MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jenny McGrath on being awarded the National Child and Youth Care Worker for 2006. Jenny is the daughter of Emeline and Joe McGrath of Bishop's Falls and has been a child and youth care worker for almost a decade.

During the last eight years, Jenny was employed with the St. Francis Foundation in St. John's. Jenny was also involved in the development of the first Child and Youth Care Diploma Program in Newfoundland and Labrador, and was also a part-time instructor in that program from 2003-2006.

Mr. Speaker, Jenny is also diligent in her commitment to learning. Three years ago, she finished her Masters Degree in Family Support. Jenny then went on to work in and supervise the Family Support Program.

Mr. Speaker, one of her co-workers stated that Jenny exemplifies everything a child and youth care worker should be: knowledgeable, open, kind, and determined. She demonstrates compassion, commitment and, most of all, a tremendous love for her work.

Mr. Speaker, Jenny was Vice-President of the Child and Youth Care Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for four years. She was active in planning the national conference in 2002 and the provincial conference in 2006. Recently, Jenny was recruited by Grant MacEwan College in Alberta to teach in their Child and Youth Care Program.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Jenny McGrath on this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Leah Sperry of Frenchman's Cove on the Burin Peninsula. Leah was recognized at Ocean Net's recent eighth annual "Youth and the Oceans Conference" as one of Ocean Net's local heroes for her work during 2006 in cleaning the beaches and shorelines of her community. As MHA, I was pleased to be given the opportunity to present Leah with a "Local Heroes Plague" on behalf of Ocean Net.

Ocean Net is a proactive, all-volunteer, non-profit environmental organization founded and incorporated in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1997 with a mandate to instill an "Ocean Conservation Ethic". Ocean Net was very proud to announce this year that it has now achieved a real milestone, their 1000^th beach, shoreline and underwater cleanup.

Since its founding, Ocean Net has worked with its partners and network of volunteers throughout the Province through education and action programs and initiatives to fulfill this mandate and to be a catalyst for positive attitudinal change.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Ocean Net on reaching such a significant milestone, and thanking Leah for her leadership on environmental activity in her community.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how our volunteers make a difference in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two teenagers from Glovertown. Siblings, Zachary and Courtney Oram, ages seventeen and fifteen, travelled to the Dominican Republic this past July. This trip, called Hero Holiday, was organized by Absolute Leadership Development, a non-profit organization that tours schools across Canada to promote messages of motivation to youth to help them realize their potential and the impact they can have in changing the world.

This trip cost $2,100, money that they raised themselves through donations. Mr. Speaker, this wasn't your average vacation to a sunny resort. Instead, it was a ten day trip wherein Zachary and Courtney helped bring practical assistance to those living in extreme poverty. Their tasks included: helping demolish and completely rebuild three dilapidated homes in a local community; constructing a community centre; setting up a clinic where they distributed medication such as Tylenol; visited a Haitian refugee camp where they fed and provided care packages - things such as toothbrushes, sandals, sunglasses and soap. Finally, their group took a day to visit an orphanage for children, helping feed them and organize extracurricular activities.

Amazingly, their group was able to accomplish so much in such a short period of time. The things that they were able to do will undoubtedly have a lasting effect on both the local people as well as the youth who took part in this project.

Mr. Speaker, both Zachary and Courtney told me that, while much of their work was hard, it was extremely rewarding. If given the opportunity again, they would love to be part of an undertaking of this nature in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me today in recognizing these two individuals and their great accomplishments. Moreover, recognizing all individuals who give of themselves to helping the less fortunate across this world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Duke of Edinburgh's Bronze Award recipients in the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate five youth from my district: Amanda Butt, David Murray, Nathan Sellars of Carbonear, Lynn Kent of Harbour Grace and Charli Slade of Victoria.

To qualify for an award, these students must undertake a balanced program of leisure-time activities and meet the prescribed standards in four important categories of self development. These categories include: community service, adventurous journeys, physical fitness and skill development. Open to all youth of Canada between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five, the program helps foster the development of responsibility, leadership and perseverance.

Mr. Speaker, this award is an international award for achievement known around the world. This award helps youth discover interests and talents they never knew they had. It also assists them in making decisions of increasing complexity and accept responsibility for their consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this award is recognized by both government, private industries and as a significant achievement in the lives of young people. Completion of this award provides tangible evidence of success and effort on the part of young people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Amanda Butt, David Murray, Nathan Sellars, Lynn Kent and Charli Slade for the Duke of Edinburgh's Bronze Award. I wish them all the best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Marg Turner, a friend of mine from Grand Falls-Windsor. Marg is part of the Newfie Bullets Broomball Team who took the Bronze on 2006 World Broomball Championships in Blaine, Minnesota.

Marg Turner also brought home a very prestigious award. She was named to the dream team as outstanding goalie of the tournament, making her the very best broomball goalie in the world in the mixed division. Once again, our athletes are recognized as the best in the world.

Colleagues, please join with me to congratulate Marg Turner for being the best goalie in mixed division in the world for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remember a fallen soldier, Sergeant Vaughan Ingram, a Burgeo native and member of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Sergeant Ingram was killed in an ambush that took the lives of two other Canadian soldiers, Corporal Bryce James Keller and Private Kevin Dallaire - in a burned out school house near the village of Pashmul, Afghanistan. A fourth soldier, Corporal Christopher Reid, of Truro, Nova Scotia, was killed in a roadside bombing in a separate incident on the same day.

Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 people crowded into two churches in Burgeo where the funeral was held. Brigadier General Rick Parsons, the commander of the land Force Atlantic Area, presented Sergeant Ingram's wife and mother with a Memorial Cross.

At a second ceremony at the town's cenotaph, Sergeant Ingram's daughter, Brooke, age five, was presented with his medals and beret. His older daughter, Samantha, age thirteen, was presented with the flag that draped his coffin.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that the Burgeo soldier was in harm's way. Sergeant Ingram was wounded on May 29, 2006, when his face and shoulder were injured as a rocket-propelled grenade exploded in the light armored vehicle in which he was travelling. Even after he was wounded, Sergeant Ingram was anxious to return to his unit. As soon as he was capable, he was back - that's the kind of determined and committed individual he was.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in expressing condolence to Sergeant Ingram's family. May his sacrifice never be forgotten, neither in Afghanistan nor here at home.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform colleagues about our tourism initiatives to market this Province in a very competitive global marketplace.

This government is committed to growing the tourism industry and is continuing to invest in our tourism sector and will continue to aggressively market Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we demonstrated this commitment during Budget 2005 and Budget 2006 when we increased the tourism marketing budget by $3 million, bringing the total amount of marketing budget to $10 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: We continue, Mr. Speaker, to introduce tourists initiatives and our top marketing priority is improving our Internet presence. The Internet has become the most popular source for travel information and is one of the most cost-effective means to promote the Province. Our Internet Strategy is nearing completion and we will be launching a new tourism Web site in January 2007.

The Web site will reflect our brand and our personality. It will have easy trip-planning options with interactive travel tools and easy navigation. There will be timely, relevant information - links for maps, directions, weather, and so forth.

We are also redesigning and changing the size of our annual Travel Guide. The 2007 Guide will complement the new Web site and will be more user friendly. The smaller size makes it much easier for tourists to throw in their bags and knapsacks as they travel around this wonderful Province.

We have been encouraging our own residents, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to be tourists at home this year with our resident marketing campaign: There's No Place Like Home.

We have also partnered with the Discovery Trail Tourism Association to implement a fall advertising campaign. This initiative has generated very positive feedback, especially from the thirty-eight tourism industry operators who invested in this campaign partnership.

Certainly, extending the traditional season beyond the summer months is a priority. We are working with industry partners to complete an outfitting strategy as part of this priority. As well, a strategy to promote winter tourism will enhance tourism activities.

These initiatives are integral, Mr. Speaker, to making Newfoundland and Labrador a multi-season tourism destination. Mr. Speaker, during a time when global competition is increasing and travellers are looking for safe, pristine and unique locations, Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to become that destination of choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

Minister, we on this side of the House, welcome the announcement that you made here today. Tourism plays a key role in our Province, and we realize today that in certain parts of the Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is down. Hopefully, your initiative today that you have announced will certainly help bring that up.

Minister, you say that, There's No Place Like Home, and to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that is true. There is a place on the North Coast of Labrador, it is called the riding of Torngat Mountains, that is often referred to as the second Alaska, and with the development of our new national park down the road, working with the Nunatsiavut government, we hope that we can attract people to our Province worldwide.

Minister, we on this side of the House, applaud you today for the announcement and initiative that you and your government have taken.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

We, too, welcome any progress in the area of promoting tourism to our Province because many seasonal jobs depend on it, and it is a tremendous boost to our economy.

Some of the things that affect us negatively, I say to the minister, are things like the fares that are charged by Marine Atlantic, or the air fares, the high cost of getting in and out of the Province, and especially within the Province. These are things we do not have any control over but, I say to the minister, there are many other areas of tourism that we do have control over, and further action needs to be taken.

Recently, for example, the regional manager for tourism in Labrador, the position became redundant and, to my knowledge, will not be filled. That was a shock to tourism promoters within the Labrador region.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that the snowmobile industry in Labrador is the greatest potential for the long winter months that we have; however - Mr. Speaker, I see you rising and I will ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: The Snowmobile Association needs more funding in order to continue operating, and that is a tremendous boost to Labrador's economy in the long winter months.

Also, there is another issue with the outfitters who have lost up to $125,000 this year simply because zones were not open for hunting caribou. That is a direct intervention that this government can make, to make sure that the outfitters are able to book their guests, to accommodate their guests, to keep their guides employed, and have hunters come in and conduct a hunt as they can elsewhere in the Province when the season begins.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's North, the Chair of the Skills Task Force, stated recently that employers in this Province must offer higher wages if they are to keep their employees in this Province. Meanwhile, the Premier publicly stated that FPI workers in this Province should consider taking wage cuts, and the Minister of Finance indicates that hospital pharmacists should not complain about their wages, even though they are far below their counterparts in other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Do you see the irony between your statements and those of your colleagues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to correct an inaccuracy that so commonly comes from that side of the House, as I never indicated that on pharmacists in my life and there is nowhere that he can find, in print or on tape, that I ever said that. We respect these people. We respect the work they do in the Province here. I am prepared to look at dealing with not only pharmacists but other people in hard-to-recruit areas and hard-to-retain areas with all of the unions in our Province here, to sit down and look at ways to address this.

That is absolutely false. We have the highest workforce in our Province's history, at 214,900 people, that two years before that were the second and third most. We have a lower out-migration this year than the average of the previous thirty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have less than half the number during the time when they were in power here in our Province in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker.

He has his facts all wrong, like he usually does.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the minister lives, or where he has been in the past year, when he says that we have the lowest out-migration figures in the history of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development released a consultants report by Electronic Warfare Associates, who were asked to determine if the fibre optic deal actually required $15 million of taxpayers' money.

I ask the minister: Was this report the one that was discussed in Cabinet, and was this report the basis for giving taxpayers' money to Persona and Rogers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the analysis that was done by EWA and PriMetrica and others, as well as the information that we solicited from the Newfoundland Association of Technology Industries, input from Memorial University, input from the College of the North Atlantic, input from our telecom centres here in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and a wide variety of people engaged in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador formed the basis for the decision that was taken by Cabinet. A decision, Mr. Speaker, that has been supported by just about everybody involved in the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly appreciate copies of all the information that came from those individuals and companies that the minister just mentioned, but for the purposes of today we want to talk about the report that the minister tabled yesterday, the EWA report, which states, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: Electronic Warfare Associates is unable to comment on Persona's solvency nor its ability to cover cost overruns.

I ask the minister: How can Electronic Warfare Associates and government conclude that Persona needs the $15 million when they had no access to the financial documentation from Persona and EWA - Electronic Warfare Associates - could not even determine if Persona was solvent?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, with the Leader of the Opposition, he does not understand what is put in front of him. I do not know if he has trouble reading, if he has trouble understanding the context in which the paper is put, Mr. Speaker, but the fact of the matter is, EWA and PriMetrica had access to the financials that were required for the evaluation of this project. They assessed the project based on a business case analysis, Mr. Speaker.

As for the availability of Persona's books, as for a detailed look at their financials to see if they are solvent or not, Mr. Speaker, that was an issue that was raised in June, 2006. Mr. Speaker, we went back, as I said before, we approached EWA and PriMetrica to do an analysis and for that to be the basis on which we concluded and continued negotiations, and concluded negotiations, Mr. Speaker.

If you could keep the Member for the Bay of Islands quiet long enough for me to answer, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, Persona have indicated to us that prior to the finalization of this, Mr. Speaker - if you will give me a second to conclude - we will have access to their financials and confidential bases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had no trouble reading the report, I say to the minister, or understanding it. I would suggest that maybe he read it himself. I am quoting directly from the document that was tabled by the minister yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his Cabinet colleagues have been touting the benefits of this deal and all of the benefits that it will bring in the Province, and that it is well worth the taxpayers' investment of $15 million. EWA, however, states in their report, and I quote - I will show him the page if he wants to see it. This is what the report says: "...it is not possible to quantify the financial benefits to the province or to this government." Not possible to quantify the benefits to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How can the people of this Province accept your version of the economic benefits when your statements are absolutely contrary to those of the report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to quantify the benefits exactly because the number is so huge and so enormous that you cannot quantify it. It is in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked a question. I ask members for their co-operation to permit the Premier to reply.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the benefits here are huge. What the Leader of the Opposition stands for is, he is against better health care services because an MRI will take sixteen seconds here on an ISDL, under this particular technology it will take one-fifth of a second. That is eighty times faster we could have medical information. He is against better education information with tele-education. He is against better costs. Do you know that Canarie and Wade Locke, the economists, have told us that on the mainland it could cost $6 for one piece of this technology. What is being charged in Newfoundland and Labrador right now for that $6 piece of technology is $4,000. Four-thousand dollars, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, time is passing quickly.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is becoming quite obvious now who Dean MacDonald spoke with. All we need to know now is when and where he spoke to the Premier, because the minister cannot answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker, Electronic Warfare Associates stated that they did not know how many new customers Persona would pick up as a result of this cable being put across our Province. In other words, EWA, Electronic Warfare Associates, did not know how much money Persona would be making off this deal once the cable was complete.

I ask the minister: How could EWA and government determine that $15 million of taxpayers' money was warranted for this deal when it was not even determined how much Persona was going to make off this venture? Do they really need the money, is the question I am asking?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You walked into it now, buddy, because you don't know what you are talking about and that's the problem. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why don't you go to number 6 and number 7?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we go to the EWA report we can go to items number 6 and item number 7. There is a full list of the benefits here: Attraction of more skilled labour; fuller participation in academic research. We have a letter here from Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador that says they fully support this. They will be a customer. The College of North Atlantic will be a customer. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be a customer. Business associations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be customers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday he got up and talked about job fairs and we are not doing anything in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a rural Newfoundland and Labrador company. It provides services to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Two hundred communities in this Province, they employ 120 people; and, Mr. Speaker, I just might conclude, we have a fifteen page document that includes the benefits. You are welcome to a copy of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair will have to recess the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, you may have exempted yourself from the Cabinet meetings, but you are the only one over there who knows anything about this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because your minister certainly doesn't know anything about it; he can't even answer a question.

Mr. Speaker, a report by Electronic Warfare Associates states that government has no need of these fibres at this time. That runs contrary to all comments that has been made by government members opposite.

I ask the Premier, or the minister, or whoever knows something about this deal: Why are we subsidizing companies to the tune of $15 million when, according to this report, we do not even need those fibres at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A simple answer, Mr. Speaker, government spends about $20 million annually on this, and that is a conservative estimate. New rates will be 50 per cent; that means we will save $10 million annually times forty, which is the life of the fibre; that is $400 million annual savings. That is why we will purchase those fibres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Maybe the Premier will tell us what golf course he was on when he talked to Dean about this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If this unsolicited and untendered proposal was so good and so squeaky clean, as the Premier referenced it last week, why did Electronic Warfare Associates raise the red flags on page 7, the last paragraph, when they stated, "Prior to future projects being considered, a formal process should be created by Government to simplify the application and review of unsolicited proposals."

My question to the Premier is: Why are we letting this unsolicited proposal go through today, or last week, without the proper process as was prescribed and recommended in this report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite, and all members opposite, know that this is the proper procedure. There is no sense trying to taint this and smear this, and smear Mr. MacDonald and anybody who is associated with it. There are good companies associated with it: Rogers, AllStream and Persona, and it is an attempt to smear it. This is a proper procedure, a proper process that was followed, which is going to result in huge savings and benefits for this Province. Our own Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador is now going to be on the research map.

The previous speeds that can be talked to, you would have to look at about sixteen minutes for a conversation to take place on a dial-up modem. On high-speed, it can take place in one second. So, I would say a word on a dial-up and I wait sixteen and two-third minutes for an answer from the research analyst who is on the other end. When you put this in place, we can talk simultaneously.

The hon. gentleman opposite has no idea what he is talking about, and the benefits of this. Not only that, this is going to bring businesses to these South Coast communities. It is going to bring business to Port aux Basques, and to Ramea, and down in the Burgeo area, and down -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no need for the Premier to get upset. All I am doing is raising issues that arose from the report that was tabled by his own minister yesterday.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I ask you again to respect the Chair and the integrity of the House.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to Electronic Warfare Associates, almost half the overland cable that Persona will be installing will be located in Nova Scotia, which means that a good portion of this $52 million, $15 million of which comes from the taxpayers of this Province, will be spent in Nova Scotia. As a result of this, are the taxpayers of this Province subsidizing a cable connection through Nova Scotia? Is Persona going to get new customers out of this in Nova Scotia, and did you ask the Government of Nova Scotia to contribute toward this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite does not even understand the basics. Is he suggesting that we put the cable on the Joseph and Clara Smallwood and drop it in the middle of the Gulf? Is that what you are suggesting, we should probably just dead-end it down in the water and have a talk to nobody at some point in time? Is that where you are kind of going with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have never heard anything more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

This project is going to create 1,650 person years of employment. It is going to create $120 million in jobs. That is what it is going to create. That is going to be the income from it. The taxes alone are $20 million. The benefits in this are through the roof, and the hon. gentleman is concerned about whether we are going to hook it up to Nova Scotia. No, boy, we will hook it up to Bolivia somewhere!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Premier is just trying to confuse the issue. I am not talking about the underwater cable. I am talking about the overland cable that will be laid in Nova Scotia, between Cape Breton and Halifax, I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions we can ask about this report, and we will continue to do it in the coming days, but I will conclude today by asking the minister two brief questions.

When will you tell us with whom did Dean MacDonald meet, and when? And, finally, and in the interest of openness and honesty, will you table in this House today the full proposal as was submitted to this government by Persona?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I started to say yesterday - and hopefully he will not interrupt me today so I can give him the answer - over an eighteen month period, Mr. Speaker, there were eight meetings between consortium officials and government officials. Three of those meetings, Mr. Speaker, Dean MacDonald was a party to, four of those meetings Mr. Paul Hatcher was a party to, and in one meeting the crew of MTS Allstream were a party to it. That is what happened over the course of eighteen months, Mr. Speaker.

Now, as for that, Mr. Speaker, the Premier never met with either one of them. I met with Dean MacDonald on one occasion, I met with Paul Hatcher on two occasions, and the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development did not meet with either one of them.

As for the issue of plugging in, in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, just so he understands it, the reason why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: The reason why we are building this infrastructure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was answering, and he had spent about forty seconds. I ask him if he would like to finish his answer in about ten seconds.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will table the report as soon as the ATIP office has screened it, as happens with all government documents.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition, the reason why the cable has to be strung from Cape Breton to Halifax is because in Halifax that is where all of the major Canadian providers of cables go.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not go over there you only plug into Aliant, which is our problem anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said he did not know who the proponents met with. So, today now he knows. I guess he went back and got educated. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they also met with someone in the Department of Business.

I ask the Minister of Business: Did Dean MacDonald, or anyone associated with the deal, meet with him or anyone in the Department of Business?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for Grand Bank still cannot listen, still cannot read. I just a minute ago said how many meetings took place over eighteen months. I said who they were with. I said that I met; I said she did not; I said that he did not. Nobody else met. I was the one who met twice. She did not meet at all and he did not meet at all. Officials handled the rest of the meetings, Mr. Speaker. Now, if they are too stupid to understand that, Mr. Speaker, I will write it down and I will send it across to them. Those are the extent of the meetings.

As for the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, it is in the report. The business case is there. The investment is sound. Memorial University says so. Axel Meisen, who does not dance, I can tell you, to the Premier's tune, says that he supports this deal. Dr. Chris Loomis, who is the VP of Research, says he supports this deal. Everybody who is anybody, except that crowd, which are nobody, supports it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume he spent all night trying to find out who met with whom. He still did not answer the question of whether or not they met with the Department of Business.

Mr. Speaker, for those taxpayers who thought that $15 million of their money was being spent by government to purchase fibre so that our schools, university, hospitals and government departments would see a reduction in future cable costs, nothing could be further from the truth. They will still have to purchase these services from either Aliant or Persona.

I ask the Minister of Business: What is government's intention for the fibre optic cable it is purchasing from Persona?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said on numerous occasions - and they fail to listen - that we will own a number of strands in the cables that are being laid. That will form the backbone of the government's IT division. It will form the backbone which we will build out into other areas of the Province to expand the Internet and broadband coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in case they have not noticed it, every other jurisdiction where there are a multitude of carriers involved in the provision of Internet access, the competition results in a minimum of a 15 per cent reduction in the cost to consumers and governments and we see no reason why that will not happen here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I just made the assumption, since the Minister of Business was out speaking about the deal, that he knew the details, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, given government's intention, I ask the Minister of Business then or the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, if Aliant, which employs hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and has excess capacity on this fibre optic cable, was asked to submit a proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions over the past couple of years, particularly in the CDLI initiative, the Distance Learning Initiative, Aliant, or anybody at all, was asked to submit a proposal. On those occasions, Mr. Speaker, the bid that came in from the competing interest, which was Persona in a request for proposals, was far less than what we saw out of Aliant.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, depending on one carrier, has cost this Island and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador an excessive amount of money. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, listen to what Nati said: This will better position our Province as a place to invest in research and development, deliver new and exciting services to business and consumers alike and further our ability to complete globally in this knowledge-based economy. That is what the President of Nati said, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the question is whether or not Aliant was offered $15 million like is being offered to this consortium.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said yesterday that the business case for this proposal provides for a very modest rate of return for the proponents. Given as a report by Electronic Warfare Associates states that additional revenues derived from new services and/or new communities served weren't considered in assessing this project.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, since the Minister of Business cannot address it, how it was determined that the rate of return for the consortium would be modest.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when IWA and PriMetrica were engaged to assess the proposal that was in front of us, when EWA was engaged to assess the proposal that was in front of us, they were asked to look at the business model that was placed in front of us and to assess it against industry norms. They assessed it against industry norms and said that with the $15 million from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, there would be a very modest rate of return.

As for the issue of Aliant, Mr. Speaker, if you want the information on Aliant and how much government money has gone into tendered contracts and un-tendered contracts into Aliant over the past ten or fifteen years, you call Aliant and if they are ready for us to release it, then you can well have it. I can tell you, it is a lot more than $15 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case we have not noticed, today is November 21. The government is already one month behind -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair recognized the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.

I will try once more. In case we have not noticed, today is November 21 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members for their co-operation. This is the third occasion when I have directed my attention to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask members to permit the member to place her question.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

In case we have not noticed, today is November 21, and there is a concern for people in this Province. The government is already one month behind last year's timing in announcing home heating fuel rebates. This morning on Open Line the Finance Minister said the documentation has not even yet been presented to Cabinet for approval and his response to the host was rather vague when asked if the rebate would proceed at all. Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest energy poverty rate in Canada. The Canadian Housing Renewal Association says the poorest 20 per cent of income earners are spending more than 16 per cent of their annual income on energy.

My question to the Premier is: What is your government planning to do for low income households? Is government going to help the people of this Province get through another winter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I will say - a very brief background - the program was instituted on an ad hoc basis in January of 2001, where there was $100 given to homes that were using home heating fuel. In March of 2003, with the winter almost over, the former government brought in a program again that brought it in on an ad hoc basis. They did not get their money until July and the winter was over.

The only other time there was a program is, this government in the fall of 2004 brought in a program and gave a $250 return to people with low income below a certain level. Last fall we saw the need that if you made it by a dollar you received it and if you did not make it you did not get any. We brought in a program to phase it out at $30,000 to allow low incomes to get as high as $400 at the lower level and phase it out where no one would get less than $100, even at a $30,000 level.

This year I have looked at it and compared, and prepared a Cabinet paper that will come to Cabinet. The reason it was vague is because I do not articulate government policy on public airways before it is made. It has not been passed by Cabinet. I do no prejudge what Cabinet is going to do; but, when Cabinet does move it, it will be the earliest, the second-earliest in history, that we would have a program if it comes down this month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, well, then, I want to give some help to Cabinet in making its decisions.

This government has to do more than to provide a sliding scale of up to $400 only for oil heat and with no distinction between a single person and a family household with incomes of up to $30,000. This Province did announce a plan last November, but cancelled it after the federal government cut the EnerGuide for Houses and EnerGuide for Low-Income Households program.

All other Atlantic Canadian Provinces have stepped up to fill the gap left behind by the federal government and rescued these programs for the benefit of their citizens, and also created jobs and training. Most recently, Nova Scotia announced, on October 3, its own EnerGuide program. It has also reduced HST on heating fuel. As well, P.E.I. does not charge sales tax on home heating fuel.

Why is this government not removing the HST on home heating? Or, maybe that is what is in your plan.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, there are numerous things that are not factual in what was stated. I like getting the facts out. Overall, we have done a tremendous amount for low-income people. For people on social assistance we have even went up to doubling the subsidy that they get, and in Labrador a significant increase. We put money into low-income, single parents with children, and increased their income support level. We have increased their heating supplement.

We have also, with HST - if we took the HST off fuel, in home heating fuel, it would average $187 per person, and people making $250,000 would get that, if we took it off it. People making $100,000 would get that. We took it and we allowed $400 to go to low-income people so everybody does not get $187. We devoted this program solely to low-income people, in addition to several other things we have done over the past year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Before we proceed, I notice in the public galleries we have some visitors: Mayor Jerry Dean from the Town of Botwood, in the District of Exploits; Deputy Mayor Scott Sceviour; and Town Manager Edward Evans.

We welcome you to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, Bill 46.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to present this petition. It is actually from the residents of Ramea, which is not within my district, per se, under the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It is in the District of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and I will explain the reason. He has already been on it as well, but I have been asked as well, as the adjoining member, to submit this petition because the facilities that are being asked for would actually be situated in the Burgeo & LaPoile District on the Burgeo side; of course, Ramea being an island off the coast adjacent to my district.

The petition is about the need for washroom and waiting room facilities in Burgeo for the people who use the Burgeo to Ramea ferry. What is happening at the present time, of course, is, if someone is travelling from Corner Brook to Burgeo, or anywhere in the Province for that matter, to go and catch the ferry, sometimes they have to wait. It could be an hour, depending on how early they are, and right now there is no washroom facility in Burgeo, at the terminal facility, for anyone who needs to use the washroom.

I have been advised by the council and representatives in Burgeo that they have made that request to, I guess, the Minister of Transportation, who would look after the ferry service and the terminals there, in the past, and nothing has happened, so they have asked me again.

They are saying, in the interest of human dignity - because right now you have seniors, you have children, you have men and women, with no place to go to use the washroom, quite frankly. So, what they are asking for is if there could be some kind of whatever system put there so that at least they would have a washroom facility that they could use in conjunction with the ferry service.

I do not think there is a great deal of cost and expense involved, but in terms of running the ferry service itself, it is certainly a practical - not only a health requirement, I would suggest, but it is a safety requirement when you have to get out and do whatever, wherever, down around the piers and the rocks down around the ferry terminal just because you do not have a washroom. That is a human necessity, I would submit, and a very reasonable request.

So, on behalf of those people who use that ferry service and need that washroom facility, I call upon the Minister of Transportation to give it his due consideration and hopefully we can see something accomplished in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave of the Opposition, if we could do first reading of a bill so we can get it circulated, Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

I did not hear the bill number.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 38 or Bill 46? Bill 46.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46 be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?

MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 35 and Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 35 and Bill 23, 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, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I now call Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 35 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now call Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province.

CHAIR: Bill 23, An Act To Establish A Health Research Ethics Authority For The Province.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 30.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 30, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood yesterday from comments by the minister when he closed debate in second reading that there were some amendments that were being brought forward today that he had discussed with the Leader of the NDP. I have not yet seen those amendments and I am wondering if they are going to be proposed in committee today for discussion?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the copy is printed. I think it is just being passed by the Table now to the member who has raised the particular question there. We are certainly prepared to move these. The minister is presently on business and cannot move it, so I will move the particular clause there on clause 5 if we could, Mr. Chair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Table has just received a copy of the amendments that were put forward. The Chair had no idea that there were amendments coming, other than there was a word spoken here yesterday. So I will pass it now to the Table Officers to see if the amendment is in order and then we will provide discussion and debate on the amendments as put forward with the particular clause that has been identified.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We intend to be fully co-operative, of course, to see that things proceed in a timely fashion but we have to be practical here. I mean the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has not even seen it yet, and to suggest that we just get it, read it and respond to it without even any thought is not acceptable. We are just asking: Why doesn't the Government House Leader just set this matter aside and move on to something else? That will allow the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to read it, and the Table Officers who have not even read it themselves to see if it is in order, then we can come back and deal with it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendments, of course - I do not have a problem with that but amendments can be moved here from the floor of the House and amendments made in Committee. That has been tradition. They have been produced the same day, the very same day in which it is passed. If they want to come back to that, I am prepared to come back to Committee if they want to take a look at it. There were ones there that I think the minister, on this particular one, was prepared, in discussion with - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had some concerns there and the concerns, I think, were probably unfounded, but had some changes, I think, that would be compatible with the bill. We are prepared to entertain. We are prepared to entertain, and it is the normal procedure, Mr. Chair, that there could be sub-amendments moved to those bills. There could be other amendments done at any stage, and that is the normal way that it has advanced, but if they want to time to do it, move out of Committee, take a look at it, I do not have any problem with doing that.

Having said that, if that is what they wish, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 35 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be read a third time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, with leave?

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I move third reading of the Notaries Public Act, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35 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 To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have several bills that we are waiting on, I know, just being circulated there. First reading is already done. For second reading, if the Opposition is ready to move, the minister can introduce in second reading the Vital Statistics Act. That is Bill 43.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not even received a copy of the bill that the minister proposes we now go into second reading on. I have a list -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It is being distributed as we speak.

I say to the Member for Lewisporte, I can only tell you what I have in front of me, and I only got it now. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of anybody wanting to delay anything. I think it is a very reasonable request. Why don't we take a brief adjournment? Why don't the personnel and the Clerks circulate what we want to do this afternoon, give us an opportunity to take five or ten minutes to have the appropriate persons review it, and then we can proceed? Why rush the thing if it has not been even circulated yet, let alone read?

MR. SPEAKER: If it is agreeable - it seems as if there is some communication that is agreeable to the House - the House can take a brief recess and when I am advised by the House leadership then we can come back to the House again. Is that acceptable?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. There has been a host of bills we are trying to get circulated and printed. They have been moved in first reading, so it is out of my hands to lay them on the floor of the House. In all fairness, we will take five or ten minutes.

I did speak with the Opposition House Leader. If there are bills there that we can advance today, to expedite, we will certainly do it I am sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair senses there is agreement that we recess the House. The Chair will await direction from the House leadership. Then we will ring the bells and we will come back when the House is ready.

The House is now recessed until further notice.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call second reading of Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act." (Bill 43)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill 43.

The Vital Statistics Act currently specifies that a fee be paid to clergy and other people required to keep registries of births and deaths, who are required by law to provide this information to the government on a regular basis. The rate of payment set out in the act is outdated. It is cumbersome to change a fee set in legislation or requiring Cabinet approval to change. Allowing the fee to be set under the authority of the minister responsible is a more flexible approach and consistent with normal government practice for many other fees. The amount of money paid out will be relatively small, approximately $2,000 a year. Payments will be made at a rate of $50 per hundred events or fifty cents each, up from $20 per hundred or twenty cents each. Average payments to individuals would be about $10 every six months. Although, they can range from $5 to $100, depending on the number of events registered. Because this is such a nominal fee, it is more efficient to allow changes to normal administrative mechanisms. Most fees of this nature are under the direct authority of a minister responsible. We are simply proposing the same for this circumstance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to offer my commentary to this bill, Bill 43. I was hoping when I saw it that the minister was going to propose that she was going to repeal all the fees regarding birth and death certificates in the Province, considering how, as was stated here in the House yesterday, I think by the Minister of Finance, that the number of people being born here now are on the decline in this Province and the number of deaths here in the Province are increasing. I was half expecting that the minister would do a favour for the people out there, especially the poorer people and the people who are suffering from a loss with regard to a death certificate. Then the other things that happen, Mr. Speaker, with regard to fees and that over there, which I am sure I will get into sometime over the next little while, regarding the Department of Motor Vehicle Registration.

Mr. Speaker, this government was the one that implemented the fees on death certificates to begin with. Now we are trying to get the rate of fee or the rate of payment back into the minister's possession so that she can arbitrarily increase the fees or decrease the fees, which I do not say we will ever see a day when they are decreased, knowing the record of this government. Everything else has gone up in this Province.

Somebody who suffers a death, a survivor is left with paying a fee to get a record that their spouse has passed away, or a loved one has passed away. The very least that this government should do - and I know they have been talking about it for the past three years, reviewing fees, eliminating red tape. I hear all that so often. I think if this government wants to eliminate red tape they should all resign. It would be the quickest way to eliminate red tape.

A person out in my district yesterday had to subject himself to standing up in public and taking off his bandana that was concealing a scar. It was tragic what happened yesterday. A poor individual went up to get his driver's licence renewed and was subjected to having his picture taken in public when he asked if it could be postponed; which, by the way, I think there is a rule over there that there is a year's grace.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that maybe the minister should take some of the money that she is trying to get out of this and put it into some training for her staff, so that the staff can be more customer friendly. The customers who go to government laying out their money, and in some cases very exorbitant money, like $180 to license a car for a year, to beat the front-end out of it and destroy rims and tires in pothole, at least when they are taking their money, smile at them and not denigrate them into a situation where they have to stand up with a crowd of people and expose the suffering that they have already incurred. A cancer victim yesterday, a cancer patient yesterday trying to recover, having to do that. Mr. Speaker, it is demoralizing.

When I see something like this, a bill to amend a fee, and the minister says five cents or 5 per cent, whatever number she is using over there, you know it seems such a pittance. Do away with the fees. Give the ordinary person out there, the consumer, the poor man out there, the poor woman, the poor young person who has to go up and get a book to apply for a driver's licence, pay $2 for an instruction book - and this Province over the years have given them out. We have to stop bleeding our citizens. We have to stop doing it. We have to get some heart and some compassion and let is show. I suggest maybe there will be some breaks coming because it seems like everything is under review and with eleven months left before an election, I am sure there will be good news stories floating all over the place next year.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. There is no rhyme or reason to be at this stuff. If we are going to bring bills before the House here, let's bring bills in to put people to work, instead of having lineups of 9,000 people on Kenmount Road trying to escape these fees. Thirty-five hundred people on a Sunday, showing up at the Fairmont Hotel looking for work to escape these fees and find a way to feed their family. Mr. Speaker, all of these fees, these are dangerous, devastating fees to a lot of people. Somebody who is out there now on the side of the road cutting brush is going to end up with $100 a week EI to sustain them over the next winter months. Just imagine, to pay $180 to park their car to get down to get $100 EI a week; just to use their vehicle on the side of the road.

Minister, if you can find some way to save money, yes, come forward and bring it to this House and I will certainly endorse it, but let's be real about it. A death certificate is something that you people imposed on the people of this Province and I think it is your right to try to decrease the fee, get rid of it, eliminate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It makes sense. If we have this act, it makes sense, I think, that fees should not be concretely put into the legislation. I agree with my colleague, that it really disturbs me that we have fees for births and deaths. People are being penalized through fees because one of their loved ones has died. People are being penalized if they have a child. We should be celebrating that, not making them pay money because they are having children.

When this was brought in, perhaps the government of the day, the current government, saw us in a financial situation where they thought it was necessary; but, you know, we are not in a financial situation today where we have to be penalizing the people in Newfoundland and Labrador for dying and for having children.

I think that I agree that we should be removing fees on births and deaths. Maybe my recommendation is that the minister who is responsible would reduce the fees on death and birth reporting to zero dollars. Maybe that is what -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do away with it?

MS MICHAEL: Well, that is what I mean, zero dollars. That is what we should be looking at. We should not be penalizing people for dying and having children.

That is what I have to say about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am only going to speak for a couple of minutes in relation to the comments that my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just made about the charge that is being imposed upon the residents of this Province under this government.

She talked about a birth certificate. It was only when the current Minister of Finance, I guess, had some kind of a dream there a couple of years ago, woke up and discovered that there was one other way that he could hit the people in the Province with a fee and that was to impose a death certificate, because we did not have to pay for that before. I guess the minister figured that at least he could get them coming into the world in a birth certificate but he forgot, or the previous governments had not looked at, the fact that if somebody dies we were not going to make a dollar off them, but he found out a way to do it, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting that we are talking about fees, because I had the occasion last Saturday night to attend two Fireman's Balls, one in Joe Batt's Arm and the other in the small community of Island Harbour on Fogo Island. I went down to that community after the dinner in Joe Batt's Arm and I was talking to a couple of individuals there and they were very happy that they had forty-five people - because it is a very small community - out for the Fireman's Ball that night. The thing that they complained about is that they have a very small fire hall, a very limited number of people in the community, no means by which to raise funds to buy equipment and to keep the equipment that they have up to scratch with regard to firefighting and firefighting prevention, but, in order to hold that meeting that night, or hold that dinner that night, and be able to offer those who came a bottle of beer, they had to apply to government to get a licence to actually sell a beer on the premises that night. That licence cost $100.

The question that they asked me was - you have to remember, now, the size of the community, and all they were trying to do was to raise a few dollars to buy additional needed equipment, and the government is saying to them - the government, by the way, that does not give them any money, or very little, to help them purchase equipment or to repair equipment - the government is looking for $100.

Mr. Speaker, I just said there were only forty-five people attending that dinner that night, so they are not going to make a lot of money. In fact, they probably went in the hole as a result of this fee, but every single time that they have a fundraiser in that little hall in Island Harbour and they sell a beer, they have to send in - not only do they have to send in the request and get it in on time and get it back to Fogo Island on time, but they also have to enclose $100.

I am asking the minister today to eliminate that fee so that small communities, especially communities like Island Harbour, who are suffering from out-migration - even through the Minister of Finance rose to his feet today and said we don't have an out-migration problem. I don't know where he lives. I don't know what kind of a rock he crawled out from under to make that statement but, I tell you, I have travelled this Province from coast to coast to coast this summer, and the fall and the spring, and the number one issue that is raised with me in every community in which I go is the number of people who have left, the number of houses that are boarded up, the number of people who are going, and, as a result, they cannot find people to volunteer as firemen or firewomen in their communities.

Two weeks ago, I attended a Fireman's Ball in Twillingate. As I rose to give my speech that night, I said: I am going to have to change the name of this function in the future. Because I always refer to it as a Fireman's Ball, because there were never any female volunteer firefighters in my district, but in Twillingate the other night they had their first female firefighter - first one. The reason, they told me - talking about out-migration - the Twillingate Fire Brigade has twenty-five members, eight of whom left the end of August to seek employment in other areas of this country. As a result, one young lady agreed that she was going to join the fire brigade, and I encourage others to do it, but to listen to the minister stand and talk about there is no out-migration, and listen to another minister sitting behind him talking about fees that we are charging people, I ask her to consider reducing that fee that this organization and many, many other voluntary organizations in this Province have to pay to the government to hold a function in a local community hall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words at second reading on this proposed amendment to the Vital Statistics Act.

I just wonder; this is an opportunity, of course, where members who have some concerns about the proposed amendment get to ask the minister for some clarification, say whether they are or are not basically in agreement or disagreement with the proposal.

My reading of the amendment - some of the members, even the members opposite over here, have spoken as if this is a fee that is collected by the government, whereas it is my understanding that the purpose of this amendment is for government to determine a fee that gets paid to the registering officer.

For example, under section 22 at the present time, if a clergyman in this Province witnesses a baptism of someone they are entitled to get a certain fee, and the fee stipulated at that time, at least, in 1990, was, for every 100 births, for example, that they do, they would get $20. That $20 fee per 100 events, they call it, was determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and what they are saying now is, we are going to change that so that, yes, the clergymen or women or person is paid a fee - the registering officer, yes, will get a fee - but, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council determining the fee, it will be the minister who determines the fee.

MS JONES: Do they get a fee now?

MR. PARSONS: They currently get a fee, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The current rate is, for every 100 births that a clergyman does in the Province, when they send it in to get registered, they are entitled to be paid $20 for every 100 births.

My understanding is that this bill is not so much government collecting a fee; it is government determining, by this amendment, who determines what the fee is that will be paid to the registering officer. That is my understanding of the amendment. I just want the minister to clarify that is her understanding of what is hoped to be accomplished here as well.

My question to the minister would be, however: What is the motivation for taking the fee issue - who determines the fee? What is the rationale, the logic, for saying that it is going to be the minister now who decides the fee, and not the Lieutenant-Governor in Council?

I mean, it has been my understanding, in every system we live in, if you are going to collect money from the people, or you are going to make decisions on money being paid out, it is a very important decision and primary considerations and responsibilities of an Administration. Why are we now, in the case of registering officers for births and deaths, saying that this is not important enough any more for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet of the Province, to deal with; we are going to let this be decided by the minister.

Now, that seems to me - there is some reason for that. Surely, in the system we work in, we set fees for everything else. The Minister of Finance, for example, has certain authorities to do things, but when it comes to taxation-type issues they always come back to the House and to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make those decisions; but here we are with the Minister of Government Services saying, in future, what the registering office or the clergyman in this Province is entitled to for registering a birth certificate. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with that. I would just like to know if the minister could explain to us who requested this and why the change of procedure so that she gets to decide that fee, as opposed to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council? We have had issues raised here as to fees. I mean we have been fee'd to death since November of 2003, the people of this Province, and now we are even starting to decide that it is getting a bit confusing about who sets what the fees are; forget about the issue altogether of what the fees are, which my colleagues have raised here.

I am just wondering again, the curiosity is overwhelming here: Why is the Minister of Government Services, all of a sudden, going to be allowed to decide what a clergyman gets paid for registering a birth or a baptism in this Province?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, sorry.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order.

The Government House Leader asked what the intention was here. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair does intend to speak in second reading on this bill. However, if the minister wants to respond to the question that I just asked, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said, by all means, go ahead and give your answer, if you wish, before the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair speaks. Someone suggested that because the minister stands up and speaks, he is closing the debate. If that is the understanding that is on the other side, in that case, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair will stand and speak. We will just give the extended courtesy to the minister to respond to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair assumes then that if the minister speaks now that she will not be closing debate. She will be participating in the debate and that we will then come back for further comments from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with answering it and debate not closing, but I would suggest, in carrying out the business, normally the minister will speak last, take notes of any questions and answer them when she concludes the debate on that. Then in Committee, if there are questions on any clause in Committee, you can go back and forth in the House without any limitations. It is the appropriate way to proceed, Mr. Speaker, but the minister has agreed she will do it on this occasion; then we could move probably in that manner, that would expedite business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not understand. The Government House Leader has hardly been prepared the last couple of days to move this House efficiently, yet he feels the necessity, on every occasion, to try to give some defence to something that we might suggest. I think we have been totally reasonable in how we are moving the business here.

Now, the Minister of Government Services, to whom I just addressed that commentary and the Chair, has agreed to get up and speak, yet he feels a need to get up and in some way apologize or speak for her. Please, the minister is prepared to speak, let her speak. We have had occasions in this House, numerous times, when, for the sake of progress, the minister responds. We have a debate back and forth, there is an exchange of information and it moves things forward. Now, if you want to get into this stickily, prickly type of attitude whereby we are going to be up and down all day long trying to move this thing - you know, you can play this game anyway you want. We are prepared to be fair but if you want to get stickily, we can play by those rules, too.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have indicated that I have no problem with the minister standing and answering. She is going to do that, but I have indicated if there are going to be a series of questions, the appropriate place to do it is in Committee on each clause and we are open to follow the process. That is the purpose, to expedite business so we can exchange without getting leave on every occasion. The minister will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are lots of bills with twenty clauses and thirty clauses, Mr. Speaker. The minister will answer that question, she has indicated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is just seeking direction from the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are we now ready to proceed?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question but I do want to reserve the right to make the closing comments on this bill.

The reason for this is, the rate of the payment right now is outdated in the act. What we are doing is bringing it in line with the payments that we are paying right now to the clergies. The first rate was set back in the 1960s. Right now we are just cleaning up this act to bring the births and the registry rate that we pay the clergies in line with what is being paid now.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have had a response from the minister and we will go back to the Opposition House Leader for some comments before we move on to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of clarification, again. The minister's response to my question - what my question was: Why the shift in policy from having the fee determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, under this bill, to be determined by the minister? The minister's comment in answer to that was: We are bringing this act now in line with the existing circumstances. Now, that does not explain the question. My question was quite simple. Why was it the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, who set the fee, and you now want to have it such that you, the minister, sets the fee? That is what I want to know. I am not talking here about the amount of the fee or anything. Why is the shift from the Lieutenant-Governor to the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is aware that this is, of course, second reading where we should be debating the principles of the legislation. We have had an exchange back and forth. I am wondering if the minister wishes to make a comment? Perhaps we could then, after that, go to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are allowing the fee to be set under the authority of the minister responsible. It is a more flexible approach and it is consistent with the normal government practice for many other fees in government. We are just trying to clean this act up and bring it in line with the fees that we are paying right now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile raised a very interesting point here this evening. I am pleased to see that the minister did get an opportunity, eventually, to get on her feet and give us the appropriate response.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill, I guess, that when you first look at it, at a first glance, you tend to think that the government might be going to bring in some more fees around death certificates, birth certificates and things like this in the Province. You have to look a little closer, Mr. Speaker, to realize that they maxed out on that a couple of years ago. Indeed, what they are doing right now is reforming a piece of their legislation to ensure that the clergy and other people out there in the Province who carry out this work on behalf of the government are actually going to be paid an appropriate remuneration, that at this time is going to be set by the minister and not by the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions as well. I would like to know how much money is going into the government coffers right now over increased fees for death certificates and birth certificates, which they introduced by the current Government House Leader today, who was the Minister of Finance at the time? When they brought these fees in, how much more money are they collecting in those fees today and how much are they paying out to people like clergy around the Province to do this piece of work for them? I would suggest very little but collecting a great deal of money. I say that because not only do you pay for your birth certificate the first time you get it but I have lots of cases where people may have misplaced their birth certificate or lost it over the years. They come and they call your office and they want to get another copy. The first thing you do when you walk into Vital Statistics to pick it up is you have to haul out a cheque book and pass over some money. Whenever you get it, or how often you have to get a copy of it, you still have to pay for it.

I would suggest they are making a fine lot of money off the backs of ordinary people who have to have a birth certificate or a death certificate for purposes, Mr. Speaker, of carrying out other business in their lives - they have to have it - like trying to access a moose license, which the fee increased for that, like trying to renew their motor vehicle registration or get their driver's license, in which those fees were also increased by the members opposite. I think at the time there were like 160 different fees, new fees, or maybe it was a little less than that, probably 155 new fees that were introduced at the time, Mr. Speaker, and increased at the time.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: I say to the hon. Member for Lake Melville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Claire.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville sits in his desk and growls all day long, but never stands on his feet to add anything substantial to a piece of legislation in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am making a point here, and the point is that the government that he is a part of increased hundreds of fees to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province. That was what they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They hauled a bundle of money in from ordinary people out there in this Province. That was what they did, Mr. Speaker. Why don't they stand on their feet and justify that? Why don't they do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: They reduced one, Yvonne, the polar bear one.

MS JONES: Yes, the only fee or licence that did get reduced was the polar bear licence. That was the only one. Under the Budget - maybe the Member for Lake Melville would like to be enlightened, because when the Budget came down, Mr. Speaker, there was one licence, one fee, that did not increase, and that was for a polar bear licence.

Now, I have never hunted polar bear, have no intention of hunting polar bear, and most people I know have no intention or do not do so, so for those people we did not get much of a tax break that year, I will put it to you that way, but there were a lot of other fees that did get increased, Mr. Speaker.

The only think that I am asking the minister today is that, in bringing in a remuneration or a fee that will be paid out to people like the clergy in the Province, to carry out the work of issuing these birth certificates, death certificates and documentation, what percentage of that money will be paid out that was collected in new fees by the government? When they brought in a fee for death certificates, for example. I think it is a very important question, a substantial question, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people out there are wondering what the government ever did with all that money that they had to dish out of their pockets back two years ago in the Budget when the fees were being brought in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There continues to be a great amount of dialogue across the House from both sides. The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I ask other members if they could permit the member to be heard in relative silence.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit here intently and listen to other people when they debate in the House, and it is unfortunate that I am not always afforded the same privilege.

I have made the important points that I intend to make with regard to this bill. I am sure the minister will do due diligence in her consideration and provide the responses in her closing remarks.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am pleased to rise and speak to this bill. When I saw this come across today for the first time, of course, we never had much time to look at it; it was laid on our desk and we are asked to speak on it. In the meantime, there is no trouble to speak on it.

I see that the minister is looking for authority to control the purse when it comes to paying out fees to collect vital information; however, I wonder why she is not getting the same authority to reduce fees. She is not looking for any authority to reduce fees when it comes to the 155 fees that you brought in three years ago. I do not see her standing up here in the House and asking this House for authority to reduce fees. That is not going to happen.

Yet, for all of that, there are 20,000 senior citizens out there today who have a driver's licence and, in order for them to have their driver's licence renewed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a lot of dialogue going on from one side of the House and the other side of the House; there is an equal share on both sides. Therefore, I would ask all hon. members if they would be co-operative so I can listen to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans making her presentation.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the members opposite cannot stand to hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was on his feet in the media in August forecasting a $68 million surplus. He was forecasting a $68 million surplus in August, and now, last week, he forecasted or said: Here is a reality check. Guess what? We are almost $40 million in the hole since the Budget was brought down last March. Now, this is what he said: The good news is, we might have a surplus by the time everything is tallied up.

Now, that says a lot about this Minister of Finance and this government. They are running on oil revenues only. They have been three years on the job - four years now, actually, going into the fourth year, already into the fourth year - and they have not created or stabilized a new industry in this Province since they started. If it wasn't for the oil industry that was already started and running when they took power, they would have nothing to show. Now, this is the same minister who forecasted a $68 million surplus in August, and in November he had to haul in his horns -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Minister of Finance and Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind providing the thirty seconds I am going to take for her time, but absolutely never since the Budget of $6.2 million was proposed did I release any statement or anything that we are going to have a $68 million deficit. That is absolutely false, and I think it is right and it is incumbent on her, as the critic, to put the right information out to the people of this Province. That is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you know, August 14, 2006, this year: Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says government will have to borrow less in the fiscal year. That is because the Province ended up with $68 million more in revenue than projected, mainly due to increased offshore royalties.

Now, there was a hiccup when the Terra Nova FPSO had to cut production. White Rose had to cut production because they needed renovations on their FPSO. Now, what would happen if the oil production stopped for the rest of the year? What would happen? We are dependent solely on oil in this Province. We have forgotten our fishery, our fishery that is down $300 million in revenue alone just this year. We have forgotten our fishery. We are hoping that we will get through the next election based on oil. That is what we are hoping for here.

When the Minister of Government Services today stood on her feet and looked for permission to decide on a rate to pay the clergy of this Province for sending in information on who is born and who is dying - why can't she stand up and say: I am looking for permission to reduce the rates for seniors in this Province?

We have 20,000 seniors who need medical exams before their licence is renewed. Prior to 2003, that would cost nothing, zero. Prior to 2003, that would cost a senior no money. As a result of this government, who had a surplus last year, deciding instead of giving seniors a break they would rather put their money down on The Rooms so The Rooms would have no mortgage, now they are charging seniors $100 to go out and get a medical exam and have a reassessment to get a driver's licence. There is something wrong with this picture, when they would have the nerve to say to a senior: You might have been paying $75 a trip for an ambulance before 2003, but, guess what, if you think your condition is serious enough and you need an ambulance, it is going to be $115.

I want to relay to you a story that came across my desk about two weeks ago. This is a health issue but it is related to money. I had a letter actually written to the Premier and it was copied to me. There was a constituent of mine from Grand Falls-Windsor who was in the hospital for two weeks. It was determined that this individual needed a test done in St. John's; one of those balloon tests because the individual was having heart problems. Before the individual left in the ambulance that day it was determined that she did not need to take anything only pajamas and a toothbrush. That is all that individual needed to take. The ambulance brought her in to the Health Sciences Complex. That day when they did the test they ran into trouble. There was bleeding there they never expected, so the patient was asked to spend the night. In the morning the doctor came and saw that patient and she was discharged. She was not discharged from the Central Newfoundland Hospital, she was discharged from the Health Sciences Complex. She was there in her pajamas and a toothbrush in her hand. She asked for wheelchair assistance to get her out to the main lobby, it was denied. To bring her back to Grand Falls-Windsor she would have had to hire an ambulance privately to take care of that, about $2,000.

Now, there is something wrong when you will discharge a patient in her pajamas, without any relatives here in this city, and expect her to make her way home without any arrangements. This is a matter that is currently being investigated and there has to be some reasonable explanation given to that lady. You do not do that to anybody. You do not send people out of a hospital in an ambulance, away from their hometown and away from their relatives, and expect them to get back with not even a credit card in their pocket or no money. That is inhumane. This is going to be investigated further.

This same government, who has had a surplus budget over the past year, who has had an injection of a lot of money from Ottawa and so on, is still charging $115 a trip for an ambulance. I have had seniors give me a call and say: Before I order an ambulance, I'm going to make well sure that I really need one. I'm not going to go and spend $115 out of my pocket unless I know I'm in serious condition. Now, when a senior has to pick up a telephone and put it down again and say: Gee, I don't know, maybe if I wait until the morning I might be all right. Because it is $115 that person has to pay and they also have to pay for a medical escort to go along with them if they hire an ambulance. It was twenty-five dollars and now it is fifty dollars; it is double. So if you have a senior who is going from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor, they have $115 for the ambulance and they have fifty dollars for a medical escort. Now, not every senior can afford that. They are going to make a big decision: Will I go or will I stay? Will I be better in the morning? Will I wait?

The situation in 2003 and 2006 for this government is entirely different. For the first time in our history we are forecasting budget surpluses, not because of anything that this government did, not for anything that this government has produced in the way of adding to our economy, not one thing. All the money that came into this Province came from federal money, and, of course, our oil industry. They have not diversified our economy in any way, shape or form. So this would be a good opportunity - when I heard the Minister of Business, not business because the Minister of Business was asked a couple of questions this afternoon and he decided that he would not answer those questions, so the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development decided to jump up in case the story might get more contradicted and they would have a bigger mess on their hands under the fibre optic deal. Right now they are only allowing two or three people to answer questions in case they get mixed up. They are allowing the Premier and they are allowing the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. If anybody else answers: My God, you could make it worse than it is already! So, don't anybody else answer. You are not allowed.

Minister of Government Services, you have an ideal opportunity right now to do something for the people of this Province. Instead of wrangling about and trying to decide what you are going to pay a clergy to deliver vital information, why don't you use that same energy and decrease the fees or eliminate fees?

The Minister of Finance was on a CBC Crosstalk in early November and he was saying at that particular time that this is the first time in the history of Canada - now what a great statistic to be able to brag about - the first time in the history of Canada that this Province, or any other province in Canada, has had more deaths than births. Now, this is what the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, said on CBC Crosstalk. He has no hope for this Province by the way, because he said that in the next seven years 27 per cent more children in our schools will be gone; 27 per cent more of our school children will be gone in seven years time. He has no hope for this Province, none whatsoever. If he was doing his job he would be saying: Look, I don't care what the figures say, we have a plan. We are going to bring people into this Province. We are going to make sure nobody else leaves this Province. Instead of that, he said 27 per cent of the school population, that is 21,000 children, are not going to be here in seven years time. He said we have the highest death rate and the lowest birth rate and you know that impacts on our equalization.

What are you doing about it, new government? Because you have the highest death rate and you have the lowest birth rate and it is impacting on your equalization. What are you doing about it? What is your economic plan? What is your economic plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Zero. All you have is the doghouse plan, fibre optics across the Trans-Canada Highway and across the Gulf linking up whatever is on the Trans-Canada Highway. Forget about rural Newfoundland. I noticed myself. I have been watching the situation evolve here in this Province. There is a shifting attitude, there is a definite shifting attitude, and I think it hit home the other day when I heard Randy Simms on Open Line saying: Who cares about rural Newfoundland? Who cares about rural Newfoundland and Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to be as tolerant as it can at second reading, however, it is incumbent upon the member to relate her comments to the principles of the bill. I call her for some questions on relevancy and ask her if she could relate what she is saying - I am sure she will - to the principle of Bill 43.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is so very relevant when I talk about - it is all connected to money and fees. We are talking about death certificates and we are talking about birth certificates and we are talking about the gathering of information and the paying of information, and who will be paid and how much they will be paid, and will it be the authority of the minister to make those rules or will it be the authority of Cabinet. Now this bill is asking that the minister have that authority today. When you think about that, you have to think about the fact that the amount that was set for gathering that information was, for every 100 names that were submitted $20 was the fee. How long would it take the clergy in Ochre Pit Cove to gather 100 names to send into the Registrar to get $20? A long time. Because as I heard on the radio last week, the United Church in Ochre Pit Cove closed their doors. The United Church in Blackhead will close next Sunday. That is two churches. There has been a bed and breakfast being made out of churches out in Conception Bay. Doesn't that tell you people are leaving rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is no plan? Does anybody care that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is dying? Does anybody care or does it matter that you see all these IT centers here in St. John's with everybody behind a little desk making $7 an hour or $6.50? That is all that matters, is it?

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up now because I will have plenty of time in other bills to give comments on the economy in this Province. I do not know what the reason is for this bill, but I want to leave a thought with the minister. Madam Minister, if you are thinking about getting authorization to make these changes, I would like for you to put the same enthusiasm and bring it to your Cabinet to reduce and eliminate the fees you brought in three years ago.

Thank you.

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

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

I just want to take a couple of moments to speak to Bill 43. When I heard the minister explain what this bill is about and how the authority, I guess, will be taken from the Lieutenant Governor in Council and placed in the hands of the minister, and then I heard her reference what the registers are paid, I guess I was somewhat taken back; when you have to send in 100 births or 100 deaths in order to get a $20 fee sent back to you. I have to say to government, you are pretty good in raising your fees but you are not very good in paying out to other people what I think they should get for doing the services.

We know from the last budget that prior to the last budget the cost for a birth certificate was zero dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: No, I am sorry! A birth certificate was twenty dollars and a death certificate was zero, and both of them increased to a twenty-five dollar fee. I think, personally, that is a bit much.

Like the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, and the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, and others, that really, when it comes to birth and death certificates, I believe that the fee should totally be eliminated. I say to the minister, if there is a fee to be paid out to the registers, whether they are clergy or whoever, I think she should consider it in the next budget and see that they get a little increase. They have to send in 100 before they get a twenty dollar bill back. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a little ridiculous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five hundred dollars to get twenty dollars.

MR. BUTLER: Twenty-five hundred dollars to get twenty dollars. That is not a bad turnover.

Mr. Speaker, seeing we are on fees, some of them - it is amazing when we look at what came down the last time and we are talking about balancing the budget and so on, but we know from the Budget in 2004 the total revenue from increasing fees was in the vicinity of $24 million to $25 million. I will give you just one little example. Someone visiting a park, going into the park just for day use, they have to pay five dollars to get a shower because they are not camping there. Mr. Speaker, we talk about increased registration fees for passenger vehicles. It went from $100 to $180. Personally, I think the people in this Province have paid enough on the fees.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do when you were there?

MR. BUTLER: We always hear on the other side of the House, and here we go again: What did you fellows do when you were there? I would say, it is time for this government to stand on their own legs. They have been in power now going on four years. They can find money, $15 million to do other things, and I will not go into that, that is for another day. If we can come up with $15 million - and here we are now looking at people who are passing away, charging a $25 fee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paved the roads?

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, here we go on provincial roads again. There has not been a government since Confederation that has not done work on roads or water and sewer. You would not know but this administration were the first ones that ever did anything with a road or water and sewer in this Province.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker -

MR. HICKEY: We are the only ones who ever did anything with the roads in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I would like for the Minister of Transportation - he says they are the only ones who ever did anything with roads in this Province. I would invite him to come to the District of Port de Grave next week and have a chat with the people in his own depot, have a chat with the people in his own depot.

I would say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WISEMAN: You were the EA. You were the EA to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I am asking that the hon. member be able to do his presentation in relative silence.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: The Member for Trinity North says I was EA to the minister. I guarantee you the work was done not only in that district and others. When he won his by-election there was a good bit done in his district.

Mr. Speaker, I say, when it comes to government services branches again - we talk about a little corner grocery store who are dealing with food, the increase of the fee from zero dollars, from a $125 to a $300 increase for people to operate a small convenience store. In liquor licencing, annual brewers agents went from zero up to $100 increase.

Mr. Speaker, I know this bill might not touch on all of those issues, but I have to say when it comes to the minister taking charge and control over those fees it will be a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, if we do not see another increase now. We will say, no, no, government did not do this, the minister just did this on her own, it is passed to her, and we will see our fees rise again, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I listened intensely to the debate on the other side of the House and I have to say, I wondered if they even read our Budget last year, because they have not mentioned once there that we reduced school fees by $6 million last Budget. We also have every fee under review here in the government. Very quickly they have forgotten that the Opposition now was here in this power and we got a financial mess when we came to this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has been very tolerant relative to relevance on both sides of the House, and I would ask all speakers if they could constrain themselves to the principles of the bill. We are on second reading, and we are making some progress.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister to make her concluding comments.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say to the Opposition, under the leadership of Premier Williams and this team, the people in this Province have seen great leadership and have seen $171 million worth of work put into the infrastructure in this Province alone this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I wonder, when the listening audience out there are listening to the bills, what the intent of the bill is this evening, I have to tell you that we are talking about a rate for the clergy when they register a birth and a death with the Province. I have listened to them go around and talk about the (inaudible), we didn't do this, we didn't do that, and we didn't do something else. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have done a lot in three years, considering the corner that we have turned in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I also think the people in this Province are not fooled by the shenanigans that go on, on that side of the House with debate.

I also would like to say that we should focus on the intent of the bill, what exactly it is, to give the minister the authority which is consistent with other fees in the government, a mechanism that you can have the flexible approach.

You know, I listened to, we do not care about the seniors. Well, we have done things for the seniors in this Province. We have done a number of things with our health care in this Province for the people here, to better our people.

They talked about out-migration. Well, ever since I have been living in this Province - and I have lived here my entire life - I have seen young people go away to get work. I have seen old people, younger people, all make choices in life, and this government has the lowest unemployment rate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister if she could assure that her comments are relative to the principles of the bill. We seem to have varied considerably. The Chair did let her have some leeway because it is a matter of a financial bill to some extent, but I want to say to the minister that if we could constrain ourselves more precisely to the principles of the bill then we could make greater progress.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will focus on the bill, because I do believe that the listening audience needs to know what this bill is. It is actually increasing the fees from $20 to $50 for the clergies, to bring it in line with what we are paying out under this specific act.

You know, this government has done red tape reductions. Some of the cumbersome things that are on business here, we have taken initiatives to work this out with our government and put it in action.

I want to say to the Opposition members who commented on this bill today, they have gone from talking about what this government haven't done. We do not have to worry about what we are doing. We are very accountable in this government, and the people of this Province certainly know that they put us here to do a job and this government is doing just that. We are a people's government and we care about our people, and we will continue to do initiatives that will better the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I would like to conclude this bill at second reading.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification.

There was a bit of noise coming from both sides, and I am not sure if I heard the minister correctly. Did you say the fee was going to be increased from $20 to $50?

MS WHALEN: The fee paid out was usually $20, but now -

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

MS WHALEN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The fee that was paid out was $20 per 100. It is now $50 per 100. It is more in line with the act right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am wondering if we could perhaps leave these matters to Committee? I will recognize the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I will call the question on second reading.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 43)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill, Order 4, Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries." (Bill 40)

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

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

I am extremely pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 40, which is entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Conduct Of Public Inquiries, 2006.

Now, this bill is going to replace the current legislation, the current Public Inquiries Act, which I understand is over thirty-five years old. There is certainly an identified need to update the legislation so that we can ensure that there are stronger and more effective mechanisms for public inquiries which will coincide with administrative law principles, principles of natural justice and fairness that will allow for greater efficiency and flexibility and includes enhanced advisory and investigatory powers.

This bill will repeal and replace the current Public Inquiries Act of 1990, as I mentioned, with the new Public Inquiries Act of 2006, and the new act will do the following: It will provide powers for the establishment of a commission of inquiry and to appoint commissioners under Part I of the act. The act, in Part II, will bring to this Province something new, and that will bring in what they call an inquiry - some people refer to it as a hearing commission, or a study or review commission in Part II - and sets out the powers and duties of each: the commission of inquiry in Part I and the inquiry under Part II, and under Part III will create a regulatory financial framework.

The public inquiry legislation is an important government tool used to create public policy. We have seen in this Province the most recent commission of inquiry, which was that conducted by the former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. As I will indicate later on in my remarks, some of the amendments that will be introduced today were precipitated by comments that Commissioner Lamer made in his report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Government in 2006.

This bill is intended to build upon the current legislation but, of course, this is not an amendment; this is a complete overhaul of the law relating to public inquiries in this Province.

I know the Opposition House Leader, when we are bringing in legislation, likes to give the background. He likes to put the legislation in context. He likes to speak to, I think he calls them, Bill and Martha. What does he call them? What is it?

MR. PARSONS: Bill and Martha.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Bill and Martha.

He gives them the background, and I enjoy listening to it because that means I only have to speak directly to the amendment or directly to the legislation. He gives a long speech and sets out the context, which must be helpful to people out there who are dealing with, or listening to, a debate about legislation that involves lawyers and legal terms. So, I thought I would help him out a little bit today because I think it is going to be helpful for all of us, given the fact that we have the Lamer Inquiry, given the fact, from time to time, that it has become common for members of the public to demand for the government to create public inquiries whenever a significant event occurs, whenever there are accusations of government wrong doing, or there is a decisive issue that is dominating the Canadian or the Newfoundland and Labrador political or policy-making arenas.

Public inquiries in Canada and in Newfoundland are not new. I understand that the earliest public inquiry in this country took place over 400 years ago. Of course, we recently had the Lamer Inquiry here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We recently had a report from Dr. Markesteyn as a delegate of the Child and Youth Advocate in this Province. Public inquiries and official review, it is ordered by the government for important events or issues. The purpose of a public inquiry is to establish the facts and to establish the causes of an event or issue and then to make recommendations to the government. In other words, what went wrong, why did it go wrong, and what can we do to try to make sure that the mistakes that are identified do not happen again?

There are number of distinguishing features about public inquiries in this country. First of all, public inquiries are governed by specific government legislation, such as the one that we are introducing today. It is under that legislation that public inquiries, which are a creature of the Legislature, are created. Also, public inquiries can only provide an advisory role. The purpose of the inquiry, as I indicated before, was to establish the facts, establish the causes surrounding an event and then to make recommendations to government that government is under no obligation to accept. Public inquiries do not have the legal power to force governments to take its advice. Although, with longstanding commissions of inquiry with people like Antonio Lamer as the Chair, government would have a lot to answer to, to the people of this Province, if it refused to accept the advice.

Public inquiries are semi-independent. While the government dictates the mandate and the purpose of the inquiry, as well as its makeup and budget, the inquiry then, and the commissioners who make up the inquiry, are free to manage their own day-to-day activities and to form its own conclusions and recommendations within the mandate that the government has given to it.

Public inquiries are also very open. They are in a public nature and the public is not only allowed but the public is, indeed, encouraged to provide evidence or testimony before the inquiry. The reports, of course, of the public inquiry are generally made available to the public and, indeed, in this legislation that we are bringing forward, it is mandatory for any public inquiry, for any commission of inquiry, for any inquiry to make its report public.

Public inquiries differ from other forms of review. One other form, of course, is a judicial proceeding which of course is a trial, or it is a review by a recognized federal or provincial or territorial court. These courts can review cases and they can make findings of guilt in criminal cases, they can make findings of liability in civil matters, and legality in constitutional cases. They are also responsible for administering punishment and remedies. Public inquires can look like judicial proceedings but they are not the same because judicial proceedings are legally binding, whereas the recommendations of a public inquiry are advisory only.

There are also criminal investigations, and I think we are all aware of what those are. Under our system it is the police who have the responsibility and have the duty to enforce the laws of this jurisdiction. It would be improper, for example, for the Minister of Justice to tell the police who they should investigate. That is their decision. They exercise their discretion in determining what laws they will enforce, what potential breaches of the law they will investigate and it is their decision whether or not a charge should be laid. It is not the decision of the government. It is not the decision of the Minister of Justice. Indeed, it would be improper for the Minister of Justice to interfere in such a thing.

Another difference, of course, between public inquiries and a criminal investigation, as well a criminal investigation is kept confidential. The public inquiry is very open. It is open to everyone. Also, the purpose of a criminal investigation is to establish whether individuals are charged with a criminal offence. A public inquiry, on the other hand, does not have the power to charge individuals with a criminal offence. It is important, of course, to note that criminal investigations co-operate with public inquiries. If an inquiry is to uncover evidence of criminal activities, such evidence would be turned over to the appropriate agency for further investigation and possible criminal charges.

Other types of reviews would take place here in this House of Assembly. We have legislative committees, and of course in the executive branch of government there are departmental studies all the time. Legislative committees are advisory bodies that are created by this Legislature and they can be found here, and of course in the House of Commons of Ottawa as well, and in other territorial levels of government.

Departmental studies are internal reviews conducted by government. They often review issues of public concern and, in addition, they provide advice to the government. The problem with these, of course, is that these committees are controlled by the government and therefore would not necessarily be looked on by members of the public as being truly independent.

These are the different types of reviews. Some of the inquiries that take place are policy reviews, where the purpose of the inquiry is to have a mandate to review a major political, social or economic issue with the objective of providing policy recommendations to the government. One example of a policy inquiry would be the 2000 Commission on Health Care in Canada, as an example. It was generally known as the Romanow Commission.

Another sort of public inquiry is a factual inquiry. Whereas a policy review is a broad area of public policy, a factual review reviews a specific event or occurrence that has raised public alarm. An example of a factual inquiry would be the Gomery Inquiry, which, of course, all members of the House are well familiar with. Some inquiries are both, they are both policy reviews and they are factual reviews. A good example of that would be the (inaudible) commission.

It might be helpful for people watching, it might even be helpful for some members of this House, that different inquiries have different names. We notice that some are called Royal Commissions, others are called commissions of inquiry, others are simply called task forces. This gives you the impression that they are all different, they are different sources of inquiries. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the case. The only real difference is that a Royal Commission bears the Royal seal while the others do not. Whether a public inquiry bears the royal seal or whether it does not has no bearing on the power of a commission. A Royal Commission can be either a policy review or a factual inquiry. The same is true for a commission of inquiry and for task forces. All three are invested with exactly the same powers. So, in the end, the title that an inquiry is given is not important. What is important depends solely on the predilections of the government that has created it and the powers that they give to it.

Generally speaking, the government with a constitutional jurisdiction will determine, over a particular issue being studied, who would establish the inquiry. For example, members, I am sure, would be interested to note that telecommunications is a matter of federal jurisdiction and it is the federal government that would be responsible for any public inquiry into telecommunications policy. There is the option - and governments have the option, and this is set out in this new legislation - of establishing a joint public inquiry where an event that is under study involves both federal and provincial jurisdictions. I am sure that if an inquiry is held with respect to the fishery it would be very important that both the federal government and the provincial government get together with a joint inquiry, given the fact that constitutionally the fish in the sea is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, while the processing of the fish on land, as everyone in this House knows, is the responsibility of the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of information that I think will be helpful in setting the background as we discuss this new piece of legislation, or this proposed legislation I should say, to bring in a new Public Inquiries Act here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new provisions will enhance the present transparency, independence and accountability features of public inquiries. The act will continue to serve the same function, which is to allow public inquiries into events or issues relevant to good government or of public concern. Of course, it is understood that it is always the Cabinet, whether it is a federal or provincial or territorial Cabinet, that has the power to create and to set the parameters around the public inquiry.

There will be no additional financial considerations associated with this particular piece of legislation. In fact, the legislation, given what is set out in Part II, is more flexible and will allow the government to request, in the setting up of inquiry, something less than the full-blown commission of inquiry set out in Part I, something less than the full-meal deal.

So, the Part II inquiries provides a mechanism where the inquiries might simply employ techniques such as interviews and surveys, research studies, inspections and investigations, calling for written submissions and/or informal hearings.

Now, the nature and scope of these alternatives will cost significantly less in both time and money than the large scale full commission of inquiry set out in Part I. The objectives of these more focused inquiries is to respond in a timely fashion and to make the best use of scarce resources in the interest of good government and the creation of informed public policy.

When the government was (inaudible) the options with regard to the review commission on constituency allowances and related matters, the mechanisms that are set out in Part II of this act would have enhanced the options that were available to the government and would have been very beneficial, because I think a lot of people in the Province were calling for a public inquiry and this was not necessarily the situation where a full-blown public inquiry was really needed.

If this legislation has been in effect, if Part II of the act had been in effect, this would have been very beneficial. In the end, the government, in effect, created a Part II type review commission but in a more cumbersome way. The intention in Part II of the proposed bill is to give the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or the Cabinet, a focused menu of options and to use the tools necessary to do the job effectively.

Where necessary, under Section 18 of the act, the Cabinet may, by order, direct that study inquiries have the power to compel evidences under paragraph 18.(1), to apply for a search warrant, paragraph 18.(1)(f), to receive written and oral evidence, and to provide for publication or broadcast of the proceedings. In other words, the new act allows you to tailor the inquiry to the events and the issues relevant to good government and sound public policy.

In Part I of the bill there are a number of important provisions which are intended to provide for stronger, more effective mechanisms for public inquiries. None of these provisions are found in the Province's current legislation. I will just briefly highlight these. The scope of potential public inquiry subjects is defined as broadly as possible in section 3.(1). A second one is: principles of transparency and accountability are fostered by making clear the executive's power and responsibility, in setting the terms of reference, in appointing the commissioners, in designating the responsible minister, in establishing a time limit for each inquiry.

That is what was done in the Lamer Inquiry. That was set up under the previous government, where they picked a well-known and very well-respected commissioner; they set out the terms of reference. Now, there was a bit of dispute over those terms of reference in dealing with certain issues, and a hearing was held into that and it all got straightened out through amendments to the terms of reference.

There was a time limit, I think, in the Order-in-Council, setting out the Lamer Inquiry. There was a definite time limit set out. Unfortunately, because of health reasons, Commissioner Lamer was unable to complete the report as quickly as he would have wished, but we do have the results of his report. Our patience certainly paid off. We have an excellent report that will certainly help, in my view, restore public confidence in the administration of justice here in this Province.

Duties are placed on commissions to deliver reports in a timely manner, as I said, and there is a mandatory duty on the minister to make the report public. Participation in inquiries will be determined by commissions in the exercise of a discretion that is intended to balance individual participatory rights and the public interest in the effectiveness of an inquiry, and that is under section 5. These enhanced participatory rights for persons that are likely to be the subject of adverse findings in investigative inquiries were set out in section 5, and that was recommended by Commissioner Lamer.

Commissioner Lamer indicated that anyone whom wrongdoing could be alleged against would have the opportunity to appear before the commissioner before such a designation could be made in the report. He recommended that in his inquiry. That recommendation is set out in, I think it is, section 5.(4) of the legislation.

The legislation provides that rights of witnesses before inquiries are assimilated to those of witnesses before the courts on the basis that similar protection is indeed appropriate. I know the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development agrees with that. This right includes protection against self-incrimination, and these provisions are intended to promote independence and impartial analysis, conclusions and recommendations.

While these proposals are new for this Province, they are certainly not revolutionary. The Department of Justice has reviewed similar legislation in other jurisdictions. The intent is to update our legislation, address housekeeping issues, and incorporate the best practices for other Canadian jurisdictions.

One point I would like to make is that this bill substantially mirrors the draft uniform Public Inquiries Act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. This has determined that public inquiry legislation is an important government tool. They further studied public inquiries and found that there is a continuing role for public inquiries and there is value in harmonizing our legislation across Canadian jurisdictions by means of a unified Public Inquiries Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Ontario and British Columbia are also - I wish I could hear what they are saying over there.

MR. TAYLOR: Stop for a second and listen.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Say it louder.

In conclusion, I will simply say that we have followed the recommendations of Commissioner Lamer, we have followed the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The bill is positive. It builds on the current legislation. It will enhance transparency, independence and accountability for future public inquiries, and I look forward to any suggestions and comments of hon. members here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I note the clock is at 4:32 p.m. and, pursuant to Standing Order 46.(2), being the person responding to the minister's delivery, I get sixty minutes, so that should take me to just about suppertime.

I will see if we can start by bringing Joe and Martha back to the television set. The minister said he would like to inform Joe and Martha, and I certainly do, because it is very important, of course, that people understand the significance of legislation, what it means. It is the laws that impact them and impact the people around them, and this one is very, very timely. It is very timely. It is called the Public Inquiries Act, and it is very timely.

I will begin by saying just some of the basics the minister talked about here as to why you would have a public inquiry. It is a fact finding mission. Something has happened, it might be a social issue, might be a political issue, might be an economic issue, that people want to get further information on. Something has happened and you want to clear the air. If there is any smell or unknown factors around, you want to get at the facts and that is purpose of it. Of course, you want to make sure that the persons who get at it are persons who the public will have the utmost faith in when the report is delivered. That is why public inquiries in Canada have taken on the air of very, very reputable, acceptable bodies and persons to find those facts and make those recommendations.

For example, the Minister of Justice referred to the Lamer Inquiry. I happened to be Minister of Justice when the Lamer Inquiry was created dealing with a very complex issue. We had three individuals, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Druken, of course, very serious and sensitive issues and complex issues which people wanted answers to. It is not only in those cases those things are so important to those individuals and to their families and their loved ones, that it is incumbent upon us as a society in those cases to see that the facts are found and answers are given and recommendations are made. It does not matter what your political stripe is, does not matter what you might think yourself, it is, what does some independent person think of the circumstances? Because if you are in a certain position you might have an opinion based on faulty facts, faulty information. Maybe some bureaucratic influences have been brought to bare. It could be anything. The purpose of the independent commissioner, of course, is that it is a new, unbiased eyeball that looks into the situation and says what went on here. That is why it is so important.

These people, of course, are usually beyond reproach. In the case of Justice Lamer, for example, he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I cannot think of a more able, respected person to bring in to do that particular inquiry. I think that was the whole context of it and the need for it, to be absolutely open, absolutely transparent and make sure that a good job was done by the best that there was to do it. I do believe that is what happened there. No doubt this new public inquiries act being brought forward has something to do with the recommendations that Justice Lamer commented on in his report.

Now, generally speaking - and I would like to point out that some people might get hung up, for example, in section 3, and we will get into these details later, but it says that the terms of reference for the inquiry are actually set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Now for Joe and Martha, of course, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is the Premier and the Cabinet. That is who says if you are going to appoint someone as a commissioner to review a certain circumstance. It is a Premier and the Cabinet that does that, the executive of the Province. They get to set the terms of reference. Some might question it and say: Ah, well we have to be careful here because even though you have set up an inquiry, you can control what they look at by setting the terms of reference. But, generally speaking, that does not happen. Anyone who sets up an inquiry, you usually know that the area is of such sensitivity and such complexity that you better be above board and you better give a broad, wide expansive range when it comes to your terms of reference so that you do not appear to be hiding anything.

For example, another form of inquiry, where they call it a review - and it was not done according to this act, but is being undertaken and performed - is Chief Justice Green's review of the constituency allowances and the benefits of MHAs, all of us who sit here in this House. Now that is another form of an inquiry. The minister referred to other types of inquiries. That is another one we have ongoing. Chief Justice Green was given a list of things that he could look into by the Lieutenant Governor in Council: what do MHAs get paid; what are their benefits; what is this constituency allowance thing all about; what should they or should they not be allowed to use it for. He is being asked and he will come back, he tells us, in January of 2007, give us his report, tell us what he found, and give us some guidelines, I would think, and recommendations, as to how business should be conducted in the future by this House and the members of it. Of course, again a person beyond reproach. The Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing that. No hidden agendas, no biases, he has been given a broad, expansive terms of reference, basically saying, this is the issue, you tell us whatever you find. Tell us what you like about it, tell us what you do not like about it, tell us about the financial accountability aspects of the House of Assembly. Go for it. That is why I do firmly believe that when he comes back and reports, we as members are going to be pleased at what he says because it is going to give us some definitive instructions as to how we should conduct ourselves.

It is going to give the persons who work with the House of Assembly themselves, the staff, the assurance and confidence to know that they have a hard and fast set of the rules to follow. Of course, most importantly, it is going to let the public know what those rules are and there are going to be accountability features built in so that you can have the checks and balances in future to see if it is done. That is another form of inquiry.

I say this is very timely because we have a very important contentious issue ongoing in this Province, as we speak, to which I submit a commission of inquiry should be held, and I am, of course, referring to the fibre optics issue; very timely and very important, and, in fact, cries out for such an inquiry, a commission of inquiry. I will tell you why. These public inquiries, by the very nature of the word public, are issues that the public want to know about and deserve to know about. Because it is when things happen, that people do not understand the facts or aren't given the full facts or people put a slant on things or a spin on things, that we go down wrong roads. It is simply the information base, the facts - everybody is not reading from the same book of facts. That is what an inquiry does; it gives us the same book of facts.

There has been a lot of discussion out there, of course - for example, there was mention made that the Auditor General should come in. That is a good way to do the review. The Auditor General should come in and do the inquiry into the fibre optics. In fact, I believe it was the Opposition member from the Bay of Islands who suggested that, and said we should have the Public Accounts Committee of this Province, which he chairs, do that. I agree. That is one way of doing it. I do not think it is the proper way of doing it, totally. It is one way. As the Minister of Justice says, there are all kinds of ways to do an inquiry, but I believe you have to have the right form of inquiry for a particular issue.

For example, the Auditor General may well be asked by the Public Accounts, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or by this House, to go check out certain facts and circumstances, but the Auditor General is limited in what he can find. He is limited to where he can look, because in an inquiry, of course, you are lifting up rocks, you are seeing what is under all the rocks, you are looking behind the dark corners, you are looking under the plants. You want to know who did what when, and I think I just used the words the minister used. Who did what when? That is what an inquiry is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: And why.

MR. PARSONS: And why? That is the other thing, why? Very important; why. Absolutely important. I would submit it is only when you have a complete and true appreciation of the whos, the whats, the whens and the wheres that you can actually sometimes conclude the why. At the end of the day, once all of that is done, you can still disagree with each other, but at least in the case of an inquiry it is not you or it is not I disagreeing on what the facts were. Someone independent told us what the whos, the wheres and the whys were.

That is why the Auditor General, for example, I would submit, if he went through the Public Accounts Committee, cannot get at all the facts. He is prohibited by section 18 of his own act which governs him. The law that says what the Auditor General can do, he is prohibited from asking for any information or having access to any information about Cabinet. It is written right in his act. Now it might be a good suggestion: Yes, let's ask him to go check it out and have him do the due diligence on it, but the bottom line is he cannot get the information. He has no right to get the information. The Cabinet of this Province, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Premier and the crowd can say: No, sorry, we're abiding by the law and you're not getting that information. Now, how in the name of God are we going to get the facts about the fibre optics deal through the Auditor General if the Auditor General has no right to get the facts? It is quite obvious, even from the questions we have seen in the last couple of days here, that it was a Cabinet decision. It was based upon presentations made to Cabinet ministers, which I presume there were briefing notes circulated to all members of Cabinet, none of which the Auditor General can have access to.

Well, we are getting a little bit at a time. We had the report yesterday. We pried a little bit and the minister, albeit a little bit reluctant to give us what he had, did yesterday release a EWA review that was commissioned. We did get that, and it is obvious from today's questions that it in itself raises a lot of questions. That is for another day in Question Period. I am sure that will unfold. That is one of the things, for example, that an inquiry could do. That is why the Auditor General - he cannot insist upon that stuff, but a public inquiry would bring it out. There would be no question about who did what, when and where in a public inquiry, because in a public inquiry if the terms are broad, that commissioner can subpoena people. For example, if he wanted to see Dean MacDonald in a chair, who was apparently one of the principles involved in meetings here, and ask him all kinds of questions - even if I, as an interested party, asked the commissioner, can I come and ask him some questions, I can get standing so that I can ask questions. That is possible under the Commission of Inquiry. He just does not leave it all to himself. He can ask whoever he likes to come and sit in the chair and put it to them.

We are not going to get that with the Auditor General. We are not going to get that. He is prohibited. That is why I think - again, when you talk true, open, honest accountability, you have to put the whole can of wax on the table. You do not tie your hands and you do not say: Well, we want everybody to know the full story, but. There are no buts, no ifs. Get out the full drill. That is not going to happen, in my view, with the Auditor General. Some might say: Oh, you don't know what you are doing politically over there, you crowd. One of you wants an Auditor General and the other one wants something else. I do not think we ever claimed over here that we all thought alike, like some groups and caucuses. They all think what they are told to think, but we, over here, happen to think independently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: I happen to think that a suggestion for a public inquiry would get at the truth, and that is what this is all about. What is the truth? That is the purpose of an inquiry. What is the truth?

Now, I can see from the response of the government members opposite just what they think of the truth. The minute I suggested that the public of this Province are entitled to know the truth, I just had twenty-three members on the government side heckle. Joe and Martha, you heard that. You cannot see them but here I am asking that you people have the truth, and the minute I mention truth I am heckled by the government members. That goes to show exactly what they think about openness, what they think about truth. I am not asking that we have an inquiry so that this member can decide what the facts are. I am not asking so that Gerry Reid can ask what the facts are, or the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to have an inquiry so that Joe and Martha can know the truth. That is who I would like to know the truth.

I appreciate the fact that he came back and listened to this, because although the Minister of Justice might have driven them away, they are back now because they are interested in knowing the truth. The sooner this Administration recognizes that the public will not tolerate spin, the public will not tolerate covering up - the public are insisting that you have an inquiry. You can come up with all the excuses you want in the book, absolutely, but until such time as you reveal the full facts and circumstances the truth is not out there. The truth may be over there. The truth may be in Cabinet.

By the way, concerning the fibre optics, this person here has not reached a conclusion. I have not reached a conclusion that the fibre optics deal being talked about is not in the best interest of the people of this Province. I have not reached that conclusion at all, not at all. I am not suggesting even that something was done improperly; never would. My problem, at this point, is I am not in a position to decide what the truth is because I do not know it, simply because I do not have the information. I am not going to condemn anybody, the Premier or anybody else, by saying, oh, this is a bad deal. How can I say it is a bad deal if I have not seen the deal? I have seen certain parts of it and I have people telling me this is good for the economy of this Province, it is going to create jobs, good for medical research and so on, good for competitive advantages. I have no problem with accepting that, but I think we have a right to know the full story. That is where I run into problems, when someone says: Whoa, we are government. We make decisions. We do not have to tell you the full story.

In fact, we already have laws in this Province. We have a law called the Public Tender Act. That law did not come about because somebody just wanted to throw out another law. We have a process in this Province whereby if you are going to do business with government sometimes, if the government goes out and they say, we don't know, for example, we know what we want done, we know where we want to go, but let's find out what is out there and who is capable of doing it.

Like the Minister of Business, for example, he is a businessperson. When he was in the pharmacy business and had it going, if he was going to buy a case of chocolates, he does not say: Well, okay, I'm going to take that offer without checking around. Who has the best brand? Who has the best kind? What is the price involved? How fast does it take me to get them? When can I be stocked? There are all kinds of questions that get asked.

That is what we are saying here. Somebody walks off the street in a consortium of telecommunications interests who happens to be good friends with the Premier. There is nothing wrong with being friends with the Premier. Absolutely not! I am sure he has lots of friends and he should have lots of friends. He is a nice person, but that does not take away from the fact that we have to be open, we have to be accountable. You do not have to take that away from him. He cannot assume that because he is the Premier or because he is a certain individual that everybody has to like everything he does or never question what he does. We have a right as people in this democracy to question what was done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Mr. Henley.

MR. PARSONS: This is not the first time that there have been disagreements with the Premier or what he said. I mean, you know, we had the Henley case involved, where they had a racket before and went to court in Ontario. We had all of that going on before. People question, sometimes, people's motivations or what you did or did not do. There are always forums to find out the truth, and in that case it was a court case. In this case, I am suggesting the right forum would be an inquiry.

The Premier is quite capable of explaining things for himself. Put it all out there. Put the full facts out there. Give it to somebody independent from yourself. We should not, as a people in this Province, automatically accept that what Premier Williams says is the God-gospel truth and is the full, absolute, detailed facts. If that is the case, you wouldn't need any opposition. What do you want an opposition for if everything a person says has to be accepted without question?

Well, I don't accept that premise. I do not accept that premise. I was a member of a government and had to stand in here and defend government decisions. I was a member of a government who appointed a public inquiry such as the Lamer Inquiry, and I am here now as an Opposition member. I have a right to know, but not only me. This is not about me. Everybody in this Province has a right to know the full story.

By the way, these inquires, the word in the very act, is to call public inquiries, commissions of inquiry. They are not held under the cover of darkness. They are held in full public view. Anybody, Joe and Martha, the moon man, anybody who wants to go into a public inquiry - in fact, in section 7 of the act it says, "(1) A commission may arrange for the publishing or broadcast of its proceedings."

We can sit home on our chesterfield, if we want, and watch it unfold like we did in the Gomery Commission, absolutely nothing closed, and what is wrong asking for that? All of a sudden you stand up as an Opposition member and say I want to know the facts and you get condemned because you want to know the facts. Well, I am sorry, I do not work on that premise and I do not think anybody over here does, and I do not think anybody in the general population of this Province is going to work on that premise. I do not accept that everything the Premier of this Province says is absolutely gospel, and I have a right to question him.

Now, he has a right to respond - that is his right - but I am saying, rather than me and him or anyone else fighting over what the facts are, and bring politics into play or personalities into play, that is why we need a commission of inquiry. Let's take the politics out of this. Let's take the, "I said, he said, she said" out of this. Let's have the independent person above reproach look at the full kettle of fish here and tell us what species it is and tell us what the facts are. Why don't we go down that road? What does anybody have the fear with going down that road? The truth, they say, will set you free. Well, let's set everybody free here and not have any worries any more about people alleging conflicts of interest, people suggesting it smells and it stinks. There is an easy way to get rid of all that, an easy way to get rid of it, a public inquiry. That is where we need to go.

For example, just a couple of little facts have me confused already, and I haven't had an opportunity to really delve into this, which I am certainly going to do. I have had a chance to read through the two reports that the minister got yesterday from the war people -

MR. REID: Electronic Warfare.

MR. PARSONS: Electronic Warfare, which I understand, by the way - I am just curious. I am sure if the people in the Province read this, what kind of company, Electronic Warfare, is out doing consulting studies dealing with telecommunications? I am not saying they are not experienced people, I am not saying they are not good people, but my read of their CV that is included in this - their curriculum vitae is attached to this. I read it, and what it says to me, basically, I do not see much in here in terms of evaluating business proposals and determining the financial viability of business proposals. I see a lot here about designing security systems. I see a lot about if you want to protect yourself in the use of ATMs. I see a lot here if you want to protect yourself for whatever - espionage, e-mail transactions. I see a lot of that, but I have not seen much in their CV. I would like to get these people in a chair in a public inquiry and say: Who are you? Who are you? What is your expertise to tell this Province to go out and spend 15 million bucks? Where is your level of expertise? Come on! I want to ask somebody that.

That is of interest. That is of public interest, when the people of this Province have a right to know this company who have an office here in St. John's and an office in Ottawa have given a report to this government saying: Yes, we looked through the Persona deal, what we saw of it - we didn't see it all, by the way, because Persona did not give us the financial information - mind you, they did not give us the financial information but we looked at it and, from what we see of it, yes, we think you, as a Province, should put $15 million into it.

Boy, I tell you, I have some questions with that, and I would love to have somebody of the ilk of a Justice Lamer or a Justice Green or somebody to start probing into that and set it up so that I can put these EWA people somewhere, or you can put them somewhere, and ask the truth, and that Joe and Martha can ask these questions. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with doing that?

All I hear is, we asked this one, we asked that one, we asked somebody else, and they all said it was a good deal. Well, boys, we are going to expect the rest of that paper because, I tell you, if the rest of the paper is like what was submitted here yesterday, with all due respect to the EWA, I saw a lot of fluff words here, a lot of fluff words.

The Member over there for Trinity North says, be careful what you say. Well, I am saying it here and I will say it outside these Chambers. I see a lot of fluff here and I have questions about it, and I am entitled to ask them, and anybody with a grain of salt who reads this has questions about it. You members over there who read this have questions about it. Whether you have the intestinal fortitude to question about it is another matter, but you definitely have questions if you read it.

Now, you talk about facts again. You talk about facts and discrepancies that confuse people and you need to get at the truth, for example. Like, I didn't know yesterday - I couldn't tell from the commentary of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development yesterday - how long this project was going on. I couldn't tell from the questions that were directed to him yesterday how many people he spoke to from the consortium. I couldn't tell how many meetings he had with them. He certainly didn't tell us, and still hasn't told us, anything they talked about. We are hoping to get to that.

I did find out today some information. He told us there were apparently eight meetings. He told us who he had them with, the companies he had them with, so day by day we are getting a little bit out, but finding the truth is not supposed to be an exercise like pulling teeth. The truth is supposed to be out there, especially when you are spending public money. The squeaky clean deal has 15 million bucks of the people of this Province's money attached to it. That is why it should pass the smell test. That is why it should be absolutely clean as a whistle; and, if it is absolutely clean as a whistle, we don't only need the Premier to say it is right and the minister of industry to say it is right. Anybody in the Province who sees the facts, they will say: That Premier was right. He told us this was full of economic benefits, he told us this was financially good for us, and he was right. Do you know what? If there were a public inquiry, and if it says, by the way, there was absolutely no conflict between the proponents of this, i.e., Mr. McDonald and so on and the Premier, once all those questions get out and those answers come back, this person here will be the first person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to stand up and say: Thank you very much, now I have the facts, now I have the truth. If it came back and it said, yes, this was a good deal, I would say: Thank you very much. Now I have seen the proper financial analysis of it, the economic reviews of it, and it is good for the people of this Province. I do not believe we should ever think ourselves so self-righteous that everything we say is right and that we cannot make mistakes and we can never be educated or learn something. That is all we are asking here, but for every day that the Premier and the Cabinet and this government gets out there and continues to tout that this is a good deal, but not allow a public inquiry and not put out the full facts and details, it looks worse.

I made a comment last week in the media about the onion. I said, it is like an onion. I didn't know there was such a proposal, for example, even floating around until there was a fire down at Aliant. It seems pretty fortuitous to me that Aliant has a fire and all of a sudden we have $15 million of our tax money walking out the door. So now I find out the fire has nothing to do that. There is no connection between the fact that Aliant had a fire and the $15 million. Forget the fact that it might have been opportune now for the government to pop this back on the table and say, this is a good time to invest our money. Forget that, this is a good time to do that.

We find out now from the minister that he has been talking since eighteen months, he said. This proposal has been before this government eighteen months. Now, I am not as good at accounting as the Minster of Finance, but I can take us back eighteen months and put us in a time frame. This being November of 2006, I do believe, would put me back somewhere around May or June of 2005 when this proposal was started. This did not pop out of the air after Aliant, folks. This has been floating around in government circles, this has been talked about, dealt with, worked on by the proponents of Persona and Rogers and Allstream and the government people, and we do not know yet fully who, for eighteen months the minister tells us.

I would think by the time eighteen months is up there would have been a little more than eight meetings. By the way, we will come back to that in the future too because there is a little bit of conflict between what Mr. MacDonald - Mr. MacDonald is saying I had three or four meetings with him and the minister says today, well, I had eight meetings with a bunch. So I am getting some problems here about the lobbyists, whether or not we did comply with that. We will get into that a bit further too later on. But again, not us get into it. We should not have to get into it. The Opposition should not have to be here trying to peel back the onion. We have peeled back a fair bit of the onion. I started to cry about a week ago. I started to cry about a week ago when I realized how few facts I have access to. All we are saying is, let's take the onion and let's take all the peels off the onion.

Facts are so important. We get up and we say, for example, the minister is on his feet, hear the minister on Open Line saying: Oh, this is great for competition. We need competition. Competition in the Province will bring down rates. Absolutely! By the way, folks, the people of this Province realize - and the Minister of Justice, in fact, referred to it today. Telecommunications, he said, falls within the parameters of the federal government, and it does technically. Even though something may be in one government or another you can still have joint commissions or joint inquiries from time to time.

There is a outfit called the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Everything that goes on in this country, when it comes to your phones or your cables or your Intranets or whatever, is regulated by the CRTC. You talk about the state of the competition in this Province. I am going read now from a telecom decision, CRTC 2005, dated March 24. Do the math again, do the math here, boys. We know the project has been on the go for eighteen months which takes us back to May-June of 2005, and this is a report that came out in March, two months, three months before that. This was the report that came out. By the way, these people are pretty unbiased too, these CRTC people. Good, above reproach, makes good decisions, been around for years and years and years. I am referring you to that decision of March 24, 2005, paragraph 53. They talk about the state of competition.

The people I have been hearing, the minister for example, would have you believe that Aliant is gouging you to death. You are paying more for your cable, you are paying more for your telephone bills, because of these bad people, Aliant. That is what we have been told. We need to get rid of that monopolist crowd. We need to put in someone else so you have competition, you get a better deal, the prices will go down and everybody wins.

Paragraph 53 of the CRTC, March, 2005: With respect to the state of competition in Newfoundland, the Commission finds that competitors are offering customers voice services, advanced business data services such as VPN, digital wireless services, cable services and high speed Internet services. Now I was of the view today, from listening to the Premier, for example, that you cannot get high speed Internet in this Province from anybody. We are going to get it after we get these two fibres. Well, boy, that is not what the CRTC said. They said we get all of these. Now, it might be an issue of speeds. So are we buying the fibres because we are buying the speed? We have the service there, maybe it is the speed issue we are dealing with. Competition in the local wireline market in Newfoundland, although limited and predominately in the business market, is comparable to that in the rest of Canada. Whoa! What a statement! Aliant is not gouging after all, particularly there when it comes to: Competition in the local wireline market in Newfoundland, although limited and predominantly in the business market, is comparable to that in the rest of Canada. Maybe Aliant is not so bad after all.

By the way, I am not taking any sides here. I do not know Aliant. I do not know anybody who works with them hardly. I know a few fellows out home who work with Aliant, repairing the lines. I am not associated with anybody up in the executive for sure; so I might be in conflict or anything for touting their interest, or conflict of interest with them.

The commission considers that the lack of access to forborne IX roots in Newfoundland has not had a significant impact on competitors' ability to bring advance telecommunication services and choice to customers in Newfoundland. Now, boys, I never heard anybody over on the government's side, the Minister of Industry, out harping about the economic benefits. Does the minister know about that CRTC decision? What are his comments to that I wonder? How does he, who was given certain information to feed on by the consortium - did he fed on anything from the CRTC to compare it with? How informed was he when he made his decision? That is part of the information that we would like again from a public inquiry. I would love to see the day when somebody independent of us politicians got the Minister of Innovation in a chair, saying: Exactly who did you meet with and when and what did you see? Let him tell him. Let him tell the commissioner under oath what he did or did not do, how many times he met and where they met and what they talked about. That is the ultimate truth.

Paragraph 59, by the way - because we had a lot of talk today, too, about the cable. Some people in this Province were under the mistaken impression - you talk about facts again - that this line being put in by the consortium was going to go across the Province and tie into something in the North Sydney area, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. That was what I thought from looking at the government releases and commentary of ministers on radios. I said: Okay, Aliant has one strung across the Province and they are going across the Gulf and going on to Halifax. In fact, Aliant has two we find out. We did not know that either at first, that Aliant had two; a backup. I thought: Well, okay, this is another line that Rogers is going to put in. It is going to go across the Island. It is going to also go down to the southern part of Newfoundland, tie into certain places down there, so much underwater and whatever, and have a loop, go across the Province over to the Port aux Basques area, across the Gulf to Nova Scotia and tie into something.

There is a company over in Nova Scotia, I understand, called Eastlink, who, I assume, this crowd would tie into, the same as Aliant was tied into. I find out now, that is not the case. They are going to run this cable, once they hit North Sydney or Nova Scotia, they are going to run this cable to Halifax too. So, we took $15 million of our money to put into a pot so that half of it, whatever the kilometres are - the Minister of Finance knows. It was 890 kilometres or 950 kilometres across the Province. You have about another 100 kilometres across the Gulf. We are going to lay 1,000 kilometres of cable across the Province and the Gulf and then we are going to get to Nova Scotia and we are going to bring it up to Halifax.

Now, I would like to know some figures. Maybe somebody would like to know. Okay, of our $15 million that we are putting into this, and our total that we are going to have - they are saying, I think, $52 million in total - how much of that is getting spent in Nova Scotia for that part of the cable? I do not think anybody in the Province knew that two weeks ago. A little fact, overlooked fact. Now that is a great economic benefit for this Province. That is a great economic benefit for this Province, if I am going to take half, or whatever the figure is or what percentage of that $53 million that is, and give it to somebody over in Nova Scotia. I do not think Manuel's Construction in Port aux Basques is going to get much of that work. I do not think Tim's in Port aux Basques is going to sell many coffees to those workers that I am hearing about. Maybe we should know some of these facts. No, no, do not ask any of that. We have decided we are going to give the money and that's it; don't ask us about that.

We have issues here about: What is the true competition state? Again, a public inquiry. What it would accomplish is that the independent person sits down - they can call whom they like, like Aliant right now. I would think, for example, just sizing up the situation, here is Aliant in this Province doing business with the government. Aliant, I am sure, knows about this CRTC thing. They were part of the ruling. That is what the ruling was all about, them.

By the way, in this ruling the parties that we are talking about here, the Personas of the world, the Rogers' Communications and the Allstreams, all of them had input into this CRTC decision, and we are told this about the competition factor. This was a decision that the CRTC gave in March, 2005, after hearing all these people. It is not like Allstream and the boys, and Rogers and Persona did not know what was going on. They had input into this and CRTC, the regulatory body, still said what they said about competition. It is pretty well the same as it is in the rest of Canada. So, some major issues there, factually, that need to be sorted out. Again, we are only ever going to get at them if we get past the spin and move to a basis which is totally, absolute fact.

MR. REID: When you are spending taxpayers' money, the people deserve to know.

MR. PARSONS: That is right. This is taxpayers' money.

By the way, going back to this EWA consultant's report again, they make a comment in here - the question was: How much money, for example, was the consortium going to make off this once they had the cable laid, and did they need to have the $15 million from the Province or could they afford to do it themselves? Well, folks, they concluded that the Province should give them the $15 million, but they left out a few things.

The Minister of Justice is a very logical, rational fellow. I mean he sees through some of this stuff, too. I am sure he has his head full of questions over there. He is probably just not in a position to be able to ask them, but he is an inquisitive guy too. He wants to know, truthfully: Why didn't Persona give the full financial data to these fellows here, EWA, in order to do the proper assessment?

That is like me coming to the government saying: I am going to start a fish farm down in the bay, give me $100,000. The minister of industry says: Well, how much are you putting into it? I say: Well, I cannot tell you that. I cannot show you my figures, but it is good economically for the Province. I am going to produce fish. I am going to have some people hired. I am going to buy feed. So, come on, please give me $100,000, but I cannot show you my financial statements. That is what this is about.

How can you make a decision on giving $15 million of people's money away and you do not even know what their circumstances are financially? They even make a comment here, saying: We cannot even say that Persona is solvent. It is a going concern. We cannot even say that, because Persona would not give us the information. We do not know.

MR. REID: They could be bankrupt.

MR. PARSONS: Now, I doubt if Persona is bankrupt. There is talk in here about posting of a bond or whatever for completion and overruns and stuff.

Why did we look for alternatives when you should be looking for the facts? Why can't we just have the facts? What is there to fear from having the facts? I think we have made it quite clear in the last forty-five minutes. I certainly hope Joe and Martha are still with us. This is a burning issue. It is going to stay on the front burner because people will not let it die. It is not the Opposition who will not let it die. The people of this Province are asking the questions because they smell something wrong here. The normal process, as I was saying to the Minister of Business earlier - and he agreed. He nodded his head when I said it. When he was in business, for example, if he wanted to buy a case of chocolates he went out and asked for proposals. Tell me what you are going to give me, what brand, what size, what time and what price. They did not do that here, folks. They did not do that here. Nobody made a request for proposals.

We got an EWA consultant who apparently concluded that they did not have to. I do not know why. Did anybody ask Aliant? Did anybody say to Aliant, we will give you $15 million bucks too, if you will give us a few strands on your existing cable? What can we buy for $15 million? It is my understanding, by the way folks, that Aliant is not even near capacity on their own lines. There is lots of usage. That does not even include the fact that this report - again, you talk about fluff. This report says the Province cannot even tell us what they want it for. They cannot tell us what they want it for. They do not know how much they need and do not know what they want to use it for.

MR. REID: They actually said they are not going to be using the fibres they are going to buy.

MR. PARSONS: No need at the present time identified.

The other piece of all of this is, I was in my district last week, Sunday night, and I got a call from a fisherman. He said: There is going to be a meeting Wednesday night in St. Christopher's Hotel from a group called CEF out of the mainland about laying a cable, going to lay a cable across the fishing grounds on the South Coast. He said he wants all the fisherman to come so that we can tell them what is going on environmentally, or if we have any concerns with this cable and so on. I said: What is this all about? Oh, he said, we got notice from the FFAW on that. They are going to hold public hearings. I said: This is kind of unique. Here we are, we have an Aliant fire, we get an announcement there is going to be 15 million bucks out there, and within three days of the announcement this crowd called CEF are having meetings in the hotel in Port aux Basques to tell the fishermen about the cable being laid.

By the way, the FFAW notice to the fishermen about the meeting was out, and sent out, before the announcement was even made. Anyway, this very interested and astute fisherman went to the St. Christopher's Hotel last week and gave me a call Thursday morning. He said: Parsons, boy, this has been on the go a while. I said: Is that right? Yes, he said, the survey for this cable by Persona consortium was done months and month and months ago.

Now, this is a crowd who did not know if they had enough money to do it, did not know if we could afford to do it, and was negotiating with the government for $15 million smackeroos; yet, at the same time, they had engaged companies to do surveys on the South Coast to lay the line and go out and talk to fishermen.

Now, I would think there is one of two things going on here. You either concluded, when you started the survey work with the CEF crowd, that you had enough money and you were going to do this anyway, or you had some kind of heads-up or some suspicion or thought that you were going to get your $15 million out of the government.

Now, boys, that does not seem like an illogical thought to me. That seems pretty obvious. Why would I go out as a consortium and spend all this money for surveys along the South Coast of Newfoundland and across the Gulf - I understand they even had a company hired to lay the cable, and this was done months and months before we, in the public, ever know that it is going to happen.

MR. REID: And before they got permission from government to get (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And before, as we understand it, Cabinet even made the decision, so there are lots of questions here as to what the timelines are.

For example, that is only the incident about the surveys having been done, and the CEF crowd. I was driving in here a while ago, to come in, the House was going to open, came in earlier and saw all of these telephone poles along the Trans-Canada Highway. I am sure the members here who have been travelling back and forth have seen them all. It never dawned on me. I probably wouldn't have noticed telephone poles strung along the Trans-Canada Highway normally, probably would not have noticed it, paying attention to the road and so on. All of a sudden I am seeing these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of telephone poles, so I made a few inquiries. I said: Anybody know who is putting up the new poles on the TCH? Apparently it is the consortium.

Now, I wouldn't think that Persona or Rogers or anybody else went out and bought and invested in all of these poles to do this across the Province without knowing that their plan was going to go. That is why it is important that we, as a public, know: When was the decision made?

How can you be out doing surveys in 2005 as to where you are going to lay the cable and you do not even go to this EWA crowd to get an opinion on whether you should spend $15 million or not until June 2006. So, somewhere along the line, between the time they started their work eighteen months ago, as the minster says, up to June of this year, 2006, somewhere along the line they said: Tic, tic, we can't afford to do this. There are benefits in this for the Province. We need money. Where are we going to get it? Let's go to government.

In fact, they go out and say: We have to be able to prove to people that this is a good deal, boys. Us going out and saying this is a good deal is not good enough. We have to go out and get somebody else to come in on this.

MR. REID: The Premier took it off the table twice because it couldn't pass the smell test.

MR. PARSONS: Even the Premier - the Premier says that himself, and I applaud him for saying it - said it smelled, not once but twice. What I would like to know, though, and factually a public inquiry would determine, I am sure, is: What were the points in time that the Premier said it smelled twice? It would be nice to know that. It is fine to say it smelled twice, but I would personally like to know, and Joe and Martha and everybody in the public of this Province would like to know, what day did the Premier first conclude that this deal had a smell to it?

Once he did - he says he took it off the agenda, were his words - I would like to know the date he came to that conclusion. I would like to know, then, what he did about it. Obviously, he took it off the agenda. Who did he send it to? What did he do to take that smell off, or have done or tell somebody to do? Secondly, I would like to know, what about the second time? What day did the Premier look at this proposal the second time around and still say there is a smell to this, and send it back? Who did he send it to? What was done to clean it up and get the smell off it?

Those are pretty straightforward questions, folks, because there are 15 million reasons why we need to know those answers. There are 15 million reasons why we need those answers. Someone should tie these facts together. Never mind open lines, and arguing back and forth in the House of Assembly here as to who said what when. Let's get down to the brass tacks and the facts here, have an independent inquiry determine the answer to those questions that I just asked about when the Premier smelled this twice and where he sent it to, have the commissioner of public inquiry determine the dates that the minister of industry met with these people, where he met with these people, what was talked about with these people. That is the only way, the only true way, that the people of this Province will ever know - ever know - the full, complete, absolute truth about the facts surrounding this fibre optic deal. That is the only reason.

We can sit here - and I assure you we are going to, I am sure that is part of politics - the Opposition are going to sit here for the rest of this term that we are here, we are going to sit here when the House resumes again in the spring, because, until this thing gets a nice rosy smell to it, it is still going to stink. It is still going to stink, and you can try to spin it as much as you like. You can try to not disclose information as much as you like, but eventually this issue will see the light of day, as it should see the light of day.

MR. REID: Sure, the Premier says it is clean. Why not show it the light of day?

MR. PARSONS: If it is absolutely squeaky clean, I would like nothing better than some independent person in this Province who is above reproach verify for the Premier that it is squeaky clean, absolutely.

That can only be done, not by me asking the questions, not by the Premier saying why it is good and why it is squeaky clean; that can only be done by having someone independent do the inquiry. That is why I think the Minister of Justice bringing this piece of legislation forward at this time - absolutely, I applaud him for it, because it lets again the people of this Province have an opportunity to see how the system is supposed to work.

Why are we here talking about a Public Inquiry Act? We are never going to use it. What is the whole purpose of it? What is the spirit and intent, as the minister always likes to say? What is the point of us sitting here and giving passage to this new Public Inquiry Act, which gets at the truth, and the government will not agree to do an inquiry into an issue that is stinking up this Province more than anything since Sprung? I would like answers to those things. That is pretty common, straightforward stuff I am asking. This is not rocket science. I am just asking for the truth, the facts. We have had enough of press releases. We have enough of the political jabbing back and forth. Let's get the truth on the table. Let us read the documents. Let us put the people's bums in the chairs, as they say, and question them. Don't go orchestrating who says what when.

Is it too much to ask for the truth? And I do not care what political stripe you are and I do not care what area of this Province you represent or where you live in this country. That is not too much to ask. The wise, proper use of public funds is as important as any other inquiry that we are ever going to do. A judicial inquiry into anybody's death, an inquiry into an industrial accident, or a tragedy like we had with the Ryan's Commander, there is never anything wrong with finding out the truth. I have problems when I see that people sometimes do not want you to get at it, or they try to spin it. That is the last place we need to go. You cannot tout yourself as being absolutely open and accountable on the one hand, but yet you say: Whoa, whoa, we don't need to look at that. You should not be the judge of your own integrity. You gain respect. You do not say I am person to be respected. You gain respect and you gain credibility because other people know you, other people find the facts, other people find that what you are saying is correct.

That is all I am asking here, let the people decide that this is a good deal. Let the people decide there was nothing amiss here. Let the people decide there is economic benefits to this. Let the people decide that full, complete due diligence was done on the fibre optic deal, and that it is worth $15 million bucks. What is wrong? There is not a single person over there on the government side who can disagree with knowing the truth. If you do, you are not being truthful. Everybody wants to know the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I think I had a few other minutes. Mr. Speaker, I will take those up tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It being 5:30 p.m., I agreed we would stop the clock for a few seconds so we can do some closing motions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, tomorrow will be Private Member's Day. It is the resolution that was given notice here by the Opposition House Leader. He gave notice on that. That will be debated tomorrow.

Also, I would like to give notice, too, Mr. Speaker, that as per Standing Order 11 that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, and I also move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock, too, on Thursday.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 22, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.