November 28, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 31

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member

for the District of Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for the District of

Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the

Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for

the District of St. John's North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of

Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, on Friday night past, I had the privilege of

being invited to a fundraising dinner put forward by the Lethbridge and Area

Volunteer Fire Department, and at that particular dinner there were four

Governor General award pins for exemplary firefighting services provided to: Mr.

Jake Barbour, Mr. Randy Diamond, Mr. Wesley Holloway, and Mr. Ewan Palmer. Those

four individuals have put forward in excess of twenty years of service for the

Lethbridge and Area Volunteer Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, the Lethbridge Fire Department is a little bit unlike most fire

departments in the Province in that they represent an area with no form of local

government, no local service districts, no town councils. Those particular

individuals, like the rest of the volunteer fire departments, have to raise

money not only to provide the services of repairing equipment, but also to pay

for such things as the light bill on the building, insurance on the building,

repairs to the fire truck.

After twenty years of going out and providing not only firefighting services,

but raising funds in order to carry out this service as well, I am certain that

every member in this Legislature joins with me in saying a sincere thank you in

appreciation to not only the Lethbridge and Area Volunteer Fire Department but

for every other fire department and every other firefighter in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to a number of residents on the Burin

Peninsula who were inducted into the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of Fame at an

event I attended this past weekend in Burin.

The Soccer Hall of Fame recognizes the excellence of players, coaches, teams,

officials and builders of the game. Anyone who knows about life on the Burin

Peninsula knows only too well how much soccer is part of everyday life in the

communities throughout the Peninsula. In my own district, the St. Lawrence

Laurentians have won the Provincial Challenge Cup twenty-one times and

represented the Province at the National Senior Men's Challenge Cup.

New members inducted into the Burin Peninsula Soccer Hall of Fame this past

weekend include: Kevin Pittman of St. Lawrence; Brendan Slaney of Burin; Colin

Edwards of Lawn; Leonard Edwards of Lawn; Frank Pitman of St. Lawrence; Frank

Haskell, formerly of St. Lawrence; Cindy Inkpen of Burin; Ray Warren of Burin,

and Betty Pickett of Marystown.

Randy Douglas of Grand Bank and Don Hannam of Marystown both received

recognition for their long-time service, but the highlight of the night, Mr.

Speaker, was Newman Bartlett of Grand Bank receiving a lifetime membership, the

second person to ever receive such recognition. The first was the late Fred

Tessier of Grand Bank.

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

inductees and the award winners.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to congratulate

Karen Froude, a local musician who was joined by family, friends and the whole

community last night to celebrate the release of her new CD, Grace for the

Journey . Karen lives in Deer Lake with her husband Raymond, where they both

teach at Xavier Junior High. She holds a Bachelor of Education, a Graduate

Diploma in Fine Arts, and a Masters Degree in Education.

Karen has been involved in vocal and instrumental music since her early

school days and she truly has a unique and enthusiastic style. She has released

four gospel recordings and her latest release, Grace for the Journey ,

features three of her own songs.

I would ask that all members join with me today to congratulate Karen on her

accomplishments in the music industry and to wish her continued success in her

musical career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Eric Thomas and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au

Clair, who have been honoured with lifetime membership awards from the Canadian

Coast Guard Auxiliary. In addition, a certificate of appreciation was presented

to Marcel and Alma O'Brien of L'Anse au Loup.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary presents volunteers with

lifetime membership awards in recognition of their years of service and

dedication. Each year in Newfoundland and Labrador, nearly 1,000 members of the

Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary respond to more than 100 calls for assistance

from mariners who are in trouble. They also donate more than 6,000 hours of

support to maritime research and rescue activities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, a certificate of appreciation that was presented to

Marcel and Alma O'Brien who are recognized by their regional and national

counterparts in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary for their continuing

outstanding contributions to the organization. They were specifically recognized

for their hard work in 2005 in planning an execution of the twenty-seventh

annual general meeting of the seventh annual Search and Rescue Competition,

which was held in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in L'Anse au

Loup.

Mr. Speaker, many of the individuals of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary

have been involved in this organization since 1978 and 1979. By bestowing the

coveted honour of lifetime membership in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary on

Eric and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au Clair, the organization says it provides an

opportunity to recognize these men for their outstanding contribution to the

organization, but also for their contribution to the safety of mariners at sea.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues today to join with me in congratulating

Eric and Clyde Thomas of L'Anse au Clair, and Marcel and Alma O'Brien of L'Anse

au Loup, who have been honoured for their work with awards from the Canadian

Coast Guard Auxiliary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize Ms Lori Clarke, a

special education teacher at Prince of Wales Collegiate. Ms Clarke has been

teaching special education for just seven years at PWC and last month she was

honoured by the Learning Disabilities Association as the National Educator of

the Year for students with learning disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, once again a resident of this Province, one of our own, has

achieved a recognition on a national level and I think that is just tremendous.

As Head of the Department of Special Services at PWC, with a team of six

teachers under her, Ms Clarke has demonstrated exceptional leadership ability.

However, her real strength seems to be in the fact that she is very focused on

identifying and supporting students with learning disabilities. Indeed, it was

one of her own students, James Hickey, who nominated her for this award and that

fact speaks volumes in terms of the respect that this teacher has earned from

her students at PWC.

Additionally, Ms Clarke offers support to her fellow teachers as they work

towards finding the appropriate strategies that can be used to assist students

with learning disabilities to reach their potential.

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

exceptional teacher, Ms Lori Clarke, National Educator of the Year for students

with learning disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Laura Riggs, a

Level 3 student at Carbonear Collegiate who has been awarded first place in the

National Concours French public-speaking Competition.

Mr. Speaker, this event is hosted annually by the Canadian Parents for French

and is a national public-speaking competition. This first place prize comes with

a $20,000 scholarship from the University of Ottawa.

Laura, sixteen-year-old daughter of Boyd and Cheryl Riggs of Carbonear, has

been busy in 2006. She placed first in regional and provincial French speak-outs

Mr. Speaker, in addition to public speaking, Laura takes

part in a wide

variety of activities. She is heavily involved in music, both voice and piano.

She also participates and instructs in dance classes and is a member of

Carbonear Collegiate's cheerleading team.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating Laura, who has been awarded first place in the National Concours

French public-speaking Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of

fifteen young entrepreneurs from ACE Memorial, who recently represented Canada

at the International Students in Free Enterprise Cup in Paris, France.

This world-class event brings together teams from universities around the

globe to showcase their outreach projects and the impact that they have had on

their communities. More than 1,000 people attended the competition hosted by

Students in Free Enterprise, which is a global non-profit organization that

mobilizes university students to create economic opportunity for others while

discovering their own potential.

The ACE Memorial team won the right to represent Canada in May, 2006 at the

ACE National Exposition in Toronto, where the group from ACE Memorial was named

the Most Enterprising Campus in Canada. The competition included forty-two teams

representing all ten provinces, and groups were evaluated on their success at

creating economic opportunity through the projects they carried out.

The international competition held in Paris, France, included teams from

forty-eight different countries, and a judging contingency that included some of

the world's top CEOs. The ACE Memorial team represented Canada extremely well,

making it to the semi-finals, where they were edged out by China, the team that

went on to win the championship.

Mr. Speaker, since its inception in 1992, ACE Memorial, which stands for

Advancing Canadian Entrepreneurship, has grown to be one of the strongest teams

in the ACE organization nationwide. ACE Memorial encourages young entrepreneurs

to create brighter futures for themselves and their communities by practicing

and teaching others the principles and values of entrepreneurship and market

economics.

The provincial government was proud to provide financial support to this

exceptional group of young adults, assisting them to compete on both a national

and international level.

In particular, ACE Memorial had over sixty active members who have

contributed 4,397 volunteer hours to twenty-one different projects in the past

year, helping elementary, high school and post-secondary students, new

Canadians, at-risk youth and small business owners.

Key projects ACE Memorial completed when preparing for the competitions

included "STEPS - Shifting to Entrepreneurial Power and Success,"

which was a day-long conference, delivered Bell Island high school students,

aimed at inspiring young adults to create opportunities in their communities.

Another project was called "Transatlantic Consultants," where ten

Newfoundland-based businesses teamed up with students from Memorial University

Harlow Campus to assist with conducting market research, developing partnerships

and researching potential mergers.

I would like to acknowledge the team from ACE Memorial for the hard work and

dedication they exhibited when preparing for competition. I am very pleased to

congratulate the team for representing their university, their Province and

their country extremely well on an international stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his Ministerial Statement.

I, too, of course, and the members on this side, want to congratulate the

young entrepreneurs from ACE Memorial. Given what the minister has read here,

obviously they have done a good job and will continue to do so, but what I find

really ironic about this statement, Mr. Speaker, is that: it is one thing to

talk about trying to control the Open Line shows, and putting people up, and you

know why they are trying to control them and how they are trying to control

them, because, of course, everyone that gets up, if we are criticizing an issue,

they are coming up and attacking the person, it is so obvious, but today I get a

Ministerial Statement from the minister and it says: Potential headline.

Potential headline. Now you are trying to control the print media.

Whoever heard tell of trying to tell the print media what the headline should

be in a story? Mr. Speaker, this is the bottom of the barrel. Obviously the

polling period is not over, and now we have the government trying to tell the

print media what the headlines should be. I have never heard tell of this in my

life, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what the minister or the department is up to, but obviously the

department does not have very much good news to tell when it has nothing that it

can talk about from a Department of Business perspective other than to

congratulate our entrepreneurs at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Where is the good news, Mr. Speaker? The potential headlines -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, want to congratulate the ACE Memorial team, but I would like to pick

up on a bit of good news that is indirectly referred to here.

I was pleased to see that the team went to Bell Island, where they took

part

in a day-long conference delivered to Bell Island high school students aimed at

inspiring these young adults in the entrepreneurial spirit.

The reason I want to speak to this is that, over twenty years ago, about

twenty-four years ago, Bell Islanders formed a community economic development

co-operative and learned together, as a community, how to work together using

their entrepreneurial spirit. They built a new bakery. They got senior citizens'

housing going. It was that spirit that led to the miners' museum, B & Bs

started, so it was a wonderful place for this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

Has leave been granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Just to add that it was a wonderful place for them to be,

because the people on Bell Island have learned, through a very strong community

development process, that entrepreneurs do not have to work in isolation from

one another; they can work together. I hope this team learned that as they

worked on Bell Island with the students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in the House today to update the residents of our Province on our

re-registration of the Province's Medical Care Program, known as MCP.

In May of this year our government launched the re-registration of MCP,

asking all residents of the Province to complete a re-registration form on or

before March 31, 2007, to receive their new MCP card.

Mr. Speaker, my department has witnessed a tremendous response to this

initiative from the people of this Province. Since May, over 80 per cent of the

Province has completed their re-registration forms. To date, we have received

forms from over 420,000 people and over 240,000 new cards have been issued.

Mr. Speaker, in his 2004 report, the Auditor General found an estimated

80,000 more beneficiary numbers issued than there were residents in the

Province. By undertaking this initiative, our government will strengthen the

monitoring of medical care claims to ensure that only eligible beneficiaries

permanently residing in the Province are able to avail of coverage under MCP.

The end result will be greater accountability and fiscal responsibility to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The new MCP cards contain the individual's name,

gender, MCP number -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services. I ask members for their co-operation to permit the minister to make

his Ministerial Statement in relative quiet, please.

The hon. the Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new MCP cards contain the individual's name, gender, MCP

number and birth date to provide additional security to ensure that only the

person to whom the card is issued will be able to use it. In addition, the cards

have an expiry date to allow the Department of Health and Community Services to

periodically update the MCP database to provide an improved mechanism for

accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for their co-operation, and the patience of all

individuals in the Province as we process the large volume of applications. I

also ask those who have not yet sent in their re-registration form to do so

before March 31, 2007, when old versions of the MCP card will become invalid.

Individuals may obtain a form to fill out by contacting their local MCP

office, by visiting www.gov.nl.ca/mcp ,

or by e-mail at mcpreregistration@gov.nl.ca.

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.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I say to the minister, there may have been 80,000 people who had exited the

Province when he started this program, but I would think there are a lot more

than that right now. It is a good thing there is an expiry date on those cards,

so that they can be renewed on a regular basis, because, at the rate that people

are leaving, your numbers are going to keep going down.

I want to say to the minister that all of us on this side of the House have

filed for our re-registration MCP card, Mr. Speaker. We do not plan on leaving

the Province any time soon, for work or any other purpose. We plan on staying

here, Mr. Speaker, right here, for at least the next four years, so I will let

the hon. minister know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: What I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that he is on the

ball with the pre-registration of MCP, but it is unfortunate that he has not

been on the ball with the pharmacy situation in this Province. It is unfortunate

today that there are still pharmacists out there in Newfoundland and Labrador,

that in 1999 the Minister of Finance wanted them all on wage parity with

Atlantic Canada. Well, not only today are we not on wage parity with Atlantic

Canada, Mr. Speaker, we are not even on a wage parity within our own Province.

From the East Coast to the West Coast, from Central Newfoundland to Labrador,

there is that kind of wage disparity that exists with pharmacists. The minister

and his government are refusing to deal with this issue, Mr. Speaker, and it is

unfortunate because what we are going to have is a continued number of

pharmacists leaving the medical -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the minister for the

advance copy.

The figures are quite high, the beneficiary numbers who are residents outside

the Province. There was obviously a lot of red tape involved in getting the new

cards, which is far from being over yet. I will be looking forward, when this

process is finished, to learning that it really has been a saving for us, going

through what we are going through in getting the new cards. I trust that the

minister believes it would have been or they would not have done it. I presume

that in the next Auditor General's report we will find what the cost savings

were and I look forward to learning what they will be.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the Department of Finance was asked

earlier this year to do an analysis of this recently announced fibre optic deal.

To date, government has not released or referenced this report.

I ask the minister: In the spirit of openness, transparency and

accountability, will you table that report in the House today?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance and the Department of Innovation Trade

and Rural Development have been involved with discussions on this fibre optic

link to the mainland for the quite a period of time; I guess, Mr. Speaker,

probably about a year. We engaged, as I said on numerous occasions, outside

consultants, namely EWA, PriMetrica and two other firms that I really cannot

recall the names of right now, but it is in the back of the EWA report, who

assessed this proposal, looked at it from the cost of the infrastructure, the

cost benefit analysis, and looked at it from the perspective of the return on

investment. They did the analysis. The report has been tabled. The report has

been released publicly. All information, as it relates to it, has been provided

to the Opposition. The information that is required to determine whether or not

this was a good deal has been evaluated, and we have been told that $15 million

is an appropriate investment and we will get value for our money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister about an analysis that was conducted by the Department

of Finance which, according to our understanding, did not paint such a rosy

picture of this deal as did the EWA report.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development stated that other companies could have bid on the fibre optic

project, but they did not have regulatory approval under the CRTC. Minister,

that contradicts the information given to us by your own officials and others

which states that there are other companies out there that are already approved

by the CRTC and could have bid on this project, and there are still other

companies who would have received CRTC approval very easily in a very short

period of time.

I ask the minister: Why are you once again putting forward another

smokescreen with no basis in fact instead of dealing with the real issue? Why

did this not go to a public tender or Request for Proposals?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

section 2, page 3, of the EWA report, the last sentence: Given the limited

market in Newfoundland, the number of potential investors are limited to the

existing partners, the province, the federal government or the competitor,

Aliant.

Now, I will say this right now to the Leader of the Opposition, all of the

Opposition, the NDP, anybody in the gallery, anybody in the House, anybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is a company that they know of who are

willing to partner with us, who are willing to provide us with the fibre optic

strands that we require for our broadband initiative, Mr. Speaker, then let us

know who they are because this has been on the go now for - in a day-and-a-half,

it will be four weeks since we made the announcment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my number is 729-4728. My phone has not been rung off the

hook with companies who are involved with the telecommunications industry in

Canada or internationally looking to be a part of this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, it was your job to determine if anybody else out there

wanted to bid this, but obviously you did not want anyone else to bid this

contract.

To go back to my first question. I asked for a copy of the analysis that was

conducted by the Department of Finance, and to this point in Question Period you

have not even referenced that analysis.

Mr. Speaker, we are constantly hearing different stories from government

regarding this deal. This is the reason why questions need to be asked.

Government ministers, officials and the companies involved are all giving

contradictory stories; they contradict each other. Officials told us yesterday,

from the minister's own department, that this $52 million would only cover the

cost of putting the fibre optic cable across the Province and hooking it up with

Nova Scotia. They also stated that an additional $200 million will be required

to establish the necessary laterals, the actual connections to the communities

and the rural communities in this Province, and that no rural communities will

have immediate access to this so-called cable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if you would put his question immediately.

MR. REID: No problem, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Who will pay the additional $200 million required to

connect rural communities to these fibre optic cables? Is government committing

today $200 million to extend this fibre optic service to rural communities that

are not immediately connected, or will not be immediately connected to this

trans-Island link?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, the Leader of the Opposition either does not understand or does

not want to understand the information that is presented to him by officials in

the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development or by anybody else who

wants to provide him with the information.

The fact of the matter is, what he was told and what his party was told, and

the NDP, and the media when they were briefed by officials from my department,

was that we will be going forward with a Request for Proposals once this

infrastructure is in place and what is referred to as the backbone of the fibre

optic network for government is in place. We will be going forward with a

Request for Proposals for somebody to manage that system and to do a lateral

build out into rural communities to expand the network and to manage it,

potentially, over a ten-year period. That could be in the order of $200 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful in that - obviously, there are costs

associated with government's data transmissions, and as a result of this

lateral build we hope that we will extend -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has expired.

I remind members to keep their questions and their replies to sixty seconds

or less.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a bunch of malarkey. You are going to an RFP in part two, but they did

not see fit to go to an RFP in part one. You should have done it months ago.

Continuing in the vein of looking after ones friends and ignoring the Public

Tender Act, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, in September of this year the Bull Arm Site Corporation, which

comes under the Minister of Natural Resources' department, called for public

tenders to construct a building on the site. According to the information we

have received, four companies bid but the bid was cancelled, supposedly for

financial reasons. Three weeks later, the Bull Arm Site Corporation solicited

bids for the labour portion of the same project. No public tenders were asked

for. One of the principals of the company who was awarded the contract was the

campaign manager for Joan Cleary, the current President and CER of the Bull Arm

Site Corporation and defeated PC candidate in the last provincial election. That

company was not eligible to bid the first time round when the public tenders

were called because it was not board certified.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to put his question.

MR. PARSONS: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why did the Bull Arm Site

Corporation change the scope of the contract and not call for public tenders?

Was it to help the campaign manager for Joan Cleary, the President of Bull Arm

Site Corporation? Can you tell us if this apparent circumvention of the Public

Tender Act is, indeed, true?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I can say

with a great degree of confidence that there is no circumvention of any law or

any procedure or any proceeding that ought to be undertaken by this government.

With respect to the specific question, I am not aware of those particulars.

As you can see, the minister is unavoidably absent. Mr. Speaker, I will

certainly endeavour to pursue further information with respect to the question

that has been asked, but I say, as a minister of this government, that I am

confident, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no breach in any way of any

government policy or procedure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can check out his facts before he starts making statements

like, there has been no circumvention of the act. This appears to be another

example of government doing things to help their friends.

Why minister are you allowing the Bull Arm Site Corporation to scrap the

requirements of the Public Tender Act to help political cronies? Will you

investigate this and put a stop to these sort of underhanded actions that are

taking place in agencies that report to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act is

an act that is

regarded in a very real, genuine and important way. In fact, there was

legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was put forward by this government, or this

particular party, approximately thirty-five or forty years ago. This is an

issue, Mr. Speaker, and a piece of legislation that this government takes very

seriously. As I have indicated to the hon. member opposite, I will certainly

undertake to review the details and the specifics; however, I repeat what I said

earlier, Mr. Speaker: I am confident that there in no way has there been any

breach of any provincial legislation, any statute, any regulation, with respect

to the issue being raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Bull Arm Site Corporation seems to be a feed trough for this government's

friends and cronies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Ms Cleary was made president and CEO at a cost of more than

$100,000 a year.

Minister, do you have any influence with this board? Are you in charge of

these appointments, or are you just a lackey to ensure that the Premier's

demands are carried out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the individuals who serve on this board are

responsible, credible individuals, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who see to

it, to ensure that the best interests of the people of this Province are

protected. To suggest otherwise, Mr. Speaker, to me, is an indication that the

member opposite does not understand the role of this board and the serious

responsibility that is undertaken by members who take it upon themselves to work

diligently on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the closed mill in Stephenville is another broken promise by the

Premier and this government. We heard the Premier state: It will not close on my

watch. The unions heard him make a personal commitment to them, that he would

expropriate the mill. He also stated that there would be no stone left unturned

to find a solution.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: If the Premier was at all serious

about his commitments and his intent in Stephenville, why doesn't government

commit the funds necessary to have the consultant, which the union itself found,

review the possibility of an operator for this mill rather than letting it be

demolished?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have had a meeting with the consultants, and

with the union as well. Prior to having the meeting with the consultants, there

was a report done by Dr. Mo Nazir, where he looked at future possibilities for

the mill in Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that, to be able to expropriate the

mill in Stephenville, there would have to have been a new operator there to do

it.

The consultants who came in, there were some issues in setting up the

meeting. They wanted government to pay for them to come and do the meeting. They

also indicated at that time that they were looking for $150,000, not that they

had a proposal to submit but to develop a proposal.

Mr. Speaker, we did meet with them. We did hear what they had to say. We have

also had an extensive report done regarding the future of the Stephenville mill.

As I said, that was done by Dr. Nazir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, this government commissioned a report by Dr. Mo

Nazir, as the minister just stated. It was a key government commitment in its

Blue Book that all reports be released in thirty days, another broken promise by

this government.

Number one, the consultant has asked for this report; and, two, the union had

to apply, under the Freedom of Information, to get access to this information,

and when it was released over 90 per cent was blacked out of the report.

I ask the minister: Was it recommended in this report to expropriate the

mill, and will the minister do the honourable thing and release this report in

its entirety to the union and to the consultant, as the Premier committed in the

Blue Book?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, any reports that we release certainly have to be

done according to the legislation, as was done in this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, when we say that reports are going to be released, and there are

guidelines under our legislation, we are required to follow that, and we did

just so in that case.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I ever heard that the union

had to apply to the Freedom of Information to get a report - if the minister is

so honest about helping out the union.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister, and the Member for Stephenville East, told

the union that there were eleven potential operators for the mill. The union has

asked the government for $150,000 for the consultant who has a potential

operator. The union executive are very competent and willing to try every

possible route, unlike the minister. They have committed today $10,000 of their

own money towards the consultant fee. Minister, this is a real commitment by the

union.

If the Premier wants to live up to his promise that no stone will be left

unturned, then will the minister support the union initiative and commit the

remainder of the funds needed to explore this option, because they have put the

money where their mouth is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the consultants will

develop a proposal - there is no proposal from the meeting that we attended with

them, that there is a proposal on the table that they are not submitting - they

would develop a proposal.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, the mill in Stephenville has been idle now since

last year and, in fairness to any company that may be looking at operating that

mill, we are still open for business. They can still contact the government;

they can contact Natural Resources.

We have never said that a company cannot come forward. If a company does

explore options with us, we will certainly be more than glad to meet with them.

If there is a potential company, they do not necessarily have to wait. They can

come forward and certainly meet with us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, these people, hard-working

citizens of Stephenville from the union, are putting up $10,000 of their own

money to show the commitment to Stephenville.

I am asking the minister: Would you please show the same type of commitment

to these people and to the region? If this government really feels that their

commitment was met in Stephenville, the union in Stephenville and residents that

we spoke to in Stephenville are asking: Will you hold a public meeting in

Stephenville, a full public meeting that was held before, to explain your

position to the people of this area, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to almost give the

impression that we have not been working in the community in the Town of

Stephenville or the Bay St. George area since we have gone through this crisis

last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we have had a significant presence in

the area. We have certainly established a task force, which is being chaired by

Mr. Cyril Organ, who is doing a great job of trying to help us diversify the

economy. We also have included in that task force the Mayor of Stephenville

Crossing, the Mayor of Kippens, the Mayor of Stephenville. We have

representation from the union, we have representation from the Chamber of

Commerce, from the business communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador

Affairs.

Recently, both airlines servicing Labrador substantially increased their

fares from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province, where now the best

fare anyone can get with advance booking is nearly $1,000. Obviously, this will

make it impossible for many Labrador residents, most of whom have immediate

family ties with people on the Island portion, to fly, which for the most part

of the year is the only real travel option.

A number of years ago, I say to the minister, this Province had a 25 per cent

rebate in place for air travel between Labrador and the Island. Will the

Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs, given the high cost

of travel within the Province, bring back the air subsidy program?

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for Labrador West for the question.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is certainly a pressing issue for not only

Labrador West but for all people of Labrador, the high price of airfares. I will

say that this is an issue that is being dealt with, with the Northern Strategic

Plan. As I spoke with the member yesterday, I would like for him to certainly

put his input into the Northern Strategic Plan, as it is in its final stages

right now.

There is no question that, in the conversations I have had with both

airlines, they felt that they had to up the airfares over Labrador West. One of

the issues that our department has taken on, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We certainly are looking into the issue of airport fees in Wabush, which we

understand are certainly larger than those in Seven Islands and some other

locales in Quebec. I had just written to the minister yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has spent his allotted time.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister commit to bringing back the air transportation subsidy

program for travel between Labrador and the Island, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to wait until he is recognized.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, certainly we will review it, I say to the Member

for Labrador West, and I look forward to working with you in looking at that

particular issue.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Labrador Affairs. We

are hearing a lot about the $15 million investment by government to improve

communications on the Island portion of the Province. In Labrador, along the

highway, we only have satellite phones to rely on. As the minister knows, these

phones are, at best, a hit and miss system, with which residents have

experienced many problems. This is a very important public safety issue.

Given the fact that $15 million will be spent on improving communications on

the Island portion of the Province, will the minister commit to the people in

Labrador that, in conjunction with a hard surface going on the Trans-Labrador

Highway, an investment will also be made to provide for cellular phone coverage

along that highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, the issue of communication along the road, the

Trans-Labrador Highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West, is

certainly an issue. We have been working with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

and we are committed to cellphone service in the Churchill Falls area, which

will start next year. We are also working with Aliant to look at the tower

systems between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West. Certainly, as the

fibre optic expands into Labrador, that will be another option we may be able to

have available to us, 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.

Yesterday in the House of Assembly, in questioning the Minister of

Transportation and Works about a budget estimate in his department, he responded

using incorrect and untrue statements.

The minister says, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "when she - referring to

myself - was part of a crowd that took $90 million out of the Transportation

Initiative Fund and put it in general revenue, while her and the Member for

Torngat and the Member for Lake Melville saw it happen." This is completely

false. The minister knows that every cent is accounted for in his own report,

the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which was released in his

department in June.

I ask the minister today to do the honourable thing: Will he rise in his

place, withdraw his comments and apologize to the House of Assembly for

providing misleading and untruthful information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is raising things - the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund

was set up by the former government of this House. I raised issues on that in

the past. There were funds used out of that. Significant amounts have been used

for ferry terminals and so on that are not -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: She does not want an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been used for a variety of things, for, I think, to build a shed in

Southern Labrador to deal with where it drifts over in an area; a significant

depot, to build a depot there. It has been used for marine infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, do you want to hear an answer? I will tell you

what else it was used for, $140,000 to fly people in and put a platform in

Labrador to make an announcement by the former government; $22,000 to write a

speech for the Premier at the time. All these are Labrador (inaudible). That is

what it was used for!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Colleagues, we are in the middle of Question Period. I ask members for their

co-operation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely appalled by what I am hearing here today. The minister, in

citing the examples that he did for this fund, were both commitments that were

made under his Administration, I would like to remind him, the terminal facility

on the highway, as well as the money for the marine facility in Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works who

provided misleading information in the House of Assembly yesterday. According to

his own document, his information was false and untrue. I ask him to rise in his

place today, do the honourable thing, apologize and withdraw his statement.

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

au Clair.

MS JONES: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the member refuses to apologize to

the House of Assembly for providing that information.

Maybe he can clarify another falsehood, Mr. Speaker. The minister, in a phone

conversation with Nick McGrath, the President of Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador, in Labrador City last week, indicated that he had a deal signed with

the federal government on the Trans-Labrador Highway on his last trip to Ottawa.

In fact, the signed deal was in front of him in his office on that day. Yet, in

the House of Assembly yesterday the minister said that, we are negotiating. I

quote, he said: We are now negotiating with the federal government on this deal.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of Transport has said that there has not

even been a business proposal submitted.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: Why is he misleading the public on

this issue? For God sakes, come clean and give us the proper information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no misleading the House, Mr. Speaker, none at all.

Mr. Speaker, this government, as I stated yesterday, is working with the

federal government on a deal to hard surface the Trans-Labrador Highway. I will

tell you, I will tell the people of this Province, what is going on here today.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, along with

her cohort there, the Member of Parliament from Labrador, has been doing nothing

on the file regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway. They now know that we are near

to having a successful agreement on the Trans-Labrador Highway, now they want to

get onboard and make the people believe that they were the ones who got this.

Well, they did nothing, Mr. Speaker.

We saw what the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair did when she was with

the Transportation department. We saw the proof of that in the rock cuts in

Southern Labrador. We had to put a $1.2 million depot in Souther Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I could stand up here and remind the minister

today that it was his government that took the ferries out of Cartwright and

moved them back to Lewisporte, leaving the people of Labrador with inadequate

service. I could remind him that it was his government who closed down the

highway the first couple of years they were in power, in my district, and the

people could not travel it, but I am not going to do that because we have an

important issue in front of us today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nick McGrath was quoted in the 53 North newspaper in Labrador

City, saying that: I was just talking with Minister Hickey this morning and was

told by the minister they had recently inked a deal during his last trip to

Ottawa, and that this deal was in front of him as we speak today.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the minister told me that he is only

negotiating with the Department of Transport.

I ask the minister again: Can he find it somewhere in him to provide proper

information to this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we are providing information. We are also

providing progress, I say, on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are also providing

progress, Mr. Speaker, on a lot of different projects in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the minister and asks him to complete his answer.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said here in this House, they do not like hearing

the truth. They do not like seeing the successes of this government and this

minister.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: We are working with our federal counterparts

and I have every confidence - every confidence - that we are going to see

hardtop on the road between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West, and we are

going to see that in June of 2007, I say to you and the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Yesterday in this House, I tabled the report of the Provincial Court Salary

and Benefits Tribunal and today I give notice that I will ask leave to move the

following resolution. The resolution reads as follows:

Be it resolved by the

House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under

section

28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and

benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice

on May 26, 2006, except for its recommendations respecting an indemnity for

Provincial Court judges which will be submitted no later than March 1, 2007; and

WHEREAS the report of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal was tabled - as I said - in this hon. House

yesterday, November 27, 2006 under

section 28.2 of the legislation; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under

section 28.2 of the

legislation to approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being

tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House of Assembly to accept all of

the recommendations of the tribunal as contained in its report of May 26, 2006;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of

the report of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salary

and Benefits Tribunal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure at this time again to present a petition on behalf

of the residents of Burgeo and Ramea concerning the lack of toilet facilities to

service the users of the ferry service on the South Coast.

We had the Minister of Transportation and Works up here earlier in Question

Period and - in fact, we did not have him up sometimes when he should have been

up. When he was asked for an apology, he cowered behind his mike and would not

stand to even say he would not apologize. In any case, I hope we can get his

attention one way or the other, because so far we have it.

He committed across this House here last week, to myself, when I raised this

issue, that he would have somebody immediately check into this situation. Now, I

do not know when immediate falls under the minister's watch but, to me, it

would be somewhere - timely would be a word, and we have had about a week. Now,

maybe he has done it but nobody that I know of - and he certainly has not had

the courtesy to tell me that he has done it, which I think would be an obvious.

Now, regarding this issue, the people know, here we are with $15 million

being put into fibre optics that is not justified, we get fur coats being given

to Ralph Klein, but yet we cannot get enough money to put a toilet down for the

ferry users on the South Coast.

We have had the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation up in this House,

and going around this Province and the country and the world, touting: Come see

Newfoundland. Well, I just hope that they do not have the misfortune to be

waiting for the ferry in Burgeo or Ramea while they are here visiting, because

we will find them out amongst the rocks and up the back of someone's shed the

same way the poor, unfortunate people who have to use the service find

themselves now.

This is not too much to ask. This is a government that applauds itself on

bringing back $2 billion from father Ottawa, and we cannot get a toilet. We are

not even fussy, that it be some modern architectural piece like The Rooms. We

would just be satisfied if we had something that they could use in the case of

dire need, human basic needs, a toilet facility. That is not too much to ask.

Again, if the minister who prides himself on knowing everything could take

the time to please have someone go and check out the circumstances that I am

talking about here, in both Ramea and Burgeo, and see if we can scrape up enough

money from somewhere to be able to put a washroom and toilet facility down

there, that would be very, very nice for anybody who lives there, uses the

service, or anybody who might visit.

It is absolutely demeaning to have human beings subjected to this type of

treatment in this day and age, and I do not know how often I have to stand up

here and ask the minister to please get involved and ask someone to check it

out. Please check it out. The people should not be treated - we had former

references here to cattleships and everything else on the Gulf, but we cannot be

expected to tolerate this.

Now, this may seem small to some people but this is very important. This is

very, very important to the people who have to use these facilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The minister might think it is a funny matter, to be

laughing, but it is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, November 28, 2006.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call Order 3, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Order 3, Bill 49,

An Act To Remove

Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors

In The Statute Law." ( Bill 49)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this Bill 49, I am pleased to move it. It

is

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. This is a piece of

housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, and the purpose of the bill is set out in the

explanatory note.

The explanatory note that is set out on page 2 says, "The purpose of

this Bill is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in the statute law

that require legislative correction as a result of amendments or enactments made

in previous sessions. The amendments contained in this Bill have been brought to

the attention of the Minister of Justice and are technical amendments not

involving matters of policy. Each amendment is explained by reference to the

clause of the Bill by which it is proposed."

This will fix technical amendments such as - recently we amended the Public

Inquires Act, so now it has a different name. There may be ten other acts that

refer to the old Public Inquires Act, so legislation such as this would amend

those ten acts to put in the proper name.

I will be happy to answer any questions which may arise in accordance with

the debate. I therefore am pleased to move second reading of Bill 49.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. This, of course, is a

housekeeping piece of legislation, we would call it, because over time with a

whole bunch of laws in the Province there are minor amendments that come about.

There are circumstances that occur which means that a law as currently written

might not apply anymore because you have made some changes. From time to time

the legislative draftsmen responsible for these laws go through all of the

Statutes and laws of the Province, pick out these so-called anomalies, they do

not exist anymore, and put it all under one bill to come back here, through the

Minister of Justice - because this falls under his purview and responsibility -

and ask to make these corrections that are no longer necessary.

I noticed, and, of course, people who look at this - and you can access these

bills by simply going onto the Web, anyone who has access to it, and you can see

exactly what is being discussed here in the House. If you want read this

legislation, it is put up on the Website of the House of Assembly and you can

actually read these if you want to know the written word. People are sometimes

interested to the point that they want to know that.

For example, we have instances under this act today, the Attorney General's

Statutes Amendment Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl

Act, the Court Security Act. There are a whole pile of things that might not

necessarily fall to the Minister of Justice but fall under other ministers and

other departments, but they all get lumped together here. I would notice - and

maybe the minister, when he gets up, can give us some explanation of this - I

note, in particular, clause 10. It is referenced in the explanation

section and

it talks about the Lobbyist Registration Act. Of course, we have had a lot of

talk recently in the Province about the Lobbyist Registration Act. The reason I

raise it is because we have had the concern over the fibre optics deal. For

example, a group of persons or companies, namely Persona, Rogers and the

Allstream people, came to government, unsolicited proposal, and said: We would

like some of your money to the tune of $15 million because we think we have a

great idea.

We find out, of course, several days into the process, that neither of these

companies were registered under the Lobbyist Act. Now, there are certain people

out in the public who do research, have blogs and things on the Internet, of

course, and they raise these issues from time to time. It appeared in The

Telegram one particular Friday morning, and said: Whoa, just a minute. How

come this group of lobbyists - they obviously lobbied, it was unsolicited. I do

not know what you would call lobbying if it is not making an unsolicited

proposal. That sounds like a pretty good lobby to me. When you lobby government

you want somebody's ear, to say: I have a proposal, we have a proposal we

would like to put to you. The question was: Were they or were they not

lobbyists? Were they lobbying and should they have been registered?

I would think, first and foremost, if you are very up to snuff as a corporate

body doing business in this Province, you would have somebody in your company,

your legal counsel or your administrative personnel, who would have had the

forethought and the foresight to see that we are in compliance with all the laws

in this Province. Lo and behold, it comes back that neither of these companies

that are involved in the fibre optics matter are registered in this Province.

We heard Mr. MacDonald come out in the media and say: Whoa, just a minute. We

are not lobbyists. We do not spend 20 per cent of our time - he got into the

percentages and the figures. The act does not require us to register - or

government said, rather: We are not required to go out and make sure they

register. That was government's take: It is not our responsibility, it is up

to the companies to register.

Mr. MacDonald said: Well, we do not have to register because we do not fit

the 20 per cent bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Mr. MacDonald?

MR. PARSONS: This Mr. MacDonald happens to be a very good friend, of

course, of the Premier. He is, I believe, the Chief Executive Officer of

Persona, one of the companies in the consortium on the fibre optics deal that

wants $15 million of the taxpayers' money to put into this fibre optics deal.

He comes out and says: No, we are not lobbyists.

Now, there are two

definitions under the Lobbyists Act. One is called an

in-house lobbyist and another one is called a consultant lobbyist. According to

Mr. MacDonald, of course, we do not fit the bill on either one of these; our

companies that walked into government and asked for this $15 million. We do not

fit the bill there. We do not need to comply.

What the Leader of the Opposition, of course - just because Mr. MacDonald

said it, we did not take it to be absolute gospel. We said: Now, just a minute

here. Let's go back and ask the Commissioner of Lobbyists. Of course, the

Commissioner of Lobbyists - the first thing somebody said was: Whoa, just a

minute now. We are talking here about, potentially, taxpayers' money being

given to friends of the Premier without the Public Tender Act having been

followed and a possible conflict of interest and so on. Is this squeaky clean or

does this smell, as the Premier thought it did the first two times it popped on

the agenda.

We have some issues with, I believe her name is Montgomery, because somebody

said: Whoa, how far do you take this? She was also appointed by this

Administration as the Commissioner of Lobbyists. It is almost like asking her -

you know, you are putting this complaint that you might have about registration

of these companies into the hands of someone who might have similar type

questions. In fact, somebody had information in The Telegram as well, in

the media, that this same person, who was the Commissioner of Lobbyists, had

made contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party that formed the

government that appointed her as the Commissioner.

In any case, not withstanding all of that, the Leader of the Opposition, I

understand, wrote to the Commissioner and said: Would you investigate this? By

the way, to be quite clear from Mr. MacDonald's public statements as well,

that he called the Commissioner. He heard this or read this in the media. He

called the Commissioner and said: Whoa, just a minute here. Now I do not know

the full details of the conversation. I do not know what he told her. I do not

know what she told him. Anyway, I would think that the Commissioner, on a

go-forward basis, will be letting everybody and anybody who has some insight

into this, have their piece and have their say, rather than just Mr. MacDonald,

who was the party in question here and his companies, have some say with her in

a phone conversation. I would think there ought to be some kind of public

process whereby everybody gets their say and checks this out, because my reading

of the act - and I am sure I can be told a thing or two, have been over the

years - my reading of the act is that it is not for the Commissioner to decide

whether or not there has been a breach of the act. That is the perception out

there in the public, and that is what some people would have you believe, that

it is up to this commissioner to decide whether there has been a breach of the

act. That is not my read on things.

My read of that act, and several other people who are familiar with legal

type documents have confirmed my understanding, is that all the commissioner is

responsible to do is decide if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that

there might have been a breach, not that the commissioner do the investigation

and determine that there was indeed a breach or not. The only role of the

commissioner is to decide: Were there reasonable grounds?

If that commissioner comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable

grounds, she must then refer it off to the investigating authorities in the

jurisdiction. So I would think that all this person, the commissioner, has to do

here is conclude that there are reasonable grounds to think that Rogers and

Persona and Allstream, the proponents of the deal, might reasonably have been

actually lobbying this government. I think to come to any conclusion other than

that, on the surface, on a reasonable person basis, would be to defy logic.

When you march into government and say, I would like to have $15 million

unsolicited - you did not respond to some government asking you to respond

through an RFP, or a public tender. You just walked off of the street with a

proposal, got into government's head somehow, through the Minister of

Business, who happened to be the Premier at the time, or through the Minister of

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, however, you got into government's

head. In any case, you are in there. Now, what did you do when you got in there?

You told them you had a great deal, you had some kind of a proposal, but a part

of that proposal was that you wanted $15 million.

Now that, to me, fits the common man definition of: I am asking you for

something. I am lobbying for something. I am lobbying my proposal. I am lobbying

you to get some of your money. That would be my reasonable man approach to that

question.

So, once the Commissioner of Lobbyists has made that determination, which I

would submit is unavoidable - unavoidable - then it gets turned over to the

investigating authority in the jurisdiction, which I would think would be the

RNC. Maybe it is somebody else, but within the city, at least, where this

activity took place on the Northeast Avalon, it falls under the jurisdiction of

the RNC, so I would think that is their call, then, to go and do the

investigation as to who did what, where, and see if there was a breach of the

act. Because this is a government that prided itself on openness and

accountability but whom, I would submit, have been anything but. This is a

government, for example, that releases reports back to the people of

Stephenville about their mill closure only when they had a freedom of

information request put to them, and then 90 per cent of it was blacked out.

That is the kind of openness and accountability we have seen here.

Back to the issue of the lobbyists. I would like to know, and maybe the

minister can tell me, why do we now, all of a sudden - under this bill we are

dealing with here today, it says, "Clause 10 of the Bill would amend the

Lobbyist Registration Act...", and in part (

b) it says, "to align

reporting requirements for a consultant lobbyist with those for an in-house

lobbyist." Part (

a) says, actually, "to clarify that is by way of

regulations that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may exclude persons from the

application of the Act. The Act is currently silent on..." those issues.

So, I am just curious that it happened to pop on to the legislative agenda of

this House about two weeks after we have all of this furor about whether or not

these companies complied with the Lobbyist Act. Very, very curious, it happens

more and more every day. It seems like we get answers and responses. The more

you peel this onion back on the fibre optics, the more you peel it, the more it

makes you cry, and yet we see this kind of stuff happening and I just wonder. I

do not know if this is such a trivial issue, an anomaly that we are dealing with

here at all, and I would like for the minister to explain that to me. It seems

very fortuitous to me that we have all this controversy about lobbyists and now

we have this amendment popping across here on this usually obscure type of act

that we would deal with in this Legislature.

I notice, too, you talk about this reasonable man person and reasonable

conclusions that the lobbyists would have to draw about, should the person,

maybe - is there reasonable possibility that the consortium companies, Rogers

and Allstream and Persona, might have been in breach of the act?

I think one of the criteria you would look at is that you would compare it to

who else in similar types of industry, or in an identical type of industry, what

they might have done. What were their actions? Lo and behold, another company in

this Province that is in the same industry, identically, as Rogers and Persona

and the Allstreams of the world, was a company called Aliant. So, you go over

and you check the Registry of Lobbyists and say: Was there anybody on the

registry from Aliant?

Now, I am not here defending Aliant, I will guarantee you that. I am true

believer in competition. I have no problem with that, none whatsoever. Free

enterprise, capitalism to the backbone, I believe in that, absolutely, but when

you look over on that side of the sheet, I think they had twenty-odd registered.

I am saying to myself: Now, here is a company in the same industry with

twenty, thirty, registered people just in case they might - might - do some

business with the government. Now, I don't know, I have not checked the

registry myself, but I wonder: People like Fortis, for example, might they have

people registered under the Lobbyist Act? They do negotiations from time to

time. They approach government. They are a pretty prudent company, a pretty

responsible company. I would think they have lots of people registered. I have

not checked that out. I do not know that; I have to check that out.

Here we are with the very same industry, we have one company that has just

about everybody who might possibly speak to anybody in government all signed up

under the Lobbyist Act. Lo and behold, here we are with the boys with their

hands out for $15 million: No, we didn't think to do that. We didn't think

we had to do that. They come up with some story, explanation: Well, we didn't

think we fit the regulations. We didn't think we fit the regulations.

I think that is a pretty shallow explanation. I would have thought there were

about $15 million good reasons why you should have thought about it. There are

$15 million good reasons why you should have had, or somebody should have had,

the foresight to see: Should we possibly be registered?

I think this is indicative of what is happening here. It seems to be not so

much that we did not think we complied or were required to file, I get the

impression that it is more a case of: Do laws, or do they not, apply to

everybody equally and fairly in this Province any more? That is the concern I

get. I sense a theme, an unwanted theme, happening.

It is not a case of: Should we check out what the law is? It is a matter of

coming back after and saying: Well, that does not apply to us. We didn't think

that applied to us, so we didn't bother it

That is not good enough, RFPs not necessary when you are going to spend $15

million. No, we do not have to use the Public Tender Act. Let that go out the

door. We decided we do not need that. We are not even going to bother to check

to see if there is anybody else out there who might want to do this. We are just

going to let this go. We are going to make the decision.

Rather than play it safe - and I say safe because that is what it would have

been, totally, absolutely, proper and safe. If for no other reason than that the

Premier knew these people, that would have been the very prudent thing to do.

The Premier, himself, acknowledged that he had problems with the deal. The

prudent and safe thing to do would have been to say: Look, no ifs, ands or buts

about this, if there is nobody out there, as the Minister now of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development professes after the fact, who is interested in doing

this - it is fine to say that now when the horse is out and the barn door is

shut and, as the Minister of Transportation and Works says, the deal is inked.

Now that the deal is inked and we have the Cabinet decision made, we are going

to put the money into it, gee, maybe we are not so sure.

I can assure you, I attended a meeting yesterday morning with what I believe

to be the top bureaucrat of the minister's department dealing with this deal,

and I put it to him: Is anybody else out there in Canada capable of doing this?

Oh, yes, he said, a number of people out there are capable of doing this. Telus

was the name he mentioned to me. Telus for one, T e l u s. He said they could do

it. I said: Well, that is interesting. Did you ask them? Well, no, I do not

think anybody thought to ask them. Anybody else out there? Oh, yes, there are a

number of them.

What do we hear then? Once that question came out, of course, the minister

yesterday had another spin. Oh, yes, but they do not have CRTC regulatory

approval to do it here. They do not operate here in the Province right now.

Well, I did not think Rogers operated here all the time either. I do not think

Allstream was here before. Yes, they were here on some phone contract. I believe

they were. I do not think Persona operated here for all of its inception. I do

not know, but that is irrelevant to the point. The point is, you should have

done the due diligence and checked it out. Do not come back later with some

frizz and frill.

The Member over there for Topsail, for example, former Auditor General, I

mean she must think this smells to the high heavens. I mean there is person who,

in my time even in government, when she was the Auditor General, I knew her to

be somebody who dotted the i's crossed the t's and said, look, if there is

any way possible that you can make this thing be done proper, we are going to

have it done proper, and told governments about it when they did not do it

proper. It is the prudent thing to do.

We still have a lot of unanswered questions here. It just seems so

coincidental, is the word I would use. We are here now in the midst of the fibre

optic piece. We are getting the minister saying one thing and we have his

officials out there saying something else. It certainly does not seem to be

straight. I did not know, for example, until yesterday - I had a little clue

into it last week when we had our first meeting with this official of the

department, the top bureaucrat. I had a little inkling that maybe we are talking

about something here more than one contract. So, I asked him: What is this about

the branches you are talking about going on this trunk line, the backbone that

you are going to put across the Province for $52 million. He said: Yes, there

are all kinds of branches going to go off for that. We are going to service

rural Newfoundland. Everybody who wants their Internet high speed and all that

stuff, we are going to have all that service available because we are making an

investment in these fibres.

The first question I asked: How many fibres are you getting? He said: Well, I

cannot tell you that. I said: Excuse me, you are going to spend $15 million of

our money and you are not going to tell us how many fibres you have? He said:

Well, I cannot tell you that. I said: When does it start? When do you get them?

When are you going to light them up, as you call it? He said: Well, I can't

tell you that. I said: Oh, that is fine, you can't tell me that. Then I asked

a big question again, I thought. I said: How much is it going to cost us to run

the branches you are talking about up to the Northern Peninsula, up to the Baie

Verte Peninsula, down to Grand Bank? Are you going to run all these branches you

are talking about? Yes, he said. I said: Well, how much is that going to cost?

Oh, we don't know, but that is extra. That is plan B. That is going to cost

somewhere over $200 million. I said: Well, that is pretty good; $200 million

dollars. I haven't heard that figure bandied about in the public. So, we are

not only talking $15 million now to do the backbone, the trunk, we are talking

about a potential $200 million that this government is going to, supposedly,

invest to service rural Newfoundland some time in the next ten years.

Now, I will put it to you: We do not have enough money to put a porta-potty

in the Burgeo area to service the people of Ramea and Burgeo who use the ferry

service. We do not have enough money to pay our pharmacists, a fair deal equally

all around this Province, and you are trying to tell me in order to sell this

fibre optic deal, don't worry about it, plan B. We are definitely going to

have $200 million to stick into the branches on this backbone, this trunk line,

we are putting across the Province with this $52 million. Don't you worry

about it. We are expected, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to take that in,

hook, line and sinker.

I think somebody over there has been eating too much fibre, way too much

fibre. Absolutely! It goes to show again, that it all detracts, all of this

debate you have had on the Open Line shows and TV, and they send out all the

forces - the proponents of the deal are taking out full-page ads in The

Telegram , I noticed on Saturday: The president of MUN says this; The

president of Nati says this. That is not the issue, whether a great, new,

alternate fibre optic system is a good thing to have. I do not think there are

very many of us who would disagree with that. I do not think anybody disagrees,

as I told the top bureaucrat when we met with him, about the technology piece of

it. I do not think there was any dispute about that.

The problem people are having in this Province is, is it a good deal, not

whether the technology is right. Is it a good deal? Is it a proper investment

for this Province? That is when people start to get the smell because they say:

Whoa, just a minute now. First you tell me I have a new car, but you are not

telling me how we are going to pay for it. You are telling me I have to invest

in it. That is where the problem is. When people say: Well, how come you did not

go to find out who else was interested, by the law? How come you did not follow

the law of public tendering? Well, nobody else wanted to do that. That is not

true. That is absolutely not true. This government cannot say that there is

nobody else in Canada who did not want to be a part of this deal. You cannot say

it. If you tell the people of the Province that, you are misleading them. You

cannot do that. You know, and your own officials know, that you did not go and

ask everybody because you did not ask for a Request for Proposals and you did

not use the Public Tender Act. That is the fact of the matter. Don't try to

cover it up and fudge it. You did not do the due diligence you should have done.

I read the EWA report that the minister stands up and talks about. A piece of

fluff! An absolute piece of fluff! You went out and asked a bunch of consultants

to do a report for you to justify your expenditure of $15 million and they were

asked to cast an opinion without even having the information they needed to do

it. They said in the statement of their report: We cannot comment on financial

matters because Persona would not give us any of the books; would not let us see

the books. We cannot comment. We cannot quantify the benefits that this is going

to have for the Province, we do not know. We cannot get you certain information

because we do not have time to get it. Now, that is pretty good. That is

foresight and due diligence and a good, smart, prudent way to spend your $15

million.

What was the rush to justify this expenditure? That is what is trying to be

foisted on the people of this Province. I would say there is hardly a member

over there who knows the full details, other than what they have caught

piecemeal coming off the Open Lines and stuff, don't have an understanding of

it.

The Minister of Business, for example, how could he sit in his seat here in

this House and go out in the public airwaves and talk about this deal being

great, and it is good, and it is a good expenditure? He has policies in his own

department that say you should not put money into stuff that competes with

existing businesses. Where is that? I am hoping the Auditor General is going to

go down that path. That is one he should go down.

Not only do we have the Public Tender Act being told we are not going to let

it apply, not only do we have this being done under the guise of economic

development to get around the Public Tender Act, and avoiding the Request for

Proposals, I would like to know where the Minister of Business stands. He is

sitting over there reading his book. He has been the minister since July. The

Premier was the minister before that, by the way. The Premier was the minister

before that, when the deal was being talked about ever since last year. Here

they are, both of them, the Premier and the current minister, having their

policy manuals in front of them saying you cannot put money into a project that

competes with an existing company in the Province. Cannot do it, that is the

law. I would think it is the law; it is your policy. What happens? We do not

hear anything about that. Willy-nilly out the door, under the rug, don't

mention that to anybody. Don't mention that to anybody because that might make

this smell a bit more.

So, what do we have now? We have the Auditor General coming in and that is

one of the things he smells, don't you have any fear about that. The Auditor

General smells that piece, that we have an existing government policy written,

black on white, and this government says: No, we are not going to do that. We do

not need to abide with that.

He smells the fact that there was no tender, no Request for Proposals. He is

going to smell all of that, all right. He is going to get his nostrils right

full of the whiff of this, don't you worry. I am looking forward to what his

terms of reference are going to be. I understand he has been given the

resolution of the House asking him to go in. I have had that confirmed. I do not

know of any defined parameters yet of where he is going to go, but I am

certainly hoping that he will assume the responsibility to do it. I understand

he has been asked. I hope he does assume the responsibility, and I hope this

does not get put under the covers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: No, no, just a second now.

- put under the covers and delayed because he is so wrapped up with other

stuff.

He is going to come back, I would think, to this House, if he accepts the

task as put forward in the resolution, and he is going to say - there is no

question in my mind, he is going to say - thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

received your correspondence. I will agree to do this. I have one problem: I do

not have the staff. I need the resources.

Now, the Premier has committed to that so I am hoping that we are not going

to see any delays here. I say to the Member for Trinity North, I have no worries

about the Auditor General putting anything under the rug from the point of view

of non-disclosure. Oh, no, I have faith in him. I have faith in him there, there

is no question about that, but I hope it does not get delayed because he is so

busy and we see stumbling blocks being put in his way because he does not have

the resources. Let's see how fast this gets done, because I am sure he will

ask some of the right questions. He will ask some of the right questions, no

doubt about it.

This bill that seems so innocuous, I guess might be the right word, this

little anomalies bill that the minister stands up and took all of thirty seconds

to tell us what it was about, there is a lot into this.

In second reading this is the point where you say you either agree or

disagree in principle to the piece of legislation. That is only one clause I

have looked at so far, clause 10. I cannot say I disagree necessarily with the

bill because I do not know the intent of where this government is driving and

want to go with this clause 10. I, for the life of me, just cannot accept that

this is just a minor change in the Lobbyist Registration Act.

You call me suspicious, you call me what you want, but I am very -

suspicious, yes, I guess that is the right word. I am very suspicious that we

have all this controversy going on about fibre optics and the lobbyists, and all

of a sudden the government is coming back to us saying we want to make these

changes about in-house and consultant lobbyists. I would think that is going to

be within the very parameters of where the commissioner has to go but, more

importantly, where - which I assume she will make the finding that there are

reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a breach - the investigating

body is then going to go.

I do not know if it is proper and prudent for us to be tampering right now,

because it might be said, if I did such-and-such on one day based on a law that

existed, but by the time it gets investigated that law is changed, somebody

might say: Well, okay, we realize you have changed the law since, now, and we

have to go out and do that. We realize now that we have an onus on us to report

it and we have to do that.

I cannot say, really, if I am in favour of this full bill. Those are just the

questions I have had the opportunity to raise right there now. I cannot say, Mr.

Speaker, that I am going to vote fully in favour of this. I am sure some of the

things are just redundant provisions and anomalies, as the minister says, but

there are a lot of things there that might not be so redundant. There might be a

lot of things there that are not so redundant; because, when you talk about

giving regulatory approval on a go-forward basis to make regulations and

changing things, particularly when it is a hot and heavy issue in the public, it

makes one curious as to what is happening here.

Maybe the minister can give us a more detailed explanation when we get into

second reading as to what the intent is of this clause 10 and, I mean, really

flesh it out for us as to maybe even what he thinks the current

definitions of

in-house and consultant lobbyist mean, because we have had a lot of debate about

it in the public. I would be interested in hearing the minister's take on

this, as to whether he thinks the

definitions need to be changed or lined up or

whatever.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say at this point in time on this

particular bill. I appreciate an opportunity to have spoken and I will, of

course, have my comments again when we get to clause 10 in particular in second

reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate at

second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair apologizes. I did not notice that the

Leader of the Opposition had risen in his place, and I apologize.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to address this bill, and one particular part of the bill which

refers to the Lobbyist Registration Act, because this is a relatively new act

brought in by this government and we have an individual who has been appointed

to this by the government, or by the Premier, and we all know who the individual

is.

The problem I have with it is that, again, we do not know how they want to

amend the Lobbyist Registration Act, because that act has come into question in

recent times, during the recent few weeks, as it ties into this fibre optic

cable deal; because, under the Lobbyist Registration Act, any individual or

group of individuals who come to lobby government about a project that they want

to do, that individual or group of individuals has to be registered as

lobbyists.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you an example. Aliant does business with the

government on a regular basis and, as a result of that, their employees, whether

they be high management or low management at Aliant, these individuals have

registered, and Aliant has a number of individuals registered as lobbyists,

because every time they come to government to present an idea or proposal then

they want to ensure that they are not breaking the law because the Lobbyist

Registration Act is a law. It is a law! All these bills that we pass in the

House of Assembly are law, just the same as there is a law pertaining to the

speed at which you can drive on the highway. As a result, the Aliant group of

companies or the Aliant company wants to make sure that they are not breaking

the law, so they have registered - I do not know - some ten or twenty people as

lobbyists in the event that they come to talk to government at any time during

the year about a particular project that they are doing.

The strange thing about this is that the three companies involved with this

fibre deal, that being Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream, none of these

companies have individuals who have been registered as lobbyists with the

Lobbyist Commissioner. That strikes me as being rather strange because, let's

face it, at some point some individuals involved in either of these three

companies or all of these companies must have come to government to at least

discuss this proposal; because it was an unsolicited proposal, by the way. It

would not have even been as bad if the government went out and asked for the

proposal or went to public tender. They refused to do that. This was an

unsolicited proposal that came to government by all three groups involved:

Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream. Not one of the individuals employed with

those companies was registered as a lobbyist.

When we asked the questions - my colleague, the Member who represents Burgeo

& LaPoile asked that question in the House of Assembly last week, how many

of the individuals in those three companies were registered as lobbyists,

because obviously they have had, over the period of eighteen months, some

discussions with government pertaining to this fibre optic cable deal. The

Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development got up and said: Oh, no,

they did not need to register, because they spent so little time discussing this

deal; the individuals involved in these companies spent so little time

discussing this deal.

In fact, the minister even went so far as to say, during Question Period one

day last week, that he did not know who they met with in government. He was not

aware that they met with anybody in government to lobby on behalf of the deal

that they were putting forward unsolicited. Then the next day, the minister

stood in the House of Assembly and said that he met with them. Now, the day

before he did not even know that he met with them himself, but then he said not

to worry about that because they only met with government four times. This

group, this consortium, only met with government four times. Guess what happened

the very next day after that? The minister stood in front of his chair over

there and said: Wait now, they met with government eight times. I think Mr.

MacDonald, one of the proponents of this deal, even said on one of the media

outlets in this Province that he had met more than four times. The minister

contradicts himself. I just cannot believe, Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Straits & White Bay North, on a point of

order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to speak on the fibre

optic deal, then at least reiterate what I said as opposed to misinterpreting or

misrepresenting what I said.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, what I said last week was that I

cannot speak for what Dean MacDonald said in the paper about how many meetings

he had. Before I had a chance to finish the rest of the answer, with the racket

that was coming from the other side, the Speaker stopped me from speaking. So, I

could not continue to say who met from my knowledge of who met, when they met

and what have you. The next day, when I had an opportunity to deal with it, I

dealt with it. I laid out there who met and when they met, from my knowledge of

who had meetings. That was well articulated here in this House, who met and when

they met.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, is this. I did not say that they did not have

to register as lobbyists. I said that under the legislation it is up to the

company to determine if they should register or not. The registrar of lobbyists

is the person who has, in the Department of Justice, to determine whether or not

the companies were in compliance with the act, Mr. Speaker, not I.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a point of information.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was a good ruling, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult. The minister gets up and talks about what he said and what

he did not say. The problem we have over here is that it is extremely difficult

for us, or for anyone who is trying to follow what the minister is saying out

there in the general public, to determine exactly what he is saying because he

changes it everyday. I can stand here for an hour and list the examples of how

the minister changes his story everyday.

It is like saying that the university is spending, I do not know, millions of

dollars a year for its Internet service and then getting up the next day when we

find out, for example, the university is not paying anything, it is being paid

by a Crown Corporation in Ottawa. Ottawa is paying for the Internet service, but

I am not going to get into that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on a point

of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I say again, if the Leader of the Opposition is

going to talk about this, he can at least deal with the facts. If he is not

going to deal with the facts than I suggest that he not deal with the issue at

all, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, I have never ever, nor has anybody on this side of

the House, suggested that Memorial University was paying millions for their

Internet access. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have said that there are two

components to Memorial University's cost associated with their Internet

access. One is the Canarie advance research network, which costs them $400,000

or $500,000 a year, which is paid for by the federal government. The other one,

which is roughly an equivalent cost for Internet access, is paid for completely

by Memorial University.

The last time I checked, Mr. Speaker, the bulk of that funding comes from the

provincial government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is just a point of clarification again.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hazard to guess that the minister is going to continue to disrupt my speech

for the next forty-five or fifty minutes.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Now, when I mentioned millions of dollars, maybe the minister

did not say that they were going to spend or save millions of dollars, but he

did make reference, as did the Premier -

MR. TAYLOR: He did not say it (inaudible).

MR. REID: Can I have some protection from the honourable member, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, what he did say - and the Premier backed him up on it because he

said it both publicly and privately in this House of Assembly - is that Memorial

University pays anywhere from ten to one hundred times more for their access

than other universities in the country. Now, how can you spend ten to one

hundred times more for your access when the federal government is picking up the

bill? We are not picking it up and neither is the university.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to what we are discussing here. We are

discussing the legislation as it pertains - or at least I am - to the Lobbyist

Registration Act. The fact of the matter is - and he can get up and contradict

this if he wants - none of the employees of any of the three groups that are

involved in this fibre optic deal has been registered as a lobbyist in this

Province. That concerns me greatly, because if they are meeting with government

officials, whether it be the minister or the Premier, the Minister of Business

or their officials, for any period of time whatsoever, then it is incumbent upon

them to register as lobbyists because if they do not, and they spend more then a

certain period of time doing that, then they are breaking the law. The Minister

of Justice just nodded his head and said yes, I am right.

The question that I have to ask is: If what the Minister of Innovation is

trying to say today is that the proponents of this fibre optic deal met with

government on such few occasions that it did not warrant them being registered

as lobbyists, if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on a point

of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that they met so few times that they

did not have to register. I laid out that they met, I believe it was eight

times, with officials and Cabinet ministers. I know I was involved with two

meetings, as I recall. The Minister of Business did not meet, the Minister of

Natural Resources did not meet, the Minister of Finance did not meet, the

Premier did not meet, with any of them. I met on two occasions, and officials

met with them on a number of other occasions, which totalled eight, Mr. Speaker.

I have said that it is up to the company and the Registrar of Lobbyists to

determine whether or not they are in compliance with that. I have never said

that they were not in compliance, I have never said that they are in compliance,

because I am not the judge. Nor is the Leader of the Opposition, nor is the

Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Leader of the Opposition has been recognized, and I know it is probably

trying when people hear things that they may or may not agree with. I would ask

members to kindly hold their thoughts and be recognized by the Chair to make the

clarification when they are recognized to speak.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: That is fair enough, Mr. Speaker, because the member opposite

can have all the time he wants after I sit down. He can make some notes and he

can get up and contradict everything I say, but the fact of the matter is, I am

telling the truth. Regardless of whether the minister wants to believe it or

not, or if it is not politically expedient for him to believe it, or

advantageous for him to believe it, I am telling the truth. The fact of the

matter is, none of the individuals involved in these three companies are

registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act.

MR. TAYLOR: Now, that is true.

MR. REID: That is true. Even the minister, himself, agrees, but here we

are talking about doing a $52 million deal, of which the government and the

taxpayers of this Province are contributing $15 million, and, listening to the

minister and the other minister behind him down there, the Minister of Business

and the Premier, you would swear they never talked to any of the proponents of

this fibre optic deal. That is what you would almost be led to believe. Just

imagine.

You know, they had eight or fewer meetings on this over a period of eighteen

months, and yet we are willing to fork out $15 million of taxpayers' money. I

wish money was so easy coming to my constituents who look for a few dollars from

government. I certainly wish it would come that easy to the councils and the

community leaders in my district, that they could hold fewer meetings and talk

to government less and still get $15 million, but the fact of the matter is,

none of them are registered as lobbyists.

I have a problem with that, because I actually believe there was a fair

amount of time spent with government officials and politicians pertaining to

this contract that we are doing with these three companies. That is my sense.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Now, the minister can suggest anything he wants. He is over

there -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have a little protection from the minister?

Listen, I will gladly, when I am finished speaking, sit down here and listen

to him, or I will walk out of the House so that I will not have to interrupt

him. If that is what he so desires, I will at least offer you that privilege,

but I would beg that you would listen, because sometimes when you listen to

people you learn something.

Mr. Speaker, again what I am saying is that it is hard for an individual or

any group of individuals to understand that a group can come forward with an

unsolicited - the government never asked for it, never asked for it, were not

even talking about fibre optic cables. Then you have a company that comes

forward, a group of companies that come forward, and hold fewer meetings,

according to the minister, than would require them to register under the

Lobbyist Act, and yet they walk out with $15 million - especially when you

consider the connections that some of these individuals involved with these

three companies have with government, not only on a personal basis with some of

the individuals opposite but also on a professional basis on boards and

committees on which they sit with this government.

One of the proponents, for example, is the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. Another one of the individuals involved in this sits on the Board of

Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. These same two individuals are

also on the Premier's Business Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that these individuals have the ear of the

Premier and everyone in government, and also they have an open door access

policy granted to them. Now, that is just two of the individuals. There are many

others. To me, it just defies comprehension that they can actually say that

these companies should not have registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act,

but they have other ways, I suppose, of doing it.

Besides the professional relationships they have with government, they also

have personal relationships. We know the history of some of the individuals, who

they worked for, and what type of personal friendships they have with some of

the members opposite, including the Premier, so I have a grave concern.

The minister says it is not up to government to determine whether or not

these people should be registered as lobbyists. The Lobbyist Commissioner, I

think, says that unless somebody comes and tells them that they are lobbying

then she has no way of knowing if they are lobbying. If that is the case, I am

hoping that what the minister is proposing to do with this Lobbyist Registration

Act is to tighten it up so that when there are $15 million deals being discussed

in government with a group of individuals, that someone is taking track of the

number of times that they met, and with whom they met, and call up the Lobbyist

Commissioner and at least inform her of what is doing. Because, if that is not

happening, if the government says: Listen, you can come in and meet with us all

you like, we are not going to tell the Lobbyist Commissioner that you are

meeting with us - that is what they are saying. You can come here and meet with

us until you are blue in the face; we are not going to tell the Lobbyist

Commissioner.

The Lobbyist Commissioner says: Well, it is not my duty to go out and find

out who is meeting with government and who is lobbying government. Then, whose

responsibility is it? Why are we even discussing a Lobbyist Commissioner when

that individual has no way of determining with whom government meets, and how

long and how often they meet? That is the problem I see with your legislation:

that you can, to use the Premier's own words, drive a Mack Truck through it.

Now, the Lobbyist Commissioner is aware that at least we think there is a

problem with the act and that she should investigate whether or not the

individuals involved with Persona or Rogers should have registered as lobbyists

with her, because I have written her and asked her to investigate that, and to

find out and determine how many times these individuals met with government and

whether or not they defied or contravened the Lobbyist Registration Act.

I doubt very much if I will get a positive response back from her. I doubt it

very much. I have one saying that she will have a look at it, but I doubt very

much if we are going to get a ruling that they did break the Lobbyist

Registration Act, for a couple of reasons. Number one, Mr. MacDonald, one of the

proponents of this deal, a friend of the government, a friend of the Premier's,

on two or three boards here in government, has already called her. He has

already called her, before we had a chance to write her, to say: Listen, do not

worry about that because we did not break any laws.

Just imagine, he called her and said that they did not break any laws, so

that will be good enough. That will certainly be good enough for the Lobbyist

Commissioner one of these days to write me back and say: Listen, no one broke

the law here, no problem.

Let me tell you why I think that will happen. It is the same reason why we

are up talking on a daily basis about this deal. When we asked officials in the

minister's department yesterday, or last week - because we met with them twice

- how do we know that there was no one else out there who could have bid this

project? Because we were told by officials at Persona.

We read the EWA report, the Electronic Warfare Associates report, and in it,

it says: We were provided information by Persona - and that is the only

information we have to determine whether or not this is a good deal.

Even in this - and this is what strikes me strange, the contradictory

statements that the individual who wrote this report makes in his own report.

One minute he says right there, that: Persona will make a modest profit. Persona

will make a modest profit on this deal. Then in a further statement in the same

report, the same individual says: Well, we have so little information about

Persona's business interests, that they cannot even tell us if the company is

solvent. For those who do not understand what the word solvent means, they

cannot even determine whether the company is bankrupt or if it is not. Given

that information, EWA can come out: Persona said it was a good deal. They gave

them the information to say why it was a good deal. Then you call that an

independent assessment of the contract! Based solely on information provided to

it by Persona, the EWA reports says: Oh, that is fine. It is a good deal.

I guess, when Mr. MacDonald calls up the Lobbyist Commissioner and says,

listen, we did not break the law, we did not meet the required number of times

that would require us to register as a lobbyist, so you do not have to worry

about that, write Gerry Reid back and tell him that he does not know what he is

talking about again, we are not investigating this, the fact of the matter is,

if we have a Lobbyist Commissioner sitting somewhere in this city, and I do not

know if the individual operates out of her own house or if she has an office -

can you inform me about that, Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You will inform me. I do not know if she is sitting in her own

house this afternoon or if she is sitting in an office somewhere in the

Province, or how much she gets paid, or if she gets paid anything. The fact of

the matter is, if she makes a statement that she cannot - it is not her duty to

go out and determine if someone is breaking the law. The minister says it is not

their duty, as government, to tell her that someone is breaking the law, unless

they are trying to do one of their enemies in, but they are certainly not going

to call and rat out their friends. Who's duty is it to inform the Commissioner

what her duties are? Is it us?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: It is everybody. The minister says it is everybody's duty to

phone her up and tell her that. Have you? I ask the minister to answer this

question - keep note out there anyone who is looking at this this afternoon,

keep note - has the government, or you as the minister, or any other Minister of

the Crown, or the Premier, written the Lobbyist Commissioner and asked her to

investigate whether or not Persona, Rogers or MTS Allstream has broken the

Lobbyist Registration Act?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Is the

minister rising on a point of order?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: I really, seriously have to ask a question here of you, Mr.

Speaker. Is it appropriate for any member of this House, including the Leader of

the Opposition, to stand up here and defame individuals who hold positions of

trust in government, and outside of government in Newfoundland and Labrador -

people like the Lobbyist Commissioner, for example, that he references, who he

is suggesting will take a call from Mr. Dean MacDonald, or take a request from

the Leader of the Opposition, and will treat it without due process and send

back a response to the Leader of the Opposition based on little or no

investigation? He stands up here and casts aspersions on internationally

renowned corporations, like EWA, whose head office, internationally, is in

Langley, Virginia, across the river from Washington, D.C., who do work for the

Central Intelligence Agency, who does work for the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, who does work for the United States Military, who does work for a

wealth of organizations, governments and government agencies worldwide. He

stands up here in this House and continues to defame these people and suggest

that they do not do their due diligence.

Mr. Speaker, what he is doing inside this House he could never get away with

outside of those doors without having a substantial lawsuit smacked in front of

him. Mr. Speaker, I really ask you if he can get away with doing that inside

this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no way of knowing whether the statements that are put forward

by any member of this House are accurate or inaccurate. The Chair can only refer

to the fact that all members are hon. members and the statements that they make

here are statements that are true as they believe it. The Chair has no way of

knowing whether those statements are true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate. So,

I say to the hon. minister who raises the issue, there is no point of order.

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to continue with his time as allotted

by the rules of the House.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, with the comments that the minister makes he is trying to intimidate

me in the House of Assembly this afternoon, by saying that I will not go outside

the door and say what I am saying here because I am defaming people's

character and I will be sued. Well, I can tell the minister, everything that I

said in this House of Assembly this afternoon I will say outside that door.

I did not defame the character of the Lobbyists Commissioner and I did not

defame Mr. MacDonald. I quoted what Mr. MacDonald said himself in some media

outlet in this Province just last week when he said himself, personally, that he

had called the Lobbyists Commissioner and told her that he did not contravene

the Lobbyist Registration Act. I did not defame the lady in question. In fact, I

had a fairly lengthy conversation with her at a social gathering just a week or

two ago.

MR. TAYLOR: Did you register as a lobbyist when you did it?

MR. REID: The minister asked me if I registered as a lobbyist to talk to

the Lobbyists Commissioner a few weeks ago in a social context. Now, there is

the bright bulb over there, Mr. Speaker. Now there is the bright bulb, Mr. Duct

Tape himself.

Mr. Speaker, I did not defame a character. I am stating the facts, and this

individual, like his leader - I must say, he is a great follower, because every

time you start to get to the truth and ask the questions that are required, the

first thing you hear said is: Come outside the door and say it and I will sue

you. He thinks by following and spouting off and reiterating and aping the words

that the Premier says, that I am somehow going to feel intimidated and sit down

and not release the facts to the people, but I am still again going back to the

fact that none of the individuals in this group or this consortium are

registered.

He also talked about the EWA report. This reputable company who had their

office in Virginia, across the river from Washington, as if: How could you ever

question a company that was in close proximity of the White House,

geographically? There is a stretch, as if to say that everyone who works in

Washington and the White House and the Parliament buildings in Washington are

all honest and above board.

I do not know if the minister is old enough to remember, but maybe he should

check into the Watergate affair in Washington and remember the words of Richard

Nixon when he said: I am not a crook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development constantly refers to

me as a crackie. I ask him, what is he trying to prove this afternoon and what

does he resemble or sound like?

Mr. Speaker, to get back to this thing; if the report came out of West

Virginia or Virginia, and it is across the river from Washington, that

everything that was in that report has to be honest and above board. Simply, I

questioned what was said in the report, then somehow I am defaming the

characters that are located in Virginia.

Well, I can tell the minister now, I do not think much of the report. I think

very little of the report. If you want me to go out and say it in front of the

media right there I will say it again. I never did think much of the report when

99 per cent of it is based on information that was given to it, or them, by

Persona, who happens to be one of the principals who want this deal done.

You can yap, scream and bawl all afternoon, I did not say anything that

defamed the characters of Mr. MacDonald or the Lobbyist Commissioner. I will not

even mention her name unless you want me to. Now, all of a sudden, this faceless

EWA company, all of a sudden I am defaming this faceless Electronic Warfare

Associates company located in Virginia, across the river from the capital in

Washington.

Personally, I will say even this, Mr. Speaker. I will say to the minister, I

will walk outside the door and I will say that I do not think the r