be part of a government that has made a difference to the people of Labrador, and indeed is making a difference each and every day to the people of this Province, in all parts of this Province.

Madam Chair, I want to address the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a number of her issues there. She talked about Ventus wind power, and I think we have to set the record straight. Nobody has driven Ventus wind power out of this Province. Having said that, let there be no mistake; we are not going to allow Ventus or any other company to take the benefits of our resources and to reap the profits and put them into their pockets. They will be dealt with. We will deal with them in our boardrooms, at the executive level, when the time comes and we have the energy plan.

We are talking about a huge wind opportunity upon the plateau of the Upper Churchill, we are talking about a vast amount of power, and I can tell you that we, as a government, want to see the benefit of that power for the people of this Province. We will not allow them or any other company to come in and reap the benefits of our resource in which we only get a pittance back. We saw that in the past, Madam Chair. We saw the history of the hon. crowd across the other side, Madam Chair, as they went and tried to basically shaft this Province with the Lower Churchill under then Premier Roger Grimes.

I remember those days well. I remember the days when I saw former Liberal Premier Brian Tobin go to Churchill Falls with Bouchard. Everything was ready to go, the books were all printed, they were going to roll it out, and they had not consulted with a single soul in Labrador. Those days are over, Madam Chair. They are over, they are done with, and (inaudible) I can say to you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Madam Chair, when we talk about these types of projects, there is one thing on which we have been very clear. Premier Williams has been very clear to all those who have come our way, whether it be the oil companies, whether it be Fishery Products International. I remember one in particular in Labrador West. LabMag was a company, and they had wanted to send the ore out to Seven Islands for processing. It was under the leadership of this Premier and this government that we said: No, you will not get a mining licence in Labrador West if you do not process the ore there.

I am happy to say, Madam Chair, because we stood our ground - this Premier stood his ground, this government stood its ground - we are going to see an expansion over in Labrador West with LabMag and we are going to have 800 new jobs because of that, Madam Chair. Eight hundred new jobs, I say to you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: The sky is not falling.

MR. HICKEY: The sky is definitely not falling. I can assure my colleague, the sky is not falling.

When we look at the mining sector in Labrador now, it is expanding. We have some of the greatest exploration results we have seen here in the uranium industry, right now. Prices are at an all-time high in uranium and we will have another world-class deposit up in Northern Labrador for the benefit of the people of Northern Labrador, the people of Labrador, and the people of this Province, because that is what we expect, that is what this government expects, and that is what this Premier expects.

MS DUNDERDALE: Sixty thousand permits are looking for uranium.

MR. HICKEY: Sixty thousand permits are looking for uranium, my hon. colleague tells me. Now, isn't that just amazing?

Madam Chair, when we look at what this government has done in the last three-and-a-half years, it is indeed an amazing feat. We took a government that had neglected the people of this Province, had neglected the roads in this Province, had neglected the ferries in this Province, had neglected the people of this Province, I say to the Leader of the Opposition - shameful, absolutely shameful, the neglect that the previous Administration had laid on the people and the communities of this Province.

As we look back on the last three-and-a-half years, it has taken, certainly, a constitution of leadership, it has taken a lot of hard work on behalf of the people on this side of the House, to ensure that we set the fiscal balance in this Province and that we make the decisions that are necessary to improve the infrastructure of this Province.

Take, for instance, Transportation and Works. When I look back on the history of the previous Liberal Administration, back in 1996 I think it was a mere $6 million. Six million dollars is all that the hon. crowd across the way there spent on road improvements in this Province. No wonder the people from the Bay of Islands are complaining about their roads. No wonder we have roads in this Province that we still have to do a lot of work on. We did not talk about it, Madam Chair, we went ahead and put in the resources that were needed to upgrade the roads of this Province. We have not just committed the money, we are spending the money.

As my good friend, the Member for Topsail, mentioned earlier when she said we can see the benefits on the roads in this Province, we can see it on the Trans-Canada Highway, we can see it on the Gander Bay Highway, we can see it out in Exploits, and we can see it all throughout the Province, on the Great Northern Peninsula, the work that this government has done on the road systems of this Province. I can tell you, we are not talking about it, people can actually see it.

When we talk about the ferry systems of this Province, I can tell you, as the Minister of Transportation and Works, that when I took this portfolio from my predecessor - I can say to you, that as I look back on it now, it was a daunting task to review the issues with the ferry system in this Province because, again, it was neglected by the hon. crowd on the other side.

Let's take the Nonia, the Hull 100: we purchased it, a rust bucket from Estonia. Absolutely, totally disgraceful to bring it to this Province to serve as a ferry system in the islands of this Province. Absolutely unbelievable! We had to go and spend close on $12 million just to get her to float. Just to get her to float we had to spend $12 million, Madam Chair. Those are the types of decisions that got us into the problems and the disparity that this Province has been in for many, many years.

What we are doing, Madam Chair, is we are building two new ferries and we are going to build another three over the course of the next number of years to replace the ferry systems of this Province. We are going to build those ferries right here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The expressions of interest are out. I can tell you, shipyards within this Province will certainly have an opportunity to build those right here. When we look at this, this is support. This is an influx of support for rural communities, again, in this Province.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition going off on a rant and a rave: Oh, we do not care about rural communities in this Province. We do not care about this Province. Everybody is leaving. Doom and doom. Madam Chair, nothing can be further from the truth. When we look at our ferries, it is an investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When we look at our roads, it is an investment.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HICKEY: Just a few minutes to end, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HICKEY: When we look at our roads, Madam Chair, we are investing some $60 million a year into the roads of this Province and we will continue, I say to the people of this Province, to upgrade the roads of this Province. As my officials told me in the department, at $60 million a year, it will take us ten years to bring the roads of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador up to an acceptable standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We are committed to it and we will continue to do it in the course of the years to come.

Madam Chair, just one last point. I want to talk about this, the Trans-Labrador Highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: Thank you.

Just one last comment, and that is for the people of Labrador on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Let me say, Madam Chair, that we are committed to the Trans-Labrador Highway. I have received word today from the hon. Loyola Hearn that he is now looking at dates to sign off on the agreements, on the CSIS agreements here in this Province, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is good news for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some $45 million in CSIS funding will be approved in new construction in this Province over the course of the next number of years.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to Member for Topsail, she still has a chance if she wants to run for the federal seat. He just mentioned Loyola Hearn's name in the House of Assembly and every one of them over there cheered for him.

Now, Madam Chair, the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Transportation and Works got up there talking about wind power tonight, and you talk about wind. You talk about wind! It is too bad we never had one of those turbines or wind jacks set up over on this side of the House because, I tell you, we would have no trouble lighting up St. John's tonight.

Madam Chair, the member got up and talked about what they have been doing for Labrador. I will get into Labrador West later on. They talked about what they have been doing for Labrador. I ask the minister, maybe when I sit down he can stand and tell me everything that they have done in the last three years when he stands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I can tell him what the Liberal government did. I can tell him that it was the Liberal government who built the brand new hospital that he now visits in Goose Bay. It was the Liberal government who built that at many, many, many millions of dollars, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I also say to the minister, it was the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that built the courthouse in Goose Bay. I will also tell the minister that the Liberal government built a $12 million school -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten million.

MR. REID: Ten million. Oh yes, $10 million. A lot you know about it. You might be able to bluff some people but you do not bluff me, I say to the minister - a $12 million school. I might add, Madam Chair, that we had the money in our budget in 2003 for the auditorium that was going to be attached to it, along with the money from the federal government. It was he and his government, when they were elected in 2003, who cancelled and postponed indefinitely the building of the auditorium. Now, all of a sudden, he came out a year or so ago and said they were going to now reconsider that and they were going to build an auditorium.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the minister, I guess we will hear that again in the budget this year, and sometime between now and October someone might go up there and do what you did over in Labrador West in the middle of the winter. You promised them a hospital too, two budgets ago. You had to go up there when it was fifty-six below, over in Labrador West, with a backhoe trying to do soil samples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Leader of the Opposition. I ask for order, please.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the protection you are trying to give me from the Member for Lake Melville. Again, I only wish that we had a turbine set up on this side of the House because we would not need a lot more wind than we are getting from the minister. That is what I say.

Now, Madam Chair, what I was talking about; we had the money for the auditorium. They cancelled it. Maybe, I said, what they will do is sometime between now and the election rolling around they will go up and maybe they will do a soil sample next to the school up in Goose Bay like they did in Labrador West in the middle of the winter after you gave the commitment a year or two ago to build a new hospital. And he talks about all they have done for Labrador. I bet you felt a little ashamed when you went into Labrador West. You have been in government now, this is your fourth year. Go up and walk through the hospital. How come you never started that three years ago, or four years ago? Go up and walk through the hospital up there, if you have not been in it, and look at it. Not only that, but no government ever built it; it was built by the Iron Ore Company of Canada, or whoever the predecessor to the Iron Ore Company of Canada was. Go up and listen to what the people call you up in Labrador, I say to the member. Go up and listen to what they call you: the minister of cheap seal - not chip seal - the minister of cheap seal.

By the way, Minister, when you spoke to the Chamber of Commerce up there on a Friday, a couple of weeks ago, three or four days before the election, everyone there thought that you were coming with the announcement that the deal was done, ready to sign, or you had it signed, on the money from the federal government for the Trans-Labrador Highway. I have been listening to you now ever since you were minister, back in July, talk about how you had an agreement with the federal government. You even told one of your buddies up there, the fellow who ran for the nomination against the member down there - I forget his name, now. What is his name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mike McGrath.

MR. REID: Mike McGrath. You even told him one day in a telephone conversation that you had the deal inked on your desk. So I don't mind it when you stand in the House and say what you are going to do. You can say what you want, what you are going to do. We will wait and see when it is complete. The proof is in the doing, I say to the member opposite.

Now, you were talking about building boats in Newfoundland and Labrador. He just rose that time and said, we are going to build these two ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I hope, I say to the minister, you do a better job at that than you did with the tender for the chronic care facility in Corner Brook that fell under your department. I have never heard of it in the history of this Province, a $57 million contract for a building in the Premier's district -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - going to a company in Quebec.

MADAM CHAIR: I was calling for order, for quiet.

MR. REID: Thank you for your protection, Madam Chair. I appreciate the effort that you are trying to make to silence the wind man from Goose Bay.

Anyway, Madam Chair, I was saying that I hope he does a better job when he goes to tender on those two vessels, those two ferries, than he did with the chronic care facility, a $57 million contract gone out to a Quebec company. It is my understanding that not only will they be doing all of the engineering in Quebec, that none of our engineering companies in this Province - like they are overburdened with work - will get a part of that, but I am also of the understanding that all of the materials for the construction of that hospital will be coming in from Quebec, when we have fabrication shops in this Province, like the one for steel out in Carbonear, that does not have enough work. Yet, you have no problem with allowing a Quebec company to come in here and take a $57 million contract. I have never seen it before. I have never seen it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Public Tender Act.

MR. REID: You can talk about the Public Tender Act all you like. I have been in this House of Assembly for eleven years. I have not seen a $57 million contract go to a Quebec firm to build a facility in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am not talking about Newfoundland companies doing work outside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: I am talking about a Quebec company.

Let me ask you, I say to the minister who used to be the Minister of Transportation: When was the last time we got a contract in Quebec?

Our ferry, the ferry from Newfoundland to Labrador, lands in Quebec. A few years ago there was a tender on that wharf that went to Quebec, because the wharf is in Quebec, and a Newfoundlander or Labradorian could not even get a job on it; could not even get a job on it because they were not from Quebec.

You are talking about being fair to Quebec. I thought that Stephen Harper gave enough money to Quebec last week, $3.2 billion in transfer payments. I did not think that poor Newfoundland and Labrador needed to give them $57 million, like your government has given, while there are contractors in this Province.

I will tell you one thing; the next lowest bidder on that was less than $2 million - less than $2 million - over that Quebec company, and you could not find a creative way to go back and re-tender that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, it is not breaking the law. It is not breaking the law. In fact, if you read those tender documents that came in from that Quebec firm, you will realize that you could have cancelled that contract, but we will get into that later.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, you could have. Yes, you could have. Yes, you could have, because it was not done properly, so don't tell me about what we are doing.

All I am saying to the Minister of Transportation and Works is, he can talk all he likes about two ferries going to be built in Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - when he cannot commit to that here tonight simply because of what his minister, the Government House Leader and the Deputy Premier, are saying. Because, if there is a Quebec company that bids these boats, they are going to get that, too - I would not be surprised - or it will go to New Brunswick. It might even go to B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope so.

MR. REID: No, I do not hope so.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do hope so.

MR. REID: No, I do not hope so. You probably do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All I am saying is that I am not aware of any contract, since I have been sitting in the House of Assembly, for $50-odd million going to a Quebec company. Never have I seen it before. Here it is, a chronic care facility in the Premier' own district, and we are hiring a Quebec company, and all I hear from those opposite is, it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

You are talking about creating jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to those opposite. Here we are, we have companies closing down all over the place, including in the Deputy Premier's own district. We have a company called Atlantic Wholesalers moving out of there in the not-too-distant future, seventy jobs gone out of that, and he is over there tonight arguing and picking up for the fact that they have just given a tender for $57 million to a Quebec company and they think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and I should not be standing in the House of Assembly talking about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Well, I can tell the minister, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to something like that, step aside, let someone fill your position, you and the Minister of Transportation, who will make sure that a $57 million contract does not go to a group in Quebec who will not hire Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who will use all the materials coming in (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, will they please honour the traditions of the House by keeping order. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member.

The hon. member's speaking time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Madam Chair, I guess I am getting baptism by fire. I thought the storm was going to be outside tonight, but I guess it is going to be inside.

I listened this afternoon and the other day to everybody talking about all of the people who have left Newfoundland, the emigration out of Newfoundland. I would like to reflect back on that because, in my time and I guess in a lot of other times, people have been leaving Newfoundland and Labrador for years.

When my mother and father grew up in the early 1920s and the 1930s, their relatives and friends left to go to the New England states, especially Boston. My mother and father worked very hard to raise twelve or us. We never had everything we wanted, but they provided us with what we needed. We were never hungry, and they taught us, the twelve of us, the value of hard work, and I thank my parents for that.

When my eleven brothers and sisters and I were growing up, there were many who left this Province to go to Ontario. As a matter of fact, there was a statement or an old saying one time, and I guess some of your heard it, "We are all going to Toronto". Now, I heard it before but not in that context.

I taught school myself for twenty-nine years, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and part of the 1990s. In the late 1980s and 1990s, I saw a good few of the former students I had leave this Province to go to work in Alberta and British Colombia. They went because they wanted to have better paying jobs. You can ask the question: Why have people been leaving this Province over the years? Some had to go, but here is the point: Some chose to go, believe it or not.

We have been giving away our resources for years with very little in return. It saddens me greatly to reflect back on the poverty that was rampant in Newfoundland and Labrador during its early history. The fish merchants in the past became rich at the expense of our fishermen. They took our fish back to Europe and left the fishermen in debt, struggling to survive annually. I also get very angry when I look at the profits that the Province of Quebec is making on the Churchill Falls power while we, ourselves, have made very little on it in comparison.

This afternoon Minister Osborne talked about the richness of our resources. I have always contended that with the vast riches we have in oil, forestry, fish and wildlife, et cetera, that this should be one of the richest places on this earth, but we are not, we are in debt. Now, with the stand this present government is taking, I see hope for the future. The giveaways have stopped. Some of the young people who have gone away will return. As a matter of fact, I know some people who already have returned from the mainland, and you will see that trend continue over the years.

The Opposition accuses the Premier and this government of having poor negotiating skills when it comes to negotiating Hibernia South and Hebron-Ben Nevis. This is my opinion: If we cannot get a better deal than what is being offered then we should leave the oil where it is. It is not fair to expect this Province, this government, to take a deal for Hibernia South based on what we got for Hibernia itself. When the Hibernia deal was struck the price of oil was $12 to $15 a barrel. Today oil is much higher than that and for us to settle and extend the contract or the agreement for Hibernia into Hibernia South would be madness; a total giveaway.

I believe that the negotiating position and the tough talk that comes from this government can be very beneficial in the long run. Companies and groups will not come wasting our time because they know what was accepted in the past will not cut it anymore. Only sincere discussion and negotiations will be entertained. In the long run we will be better off, with much better returns for our resources. Better revenues for this government and this Province will benefit us all, especially the urban and rural areas.

Here is a statement that I want to include before I finish up. Some of us are under the impression that young people leaving this Province is a new phenomenon. It is not. Young people are leaving the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and other parts also, not just for jobs. They are leaving rural parts of this Province and moving because they want to go somewhere where there is more excitement. They do not want to stay in the rural areas anymore, and I have heard that. The census that the federal government gave out there not too long ago kind of verifies this. I think they concluded that 80 per cent, or somewhere around that, of the people in Canada now are living in urban centres. People are not satisfied anymore to stay in rural areas unless there are really good paying jobs.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 the sum of $1,663,999,000."

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 71)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 71 passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 71 is carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, I move that 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: All those against, ‘nay'.

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.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply 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 same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to 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.

CLERK: A resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 the sum of $1,663,999,000.

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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Interim Supply bill, Bill 71, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 71)

Is it the pleasure of the House 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'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 71)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 71 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 71 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Interim Supply bill, Bill 71, now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 71 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 71 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 71)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 71, the Interim Supply bill, now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 71 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 71 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 71)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 71, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, 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 For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 71)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment motion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Official Opposition for their co-operation over the past three days. We have been able to conclude the government's legislative agenda, particularly the Interim Supply bill, so that people who are dependent on receiving a cheque will receive it on time.

I thank the Opposition for their co-operation, and I thank all hon. members who participated in debate, both on this bill and on the Electoral Boundaries Commission bill earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I move, therefore, that this House at its rising adjourn to the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House at its rising will adjourn to the call of the Chair.

Before we call the question, the Speaker would like to advise that, by arrangement, on tomorrow morning these bills which have been passed in this session of the Assembly will be presented to His Honour for Royal Assent. We had scheduled, hopefully, to have it later on, but we could not predict the time and that will be done on tomorrow morning.

The motion is that this House at its rising will rise and be reconvened at the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.