MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we proceed with routine proceedings, I would like to observe an ancient parliamentary tradition. I have the pleasant task of formally welcoming four new members who have been duly elected in by-elections since this House last sat in December 2006. These new members are: Mr. Dwight Ball, in the District of Humber Valley; Mr. Tony Cornect, in the District of Port au Port; Mr. John Dinn, in the District of Kilbride; and Mr. Keith Hutchings, in the District of Ferryland.

I have been advised by the Clerk of the House that these members have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, as required by the Constitution, and have signed the Members' Roll.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

[The new member, escorted by the Leader of the Opposition, enters the Chamber and approaches the Chair.]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr. Dwight Ball, the newly elected MHA for Humber Valley, who wishes to take his rightful place in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

[The new members, escorted by the Premier, enter the Chamber and approach the Chair.]

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour and the pleasure of presenting to you Mr. Tony Cornect, the Member for Port au Port, who claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat in the House of Assembly.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure of presenting to you Mr. John Dinn, the Member for Kilbride, who also requests the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour and the pleasure of presenting Mr. Keith Hutchings, the Member for the District of Ferryland, who claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Again, congratulations to all hon. members who have just taken their seat for the first time in this most hon. House.

This afternoon, we would like to welcome several special guests. In the Speaker's gallery we welcome the Member-elect for the District of Labrador West, Mr. Jim Baker, together with his wife, Mrs. Theresa Baker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We would also like to welcome Mrs. Teresa Hutchings and Mrs. Marie Cahill, family members of the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the public galleries today we welcome twenty Level 2 and Level 3 students from Crescent Collegiate, in Blaketown, in the District of Bellevue. The students are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Calvin Young and Mr. Gabe Ryan.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also have twenty students from Memorial University who are here as part of their Political Science Course 3700, and that course is entitled: Parties and Elections in Canada.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, we move from a very joyous occasion to a somewhat sadder event. I would like to just take a moment to explain the absence, very briefly, of the Leader of the New Democratic Party today.

Last evening, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suffered a serious personal loss as her mother passed away. I am sure all members of this hon. House will join with me in sending our most sincere and our heartfelt condolences to Ms Michael and her family.

I understand that her mother was, of course, her biggest supporter, was very, very proud of her recent achievement, and watched her every day when she was televised in the House of Assembly.

At any age it is a tragic and devastating loss to lose one's parent. I would like herself and her family to know that our thoughts and our prayers are with her at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were all saddened, today, to hear of the passing of the Leader of the New Democratic Party's mother last night, Mrs. Ann Rockwood.

On behalf of the members of our caucus we, too, would like to send our condolences to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, as well as her family. We would just like for her to know that, even though we know that this is a very difficult time for her, it may be of some comfort to know that our thoughts and our prayers are with her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will ensure that these messages of condolences are conveyed to the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and her family.

MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements today are as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; 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 St. John's North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Danielle Seaward, who was crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador 2007 on February 25. Danielle, the daughter of Beverly and Clyde Seaward, is a constituent from Heart's Delight and is a Level III student at Crescent Collegiate.

Danielle has earned numerous scholarships, is very athletic - winning medals in basketball, tennis and hockey, as well as being a member of Crescent Collegiate's cheerleading squad. She is also an active volunteer as president of Students Against Drunk Driving at school and fundraising for her church and other charities.

Mr. Speaker, at seventeen years of age, Danielle is an outstanding role model for young women, and indeed, a true ambassador of the youth of our great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. She is a true example of what the youth of our Province have to offer and can accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all members to join with me today in congratulating Danielle and wishing her well in her role as Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize an initiative of a group of teachers, seniors and community representatives who make up the Templeton Academy Heritage Committee on the north shore of the Bay of Islands.

Project T.A.L.K.S., or Templeton Academy Linking Kids and Seniors, is a project designed to bring together seniors and students who reside in the seven communities serviced by the Templeton Academy in Meadows.

Through a grant received through the New Horizons for Seniors program, the Heritage program developed will see a variety of activities taking place over the next number of weeks, such as visiting the local seniors' home, traditional cooking and baking, rug hooking, and folk dancing, to name a few. In addition, a traditional fishing stage will be recreated and plans are complete to finish a cookbook.

Mr. Speaker, this project is receiving tremendous positive feedback from seniors and students involved. It is providing seniors an opportunity to share their personal experiences with the students and give students the opportunity to experience some of our traditions and culture.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the Heritage Committee, the seniors and the students for initiating such as great project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this house and congratulate Mr. Jiggs Borland on being awarded the Legion of Honour by the President of France, Mr. Jacques Chirac.

Mr. Speaker, Jiggs, as he is commonly known, fought on the front lines during the Second World War and spent eleven months as a scout for the 2^nd Canadian Infantry Division and was part of the Liberation of Dieppe in September, 1944.

This medal is a reward in recognition of the outstanding contribution by Jiggs during the fierce battles of the Liberation of France and Europe.

Mr. Speaker, according to the French Ambassador, France wants to honour a great Canadian soldier who fought for freedom. This is an achievement he can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Frank (Jiggs) Borland on receiving this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Dana Farrell of St. Lawrence.

Dana has graduated with a Doctor of Chiropractor with Honours from Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa. Dana has also received a Certificate of Merit in Radiology, is a member of ‘Pitaudelta' (pie-tie-delta), after earning special distinction while maintaining a superior scholastic standing. She is also a member of the President's Club, the highest honour to be awarded throughout her entire studies.

Dana has been accepted into the International Chiropractic Honour Society and is now working at the Monson Chiropractic Clinic in Rockford, Illinois. She is the daughter of Keith and Cynthia Farrell.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Dana Farrell.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, because we are a small population, I believe it is tremendously important that we celebrate the major achievements of one of our own. With that thought in mind, I rise today to congratulate a Newfoundland and Labrador author, Kenneth J. Harvey, on having won the Rogers Writers' Trust Fiction Prize valued at $15,000. The award was presented in Toronto on March 7, and was awarded in particular for the book Inside, a story set in St. John's and revolving around a character who is wrongfully convicted of murder.

Kenneth Harvey, whose parents come from Bell Island, was born in St. John's and spent most of his life here before moving to the quieter life of Cupids for some fourteen years and is presently back in St. John's. He went to school at Mary Queen of Peace and then Gonzaga High School.

Although Mr. Harvey has written more then a dozen books, many people will know him best as the author of The Town That Forgot To Breathe, which takes place in Bareneed. That book has been sold in over thirteen countries and has been translated into more than a half dozen languages. It won the Thomas Randal Atlantic Fiction Award and it brought Mr. Harvey the distinction of becoming the first Canadian to win Italy's "Libro del Mare", awarded each year to the best book published in Italy, which deals with the sea. Mr. Harvey's editorials have appeared on CBC radio, in numerous magazines and in major newspapers. Additionally, he has held the very prestigious post of "Writer in Residence" at both the University of New Brunswick and Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Kenneth J. Harvey, a native son and an international best selling author, on his many accomplishments, including the most recent, the Rogers Writers' Fiction Prize.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a constituent from my district, Ms Chantell Coles of Deer Lake, who recently placed first in both the Deer Lake Lions Club speak off and first in the Humber Rotary Club speak off in Corner Brook.

Due to her win at the Rotary Club in Corner Brook, Chantell will be representing youth from the area at the Adventures in Citizenship program which is scheduled for the end of April in our nation's capital. The Adventures in Citizenship program allows her a five day stay in the capital city and will have her meet with 250 students from across Canada to learn the parliamentary system. They will tour Ottawa as well as experience billeting with a Rotary Club member from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, sixteen-year-old Chantell is the older of two children of David and Sharon Coles and is currently enrolled in the Level II program at Elwood Regional High School in Deer Lake. Upon graduation, Chantell hopes to further her education in the medical sector, specializing in Pharmacy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Chantell on her two first place finishes. She is a shining example of the great talent we have in our Province's youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues about a pilot training program for school board trustees across our Province. The Department of Education and the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association have partnered on a professional development opportunity for all school board trustees in each of the five school districts.

The Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association approached the Department of Education for support with this important initiative. They stressed the need for training that would allow the board members to better perform their duties. The Department of Education agreed this project is beneficial and a worthwhile opportunity for our elected volunteer school board trustees. School board members and school boards play a key role in the development of our education system, our communities and our children.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has been working closely with the School Boards Association to development four specific training modules. Topics include governance, policy development, the School's Act, 1997, and communications. The modules were presented to school board representatives prior to implementation and the content was extremely well received by all.

Training sessions are currently being delivered throughout the Province and are expected to wrap up mid-summer. An investment of $35,000 will see school board trustees receive professional development training to enhance their understanding and performance of their duties.

Mr. Speaker, this year as well, government created a school council liaison position to work directly with school councils in the Province. This position provides support to the volunteer work of parents.

I would like to take this opportunity today to report that positive feedback to this initiative has been tremendous. In addition, a revised school council handbook is in the final stages of development and will be delivered to school councils across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, school council members and school board trustees give freely of their time and expertise to the education of our young people. Providing professional development and support are important initiatives that recognize the critical role these volunteers play in the development of our education system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say that we on this side commend the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association for approaching the Department of Education in going forward with this wonderful initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed one of the four criteria is communications, and communications, I can assure you, is very important. Since my colleagues and I met with the board and the trustees recently at their board office on Water Street, I can tell you the communication between myself and the executive director of the board has improved tremendously. So communications is very important.

The only caution I put in the wind, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope this initiative and the training is not to, more or less, try and muzzle the trustees and toe the party line, as we see all too often; similar to what happened in the incident that was tried with our teachers recently, Mr. Speaker, but that did not work too well.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, it is a good initiative and we want to commend as well the school council, the trustees, as they volunteer to carry out the work of the children of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to inform this hon. House that applications for the 2007-2008 moose and caribou draws, and black bear licences have been mailed out to all qualified resident big-game hunters of Newfoundland and Labrador. Enclosed with each application is a copy of the 2007-2008 Newfoundland and Labrador Hunting and Trapping Guide.

Mr. Speaker, the Hunting and Trapping Guide is a valuable tool that contains information on wildlife management plans for provincial game and fur-bearer species, including opening and closing dates, hunting and non-hunting zones, and other changes related to big game and small game hunting and trapping.

This year's management plan includes 26,725 moose and 2,760 caribou licences available on the Island. This represents an overall increase of 570 moose licences and a decrease of 1,325 caribou licences compared to last season. In Labrador, the number of moose licences available remains unchanged at 185.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of changes found in the Hunting and Trapping Guide.

Last year, my department introduced restricted Sunday hunting provisions. This year, I am pleased to say that Sunday hunting will be permitted from November 4 through to April 30, 2008 in all areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We feel this change will improve consistency and awareness of regulations while providing an opportunity to hunt in all areas of the Province where hunting seasons are open. As this is still a new proposal, my department will closely monitor the coming season to determine what we will do in future seasons.

This year also marks the final year of a five-year management plan for ptarmigan seasons on the Island. Officials from my department will evaluate information concerning preferences for opening and closing dates for ptarmigan before the 2008 season.

In 2006, a woodland caribou health monitoring project was implemented and the department sought participation from caribou hunters to provide specific samples from their caribou kill. Again, in 2007, we will be asking caribou hunters to participate in our program. The data collected from this program, along with ongoing research and monitoring initiatives, will help us better understand the factors that might be contributing to the decline of the caribou populations, and therefore enable us to make the best management decisions possible.

Responsible hunting and trapping is important to the overall success of the fur and game management programs in our Province. I encourage all hunters and trappers to keep conservation in mind as you have a safe and enjoyable season.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I guess it is good news for the hunters of the Province today.

I have been getting some inquires from hunters - and the minister may be able to address this at some future date - that the increase in the moose licences will be to the outfitters and not to the ordinary hunters; that the moose licences, the increase is going to outfitters and not to the ordinary hunter. There have been people calling my office and asking this particular question.

The reduction in the caribou licence, is there a sign that the herds are in danger? These are the questions that I would like to ask the minister. Are we compensating for the loss of the caribou licences by increasing the moose licences, and will that put the moose population in danger?

I am also very pleased that the minister has extended the Sunday hunting to other areas of the Province. It was a big complaint, that everybody was not included in the Sunday hunting. For people who work, I guess, five days a week, and they were only allowed to hunt on Saturdays, being able to hunt on Sunday is a great addition and I want to congratulate the minister on extending the Sunday hunting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the federal government broke a commitment that it had given to the people of this Province, both orally and in writing, this past week. I ask the Premier if he could tell us how much we will lose over the next five years as a result of this broken commitment.

I would also like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he thinks that our federal minister should resign from the Harper Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question.

You know, as I think all hon. members feel, we are deeply disappointed by the circumstances that arose during the federal budget. The losses for Newfoundland and Labrador on this particular promise and commitment are significant. In the short term they could be in excess of a billion dollars, but over the long term they could be several billions of dollars; because the commitment that we had in writing from the Prime Minister, which he gave on six separate occasions - twice to me, once to Premier Klein and Premier Calvert, and twice in the election platform - really made the Atlantic Accord perpetual, carried it on forever.

There is a renewal in the Atlantic Accord whereby we would have to qualify in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 in order to get the next eight years of the Atlantic Accord. If we had that full commitment that he had given us of 100 per cent exclusion of non-renewable natural resources there would have been no need for a re-qualification. There would have been a term that went on forever.

If you look at the possibilities, it could be as much as a billion dollars a year from that point on. Now, that is maximum, that is a stretch figure. It is impossible to quantify the end number because it depends on the amount of oil that we have over an extended period of time, but the impact is very, very significant.

With regard to the question of the resignation of the minister, that is something, I think, that he will have to decide himself. We certainly had a promise that was made to us, a firm commitment that was supported by the minister, and what action he decides to take in the future is his doing.

From our perspective, I have made our position very, very clear, that we will be campaigning against federal Conservatives in the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is now obvious that the Premier's threats over the past several months have not worked on Stephen Harper. In fact, it appears that they have not even worked on our three federal Tory MPs, who are now standing firmly behind Stephen Harper.

I ask the Premier: Do you think that your continued confrontational approach will be of any value with negotiations that you are currently having - and future negotiations - with this federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my firm approach with federal governments only kicks in when promises are broken. We had a very, very strong commitment from this man and from his party. When the leader of a party gives you a commitment in writing - a very clear, a very unequivocal commitment - then we have a right, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to rely on that.

When someone tries to deprive us of what are our proper resources, our proper royalties, our proper revenues, and impede our chance to be self-sufficient, then I am going to stand up, as leader of this Province, and I am going to fight for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing I want to share with the hon. Leader of the Opposition and members of this House is also a commitment that Prime Minister Harper made when he was Leader of the Opposition. This was during the time that we had the encounter with the former Prime Minister, Paul Martin, where we achieved the Accord. He sent around a householder to people in this Province, and on the front of that was: There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.

This is his householder; his name is on the back of it, the hon. Stephen Harper, who, at that time, was Leader of the Opposition. In it, he talks about the Martin government. He says: The Liberal government is taxing away your future by clawing back your oil and gas revenues. The Conservative Party believes that they are the key to real economic growth in Atlantic Canada. That is why we would leave you with 100 per cent of your oil and gas revenues; no small print, no excuses, no caps - and he turns around and he does exactly that.

When we have a householder that goes out and makes that kind of a statement, when we have a commitment in writing to myself, on two occasions, when we have a commitment to Ralph Klein, as Chairman of the Council of the Federation, when we have a commitment to Lorne Calvert, as Premier of Saskatchewan, and we have two national election blueprints, and he reneges on that and he breaks that promise, then I will confront him and I will fight with him, and I will do whatever I have to do for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I agree with the Premier's statements when it comes to Prime Minister Harper, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: But it must be even more galling, I say to the Premier, for you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say it again. I agree with the Premier's view of the Prime Minister, but it must be even more galling for him, that he campaigned for Stephen Harper during the last federal election and he still broke his promise to you.

Mr. Speaker, equalization is not the only issue of concern with regard to federal-provincial relations. A very important, current issue has to do with FPI. Your own Fisheries Minister said last week that the sale of FPI will not go ahead unless the federal government agrees to transfer the quotas currently held by FPI to the Province, or to the provincial government.

I ask the Premier: What impact will your damaged relationship with Minister Hearn have on this issue? Will Minister Hearn now support the quota transfers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is correct, I certainly did make a statement to the effect that he has quoted. If there is going to be, and if this government and this House is going to be asked to consider a sale of the assets of FPI, then there is going to have to be a transfer of quotas and licences associated with FPI and their offshore activity to the Province or a Crown corporation controlled by the Province or some such entity.

What effect will the present situation have on Minister Hearn? In that regard, Mr. Speaker, that is a question that will have to be directed to Minister Hearn. I have no indication that he will do anything, other than positively and appropriately deal with that request when the time comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last week the federal minister, Mr. Hearn, said that he would not entertain any discussion about the transfer of quotas until he receives a formal request.

I ask the Premier: Has any formal request been made of the federal minister to entertain the transfer of these quotas? We already know that you rejected one proposal that was on the table and we know that you must have seen the other one because you rejected one and said that you preferred the other. Have you or anybody in FPI discussed this issue with Minister Hearn?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

We have in fact, yes, seen and dealt with, as I announced publicly a couple of weeks ago, the two proposals, that FPI indicated to us, through the special independent committee of their board, met their minimum requirements; the proposal submitted by the Barry Group and the proposal submitted by Ocean Choice International, OCI. After a period of due diligence on our part, we concluded that the proposal that best met the public interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was the one submitted by OCI. That has been communicated to FPI; that has been communicated to the Government of Canada.

Is the minister aware that the Newfoundland government has made that decision? Yes, he is, Mr. Speaker - the federal minister, I mean. Is he aware of that in writing? Yes, he is. He has been informed of that in writing by me. He has been informed of that in writing from FPI. He has been informed of that in writing by the proponent that we recommended to FPI for consideration.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, the federal minister has been aware for months, going back at least on a face-to-face just before Christmas in December, that this request was pending to him by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I guess what you are saying, Minister, is that the comment that the federal minister made in The Telegram last week - and it is in his quote, by the way - when he said that he has not been asked and there has been no formal presentation made from the transfer of quotas, that he is lying. Now, that was his latest last Thursday. So I would assume that you have talked to him since last Thursday, or made the proposal since last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, another important issue, and it concerns an early retirement and licence buyback program for those involved in our fishing industry. In fact, that issue was so important that it was one of, I think, the sixteen questions that you put forward to the three federal leaders before the election last year. Yet, there was no mention of it in the Budget this week.

Can the Premier tell us the status of that request for an early retirement and a licence buyout program cost-shared with the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the question by the Leader of the Opposition, it is certainly far from me to, on the floor of another Parliament, accuse a minister, provincially or federally, of lying. I know what the quote is, but I have no idea of the context of it. Again, the minister will have to speak for himself in that regard.

In terms of the recent federal Budget and an early retirement package and licence buyout, Mr. Speaker, all of those issues have been clearly pressed by this Province as priorities since the day we became government, I suggest. Certainly, they have been front and center in all negotiations that we have engaged in, with the Government of Canada, with our federal representative, and with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans federally.

The early retirement package and a licence buyout program have been a vital part, an integral part, of all discussions and negotiations that we have had. It has been a vital and integral part of the fisheries renewal process that the Premier and the federal minister himself have engaged both their governments or representatives of their governments on, so it has been front and center, Mr. Speaker. What the federal government chooses to deliver, and how it is wrapped up in the budget, if at all, I do not know, but the federal minister himself did tell us only a few days before the federal budget that the federal response to the fisheries renewal process would be dealt with in the budgetary process nationally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of days we have heard the Premier saying that we are going to move on, and that we are going to do things on our own.

I ask the Premier: Are you prepared to initiate a limited - I say a limited - early retirement program and licence buyout if the federal government refuses to participate? In other words, will you spend that 30 per cent of the program that you committed to last fall on such a program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we think, if there is going to be a buyout of licences, if there is going to be an early retirement package or program, that the Government of Canada, as an integral partner in the management of the fishery, has a responsibility to be a partner in that. We are not going to send any signal today that is going to let anybody prematurely off the hook. The Government of Canada has a responsibility here. We expect the Government of Canada to live up to that responsibility, and that includes coming to the table with funds to help finance any program that we may embark upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier or for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious over the past few days that our relationship with the federal government is off the rails and at an all-time low. We all understand that our federal-provincial relations ambassador, Mr. John Fitzgerald, has not been able to get through any doors in Ottawa and, in fact, has been told to keep his mouth shut and stay out of the press.

I ask the Premier: Who is Mr. Fitzgerald going to wine and dine with now, besides himself, since you have declared war on your federal Conservative cousins? Do you see any role now for this half-million dollar feel-good ambassador's position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, where the hon. member gets his information. Dr. Fitzgerald plays a very significant role, a role of importance, representing the Office of the Premier, representing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, when any minister travels to Ottawa to meet with his or her federal counterpart, he is at all times accompanied by Dr. Fitzgerald. In fact, only two or three weeks ago I travelled to Ottawa. I met with three or four of my federal colleagues, and on each occasion I was accompanied by the good doctor; so, I say to the hon. member, what he is saying is completely irrelevant. It is not in any way representative of the truth. He plays a very significant role of importance on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was a real substantive answer. Well, I think the Province is in for more, would like to have more, for half a million bucks, than Dr. Feelgood's limousine service when they go to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, besides the equalization commitments that the Prime Minister made, he also made commitments to the Province on defence spending. These commitments in his January 4, 2000 letter were extensive.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs advise this House what has been accomplished in over a year now, since January of 2006, with respect to Mr. Harper's commitment to put 650 army personnel in Happy Valley-Goose Bay? We have heard of low-level officials and base commanders speaking in the media about the issue, but what of true substance is being done, or is this another case where the Province has not been able to put a deal together with the feds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to canvass the past year. I can refer to two nights ago when the Wing Commander, Colonel Mark Matheson, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, made some of the following comments. This is the Colonel: I have to say that the Canada First defence plan is evolving in a very positive fashion for Goose Bay. Goose Bay is one of the strategy's anchors in the north of Canada - referring to the military strategy of the north.

He goes on to say: I anticipate there will be people in offices that are being constructed, who will be posted in Goose Bay this summer to begin the planning process with respect to the very projects that the hon. member is referring to.

Perhaps the most important comment, and this is by Colonel Matheson himself, at the same meeting, is when he concluded by saying: I am very optimistic about the future of the Wing.

Mr. Speaker, the government made a commitment. I have met with my counterpart on a number of occasions. Yes, that is somewhat, perhaps, confused by events of the past number of days; however, when I hear Colonel Matheson say, within the last forty-eight hours, comments such as these - in fact, Mayor Leo Abbass, the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, on the public media today, is making the comment that he shares this optimism and he is looking forward to a very bright future for 5 Wing Goose Bay in the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is amazing, amazing. We hear a lot of fluff, and about optimism and whatever else. I asked the minister a simple question: What have you done in a year? Don't get up and give us a bunch of fluff.

Hearing the Commander of Happy Valley-Goose Bay up talking about looking for office space, we have more office space in Goose Bay now than what we have in Stephenville. There is all kinds of office space around the Province. When are you going to do something on the issue?

Mr. Speaker, the same letter by Mr. Harper, of January 2006, included a commitment to put a new territorial defence battalion of 500 people in the Avalon Region. We know the federal government is continuously decreasing their presence in this Province, and taking jobs out of the Province, but the silence is deafening on this 500 job commitment.

What have you done, Minister, to secure these 500 jobs for the Province? Are we in the same state as we are with respect to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay jobs, the 650? What have you done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this government has been proactive with respect to military and federal presence throughout. I, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have met repeatedly with my federal counterparts. I know the Premier has met and has discussed this issue with his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of federal presence is paramount. Whether it is military presence, whether it is the issue of the environment office, whether it is the issue of the Gander airport, the issue, Mr. Speaker, of federal presence is important. On behalf of this government, and in my role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, we will continue to pursue the very issue that is being raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am bewildered. Maybe we are going to have to adopt the same strategy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that we do with ministerial statements. Maybe we will send you over the questions in advance so you can at least read the questions and get the answers put together. What a bunch of fluff!

Mr. Speaker - and I am assuming he knows as much about this as he did the last question - another part of the Harper defence commitment in the January 4, 2006 letter, I say to the minister, was a new unmanned aerial vehicle squadron for Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a third part of his commitment. God only knows how many jobs this might lead to. What, Minister, have you done on this piece of the commitment, or with the concentration on the failed equalization issue, did you simply forget about this issue? What about these jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The commitment, Mr. Speaker, is a new rapid reaction army battalion and a new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle squadron -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - at CFB Goose Bay. This forms part and parcel of the commitment. This forms the basis upon which discussions have taken place between the Premier and the Prime Minister, between myself and the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, between myself and the federal Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Speaker, it is all part and parcel of the commitment that was given by the federal government and it is one that we have worked proactively on in the past. We continue to work on it today and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to pursue it in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the minister, maybe he should read the letter and the next time I ask him the questions he will at least know what was in the letter. We know what goose egg this crowd have done. We know whose goose egg has been gotten here, Goose Bay, and that is what you have forgotten about.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about fighting for this Province. Well, the federal government is going to spend billions of dollars on navel contracts in the next two to three years - all public knowledge - and we have not heard squat from the Premier about pushing this issue with the feds.

Has the Premier done anything, anything whatsoever, on the joint services supply contract which could bring hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars to this Province, or where you so wrapped up in the equalization piece that everything else just fell by the wayside? What have you done on these contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that particular issue is an issue of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but he is incorrect when he alludes to the fact that nothing has been done.

As recently as two-and-a-half to three weeks ago, when I met with a number of federal colleagues in Ottawa, one minister that I met with, in addition to our regional minister, was, again, Minister O'Connor. That particular project was discussed in detail. He fully understands and comprehends the importance of that project to the Marystown shipyard, to the people of the Burin Peninsula, and to the people of the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a federal minister he, quite correctly, cannot intervene or interfere in the process but he is clearly monitoring it. He is fully supportive of an equitable solution and resolution, and he fully understands - and it seems to me that this is critical - he fully understands and appreciates the importance of that particular contract to every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard more about feel-good words here today and optimism and equity and all that stuff, let's see some results, Minister. Let's see some results instead of fluff.

Mr. Speaker, my final question, and this is for the minister as well: I understand that these JSS contracts are down to two possibilities, one in British Columbia and one which includes some possible work for this Province. In B.C., Premier Campbell is lobbying the federal government daily and publicly on this issue to win this contract for his province. It is down to two. I understand that Peter Kiewit, who we all know in this Province as being active on the Burin Peninsula, is part of a consortium that will bring part of these contracts to this Province if they are successful.

Are you willing to get personally involved, Premier, and make the required investment so that the Burin Peninsula can benefit from this contract which is worth millions? Might this not be part of a solution to the hemorrhaging of our people through out-migration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member opposite that I have been personally involved in the greatest detail. This file is getting a lot of attention. It has been discussed by Cabinet. The one thing that we do want, and we have asked for, is we have gone back for more information. In the facts that we have before us, and the business case that we have before us now, there is a significant ask here - probably in excess of $50 million, if I remember correctly - but we do not feel that we have enough information from a company like Peter Kiewit that is in a very strong financial situation, to make sure that it justifies a significant investment of that magnitude.

Having said that, this government is prepared - the minister, Minister Jackman, has basically advocated this very strongly for us, quite frankly, in the Cabinet. As a result of it, we are having a real hard look at this. So when it comes to stepping up for the Burin Peninsula and stepping up for the people of Marystown, we will step up as we have stepped up for the Connaigre Peninsula and the Port au Port Peninsula and the Northern Peninsula and any other sectors of this Province. We will be there, but we need to know the facts. We need to know the business case and we need to make sure that the investment that we make is the appropriate investment under the circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious the Premier is all over that file, just like he was the Stephenville file on Abitibi, so let's see if the Minister of Transportation and Works and Labrador Affairs is all over this issue.

Back in November of 2006, the minister issued a news release that the federal government had presented an offer for federal funding to surface the Trans-Labrador Highway.

I ask the minister: Is this deal signed and ready to go, or is this another area where the federal-provincial relations are strained and the Province cannot reach a deal with the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for her question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you. The Department of Transportation and Works, and indeed this government, has been in discussion with the federal government for a number of years now about the Trans-Labrador Highway. It has been a priority for this government and it has been a priority for this Premier. I say to the hon. member, that just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Minister Hearn and we are about ready, in his words, to get this deal signed off on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, another $45 million of (inaudible) funding in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I heard all of that before, Mr. Speaker. I even heard a deal was inked, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I heard it was inked. I heard the contract was ready to be tendered, Mr. Speaker, and it is still not done. The Prime Minister committed in writing to the Premier, and I quote: That a Conservative government will support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

I ask today: Has the Province submitted a proposal for a cost-shared agreement to complete the full Trans-Labrador Highway from L'Anse au Clair to Labrador City? If not, how come you have been lax in asking the federal government to deliver on that commitment, I say to the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has been committed, and will continue to be committed, to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Just this year, Mr. Speaker, we spent up to $70 million on construction of Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. We have just completed $25 million on a new bridge across the Churchill River. I can say to the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that we will complete the Trans-Labrador Highway with or without the federal government, I say, but it is their responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to cost share this fifty-fifty with the Province, and that is what we have been in negotiations with, with the federal minister and with the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that signed the $340 million agreement on transportation for Labrador, and that minister has been joyriding on that Liberal-signed initiative since the day he took office!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, recently in the budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a very brief question.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. Barbe, if we had to wait for his government to find money to put a road in Labrador, we would be a long time without a highway, I say to you, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the federal budget there was a $600 million infrastructure agreement signed on highways, the largest infrastructure agreement announced, in the federal budget yesterday. The money is for core highways only in a country which does not include the Trans-Labrador Highway, so I am glad today to hear the minister say the Province will go it alone.

Do I have a commitment from this minister today that his government will put the funds necessary to do the Trans-Labrador Highway servicing this summer, with or without the federal government's (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is starting off the session in her normal way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: I will put this government's track record, when it comes to expenditures in Labrador, against her and her government when they were there. I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we have spent some $200 million to commitments to the people of Labrador, on transportation and other infrastructure. In her district, we just changed the ferry rates. We just improved the ferry rates - that she did not do, I can tell you. We extended the ferry service, Mr. Speaker - that she did not do, I can tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We put (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Just a very brief point of order, just for clarification to the minister.

It was his government that increased the ferry rates on the Strait of Belle Isle. In addition to that, the total savings on a passenger service between Cartwright and Goose Bay next summer, to the individual passenger, will be thirty cents; so thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member will know that we cannot extend Question Period by a point of order, and points of order deal with parliamentary procedure, so there is no point of order. There may be a disagreement between hon. members, but there is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: As Speaker of the House of Assembly and Chair of the Commission of Internal Economy, I wish to table the report of the Commission for the fiscal year April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. I wish to reference and quote a paragraph at the end of page 2. This paragraph has been written in consultation with the Auditor General.

"The list of salary, allowances and allowable expenses and guidelines with respect to the specific amounts in each category of expenditure and the amendments to the Morgan Commission Report are attached to this Report and set out in Schedule "B". In light of a review currently being undertaken by the Auditor General, Schedule "C" - the listing of expenditures by each Member of the House of Assembly during the fiscal year - has not been included as this schedule in recent annual reports has been identified by the Auditor General as containing incorrect information. The Auditor General has stated that his ongoing review of constituency allowance will be completed before October, 2007."

Further tabling of documents.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

As required by Section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Act, I rise to table a copy of that report, the 2006 Electoral Boundaries by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Mr. Speaker, this report has been previously provided to all members in advance of this tabling today.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the hon. the Minister of Justice.

The Chair recognized the hon. the Minister of Finance first, who was standing in his place.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 71.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, Bill 72.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that tomorrow, Monday, March 26, the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. or, further, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow, Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the Government House Leader meant to say that he was going to give notice today, not move the motion itself -

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: - so the Chair takes it as a notice of motion.

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

Just to confirm, with regard to the procedure in the next couple of days, I guess, I have had some discussion with the Government House Leader and we have agreed that there are certain circumstances which normally you might give notice, or be required to have leave to give notice, that we have had those discussions and we will be consenting, for example, to the House opening tomorrow, Friday, which is not normally a sitting day, as well as any other motions that are required to expedite legislation such as the Electoral Boundaries Commission that the Minister of Justice just alluded to.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair acknowledges there has been consultation between the two House Leaders and the Chair, and I do understand an agreement has been reached on the normal notices that would be required, and leave has been granted to proceed with government business, particularly the Interim Supply motions and the Electoral Boundaries legislation, and also leave for the House to meet on tomorrow, Friday, from 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.

The Chair understands these motions have been agreed to by the House Leaders, and the Chair - unless the Chair hears differently - will not ask that question again unless it is brought to the Chair's attention for some specific reason. The Chair understands it will operate on that agreement in the next several days.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to confirm what my colleague across the way has said, and which you have reiterated. That is the understanding; that is the agreement.

Under Notices of Motion, I just moved the notice of the motion for Monday, so that obviously there is some debate on whether I was allowed to move it tomorrow or not, since we are sitting by leave tomorrow - tomorrow being Friday.

Therefore, I moved that motion under Standing Order 11, or gave notice of it under Standing Order 11, so that it will be on the Order Paper for Monday if we need it. We do have the consent that has been alluded to by my colleague across the way and reiterated by Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Are there any further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents from the North Shore of the Bay of Islands. I will read the petition today and I will be presenting more over the next several days.

WHEREAS the residents of the communities of the North Shore of the Bay of Islands do hereby voice our concern over the deplorable condition of the North Shore Highway;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately allocate sufficient funding to repair potholes, collapsed culverts and sunken gravel shoulders of the highway to ensure public safety in a five-year plan for the upgrading and resurfacing of the whole North Shore Highway from Ballam Bridge to Cox's Cove; as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there is a piece in the paper from the minister who was invited to a meeting on the North Shore, which he committed to attend but he never attended. He goes ahead and says: The minister believes that the problem falls with the Liberal Member for the Bay of Islands, Eddie Joyce, and says the meeting was orchestrated in that way.

I say to the minister, here is a petition of 1,000 people today, to say: Minister, you are wrong. They are the ones who wanted the meeting. They are the ones who have concerns. They are the ones who asked to meet with you, not Eddie Joyce. I must say, the minister committed to have a meeting. The meeting never did take place. He committed - he said: Why don't you fly into St. John's. I might meet with you in St. John's.

I will just let the minister know that the Town Council of Gillams, in the last several days, have written you now - just for the public record - to invite you to a meeting out in the Bay of Islands area concerning the road condition. We have invited the former minister, the Member for The Straits & White Bay, to a meeting out there. He refused to meet. The Member for Lewisporte was invited out to a meeting a few years back when he was Transportation Minister, and he refused to meet out there.

Mr. Speaker, the condition of these roads is very unsafe. This has now gone beyond a Liberal or a PC district getting a bit of funding. This is unsafe highways. This is the residents of the North Shore of the Bay of Islands, 1,000 strong in just this petition alone, saying that, we need something done before someone gets injured, before a fatality happens in the District of the Bay of Islands. They work within the system; I work within the system.

I know I said it publicly, that there are a lot of ministers across the way that I deal with on a regular basis. We do have a mutual respect for each other in our positions, but, for whatever reason, this minister just absolutely refuses to meet with anybody, and this is a safety issue. This is a matter of people being injured. There are many instances. If the minister ever shows up out there he will hear of conditions where people go off the side of the road. There are drops in the road right where the pavement ends, about six to eight inches, and it is extremely dangerous.

This is a petition that they asked me to present. I will be presenting one again tomorrow and one on Monday to the same effect.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition for the people of the Bay of Islands and urge the minister to meet with the residents and come up with the funding to make our roads safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back again on a petition. I guess the three Ps we call it, the porta-potty petition.

First of all, I guess, you talk about bouquets and bricks. Well, I would like to give a bouquet - I hope it is going to be a bouquet when the Budget comes down on April 26 - to the Minister of Transportation and Works. Everyone is aware - the people of Ramea, Grey River and Burgeo have certainly been aware, from the last Session where I raised the porta-potty issue, as we call it - more particularly and more specifically of the need for a washroom, restroom facility, in Burgeo to accommodate the ferry users in that part of our Province. I understand - I hope on good authority - that the Minister of Transportation and Works is going to deliver on that project. In fact, he has been out in the media, back in January, and indicated as such. In fact, Mr. Arthur Marsden, the President of the Citizens Club in Ramea, tells me that he has it on good authority too, that this is going to happen. I would like and hope that I am going to be able to thank the minister for that come April 26.

Now, come April 26, I hope - just for a short time anyway - he will move the porta-potties to Rose Blanche-Diamond Cove because we have the same problem a little further up the coast. Go a little further west and we have the identical situation. Rightfully so, the people of Grand Bruit and LaPoile jumped all over me when they heard me up here making a petition on behalf of the people of Burgeo and Ramea for washroom facilities. They rightfully jumped all over me and said: Hey, you are our member. How come you are not petitioning to get the same thing put here in Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou-Diamond Cove? That is what I am about today in this petition; the same thing, identical circumstances. The people who go waiting for the ferry down there, it could be hours if the ferry is delayed due to weather or whatever; in fact, an even worse situation. The closest washroom to anywhere where the ferry lands is about five to ten kilometres away. Anyone in a vehicle waiting for the ferry to show up who gets, whatever, short taken, has to use the washroom - it could be a child, it could be an elderly person, it could be a man or a woman. It is not gender specific when you have needs of washrooms. It is a human, basic, decent, humanity need, and the minister has not looked at it.

I understand, from very good authorities, even within his own department, that it has been identified as a priority. I say to the minister, you cannot treat one area differently than another. For example, the area that services Fogo Island, I think every place where the ferry lands they have a restroom or washroom facility. The people of Rose Blanche and the people of Harbour Le Cou, and the people of Diamond Cove and Grand Bruit and LaPoile should be treated no differently. They are entitled to it. It is a basic, human dignity to have washroom facilities if you are waiting to use the provincial transportation ferry system.

I am here today, and I am very pleased to speak on behalf of those people, particularly of LaPoile and Grand Bruit. I ask the minister to wrap his head around this one now. Don't rush the porta-potties up there because that is not good enough. We are not asking for porta-potties. We are just asking for porta-potties until you get the real thing there, and the real thing should be there, I would suggest. Spring is breaking, spring broke two days ago, and there is no reason why we cannot get that done for the people of Grand Bruit and LaPoile.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not received notice or confirmation of a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, but we vet our petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair made some comments some time ago that all petitions should be vetted through the Assistant Clerk, and that has been happening on a regular basis. My notes do not indicate that the hon. member's petition has been vetted by the Clerk. That is the only point that I am making.

MR. RIDEOUT: In the meantime, the hon. member can proceed with her petition.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the will of the House, then the hon. member who has a petition - the will of the House is that we would hear it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I say to the hon. member, there may be some mis-communication that has occurred, so the Chair will hear the petition.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification for the record, the prayer of this petition was already approved by the Clerk in the previous Session of the Legislature and has been presented similarly in the House before.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Williams Harbour and it relates to the residents of Williams Harbour wanting to have a road connection.

I would like to explain that, Mr. Speaker, because, for those Members of the House of Assembly who do not understand the geography of that part of Labrador, Williams Harbour is only about twenty-two kilometres from the main highway, of the Trans-Labrador Highway, which runs into Pinsent Arm, but in order to build that road there needs to be a bridge across a place called Winter Tickle, because Williams Harbour is indeed on an island.

Because of the global warming, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that our temperatures have been getting milder every year, there is always more of a risk that particular tickle will not freeze up in the winter. In fact, last winter - not this winter, last winter - residents were not able to get off the island of Williams Harbour by snowmobile for the entire winter. Even attempts that were made found that snowmobiles went through the ice and people could have lost their lives, only for the fact that they were taking all of the necessary safety precautions in trying to cross over that particular tickle.

Mr. Speaker, when we were in government we had committed to build a road into this community. It was at a cost of between $5 million and $5.5 million, and a lot of the preliminary work was done. Unfortunately, the government opposite and members opposite chose not to build this particular piece of highway. In fact, Works, Services and Transportation at one point commissioned a study and came back and said it was not economically feasible to put this road into Williams Harbour and therefore would not do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to argue that it is not economically feasible to build a lot of the roads that have been constructed in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are done so to alleviate hazard and hardship on the people who live in these particular communities. Williams Harbour is a community of people who live around the fishery. They have to go off the island for health care services and for a lot of the other services that we rely on and take for granted every day.

I want to appeal to the current minister, Mr. Speaker, who is from Labrador and also knows this community very well. I want to appeal to him to build this road into the community of Williams Harbour. Bite the bullet and spend that small amount of money to see this community connected by road.

I know now that the government is looking at putting a bridge across Winter Tickle for the residents there, so they can get off the island in winter by snowmobile. God, we would applaud that and we would welcome it, but it is a far cry from giving these people the real transportation network that they deserve, and that is a road network into their community.

How can you be so ruthless and so heartless as to deny such a basic service to a community like this in our Province? Last year, the Department of Transportation and Works spent $60 million in roadwork in this Province, and yet would not build this road into Williams Harbour for those residents.

This year, the minister already - the same minister who is the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs - has announced over $70 million in roadwork for the Island of Newfoundland. For God's sake, have a heart. Do not be so ruthless. Put the money there to build this road to the community of Williams Harbour, so that these people can get off the island, can connect with the Trans-Labrador Highway, and can carry on with the level and style of life that most of us enjoy everywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a small sacrifice, a small investment for the government, and I can only plead with you today, that you make this a reality in the budget that is coming down next month.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, before preceding with the Orders of the Day, pursuant to Standing Order 65.(d), I wish, as Government House Leader, to name two new members to the Public Accounts Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

The government nominees on the Public Accounts Committee, replacing a couple of members who were on the Committee and have since become ministers, the new members will be the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - and, Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that government members will be nominating our colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's as Vice-Chair - and the other government member on the Committee will be the Member for Baie Verte.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to agreement, at this time I would like move first reading of Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, commonly and colloquially known as the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, I guess.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." (Bill 72)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," carried. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by consent.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, Bill 72 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at this time, again by leave and with consent, I would like to move to the process regarding Interim Supply. I believe in that context the next matter would be to recognize the minister who would have a message from His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the notices have been given earlier and we are proceeding on leave, and the Chair will not refer to leave further.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated 20 March 2007. The text is as follows:

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a request to appropriate sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2008, by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend this request to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _______________________________________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland & Labrador

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

The committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 71 and the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me to stand here today, in a new position, to lead off the debate on this resolution. Under Bill 71 there is a resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008 the sum of $1,664,000,000 less $1,000.

We will start the debate by saying that what we are seeking here, in Interim Supply, is approval by the House of Assembly, the representatives of the people of this Province, for the sum of $1,663,999,000. This amount represents approximately 33 per cent - I should say, basically 33 per cent, just so that everyone feels familiar. It is 33 per cent of the 2006-2007 budgeted current and capital accounts gross expenditures. It will provide government departments and public bodies with sufficient cash flow dollars to enable them to manage current and capital expenditures for the period of time that runs from April 1, 2007 through to the period ending June 30, 2007. That, of course, is the government's first financial quarter, first fiscal quarter.

Now, this is something that we do every year. Every year, at this session of the House, the government asks the House of Assembly for Interim Supply. The reason for that is that the Budget, of course, will not come down until April 26, since the Budget and the Supply bill that comes with the Budget is the bill - or the Estimates bill, I should say - that provides the government with the funding it needs to carry on its operations. Since the Budget will not come down until April 26, and even then there will be a certain period of time before the Budget and the Supply bill, the main Supply bill, are actually passed by the House, the government, of course, needs funds to meet payrolls and to meet its ongoing expenses, and this legislation has to pass by a certain date. I think it has to pass by March 26, so that cheques that have to go out to various parts of the Province can reach the people by that time, or by April 1. I think that is the date in terms of Labrador. In some accounts, more than one quarter of the Budget is required to provide for those items that will need to be expensed early in the year, as well as to provide for the calling and the awarding of tenders and the encumbering of funds.

There is not a huge increase being asked for this year compared to Interim Supply that was asked for at this time last year. Last year there was a request for $1,510,000,000. So the increase this year is approximately $154.5 million. This increase includes provision for salary increases, for inflation and program growth, and for the annualization of 2006-2007 Budget initiatives. What that means of course, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that certain government programs, when they are initiated, are started not at the beginning of the year but they are started at different times throughout the year so that the following year when the program funding is annualized, obviously for that year, twelve months will be needed. That is what we mean by the expression annualization, which is a word that we hear a lot in this House of Assembly, especially when we are dealing with Budget matters and dealing with financial matters.

Interim Supply is basically intended to provide for the continuation of ongoing government programs and projects. Included in this year's Interim Supply bill are general ongoing housekeeping expenditures, including funding for seven payroll periods and ongoing project and funding requirements applicable to the 2007-2008 fiscal year. As I said earlier, this bill needs to be passed on or before March 26 in order to be able to process cheques, including income support requirements which will have to be mailed to Labrador and the more distant parts of our Province.

On April 26 of this year I will be pleased to table the full estimates of expenditures for 2007-2008, along with the Budget Speech, and I certainly look forward to a full and lively debate at that time. I am advised that the total amount of time that this House spends in dealing with the Budget is seventy-five hours of debate, and I understand that the time we spend debating Interim Supply will, in fact, come out of that time limit. So, I know that all members will be anxious to use the opportunity as we debate this financial legislation. Members are not limited to talking about the principle of the bill because when we are debating financial bills my understanding is members can talk about whatever it is they wish to talk about.

Mr. Chairman, I will take the opportunity to use the remaining few minutes that I have today to just talk about what has been happening since my predecessor decided to leave provincial political life.

For the past three months I have found myself immersed in the operations of new departments, the Department of Finance and the Department of Treasury Board, after spending three years as Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, which were positions that I did enjoy very much. I must say, I am looking forward to the new challenges and opportunities that will be presented to me in the new role I will have as the Finance Minister and President of Treasury Board.

I have had the opportunity to do some pre-Budget consultations. I have had the opportunity to visit Labrador West, to visit Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Stephenville, St. Anthony, Corner Brook, and to listen to citizens and hear what they have to say, and their advice to me, as the Finance Minister, as to what they think should go in the Budget.

I know that some people do not think that is a worthwhile effort for a Finance Minister, but I thought it was important. I enjoyed very much the consultations that I have had. I hope, given the fact that the Budget is not coming down until April 26, to get an opportunity to go down the Burin Peninsula. I have talked to the Minister of Environment and Conservation about that, and I hope an opportunity will present itself during this time that we can go down to Marystown and hear the views of the people in that part of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, what I have heard, and obviously I have heard a lot, is that people are very pleased with some of the actions the government has taken over the past three years, and the improvements that they have seen, especially in our fiscal and financial situation, and especially with respect to the fact that we are now addressing, for the first time, our heavy debt load.

I have learned how far this Province has grown fiscally and economically. Through the strong leadership of Premier Williams, through sound fiscal management, and through public co-operation of members of the public and our government employees, we have truly turned a financial corner. I think that is obvious to everyone in the Province.

We have certainly come a long way from a time when we had a deficit, an annual deficit, of $1 billion, to reporting a financial surplus; just in the year 2005-2006 a surplus of $200 million. That is quite a turnaround. It is something that we indicated we wanted to do. We wanted to get away from having deficits to living within our means and running modest surpluses so that it would give us an opportunity to start paying down some debt, which in turn would allow us to have the opportunity to reduce annual interest expenses, so instead of having to spend money on interest we could spend money on more important things like building new hospitals and schools, providing more police officers, and dealing with the things that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians truly want us to do so that we can become the Province that we all agree we need to be.

We have seen employment growing to reach a record level of 215,700 last year. The unemployment rate has declined for the fourth consecutive year, in 2006, dropping down to 14.8 per cent, which is the lowest unemployment rate in the last twenty-five years.

We are expected to lead the country in economic growth this year. Everybody talks about Alberta, and the effect that Alberta is having on every province in the country as it attracts workers from all provinces to the Province of Alberta for the purposes of seeking these high paying jobs. This year the growth rate in Newfoundland and Labrador is estimated to be 5.7 per cent and the growth rate in Alberta is estimated to be 5 per cent, and I think that is certainly very significant to the people of this Province. The rest of the provinces should have a growth rate in the range of 2 per cent or 3 per cent.

Our credit rating, while still the lowest in the country, has never been higher. Over the past two years we received four upgrades from the four credit rating agencies, and their rationale for doing these upgrades is the continuing improvement in our Province's financial situation. The wise decision to use the Atlantic Accord funds to make a one-time payment to reduce debt, as I said earlier, that allows us not to have to spend so much money on interest. It allows us to spend money on health, education, policing, hiring new teachers, and doing the things that people want us to do.

Our economic prospects are good, and our large growing offshore energy sector will certainly add to that. Of course, the higher the government's credit rating, the lower the cost associated with our borrowing, and the less government will have to pay on interest costs, as I have said.

This fiscal prudence has allowed us to address our unfunded pension liability, and we did that recently. We had an unfunded pension liability of $2.2 billion. We had a pension liability of about $8.2 billion. We have $6 billion in the Pooled Pension Fund, which is earning interest, earning revenue, at the rate of over 10 per cent since 1985, which is just an excellent record. The problem was, the unfunded part of that liability, the unfunded part of that debt, which is a debt, a liability, of the people of this Province, of the taxpayers of this Province, was growing at the rate, according to our actuaries, of 7.5 per cent per year. It went up last year to about $300 million while the government was putting in, I think, $60 million last year. The amount that government was contributing was not even enough to cover the annual interest on the unfunded pension liability.

What we did, recognizing that we had that liability, we decided to be fiscally prudent and we decided to manage that liability by borrowing the sum of about $982 million, using that liability to pay off the unfunded pension liability, or to fund the unfunded pension liability, and our borrowing cost is 4.5 per cent. On doing that on about a billion dollars worth of debt, we have decreased our annual interest by 3 per cent, which works out to about $27 million or $28 million a year.

That was a fiscally prudent thing to do for the taxpayers of the Province who have the liability, under legislation and under the collective agreements, to pay these pension liabilities when they are due. It was also a great thing to do for our retired employees, our pensioners, who now have a sustainable or almost fully sustainable pension fund, almost a fully funded pension fund. That ends uncertainty for them. It also gives us an opportunity to comply with the recommendation that the Attorney General made in his annual report of March 31, 2006 when he recommended that government appropriately manage its unfunded pension liabilities. So, we are pleased to be able to do that. This decision makes great fiscal sense.

As the new Minister of Finance, I intend to continue from where my predecessor left off. I will be supporting the Premier as we work towards self-reliance and building a prosperous economy for our people.

The strategic directions in the department remain the same. We will manage the Province's financial operating resources to promote government surpluses, to live within our means and not run up major deficits which require us to go further and further in debt. We will improve the status of publicly-funded public service pension plans, and we will work to ensure that the economic and fiscal climate within this Province is one that will attract investment, attract the creation of new businesses, which means new jobs, and new jobs for people are what will make this Province grow and prosper. With that in mind, we have completed a review of the Province's overall tax structure and we have brought forward recommendations for consideration in this year's Budget process.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of our corporate income tax rate we are right in the middle of the pack across the country, but in terms of our personal tax rate we pay the highest taxes in the country. So, we have taken an opportunity to do a complete review of those personal income taxes to see if there may be things that we can do to help our citizens and to help the Province attract people with skills that we need to attract to this Province, because we need to bring in more and more people given the decline in the population that we have been experiencing.

We have had recent population numbers from Statistics Canada which indicate our population dropped over the last five years by 7,500 people, which is a drop of 1.5 per cent. Now while the drop in population is not a good thing, the good news is that the population drop is a lot less than it was in the previous five years where the population dropped by 40,000 which was a 7 per cent drop.

We have a situation in this Province where we have what is called a negative birth rate. We have more people now in this Province who are dying in a year than children are being born. When you have a negative birth rate, you have a decline in population without even considering out-migration.

In order to maintain your population you need a birth rate of about 2.3 per cent, I believe it is. In Newfoundland it is 1.1 per cent, so we are not sustaining our population growth. In the country as a whole it is 1.7 per cent, but the difference in the country as a whole is that they are attracting immigration. They are attracting immigrants from outside the country and that is something that we have to do, and I am delighted that my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, yesterday announced an immigration strategy for this Province which will help us attract new immigrants to come to this Province and to retain them once they here, because it is very important and they will bring new skills and new opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I see that I am running out of time, and I have a bit of a frog in my throat here anyway, so I will conclude my remarks at this point in time. I look forward very much to the debate on Interim Supply, and maybe I will have the opportunity to speak once again at some point this afternoon or this evening.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just heard those moans from the backbenches.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted here today to be able to respond to the new finance minister's first bill to the House of Assembly. Of course, he is not a bit like his predecessor. His predecessor, although a fine man, had an A type personality and it did not take much to get him riled up. He spent more time with a red face than a calm face. I think this new finance minister is the more laid back type, so I will not give you a hard time now on your first day on the job. How is that? I will save that for the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leaving, aren't you?.

MS THISTLE: I still have lots of power in me yet.

Anyway, I am delighted to stand here today. Naturally, this is a necessary thing to bring to the House of Assembly. Although, when I received notice that the Budget was going to be April 26, I thought to myself: What is going on? Normally, in past years, we have always waited to hear what the federal Budget was going to be and, of course, then the provincial Budget was completed based on the knowledge of what the federal Budget was going to bring to us. Why we are waiting and extra month, I don't know. There must be some reason or some plan by this provincial government to delay our Budget for a month.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) strategic.

MS THISTLE: The Member for Lake Melville, the Minister for Transportation and Works says this government wants to be strategic. Well, do you want me to start talking about strategies right away? Because that was one of the notes I actually made. Seeing you tweaked my interest, I might have to begin on strategies right away.

However, this Budget for the entire Province is about $5 billion. That is a lot of money, $5 billion. Today we are looking for approval of $1.6 billion, which is roughly 33 per cent. Now you have to do this. We have seventy-five hours after the Budget is brought down on April 26 to debate the pros and cons of how this government has decided to spend the people's money. As a result of Interim Supply, part of that seventy-five hours is going to be used up.

At one point there was unlimited time for responding to the Budget. One of the things I will have a record for when I leave this wonderful House is the fact that I have been able to speak the longest in the history of the House of Assembly. As a result of that adventure of fourteen hours, the current government decided to limit my time, so as a result now, when the Budget is brought down on April 26, I am only going to get three hours. That is all right, you can say a lot sometimes in three hours.

This particular bill that is brought before us today is $1.6 billion. The Minister of Finance, this is a new task for him, and, of course, the Premier must have a lot of confidence in this minister by giving him one of the top jobs, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. He looks to this minister as being able to carry the load.

I have never had a run in yet with this minister. He has always been very fair and very reasonable in the past when we have been dealing and arguing back and forth across the House. I read the message that the minister had: Every department of government was supposed to, and did, prepare what they call an annual report to the taxpayers of the Province as to how their particular department was running. This minister, the Minister of Finance, did the same thing. I happened to be scanning over his message last night and one of the things that he started out saying, which was so key I thought, was: While progress is being made in managing our Province's debt and securing our future our revenue base is heavily reliant on the volatile oil prices. You know you have to read between that, because he just stood on his feet and said, when this government came to power they inherited a $1 billion deficit for that first year. You know something, that is largely propaganda but I will not dissect that information now because there was everything in God's earthly creation lumped into that to make it look bad.

You do not have a $1 billion deficit and have a surplus the next year that you can pay off The Rooms museum. However, all of us inside know exactly how that $1 billion deficit arrived on the scene. It took a lot of cajoling to get that figure up to $1 billion in the deficit.

What the minister is actually saying is that this government relies solely on oil revenues because although they are in their fourth year of governing our Province they really do not have a big plan or any type of plan for creating jobs. That statement says it all because when we started out about four years ago oil prices were pretty low, in the $30 range, and now over the past winter they have gone as high as $60 a barrel. You can do a lot with that extra flexibility when you base your budget on about $40 a barrel and it comes up to be $60 a barrel at the end of the budget year. You can have a lot of flexibility in making funding available for different projects.

The hard part about all of this: We are living in a time right now where we have had the best times financially in our Province with the Atlantic Accord revenue and the difference and the gains that we have made with oil prices. Still, for all of that, we are facing a time when we have lost the most people ever in our Province. I think that hit home to me a couple of weeks ago. I happened to be picking up somebody at the airport and there were two planes there, one was Air Canada and the other one was WestJet. The belts were loaded with luggage coming off the flight from different people who were out to Alberta working. I said to one young man - he was there, his wife was there waiting for him, and he was so happy to be home - I said: Where are you working? He said: Out in Alberta. I am hoping, though, that I can get back here again. I am gone for six weeks and I am back for four.

Now, that is the invisible type of employment that we have here now in our Province. We have made a big business for Air Canada and WestJet and other charters that are coming to Newfoundland and Labrador, mainly into St. John's and Deer Lake, picking up our young people - and not even our young people, our elderly people. What we are finding now is that when the young people leave our Province sometimes they take their parents because the parents have no way to manage on their own. Sometimes the parents are elderly and sometimes the parents are needed, while the husband and wife works in Alberta, to look after the children.

I think the most startling thing that I saw in a statistic was when I saw our census population come out a while ago. It said: In 2006, for instance, a very first in Canadian demographic history - a very first in Canadian demographic history! - we made headlines. Our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador made headlines. It says: The number of deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador matched the number of births. The number of deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador matched the number of births in 2006. Now that is not a very good piece of history for us to be making history across Canada, by having that kind of a situation happen in our Province. In our Province we always had the highest number of births per capita, and now we have our deaths matching our births.

You can look in The Telegram and you can see the space taken up for births and the ones for deaths. It is almost entirely equal. That is not a good thing. We have to do something about that. When I saw, a week ago, The Telegram with the big red letters: Our Population Shrunk to 505,000, based on that, this time next year our population could be under 500,000. What does that do to equalization? That is a scary prospect because this current federal government that just brought down their federal budget, they are now talking and discussing eliminating base funding for social and health transfers. They are talking about basing their funding on per capita only, for the population only. That is a very scary prospect because if we do not get base funding to operate our schools, our hospitals, improve our roads and look after the social needs of our Province, and the funding is going to be based on the number of people in our Province, that is a very scary prospect.

You will notice that all governments, recently, when they announce their budgets will say: I am going to put $38 million into, whatever category, over the next five to seven years. That sounds like an impressive way to do things, saying they are going to put $30 million or $40 million into a certain category over the next five to seven years. Who knows if that government is going to be around in the next five to seven years? But while they are actually giving out their budget, or any of these changes, policy changes, it sounds impressive.

I was looking through some of the reports for various departments of our provincial government. The first one that came to my attention was - I heard the Member for Lake Melville talk about strategies. The buzzword around this government is that every department has a strategy, and they must write a strategy. This is how their department is going to run, with the minister being responsible for the strategy. Now, you cannot eat strategies. As much as you might think, you cannot eat strategies.

I looked at the strategic plan for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. That minister put out a small book, because there was not too much he had to say. He put out a small book, half the size of the regular strategy book for every other department. There was one small mistake in his book and he had to come up with a new book. About a week later he sent out another book with a letter with it saying that there was a typographical error in his first book. I noticed that the only change in his second book was that the columns are now in blue instead of in pink. He put up his columns in blue in his new book and he changed one of the years from 2007 to 2008. That is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Now, this whole book was written as to what this minister is going to do from now until 2008. He had twenty-five plans here for regional diversification and industry growth. And guess what? There were three categories. One was in the works, one was the operational plan that is going ahead, everything is dandy, and another one was the branch or divisional work plans. And guess what? Out of the twenty-five plans the minister had here not one was in the working stage. Does the minister expect the taxpayers of this Province to look at a book of strategies for rural development with twenty-five plans on the books, four years on the job, trying to create something in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and there is not one x where it says, in the operational plans?

I would say to the Premier, if he is watching up there on the eighth floor now: Premier, call in your deputy minister; call him in and get this book out. Get the book out. There is not one x in here for in the operational stages. It is all a plan up in the air somewhere, what he thinks might work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is not one plan being worked on, not one way to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wonder, did the Premier see that book before it went out? I wonder, did he see it? Because he ought to see it now. There is not one plan - all right, here is another one. This is a plan, another strategy for the Minister of the Department of Business. Well, blessed Redeemer, whoever wrote the crap that is in this book? Because there is nothing there, not a thing. He says: Goal number one, by 2008 the Department of Business will have generated increased business investment in the Province. Now how much investment are you going to generate? He never said that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: That is too bad. I will try to get in a bit later.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, I have enough there for another hour. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, by leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. I did not know that the Government House Leader was going to be so generous.

Thank you so much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Okay. Thank you.

I will not abuse the privilege, but I will finish the context of what I was saying. I would like to know who wrote this book for the Minister of Business. I would like to know, because it is child's play. It is child's play.

Goal number two - now, this is ridiculous, for gosh sakes - goal number two, by 2008 the Department of Business will have led the development in implementation of a provincial investment attraction strategy to informed decision-making.

My Lord, who wrote this book? Who wrote this book? Because it is nothing; it is only a repetition, a pie in the sky, of what you might like to do, but there is nothing there that says where you are going to get the investors. Where are they coming from? How much money are they going to invest in this Province? How many jobs are you going to create? There is nothing there like this.

Now, I do not know, I might be insulting someone here today but that does not make any difference. That does not make any difference, because I have to say it. By 2008, the Department of Business will have led the implementation of the Brand Development Strategy.

Now, you cannot eat strategies. Do you think those three flowers on top of the Newfoundland and Labrador name is going to bring much business to this Province? I wonder, is it?

Goal number four, by 2008 the Department of Business will have led the improvement of the regulatory environment across government. Now, what does that say to the fellow out there on the Trans-Canada, out there around South Brook, who had to close up his place? Eddy's, was it, Eddy's Restaurant? He was burdened down with taxes. He is going to be really thrilled, that, by 2008, the Department of Business will have led the improvement of the regulatory environment across government. He is going to be thrilled with that one.

Now, he has the same problem. You see, this Minister of Business has all these strategies that are going to create a positive business environment in this Province, which eventually will lead to jobs. Now, this is four years that this Minister of Business - not him, he has only been in it a short time, but this was the Premier's baby. He was the Minister of Business who was going to bring all kinds of industry and activity to our Province and we were going to be the yes Province, the have Province, before long.

Now, whoever wrote this report, they have it broken down into four sections: one, Business Attraction; two, Business Support; three, Marketing; and, Regulatory Environment Reform, number four. Guess what? There is not one X that says any of the stuff is in operation. It is only up in someone's mind. That is all it is. They haven't got a thing done in the Business Department of the Department of Business in this Province. I wouldn't even print it. If I were the Minister of Business, I would not let anybody print this in here. The Premier has to get this book as quick as he can get it, and make sure they put out a new book with an X in the operational plan; because, if the Minister of Business is satisfied to put this out, with his picture and everything in it, saying that he has all of this on the go and there is not one thing in the works right now - there is nothing in operation for any of this stuff; it is only a pie in the sky. There is not a job created from it. They are running all over the country spending the taxpayers' money and they have this little Mickey Mouse book made up about the Department of Business and what they are going to do. This is another situation where they are using down the road stuff. Listen to their Mission, now, "By 2011 the Department of Business will have facilitated the attraction of major business across the province and across sectors." By 2011. Now, where do you think you guys are going to be in 2011? Where are you going to be in 2011?

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I think the Member for Mount Pearl, who knows all about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is after getting outside the Overpass a bit the summer, I see, since he got his new job. He knows all about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He might be of some assistance.

I wouldn't dare let this book leave my hands, if I were the Minister of Business, because there is not one thing in that book, not a thing in that book. Anything that he was planning on working, some pie in the sky policy, there is not even an X by it to say it is in the works.

These are the ministers who are supposed to grow the economy of this Province. The business plan for the Minister of the Department of Business - anybody who is watching this today, for goodness sake, go out and get a copy. They are free. Just call the Confederation Building, or my office, and I will send it to you.

Another minister who is trying to stimulate rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Anyone watching this program today, phone up and ask for this book. Phone up and ask for this book. He has twenty-five strategies. He has twenty-five plans to create jobs in rural Newfoundland, and not one is in the operational stage, after four years on the job. Now, if anyone is trying to decide whether or not they are going to Alberta to get a job, they will get a lot of comfort from looking at those two books for sure.

Anyway, we are trying to approve what they call the Interim financing bill today, Interim Supply. The Minister of Business has a budget of $4 million a year. Now he wants $2 million so he can dress up that little book. No jobs are going to be created.

I have to sit down now because I have a lot of my colleagues who are ready to react to what the Minister of Finance said, and I will get another opportunity later tonight I am sure.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am delighted to be here today to talk about some good things, actually, that this government has done. Before I start talking about that, though, I would like to first of all congratulate some of our new members. Certainly, my congratulations go out to the new Member for Humber Valley and the new Members for Port au Port, Kilbride, Ferryland, and, of course, soon to be proclaimed or acclaimed is the Member for Labrador West, so I pass my congratulations on to those particular individuals today.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk, as I said, just for a few minutes on some good news that has come since this government has been elected, and more specifically in the last year, I guess, Budget 2006. One thing I find that has been happening, and I think the Opposition basically has tried to do this for the past number of years now, is they are trying to basically pit rural against urban. They try to keep saying that our government does not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to chuckle at that so many times when I look at the investments that this government is actually making in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

For instance, in my district, I look at projects such as the road upgrading that has happened through Municipal Affairs in communities. Because we have a great minister who realizes how important rural Newfoundland and Labrador is to this Province, of course, he has been instrumental in ensuring that we do have money to go into rural infrastructure. For instance, as I said, water and sewer issues, road issues. Just a small town in my district, Hare Bay, that services, actually, Dover as well with the water supply, this government is investing close on $1 million to upgrade a pump house. Again, that is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not an urban area, it is rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then I also look at issues that this government have looked at for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, including deciding to put money into the provincial roads budget; $60 million into a provincial roads budget. The fact is, most of that money, Mr. Chair, goes into rural areas. I am pleased that in my district, of course, over the past number of years, we put several millions of dollars actually into roads and road work. It is very important that we have an infrastructure in place in order to support many things. In fact, we cannot support business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador without having the proper infrastructure in place.

Again, I am very pleased that this government sees that and we have moved forward in terms of putting money into road work within this Province. In fact, I remember one time speaking to a contractor who talked to me about - it was a road contractor, actually - the money that the previous government had put into roads. His words were: If we do not see an injection of money into roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if we do not see that money injected into the economy or into the road work, I can tell you now, our road work is falling down around us. We need money into our roads.

That is exactly what this government has done. This government has stepped up to the plate in terms of providing money for roads. I am very pleased with that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Another big initiative that this government has taken on - and this is something, of course, that obviously pleases me because in my district I do have an island of St. Brendan's, a small island with a small number of people on that island. We have a ferry service, of course, from Burnside over to St. Brendan's. It is about a forty-five minute ride. I can tell you now, that if you want to have a really good trip, if you want to go out for a real nice day, go out to St. Brendan's. Take the ferry across and you will find that it is a great trip. There is only one problem. There is one small problem with that. For years and years and years the provincial government - for example, the last government, being the Liberal government -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: I know the Member for Terra Nova would like to have the correct information. He just announced $60 million of annual road work last year. In the budget, and in the booklet sent out by the minister himself, and I quote: Perhaps the highlight of the 2005-2006 Budget was government's investment of $33.7 million in road work. I know the member would like to have the correct information, and you can read it right from the minister's own statement that he sent out from his own department. I know you would love to have the right information.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: I do not think there is any point of order here as well. The fact is, I actually said when I stood up that I was going to talk about the money that we spent over the past three years since we have been elected. If I did say $60 million last year, I certainly apologize for that. The fact is that we have put significant money into the roads budget. I can understand the Member for Bay of Islands being upset with the fact that, I think there was one year they put $13 million into road work; I believe, $13 million. Another year $6 million, and somebody is going to correct me because we put in $33 million, $32 million? That is unbelievable! The fact is that we have stepped up to the plate. We are not putting in $13 million, we are not putting in $6 million, we are putting in $33 million, and it will be more and more and more, because I believe, and we believe, this government believes in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe that we need to put money into infrastructure and we will continue to do that.

As I was saying before I was interrupted, I was talking about St. Brendan's, the island that we have. This Province has now asked for proposals to go ahead and build two new ferries, and you know wherever those ferries go in this Province it is all good. We need ferries in the Province. I was talking about St. Brendan's. As I said, it is a great place to go, a great place to visit. The problem is, quite frankly, and I think most people hear this and it is on the Open Line shows and so on and so forth, because of the neglect from the previous governments - and I will say governments, I will be generous and say governments - because of the neglect over the years, when you get over to St. Brendan's you may not get back because the ferry may not work.

There was a little while ago when a previous government purchased a vessel, I think it was called the Hull 100, and that particular vessel cost us millions and millions of dollars. It was a used vessel at the time. We brought it back here - they brought it back here to Newfoundland and Labrador, spent another pile of money on it to try to get it to work and the thing is broke down more than it works. It is unbelievable. The thing is, if you get over to St. Brendan's you may not get back, but this government recognizes the importance of providing sensible transportation to the people of this island and to the people who live on smaller islands.

I have heard the argument many times, people have said: Oh, well, you should move them all in off the islands. Forget it. We will try to resettle everybody if we can. The fact is this, that I am sure a lot of Canada today - when we look at the Atlantic Accord we will certainly get this - a lot of Canada says: Let's resettle all of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government shows today, we show that we have a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a commitment to small islands that rely on ferry services to get them from point A to point B, and we are stepping up to the plate. We are providing and going to build two new ferries in the Province. That is a huge investment for rural Newfoundland and Labrador; not urban, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I am so pleased to be part of a government that would look at what we can do for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look at education; we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in education. For instance, $9.1 million annually is provided to retain 151 teaching positions that were slated for removal in 2006-2007, and $250,000 for a review of the Teacher Allocation Model. I am, again, pleased today that our government has stepped up to the plate in this regard.

We do not just educate people in urban Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, this is an initiative for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, this is an initiative for urban Newfoundland and Labrador; $5.3 million is committed to reduce the age of school buses, to purchase sixty-seven new buses and to offset maintenance and increased cost of fuel. Do you know what? I remember going to school, getting on some of these buses, and they were old clunkers at the time. You were not sure if you could even get to school on the bus, you would probably break down halfway. Again, this government realizes how important it is, not only education, not only providing the books and not only providing the teachers, which are very important and we need them, but we also realize that we need to have a safe ride for our kids to get from one area to the other.

Again, it is our government that has stepped up to the plate in providing funding for busing in all of our schools; $1.5 million is provided to ensure our school boards have adequate staffing resources in order to effectively deliver services and supports to individual schools in each district; and $150,000 is allocated to review the ISSP/ Pathways Model. I can tell you - I think I mentioned this one time before - in one of the schools in my district, I went and visited with a number of teachers and students one particular day and I found out that in one class, just in one class alone of twenty-eight kids, there were twelve who were involved in ISSP. Again, our minister, our government is committed to looking at this program and to providing sensible education for those students who have difficulty in learning. A lot of students have difficulty in learning, and we realize that today; $2.2 million is allocated to provide lavatory safe equipment and teaching training for schools from Grades VII to XII. I can go on and on; $1 million investment in physical education equipment.

My daughter came home from school a while ago and she was all excited about the fact that finally, after all these years, they now have a place within their school, in a rural school, in a small school in Newfoundland and Labrador - they finally have exercise equipment. They finally have new physical education equipment that this government has provided to that particular school. That is, again, good news for rural Newfoundland and Labrador; $300,000 for each of the next three years provided to develop a senior high school Newfoundland and Labrador history course. Again, an issue we have in rural Newfoundland - well, all of Newfoundland and Labrador - sometimes we really don't know our history, and we need to know our history.

I heard a sermon preached one time, and it said: You can never know where you are going unless you know where you came from. Again, this government realizes that we have such a rich history, we have such a rich heritage. Again, I am so pleased that this government realizes that we need to put money into our history, into our heritage, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are stepping up to the plate again to provide funding that is very much needed.

Two hundred and fifty thousand is provided to extend the hours of operation at forty-two public libraries. Many, many times we hear the phrase about the fact that our kids need to be reading more, (inaudible) of our kids to read.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Terra Nova that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. ORAM: Just to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. ORAM: As I was saying, reading is so important to our kids. Today, our government has decided that we would put more money into libraries, extend the library hours, so they can have time to get their hands on the books and resources that they actually need.

Again, I am sure I will have the opportunity to speak more about what our government has done. This is in the previous Budget, in the previous year, and I look forward to great things from this government. We are stepping up to the plate in every aspect of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand today to engage in this debate because I feel there are a number of issues out there in the Province today that are affecting people all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the last couple of days all we have heard is the outfall from the federal budget and, believe me, it has been necessary because this is a federal government in our country today that are aligning themselves with separatists in Quebec and, in doing so, are omitting to grant reasonable funding for infrastructure and programs to the rest of the provinces throughout Canada, and in particular in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we have also heard a lot about broken promises in the last few days, promises and commitments that were made by Prime Minister Harper in a letter to the Premier during the last election, that dealt with everything from foreign overfishing to defence spending to the Trans-Labrador Highway, and the list goes on.

Mr. Chairman, these were commitments that were made in writing by a leader in our country to a Province, to a Premier, and therefore they should be honoured and they should be obeyed; but, is it unlike what we have heard in our own Province from our own Premier, from the member opposite, when, in the election of 2003, in the fall of that year, he went out and publicly made comments and made commitments to the Metis people of Labrador, that he would recognize them, that he would negotiate with them, that his government would lead a government, unprecedented by any other government in the Province, in recognizing the legitimate rights of Metis people in Labrador? Mr. Chairman, he went as far as to give it to them in writing on October 8, 2003. His own signature - I have seen it many times, Mr. Chairman - his own signature.

He, in the letter that he wrote to the President of the Labrador Metis Nation on October 8, 2003, in the middle of a provincial election campaign, Premier Danny Williams said this: A Conservative government will acknowledge that the decision of the Powley case applies to Metis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will participate with specific rights affirmed in the Powley decision, and other rights protected under Section 35 of the Constitution.

He went on, Mr. Chairman, in his letter to the Metis people, to say: We will work in partnership with the Metis people of Labrador to promote and strengthen Metis communities and culture, and to ensure the Metis and all residents of Labrador share in the benefits that accrue from the development of Labrador resources.

Now, that is a pretty strong commitment to be made in writing by the Premier, in an election in October. Well, let me tell you what happened only four months later. On January 31, 2004, the Member for Lake Melville and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs at the time were sent to the Metis office to tell them: We no longer recognize you. We cannot honour the commitments that we made to you in writing, in the middle of an election, when we were looking for the votes of the 5,000 Metis people in Labrador. We can no longer honour that commitment any longer.

In fact, what they said is that, based on the Province's review afterwards - four months after an election they took the time to review it, keeping in mind that the Premier who signed this document and committed to do this was a lawyer himself - based on legal review afterwards, he decided that members of the LMN do not meet the criteria.

Well, I can tell you, that was a tough day for the Metis people in Labrador. That was a very tough day for Metis people in Labrador because, Mr. Chairman, they know what it is like to build their hopes up around something, only to have the balloon burst and everything taken out from under them. That is what this Premier did to the Metis people of Labrador.

Today, do you see the Metis people being included in any developments in their land or in Labrador, by the members opposite and the government opposite? It is not happening and it is shameful, I say to you. It is shameful, because the Metis people have existed for hundreds of years in Labrador. They have legitimate claims and they have legitimate rights, and they have the legitimate right to be involved in the economic development of their land and their industry and their resources, and it is not happening. When have the Metis people been invited to the table on the Lower Churchill deal? When have they been invited to be a part of the ongoing negotiation with regard to forestry development in Labrador? They have not, Mr. Chairman.

When have they last been consulted on how government should be investing in Metis communities throughout Labrador? It has not happened. When was the last time that the government members opposite, the minister for Labrador or the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, actually took the time to meet with their federal counterparts in Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of Justice to look at where the claim was for the Metis people on a national level? It has not happened, Mr. Chairman. It has not happened. It was a ploy. It was a gimmick. It was a commitment that was not worth the paper it was written on, just like the commitment that Stephen Harper gave to the Premier back in an election only a couple of years ago, or a year ago. It was worth about the same thing, I say to the members opposite, absolutely nothing.

We do not need to listen to what it feels like to have broken promises. I represent hundreds of Metis people in my district, and there are 5,000 of them in Labrador. I can guarantee you that it was a sad day for them when they knew that they were hoodwinked by the Premier and the government opposite into believing that a commitment that we give you is worth something, because, guess what? It was not worth anything. We have the letters to prove it. We have the letters that were sent out in the middle of an election, in the Premier's own handwriting, and the letters after that were delivered by his ministers to their office when they were told that our commitment is no good, our word is no good.

That is not the only time we have seen a commitment by the Premier that was made to people in this Province, that was broken. Why don't we talk about the public sector strike that occurred? What about the full-page ads that were in the paper, the full-page ads that said we would not legislate public servants back to work and would not lay them off? What happened? Hundreds of them got their pink slips. Hundreds of them were given their pink slips and shown the door to Confederation Building, and what was the fastest and quickest and cheapest way to exit it. Hundreds of them, I say, and what was that? A full-page ad in The Telegram, signed on the bottom in the Premier's own handwriting, saying that we will not lay off public servants and we will not legislate them back to work.

Well, not only did they layoff hundreds of them, not only did they enter into regressive negotiations on benefits, but, Mr. Chairman, they forced them out into the street, they forced them out into the street to strike for rights, legitimate rights of workers, that they had negotiated for, for years and years, because they did not want to lose their sick benefits, their pension benefits and their vacation time. What happened after that, Mr. Chairman? Let me tell you what happened. They were legislated back to work. That is what happened. Right here on the floor of this Legislature these workers were legislated back to work by the Premier and his government even though they gave a commitment in writing that they would not do it.

Mr. Chairman, we know of many cases where promises were made and promises were not kept. It is tough, it is tough let me tell you, when you take the word of a leading individual in this country or in this Province, you take their word that something will be done, you take it in writing that it will be done, and then you get let down. Not a good feeling!

I know how the Premier feels today. I have been there, simply because he has broken commitments as well, simply because of that. I know what it feels like. It is not only those two commitments that I have outlined, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you about another commitment, a commitment in which the government commissioned a study on the configuration of marine services for Labrador, part of it in my district. The statement by the Premier at the time was: Whatever the public policy institute of Memorial University recommends we will implement as a government. Guess what, Mr. Chairman? That did not happen, because the public policy division of Memorial University - and I have all of the documents here, Mr. Chairman, everything here, the full report that the University did, where they recommended that marine services for Labrador would stay in Cartwright and not in Lewisporte. That was what they recommended, but what did the government of the day do? Did they honour their commitment, their promise, that they made to the people and enact the recommendations that were in that report? They did not. In fact, Mr. Chairman, they did the complete opposite.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms. Osborne): Order, please!

MS JONES: They did what was politically favourable for them and not what was right and in the best interests of the people in Labrador at that time.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I understand we are on ten minutes each.

MADAM CHAIR: Ten and ten.

MS JONES: So, I can get up again.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all I want to say that, as we come to the end of March we need to be basically bringing in the Budget and the Budget will not be coming down until April, so we need to bring in Interim Supply in order to carry on the work of this government.

Madam Chair, I really have no problem with that, because if you look at our record over the last three years, it is significant enough to be able to give a lot of confidence to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that money is taken care of and is in good hands.

Madam Chair, when we look at the accomplishments of this government over the last number of years, there are significant accomplishments in health care with new MRI machines, dialysis machines, new drugs added to the drug list, and also too - I have to go back because I happened to read the press conference that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans had. She will not be seeking reelection, and I congratulate you for the work you have done in the past. There is one thing I take exception to. The Leader of the Opposition said: Well, we have to give credit to that member who put the cancer treatment center in Grand Falls-Windsor. Right?

Now, Madam Chair, this was done by this government because -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: You see, the Member for the Bay of Island is getting all upset again because he is not going to listen to what I have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: What happened, Madam Chair -

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do take exception to the Member for Mount Pearl. What was in that news release was that I myself announced the cancer clinic, the $4 million funding. It was in our Budget. What the Leader said was that this new government shelved the plans for the cancer clinic and it took a continual fight by people, myself included, and everyone across the Province to change their mind.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: If I could speak, I would have explained the whole statement before the hon. member got up on her feet. What I was saying to you is that, yes, it was shelved because of the money that we had to pay back, the debt that was left by this previous government. That is what happened. In the next year - the point I was going to make is, that one was cancelled, but as a result of that, we as a government saw a vision that we had two cancer clinics now, one in Grand Falls-Windsor and one in Gander, and it had nothing to do with the hon. member across the floor. It was the vision of this government who made that happen. It was not any member on that side who made that happen, it was this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: No, I cannot say it again because they still will not understand it. I only have ten minutes, so I cannot continue on that way, because they still will not understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, when we look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: I am the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Education and over the last year this government has spent a lot of money in education.

Now, one thing that happened: In the last two years of the previous government they spent $2 million on maintenance, $2 million in their last year. In our first two years, because of the neglect of thirteen years, we spent $11 million. Now that was significant, and we had to do that because the roofs were caving in.

The Member for Bay of Islands said something about duct tape, because one of our members mentioned duct tape in the previous sitting, but I think he forgets that when he looked at a school on MacDonald Drive one of the air vents was done with duct tape. It was not our duct tape, it was their duct tape. So when you talk about duct tape be careful what you do.

The other part, Madam Chair, is that what we have done is we have invested significantly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I cannot hear myself speak.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

It seems that some hon. members -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

It seems that some hon. members do not want to uphold the traditions of this House for order. Please don't cause me to do something that I really do not want to do. I ask for order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. Both sides of the House.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I certainly hope that time is not taken away from my ten minutes, because I have a lot to say today.

Madam Chair, over the last year we have made significant contributions to education, $100 million. That is infrastructure both in the school system, the K-12 system, and also into our post-secondary, the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University. All you have to do is go outside the door here and look to the College of the North Atlantic and see the great facelift that building is taking, because over the years of neglect it has not been done.

Madam Chair, we also eliminated the school fees. Now what did the school fees do for our system and for our children in the schools. They did not have to put the $50 or $60 that was charged to each child into the school system. The parent or the guardian of that child was able to take money and put it into clothing and other necessities that child needed. What else did it do? It saved the teachers the workload or the aggravation of collecting it from children when they knew some of the children could not pay. Now those fees were in forever and a day when the previous government was in there, and we were the ones who eliminated them.

We put millions of dollars, Madam Chair, into technology within the schools. Twenty-five schools in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, high schools, received over $100,000 worth of equipment; $100,000 worth of equipment of pull in new skills trades within our high schools.

Madam Chair, all you have to do is listen to the teachers out there, how they have said what a great contribution, because this provides, with our Skills Task Force, what we need to look at in our skills workforce in our system in Newfoundland and Labrador. What better place to start than our children, to get that into the system so that they understand there are other options out there; there are more things. I think the Skills Task Force will have those options coming forth, too.

Madam Chair, we also spent $37.5 million in maintenance. We put in, I think the figure goes, in roof repairs, I think it is equivalent to sixteen soccer fields. That is significant. That is because of what happened with neglect, lack of repairs, lack of maintenance, in the previous government.

Madam Chair, when we look at education, we look at a lot of things that have happened, and a lot of good things that are happening, and we would continue to do that. One thing we talked about is that, in the system, we have frozen tuition for the last - well, it is going to go into the fourth year of the mandate of this government, the fourth year.

Let me give you an example. I happened to be away, going somewhere off the Island, and I ran into this student. She was a student at Memorial University. She said: Where do you come from? I said: I am from Newfoundland and Labrador. She said: Oh, I go to Memorial University. I said: Why are you travelling from New Brunswick to go to school at Memorial? She said: Because the tuition is cheaper. For what I pay for the tuition, I can almost get my room and board compared to what I pay in Nova Scotia. It is significant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks to a Liberal government.

MR. DENINE: Liberal government, yes, my foot.

I have to laugh, Madam Chair. I have to laugh. They are quite anxious to take -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: Well, it is not that foot I was talking about. That is the one that you kept in your mouth.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a point of order.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of order, Madam Chair.

The hon. member opposite, he mentioned my foot. It was not his foot; it was our foot that did it.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Was that the foot standing or the foot in the mouth? I do not know.

Madam Chair, that person said: I come here because the tuition is lower.

We have the second-lowest tuition fee in the country, second only to Quebec. The hon. Member for Bellevue said, but that was a Liberal policy. Then they go back and say: Well, we froze it, or we reduced the tuition by 20 per cent. They probably did, but do you know what happened, Madam Chair? They also increased it by 50 per cent, so they did not do what they think they did. We, as the government, froze the tuition and made it happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Yes, I can imagine, it was that long ago.

Madam Chair, infrastructure in the school system is very, very important. When we look at it, when we look at the infrastructure here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we look at the years of neglect. I think this government came in with a vision, that we need to make the surroundings, the environment, the envelope of the school, much more comfortable for our students to get in. The response to this government has been immediate, because we have put a significant amount of money into that. We have put a significant amount of money into it and we want to make our schools safe.

Madam Chair, there is another point I want to make. I had a letter from a high school in St. John's, actually - I think most members got it - and it deals with the amount of physical education equipment that we have put into the high schools. The letter deals with -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. DENINE: Just one minute, if I may? Just a few minutes?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Thank you.

The point that I am trying to make is that the letter came from the high school, saying what a great addition that was. It also added to the physical fitness of the children in that school. They were able to partake in physical activities that they could not previously do. That was due to the amount of money that we put into physical education equipment; because, what we do is look at the envelope of the school, we look at the health of the children, and they are two important things that we have to look at.

Madam Chair, it was the vision of this government that made that happen.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to speak on this Bill 71 concerning Interim Supply. Anybody who has seen me before speak in the House knows that I usually give Joe Chesterfield, who is my fictional person in Newfoundland and Labrador, an understanding of what we are doing here today, because it is nice when people understand the democratic process and the legislative process. In fact, there are some very good students of it out there. I get told about it every time I travel around this Province: I appreciated what you did such-and-such a day; I understood it better.

Today, we are doing what they call Interim Supply. What that is, in a nutshell - and it is not only Joe Chesterfield. I have two very good friends and, in fact, they said you have to mention my name. Albert White and Albert Farrell are two good friends of mine who are avid students of the legislative process. What we are doing is Interim Supply, which means the government needs authority to spend money for the forthcoming year. The new year starts in government on April 1; but, because the Budget is not coming down this year, for example, until April 26, the government needs approval in Interim Supply to spend money beyond April 1 and before the Budget gets accepted. So, that is what we are doing here. They usually pick a figure, generally like one-third of what the ultimate Budget will be. In this case it is $1.6 billion, roughly, the government is looking to spend, and that is what we are here debating.

Because it is a money bill - it talks about spending money, of course - anybody here can talk about virtually anything. Normally, your comments are supposed to be relevant to the topic at hand, and always are, of course, when the Opposition speak, but in the case of money bills you have a much wider latitude and you can talk about any sort of issue because it relates to money.

Well, I would like to direct my comments today in terms of spending money, and maybe ask the ultimate question: Where are we going to get any money, possibly, down the road if this Premier continues to keep the tact that he is taking when it comes to the federal government, in federal-provincial relations? It is quite obvious, from what we have heard the past few days, that it is off the rails, folks. Our relationship with the federal government is absolutely off the rails. It has never been worse in the history of this Province since 1949. Let's not kid ourselves. The relationship between this provincial government and the current minority federal Conservative government is showing the worst ever when it comes to federal-provincial relations.

I raise the question because it is off the rails now in terms of the equalization issue but it is also off the rails for all the other important issues that are at stake. Some of it was revealed here today, and you wonder why it is off the rails. I asked six questions in Question Period today, to the Premier and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and it is quite obvious, folks, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has not even read the letter that Stephen Harper gave to this Province on January 4, 2006, concerning certain commitments; has not read it.

Now this is man who, in addition to Doctor Do-Good, Dr. Fitzgerald, who is up in Ottawa opening all these doors for us, this is a man who is supposed to be carrying the message from us as a Province to the federal government, and seeing that all of these important files are on track. I asked him a question today, and if it was ever obvious that somebody did not have a clue what they were responding to, we saw it here today. Maybe it is because, typically, the Premier is all over the files. Maybe that is the case. Maybe the Premier is all over the files and not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Boy, there are a lot of important files in this Province that need to be tackled.

I will just mention a couple of them because some people think that it is only the equalization issue. By the way, let there be no misunderstanding that you can agree with the Premier on his stance on the equalization file. For example: Mr. Harper, you broke your word. Absolutely! You can hold the Prime Minister's feet to the fire on that, and so you should, because it is a broken commitment, obviously, black on white. The Premier said it himself, got it five or six times and he should hold his feet to it. Just because you can hold his feet to the fire, or we can agree with the Premier on one stance, that does not mean we cannot speak out and ask questions about other files. That is probably what the Premier would like to think. It is probably what the government members would like to think, that you have to be all for one and one for all on all issues. I am sorry, that is not the way it works. If you screw up, you deserve to be told you screwed up. There are lots of files that I fear may be jeopardized given the current relationship.

I realized as well that I might not get an opportunity - I am sure I will not in ten minutes - to say it all, but that is the beauty of this committee process. Do I get to come back a few times if I wish? I am going to come back until I can get this point across. Don't think the Opposition agrees with everything this government says. It might agree with you on equalization, and I will just mention a couple of other files.

FPI: The Government House Leader, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, stands up here today and says: Oh yeah, I did say last week that any deal on FPI we are going to have, the Province is going to have the quotas, part of the deal. The Leader of the Opposition reminded him: But, Mr. Minister, Mr. Hearn said last week in The Telegram, last Thursday, he has never gotten a proposal from any of you, from you or FPI concerning quotas. Now, who is telling it like it is here, boys, Minister Hearn who says, I do not even have a proposal, or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who says, oh, I have been talking to him about this for months and it has been in the media? Maybe that was a piece of the rant that he had up in the back of the pickup and maybe we forgot to pick it up. Minister Hearn certainly forgot to pick up on it. What do we do with that?

We have about 2,200 people, I do believe, involved with FPI whose futures are at stake concerning what happens, and a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who has not even spoken to the federal government about the quotas yet. By the way, he is not only the federal minister, regional minister for Mr. Harper, he happens to be the Minister of Fisheries for Canada, the top honcho when it comes to these quotas. He has not spoken to him in either capacity, as the regional minister or as the Minister of Fisheries. Don't you think it is about time you had that conversation? I understand that you whittled down to two FPI proposals, one from Ocean Cuisine and one from the Barry Group, and you have already made your call. Don't you think part of your call and your analysis should have been to decide where we stand on the quotas and have a chat about it? Oh, no, we have not done that yet. We will do that later on. Well, that is not good enough, do it later on.

That is like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs deciding he is going to read that letter tonight. Well, he should have had it read a year ago. He has been the minister for over a year.

MR. REID: He doesn't even know what the feds have committed to.

MR. PARSONS: He didn't even know what the feds committed to.

That is only one, the FPI file. By the way, put this in context now. We have the Premier who has the gloves off with his federal cousin, the Prime Minister: I am going to campaign against you and all of your people down here in the next federal election. That is coming out of the Premier. Then we have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who has to go up and say: Oh, by the way, Loyola, do you think we can have those quotas on FPI? Now, how is that going to work, folks? How is Mr. Hearn, the federal minister, who was slammed in the media for the last two or three days, who held out an olive branch - give the man his credit. He said: Look, boys, I am sorry. I did not deliver. I could not deliver as your regional minister, with my Prime Minister, on the equalization piece. I did not do it, but for God's sake, don't close the door on the other files. That is what negotiation is all about. We need to continue to negotiate on these other files.

What are you getting met with by the Premier? Even today: Never mind talking with you, we are going to do our talking when the writ gets dropped. We are going to work against you. We are going to try to put you out of a job, Mr. Hearn and Mr. Manning. That is what he has been told. Now that is a great way to start negotiations with somebody. You sit down at the table and you say - instead of an olive branch you have a sword with you or a mallet. That's going to work! I have a little problem handling that. This is a skilled negotiator we are dealing with here.

MR. REID: Oh, yes, the great negotiator.

MR. PARSONS: The great negotiator.

That is the FPI file. I think that is pretty substantial to us as a Province, folks: Twenty-two hundred jobs, communities affected, infrastructure and plants affected.

For example, the Member for Bonavista South -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will appreciate the opportunity to finish this when I come back.

Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to say a few words on the Interim Supply Bill, Bill 71. Of course, as the Opposition House Leader mentioned, this bill is to permit us, as a government, to pay the bills up until the time that we get our new Budget passed through the House of Assembly. I am really looking forward to the new Budget which will be brought forward by the new Minister of Finance in the near future in this Legislature.

Madam Chair, before I get into any specifics I have to comment on the comments just made by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. How I will explain that, is this. Today he stood in his place over there on that side of the House of Assembly and supported the Premier and everything he is trying to do with respect to the equalization formula and the broken promise that was made by the Prime Minister. He wants us to take the government on, and there is only one way to do it, you take them on or you do not take them on. Then he stands up in his place and talks about all of these other files, that we should be basically cuddling up to the federal government and the Prime Minister. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot have it both ways. We either take them on and deal with it or we don't. So, which does he want, I ask the hon. member?

Then before that, Madam Chair, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was up and she was speaking about promises and promises broken. Well, Madam Chair, there was a promise broken on the previous Administration, the previous Prime Minister of this country, and only because of the attitude and taking on the federal government, we received $2 billion out of the previous Administration because of the way we deal with the federal government. She was talking about broken promises. Maybe we should talk about promises kept, and I will refer to some of the promises that have been kept since we have been here. There are so many that I am probably going to need hours to get through them all, but I have some highlighted here, Madam Chair, and I will deal with them.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Madam Chair, I just want to raise this point because it is important to have things in a proper and orderly fashion for the record. That is that Prime Minister Paul Martin did not give a letter in writing to commit to exempt natural resources from the equalization formula. In fact, what he gave was a commitment to the Premier in which he negotiated to meet that commitment. The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, it was not satisfactory for the people of the Province and we went back collectively in Newfoundland and Labrador looking for more.

I just wanted to clarify that, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is up trying to make a point of order which was not a point of order.

Simply, the previous Administration had made commitments to this Province, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they tried to renege on them; and, because of the attitude of the present Premier of this Province and this government on this side of the House, we managed to get $2 billion out of the previous Administration, and rightly so. That is the bottom line. They were forced, during an election, to come through, bottom line.

Now, let's talk about some of the promises kept. There are so many, as I said, there is no way I can get through them all within ten minutes; but, like the previous member who spoke, who said that he would be back, I am sure that I will be back to speak on these.

Now, $6.3 million for the reduction of school fees. Madam Chair, when we were in Opposition, we, many, many times, talked about the school fees in this Legislature. The previous Administration, those people sitting on that side of the House, would not budge, of course. Now we have reduced it by $6.3 million, for reduction of school fees. Also, $9.1 million annually to retain 151 teaching units slated for removal in 2006-2007. Last year in the Budget we put in again $9.1 million to meet some of the concerns that we had previously when we were in Opposition, and we brought it forward; we put $9.1 million into that.

Government budgeted $43 million for school construction, Madam Chair, $43 million in last year's Budget for school construction, repairs and renovations. Previous to that we saw, in and around the urban parts of this Province, the schools, the buildings themselves, were falling apart. I have been trying for years to get a new school in my district. It was only last year we announced a new school in Torbay, for Holy Trinity Elementary. The school, by the way, is over fifty years old. I attended Grade 1 down there. It was a maze, the school itself, with the extension after extension after extension over the years. It is time, long overdue, and we finally got the announcement of a new school in Torbay, and others all around the Province, as I said, $43 million.

Also, we increased the provincial student loans from $110 to $140 per week, something we were fighting for, for years and years and years. Again, we took action, not rhetoric, not talk, like the crowd on the other side of the House of Assembly. They are so used to getting up and criticizing for the sake of criticizing, not constructive criticism, but they feel they have to stand on their feet and criticize for the sake of criticizing. They don't give any compliments when they are due. Madam Chair, I sat on that side of the House of Assembly for ten years, and when the government - which was very seldom, by the way - said anything that was positive, and did anything that was positive, I would compliment them on that; but, no, this crowd cannot do that.

Madam Chair, we made, last year, an ex-gratia payment of $24 million in recognition of the value of the sacrifices made by the Province's public servants from 1988 to 1991; $24 million. Again, we did that. We did not have to do it. When we took over the government, Madam Chair, back in 2003, there was a very difficult situation in this Province and we are putting it back on the right track. Those members on that side of the House - some of them were over there for twelve or fourteen years, and more - were involved with a government at that point in time that would bring in these, what they called, balanced budgets. What they often did, Madam Chair, was use one-shot payments.

For example, the South Coast ferry system, what they did there was take $50 million from the federal government, tried to balance the budget in one year, and then left us hanging for the operations of that South Coast ferry system. There are other one-shot payments that they got out of the federal government.

Term 29, again, millions upon millions of dollars that they took, threw it into the budget for a given year, giving this false picture, talking about balanced budgets when there was no such thing. They did not know what a balanced budget was. They were playing with numbers all of the time, Madam Chair, and they are still at it.

They are trying to say now, when they get on their feet over there, that we are doing nothing. Well, Madam Chair, the list that I am throwing out there shows that we are doing something significantly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are putting it on the right track for prosperity in the future.

Madam Chair, we spent $80,000 to increase annual grants for the Province's eight women's centres over the years; again, something that we were prompting when we were on that side of the House and we take action, Madam Chair. Talk from them is cheap but, for us, we are putting money where our mouth is.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, we signed an Atlantic Accord, $2 billion in the coffers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was months of negotiating, a solid attitude by the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, members on this side of the House of Assembly, Madam Chair. It is all well and good for members on that side of the House to stand up and say that we are doing nothing. Again, I suppose, it depends on the attitude of the Opposition what they want to say in any given time. They certainly are not portraying the accurate situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: Again, I say to members on that side of the House, talk is cheap. Talk is cheap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Madam Chair, we, as an Administration, as a government, provide a $1.953 billion payment to the teachers' pension fund. Now, here is a pension fund that was in very serious danger - a few years down the road - that there would be no money there to pay the pensions of the teachers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We put in $1.9 billion, and it was something that we talked about very seriously. We had a lot of discussion, a lot of presentations by the Department of Finance, and we felt, as a government, that was the best place to put the money for the long-term savings of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; basically having two attacks, one from the debt side of the ledger and one from the other side, where we were saving significant amounts of money.

Now, Madam Chair, we froze auto insurance. Here is a good one. When we were in Opposition we talked about this, and the previous Administration did nothing about it as usual, but we talked about it and we came through with respect to auto insurance. We put a plan in place where we froze the rates that the insurance companies were charging, brought in legislation in this Legislature, and basically saved the people of this Province, the people who buy car insurance, 20 per cent a year.

My own car insurance went down significantly, Madam Chair. I have two vehicles, three people driving the vehicles, costing me over $5,000 a year for car insurance, and it went down to just over $3,000. They say then - that side of the House said we did nothing.

MR. REID: Are you serious?

MR. BYRNE: Yes, I am serious. Well, buddy, there you go. What can I say?

MR. REID: Are you serious?

MR. BYRNE: I am serious.

MR. REID: It went down by 40 per cent, your insurance?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: It went down from over $5,000 to thirty-something hundred dollars. Now, you were a teacher. I hope you did not teach math, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I hope you did not teach math when you were teaching.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: Again, it depends on the situation, on any given situation, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BYRNE: By leave, Madam Chair?

I can go on for another while.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take all the leave you want.

MR. BYRNE: Take all the leave I want.

I remember when I was in the House of Assembly, on the Opposition, and there was a member on this side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: - a former member, I think his name was Efford, that is the guy. Anyway, he gave me leave one day to speak, and forty-five minutes later he woke up and said: Oh, what is he doing, speaking on leave? He was not long sitting me down afterwards.

Anyway, we will continue on. Many, many more issues here. Madam Chair, we put in $23.2 million in new monies to improve access to key health services. We had previous members on their feet on this side of the House of Assembly recently speaking, to this very day, about the health care services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we put $23 million into improving access to health care, Madam Chair.

By the way, I can speak personally to the health care system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I do not mind doing it, because last year and previous years I had to access the health care of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me tell you, Madam Chair, it is second to none, as far as I am concerned. When I went in to have certain procedures done the admission's people, x-ray, lab, blood, doctors, nurses, everyone was really first-rate, top-notch professional people who treated you with care and concern. As far as I am concerned, it is second to none in the country. We understand that on this side of the House of Assembly, and that is why we are so committed to putting monies into health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure we will see more to come in the upcoming Budget, hopefully, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Now, $30 million to proceed with the new long-term care homes in Corner Brook, Clarenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and assess long-term priorities in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BYRNE: Now, there you go. On that side of the House of Assembly they cannot accept the facts, they cannot accept the truth. They have to criticize for the sake of criticizing. Don't get on your feet, and God forbid, say: Government, you are doing a good job here, you are looking at health care in the Province, you are looking at education, you are looking at roads; $60 million in roads last year. Previous to this Administration, as a member said on this side of the House of Assembly today, previously down as low as $6 million for the roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That would not even take care of the maintenance requirements each year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We put $16.5 million in to construct a new primary health clinic in Grand Bank and redevelop the Blue Crest Inter-Faith Home; $16.5 million on the Burin Peninsula. Really, I do not understand the attitude of the people on the other side of the House of Assembly. I mean, talk about doom and gloom. We are in a Province where we look at optimism. We have to have optimism in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On that side of the House of Assembly - as a matter of fact, today you get the attitude that optimism is a bad thing here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not my attitude. We have to have optimism. We have to have plans. We have to look forward and look at the potential for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a Premier in the Province here today who is the right man for the right job at the right time here. We certainly support him on this side of the House of Assembly, even though, again, people on that side of the House of Assembly seem to have some negative attitude that no matter what you do it is not enough, no matter what it is.

Madam Chair, here is a really good one. Committed $32.8 million annually to expand the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program to include an additional 97,000 people. Now, Madam Chair, talk about putting your money where your mouth is. Talk about promises kept. Talk about making commitments when we were in Opposition, moving to this side of the House of Assembly and putting the money in place where we could.

Now, Madam Chair, again I have to go back to when we first took over the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the mess we found this Province in with respect to the deficit that members on the other side of the House of Assembly - the debt that they put this Province in, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BYRNE: And they are over their laughing and making fun, Madam Chair. Now, this is very serious stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, Sprung Greenhouse wasn't good (inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: Now they are throwing up something about twenty years ago before any of us were on this side - well, nobody sitting here today was there. Do you want me to start talking about Trans City? Do you want me to talk about a few more? Do you want me to talk about the big display that former Premier Tobin, in Labrador - what is his name? The Premier of Quebec? Not Charest. The former Premier of Quebec? The big ad up in Labrador about the Lower Churchill - Deal done! Millions of dollars spent. A big show and nothing for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: Madam Chair, all I can say is the truth hurts.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: My time was up long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: Thirty-three point five million dollars.

Madam Chair, they are out there now on the other side of the House of Assembly trying to cast out the fly like the fishermen on the river, trying to get me to rise to certain bait, but I will just try and to stick to my train of thought here and go forth.

Madam Chair, we spent $33.5 million in Budget 2005 to support the community-based home care programs; $33.5 million. I have a list of them here, it goes on and on and on. I imagine there are people on that side of the House who would like to comment on some of the good things that we are doing on this side of the House, as a government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: It falls on deaf ears, I know. I expect before this session is done there will be members on that side of the House stand and compliment people on this side of the House for work they are doing.

As a matter of fact, there were members on the Open Line shows commending ministers on this side of the House. Then, again, Madam Chair, we have members on that side of the House who are putting out false information to the media and looking for headlines in the paper based on false information that they put out. I had to address that last week for a member on that side of the House. As a matter of fact, one of the members on that side of the House said that I had not responded to a letter, a request from a town in his district, and I had responded four times, and copied the member four times, on what I had done and what we were prepared to do. No, there was a member on that side of the House who had put completely false information out there. I could not understand it. Again, it goes right back to the fact that no, do not give any credit. Try to mislead. Try to put something out there that is not accurate at all - and I had the proof, Madam Chair, to back it up, and I still have it. I will mention no names, Madam Chair.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a point of order.

MR. SWEENEY: A point of order, Madam Chair.

The hon. minister, yes, I read his response in the paper; I heard him on Open Line. I met with the mayor three weeks prior to that, and the mayor informed me that he had no response from the government. Mayor Coombs told me that there was no response, so after a while I had the complete file sent to me. There were no copies of any letters in it, that were sent to me by the town. There were none in my office. So, whatever mail service the hon. minister is using, I would suggest that he reroute it some other way so that it would come to our side.

The other thing, Madam Chair, the other point of my point of order, and it is the first time that I have had to address this, the hon. minister, because of a comment that I made in my press release - and I made no reference to him personally, whatsoever, in that press release - I heard him on saying that I was making fun of his medical condition.

Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I had no idea; I had no medical records sent to me either. They must have been enclosed with his letter, because I had no medical records as to know what was wrong with him. Obviously, today I know there is something wrong with you, yes, there is, and I will go no further than that.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

I remind the hon. member that he is (inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There you go, Madam Chair. For a starter, I did not say that he was making fun of my health at all. I did not mention that at all, Madam Chair, did not do that. Again, a typical situation, we have a member on that side of the House trying to stand up and weasel his way -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: - weasel his way out of the fact, Madam Chair -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The members opposite have said that they have not given you leave.

MR. BYRNE: Don't let me respond, no, because he is on his feet again. A typical situation, Madam Chair, he is trying to weasel his way out of it.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: He is trying to blame the post office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the member opposite was on his feet and he said that I had said -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. BYRNE: I am on a point of order. How long have you been here? How long have you been here, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands? How long have you been here?

Anyway, Madam Chair, he is on his feet trying to say that I had said he made fun of my health situation. I did not, and I ask him to retract that statement, by the way, Madam Chair.

He is on his feet now, saying that he did not receive the correspondence. He is blaming the post office and he is blaming the Mayor of Harbour Grace, Madam Chair. That is what he is up to now. Again, weasel words to try and get out of the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for the record, we did not hear, over here. I am sure the minister did ask for leave, but we certainly did not hear it, and there was no one over here who had granted leave. I understand, and I assume that you are going to rule that is no point of order, either.

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, that is right.

MR. PARSONS: Just for the record, again, if the minister would like a few extra minutes to clue up and then come back later in the session, we have no problem with that whatsoever.

MR. REID: Jack, you never asked for leave, did you?

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair did hear the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs ask for leave, and I did look over and I did hear somebody say by leave, so I said by leave.

MR. REID: Who?

MADAM CHAIR: I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you're not sure?

MADAM CHAIR: Well, we can refer to Hansard if you wish.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Madam Chair, I did ask for leave and it was given from members on that side of the House of Assembly. Now they get on their feet and try to say that it was not given. Again, how could I explain that?

Madam Chair, again, I thank the members for leave. I had it for a significant amount of time, and I appreciate that. Madam Chair, again, members on that side of the House, for some strange reason, and I do not know what it might be, are awful testy. We are only back here in the House for about two-and-a-half hours and they are testy already. Normally, the government should be the ones who are testy, not the Opposition. They are the ones who should be making us testy. We should not be making you guys testy. How long have you been here?

Anyway, Madam Chair, I have lots of time. We have months to debate this, and I definitely will be back.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I stand today to speak to Bill 71, which was explained by my colleague when he spoke just about, I guess, twenty minutes ago now. I am sure now that Joe and Martha Chesterfield understand what it is all about.

Madam Chair, I have been listening to the member opposite, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I have to say that I do not know where he lives. I think most of us live in Newfoundland, but he has to be living in dreamland. If, for a minute, he believes everything that he was just rhyming off in terms of what this government has done for Newfoundland and Labrador, then I do not know what he is reading. I have no idea what he is reading, but we have yet to see any evidence of anything this government has done to make things better, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

While he rhymes off all the thing they have done, Madam Chair, I have to say, what is the point of doing any of this if there are not going to be any people left in the Province to take advantage of it? We are now witnessing out-migration like we have never seen before. It is at an alarming rate, an alarming rate. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, is being disseminated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: People are leaving in droves, and it is not just our young people who are leaving, Madam Chair. It is those people who though they would never have to leave our Province in search of employment, but they are having to leave.

When you look at what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a tragedy. They can talk about the money they are investing, the things they are doing, and try to convince everybody that they are doing something right and proper for this Province, but at the end of the day what you need to do is get your priorities straight and do what needs to be done to help ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador survives.

The way it is going now, there will be no rural Newfoundland and Labrador once this government finishes its term of office. I say term of office because I sincerely believe that, by the time they finish their first term of office, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of it, will cease to exist. It is a sad, sad situation that we are facing in this Province.

My colleague, when he spoke in Question Period about the JSS contract for Marystown, on the Burin Peninsula, what a golden opportunity. What an opportunity to try and do something about the extent of the out-migration, particularly on the Burin Peninsula. I refer to the Burin Peninsula because that is the area of the Province with which I am most familiar. You know, this contract, worth billions of dollars over eight to nine years, would also mean an $800 million service contract - imagine - for hundreds and hundreds of people, and not only would it be applicable to the Burin Peninsula but for the entire Province.

I stand here today to speak to Bill 71, and I would like nothing better than to think that what we were approving here today, that a portion of this funding would be to help purchase a graving dock for the Kiewit facility in Marystown. The Premier will stand and say, well, you know, we have been discussing this but it is a lot of money to ask. Do you know something? He did not blink when it came to putting $150 million into Abitibi for maybe 300-some odd jobs. It was the right thing to do, mind you, but why is it taking so long for him to make a decision with respect to the graving dock, and funding for the graving dock? Has he spoken to the federal government about that, about the need for a contribution from the federal government and from the Province, with the company, to make sure that funding is there so that they have that piece of infrastructure in Marystown that will enable them to compete seriously for the JSS contract? Has he done that? I have not heard that he has done that. Today, he stands and says, well, you know, it is a lot of money. Why is it a lot of money when it can bring a contract to this Province of over $2 billion and employ hundreds of thousands of people? Why is that an issue for the Premier? It was not an issue in Stephenville, and I understand that and I appreciate that. But he talks about Kiewit and the companies that are associated with Kiewit that are looking to win this contract, and talks about how well off that company is. Well, certainly heavens, he must think the same of Abitibi. You know, that is a company that is not having any problems in terms of the bottom line. They will say that they are not doing as well as some other companies in the Province or in the world when it comes to mills, but at the end of the day, why is it that the Premier will not do the right thing and assure that this company, Kiewit, is as competitive as a company in BC when they go and try to win the JSS contract? They need a graving dock.

The Member for Burin-Placentia West is on record as saying, well, you know, we have been discussing this in Cabinet for over a year. Over a year! Now, that will tell you how serious the Premier is about doing anything to make sure that the Province actually has a competitive edge to win this over BC. Yes, as my colleague said, the Premier of BC has been at this file daily. He wants this contract. He knows how important this contract is, how extensive it is; but yet our Premier, not a peep. Now he says, oh, I have been working on this, we have been working on this as a government, but it is about time he stood up and was heard so that people know and hear him speaking about this.

Now let's talk about commitments. My colleague spoke earlier about commitments broken. I know, I guess, my district is the victim. During the last election, the Premier campaigned and said yes when he was asked whether or not he would, in fact, continue with the health care facility that was being built in Grand Bank, the new health care facility that was also going to house a seniors' complex. He said, of course he would. They were no longer in power when that decision went by the wayside; no, no, no. In fact, they cancelled it. Then they came back and said: Well, we are rethinking it. Then they decided to do something totally different then what had been approved.

I can tell you that today if they had proceeded with that complex we would have a state of the art facility on the Burin Peninsula, in Grand Bank in particular, and we would not be where we are today with people continuing to work in an environment that is completely unsafe for them in the old cottage hospital in Grand Bank. We have seniors being housed in a complex that was designed for acute care Levels I and II. In fact, they are now acute Levels III and IV in the seniors' home in Grand Bank.

Do you know what they decided to do? They have decided to redevelop that home. To do that, Madam Chair, they have to move some of the seniors - now remember, acute care Levels III and IV - out of the complex somewhere else while the renovations are taking place. Then, when the renovations are done on that wing, they are going to move the seniors from the wing where they are over to the renovated wing so they can do the renovations on the other wing. Now, these are people who are sick, dying, and they are going to have to put up with all of these renovations taking place around them.

Tell me that is a caring, considerate government, will you, that instead of going ahead with the plan that was in place for a new health care complex, they decided, because it was a Liberal initiative, that they were not going to do it that way, they were going to do it a different way, and the different way is causing untold hardship on the patients, the residents and the people who work there and their families.

I would like nothing better, to be standing here today when I am addressing Bill 71, than seeing something happening with that complex. You know, I went down there with the Premier - it was seventeen months actually - when he announced what he was going to be doing. We have yet to see anything happen. I think they have just called the tenders now for work to get underway this spring. Imagine! You wait until you are six months from a provincial election and guess what? Things will be going full steam down there and you will stand up and take credit for it. That is so disingenuous. I cannot believe that the Premier would actually do that, but that is exactly what is happening.

Then we talk about a new forestry building for Winterland. Guess what? This was approved in the 2005 Budget. Oh, yes! I sat in the Estimates Committee and I questioned the Minister of Natural Resources at the time. Oh, yes! Are you sure that is going to go ahead, Minister? Oh, without a doubt, it is a priority for the department.

Here we are today no further ahead, no new building, and I still do not know if it is going to go ahead. Who can trust that it will, even if it is contained now in the Budget for 2007. It was in the Budget for 2005 and we still do not have it down there, and people are wondering. The building that they are presently occupying is unfit for habitation, but still this government continues to allow people to work in that kind of environment. No consideration at all for what these people have to work in.

Early retirement package for our fishermen.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: Leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Early retirement package, Madam Chair: We have heard the Premier say he is going to go it alone. You know, that is not very good news for people in my district, I know, who are looking for that early retirement package, people who have worked for years in a fish plant in the fishery who are now in their sixties, fifty-five, sixty, sixty-five, standing on a concrete floor for these many years and looking to get out of the industry. The Premier is saying he is going to go it alone, we do not need Ottawa. If you are going to go it alone do as my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition asks, put your 30 per cent on the table and do something to help those fisher people. Make a conscious effort now, knowing that the feds may not come to the table, to do something on your own. Since you are going it alone, you do not expect the feds to come to the table, even though - wait now, the ministers, in their response to questions, each one of them said: We need the feds, we are not going to let them off the hook. That is so opposite to what the Premier is saying. So, who do you believe. The Premier is saying we are going it alone, we do not need Ottawa, but each minister who stood today in response to a question said: We have to talk to our counterparts in Ottawa. Talk to them about what? Talk to them about what? You have already told them you are going to see that they get a goose egg up the side of their head in the next election. Do you know what has happened here? What has happened here is that the Premier, unfortunately, has put all of his goose eggs in one basket. That is what he has done and we are left today wondering whether or not any of these issues, for which we need the federal government on side, will ever be dealt with. That is the sad situation that we find ourselves in today in this Province, because of the Premier's attitude, because of the way the Premier is handling these issues.

We all know, human nature being what it is, if you are going to go sit down with Loyola Hearn, or you are going to go sit down with Fabian Manning, or you are going to sit down with Norm Doyle and you are going to ask for their help on any of these files, they are going to look at you like you are crazy. They are going to look at you like you are crazy.

Minister Hearn acknowledged, that as much as they wanted to be able to respond positively to the Premier's request, that because the Premier was not able to convince the other First Ministers, the other Premiers in the country, that was the right and proper way to go, they really did not have a choice. Do I agree with what Harper did? Absolutely not. I think it was terrible and, yes, he should be held accountable, but at the end of the day this Province should not be allowed to suffer because the Premier cannot negotiate. Obviously he could not do a good enough job negotiating with his counterparts around the table.

Here we are today in a situation in this Province where we really do not know what to expect on any of these files. Early retirement is so important if we are going to restructure the industry that is so vital to the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When I talk about the fishery it is like the bread and butter issue of people in my district, people who would love to stay in the industry, they would love to see it restructured, and people who are at an age now to say it is time for me to move on, I should be able to retire, I should be able to live in comfort after the number of years that I have put into this industry. They are absolutely right, but I fear at this stage that given the attitude, given what is coming out of this Province, given what is being said about Minister Hearn and others, that we are not going to see anything come to fruition.

Like my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, asked the Premier today: Will you take your 30 per cent that you have committed to for an early retirement package? Will you take it and do something for those in our Province who deserve to be taken care of? It is not a handout, it is a hand up for them because they deserve it. They have worked hard all of their lives. They made sure that an industry that is so important to the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador has survived to this point.

You know, commitments were never made to be broken - never made to be broken! - but the Premier cannot stand in his place and take Harper on, the Prime Minister of this country, when all the Prime Minister has done is taken a page out of the Premier's book. There are many, many people in this Province who can point to commitments that the Premier made that he has not followed through on; many. I say to the Premier, remember when you point a finger that four fingers point back at you. If you are going to place blame you, have to accept some responsibility for where we are today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, it is nice to be home, back in the House of Assembly.

First of all, I had a couple of items that I wanted to speak on concerning Interim Supply and tie it in a little bit, but I heard the member opposite talk about out-migration. I think it is important to have that debate in this Province, but it is very, very important to make comparisons of out-migration from years gone by and what is currently happening, because without the history of out-migration it is hard to get the full understanding of it.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Chair, that in the 2001 census the Central region had a population of 19,880. That was from 1996 to 2001, and these years are important, because you have to remember who was in power at the time. From 1996 to 2001 there was a reduction of 10.3 per cent in the Central region in this Province - significant numbers.

The highest out-migration rates from that same time span, from 1996 to 2001, was the youth population, and the age group from fifteen to nineteen showed a population decline of 20 per cent in that time frame; a significant reduction. The change from twenty to twenty-four during that same time frame, from 1996 to 2001, was 31.5 per cent reduction in the Central region of this Province alone.

As well, the Green Bay and White Bay areas had an overall population change between 1996 and 2001 of 13 per cent. That is from 1996 to 2001. It is important to note those things.

To sum that up, from 1991 to 1996 there was a net out-migration that amounted to 32,000, the highest level ever a five-year recorded over the history of our Province; the highest ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: You hear them working out a bit over there now. The truth hurts. When you start telling the truth about these out-migration numbers you really get the full effect from the crowd opposite.

That was from 1991 to 1996. From 1996 to 2001 the net out-migration rose higher again. The five years previous were the highest ever. From 1996 to 2001 it went to 42,000 people, Mr. Chair, who left this Province. Mr. Chair, that is something to think about. When they stand here and get on their high horse and start criticizing us, Mr. Chair - what they should be pointing out, is that, in the last five years, we have had the lowest out-migration since 1971 and 1976, that five year frame. Mr. Chair, we are turning the corner. We are slowing out-migration. Unlike these gentlemen and ladies opposite, Mr. Chair, when out-migration was peaking, and peaking it was, from 1991 to 1996 it was the highest ever, and 1996 to 2001 even topped that. Mr. Chair, when they start taking about out-migration, they should compare numbers with numbers and really explain to the people of this Province what the history is, and what is currently happening.

Mr. Chair, we talk about out-migration and we talk about rural Newfoundland, that the member opposite likes to consider and likes to talk about a lot, and talk about the despair in rural Newfoundland and how bad we are doing, and how much disrespect is out there for party opposite. I have to remind the members opposite, in this term we have had members elected in Exploits District, very much a rural district. In Ferryland District, we have had a member elected. In Placentia & St. Mary's, we have had a member elected. In Port au Port, we have a member elected. Mr. Chair, the last time I checked, these were very much rural districts in this Province and Labrador West, as well. The member has not been sworn in yet. That is a significant number. I was not going to get into that, I say to the Member for Happy Valley, but that was very, very telling and very, very significant in the way the candidates line up in that Labrador West seat.

Mr. Chair, before you start tearing down the people on this side of the House, we certainly have to check the history of those opposite, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in this Intern Supply bill - and I wanted to bring this up - there is a significant amount of money addressed there for the Legislature. Of course, the Legislature operates a number of things, and in a bill that was read in today, actually, we are going to amend the House of Assembly act. We are about to amend the House of Assembly act, Mr. Chair, and part of that will be the Electoral Boundary changes. In fear that I might not get a chance to speak on this later, I certainly think it is very significant that I have a few words to say on the Electoral Boundaries, and particularly as it relates to my district, Mr. Chair. I certainly would like to say a few words about it.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, I look after Holyrood, Seal Cove and Upper Gullies. Through the re-organization and population distribution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, can we have some decorum in this place.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I have had some good times with the people of Holyrood, Seal Cove and Upper Gullies, and certainly speak very highly of these people. Unfortunately, with the electoral boundaries redistribution it looks like I could be losing these communities.

We have had some significant victories in this part of my district. Route 60, certainly, we have had a significant victory in Route 60 in that we have had recapping of it right down through the valley, right up to the ridge. Minister Hedderson and myself worked hand in hand on this and we have now, basically, new blacktop from the Irving in Holyrood right over, through the valley and up the ridge, Mr. Chairman. Minister Hedderson and myself worked hand in hand in that.

As well, Mr. Chairman, we had two new fire vehicles for the Town of Holyrood. We had a new pumper. I will not get into the fact how we needed a new pumper shortly after we had a new pumper. I will leave the Fire Chief to explain that one, as we joke with him quite regularly. We were fortunate enough to speak to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and get some more money to buy that new pumper.

As well, of course, we had a new rescue vehicle for the fire department. As most people in the area know, the Town of Holyrood responds to a lot of accidents involved on the Trans-Canada, called on quite regularly. Certainly, Minister Hedderson and myself worked again with Minister Byrne and had access to these funds. I certainly want to say those were some minor victories that we have had.

As well, of course, to the people of Country Path Road, a group of residents in that area that I have been working with even before I became involved in politics, in my previous place of employment, they had considerable sewage problems in the area. We were fortunate enough to come up with funding through three different sources, and tested a new technology, actually, in the area. Fortunately, now, and shortly from today, they will be up and running fully in a sewer system in that area. It will certainly enhance the area, clean up the area, and allow for some new development, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, you get the regular things. We were fortunate enough to have grants for the libraries, for the school in Holy Cross, for recreation programs. For seniors programs we were able to access some funding and help the local seniors group, which are a first-class organization, Mr. Chairman. They do a lot for their community and do a lot for the seniors of their community, with regular outings and so on.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, in the west of Conception Bay South we have Upper Gullies and Seal Cove which, unfortunately, I will be losing, but they are fortunate as well because they will be picking up Minister Hedderson, who has always been a friend of mine and a colleague who I could always count on when I needed support around the table for a variety of issues for Conception Bay South and Holyrood. I am sure you will do fine by him, but we have had much progress made. We have had extra water and sewer installed. We have had extra paving now through Upper Gullies and through Seal Cove. Route 60 has been recapped; the bad spots are gone. Of course, the Upper Gullies rapids, which we had for probably some fifteen or sixteen years, are now no longer in existence, and I am sure the people of Upper Gullies are delighted with that.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just say and point out one serious concern that the area residents have in that area, that is the hydro facility. As anybody who lived in the area, or around the area, realize, we have a serious emission problem in Holyrood. We have had some small victories. The Seal Cove group now have a person on the committee that meets regularly, the Public Liaison Committee. We have an environmental committee in Holyrood now that is formed and, to their credit, they also have somebody on the Public Liaison Committee. We have had, like I said, some minor victories. We have won some very minor battles, but the war on emissions rages on, Mr. Chairman, and although I might not be the MHA, when this legislation passes, for that area, I can assure you that my support is there. I have always been an advocate for cleaner emissions of the hydro facility. I know our government, as a whole, are for cleaner emissions at the hydro facility. I know the minister, Minister Hedderson, who will now represent that area, also is a big believer in cleaner emissions at that facility. So, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that, although I may not represent that area, I will certainly be speaking out against emissions, and controlling emissions at the Holyrood facility. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Conception Bay South that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

The hon. the member, by leave.

MR. FRENCH: As well, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I will presenting a petition here in this House, during this session, with 5,000 signatures on it, for area residents who are concerned with the emissions at Holyrood. I can assure you, there are some real concerns there and something that we, as a government, have to continue to work with hydro and forward their concerns and reduce the emissions. Like I said, we have won some minor battles on the battlefield of emissions, but we really have to win the war and that is something we are willing to work toward, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just clue up - I realize my time is up - I am certainly looking forward to the new area that I will be picking up. I will be looking forward to it because I have lived in that area most of my life. I went to school in the area, owned a business in the area, so I am certainly looking forward to it. I guess most of them will see me on their doorstep between now and the time we have to go knocking doors again, but I am now going to pick up Long Pond, Manuels and Chamberlains and, of course, the Fowlers Road area as well, and we will weave out through Fowlers Road and come out through, I think there are ten or fourteen streets that we will cut and dissect but, believe you me, by election day I will certainly be able to give you the information where you need to go to vote, and how to get there, so have no worries. The boundary is a little tangly on that end, but we are going to be able to work with that and we are going to be able to assure people that they know where they have to go to vote.

Mr. Chairman, there are an awful lot of connections I have with the area. There are too many to get involved, but I certainly know a lot about the people on Chamberlains Road. I know an awful lot about the people who frequent the local establishment for the occasional Happy Hour. I have frequented there myself, on occasion, and, of course, the seniors facility at the end of the road, Worsley Park, is a beautiful facility where seniors are entertained on a regular basis.

As well, Mr. Chairman, I spent a great deal of my time at the ball field in Topsail, so I certainly know the area well. I know many of the issues well, from working with my colleague, Beth Marshall, as well, of course, as dealing with the Town of CBS on a regular basis.

Mr. Chairman, hopefully I will get a chance some time later in the day or tomorrow to talk about the very interesting immigration strategy that we announced yesterday evening from our Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I am sure Minister Skinner did a wonderful job yesterday in outlining a significant immigration strategy where we see some examples. We talk about rural Newfoundland and out-migration, and the importance of such a strategy. I just have to outline these four or five small items before I sit down.

Here is an example of how successful immigrants have come to this Province and have been success stories in rural Newfoundland. We have Rodrigues Winery in Markland. Wine is made there on a regular basis and marketed worldwide. We have Superior Gloves in Point Leamington. I had the opportunity to see that facility some time ago, and some people among their customers are Toyota, so a significant customer, and gloves made for this company right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Kodiak boot factory in Harbour Grace, they make shoes for the Canadian Military; and four mink farmers from Denmark, who are set up in Cavendish, Harcourt, Norris Arm and Deer Lake, hiring -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we graciously consented to him having a little time to clue up. I think we have extended that courtesy, and I would suggest to him now that it is time to clue up so we can move on. He will get more opportunities, if he wishes, but I would not abuse the privilege that we so graciously extended.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I thank the hon. member for that and I will clue up, but today everybody seemed like they were getting a lot of dust off their chests from the last number of months, and leave has been granted here for a little bit longer than normal. I thank the hon. member and I will sit down. I certainly will take part in the debate in the coming days.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It gives me pleasure today to speak with regard to Bill 71, but before I do I want to welcome the new members for Ferryland, Port au Port and Kilbride to their seats, and in particular to our colleague from Humber Valley, we are very proud to have him, and also welcome to the Speaker's gallery the newly elected member for Labrador West.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going into, as we say, the nuts and bolts of Bill 71. I think my colleague for Burgeo & LaPoile explained that to the chesterfield family very well a little earlier. Mr. Chairman, when you get up to speak on an issue, and I guess I will stray from it like some other members have, I cannot help but go back to the Member for Mount Pearl when he explained and discussed a vision of the Department of Education, and probably rightly so, and how we get immediate results since this government took over when it comes to education issues.

I want to say to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary that I am very pleased that the Eastern School District has recommended a new school for a community in my district, Coley's Point Primary, and also an extension to Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts. I call upon the Minister of Finance now, seeing he has another month to juggle the figures in his books, that probably they can give some immediate response to that issue as well.

I cannot help but reference the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he referenced the 40 per cent savings in insurance. I am sure after the House closes I will find out which company he is with because I would love to go with them.

Also, to reference forty-nine petitions that I received from small business owners in my area who are asking this government to eliminate the 15 per cent insurance premium tax. If we know places where we can go and save 40 per cent, I am sure those people would be only too glad to have that written off when this Budget comes.

Mr. Chairman, we hear members saying that members on the opposite are always doom and gloom and complaining and there is nothing any good done on that side. I have to say, I want to look at the record, I guess from a different perspective. I said it before and I will say it again, there has never been a government since 1949 that brings in a budget that does not bring in some good news for people in our Province. That is what it is all about, but at the same time we have to think back to the election of 2003. There is supposed to be a new vision, real leadership, and our goal is to grow our economy and provide new jobs for our people. If we are doing that, I have to say that a lot of them probably got more money in their pockets, which was the outlying reason for doing it, but they had to leave our fair Province to receive it. That is sad, Mr. Chairman. I wish the government well in revitalizing rural Newfoundland, but I have to say, just pavement and water and sewer does not cut it totally with the people in the outlying areas.

We talk about out-migration, Mr. Chairman. I remember prior to the election of 2003 when the by-election was held in Port de Grave district in 2001 and out-migration was the major issue. Eighteen or nineteen members of the Opposition at the time went door-to-door and said we have change this. We heard members speak about the out-migration a little while ago and they have to realize that it was a tremendous event that took place in our Province that caused a great percentage of the out-migration. It was called the moratorium. Here we are today, in 2007, with the economy turned around. We have money flowing out of our ears. We have announcements made each and every day, and each and every week, and lo and behold, the numbers are leaving this Province like, I say, never seen before. When have you ever seen 7,000 to 9,000 people lining up at a job bank trying to get a job out West? God love them! They have the courage and the determination to go away and try to find work. What really troubles me is not that those people - people always left Newfoundland to go away to work, but not in the numbers we are seeing today, and they are our young people. I have never seen it before since I have been involved in politics in the District of Port de Grave, in the community of Port de Grave, a major fishing community, where today there are as many as seventy-five people they are looking for to go to work on the boats. They have left and gone out West. So much for that, Mr. Chairman, but that is not the way of life they want.

Then we saw the Premier travel out West on business, and rightly so. He met with some of the people out there. He came back to our Province and he said: Do you know something? He said those people are willing to come back. Well, whoop-de-do, Mr. Premier! I have to say, they did not even want to go in the first place. They were forced to go because the opportunities were not here for them.

We talk about training people, and we have to train people because down the road many of our occupations that we have will not have trained people. It is not very hard to get them. If the jobs are provided here, I can tell you there are hundreds of them, thousands of them, who are ready to come back home at a minutes notice.

We talk about the road work and the water and sewer. I commend government, any government, who can continue doing that, but one of the things that bothers me, and I have to reference one situation which is joining my district to the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. Over the past two years funding was made available because that road is in terrible condition and the work started on the Trinity-Bay de Verde side. Not a problem. I commended the government in this House and in the media for the work that they were doing on that particular highway. I commended the officials when I met with your Deputy Minister, Mr. Clooney Mercer a little while ago, but then I heard only recently, there is $3 million - and God love the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde for getting $3 million, they need it as well as anyone else, but I cannot believe the work is not continuing on that piece of road that was started which connects our two districts. You can check back with the Department of Transportation and Works, top priority for me and in second place another year was that particular highway, even though there is probably only one to one-and-a-half or two kilometres involved in the Port de Grave district, the rest is in Trinity-Bay de Verde, but it is a crucial link to the two districts. People flow back and forth for business reasons, teaching school and what have you. I ask the minister, seriously, before this year is over, try to get another few dollars - I do not care, you can call it Trinity-Bay de Verde. You do not have to say it is going in Port de Grave district - to continue finishing that highway. It is in a terrible condition. What was started is a wonderful thing and we have to continue on and finish it.

The other thing we hear talk of is health care, and I know there are millions of dollars that have gone into health care. However, there are problems in our area. There are problems in our area when it comes to health care that have to be dealt with. We have many, many people out there who do not have a general practitioner to go to. They have to travel to St. John's to see a general practitioner. What is happening where there is a lack of doctors in that area, many of the people when they call the clinic - they either cannot get a doctor or they do not have a doctor to even call - you are advised to go to the emergency unit at Carbonear hospital. What happens is those people down there are overworked. They are overburdened with the responsibility because there are people coming there who really should not be going to the emergency unit. Everyone, regardless what your sickness is, when something happens it is always an emergency. They are told by the message managers: If you have an emergency, go to Carbonear hospital.

The other thing I want to touch on, Mr. Chairman, and I go back to this - the Minister of Education today was the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment at the time. When the offices closed - twenty offices closed around this Province. The one closed in Bay Roberts, in particular, and they moved the Income Support workers to Carbonear; not a problem, even though we did not want to lose our office, but those people moved to Carbonear and it was a short distance for the people to travel. That was fine. What happened after that? The Income Support people moved from that office and now it is all done through St. John's. If they want to make an application for Income Support, a drug card or what have you, they have to call up this toll-free number, speak to somebody they do not even know, make out their application, and have to wait until it is sent back for their signature and so on. That is all fine, that is working fairly well, but you have people who have individual concerns. They have paperwork to bring in and ask questions about, and there is nobody for them to go in and sit down and discuss it with. To save the dollars is one thing, but I believe that when you take away the services from the people that they were always used to, it says something else.

We go back to, we were talking about out-migration, and the numbers that came down recently in the census that was done. I guess in my area, in the Bay Roberts area, some of the communities, yes, did lose a few of their residents, but overall it was, I guess, fairly successful, very little movement at all, only some increase there. I guess it all stems from our close proximity to the St. John's area and the outlying areas. We get many services from in here. A lot of the people travel in here for work. When you look at rural Newfoundland and know that there are many people who have to move out, people who used to work in the fishing boats and in the plants, they are not there any more, I think it tells us a story.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are telling me that my time is up and I will just conclude on that. I am sure I will have an opportunity later on in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: 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'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have consider the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of Supply has reported that the Committee has made progress, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee sit again?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it being close to 5:30 p.m., I think we will, by agreement, take the supper break now. We are going to come back at 7:00 p.m., by agreement, and by agreement when we come back at 7:00 p.m. we are going to begin second reading debate on An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, this House is now in recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to agreement, I would like to move second reading of Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." (Bill 72)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it appears as if my colleagues supped well.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I am very pleased to introduce, this evening, Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

Mr. Speaker, most people would recognize this bill as a piece of legislation that will give legal effect to the Electoral Boundaries Commission report. The Minister of Justice tabled that report in the House this afternoon. It has been in the hands of members, I guess, for some months now. The government received the report back around Christmas time and then had the report released to the public through your office, Mr. Speaker, and consequently to members.

Members will recall that the commission was unanimous in its report. All members of the commission signed off on the report, despite the fact that I believe some members of the commission - at least one member of the commission - had indicated publicly that perhaps there should be another course of action followed by the government; but, at the end of the day, the commission report itself was a unanimous document.

Mr. Speaker, that is not to say that perhaps members on both sides of the House - certainly I cannot speak for members on the opposite side - but on this side of the House it is not to say that perhaps every member here likes what is in the commission report. Most of us are creatures of habit, Mr. Speaker, we do not like a lot of change. Politically, change can upset us. We have grown in our habits and in our ways of, in my case, representing communities from Norris Arm to Horwood in Lewisporte district, so that when some one or two or three or half a dozen new communities come into our districts then that is change. It is a change for us; it is a change for the communities that we represent. They have to get used to dealing with another individual, another person, and we, as members, have to get used to dealing with different councillors, different community organizations, different fire departments, different everything.

Mr. Speaker, in this day and age it is not unusual that communities are represented in this Legislature by more than one member. That is not an unusual occurrence, certainly, nationally and in other provinces, and it is becoming more and more a common occurrence in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Not that we like, as a government or as a Legislature, to have communities split. I think, for example, of the community of Pasadena on the West Coast, where, because of population numbers, the boundaries are such that the community, part of it will be in Humber Valley District, I believe, under redistribution, and part of it will remain in Humber East.

The Town of Spaniard's Bay, as a result of the recommendations made by the Commission, part of it will be in the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace and another part will be in the District of Port de Grave.

That has been happening for, I suppose, decades in the case of Mount Pearl. Mount Pearl, for example, has had more than one member, or been represented by more than one member in this Legislature, for quite some time. Topsail, Paradise, Conception Bay South, they are sort of medium to larger rural communities in the Newfoundland context. They are not the metropolitan centres of the Province - they are small, rural communities - but the population quota, the quotient that the Commission has to deal with, is set by legislation. The legislation, as the commission had in front of it, could only vary populations by, I believe, plus or minus 10 per cent. Therefore, the commission was bound by the rules that this House, that this Legislature, in its wisdom, some ten years or fifteen or twenty years ago, deemed to be the appropriate rules for arriving at a reasonable representation.

Mr. Speaker, there is always a bias in the numbers towards rural populations. That has been an accepted practice in our legislation ever since we have had an electoral boundaries redistribution commission. That has been an accepted practice in other legislative jurisdictions across Canada, in other democracies around the globe, certainly nationally. The Supreme Court of Canada has even ruled, in a case out of Saskatchewan, that it is appropriate to vary your balance quotients by as much as 25 per cent.

What our commission, the Electoral Boundaries Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, had to work with was a legislative regime that varied the population requirements by plus or minus 10 per cent. Therefore, once you make your first move, when the first move is made on a map, then that move starts to back up - some people might say ‘backupable' - it starts to back itself up, and if you do not be true -

MR. REID: It is now in the lexicon of Newfoundland and Labrador English, by the way.

MR. RIDEOUT: It should be, Mr. Speaker, because it was in the lexicon of Fleur de Lys English back when I was that high.

Anyway, the point I am making, Mr. Speaker, jocularly, is this: Once you make the first mark on the map, then everything else starts to back up from there. Once you do that you cannot start saying, well, we are going to leave Pasadena untouched. If you do, if it stays in Humber East, from the plus or minus 10 per cent rule, Humber East goes out of whack; or, if you leave it all in Humber Valley, from the plus or minus 10 per cent rule, Humber Valley goes out of whack. If you are talking about Spaniard's Bay, and you leave it all in one district rather than split, then the district that you leave it in goes above the plus or minus 10 per cent rule, and on and on it goes.

As a result of this redistribution, in my case, I pick up the community of Sandy Point from Exploits district. I pick up Rodgers Cove, Victoria Cove, and that is it, I believe, from the District of Bonavista North.

It is not a big deal as far as my district is concerned, and it is not a big deal as far as a lot of districts are concerned, but there are some districts, no question about it, where there are significant - and consequential to the lives of the people and to how they deal with their members and how they interface with government and so on - significant consequential arrangements as a result of this.

I think what we have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, as legislators, is this: The Commission has a legislative mandate, and they operated within that legislative mandate. They did a job according to the criteria set out in the mandate. They have followed that. They have made a report to the government, and through the government to the Legislature, that was unanimously signed off on by all members of the commission, members of the commission who were independent, certainly chaired by a retired judge, members who were nominated to the commission by political parties.

Now, I am not walking away, nor is the government walking away from any government responsibility here. It can be argued that we could change this. Yes, we could. The government has a majority in the House and if we wanted to tinker with this we could do it. There is no question about that. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not a government that is going to be accused of gerrymandering or tommymandering or daveymandering or dannymandering. The report is the report, and we believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the overall balance the report can stand on its own merits. While it is not perfect, as no report is perfect, it is a reasonably good job given the legislative framework within which the commission had to work.

The other thing that could be said, Mr. Speaker, is that the government could have said: Well, we won't do an Electoral Boundaries Commission report now, or if they do we will just shelve it and wait. We will run the coming election in October on present boundaries. Mr. Speaker, if one were to attempt to defend that position what you would be defending is this: You would be defending a set of electoral boundaries that is based on population figures that are fifteen and sixteen years old. If you ran the next election coming on that, Mr. Speaker, before you got around to setting up another commission and changing boundaries again you will have had a Legislature, a House of Assembly, that was based on population figures closer to twenty years old. That is not the essence of a parliamentary democracy.

The commission that is reported, and whose recommendations are embodied in this bill, had the latest numbers that were available to it. Therefore, we have recommendations from the commission that are based on, I believe, four years information. Therefore, by doing those boundary changes now as recommended by the commission, there will be a progression - I guess, is probably the best way I can put it - from the changes that are embodied in this act and from what will come out of the next boundaries commission when that is appointed. If we were to put it off, if we were to stretch it out, if we were to put it out there for another ten years - keeping in mind that boundary commissions are appointed only once every ten years by law - if we were to do that, then, Mr. Speaker, the boundaries, in reality, of political districts in this Province would have very little, if any, resemblance to the reality of the geography and the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On balance, Mr. Speaker, while there are certainly aspects of the commission report that are more difficult for some, it is an all-party commission, it is a commission that looked at all of the evidence that had a Statutory regime in which it had to operate and that made a report that is unanimous; not a perfect report, but a report that goes a ways towards evening out and reflecting the population distribution of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not perfect, as I say, but certainly a step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to tinker with the report. It is the report of an independent, by and large - well, it is arm's-length and an independent commission. Some of the people on it were are not independent, perhaps, political thinkers because they represent political parties, but it is an independent arm's-length commission that has nothing to do with the government, that was struck by Statute of this House and is reporting through the government to this House. The government is accepting the unanimous recommendations of that commission, and the government, in this legislation, is proposing that the recommendations of the commission be implemented, be made into law and become the basis for the election that will take place on October 9, 2007. Why now, Mr. Speaker? We want to do this now, in this present sitting of the House, because there are a number of things that need to be done. We now have fixed elections. We now know when the next election is going to be. The next election is not a gleam in the e'e of a Premier anymore. The next election is set out in stone and everybody knows when it is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: A great reform, Mr. Speaker, brought to this Province by the present Premier of this Province. That is the way it is. We need to have the Electoral Boundaries office proceed with drawing up all those new maps. We need to have that happen. We need to have the Chief Electoral Office do enumeration, for example. The government, through recommendations from the IEC, have agreed to fund an enumeration. There has not been an appropriate, proper re-numeration done in this Province - I do not know when, fifteen or twenty years ago maybe, but certainly a long, long time ago. That enumeration, if we are going to spend a couple of million dollars to do it, ought to be done on the boundaries that are current and that are going to be there for the next number of elections.

All of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, but the most important reason - for all of these reasons, including the most important reason, and that is that this report is a unanimous report by an arm's-length, independent commission appointed by this House - I think, behooves us to do anything else, other than to accept the recommendations of the commission and to make them law and to have the boundaries reflect them.

Again, I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that it is not perfect for every citizen in the Province. Change never is perfect for every citizen who is affected by it. It is not perfect for us, as individuals, but we will all learn, Mr. Speaker. I have been through a number of redistributions in my time here, and we will all learn to live with the consequence of what this redistribution is. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will accept it, I believe, because it is unanimous, it is the right thing to do based on the numbers that were available to the commission. It was the right thing to do. The commission had no choice but do it, based on the statuary regime under which they operated, and the government, I believe, is doing the right thing by bringing this report in the form of legislation to the House of Assembly for its implementation without government tinkering, dinkering, or changing.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 72. Second reading, of course, is an opportunity for members here in the House of Assembly to say what they think, generally speaking, of the principles of a particular bill as opposed to getting into the specifics. I would think, however, there will not be much discussion when it comes to committee stage in this particular case. The bill itself is pretty short and sweet. I have seventy-eight pages of it, of which two pages, the front and the back, basically say what it is and when it is going to be proclaimed. The other seventy-six pages outline the geographic surveying descriptions of forty-eight districts.

There are not too many particulars, unless one is a surveyor, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his former capacity, who might want to take some issue with some of the surveying measurements and so on. Other than that, I think it is pretty straightforward what we are here to talk about, the principle. I do not know what any other particular member on this side is going to say in terms of speaking for or against it. Everybody, of course, on this side of the House, at least, are free to say what they think. They do not get told what to think. We think what we like over here. It is called independence of thought process. That is the true democratic process. I cannot say I know the same for the other side but, in any case, I agree with the Government House Leader, that this bill should have been brought forward. I agree that you should not have taken the Electoral Boundaries Commission report, sat on it or put it on the shelf. I agree, personally. I think that is a great thing. I think we need to do that.

Now, some might question the need of it at this particular time, as the minister alluded to, going into an election six months out and never had an enumeration done. Even 2001, are the figures accurate? If one considers what out-migration figures we got smacked in the head with by Census Canada, even last year, one would appreciate that out-migration has had a great impact, even since 2001. So, whether it was practical and necessary, I guess you can cut that either side you want to, but that is to each and his own. It is done every ten years. Even the fact that we only do it every ten years, the way populations are changing so quickly - for a whole bunch of reasons populations are changing; people are moving from rural to urban, or some people decide to go from Newfoundland to the mainland or back, or whatever. There are all kinds of reasons, and one can question whether ten years is the good guide to use, or should we do it every five years?

We had some problems, initially, getting this thing off the ground anyway. When I was Minister of Justice back in 2003, in the spring, the former Minister of Justice will recall, we had struck the Electoral Boundaries Commission to do the review, as is required by law in ten years. Of course, we had the election in October of 2003, so by that time things were off the rails, the committee hadn't met, they never had time to meet and get their report back under the guidelines of the legislation, so the former Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Finance, had to start the process all over again. We went through it, got the committee back on track again, then went off and did the report, and we have a unanimous report.

Now, the people of the Province should understand, I believe, that the committee is headed up by a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland; no hanky-panky with who these persons are in terms of political favoritism or whatever. It is headed up by a Justice of the Supreme Court, a retired Justice normally. We also have, of course, politicians involved or political people involved. Each party in the Province, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP, each had a nominee on the process. That is not because they were particular, necessarily, of a political stripe, it was based upon the fact that they had knowledge of the electoral system, the legislative system, and they could bring this wealth of experience they had to the process. In the case of the Liberal Party, former Premier Grimes sat on the commission. In the case of the PC Party, I understand it was a former MHA and Minister of the Crown who sat on the committee. The NDP had Mr. Cle Newhook, I believe, who was a former long-standing member of the NDP. We certainly had a fair group making up the committee, and the report was unanimous.

There have been some questions about the variance thing. The minister referred to the variance, 10 per cent plus or minus either way. You can ask some questions. Was that a fair variance, 10 per cent? I understand, for example, that the Minister of Finance indicated to a certain group that he thought, maybe, plus or minus 25 per cent might have been fairer. That is my understanding. It makes one wonder, then, is he going to vote for or against this thing. If he thought a 25 per cent variance might have been better, where does he stand on the thing? We have a report here based on a 10 per cent variance. Those are legitimate questions, and that is something, I am sure, he will discuss with the constituents of his area and take direction from them accordingly. That is his job as an MHA, not as a minister, as an MHA, to take the wishes of his constituents into consideration. I am sure he will do that and speak in due course about it. Again, where do you set the guidelines; 10 per cent, 25 per cent, 15 per cent? You have to start somewhere.

Personally, I am a winner all way around as an MHA for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. This document, for myself as the MHA for Burgeo & LaPoile, gives me an additional two communities, I am pleased to say, the community of Ramea and the community of Grey River. I am more than pleased and happy to say that those two communities are joining the historic District of Burgeo & LaPoile. Not the first time, I would add, not the first time. Ramea was a part of Burgeo & LaPoile years ago, back in the early 1990s. In a former electoral boundaries thing Ramea got taken out and put back into the South Coast district belonging to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune now, so it is not the first time that we have all been together.

In the case of those communities of Grey River and Ramea, it makes good sense to be a part of Burgeo & LaPoile. Anybody who is not familiar with it, in other parts of the Province, my district runs from the community of Cape Ray, which is up on the bottom of the West Coast, below the Codroy Valley, down to the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques and then down the South Coast to Burgeo. In order for me to get to Burgeo, I have to travel 150 kilometres up the Trans-Canada and 150 kilometres down the Burgeo Highway to get to Burgeo. The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, meanwhile, has to go through my district to get to Ramea.

Besides the geography of it - and Burgeo & LaPoile is a tough geographical issue in any case, because I have communities that I have to get to by boat and you cannot get there all of the time. For example, trying to meet the ferry schedule to do Grand Bruit and LaPoile all in one day gets tough sometimes if you are trying to visit all of the communities. You just do not get there as often as you would like.

I am sure I am going to encounter the same problems when it comes to Grey River, sometimes, and Ramea, but that is only a physical presence, of course. If an MHA is on the ball and on the job there are other ways to communicate with your constituents, lots of ways nowadays, in this modern age with high-speed computers, technology, telephones and fax machines. There is no need for one to be out of touch and not in touch with your people, none whatsoever.

The other practical reason why Grey River and Ramea should be in Burgeo & LaPoile is because we have a lot of commonality in, for example, the health care system. The health care system that looks after Port aux Basques, Cape Ray, Grand Bruit, LaPoile and Burgeo is also the same health board that services Ramea and Grey River, so it makes good sense.

If I go now to speak out about health care concerning Burgeo or whatever, you have the same common threads, interests and concerns, no matter where you are, and you all deal with the one board. You do not have to be dealing with two or three boards.

The same thing with the school board. The school board that runs from the Northern Peninsula and takes in Corner Brook, Deer Lake, the South Coast, now takes in Ramea, and will take in Ramea and Grey River. They do not have to go and deal with the Central school board of Newfoundland, so there is that interest that is in common. You go to one MHA, you can get it all. Now the people in Burgeo do not have to go to one and the people in Ramea go to another. The one MHA will go to the one board on their behalf.

There is also the issue of ferry service. I have a ferry, of course, in another part of my district, in LaPoile and Grand Bruit, which normally goes into Rose Blanche, Diamond Cove, as I outlined today to the Minister of Transportation and Works when I talked about the porta-potties and the need for them. Not the porta-potties, the restroom and washroom facilities, I should say, because the next thing he will be saying is that we were satisfied with porta-potties again, and nothing is further from the truth.

In any case, we have a ferry service that services LaPoile and Grand Bruit, and the people of Grand Bruit have the luxury of going either way. One day of the week they can go from Grand Bruit to Burgeo. Other days they can go from Grand Bruit up to Rose Blanche. So they can go either way, but typically the people in LaPoile go just the one way. They usually go, and can only go, the one way to Rose Blanche.

In Grey River, Ramea and Burgeo, the Gallipoli services those three communities. I was concerned about Ramea before - or, excuse me, Burgeo before was the only town that was in my district. The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune had to deal with the concerns of the residents of Ramea and Grey River, even though we were dealing with one boat, the Gallipoli. Now it is all going to be under the one roof and it will, I think, make it easier to deal with in terms of having the concerns on the ferry service all in the one place.

I am pleased to say, as well, that I did not wait until tonight to spring it upon the people of Ramea or the people of Grey River that this was coming. Actually, the first time I visited to let them know was last fall. I went down and visited, with the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and said: I suspect this is what is coming. I don't know, but I suspect this is what is coming. The current member introduced me to the Town Council in Ramea, the fire department, the chief, the economic development people and so on in the community, the leadership of the community, in anticipation that if this happened then at least they would not be talking to a stranger. They would know who the member was from the adjoining district of which now they were going to become a part.

Since, of course, January, when the government acknowledged publicly that the report was in and they would be accepting it here in the House, basically once the government who has the numbers in the House of Assembly in terms of voting makes that comment, it is pretty clear that it is a fait accompli. We are going to have the electoral boundaries piece as recommended. It would be foolishness to disregard that. That is a reality we live with. That is called democracy, too, numbers. As the lady in the U.S. Senate said last night to one of the disgruntled persons: There has been an election, things change, live with it. That is what happens here. That is reality. We have reality.

Given that reality, I went back to Ramea again. Before I went, I put in every mailbox in Ramea and Grey River a letter so that every resident, again, would know who the member was next door currently and intends to be in the future, I might add; how to get in touch with me; the fact that we are open and accessible; whatever issues you have, bring them on and we will deal with them; introduced them to my staff, phone numbers and contact information. I put that in every mailbox in Grey River and Ramea because they need to know. We do not need to spring these changes upon people, so that all of a sudden there is an election on and this fellow K.P. shows up, or whatever, knocking on your door and you have never seen him, especially if he knew for a year this was going to happen. I think it is the responsible thing to do, let people know who you are, what you are about, how you work, what your work ethic is and how to contact you. That was the first thing I did, was circulate a letter to every household.

Then I went back to Ramea and, again, did a clinic, which I do fairly often in my district because I believe in the sit down face-to-face discussions with people. A lot of people call, they get your staff and they have an issue. It might be just looking for a piece of information and they are satisfied to relay their concern, make their request, then you get the information and you take it back to them.

I have a tradition in my district since being elected in 1999, I do clinics. A lot of these communities have their little broadcasting systems. I put a note on the broadcasting system saying: Your member is going to be in town on such-and-such a day, call this toll-free number or set up an appointment. Do you know what? It works. It works because it gives the constituents the face-to-face that they need in a lot of issues. I don't ever want it to be said that they called their member and they never got a phone call returned. Unacceptable. I don't ever want it said that they wanted to talk to me and I was not accessible, ever; not on, never been on and will not be on. I say that on the public cameras tonight. No one has ever made a phone call to this member that has never been returned. Never! I do not intend to change it.

That is the purpose of the clinics. People sometimes - and you all know here in this House for sure as members, you all know here that we deal with everything. We deal with every kind of issue. Sometimes you have to be lawyer, sometimes you have to be a politician, sometimes you have to be a doctor or a psychologist, a psychiatrist and social worker. It depends on the issue that walks over your doorstep, because you have to do your best for the people, no matter what it is. You cannot hold yourselves out to be experts in any of those fields, obviously, but sometimes you feel like that. If you cannot do it, you have to make sure that you give them the advice to put them in the right direction that they need. That is the purpose of doing the clinics.

I have done a clinic in Ramea. I am not going to be the member until October 9, but I have done a clinic already, with, of course, the co-operation of my good friend and colleague, the current member. He appreciates, as well, that there has to be that transition from where we are to where we are going. That is why that was done that way.

I also met with the town leadership again, to figure out their issues. What is the fire department doing? Do you have any applications in the system with the provincial government, in terms of the Fire Commissioner's Office or the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Is there anything I need to be up on and can make any inquiries for on your behalf? Where do you stand with your municipal applications, in terms of Capital Works applications and so on? We have done that. I think that is what every member of this House needs to do, if you are going to do justice to any new communities coming into your district, because you have to let the people know. Do not pop in, in September, and say: I am here. Do not take the people for granted. We have to be very careful of that. That is not the honourable thing to do.

I am very pleased to say that the reception was good, fantastic in fact, not, of course, because they had very few issues. They were very well looked after, I might add, by the current member, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. He has been there for quite some years and he has done very well for those communities of Grey River and Ramea as their member, and has delivered a lot of infrastructure to their communities, and been there to stand with them as and when they needed him. I am hoping to continue that tradition of service, because that is what it is all about. It is about service to the people.

The other reason, of course, for having this done at an early time - and I think the government was wise in putting out where they stood on this back in January - is because of the impact it has on other agencies, such as the Chief Electoral Office. Mr. Furey, who is the Chief Electoral Officer for this Province right now, has a massive job on his hands. As I say, we only have one bill here and it has seventy-eight pages to it. All of this now has to be taken from this bill and put on the ground, in terms of plotting it out, what communities are in what districts, what does he need to do as a Chief Electoral Officer to get prepared for this, for the vote in October. People in the Province have already heard, I guess, that he is going to do an enumeration in May to try to get a more up-to-date list of who the voters would be. All that has to be done, analyzed, put together, packaged, sent to the people in question. It is certainly going to be needed by MHAs when the election comes. That is not rocket science. They would like to have a list of who their voters are going to be. I think it is practical to have done it early on. Some people say: What are we here wasting time talking about this for because it is a rubber stamp job? Well, rubber stamp or not, people have to understand why it is being done.

Now, talking about the Chief Electoral Officer, of course, there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done in preparation for October. We have not seen anything today, but I am understanding that when we come back here later in April we are going to have some more legislation concerning the elections about certain things. For example, an amendment regarding who can swear whom in where. I am hoping that is going to be there because right now, folks, believe it or not, there is a little bit of discrimination that goes on, depending on where you live, about who can get sworn in and where. If you live, for example, in the St. John's-Mount Pearl-Avalon area and you have somebody you wanted to get sworn in, you can march off over to the street up here where the Chief Electoral Officer is, 33 Peet Street or wherever, walk in, take the person with you and get sworn in, signed in right away. I cannot do that. I cannot bring a fellow from LaPoile or a fellow from Port aux Basques all the way in here to Peet Street to get sworn in. I think that is unfair. I think it is deliberately - not deliberately, but I think it is very unfair. You talk about democracy, we should all have access to the same rules and privileges as well. Apparently there is going to be something brought forward in this House to correct that before the next election.

That is like special ballots, we have a special ballot system. There was all kinds of racket about it the last time; was it fair or unfair; people saying politicians had their fingers in it and should not be touching it and so on. Apparently there are going to be some amendments brought forward - I certainly hope so - concerning the special ballot saying what the process is going to be, because we need it. We are all in the system, whether you are a Conservative or a Liberal or an NDP, but more importantly, if you are a constituent, a resident of this Province, you are entitled to have a system that works; that is practical and works.

To give you an example: In the recent by-elections you usually had twenty-one days in most of them. The way the special ballots were working, you had to make an application for it. For example, the person in Humber Valley, where the Liberal candidate, Mr. Ball, of course, was successful - if someone in Trout River wanted to get a special ballot for brother John who was out in Alberta but he is a resident, of course, of Humber Valley, he had to make an application. First of all, a writ gets dropped, and that is when the time started, the clock started ticking. Twenty-one days! Twenty-one days! Now Mr. Ball has already been told - since 2003 it wasn't appropriate for an MHA to be getting involved in that stuff anymore - you shouldn't touch that, it might be political.

Poor old John out in Alberta, the first thing he has to do is make an application to the Chief Electoral Office to get the application to get to be a special voter. Now, he can call in and ask for it and they ship it to him out on Alberta. When I say ship, by the way, you are not allowed to sent it by courier, because that is an expense the Chief Electoral Officer apparently wouldn't take. You send it regular mail, or if John, who works in the camp, the seismic camp out in Fort John or wherever, is lucky enough to have a fax machine or a computer with a printer he can download it off the line. That is fine. But not too many people, I am aware of, who live in the camps in Northern Alberta have fax machines and computers sitting in their bunkhouses. So, it is a practical problem even getting the application.

Anyway, you are on day one and you make you request even on day one. You don't get your application until four or five days out, by the time the Chief Electoral Officer gets your request, puts it in an envelope, pops it in the mail and our ever efficient Canada Post delivers it to you out in Northern Alberta by ground mail. You are four or five days in. Then he fills it out and sends the application back; another four or five days. It arrives back here on Peet Street and someone in Mr. Furey's office says, okay, that is John out in Alberta. He now has his application, okay. Assuming everything is right now - he better not have left anything out of that application, because if he missed anything or screwed it up at all, you know where we are back to; square one again. Assuming it is all correct, Mr. Furey then pops the documents, we will call them, the vote and the envelope that the vote goes he, he put all of that in a package and sends it back to Alberta. Now, we already have four or five days gone. He has to pop that back again to Alberta, another four or five days to get it back to Alberta.

John has to take it then and understand it. By the way, it can be complicated for the person who does not understand it. I saw a few of them the last time around, in 2003. There are a lot of persons - no disrespect - I am telling you, when they get that package, they do not know what they have to sign, and they certainly do not know how you have to put it back together to be legit. Because, if it is not exactly perfect, that you mark the ballot inside in a certain way, you put it in an envelope, seal it in a certain way, you have to sign that envelope again in a certain way, it is no good, it is gone.

Anyway, just the timelines I have gone through, application out, application back, we have ten days gone. Voting procedure back, then you have to get it back, so five days out, we have fifteen days gone. John has to put it in the mail and get it back again, that is twenty days, but there is a problem. There is a problem. The election was only twenty-one days. Under the law he had to have it back three days before voting day. Duh! So, what does he do? John went through all of that trouble and he ends up with a vote sitting down there and Mr. Furey says: Sorry, buddy, you are late by two days.

That has to be fixed. That is not fair to people, and I will tell you why it is not fair for this Province, again. You talk about democracy, and the Government House Leader talked about democracy and doing the right thing. We have to do the right thing for that, too, because I will give you a few examples.

I have 300 people in the Town of Burgeo who go away to work, and those 300 people pay taxes here. They decided not to uproot and move to Alberta. They live here, kept their families here, and pay taxes here. I believe one of the fundamental rights, if you reside here, pay your taxes and live here, is the fundamental right to vote, and right now our voting system is such that you do not have that right automatically. You do not have it. That is why we need, and I look forward to the other amendments that are really going to give some democratic principles to us as a Province. I look forward to and challenge the government to bring those things forward.

It is simple enough to do, just get rid of the rule that says special ballots are only in place from the time the writ is dropped. Back it up. We know we have a fixed election date of October 9. So what if they drop the writ on the first or second or third of September, or the first of August for that matter? Pick a date, now that you know the fixed election of October 9, and say what is a reasonable period of time for special ballots. August 1. Let it be done. It gives everybody lots of time. It does not change the rules of the game for politicians who want to go out and try to get special ballots. I am sure the person who is going to run against me in Burgeo & LaPoile has the same advantage that I have if we are playing by the same timelines. That is a matter of organization. That is a political issue. I am talking here about a rights issue, a right to vote. That needs to be done, and I look forward to it. As I say, I challenge the government to really make it truly democratic and let these people vote.

I only gave one example, of Burgeo. I am sure there are members here - I doubt if the Member for Mount Pearl, for example, has to worry too much about people gone away to work. There may be a few who work out of town or whatever, but I am just referring to my own. I know in Ramea, for example, 200 people could be gone at any given time; Burgeo, 300. Rose Blanche, for example - you talk about how resourceful Newfoundlanders are - the plant closed in Rose Blanche a number of years ago. Right now in Rose Blanche, at any given time, I could have forty or fifty of the women who are residents of Rose Blanche over in Nova Scotia because they do home care. Do they get denied the right to vote simply because they went away to work? Definitely not.

That is why it is so important, because if we start taking away the right to vote then these people really have no reason to stay here, then - do they? - if we start getting to that point where you are taking away their democratic rights? One of the members over there - I understand he is a minister of the Crown now - sure, I understand that he put some word out there a little while ago saying that if you did not vote you should be charged, I do believe, one of the ministers, Human Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Australian model.

MR. PARSONS: The Australian model he called it, yes, no doubt. The Australians can keep their model if they want. When you start telling people here in the Province that if you do not vote then you are going to be charged, that is all bad enough. Here I am advocating that we, as a Province, let people have a vote, and this man is out threatening them. Then, again, that is another story, because this Administration has been known to use a little bit of coercion from time to time. The hobnailed boots approach, the Government House Leader used to say years ago when he was talking about other stuff: Don't think you are going to use any of them hobnailed boots on us.

Anyway, this is not hobnailed boots. We are just asking, folks, for the right to vote, and we are here tonight, of course, to decide what district you are going to vote in. We are getting clarity on this now. We got it a few months in advance; the Chief Electoral Officer has some time to get his enumeration done.

The other thing is, too, I think, that members here should pay respect to those areas that they are no longer going to represent. I am a fortunate one; I am getting new constituents, thank you very much. I am welcoming them. I cannot wait to represent them. I cannot wait, but there are some people - like, I am sure, before we end this debate, that the current member for Ramea and Grey River is going to say thank you to the folks of Ramea and Grey River for allowing him the privilege to have represented them for all of those years, and so he should. So he should.

I have to say, though, the only thing that did not happen - and you talk about personal choice, of course. It is not about personal choices, but there was some talk that the Codroy Valley might be put into the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. Now the Codroy Valley, of course, falls currently within the District of Stephenville East, represented by the Minister of Education. That is just a personal thing, because I happen to also live in the Codroy Valley, in the summertime, and have for the last eighteen to twenty years. I understand there was a movement afoot in the Codroy Valley that they wanted to join Burgeo & LaPoile, but the committee did not see fit. Maybe the next time around, in ten years time, I say to the people of the Codroy Valley, maybe we will get our wish. Maybe we will get our wish and the good people - because we always classify the area, everybody talks about that area, as South Branch to Rose Blanche. That is the connection, South Branch to Rose Blanche. Whatever is north to South Branch is generally associated with Stephenville, and whatever is south of South Branch has always been associated with the Port aux Basques area.

A lot of people were thinking that might happen. It did not happen this time. As I say, I will be here in ten years time. I will still be around in ten years time. I am young enough for that, despite the grey hair. I am still only a young gaffer yet, and I intend to be here as the Government House Leader introducing the next Electoral Boundaries Commission, and we will make sure then that we have the Codroy Valley included in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this is a serious issue because we are dealing with boundary lines and so on, but the people know now and will have a better idea of where they are going to be come October. There are no surprises. I encourage each and every MHA here to familiarize yourself with your new area, to say thank you to the areas that you may be losing as a result of this redrawing. Let's get on with it. I, personally, will be voting for it. I think you need to do it every ten years. We can quibble if we want about plus or minus 10 per cent variation, or plus or minus 25 per cent, whether we do it every five years or ten years, but it is done. I say, let's get on with it, let's live with what we have, and I look forward to getting on with the election in October based upon these new boundaries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has always had change. Change is a good thing. Since Confederation, 1949, we have seen a lot of changes. In Central Newfoundland, particularly in 1972, Grand Falls District represented Grand Falls and Windsor. In 1975 it became two districts, the District of Grands Falls and the District of Windsor-Buchans, at the time. We have had two members in the House of Assembly since 1975 and it has worked very well.

We have also seen, throughout the district, even federally, we were represented by one MP in the 1970s and 1980s with the riding being Grand-Falls-White Bay-Labrador. Today we have two ridings with Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and on the other side of the district, my district particularly, we have Grand Falls-Windsor-Gander-Bonavista. We are used to having a lot of changes in the political scene in Central Newfoundland.

Back in the early days, in 1996, when the boundary changes came again, it became the District of Grand Falls-Buchans and the District of Windsor-Springdale. Before that, in 1987, I decided to run for the PC Party in a by-election in the District of Windsor-Buchans, at the time, and of course I did not win. In 1989 I ran again, and I was making inroads. Then in 1993 I ran again and I made great inroads. Like our Government House Leader said, we get used to our districts and used to the people we want to represent and it is hard to change.

When you are in the middle of trying to make a political career and you are starting to make inroads and all of a sudden the district changes and now you have a completely different district - but in my case, in 1999 when I did run I was successful in winning the District of Windsor-Springdale. You do not like to represent a district for so long and then have to give it up. I attended the committee meeting in Grand Falls-Windsor and I let my view be known that I was very comfortable in representing the District of Windsor-Springdale. Windsor-Springdale, of course, is a very diversified district from fishing, farming, mining, forestry, to heavy industrial, paper making and all types of service sector businesses.

When the change comes it is a bit hard to accept it at first, but we all know the old saying, the times they are a-changin, and we have to keep up with the change. The district changes are not bad in all cases. Even though I thank the people of Springdale for giving me good support in the last two elections and I really enjoyed representing the people of Springdale and Sheppardville, it is hard to let go, but then you have to look at the other part of it. You are going to be taking on new voters, new people to represent, new areas in your district, and that becomes another challenge. You have to made inroads again in new parts of the district, and we all have to do that from time to time. We do that when we first start out in politics. Things change; members change. We just had four new members on this side and another member on that side; who I welcome to the House of Assembly and congratulate them. It is a very honourable career and I am sure they are going to enjoy representing the people in their districts, and some will have changes in their districts even starting off now in their career.

My district is bound by Grand Falls-Buchans, Humber Valley, Exploits District and Baie Verte District. So, I am in the center of a lot of districts. From time to time people move and you can see the movement of the people of the Province. They are moving from the smaller communities to the bigger communities. I have seen it a lot in the Springdale area; people move from some of the smaller communities on the Baie Verte side and, of course, on the King's Point side and that area. They move into Springdale to get service to the hospitals, shopping centers and all kinds of amenities that people want now these days, especially with the aging population.

We see Grand Falls-Windsor growing immensely in the last couple of years; the population has grown a lot. In that case, it gave me an opportunity to take in a bigger part of Grand Falls-Windsor that I am sure I will enjoy representing, but also losing the part of my district that is also a growing area. Springdale has been very successful in the last couple of years. We have been growing in businesses; the number of businesses is growing. The population is starting to come back. There are some very successful businesses out there. Even in the Green Bay South part of my district, we see that people are moving.

We are seeing changes in the way they make a living. Once it was all forestry or fishing. Now we have heavy industrial businesses right in rural Newfoundland, right in the community of Triton where we just had a business start up that is now making aluminum drill rigs that are portable by way of helicopter that could save mining companies millions and millions of dollars. Now, this guy started out in his backyard and he made one rig. Today he cannot make the rigs fast enough. He is getting orders from different parts of the world. One potential customer in China wants twenty rigs, and we are talking $350,000 per rig. He is creating jobs in rural Newfoundland, in Triton, because people want to move. He moved into Triton to start his business, hiring people and paying wages comparable to wages of trades people in Alberta, even in Fort McMurray. His welders are making pretty close to the same wages as welders are making in Fort McMurray and that is a good success story for rural Newfoundland. They have other types of trained people on staff to make this invention that he came up with himself. I am very proud of this company right in Triton. In Springdale we have different companies, companies that invented the aluminum catamaran; first class.

We see all these types of things happening, and it is because the people do not mind change, they do not mind changing from one type of boat to another type of boat, one type of drill to another type of drill. Because you see, times are a-changin. When we have times that are a-changin, we have to accept the fact that political structures change, governments change. Even the Opposition House Leader alluded to some change a minute ago.

I remember the four and a half years that I spent in opposition, when we were pounding the government on this side day after day after day, and the Member for St. Barbe of the day, shouted across: That is okay boys, you are going to get your turn. You are going to be on this side some day, and it happens. Things cycle, things change, governments change, members change, members retire, we get new members, new young people coming into our party, which is a great thing. I think we have a great future with some of our young MHA's here, and you know, we have to be proud of that. I am certainly proud of that, and I am sure the Premier and the Cabinet are proud of the diversified members we have on this side.

It is important that we recognize this, it is important that we accept the change, that we accept the boundary changes. I get many calls, now in the last couple of weeks, saying: Am I going to be in your district or not going to be in your district? Where is your district? We are putting forward the plan and the boundary coordinates and maps, and that is going to show clearly where our district lie. Grand Falls-Windsor is pretty lucky, I think. Some people say we should have one member, but when you have a community of 15,000 and 16,000 people, it is a little hard to represent that number of people, when the law says that you have 10,000 plus or minus 10 per cent.

We are lucky to have two members in the town of Grand Falls area, and I congratulate the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans for the great service that she has given to the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, a very good constituency member, very good to work with in the past eight years that I have been elected here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I have to say, we work well together and she will be greatly missed in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. I would like to say congratulations to you for your service.

Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition House Leader was saying about the right to vote, it does not matter what district you are in, if you have the right to vote, then you should vote and you should support your member. It does not matter what side your member sits on, he is out there to represent the people in his district, or her district. It is very important that people recognize the commitment that MHAs make, especially in rural Newfoundland where we have such a vast area to cover.

Some of our rural members, I am sure, as I do, spend a lot of time on the road. I am on my third new vehicle now in eight years. It is a bit challenging to represent rural districts, especially in wintertime. I know some of our members, and some of the members opposite, their districts are such a vast spread out area that it is very difficult to service those districts. Even with the changes now, we are finding that it is going to make it a little easier for one member and a little harder for another.

In my case, I guess it will be a little easier for me now to represent a bigger part of Grand Falls-Windsor and a lesser rural area, but that is a challenge in itself. It is a challenge when you are trying to put forward the needs of half a town, so you really have to support and work for the whole town. You have to work with the town council of that town in Grand Falls-Windsor that has challenges of its own right now.

We are dealing with some great challenges with Abitibi Consolidated. They are looking for tax breaks and whatever to help make the company more viable to stay in Grand Falls-Windsor. Of course, I do not know, personally, that a multi-billion company should be looking for a couple of hundred thousand dollars of a community that they have billions of dollars worth of assets in. In my personal view, I think they should be a better corporate citizen and be only too glad to pay their fair share of grants or taxes to the towns in the area. That is another issue. That is another debate, I guess, locally.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the people of Green Bay, too, that even though there will be great changes coming, I am sure that this government is going to work hard and do the best it can for all of the people of this Province, no matter if there is a government member sitting in that district or an Opposition member. We have seen in the past that government has done good things in Opposition's districts, even though it is very difficult trying to find enough money to do all the necessary infrastructure projects that we need done.

I, myself, have benefitted greatly in the past three-and-a-half years in my district. I have seen a lot of road work, a lot of infrastructure work. I am just proud to say that we have moved forward in my district. It is a district that is not declining greatly. It is increasing in population. It is increasing in infrastructure. The number of jobs, the types of jobs are changing. The jobs are changing from forestry and mining low paying jobs to high-tech, high paying jobs. We are seeing that a lot in rural Newfoundland. We are seeing more and more people be more professional in their jobs, operating very high-tech equipment. Where one time they operated a chainsaw, now they are operating an harvester making very good money. Changes like that are very good for our Province. We have to take into account every change. Change is from day to day. I do not think we should be afraid of change. We should be all accepting change. We should be there to make things better in our Province, work harder, work better for the number of people we represent.

I am sure the time is coming when this Province is going to have to look at probably reducing the number of seats in the House, and there might be a bigger change to come down the road. With a ten-year span in reviewing the districts, it gives us a chance to prepare for that. I know since 1996, the change probably should have been a little different because we were using old statistics to develop our districts. I think in the future we are going to have to recognize the type of change that this Province is going through, that we are going to have to look at the districts. We may have to have fewer districts, bigger areas to cover, but it is going to be difficult. It is going to be difficult for MHAs to represent these areas in rural Newfoundland, but we are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are not afraid of change. We are not afraid of challenges. Every member in this House is up to the challenges, because they would not be here if they were not. They took on a great challenge of running to represent people in the House of Assembly, in this Province, and every member in this House is to be congratulated for putting forward their name, their time and their hard work to represent the people of this Province.

I have to say, since I came into this Legislature eight-and-a-half years ago, I thought I knew a lot about politics with being involved most of my life, since 1972 when I first got involved in the PC Party of the Province and I started coming through the ranks of the different associations, conventions and everything. I thought I knew a lot about politics in this Province until I really came here and sat in the House of Assembly. I say to the new members today, when they are here for a couple of years or a couple of terms they are going to learn so much that in a few years they are going to look back and say: This is what I accomplished for my district. It was hard.

It is not easy to represent a district with forty-eight members, all with their hands out expecting everything, high expectations from their districts and their constituents. There is not enough money to deliver every single need in this Province, but today the government has come a long way, in three-and-a-half years, in making great delivery on promises, commitments on different things that we have been looking at that needed to be done over the years, and investments. When the challenge comes, this government is not afraid to face the challenge and do the challenge. That is why today we are going to make changes in our boundaries. We are going to change the boundaries so that people will have that right to vote. On October 9 people are going to go out and mark an X for the person they want, and it is going to be district by district, member by member. I am sure all forty-eight members are going to be very proud to be here to work for their districts.

I did not want to say a lot about it. I am just very pleased to represent Sheppardville and Springdale in my district. I do thank all the people who supported me, who gave me a great percentage of support in the past and I look forward to representing the new part of my district. I am looking forward to getting out there and beating the streets again in the fall, to make sure that I give it everything I got to represent my district, and I will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it is an opportunity to speak on Bill 72, and I am looking forward to the future, a great future for this Province, a great future for the people of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to be given the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 72, and I guess pass along some of the concerns of some of the constituents in the present Port de Grave District.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back to March, 1994. We often say how things come full circle. Back at that time, and under the former Administration, there were boundary changes brought into force, and I have my notes where I appeared before that boundary commission and at the time asked them to take all the considerations into effect. Do not make changes just for making changes, and putting numbers in places to have equal numbers, but take the considerations of the people at heart and do not do anything that will affect them.

At that time, I also made the comment and welcomed the areas of Tilton, Spaniard's Bay, Bishop's Cove, Upper Island Cove and Bryants Cove into the new proposed district, also at that same time knowing full well that we were going to lose the areas of Clarke's Beach, North River, South River, Halls Town and that area, and Makinsons, and here I am tonight standing with Bill 72 which in effect takes away a part of the area that we received back at that time, namely Tilton and Bryants Cove, but half of the Town of Spaniard's Bay, just half of the town.

Like I said at that time, I want to say to those people in all of the communities that I represent, it has been a pleasure working on their behalf and to say, as I did in 1994 - even though I was not an elected official at the time, I was executive assistant to the minister - I welcome the people on the other end who are supposed to be coming in under those changes.

Mr. Speaker, back at that time it was no different than it was this time. October 25, 2006, we were given the opportunity to appear before the commission and express our concerns. At that time there were people from the Town of Spaniard's Bay, namely the mayor and a couple of other citizens, who went before the commission and expressed their concerns about their community which had been amalgamated a few years ago, taking in the area of Tilton, to be known as Spaniard's Bay, and they expressed their concerns about half of their town being in Carbonear-Harbour Grace district and the other half remaining the District of Port de Grave.

We all know that the commission - and it has been explained here very clearly by the minister when he brought the bill forward - had a mandate. I guess when they did the work that they had to do, they finalized their report and presented it to government. We also know - the minister stated very clearly, and it says on the bill when it is going to become law - that there would be no tinkering with the proposed bill that is before us here tonight.

Having said that, I have had correspondence from a couple of the towns in my district and I want to pass along their concerns. Even though this bill is before us now and I have to say that no doubt very little is going to change, and probably nothing is going to change, I will pass along their concerns.

Back in 1994, and again in October 2006, the comments that I made to the commission at both times: If we are going to make changes, make them so that they are long-lasting. I put forward in 2006 what I thought would be a good boundary, from Bryants Cove right to Brigus. If we are trying to save money in this Province, and bring everything under control, I suggested that we go back to thirty-six seats.

Now, I know a lot of people are not going to like that here tonight, when we have forty-eight members, but that was my recommendation, even though I knew that the commission had no control over that, or even to consider it. I guess you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot hang on to everything on one end and expect to take what is on the other end as well; however, the people do have concerns and they have put their recommendations forward.

Like I said, the municipality of Spaniard's Bay appeared before the commission and they expressed their concerns; however, the commission made their ruling and proceeded ahead, even, I believe, taking some extra area of their town and putting it into the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

I guess we all saw on the news tonight that there are still concerns in the community, with the residents, and I know there is a petition on-going in the community, but that is probably a bit late when the legislation is before the House here this evening.

They wanted me to pass along their concerns, to say that they were just amalgamated and now the people in that town, on one side - and I know in the cities, in the larger centres, it seems to be a little different for the people to understand it, when you look at a small rural community. That is the concern that they have with it.

Having said that on behalf of the Town of Spaniard's Bay, I know they have been writing letters to the minister. They have been writing letters and in contact with the legal individual who was on it. I think it was Mr. Toby McDonald who went around with the commission. They have a meeting arranged with him as well. They were aware of their changes, because they made a presentation.

The Town of Upper Island Cove were unaware of any changes when the commission went around the Province. I guess, to make the numbers match up, what they did, they went down the centre of the main Crane's Road, from Spaniard's Bay towards Upper Island Cove, and when they got down to what they call the ticket road there are about eight houses and a ballfield that they took from Port de Grave district and put with Carbonear-Harbour Grace district to make the numbers match. I also received correspondence from the Town of Upper Island Cove, saying that they were expressing their concerns with such small numbers of eight or ten houses to be taken just in one district when the full town is involved in the District of Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am doing here tonight, passing along their concerns, but I have to say as well that I know change is coming. Our Opposition House Leader explained it very carefully and importantly, as well as did the minister when he made his presentation. We know those changes are coming. Unfortunately, the impact that they have on a community, when a community is divided, I think that there probably should and could have been something else done in one of the smaller areas.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward, once those changes go through, because I believe go through they will. The Town of Spaniard's Bay will be partially in the Port de Grave district and partially in the district with my colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I look forward to working with him, because I am sure that we can work together on behalf of that community as the changes go through as they are presented here this evening.

I want to say to the people of Bryants Cove and the area of Spaniard's Bay, that I believe will not be a part of the Port de Grave district come October, that it has been a pleasure working with them. I guess working with the other half of the town, in the long run you are working for the full town.

To the people of Makinsons, Clarke's Beach, North River and Halls Town, I look forward to working with those people, because we did work with them previous to the changes; they were a part of the old Port de Grave district.

I am not standing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, for political reasons, and do not want to see the changes take place, because the area that I am losing, if you look at it politically, all that I am losing is a plus seventeen votes on one end and taking over an area on the other side where not one polling station went Liberal. So, I am not standing for political reasons because it is handy about the same on both ends. I guess my concern, and where my support is, is in the middle.

Having said that, I hate to see the change take place when it involves a small community that is divided, but I look forward to working within the bounds of the new district and working in conjunction with my neighbouring colleague who will be taking over a part of the old Port de Grave district.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to working with all constituents, as in the past.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to adopt a premise before I make my remarks, and that premise is that I will be the elected representative for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's in October, 2007.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Otherwise, there would be no point in me making my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in a by-election in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's only a little over a year ago, so I am still trying to find my way around the district as it stands. It is a big, geographic district. It goes from St. Shotts all the way around St. Mary's Bay to the Cape Shore and into Placentia Bay as far as Ship Harbour. It includes the communities of: St. Vincent's, Peters River, St. Stephens, Point La Haye, Gaskiers, St. Mary's, Mall Bay, Riverhead, St. Joseph's, Admirals Beach and down to Salmonier, Mount Carmel, Colinet, out the Cape Shore, St. Bride's, Branch into Placentia, Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour. I am still trying to find a presence in a lot of those communities and enjoying every minute of it, but having only just spent a year there, a little over a year, I am still working on it.

My district is one of those districts, Mr. Speaker, that is going to get quite a facelift in this change. Our House Leader mentioned earlier that for some districts it is not a big deal. Well, for my district, Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal, but one that I accept and a challenge I accept willingly.

The history of Placentia & St. Mary's district, as my colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor mentioned earlier, has undergone changes over the last number of elections. The old District of Placentia East was replaced. The District of Placentia East, the District of St. Mary's, St. Mary's-The Capes, were later joined together to Placentia & St. Mary's. Boundaries have changed constantly over the last twenty years.

In fact, in the new arrangement I will include the community of Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights, which I inherit from my colleague on the other side, the Member for Bellevue. The community of Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights has been a part of the Placentia district before. For many years it was part of the old district of Placentia East, so it is nothing new to the people of Long Harbour to come back in. They were out periodically, or briefly, with the Member for Bellevue. There is a close socio-economical, historical relationship between Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights and the people of Placentia area, so it is going to be a natural transition to take in Mount Carmel and Long Harbour.

The ERCO plant, Albright and Wilson phosphorus plant in Long Harbour, for over thirty years was a central component of the economy in the whole Placentia region, shared by both Long Harbour and Placentia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990s or mid-1990s when a lobby was put forth to enhance or entice the Inco project into the area, both communities of Long Harbour and Placentia combined efforts to attract that project to the area. The people there have that commonality of economic development over the last, at least, thirty years.

There is also an ongoing social relationship between both areas of the district. The people of Long Harbour have travelled to Placentia for medical reasons, for shopping reasons, for basic services back and forth over the years. They also have another commonality of being - many of the residents of both the Placentia area and the Long Harbour area have their roots on the western shores of Placentia Bay, and during the 1960s gravitated and centralized both of those communities. Today, they have genealogical relationships that go back significantly to the other side of Placentia Bay. So there is every good reason to support the transition between Mount Arlington Heights and Long Harbour with Placentia, and I am sure that transition will go very smoothly.

I would like to point out that in the last year or so, when the discussions of the relocation of Inco or the Voisey's Bay plant from Argentia to Long Harbour were ongoing, there was somewhat of a conflicting discussion. Both sides were pursuing that project. It never got to a point of acrimony or competition. It was a competition, but it was good competition. It was kept above board. The people of Long Harbour always recognized where I stood on that, and I stood solidly with the people of Placentia because I had worked on the project for ten years and lobbied for the project for ten years. I made that point clear to the Mayor of Long Harbour and to the people of Long Harbour and they understood quite clearly where I sat.

When this government did everything that it could to hold Inco to its commitment to Argentia and were not able to do it and accepted a move to Long Harbour, then we, this government, myself included, notified the Mayor and the people of Long Harbour that we would support the move and we would work with that move. I personally wrote the company and told them we would support and do everything we could to foster that project in Long Harbour.

I make no apologies for the position I took in defending the Argentia situation. I hope, and I am pretty confident, that the people in Long Harbour knew where I stood and will accept my position. I made it clear where I was, and I am pretty confident that the people of Long Harbour, now that the decision has been made, know that we are solidly in Long Harbour's corner and have been since the time when that decision was made.

I now look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with the people of Long Harbour, the communities of Mount Arlington Heights and Long Harbour, and serving their interests and concerns with the same diligence that I would use or have used with the rest of my district. As I said, the dispute was never between communities, it was always above board. Both mayors advocating for their communities, and they did it very well. They kept it above board and, at the end of the day, made the decision much easier to live with, and that is paying off today.

Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of Whitbourne in my district presents me with a challenge, but I look forward to it and getting to know the residents of Whitbourne. I have no connection with Whitbourne, or have not had, because Whitbourne, historically, has not had a social economic relationship with the Placentia or St. Mary's Bay area. It is a new entity and a new challenge, but I look forward to meeting the people out there and getting out there.

I take some solace from the comments of the Opposition House Leader and his tips on how to treat the new parts of your district and things to do to get used to the new parts of the district. I accept them with gratitude. I made some notes as I went through, a rookie politician like myself getting some experience from an old hand like the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

I look forward to getting out there to Whitbourne, with the current member for Whitbourne, the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I hope to get out there with him and meet some people and meet the community leaders and see what the concerns and needs and whatnot are of the Whitbourne area. I pledge to serve them with the same diligence that I serve the rest of the district.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there is a commonality that draws all of this together as well. With the launch of the Inco project in Long Harbour, with the excitement generated by the possibility of another refinery at the head of the bay, coupled with the natural gas storage facility announced recently and the current Come By Chance Refinery, there is going to be an awful lot of activity if this all comes about in Placentia Bay. Whitbourne and Long Harbour are on the very edge of that and will benefit from it, so that makes the transition that much easier.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to lose St. Shotts, which I regret. It is only a small community on the southernmost tip which my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, is going to inherit. I have enjoyed working with the people of St. Shotts, a great group of people. It is only a small community, but they were in with the District of Ferryland before. They have gone back and forth, so it is not a big deal for them. They can swing either way. I have developed a great relationship with the people out there. They are great people. I look forward to spending some time with them this summer during their Come Home Year celebrations, and I look forward to going out there with my colleague from Ferryland and introducing him to some of the people out there.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a challenge. I am, as I mentioned, only one year in the district, one year elected. I am still finding my way around, still making relationships in the various communities. This is going to put a bit of pressure on, but, like the Opposition Leader, I am only a young gaffer; I can handle it. I look forward to it, and I am going to vote in favour of this bill. I look forward to the challenge and the opportunity to serve the people, the additional people of Long Harbour and Whitbourne coming into my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great privilege for any person to be involved in public life, to represent people from different walks of life, different professions, different socio-economic standings. It was always a dream of mine to be involved in public life. My first foray into provincial politics was in 1989, so come April 21 of this year it will be eighteen years that I have sat in the House without interruption and enjoyed the challenges that have been before us.

In 1996 the boundaries were changed from the District of Fortune-Hermitage to take in Bay d'Espoir upwards to Ramea. I want to talk about Ramea first, for a few moments. If you talk about a community that has had its challenges and been able to meet these challenges head on, it is that community. I remember sitting in the Legislature when their school burned. It was quite a struggle for people to get a new school in the community, for example - spearheaded by people like Mary Fiander and others in the group to get a new school - and a new school they did get, a beautiful, modern school with all of the amenities that you would find in any community, regardless of the size, so they were able to work at that.

Then one day not too long ago, a few years ago, we had a call, or my assistant did, from the town when the community's fish plant, or a part of that community's fish plant, fell into the water. When visiting the community, to see it, the people were devastated. I remember having the emergency measures go in there because there was Freon in the refrigeration units at the time and it was very, very disheartening for these people.

Nevertheless, they persevered and were able to get provincial and government work and money to be able to put their plant back into working order. I will come back to that in a moment, to talk about the ingenuity of the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was a fire in the school?

MR. LANGDON: A fire in the school. I can remember. I remember sitting in the Legislature over here when it happened.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I can remember one of the first things when I went to Ramea initially in 1996 was when I went into the B&B, Four Winds, and had a drink of water. I tell you, it was pretty salty. Their water supply, of course, was from a pond in Ramea, but when you had the easterly winds some of the spray would come into the pond and, of course, they did not have the water treatment plant there and it was a major concern for the people.

The fact that I represented the community, we were able to get a state-of-the-art water treatment plant for the people of Ramea, and today they have good drinking water - as good as you would find anywhere in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We did that for them.

Of course, there were other things that happened as well, whether you were going to repair some of the town's infrastructure, like paving of roads and putting in water and sewer, fire facilities, recreation facilities and so on, you would be able to do all of that.

One of the challenges for an MHA, I guess, and one of the things that I benefitted from most, was the leadership in communities. There are certain people - and there is no way that I can mention every person in the community because I cannot remember them all by their first name, who are involved with all the different organizations, but there were certain people like the retired Town Manager, Wilf Cutler, who spent his whole lifetime in that community and saw a community of Ramea where they had year-round employment with Fishery Products, and when they pulled out the community was devastated. Even as we speak today, we are hoping to get a licence to reactivate the plant in Ramea. I am hoping, later on the spring, that can become a reality. We will work at that.

I think of people like Sam Fiander. I think of people like Les Cutler. I think of the seniors group headed by Art Marsden. I think of Paul Green, who is on the fire department, and a teacher in the school. I think of Reg MacDonald who recently, by the way, had a double lung transplant and is doing very well. He has worked very, very hard for that community and has given yeoman service like so many others I have mentioned and, as I said, Lloyd Rossiter who has been mayor of the town for a long, long time, and the list goes on.

As I said, these people have worked under great stress, but nevertheless they take pride in their community and the ingenuity that these people have. In a sense, they give us initiative, they give us the encouragement and they give us the stamina to go on and to represent them, and I have enjoyed doing that over the last number of years.

It is a challenge, there is no doubt about it, but I believe that the challenge can be met by people like I have mentioned, and still others, who have, through great organizations like the Sea Cadets and the firemen and the ACW and LOL and others, they have their community organized. Because a community is not really buildings, it is people, and when people put their collective will together to improve the lot within the community then they can do that, and I congratulate them for doing so.

Like any other rural community in the Province, their population has dropped drastically over the years and the future for these people - obviously, a lot of their people now, as the people in Burgeo, go to the Lakes to work, they go to Alberta to work, they go to different places to work, but they come back mainly to their community and they live there. Who knows what will happen in the future if they cannot get some particular industry in their town. Let's hope that they do.

The community of Grey River, great leadership there. I have had the privilege of working with people like Alvin Young with the Local Service District, a great guy who looked after the lodge there for a number of years on the river just down from Grey River, and people like Larry Short, and some people would know Larry. He served in the Legislature with us and he lives in Grey River now. Then you have a person like Shawn Peach, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fire brigade to see that they have equipment and that they have somewhere to store their equipment, because you do not have fire trucks in many of those smaller communities. Some of it is the Honda four-wheeler that they have, nevertheless they work at it with great pride and a great sense of leadership.

Then, like in Grey River, of course, with money for infrastructure, as I said, for firefighting and for equipment and so on, these people really, in a sense, have worked with very few dollars but they make it really, really good and work at it to a point that they make those dollars go further.

I am not going to spend a long time talking about that here tonight but I do want to thank the people of Ramea and I want to thank the people of Grey River, for having the opportunity to serve them since 1996, for the last eleven years. As I said, it is a real challenge.

For all of us who are involved in public life, you are not going to be able to please everybody and it is becoming more and more demanding for people who serve in public life. It does not matter which side you are on, whether in Opposition or government, people are really critical of the people that they put here. Sometimes we cannot live up to the expectations that they have for us, but it all goes back to the personal responsibility that we have. If the person that you look at in the mirror - if you are satisfied with the work that you do and satisfied with yourself, and when you go to bed at night you realize that you have done your best, then that is the guide you use to work with to improve the quality of life for the people that we represent. That is the whole object.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad, in a sense, that I have had the opportunity to serve in the Legislature, as I said, for just about eighteen years, for five elections. The whole purpose of that is the fact that these people who are in these communities, they put their trust in you and in return you try to help them to better their lives, to improve the quality of life, to improve the community by social economic industries and organizations that you set up. Sometimes you cannot meet their expectations, as I said, but you give your best and, at the end of the day, if you have done one little thing to improve the quality of life for people who live there, than I guess you can see that there has been some success.

I remember - and I will probably end with this - going to a sea cadet graduation and anniversary in Ramea a couple of years ago, and Reverend Trudy Sullivan was there. They were looking for a diabetic pump for a young lady going to school who had diabetes really, really bad. You know, by helping Reverend Trudy Sullivan, who was there at the time as an Anglican priest, and being able to buy the pump with a lot of help from the people in the community and so on, it improved the quality of life for this young lady to be able to live pretty much a normal life. I have had the opportunity since then to converse with her and she has told me how much it has meant.

I guess when you look at the things that you do, it is not all the roads you pave, it is not all the fire halls that you build, it is not all the water and sewer that you install, but it is a lot of little things that you do for people that, at the end of the day, really makes the job that we do a little better. Basically, the whole aim is to improve the quality of life for the people that you represent, because they did put their trust in you, they did send you here and you want to be able to live up to that ideal as high as you possibly can and do what you can to represent the people who are in your district.

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity, no doubt, to talk on it more and have the opportunity to visit Ramea and Grey River between now and October when the boundaries are changed, but this is a good opportunity to say thank you to them for those eleven years of being their representative in those communities. I am sure that my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, will do just as well and be able to meet their needs, as many as he possibly can, and work with the community leadership to continue to improve and enhance the quality of life for people in those two communities.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as well to speak on Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act. I rise almost reluctantly because I know in rising that I am looking at changes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the best minister over there.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you very much. I hear from a colleague across the way that I am the best minister over here and for that, I think, I will talk a little bit longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: Now, I take that back, Mr. Speaker. I am not reluctant to get up here anymore. I get up here quite freely.

Mr. Speaker, just to get back on a more serious note. Certainly, I speak about the changes that are going to come about in my particular electoral district for the upcoming election in October. I say that I understand, looking back, the necessity for this. I also realize that perhaps the changes will help ensure that the representation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues at the level that it is right now. I realize that we perhaps do not have the numbers, because we are looking at numbers that are probably five or six years old, but again it is an opportunity for me to reflect back on the last eight years and to reflect back on, I suppose, eight years of serving the constituents of what is now Harbour Main-Whitbourne, realizing that changes are coming.

Mr. Speaker, eight years ago I put my name forward in the hopes of representing this particular district and, admittedly, did not have a great familiarity with some parts of the district. One in particular was the area of Markland, Whitbourne. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, the first day going in, getting out of a car and going up to that first door in there, and from that moment on, I must say, the people of both Markland and Whitbourne became, I guess for me, not only constituents but very, very good friends.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the people of Ocean Pond.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am coming along to the people of Ocean Pond, I say to my colleague, knowing full well that you are one of my summer constituents in Ocean Pond.

To talk a little bit about Markland as a farming community, originally set up, I guess, just after the war. To go into that particular area, Mr. Speaker, and to become acquainted with the constituents who are there, hard-working people, people who had generations of association with farming, and working very closely with those in trying to better their lot and, admittedly, working with a very, very dedicated community group. What I saw in Markland over the years was them coming together as a community. I certainly will miss them, extremely, as I move forward into my new district.

Whitbourne, as well, a great community; very, very hard-working individuals. Again, it was a pleasure to work with them as we worked through some of their files. Coming down the Trans-Canada: Of course, Ocean Pond was already alluded to by one of my colleagues and some of the cottage areas of Mahers, and the community of Brigus Junction, a very small community; but again I look at these communities and I know that I am passing them along to another district. My colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's has already alluded to making sure that he becomes familiar with that area. I say to him, I certainly will assure you that you will get a warm welcome in all of these communities. These are people who are hard-working, as I already alluded to, but also very fair and decent individuals. As well, I say to these constituents, even though they are no longer a part of my district, I still feel very strongly that, should they ever need my services, I would be available.

As we come out further in my district, Mr. Speaker, I look at four other communities that are going to be moved from my district, and in this case not to Placentia & St. Mary's but to the Port de Grave district. Of course, I say, the historic Port de Grave district, that being the communities of Makinsons, Clarke's Beach, North River and Otterbury, part of Otterbury I might add.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is an area with which I was familiar. As a matter of fact, I was principal down in All Hallows Elementary in North River. I must say again that it was an absolute pleasure to work with the various groups in these communities and other communities as well that I have referenced.

Again, standing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is bittersweet having to leave an area where you certainly are very familiar, to move to an area which I am not so familiar in, but again I stand and I certainly thank the constituents in these areas. I certainly wish them well, as they move forward in another electoral district, but again assure them that up to the October 9 election and beyond I still would be available to take care of their needs and to look after whatever concerns they would want to bring to my attention.

Certainly, in looking at those communities that I am losing, I have now to look, I guess, further, to that part of the district that will be new to me, and I reference the Town of Holyrood and the Town of CBS. Again, I know some of my colleagues have already mentioned about communities that are split by electoral boundaries. I must say that the Town of Holyrood was one such, and currently myself and my colleague from CBS share that responsibility. I must say, there are some upsides to sharing a community as, first of all, the community does get the advantage of two MHAs and does get that double representation that certainly helps as they go forward to have their concerns looked at.

I must say, the relationship that I have with my colleague in the Town of Holyrood is a very positive one and it eases now the fact that I am familiar with the town, familiar with it all, and now have full responsibility for that, and now enter into another arrangement where I now split it between myself and my colleague, again, from CBS.

In moving into another area, I certainly will take the same approach, Mr. Speaker, as I have taken in other areas, to make sure that I become familiar with the people, the constituents who are there, with their concerns, and give them, once again, what I have given my other constituents, my full attention and my desire to serve them properly.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would just like to say, again, a heartfelt thank you to all of my constituents for the support that they have shown me in the two terms that I have represented them. Again, as we do the transition from where we are now to where are going to be on October 9, they can be assured that I will do everything in my power to make that transition a smooth one. As well, for those new constituents who will be part of my responsibility, I look forward to the challenge of serving them as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are members on either side who perhaps would like to have a word as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to use up some time tonight, my few moments available, I guess, to speak to Bill 72.

I guess, with me, my district is one of the ones that is going to have some change affect it. It seems as though we are at this stage where Bill 72 is probably going to be a foregone conclusion. I want to say from the offset that I am not going to get up tonight and pound my chest about what kind of a member I am, or anything else, but I want to talk about the people. I do not want to talk about latitude and longitude. I do not want to talk about 12,051, whoever number fifty-one is, or who the last 400 are. We are talking about people, and people with their historical attachments to various parts of our Province. I want to point out that Perry's Cove and Salmon Cove will now become part of the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.

It seems to come at a strange time because the Department of Municipal Affairs, right now, is presently out there with a conciliator to look at merging or bringing together the services of Victoria and Salmon Cove. Again, this may be one community that is split on that particular end of my district, having one MHA serve the Salmon Cove, Perry's Cove area, and another one serving the Victoria area.

We are not talking about cities of St. John's where you may not even know the person across the street from you, or the person down at the other end of you subdivision. We are talking about communities where people have had long attachments, family attachments, personal friends and so on. You know, we have all shared in each other's problems out there. As the MHA, I have shared in the loss of family members with many of them, and their new family members coming on. It has become a personal thing.

I want to thank the people of Salmon Cove and Perry's Cove for having the opportunity of serving them, of representing them. It is a little bit of a loss that I feel tonight as I say those words, that these people will no longer be part of that district. Again, maybe in five or ten years time, when the next evaluation is done, that may come back again, as the Member for Port de Grave just said. You may end up full circle, coming back again.

I look at the other part, on the other end of my district. I was in that area the other day and I have to say I was not there campaigning. That is not how I operate. I was there on business of another nature, and I was approached by a business person who voiced some concerns about his community of Spaniard's Bay and Tilton being split, and losing part of their district. It is that part of it that bewilders people out in the rural areas, when you can split up these communities. Spaniard's Bay, for instance, has a population of 2,540 people, roughly. You know, there comes a time when I think people focus on the one person, or on the central identity of representation, and that seemed to be the message that I was getting out there the other day: Don't split us up. Let us stay together.

I thought about it on the way home and I said: What is wrong, really? Why do we have to be so fixated on this plus or minus 10 per cent? Why do we have to be fixated? It is a number. We are talking about heritage, cultural, historical attachment.

Spaniard's Bay was a part of Harbour Grace district in 1994 when the changes were made. I thought about it and said: Well, what is another 10 per cent or 12 per cent? What is wrong with a plus 22 per cent? I would be the elected member, or the person coming behind me, whenever that happens, whenever the people decide that. What is wrong with having that little bit of extra? As we look at Stats Canada's statistics we have lost people. By the way, all of these communities are losing people. Not a lot in that area, I am glad to say, where the percentage numbers are small, not like some of the areas of the Province where you have a 50 per cent decrease in population in some communities. Splitting Spaniard's Bay and not letting it be part of one district does not make a lot of sense to me; and then again, on the other end of it, having Salmon Cove and Victoria split up, if they are going to be put together by government now in another short period of time.

I mentioned about rural communities and we are rural. We are close to St. John's, but we are rural in nature. We are even more rural than the Port de Grave district. We have these communities and we have some small communities there in that district. Bryant's Cove will be coming onto the scene there, which has the same phone number even, a 596 exchange, which is an important factor when people are trying to reach you. My office is my house. My home is where I am accessible, 596-3141. That number has not changed since I have been elected. It has been in the phonebook and people have been used to calling it and getting me and me getting back to them. Now switching to another exchange, what difficulty would that cause?

I think that we can slow down a little tiny bit. I know the Government House Leader has said that we are not going to play with this, we are not going to gerrymander or ‘dannymander', or anything else, with this bill, but I think we should listen to the people as well. I do not sense there is any great urgency in this, because there is another problem that has not been mentioned tonight by the way. Many of these districts have their nominations already called. What happens then when you have this change in boundaries? Will the nominations be done over again, or will a candidate be imposed upon the newly configured district? Where does democracy play in all of this? You know, there becomes a little problem with that. If we are saying we are doing this because of shrinking numbers and changing numbers and because people will not be served democracy the same, what will happen if somebody else who has not participated in the selection of a candidate - what happens there?

I saw Mayor Drover from Spaniards Bay on TV tonight and he did a great job explaining the situation of the town and the importance of it. What I have to admire the man for is - and the same message rings through in all of this - that he did not say he wanted to be part of one district or another. He just said he wanted his town to be a part of a district and he never said which district.

For me tonight, speaking as I am here, I am not concerned about what is good for me or really good for us, and no more should any of us. I think the utmost concern we should have tonight is what is good for the people who we represent, who we are elected to serve. Whether or not splitting a community in rural Newfoundland and the rural part of this Province is a good thing, well I would say it is not. I think we should leave it together and play with the numbers, leave the numbers as they are, and if a district is a little bit bigger than another district, so be it. Let's look after the needs of the people.

There is a petition out there being circulated, and I am glad the Government House Leader - he spoke to me earlier and said he is willing to wait until tomorrow before the vote to give us a change to bring in the people's petition. I thank the Government House Leader for doing that.

I think it is important that the people be heard because they are being heard when they vote for us, and it is important that they hear us speak for them which is what I am doing. I have had representation from Salmon Cove and they did not go to the petition stage, but there is a reluctance to change it. People do not necessarily think that change is a good thing, when you start changing historical attachments and work patterns and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I am not adverse to working with my colleague. I have worked with the Member for Port de Grave for the past number of years representing a community. I am not saying they are going to be better served by having him or me, or better served by having both of us, but let the people make that choice; not him or me or anyone else, but let those people have that say.

I look back since 1993, actually, when I first started in this business, by the way, in another job besides the elected member. I did not get elected until 1999, some six years later. You know, I knew most of these people, I have known them a lifetime. From a boy working in the fish plant when I was going to school I knew most of them out there; a lot of friends and a lot of personal attachments over the years. It is sin to sometimes try to restructure that, because I will still, over the next span of my lifetime, even after politics, drop by and see Jim and Myrtle Parsons. I will still drop by and see the Peckhams in their barn on a Friday afternoon. I will still see these people, they will still be my friends. I will still enjoy dropping in and having a piece of banana bread with Carol Rose and Sam her husband. Those are the things that constitute a district. It is not just saying that it is 12,051 people. It is not a longitude and a latitude.

I know the difficulty, I say to the Government House Leader, that came into this report and I know that we are bound by the law and the Legislature, but I cannot help but think that maybe we should have just adjusted the legislation a little tiny bit so that this would not be a must do right now on the eve of an election, when we are in a situation where we already have our candidates in some districts picked.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having a few words tomorrow when we present our petitions, our individual petitions. Again, I cannot say this enough, that the Government House Leader has been very cooperative in this to allow the people to have their petition presented, because if they did not find it was important they certainly would not have gone through the trouble of getting it done and getting it filled out and signed.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say. Whichever way the district goes I still look forward to doing what I have always done and that is working on the people's behalf wherever that may take me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 72.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Two minutes? In that case, I think my friend was ready to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased this evening to get up and speak to Bill 72.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, my district boundaries will not change. The districts on the Burin Peninsula, basically, will stay the same, but I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about some of the things that have certainly come to my attention since I have come to this hon. House and to this elected position, and just to reflect on some of the thoughts that I have as a sitting member. I keep thinking that once we are elected to these roles we are here specifically to serve the interests of our constituents, to serve the needs of our constituents, and I guess our primary role is to seek betterment for the people of our districts, and therefore the people of the Province.

Since coming into the portfolio of Environment and Conservation, you are sort of in a - you are not sort of, you are - in a dual role. You are torn between the demands of your department and then you have to certainly take the time to serve the constituents of your district. When I look at the things that are within the department, from a provincial perspective - and you are serving everything from wildlife to parks, conservation and the environment - we certainly know these days where environmental issues are with people in the Province and with people across this country and, indeed, globally. As a government, we are moving into things around waste management and we are dealing with issues around our caribou, moose population and so on and so forth, and moving into issues around climate change. In the capacity as a minister you deal with all of these issues and you look to the provincial perspective and dealing with the federal government on issues of this nature, but then you step back and you take a look at what it is specifically you are to do for your constituents.

When I look at the District of Burin-Placentia West, which I have had the honour of serving for the past three, almost three-and-a-half years, I have to say that it has been an honour to do that. I do not think there is anybody in this House who will say that it is an easy job. The challenges that you face, everything from employment to the demands that are put on you by individual people and by individual communities and councils and the various interest groups that are out there, no one will tell you that it is an easy job and no one will tell you that it is an eight-hour-a-day job. In fact, it is a very demanding job. At times you have to wonder: Why have I gotten into this? Then you look to the other side, and there are moments when you realize that you have helped certain individuals and other communities as they move forward with projects. It is at that time that you take the sense of pride that you are into this role.

When I look at the Burin Peninsula, my District of Burin-Placentia West, you know there are challenges that we face. I truly do believe that under the leadership of this government, and with this Premier, that our future will be strong.

Today, in this House, the issue of the JSS project was brought up around Marystown. If Peter Kiewit is successful in obtaining that contract, it means unmeasurable, I guess, employment. It will operate in Marystown, but as anyone will tell you, it is not simply a Marystown project. It is a project that will serve the entire Burin Peninsula and, indeed, as we saw with the SeaRose project, people worked there from across the Province and indeed people from across the nation.

The fishery, which has been a sustaining employer on the Burin Peninsula since the first settlers moved to the Burin Peninsula, I truly do believe will be an employer of importance into the future. This issue that we face around the Marystown plant right now, this will be resolved and we will then be able to see how many workers are going to work in that plant, and then we move on from there. Another thing that is recognized as a very important part of the fishery of the future on the Burin Peninsula is the aquaculture sector. We are looking forward to that being developed as we move along.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I refer to a comment that was made by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. He said: You know, there are times when we will not please everyone. That is true. I have been in several roles in my former job where I dealt with public issues and the public, and there are always issues that cannot be resolved to someone's satisfaction. Working as the member of a particular district, that just falls through again and again. The other thing that he said is: I think if you can walk away at the end of the day saying that you have done your best, than that is the important thing.

I look at many of the communities across my district, from South East Bight, in the northern end, on down to Fox Cove, Mortier, Burin in the southern end, and I look at some of the people who serve as volunteers, those people that you have come across and that you have worked with, these are the people who sustain your communities. These are the leaders within your communities. I think of some of the councils around that you work with, they are in continual contact with you and their aim is the betterment of their community.

If there is one thing that I have been very pleased with over the last three-and-a-half years, it is the sense of regional co-operation that I am seeing, firstly, within my district, and secondly, within the entire Burin Peninsula. I have said this on a number of occasions. I said it right from the beginning as I started to do my campaigning. I have said that I think the Burin Peninsula is kind of a geographic entity. I am certain there are other people in this House who can say that. I kind of look at it, anybody who has driven down to the Burin Peninsula knows that once you drive up over the Mile Hill coming out of Swift Current, there is that big land separation until you start to get around the Bay L'Argent area. Then you have a collective group of about 23,000 people who are within driving distance of a couple of hours of each other. From a central point, most people could get there from thirty-five to forty minutes.

I think there was a time when people kind of looked at each and every community trying to get their little piece of the pie. They have come to recognize that the restrictions, as it comes to funding and government's funding projects - what people have come to realize is that if we collectively work together on a common project, our chance of success at getting funding for that project is going to be much more opportune, is going to be much more successful, than if we are trying to battle each other. People have collectively come together. I am pleased to say that I have participated in many conversations around the district where people are actively moving forward in that regard and I think it shows leadership from towns, from fire departments, from all types of organizations across the district and it is going to reap success.

Just a while ago there was a meeting convened in Marystown around the JSS. You walked in and there were people there from across the entire peninsula. Each one of them stated: If I can do anything to help bring this project here, then I am willing to step forward and do that. It shows you that people are starting to recognize that the regional approach and co-operation is, indeed, the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, from a district perspective, let's take a look at some of the things that we have been successful in getting in the district. First and foremost I recall, three-and-a-half years ago, the number one issue in the district was around health care, because at that particular time the project White Rose was going full tilt. As a result, we pushed forward that agenda, working with the groups, as I have said, and we have realized now that the CT scanner has been in place and up in operation in the hospital there as we speak. The dialysis machine is being installed, the equipment being installed, and within the next weeks and months that will be up and running.

I challenge anyone now - there is one section from St. John's to the Burin Peninsula right down to Marystown that still needs a bit of work on the roads there, and hopefully that will come. I am telling you right now, the drive from St. John's to Marystown, on down to Burin, is very much different today than it was three-and-a-half years ago. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, any of the people will attest to that, the people or the ambulance drivers who drive that road on a regular basis.

Then I look also at the types of projects and roadwork that we have done within the communities. The people are recognizing that more and more. We go back to the members of various communities and councils coming forward to me. We are meeting. We meet with different government departments and officials and, as a result, we are successful in the bids.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much more I can say at this particular time other than, like I said at the outset, my district boundaries are not changing but I just wanted this opportunity to get up and thank the people of the District of Burin-Placentia West for the co-operation that they have shown me over the last three-and-a-half years and I look forward to working with them in the coming months up to the next election and we will see what happens after that.

I know one thing is certain: through working together in the district we will reap the benefits of it and government will be very much supportive of that and it will be shown in the success of things that are completed in the district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to talk for a few minutes about this bill that we are presenting here tonight, and it has to do with the realignments of the districts in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot, and I am not going to speak from my political point of view here tonight in terms of whether or not I should be voting for this bill or against it because it affects me personally, because it does not, because nothing changes in my district except for the name of the district itself. I still represent four islands: Twillingate Island, New World Island, Change Islands and Fogo Island, and the district is know as Twillingate & Fogo district. The only thing that is changing is the name. It will be now, if this legislation passes, called The Isles of Notre Dame, so I won't be arguing for or against this bill because it will affect me politically because it doesn't.

I have heard a lot of talk tonight about change. We have heard people say change is good, and some people say that change is bad but change is inevitable. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with change if it is for the good, but I do have a problem with change if it is just for change sake, and that is the way I see this bill.

I know that there was a piece of legislation passed in the 1990s, prior to my arrival in the House of Assembly, that stated that every ten years you had to do a boundary redistribution based on the population in this Province. That renewal was supposed to have been done last year, or supposed to have been done, I think, in 2003, but because of the time of the election in the fall of 2003 it was postponed so we are doing it now, and we are changing, I think, simply because that piece of legislation exists on our books. That is all we are doing; we are changing for changes sake only. It is not going to affect anything except for some of the things that my colleagues talked about here tonight. We are still going to have forty-eight districts, so we are not going to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly and we are not going to increase the number of seats in the House of Assembly.

These four individuals - the panel was selected because the legislation said that we had to do a redistribution of seats based on population, and the panel was selected. I have all of the respect in the world for the four individuals who chaired that panel. You can say that while three of them were political, they were apolitical in that they were all equally represented, or one from each party. We had, for example, Roger Grimes, the past leader and the past Premier of the Province, represent us on that panel. The NDP was represented by Mr. Cle Newhook, a former, former party leader. As well, the Tory Party was represented by Bob Aylward, a past Tory Cabinet minister who sat here in the House of Assembly, and that committee was chaired by Justice O'Neill, a retired Justice here in the Province.

I have the greatest respect for all of those individuals. They have served in some capacity or another, and served this Province well. We asked them, or the Legislature, under the piece of legislation that existed since 1993, we charged them with going out and redistributing the seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not say go out and look at the population to reduce the number of seats because we have a declining population. All we asked them to do was go out and redistribute the seats.

If you look at some of the things that have happened as a result of this report, I have a tendency to agree with one of the individuals who voiced a concern and said maybe we should not proceed at this time with this.

You have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that this redistribution was based on a census from 2001, and what we found out just in the last few weeks is that our population has dropped by 7,700 people since then. If you look at what is happening in this Province with the population drop, the out-migration and the redistribution of the population in this Province, by the time we do this in ten years from now you are going to see another dramatic change. What I am saying is, if we are only asking for change for the sake of change then I think this whole exercise was an exercise in futility, or a useless exercise.

If you look at the boundaries of the new districts, if you just stop and look at the boundaries in the new districts - take the new Member for Humber Valley, who just got elected two weeks ago; under this redistribution he is going to lose Trout River and Woody Point in the northern end of his district, and he is going to pick up half of Pasadena to the west of his district. To me, that does not make a lot of sense. That does not make a lot of sense to me, that we are going to take a couple of communities that have been in the district for quite some time, take them out, after they just elected the individual. All of those people who are elected here tonight, some of them are going to see changes in their districts as well. You are going to take that out and you are going to put half of Pasadena, half of the town - these four individuals that I mentioned did not have any choice, because they were given a 10 per cent population ratio that they could do a plus or minus or fool around with, but here, right now, Pasadena on the West Coast is going to be divided by the old Trans-Canada. One half of the town that resides on the south side of the Trans-Canada Highway is going to be in one district, and the other side of the Trans-Canada Highway is going to be in the district now of Humber East, I think the name of the district is.

The member who represents Humber East today in the House of Assembly represents Pasadena. He is going to lose half the Town of Pasadena and he is going to pick up another portion of Corner Brook. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

My colleague who represents Carbonear-Harbour Grace - for example, Salmon Cove, a town of 700 people, now is going to be divided. A part or half of Salmon Cove is now going to go with Trinity-Bay de Verde and the other half will remain in the Carbonear-Harbour Grace district.

Now on the other end of my colleague's district, he is going to pick up half of Spaniard's Bay while my colleague who represents all of Spaniard's Bay today will lose half, will have to continue with half and pick up other communities on the southern side of his district. To me, that is change for change only. That does not make any sense to me politically, economically or any other way. It just does not make any sense. You are asking for change because there is a piece of legislation that has existed in this House since 1993, and it says you have to do a redistribution of seats because of population changes every ten years. It would be different if we were standing here tonight and we were talking about how, because of the declining population in rural Newfoundland, we were losing seats in rural Newfoundland and the urban areas who are gaining population would be picking up seats. I would fight against that, by the way. I still believe that representation in this Province should not be based on population alone, because if it were, then we would not have four seats in Labrador.

I think that the distribution of seats in this Province should be based on two things. Number one, population, and the other would be geographical region. You would have to include something to deal with geography because those of us, those of you, in the House of Assembly who represent rural districts know that it is far more difficult to represent a rural seat than it is to represent a larger urban seat. Let me tell you why. I represent a district with thirty-nine communities on four islands. Some of these communities have been amalgamated and now they fall under one name, but they are really what were thirty-nine distinct communities in my district. If you compare that to St. John's North, for example, that is only one part of the City of St. John's, and while the population in that area may be almost as large as all of the population in my district, the fact of the matter is that the Member for St. John's North does not have to deal with thirty-nine communities and the problems that are associated with each of these individual communities; in fact, thirty-nine councils or community councils or local service districts or development associations. He is faced with one out of - how many seats are in St. John's? I forget. Ten or eleven in this general region?

St. John's North, for example, most of the services or all of the services in St. John's North are provided by City Hall. So, if you have a problem with snow clearing in St. John's North, you do not pick up your phone and call your MHA, you call City Hall; you call your councillor. If you have a problem with your water or your sewer, you do not call up your MHA; you call your city councillor. I can tell you now that anyone who represents a rural district, if the road is not plowed today on New World Island or on Fogo Island or Change Islands, they do not pick up the phone and call their City Hall; they call their member. If there is a problem with the municipality and you are lobbying government, you will call your MHA. That is a topic for another time. I do not want to get off the topic because eventually we will have to look at reducing the number of seats in the Province because of the population drop and the out-migration, but we are not doing that tonight.

This commission would never task to do a redistribution of seats where we are going to remove seats from the House of Assembly. All we have done is ask this commission to go out and redistribute forty-eight seats and end up with forty-eight seats. As a result, I think that it was a useless exercise. Maybe we should have stopped it before it began, because if we look at the population shifts - we are basing this on the 2001 census where it said, for example, in Salmon Cove - in Old Pelican in 2001 there were 714 people, today there are 676.

All of the rural communities in this Province have lost population in the last five years. We did this on the 2001 census. So, if we are saying that we are redistributing it because of the population, it does not make any sense. You are saying the district represented by Gerry Reid, Twillingate & Fogo, we have to change that, or we have to change Carbonear-Harbour Grace district because the population has dropped. Well, it has dropped even further since 2001 but we have used the 2001 census.

Now, I know it might be late to get up and say that this was an exercise in futility, but I think we should have thought about that before we wasted all of that money commissioning this report. Again, no disrespect for the individuals who did it, but if I had my way we would look at this in three or four or five years from now because the population is going to continue to decrease. At least we would have probably better census information because we have better census information today than we had when we put these four individuals to work to look at redistributing the seats in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, all I am going to say - and I will sit down and let someone talk - is that I honestly believe this was an exercise in futility, a waste of time -

MS FOOTE: A waste of money.

MR. REID: - and a waste of money, because we are going to have to go out now and do a total enumeration based on the new districts. We are going to have to give the Chief Electoral Officer enough money to hire a whole group of people to go around and change the voters list for every district because the districts are changing.

MS FOOTE: And ten years from now, they are still not going to be updated.

MR. REID: In ten years from now, as my colleague from Grand Banks says, the list will still be outdated because of the population shifts and the population drops in the Province.

What I am saying is that not only did we spend a lot of money on this report to simply change for the sake of change sake, but now we are going to spend a lot more money out redefining these boundaries and doing enumerations on all of these new districts. For what? Simply because we can have forty-eight seats in the House of Assembly, the same number as we have today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not insulted anybody's sensibilities. Again, I have no disrespect for the people who did this report. We had to do it under the legislation, but the Government House Leader talked tonight about the Supreme Court making decisions based on population and all of that, but we obviously do not follow that because we have four seats in Labrador. Based on population, we would not have four seats, we would have two maybe, maybe three at the most, but we would not have four. I have no problem with that, Labrador should have four seats. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador should have the same number of seats that it currently holds today even if the population continues to drop. I will always fight to see that this occurs, because I think you need good representation in rural areas.

To do what we are doing tonight, voting to pass this bill, I just think that it is completely ludicrous that we are going to go out and spend all of this money, simply so that we can say we live by the piece of legislation, when, in fact, we should have amended the legislation last year and said that we will do this down the road in four or five years from now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just spend a few minutes because my district is not affected.

Before I start, I would just like to congratulate the four new members here: the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Port au Port, the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Ferryland. I know we are going to have our differences of opinion at times, but for anybody to put their name on the ballot and to step forward, you deserve great credit and great applause from all of us because it is a great profession. Everybody who comes into this profession feels that they have something to offer and they can make the lives of other people better. So, to the four new members, congratulations, all the best in your endeavours.

I am sure at times we will be working together. We are going to be opposed at times, but as long as we all know that we are on the same page, to make lives better for everybody, then I am sure that is going to be.

Congratulations and welcome to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be interesting. The Member for Humber East, I know he sat down with the town council in Pasadena, and he said: I do not agree with it. He is a minister. That is what he said: I do not agree with it. I know there is a petition on its way for you to present, to see if you are going to present the petition that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you at that?

MR. JOYCE: No, but the six people were though. You can answer to this. It is going to be interesting. It is going to be interesting, that is all.

Mr. Speaker, in the district of Bay of Islands, there is not a lot of change. There is one minor change, which I am not sure why it was done. When the old St. Mary's Brook was the connector for the Humber East and Humber West, which is the Premier's district, and now they just come down the main street in Curling, they make a left and there is one street called Woodbine Avenue. Half the street on Woodbine Avenue is Humber West, everything else is different. There might be a difference of seventy-five or eighty people, and they split a street right down in Woodbine Avenue for Humber West, and I still do not know why it was done. No one can explain to me why it was done. It is not because of numbers, because there are only seventy-five or eighty people. To the people who are going with Humber West, I say I hope the Premier is as good a member as I was to you, because I know a lot of you personally. I know I have dealt with a lot of you on personal matters. I grew up with a lot of you, spend a lot of time in your kitchens, and spent a lot of time with family members around Curling, in that area.

To the other side that is going to stay in the Bay of Islands, I look forward to serving all of the Bay of Islands area again. There is only one regret that I have in the Bay of Islands, only one regret, and I am assuming that this is one of the times that I can bring it up. It was after the last election. I had no problem with the court, going though the court, I had no problem with not getting my money back after getting a court opinion of $18,000 to defend it. The only regret that I have in the whole Bay of Islands is those thirty DRO's and poll clerks, who at Christmas feared they would have to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all because I was the member and people wanted so bad to make sure that I was not the member. That is my only regret in my eighteen years in politics, those thirty DRO's and poll clerks, that on December 19^th and December 20^th that they had to get information that they would be named in an affidavit, that they would have to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is my only regret.

To the people now who are moving in or out of the district, I will make one suggestion, not only to the Bay of Islands but to anybody, that if you are going to be a DRO or poll clerk, if you are going to change districts, make sure that you have the confidence of the Chief Electoral Officer in St. John's. Because if it happens to anybody else what happened to the DROs and poll clerks in the Bay of Islands, on December 19 finding out that you are being named in affidavits, that you have to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, just because someone did not like the way they lost - Mike Monahan shook my hand and he said: The Premier asked me to do this. My only regret! A few of those people were in the district that has gone with Humber West. That is my only regret in the eighteen years.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of members opposite heard me speak on it before. This is how foolish this was; the reason they had to defend themselves, they did not ask people for IDs when they came in and voted. They did not ask people. Do you know who thirty-seven of the people were who were named that did not ask for IDs? It was their sons and daughters. They made a big fuss because someone's son came in and asked them to vote, and they, oh, no, no, you cannot vote. The affidavit was signed, that she let someone sign who voted and never saw any ID. It went down on the affidavit, got the person's name. It was their son. That is how foolish that was.

That is my only regret, Mr. Speaker, and you are well aware of my regret. You are well aware of it, because you went out and got a legal opinion by Gus Lilly saying that I should get a certain amount of the money because I had to represent those people. Money was not the issue. Then, I had to give a certain portion of that money back. What did you do, Mr. Speaker, you and few other people? You voted against it. An $8,000 legal opinion and you voted against it. It cost $8,000, $7,900 or something, and they voted against it after going out - it cost about, I would say, with Gus Lilly and paying me to come in two or three times, $12,000 to turn around and say no to me. After the last commitment, get a legal opinion, $8,000 by Gus Lilly - the Speaker was there, the Member for Bonavista South was there, and there were a few others there - get a legal opinion at $8,000 to come back and say, yes, he should get a portion of the funds, they turned around, all because of politics, and said: No, do not give him anything. That is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? They paid a lawyer (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: They paid a lawyer. Oh, yes, that was part of the deal, whatever the legal opinion says. That was the Speaker. The Speaker is well aware of it. They got a legal opinion, whatever the legal opinion says. Went out and spend $8,000 and voted against it.

MR. REID: They said they would live with the legal opinion.

MR. JOYCE: Oh, yes! That is what I was told.

Then they turned around after the election and spent $19,000 to represent the DROs and poll clerks in the court in Corner Brook; $19,000 that the Chief Electoral Officer paid out to the lawyer in Corner Brook to represent them. That is my only regret.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) Mike Monaghan.

MR. JOYCE: He shook my hand. He said it wasn't him, it was the Premier. The Premier asked me to do it, he said. I do not know what other people might say but that is what - he shook my hand personally. Anyway, that is my only regret.

To the people on the North Shore and the South Shore, it has been a privilege to serve all of them in the last eighteen years, first when I was elected in 1989 and I stayed on as the Executive Assistant to Clyde Wells and to Brian Tobin. I was elected in 1999. I am glad the district itself is remaining intact because outside Curling it is a rural district.

There are some challenges but there have been a lot of positive achievements in the district. Just in the last little while, two new schools, well one new extension and one new major renovation. There are three fish plants in the Bay of Islands that the minister knows are doing quite well. It is a bit different out our way because of pelagics.

It is a pleasure to represent the District of Bay of Islands. I am glad that the district is staying mainly intact. I feel sorry for the people going. You walk up Woodbine Avenue now and the people on the right are the Bay of Islands, the people on the left are Humber West, and there are only about seventy or seventy-five votes; that is all. That is all is on the left hand side, one side of the street straight up, and still I never received an answer as to why that happened. It could not be because of numbers, it just could not be because of numbers. Maybe it was just the line and the commission, and I ask that it be brought up with the commission, why it was done. Because on the left hand side of Woodbine Avenue there is nothing but woods; absolutely no houses in between nowhere. There is absolutely no logic to it whatsoever; absolutely no logic.

Mr. Speaker, I just thank the people of the Bay of Islands for their continued support. Hopefully I will not be around after another fifteen or twenty years. That would do me another fifteen or twenty years. I hope the Bay of Islands will stay intact because there are still a lot of improvements that we need to do in the Bay of Islands. The Bay of Islands has prospered well over the last number of years, even with this government. I always speak about it the way it is. Even since 2003 there have been improvements done in the Bay of Islands. I make no bones about it.

Roads are definitely a big issue in the Bay of Islands. I presented a petition today, I will be presenting another one again tomorrow and one again Monday, of 1,500 people on the North Shore alone who have problems with the roads. There are always improvements that we are looking for. There are always improvements that we could deal with on the South and North Shores of the Bay of Islands, because working together is much better than all working against each other.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to serving the people of the Bay of Islands. It is too bad that we have to go ahead and separate Woodbine Avenue, but I know the people on the left hand side of Woodbine Avenue who have Eddy Joyce's number will not forget it and will continue to call me. I will have no problem answering any of their calls or dropping in for a cup of tea like I always did, because growing up in the area makes you part of their family, part of their friends and that is not going to change because somebody puts a line up the centre of the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand here tonight to speak on An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

I know, when I first entered political life back in 2003 and became the Justice Minister, I think the first file, or one of the first files, I was given, was the Electoral Boundaries Act. I knew that at some point the ultimate conclusion of dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Act would result in an amendment to the House of Assembly Act, because this is the legislation - not the Electoral Boundaries Act, it is the House of Assembly Act - which determines the number of members who are going to take part here in the House of Assembly, whether it is going to be forty-eight or it is going to go down to forty-four, or it is going to go back up to fifty-two. It also determines the names of the districts and the boundaries of the districts. The act is a relatively thin act but, of course, the schedule is very thick because it has the descriptions and maps describing all forty-eight seats.

We do not need an Electoral Boundaries Act to be able to amend the House of Assembly Act. We can amend this right now. At one point in our history that is what parliaments did; they just simply amended the act. Of course, it would be the government of the day that would introduce the amendment to change the number of seats, to change the names of the seats, and also to change, in particular, the boundaries. That is where they ran into problems, because politicians are partisan. We cannot be non-partisan. We are partisan and we amended - and I think if you look at the history of this Province you have seen that time and time again reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission have, in fact, been amended, tweaked and changed by this House of Assembly and, of course, by the government that has the majority.

Because politicians are partisan, because they would gerrymander or ‘dannymander' or ‘tommymander' in order to gain political partisanship, what enlightened Houses of Assembly have done is deferred this question to an independent commission.

It is interesting. People who wonder about gerrymandering, the original gerrymander was created in 1812 by a man by the name of Elbridge Gerry who crafted a district for political purposes that happened to look like a salamander. That is where the name gerrymandering came from. Basically, the district looked like a salamander. It was done along the principle where you take a particular district that may have members from all parties and you gerrymander, or you change the boundaries, so that your party wins three out of four where it may have only had two out of four before.

We started, I think, in this country in Manitoba back in the 1950s - the Manitoba Legislature was the first one to do it - to refer the issue of determining what the boundaries would be to an independent commission, and Newfoundland followed suit.

The commission is appointed under the legislation, which is the Electoral Boundaries Act. This commission automatically comes into existence every ten years, and the chair of the commission has to be named, and the chair of the commission is appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this case, Chief Justice Wells appointed a former judge of the Court of Appeal, the respected and learned John O'Neill.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the remaining members of the commission are selected by the Speaker. They are selected by you and, while the act and legislation does not say it, I assume you have consultations with the various leaders of the political parties and they are the ones who pick the other members of the commission. In the case of the NDP, I think Cle Newhook was a member, a former leader of the NDP. I think for the Progressive Conservative Party we have had a former MHA, Bob Aylward, and I believe you appointed a young lady from Mount Pearl to serve on it as well?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: No? I am sorry.

The Liberals appointed the former Premier of the Province, Roger Grimes.

The duty of this commission was to divide the Province up into seats, and there are special rules in here for Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am getting to Pasadena.

There were four seats in Labrador but, under the rules set out in the legislation, Labrador would have lost a seat. The government made a policy decision, and the first policy decision was that it would not reduce the number of seats. The number of seats would stay the same.

I thought when I came in here that this government might, as a first step, reduce the number of seats in this Province, but I know, based on discussions that took place, that many members from rural Newfoundland would fight that and recognize that, because of the population shift, the population declining and the population shifting to the East Coast, that many members feel that if there is a reduction in seats then the reduction will come from rural Newfoundland, and they are naturally opposed to that, and I share the concerns that they have raised.

Mr. Speaker, the commission has to follow a formula, and the formula is based on a principle, and the principle is very simple. It has to give primacy, the commission has to give primacy, to the fact that the vote of every voter in Newfoundland and Labrador is equal to the vote of every other elector in Newfoundland and Labrador. That principle must be maintained, because it is one based on fairness, it is one based on equality, and the commission accomplishes this. It gives effect to that principle by ensuring that each district has approximately the same number of electors as every other district. An exception was made for Labrador because it was felt by the government, based on a policy decision, that Labrador should not be adversely affected by the formula.

What will that mean? There could be a challenge to the seat of Cartwright, Labrador, given the fact that it has such a low population. There could be a challenge. There could be someone somewhere else saying: Why should the electors in that particular seat only have so many residents where the electors in every other seat have more?

The idea of the commission was, the commission was commanded by the Legislature, or mandated by the Legislature, to give effect to the principle that the vote of every elector had to be treated equally to the vote of every other elector. As I said, they accomplished this on the Island portion of the Province by dividing the population of the Island portion of the Province by the number forty-four and they come up with a quotient, and the basic principle is that every district would have that same quotient, the same number of electors in each district; but, leeway was given. Each district could be 10 per cent up or down from the quotient.

Again, another exception was set out in the act, and this is section 15.(3), which says that the commission was permitted to recommend the creation of a district where the population departs from the quotient by 25 per cent, more or less, where it concludes that the departure is warranted by special geographic considerations, including the community of interest of the residents of communities in the Province that are not connected by road, particularly those communities along the Coast of Labrador.

So, there is an exception made for a seat in Labrador or on the Southwest Coast of the Island portion of the Province, which is the seat represented by the hon. Member for Cape la Hune and the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - or the accessibility of a region or its size or its shape. So, exceptions were made from this particular rule.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of carrying out that principle, or giving effect to the principle, is that a number of communities in different seats are split. You can have a community that can have more than one MHA. We have known for years that St. John's, of course, and Corner Brook are communities that are split. Mount Pearl has two MHAs. Grand Falls-Windsor is split and has two MHAs. In addition to those communities, the other communities that are split are: Spaniard's Bay, which has a population of around 2,600, is going to be split; CBS; Mount Pearl, as I mentioned; Paradise; Portugal Cove; and St. Philips. These communities will be split as well. The Town of Pasadena, in the district that I have the honour to represent, will also be split, because as was said by other members earlier during the course of the debate, about two-thirds of Pasadena will be in the District of Humber Valley under these recommendations and one-third will remain in the District of Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, the mayor and councillors of Pasadena - and the Mayor of Pasadena, of course, is a man who is well-known to the Members of this House of Assembly. He previously represented Humber East in this House of Assembly. He, and also the Chamber of Commerce in the Town of Pasadena, went to the public hearings because these commissions, after they divide the Province up into their number of seats, they have to have public consultations where the public can come and make representations to the commission. That happened here, and the commission listened carefully. Then when the commission filed its report, it dealt specifically with the requests and the representations that had been made by the Town of Pasadena, and also by other communities that were concerned about the split.

I will read from the report, very briefly. The commission talked about: A common theme that was strongly expressed was that communities and community planning areas in rural areas not be placed where practical in more than one district. The basic message received and understood by the commission was not to split communities or community interest groups if it could be avoided. Now the commission indicated it was sympathetic to this common theme and that it attempted, wherever possible, to accommodate the desire not to split the communities or planning areas. The boundaries of the proposed districts were revised accordingly, where practical.

The commission went on to state that it was not always possible to accommodate requests and submissions, reasonable though they may have been, as in the case of Pasadena. So the commission, in carrying out its mandate, in recognizing the principle that each district had to have approximately the same number of voters, could not accommodate the representations made by the Town of Pasadena, the representations made by that part of the Humber East district to make them an exception, to treat them differently than the rest of the districts on the Island would be treated. The commission could not accommodate that.

Mr. Speaker, the government now has the report of the commission. The commission is an independent one. The commission has performed its work at the cost to the taxpayers of $400,000. Now the Leader of the Opposition felt that the recommendations in the report were change for change sake. I have to disagree with that, because if this government rejected the recommendations of the commission and went with the old boundaries, then we would have the next election on October 9 based on population numbers which are fifteen years old, and therefore no longer recognizing the principle.

Secondly, we have been ignoring the work of the EBC. As was pointed out, the EBC came into effect in 2003, but they were appointed very late in the year and they did not have time to complete their work, and then the election was called in October, 2003. When we first took office we found that we were faced with a situation where the EBC was mandated to complete its work, but had not done so. So, we had to take steps to amend the legislation to have the commission come into effect in 2006 and now do the work, and that is what they did last year.

Of course, the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the comments of one of the commissioners who felt that: Well, maybe we should go with the old boundaries and then have the election based on the current boundaries; and then, instead, have a new commission appointed and do this work yet again, because he felt that the election that would take place would be based on the population from 2001 and he felt that the new figures were coming out in 2006, which would be available some time in 2007. Well, the commission dealt with that themselves.

I will quote from the commission again. It says: As indicated previously, the commission of its own accord and prior to hearings had recognized that the 2001 census information was not current. It proceeded forward on the premise that while its proposal was not current, as it would be the following year - in other words, 2007 when the new census figures are out - its proposal is still a great deal more relevant than the boundaries created on the basis of data that is fifteen years old. The commission felt that it should go ahead and do the report, and allow the election that will take place in October to be based on information that was six years old rather than fifteen years old.

Mr. Speaker, the commission has made it report and the choice for government is to either accept the recommendations of the commission or to reject it in total. That is the choice. A third choice would be to tinker, to try to make exceptions. I have argued to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that a special exemption should be made for Humber East. I have asked that Humber East be treated differently than the other districts, that an advantage, a benefit be given to it, namely that the Town of Pasadena be included entirely within the District of Humber East, or, as an alternative, to give the advantage to Humber Valley, to allow the whole Town of Pasadena to be in the District of Humber Valley. Because what the council has said to me is that they want it not to be split. They want it to either be in Humber East or be in Humber Valley, one way or the other.

I have asked my colleagues to make an exception for Humber East or to make an exception for Humber Valley. If you make an exception for one, then you have to make exceptions for others. I know the Member for Carbonear indicated that, I think the community of Spaniard's Bay is also split and does not want to be split. I know that there are members from St. John's who object to the fact that the district is along one street and they feel it should be based on another street.

Accordingly, based on the principle of either we go with the new boundaries or accept the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, or reject the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, given three reasons, I think we have no choice but to accept the recommendations.

The first reason is to accept the principle and to acknowledge the principle that every district has to be treated the same. On principles of equity and principles of fairness, we cannot give one district an advantage or a benefit that another district does not get. That would not be fair.

Secondly, this commission has been appointed and paid for by the taxpayers of the Province. Two commissions, the one in 2003 and the one last year, have cost the taxpayers of this Province $400,000.

Finally, another point that I think is very relevant, is that if we were to accept the recommendations now and go with the new boundaries now, those boundaries will apply in the election of October of this year, but also the following two elections. The new boundaries will apply for the next three elections, with minor changes, because as you know from looking at the maps in the report, there have been relatively minor changes to each of the districts. Each district may be affected a little bit on one end and then affected a little bit on the other end.

For example, while Humber East, the district that I have the honour to represent, will lose a part of Pasadena, on the other end it gains a bit of Humber West. As a result of that, Humber West loses a bit of its district to Humber East but picks up a bit of the Bay of Islands, but at least the districts will not be changed in a great way. If we do not do that, if we reject the recommendations of the commission and if we bring in a new boundary and change the boundaries, the boundaries in the election after this one are going to be major, and because of the population shift to the east coast, they are going to hurt rural Newfoundland. Therefore, I think we should reject it.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think on the basis of fairness, on the basis of principle, we have to accept the recommendations of the commission. I know that part of Humber East will be disappointed, I regret that very much, but I think we have to be fair and equitable to every district in the Province and to every elector in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) speaks now he closes debate. I introduced the bill.

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

If you speak now you are closing debate, but I thought that perhaps you had some comments to make relative to the end of the daily session.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I just want to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for a very interesting debate. I thank them for their contribution. It is a debate, I think, that has gone very well.

On behalf of the government, I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry.

The hon. the Clerk.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, I am sorry.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act. (Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 72 has now been read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 72)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the Opposition, we are going to agree to stop the clock for a minute or so.

I move that Bill 72 now be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, by leave, that Bill 72 be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House 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. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on Bill 72.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." (Bill 72)

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: Clause 2 and clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MR. REID: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 72 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: 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.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have the considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 72, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, again I thank members for their work tonight.

I now move that the House rise until tomorrow, Friday, at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Friday, March 23, at 1:30 in the afternoon. Members will acknowledge that leave has already been granted for the Friday session.

Are we ready for the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 23, at 1:30 in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 1:30 p.m.