May 18, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 32

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the hon. the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile and the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour and congratulate many of the volunteer firefighters in

the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques in the beautiful and historic District of

Burgeo & LaPoile.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Fireman's Ball and had the opportunity

to recognize the hard work and unselfish dedication by all volunteer

firefighters in the community.

Mr. Speaker, among the night's events were opportunities to present many of

the brigade members with new training certifications, an opportunity to honour

retiring firefighter Alvin Sheaves for recognition of his many years of service

with the department, and also recognition of a long-standing service by another

brigade member, Mr. Ralph Myles, who had in excess of twenty years with the

volunteer fire brigade in Port aux Basques.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of firefighters such as these individuals, and the

full department in Port aux Basques, that families in our Province can rest

assured that we have fire protection on a twenty-four hours a day, seven days a

week, basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in

congratulating and honouring firefighters Alvin Sheaves, Ralph Myles, and indeed

all volunteer firefighters in this entire Province for their hard work and

dedication to keep the residents of this Province safe and secure in their

homes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate many of the talented athletes of the historic

Town of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, the Carbonear Parks and Recreation Committee honoured their

sports enthusiasts on April 22. Athletes, special guests and families were on

hand at the Carbonear Swimming Pool for the event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the town in congratulating the

following individuals for their outstanding achievements: Three-sport athlete

Victoria Ralph won the Junior Female Athlete of the Year; and basketballer'

Michael Mutrey won the Junior Male Athlete of the Year.

For the second year in a row, Jill Colbourne, who excels in hockey, softball,

bowling, rowing, badminton and basketball, won the Senior Female Athlete of the

Year award.

Josh Janes took home the award as Male Athlete of the Year. Basketball,

baseball and softball are Josh's most skilled areas. This past summer, Josh

attended a national tournament in Ontario where he garnered an MVP trophy.

Finally, the Team of the Year award went to Carbonear Collegiate Girls

basketball team which had a tremendously successful season in 2003.

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

congratulating all of these athletes for their recognition by the Town of

Carbonear and I encourage them to keep up their hard work toward achieving their

athletic goals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs. I

assume you are asking for leave to make a member's statement?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleagues across the House for granting me leave.

I would like today, Mr. Speaker, to send congratulations to a former resident

of The Straits & White Bay North, Jill Hodge, originally from St. Anthony,

who now resides in New York City and works with the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, Jill competed in the Boston Marathon and her

impressive showing placed her number two amongst all Canadian women, finishing

three minutes - less than three minutes - behind the top Canadian female. Among

all female runners, 6,653 of them, she placed twenty-second, and amongst all

runners at the Boston Marathon, of which there were 17,950, she placed 321.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, today, to pass on my congratulations and I am sure

all members of the House would like to join me in congratulating Jill on an

impressive showing at the Boston Marathon and wish her success in all her other

endeavours, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members? Statements by ministers?

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify and correct discussions which

took place last week and yesterday in this hon. House regarding the document

which outlines the impacts of the 2004 Budget decisions for each of the Province's

electoral districts. A copy of this document was forwarded to members opposite

last week.

In compiling the document, every effort was taken by officials to provide the

most detailed and accurate information available. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly

noted on the first page of the document.

In a $4 billion Budget, there are hundreds of line items, and unfortunately

we have identified minimal inaccuracies. For this we apologize. In particular,

the Ministers of Government Services and Tourism, Culture and Recreation have

addressed issues raised concerning their departments. In these cases, the noted

items were options which could have been taken by the departments during this

difficult Budget, but in the final analysis were not chosen.

This is unfortunate, since so much work went into ensuring the accuracy of

the document prior to finalization in late March; however, let me assure you

that the Budget Details and Statistics 2004-2005 is indeed a valid document. It

contains useful information for all Members of the House of Assembly on this

years's Budget, the majority of which was also communicated by way of news

releases and backgrounders posted to the government's Web site on Budget Day.

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to facilitate answers to questions on any

other aspect of the Budget document which members opposite may have.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister providing us with an advanced copy of his

statement. Just a few comments for clarification however for the residents of

this Province, because this is a spin, we would suggest, being taken by the

government here on what has happened. They indeed forwarded us the information

after being requested under the Freedom of Information Act and a legal procedure

had to be used to get it. So, it was provided but only when they were required

by law to provide it.

Secondly, with regards to the reference of certain initiatives that were

stated in there that were subsequently, either not done or decisions reversed, I

would suggest it was exactly that. There was certain information in the

documents, but as a result of public outcry, some of those decisions got

reversed. All that government need do is admit that is exactly what happened

here.

I would also point out that one of the ministers in the controversial

position, shall we say - actually, the Speaker has it under his charge to rule

upon, a point of privilege, and that deals with the Minister of Environment and

Conservation. If indeed this document is, for all intents and purposes, valid,

as suggested by the Acting Government House Leader, I would suggest that the

Minister of Environment and Conservation can save all of us, and particularly

yourself, a lot of trouble and stand in this House and apologize for the

statement that he made here last week when he said the very document that the

minister now says is valid and could be relied upon, except for some minimal

inaccuracies, was a valid document.

Whereas, he said it was a work in progress

and a draft document. That was absolutely misleading to the people, and that is

the whole point of why the point of privilege got raised in the first place.

I note again that the Minister of Environment and Conservation, wherein all

this started, is still not listed in this document as being part of the apology

that is being issued here today. These are my comments. I think he ought to

register that apology with this House and with the people.

With regard to further responses and questions, as alluded to in the last

sentence of this statement, I can assure the members opposite that we will have

further questions about this particular document.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a document that we are talking about here issued by the Executive

Council of government. Mr. Speaker, there is a concept in parliamentary practice

known as ministerial responsibility. What we have here in this whole issue is

ministers ducking responsibility, trying to blame it - as high as the Premier

yesterday - on public servants. When in reality, decisions were made by this

government, the consequence of which came to light as a result of this document,

and they were changed.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to start accepting ministerial

responsibility, not trying to blame things on public servants, and apologize to

this House, as the minister has done here and the other members - including the

Minister of Tourism and Culture, who is not here today, and the Minister of

Environment and Conservation - to apologize to this House for the inaccuracies

that have been put to the members on this side of the House and to the public as

a result of this matter.

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the craft industry is a valuable contributor

to our economy and a growing employer of men and women in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In 1992, the craft industry was valued at $10 million to $12 million and

employed approximately 1,500 people. Today, more than 2,000 people work in the

craft industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The industry is worth in excess of

$38 million annually, with the potential to grow significantly. The craft

industry has strong growth potential across the entire Province, especially in

rural areas, because location is not a barrier to doing business.

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the potential of the craft industry

and its importance to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. That is why we

allocated $150,000 in Budget 2004 to support the continued expansion and

diversification of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The funding will be used to help companies, entrepreneurs, craftspeople,

artisans and supporting agencies with market research and development, product

development and the development of promotional and identification materials. It

will also be used to support the implementation of key recommendations contained

in the Craft Industry Development Strategy that was announced two years ago.

This government intends to work with craft producers, The Craft Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and industry associations to create more

opportunities and to support entrepreneurs and businesses in the craft industry

in growing and diversifying their product lines.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Anne Manuel, Executive Director of the

Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is with us in the public gallery

today.

Mr. Speaker, we will work with the industry and key stakeholders to develop

new opportunities in local and export markets.

Mr. Speaker, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can play a role in building

the craft industry by purchasing our own Newfoundland and Labrador craft

products more often. By working together we can help sustain and expand the

craft industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, a very crafty statement by the minister. Very coincidental, as well,

Mr. Speaker. In case the people of the Province do not know, we are into what

they call a CRA polling period, which is done quarterly, whereby this research

company does a poll to see how popular the government is. We had an announcement

in a Budget a month-and-a-half ago, about $150,000 has gone into a craft

industry that the minister takes this week, this day, during the polling period,

to stand up and tout as one of the great things about rural development and an

industry. I say hats off to the people in the craft industry and to everyone who

works in it, but I doubt if this Administration is going to do much for them.

Mr. Speaker, if what has already happened in rural Newfoundland, where much

of this craft industry takes place, they will not be selling their products in

rural Newfoundland. If you look at the HRE offices we have had closed, the weigh

scales we have had closed, the teacher layoffs that are coming, the health

clinics that have closed, the driver examiners that have been fired, the 153 fee

increases we have had, the 4,000 layoffs that we have, the ferry rate increases

we have, the tourism operator fee increases we have, the clinic cancellations

that we have had, the school cancellations that we have, I doubt very much if

they are going to sell any of their products in rural Newfoundland or if there

are going to be any tourists in rural Newfoundland because there is nobody to

sell it to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: There will not be anything to see.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. Even in my own

area of Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, the craft industry is doing well. However,

assistance is always required. I agree that an aggressive marketing strategy is

much needed.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there also needs to be more infrastructure

for the craft producers of this Province in terms of the locations in which they

operate. I noticed while travelling throughout the Island portion of the

Province and in Labrador, there is a bit of a difference because I see a lot of

crafts displayed in the local areas around the Island, but in Labrador, in the

craft producers and the tourism places there - I know in Labrador West, the

Labrador West Craft Association has difficulty in having a place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired?

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: - has difficulty in having a place to display their wares in

high traffic areas because of the cost of rental space.

There is much more that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, to help the craft

industry in this Province become even more successful.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Ministerial Statements?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House of government's

decision regarding the structure of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission.

I am announcing today that the operations of the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission will be integrated with the Public Utilities Board.

The Public Utilities Board will now be responsible for regulating fuel

prices, in addition to hydro and auto insurance rates. The Public Utilities

Board has the experience, expertise and procedures in place for rate regulation.

The position of Commissioner for the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission

will no longer be required. The contract of the current Commissioner expires May

25 th . A petroleum products pricing office of the Public Utilities

Board will remain in Grand Falls-Windsor. Existing staff of the commission will

continue to be an asset to the fuel pricing operation.

Mr. Speaker, we are integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission

with the Public Utilities Board to improve efficiency and reduce the costs

charged back to the petroleum industry and ultimately onto the consumer.

We want to remove any perception of political interference in fuel price

regulation that may have existed in the past. As an independent or arm's-length

agency, the Public Utilities Board will provide that necessary autonomy.

We are committed to fuel price regulation to ensure fairness, stability and

transparency of pricing for resellers, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers and

consumers.

A survey conducted by the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission in August of

2003 showed that 78 per cent of consumers want fuel price regulation. This

restructuring will result in little or no disruption in service and minimal

impact on staff.

Mr. Speaker, government has instructed that legislation be drafted to give

effect to the proposed changes. Public Utilities Board Chairman, Robert

Noseworthy, will be appointed Commissioner until the legislation can be passed

in this House.

Government will be asking the Public Utilities Board to do an operational

review of gas pricing regulation to ensure the concerns of all interested and

industry parties are being addressed.

The costs of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission and the Public

Utilities Board are totally recoverable from industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why the minister could not have said that yesterday. Everyone

else in the Province knew it, knew what was happening. This whole move is

politically motivated. There is nothing more simple than what they have done

today. Every advocate in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to members opposite, wait and listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Every single advocate-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is replying to a Ministerial

Statement. I ask all members if they would give him the courtesy of being able

to reply without significant interruption.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to know when you hit a nerve here.

The bleacher creatures act up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a slap in the face to all the advocates in this

Province. Every advocate in this Province for the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner

has - written in a paper or on Open Line or in some form - endorsed the actions

of the Petroleum Pricing Products Commission.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is happy. To go with the PUB, I do not know why you would

want to change something if it is not broken. Why fix it, if it is not broken?

There is nobody happy with the PUB, Mr. Speaker. Now, what guarantees or

assurances will consumers have that they are not going to be impacted by this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we have not seen any reduction. It is great to

say that it is going to save the industry money. I am not interested in saving

the industry money, Mr. Speaker; I am interested in the consumer being spared

some extra cash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A few seconds to clue up.

Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, there is a -

MR. GRIMES: The Premier said no leave.

MR. SWEENEY: The Premier said no leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the Pricing Products Commission, I do not think anybody in the

Province is under the illusion that it caused prices to be lower. It added

stability, and I guess time will tell whether this new initiative under the PUB

will continue to do the same, but I think, Mr. Speaker, we are missing the point

here.

I think the point that we should be recognizing is that we have one oil

refinery in this Province at Come By Chance processing mainly Middle East Oil,

when we have vast offshore resources. What is wrong with the concept of treating

our offshore reserves the same as we treat other industries in this Province,

have secondary processing, have an additional refinery, because now the

circumstances have changed where the Eastern Seaboard capacity is lower while

the demand is higher. I think that it has changed, and I think it is important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. COLLINS: I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that government

approach the oil industry as other industries in this Province and try to

develop a secondary refinery in this Province that, in turn, could lead to a

plastic industry, as has happened in other locations throughout the world. The

secondary processing and jobs that come with it are badly needed in this

Province. That is what we look forward to this government doing: bringing more

advantage to the reserves that we have offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Province welcomes today's announcement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Province welcomes today's announcement by federal

Minister John Efford to invest $2.98 million of federal funding in support of

community groups in the Province whose work contributes to the National Crime

Prevention Strategy.

The National Crime Prevention Strategy helps Canadians build safer

communities with an investment in projects aimed to address the personal, social

and economic costs of crime and victimization.

Mr. Speaker, the funding announced today will support forty-nine projects in

communities across Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: The projects cover a wide range of issues, from a

national research project that will help abuse prevention educators increase the

effectiveness of their presentations, to projects that create support networks

and build stronger communities by supporting skills and knowledge development.

All are designed to address local concerns, as identified by people n their

communities.

This funding commitment is welcome news for communities across the Province.

This investment will expand current programming, and improve our long-term

approach to crime prevention in communities across all of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this federal support builds on the Province's investments in

police training and equipment and the commitment to community safety. We are

pleased that this investment provides financial support to fund the development

of projects and partnerships that help build safer communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never would have thought the Minister of Justice would be doctor of spin as

well. Another piece of polling period fluff. Here we are, Mr. Speaker;

Ministerial Statements are usually to tout some policy position of the

government, or some important initiative of the government, and we have the

Minister of Justice standing up and supporting, and saying thank you for money

that came into the Province from a federal minister, a Liberal federal minister.

I say thank you, Mr. Efford, thank you federal government, for what you have

done. Indeed, we do appreciate the fact that you, the federal government, are

putting money into here because we have thousands of volunteers in this Province

who do play a role in crime prevention and we certainly need them, anything to

enhance the safety programs and the safety of our communities, by all means, but

I find it very ironic that this Administration - again, coincidently, during a

CRA polling period - is out with a piece of polling period fluff riding on the

coattails of a federal government announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe if this Administration was real serious about crime

prevention, Mr. Speaker, maybe we would have had the minister standing to

announce that they were making an equal contribution or something, but we see

absolutely zero dollars from the federal government for crime prevention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: - and flying on the coattails of the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this Province would welcome federal money for this particular type

of project and community services that would aid in crime prevention, but it is

ironic, of course, when we were announcing this, we are ignoring the fact that

in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, the community policing needs of the Aboriginal

communities have been ignored by this government. We are very unhappy to see

that, because that is very important in Aboriginal communities and in

communities across this Province that we have the right level of support for

community activities that are designed to assist in the prevention of crime and

healthier and safer communities. This was not mentioned by the minister, of

regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very serious issue which has risen to

the forefront this past weekend. In the early hours of Saturday morning an

off-duty officer with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was the victim of a

violent and unprovoked stabbing on George Street in downtown St. John's.

The police officer was coming to the aid of another gentleman who was stabbed

as well, who was a staff member at one of the establishments on George Street.

It is my understanding that this young man is still recovering in hospital,

however fortunately the police officer has since been released.

Mr. Speaker, when I became aware of this brutal, criminal act I immediately

contacted both Mayor Andy Wells and Chief of Police, Richard Deering. I had a

lengthy discussion with each of these gentlemen about the causes and

consequences of this incident, as I am very concerned about what the

implications are for our capital city and our Province generally.

As a result of these conversations, I have convened a meeting with myself,

Mayor Wells and Chief Deering, so that we can further discuss this very serious

matter. As leaders in this Province, we cannot and will not allow this type of

activity to continue and we must collectively take every possible step to

confront this criminal activity.

Both the Mayor and Chief expressed to me some very serious concerns about the

situation on George Street and I believe that working with the owners of

establishments in the downtown area and the community as a whole, we can

effectively address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is known as a peaceful

and friendly place. People from around the world come to visit us, not only to

see our beautiful natural spaces and experience our rich cultural heritage, but

also they see this Province as a tranquil refuge from the hustle and bustle of

big city life.

We are also known in our Province for our love of music, laughter and

entertainment, and George Street has earned a reputation as a great excursion on

a visit to the Province, to enjoy a good time Newfoundland and Labrador style.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that incidents such as occurred this

weekend, may cause serious harm to this valued reputation, and indeed our

citizens. We have made significant strides in the tourism industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years, and we continue to expand our markets

and grow as a world-class tourism destination. We cannot allow the reputation of

our Province to be tarnished by such acts of criminal violence.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage a public debate and involvement in finding

constructive solutions to this problem, so that it may be effectively addressed

for the safety and well being of our citizens and visitors alike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate receiving a copy of the Premier's statement in advance. Mr.

Speaker, there are two serious issues raised here in terms of why the Premier is

suggesting that he is choosing to get personally involved in this particular

incident - not the only incident by the way,

unfortunately, that has occurred in the Province, and St. John's and George

Street is not the only place. We all acknowledge and understand that. We are

fortunate enough to have one of the lowest, if not the lowest, crime rates in

Canada.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, with the statement and the position taken by the

Premier is this, that this overreaction to it and involvement by the Premier

usually signifies that, in fact, it is so very, very bad and so much out of

control that the Premier, himself, has to get involved; which is the wrong

message, I would contend, Mr. Speaker.

The two issues are, that we much collectively take every possible step to

confront this criminal activity. If the government wants to get involved in

that, I would suggest the Minister of Justice could be involved in that.

Secondly, we do not want to see any serious harm done to the valued tourism

reputation. I can see the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation being

involved with the mayor and others with respect to that. The fear I have, Mr.

Speaker, is that by the Premier drawing additional attention to it himself, that

he may be causing the kind of harm that he is saying in the statement he is

trying to avoid. The incident is unfortunate. We wish it had never happened, but

again, I believe that the Premier, taking this route, is likely to have the

exact opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. GRIMES: - the exact opposite result, Mr. Speaker, of what he intended

by reading the statement here today.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, it is an unfortunate incident that happened on George Street last

weekend. We have had similar and more serious incidents. One happened in CBS

some six months ago, where an individual was killed outside of a bar, and

another one in Marystown within the last year. It did not prompt the kind of

reaction that this incident did on Saturday night. Obviously, we are concerned

about any crimes, and the Minister of Justice (inaudible) with national crime

prevention strategy, we would like to see some changes here too.

When you have 7,000 people - I heard there were 7,000 seats on George Street,

where drinking establishments are open until 3 o'clock in the morning. This

incident happened very late at night, and maybe there are some things that can

be done about it, but I do not know if we need to draw national attention to the

fact that there was an incident on George Street at 3 a.m. last weekend though,

because that itself is going to do more harm to our tourism industry and the

good message that has come from George Street over the last number of years as a

popular place for people to go and spend the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to actually be recognized on a

point of order before we begin Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The point of order relates to the statement made by the Acting Government

House Leader respecting the documents from the government about the Budget

Highlights and the district by district breakdown.

Mr. Speaker, the agreement and we do have - and I bring this up as a point of

order to find out from yourself what the intention is in dealing with a point of

privilege that you would rule on as a result of actions taken today. We had all

agreed, in this House, that because of concerns about inaccuracies in the

documents, that we would have the Government House Leader do an investigation

first. That was to occur today. The Acting House Leader has given the report, on

behalf of the Government House Leader, which indicates there were minimal

inaccuracies but says that he wants to assure all of us that the Budget Details

and Statistics document is indeed a valid document.

The whole point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this: It is to ask whether or not

now, in fact, you must go ahead and rule on the point of privilege, in the

absence of any acknowledgment from two Ministers of the Crown, who have been

contradicted today by the Acting House Leader. The Acting House Leader says it

is a valid document, and there were some minimal inaccuracies. The Minister of

Government Services - actually three ministers, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Government Services, when first addressing the issue of driver exams, said it

was a draft document - not final, a draft document - that is the language that

is in Hansard. The Acting House Leader today, after investigation for almost a

week now, says there were some minimal inaccuracies but, let me assure you, as

members, that it is indeed a valid document; not draft, but a valid document.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, when acting on

behalf of the Government Services Minister, described the same document as a

work in progress. Today we have, after the investigation, the Acting Government

House Leader saying it is a valid document.

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point of privilege that has been raised. My

point of order is to suggest that now, in the absence of the apologies from the

two ministers who are here - a third one, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, put out public documents, press releases, condemning the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for putting out improper information, and today the

Acting House Leader says it is indeed a valid document. The information came

from a document that we are being reassured again is a valid document.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, unless we actually have the apologies, as was said

earlier by the Opposition House Leader, from the ministers, who would

acknowledge that they made a mistake - now, there is a statement in this

particular address today, to us, from the Acting House Leader. It says,

"... we have identified minimal inaccuracies. For this we apologize."

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if that is an attempt for a blanket apology on

behalf of himself and three other ministers who have misinterpreted this

document in the Legislature, but we believe that unless the actually ministers

themselves, who made the statements, stand up and offer the apology, that you

would have no choice, Mr. Speaker, later today or tomorrow, but to continue to

rule on the point of privilege; and that, barring the actual apologies, you

would have no choice but to find that there was definitely a prima facie case of

privilege that has been raised, on which you reverse judgement, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask you to consider that as a point of order, for your own

consideration, in making a judgement on the point of privilege later today or

later in the week, as you see fit.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would submit to Your Honour that there is no

point of order. Secondly, I want to say a couple of other things. When the hon.

Minister of Environment and Conservation spoke in this House on the matter a few

days ago, he was speaking in his capacity as Acting Minister of Government

Services, and he was quoting from a document that I refer to in here, and made

commentary on today.

In the apology, in acknowledging we made some errors and apologizing to the

House, I apologized on behalf of the government for the misinformation and on

behalf of the Minister of Government Services, and on behalf of my colleague,

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. As I say, the Minister of

Environment and Conservation was acting in an acting capacity, so I think the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there something -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I did not interrupt anybody when they were trying to make

their points, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, are you going to try to protect me from the

onslaught from the other side?

Mr. Speaker, I indicated as well in this statement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in this statement that the items

where we found the errors were options which could have been taken by

departments. We acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that those options were not

taken, so I think the government has handled this in the appropriate manner.

I cannot give Your Honour, nor should I, any advice in what you may or may

not do about a point of privilege that is already before the Chair, but I would

submit that there is not a point of order now before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to the point

of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is, indeed, a very valid point of order that has been raised. It

has been raised to provide further information and clarification concerning

where Your Honour might or might not decide to go vis--vis the point of

privilege that was raised. I think anything that we can raise in this House to

assist the Chair in resolving that issue, we have an obligation to, and I think

it is indeed very valid. It relates to the procedure and the process of this

House, so I do not think it is one of these cases where we can simply say it is

not a point of order and throw it aside. It is, indeed, a very valid point of

order.

With regard to the comments of the Acting Government House Leader, I suggest

that his argument does not bear weight. The issue here - and nowhere in this

statement today does this say here - the word "we" is used, but

nowhere does it say - that this statement is issuing an apology on behalf of the

three ministers that were referenced. Nowhere does it say that, Mr. Speaker. It

says, we apologize because there were a few minimal inaccuracies, having nothing

to do with apologies from the ministers who made the statements. So, let's not

be detracted by, again, slight of hand and the fact that the word "we"

is in here and the word "apology" is in here.

The whole point of privilege was that certain ministers made certain

statements. I would like to emphasize that nowhere, when the point of privilege

was raised, did anybody suggest that the words uttered by the ministers were

done to deliberately mislead people. We are not dealing with a situation of: Was

the word misleading used in an unparliamentary sense? The issue that was raised

was the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Environment and

Conservation - when he was in an acting capacity for the Minister of Government

Services - made statements. One said it was a work in progress, and another one

said it was a draft.

It is irrelevant whether it was deliberate or not. We are not even suggesting

over here, and the person who raised the point of privilege, the Leader of the

Opposition, did not suggest it was deliberate.

I think in the interest, again, if we are going to follow the rules of this

House and we are going to have some proper decorum here, all those ministers

need to do is rise today and say: If any statements that I made in this House,

as a result of references to that document, misled anybody, I apologize. That is

the end of it. We do not need to beat this thing to death. Yet, we seem to have

a reluctance by the ministers in question to stand up and say: If I said

anything that misled anyone, I am sorry for it. That is all that is required

here.

It is still a valid point of privilege and it is a valid point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Unless the ministers stand and apologize, Mr. Speaker, we

would ask that you are - and we feel obligated to decide if there is, indeed, a

prima facie case. In fact, the Acting Government House Leader established your

prima facie case today by this very statement.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke in answer to the Acting Government House Leader on the Ministerial

Statement, and I talked about ministerial responsibility. I do not think that

the House Leader can speak for the Minister of Government Services or the

Minister of Environment and Conservation, in apologizing for some statement that

was made. We had the Minister of Government Services in this House last week

explaining the policy, explaining that people have to go to permanent offices.

The policy was what was adopted by this government. It was only, in fact, when

it was broken down by district did it become obvious to her and everybody else

in the Province that the policy was not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, we know that it has been changed. We know that there may have

been differences that took place, but if the ministers want to maintain that

this was never the policy and that this document is not accurate in that regard,

then her statements to the House are, in fact, inaccurate and she is the one who

should apologize, not the Acting House Leader responding for the Acting Minister

of Environment and Conservation. The minister who made the statements is the one

who should apologize, not the Acting House Leader.

I think that point that was made by the Opposition House Leader is a valid

one and would solve the issue for most people in this House when we see

ministers opposite taking responsibility for the departments, not trying to

blame it on civil servants, not trying to blame it on someone other than

themselves, but take direct responsibility themselves in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take these matters under advisement.

As indicated a few days ago, the role of the Speaker is to determine whether

there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege. In that connection, we

will also take into consideration the point of order which has just been raised,

and will rule on it all at the same time. I will consult, of course, with the

Table Officers and others with whom we consult regularly on this particular

matter, and hopefully by tomorrow, now that we have had a statement from the

Ministry, we can have a decision communicated to the House by the Chair.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 7, the Official Opposition received a breakdown of budget initiatives

and analyses for all forty-eight electoral districts in the Province. Mr.

Speaker, I note for the record, this document was not released willingly. It was

received only after a request under the provincial Freedom of Information Act,

and it indicated some very different messages than what government ministers

were telling the people of the Province.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself stated that an error was made by

a bureaucrat and that the documents were indeed probably not accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Does the Premier really

expect the people of the Province to believe that after a full month of careful

review and deliberation by government officials, that a document full of

inaccuracies, which would contravene the Freedom of Information Act, was

released publicly, or will he finally stand and acknowledge that he and his

ministers actually have gotten caught and been caught misleading the public once

again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I asked the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - and are now in full damage control, using the lame excuse

about bureaucrats bungling the process to cover up their growing and

ever-increasing credibility deficit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a truly open and accountable and transparent government,

there is never a question of being caught at anything. It is all there for the

public to see at any particular point in time.

When I was Leader of the Opposition, and my colleagues know, we did not

voluntarily receive documents from this government when they were in government.

It was not a matter of course that they passed over all kinds of documents to

us. So it is a little two-faced, to say the least, to get on this way in

questions.

With regard to the issue in question, yesterday outside the House when I was

asked by the media the circumstance surrounding it, I acknowledged that we all

make mistakes. All members of the House, on this side of the House and that side

of the House, today, tomorrow, the past, the present and the future, we always

make mistakes. There is nothing wrong with making an honest mistake. If you make

a mistake, you acknowledge it and you move on from there. That is exactly what

happened, a mistake was made and we will do everything we can to make sure that,

in future, these mistakes won't happen. There will be mistakes in the future.

I will make mistakes, I will make lots of them. I am sure the Leader of the

Opposition will acknowledge that he has even made a few in his career over time.

There is nothing devious about this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is simply an admission that we all make mistakes and we will continue to

do so. We will do our very best to make things open and transparent for the

public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that might very well be the end of the matter, if that were

sincere and factual, but again the Premier, yesterday, did the classic example,

he admitted a mistake by someone else. It is the old blame game, Mr. Speaker. It

was not he who made a mistake, or it wasn't the minister who made a mistake,

it was a bureaucrat who made the mistake, which is a different answer than he

tried to give today.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The government has been caught

misleading the public once again; no question about it.

Let me ask these questions, Mr. Speaker: Did the Deputy Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation really provide false information and make a mistake? Is

that what he is saying? Did the Deputy Minister of Government Services really

provide false information and make a mistake? Did the Deputy Minister of

Finance, an individual who oversees the entire budget process -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- really provide false information?

The question is: Does he have that little respect for the senior public

service that he is willing to discredit three senior deputy ministers to save

his own face and that of his ministers who won't admit to their own mistakes,

Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a duly elected Premier of the Province, elected by the people

of the Province, and as Leader of this government, I accept full responsibility

for any mistakes of my government at any particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we had the same type of approach from a couple of ministers

of the Crown, you may be saved the effort of ruling on a point of privilege

later in the day.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: Under Freedom of Information,

the Premier's own office would have had a say in what information was

released, either he personally or a senior staff member in his particular

office. What we have now is an admission that we were provided with inaccurate

information. They are trying to dismiss it as minimal inaccuracies.

In fact, are we going to be provided, Mr. Speaker, at the Premier's

instruction, with a new document like this that we can be assured has been

really vetted, that has had ministerial oversight and is going to provide us the

actual, factual information on which we can continue to question and challenge

the government in the days and weeks and months ahead? Can we expect a revised

document with the factual information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - instead of the misinformation we have been dealing with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member opposite, and all members opposite,

that if in fact there is any inaccurate information in the public domain, that

we will change it, we will vet it. We will make sure that accurate information

is available and provided to everybody who requires it. It is not an issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just on a note, with the Premier yesterday, with Minister John

Efford, with the money for the flood, $2.2 million, I hope the Premier will

fulfill his commitment to the Town of Cox's Cove and the fire department for

the two water pumps you promised while the floods were on the go about a year

ago.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board. During the election, the Premier stated repeatedly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is attempting to ask a question. I ask for the indulgence of

the House so that he can ask it in relative silence.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo just indicated that the personal family foundation that we have established

for children and for charities throughout this Province is, in fact, a slush

fund. I resent that and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that particular

statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is well

aware that albeit regardless of what, if any, comments the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo made, we are in Question Period.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I would say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, I have the right to speak in this House as well as anyone else, when I

am acknowledged by the Chair. I would ask the member to please - I already said

one time before, it is one thing to be a fool; it is something else to open your

mouth and remove all doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to be more careful in their selection of words. I ask the

member if he would complete his point of order statement quickly.

MR. PARSONS: My comment to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that if

the Premier has a valid point of order, it should be addressed and it should be

responded to and the appropriate course of action should be taken. All I am

saying is, let's do it after Question Period. Let's not interfere with

Question Period. Then we can take all the time that is required to do that. In

the meantime, any time we have lost because of interruptions should be put back

on Question Period, and if we need to take ten hours to do it, then we will

address it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will defer on the point of order until later.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, completing his question.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that an unfulfilled commitment caused

such a stir, Mr. Premier.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

During the election, the Premier stated, repeatedly, there will be no layoffs in

the public service. The ad in The Western Star , on October 17, Mr.

Speaker, signed by the Premier, confirms that there would be no layoffs. Will

the minister now confirm to the House, and to the people of Humber West, the

Premier's own district, and to the whole West Coast, that the Department of

Finance office in Corner Brook is closing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will confirm that there were four people employed in the audit division in

Corner Brook. There will be one remaining who will work from his home. There is

one other person who worked from the government space there and we have hired,

also, auditors for gasoline. We have added new employees because we feel that

there is a significant amount of revenue out there that we have been informed

through the 1-800 line and other means that there is a significant amount of

opportunities, that we could be losing millions of dollars in audits. It was

discontinued by the former government. We put one back in Corner Brook area.

There is going to be one in Central, one here in the St. John's region, so we

have added, basically, three new positions and one of them has gone to Corner

Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in the documents that are supplied by the Clerk

of the House, there are four positions, actually, so, once again, we see another

position.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, seeing that there is a gas audit position

for Corner Brook, the Department of Finance office, according to the managers

and the staff, is actually closed in Corner Brook. Can I ask the minister: Where

is this position going to be? Where is the office space going to be, when the

actual office is closed in Corner Brook, in the Premier's own district?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a possibility that it would be working out of government space that is

already there. That is an issue being handled by my department. I spoke with my

deputy on that only a couple of days ago, on this specific issue, and there are

two positions retained: one new one and there is one of the current positions

maintained there, if there is government space to do it; otherwise, there is an

arrangement that they can work out of their home if there is not government

space in the area to do that.

We will be carrying on an important vital function of government in that

position as auditing and we expect to get hundreds of thousands, if not in the

seven figures, revenue over the course of the year from doing those audits and

then adjusting them back for a period of time where somebody may not have been

reporting and using marked gasoline. We think it is a revenue issue. The union

had called and said before that we eliminated them and it cost us a significant

amount of money. I received that in submissions through NAPE and others, and we

have acted on that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I am glad to say that one of the positions is going

to be in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of

Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait to see this ad coming out: Wanted

in Corner Brook, a gas tax auditor to work out of your own home. I cannot wait.

That is going to be a great ad for Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, as recently as this weekend, the individuals laid off at the

Department of Finance in Corner Brook, and even the managers, were not aware of

this position. Will the individuals who will receive their pink slips have the

first opportunity to apply for this new position, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody, in terms of the collective agreement signed and under the

redeployment centre that has been set up for the Public Service Commission,

every single one of the 217 people who received notices that qualify will go

through a procedure, and the Public Service Commission has set up a redeployment

centre to be able to put people in the areas where they meet qualifications.

We hope, over the course of the next several months, that many of the

positions will be picked up by attrition. Initially, the number we had

anticipated was more like 352 and we only had to make announcements of 217. We

hope, over the next few months, that the attrition process will get a lot of

these people who are qualified back into positions and the layoffs will be

minimized as much as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, when officials in the Department of Finance compiled information

for this year's Budget they made projections based on gas prices being lower

than they are today. Minister, when you were making your Budget projections,

what was the gas price range per litre used by your Department of Finance

officials to estimate the revenue government would receive from this source?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the amount that is budgeted there. The member should know - she served

in the position in Treasury Board before - she should know that there are two

aspects to tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two aspects to tax. One is a gasoline tax, that is a tax per litre

that as price goes up discretionary consumption goes down and we lose revenue on

the gas tax side. As it goes up there is a sales tax that kicks in, of which we

get 8 per cent of that, which is 8 per cent of a higher number, but with

consumption down, the total pot, there is no appreciable difference whatsoever

in the total. In fact, there is an overall cost to government, quite possibly,

because the ferries and the vehicle fleet in government that we operate, we have

to pay a higher cost there. She should know full well, the budgeted division was

in her department before. To ask a question like that when she served in the

position shows what little understanding she has.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Your spin is not working.

MR. GRIMES: He does not know the answer.

MS THISTLE: Or, he does not know the answer, whatever he wants to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in this House, with gas

prices at $1 a litre, forty-two cents out of every dollar goes to government

taxes, whether it be federal, provincial, or both. Federal party leaders have

acknowledged there is a windfall to government. The papers are full of it today,

look. I am sure you read the papers, The Globe and Mail , and The

Telegram . There is a windfall to government from increased gas prices that

are now putting forward plans to either keep the money, or put it in consumers'

pockets or put it right in health care.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he now acknowledge that there is

increased revenues for the provincial government, and will you tell this House

what your plans are for this revenue? Are you going to give consumers a break?

Are you going to spend it on health care or will you put it on the deficit? What

are you going to do with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1991, had the former government not changed from an ad valorem tax to a

per litre tax, there would be extra revenues but that neutralized that and moved

it to a system that is fairer. It is a tax per litre. I supported the decision

that government made in 1991 which removed that. That is why we are not getting

a windfall that the federal government is getting, because their tax is on the

price, ours is on the litre. She should understand that. She should read between

the lines and know the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a polling period.

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, it is a polling period. He is doing a miserable mark

on this one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to complete her question.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, even the Finance Minister's national leader,

the leader of the right wing Conservative Party at the national level, the

leader who he supported in the recent leadership convention is acknowledging

there will be more revenue to government because of the increase in gas prices.

I now ask you again: Will you, as the Minister of Finance, stop gouging the

consumers of this Province who are already paying too high a price for gas? Will

you stop the unwarranted tax grab?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government has indicated that their windfall will be $230

million. Ours basically, without factoring the losses -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is far too much noise from this side of the House and it is

interrupting the speaker and the minister in giving his answer.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I said in my first question, if she wants me

to be more specific I will. There are two sides to it.

On the positive side, on the retail sales tax side, assuming - the HST -

there is no decrease in consumption, there will a revenue item in the vicinity

of $3 million. A decrease in consumption because of per litre could offset that,

plus increase costs of operating our vehicle fleets, plus our ferry service in

the Province, it could wipe out that and we could be in a cost neutral position

here, unlike the federal government that would be $230 million to the good. We

are not in the position because we faced a billion dollar deficit. We have no

extra revenue because of it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and they put us in a deep hole that we have to get out of

it, and we do not have the extra revenue to make up for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

I heard the Premier today take full responsibility for his government, but I

have to say that the Premier was away for the past week while his ministers were

behaving in this deplorable manner. Is he prepared to ask them to take

responsibility to this House for their statements, the Minister of Tourism and

Culture for attacking the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for saying

that something was false that came out of this document; the Minister of

Environment and Conservation for referring to this government document as a work

in progress when it was not; and the Minister of Government Services for saying

that the decision had not been made when, in fact, she said the policy was to go

to the nearest permanent office for driver's exams, which is what this policy

spells out in the District of Labrador West and other districts? Will he not say

that his own statement, that he takes responsibility for the government, is not

enough and that these ministers have to take responsibility for their actions to

this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and he heard my answer to the previous

question. We, as a government, make mistakes. We will make mistakes and we will

continue to make mistakes. Every government that has ever been in this Province

has made mistakes, but we will take full responsibility for them. I, the Premier

of the Province, as Leader of the Province and as head of Cabinet, will take

responsibility for that. If that is not enough, does the member and the other

members want a public flagellation? Is that what you are looking for? Is that

what it is all about?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about any inaccuracies that may

or may not be in this document. I am talking about the actions of his ministers

in this House. They are the ones who made the actions, and ministerial

responsibility dictates that those particular ministers ought to make statements

to this House and take responsibility to this House for their actions. Is he

prepared to do that, or is he going to say that his own hollow responsibility -

said after he was away for a week - takes care of all the blame and that his

ministers can go scot-free and say what they like as long as his broad shoulders

are here to say: I am responsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very fortunate as a leader to be blessed with a very honest and open

Cabinet, and a very competent Cabinet, and they are quite capable of speaking

for themselves at all times. Once again, we are all prepared to take

responsibility for our actions in this particular situation. I was not present

last week. I have consulted with various ministers. They have indicated that

there was nothing improper about their actions, and I take them at face value.

However, if there is any responsibility on the government, I can only say it

three or four times, that I will certainly take that responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, an honest, open and competent Cabinet, which is

what this Premier said he has, would take personal responsibility for their

inaccurate statements to the House of Assembly and apologize in person to the

people of this Province for causing all the fuss that they did while the Premier

was away in Europe last week. I would ask him to ask them to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting House Leader has taken the appropriate action and I have taken the

appropriate action and we cannot ask for anymore. I would think that was

satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, with the Province in any energy crisis, the

Minister of Government Services has given the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commissioner, George Saunders, his walking papers. During this time of volatile

pricing, the stability provided by the Commission is of vital importance to

consumers. Can the minister tell the House what will happen if a change in gas

prices is needed next week, under an interruption formula? How can Robert

Noseworthy acquire the expertise in this office in just one week? Who will have

the ability to regulate prices while she figures out how to restructure the

office, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the contract for the Commissioner was up on May

25. We have restructured that to go under the PUB, and they have the expertise,

they have experience, and they have the procedures to regulate this. The staff

is going to continue to stay in Grand Falls-Windsor. The staff the previous

Commissioner used, that staff is still available to the PUB.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, as I suspected, in their haste to do political

damage here, they forgot to look before they leaped. They have gone and taken a

piece of legislation that affects the people of this Province so gravely that

they forgot to bring the legislation to the House to make the necessary changes,

for these changes to work.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the government looking after its

political buddies. People know the Commission is effective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The proof, Mr. Speaker, in how effective the Commission is,

is the fact that the oil companies have been lobbying to have this Commission

eliminated.

Minister, is it true that this action is just an interim measure and that

your master's master plan is to eliminate the Commission all together to

satisfy his corporate buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to price regulation in this

Province, this government. The PUB will, in fact, have savings for the industry.

We are not doing away - but ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the consumer will pay. When

you achieve savings -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: Excuse me. I cannot hear myself speak, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we will save about $100,000 on this particular

move. It is recoverable from industry; but, also, you must remember that there

is nothing free. The fees are always tacked on to consumers, and I would like to

say for the hon. member that this structure that we are now putting in to the

PUB will see effects for the consumer, I am sure. I would like for the hon.

member to understand that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - there are savings that will be had here but, most

importantly, that this government is committed to regulating and stabilizing

prices here and being transparent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, what a stretch. The minister does not even have

enough confidence in what she is doing, herself, to give a proper explanation

here.

Mr. Speaker, this whole thing, there is no assurance that the consumers will

see one cent back in their pockets. She has already admitted that these will

save the companies money. I am not interested in the companies, Minister. What

assurances can you give this House today that the consumers will get the money

back in their pocket?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member is upset with

this decision. It is not a political decision. It is a decision that will be

very independent. It is at arm's length and it has the autonomy to regulate

the gas prices in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member if there is too much

noise in the House, in the asking of the question. I would ask - the floor has

recognized the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - that she be heard in relative

silence.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting reports of a double standard which exists amongst

employees of the provincial government who are declared redundant. If you are a

senior executive you go home and you collect your big paycheque, but if you are

a unionized worker you stay and work the notice period. I ask the minister: Is

this the final slap in the face to people this government is laying off? Why the

double standard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know numerous people out there, people who have contacted me, who are in

the position of senior management who have to work out their term. If the member

is aware of individuals, she could bring it to me. The same general standards

are applied to people, whether they are management or non-management here. If

there are individual circumstances that warrant any difference, certainly they

will be dealt with in that specific manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the minister either does not know or he pays no attention to

the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker we are hearing reports from various

government departments and from school boards about laid off workers being

expected to work their notice. There are some legal implications related to

this, because, in the case of school boards, the entity which they now work for

will no longer exist. Can the Minister of Finance tell this House if he is aware

of any legal implications of this government's unfair treatment of workers,

and what are you going to do to prevent this?

MR. GRIMES: Just say no, Loyola, because you don't know anyway.

MS THISTLE: You don't know.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the collective agreement - she should know, she was President of Treasury

Board - it indicates that you can be paid redundancy or you can be given notice

in lieu of. That is in the agreement there.

Any questions dealing with school boards, I am sure the Minister of Education

is quite capable of answering; school boards that report to the Department of

Education. I will answer it, and I will indicate that she should know the

collective agreement. You can work your period or you can be paid in lieu of

notice. That is what is stated there. She knows full well that she is asking a

question which she should know the answer to, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period, we had a point of order raised. The Chair calculates

that there were about forty seconds taken up by the Premier. That will be added

onto Question Period, but time taken by other speakers will not be. There are

forty seconds left.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, many of the positions budgeted for in the

Department of Health and Community Services are vacant positions that the

minister has not confirmed if she will fill within the next year.

Why have you inflated the salary estimates in your department, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a very quick answer by the Minister of Health and

Community Services

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I indicated to the hon. member, last night at the Estimates Committee

meeting, that any positions that are currently unfilled may be filled during the

coming year. I also made a commitment to her that I would provide information

with regard to positions that are unfilled, that are currently vacant, and that

information also will be provided.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

A point of clarification: During one of the questions a comment was made that

documents were supplied by the Clerk of the House. I wish to correct the hon.

Member for Bay of Islands. There were no documents supplied to anybody by the

Clerk of the House. Just so that the record can be clear, as the Clerk is unable

to speak in the House.

Also, during Question Period there was a point of order raised with speakers

from two sides. The general rule the Chair would have is that, when a member

raises a point of order in Question Period, the side that raises the point of

order, that time will be added to Question Period. Any respondents, who respond

at that time, rather than waiting until later, that time will be included in

Question Period.

Today, for example, the time used by the Premier, when he raised a point of

order, was added to Question Period. The time taken by others, in responding,

that was included in the Question Period time.

There is an opportunity now for members who wish to respond to the point of

order raised by the Premier to do so.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order by the Premier. I never

referred to the Williams' Foundation as a slush fund. Now that he has

mentioned it, maybe he could explain to us if it was used during the election?

The fact that his salary, which he donates to the Williams' Foundation, is

being paid by the taxpayers of this Province, maybe the Premier should itemize

and publicize the actual donations or the charities that he is donating the

Williams' Trust Fund to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Points of order have to do with parliamentary

procedures. In this particular case there is a disagreement or a commentary by

members on issues which pertain to matters that are outside the House.

Therefore, there is no point of order and the Chair would so rule.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order regarding a matter that did occur during Question Period.

Again, we are required under the rules to wait until Question Period is over to

raise the point of order. I make reference to the Premier's first response to

the first question. I would submit that he used unparliamentary language. He

said that the question put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the

actions of the Leader of the Opposition, he was being two-faced.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware - and you are certainly aware - that whether or

not the use of a particular word is or is not unparliamentary can vary from time

to time, depending upon the circumstances, the tone that was used at the time

that it was uttered. I think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the

words - I have checked in Beauchesne here, I do not see the specific words

two-faced here, but there are certainly lots of incidents in Beauchesne where

that type of wording, saying that someone's actions and behaviour is

two-faced, certainly causes a negative connotation and is unparliamentary. I

think the Premier should withdraw that remark as being unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I actually withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, that the

Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, no-faced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would like to briefly speak to the point of order. First

of all, I would like to make this point. It is not against the rules of the

House to raise a point of order in Question Period, as the hon. Opposition House

Leader said. Procedurally, we try to stay away from it because it has

historically taken - the time has been taken out of Question Period. I remember

in days gone by when governments used it quite frequently to consume the time

that is normally set aside for Question Period. But, I want to make it clear, it

is not against the rules to raise a point of order during Question Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to speak in this House and I

will continue to do so. I am not going to take orders from the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not going to take orders from the hon. lip, the bionic

mouth, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take orders from him.

The second thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this. Your Honour has put the

time back in that was consumed and I think that should address the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Acting Government House Leader to complete his comments if he has

not already done so.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not quite certain if this is a new point of order. It is certainly a

commentary on the continuing point of order that I raised about the Premier's

comments of two-faced.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite within the rules, and I agree and concur with the

Acting Government House Leader, that there is no law which says you cannot raise

a point of order during Question Period. I concur with that. That is perfectly

right. My suggestion is, and the rules are, that you do not normally raise

points of order during Question Period because you take up the time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the point of order. We have the Premier of this

Province, who when the Opposition House Leader stands on a point of order to

suggest that someone, and it happened to be the Premier, used unparliamentary

language - I just finished saying in my comments that the Chair considers such

things as: demeanor, tone, attitude, how it was said - and we have the Premier

of this Province stand up on his feet and say: I withdraw the comment that I

said the Leader of the Opposition is two-faced, and he has no face. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is absolutely disrespectful of the person again. Here is the

Premier who is always talking about personal attacks on people, namely himself,

who has the gall to stand up here and make this disrespectful comment about the

Leader of the Opposition. It is absolutely unparliamentary, and more so than the

commentary of two-faced. This is absolutely unparliamentary. If the Premier of

the Province is going to get on with this kind of attitude in this House, I

guess it goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that his comments in Maclean's Magazine ,

which we all thought were in jest and accepted, maybe he was serious about

those. It is absolutely unacceptable and he should be asked to withdraw those

comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the initial point of order, which the Premier has already apologized for

making and withdrawing the comment, and so therefore my -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the original point of order, the Premier stood in his place and withdrew

the words. That would be my reading of it, but the Chair will look at the

transcripts and come back to make a ruling on tomorrow.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your commentary that the Premier did, and the record will show

that he did, technically, withdraw the words two-faced. Mr. Speaker, we are into

what is considered here to be done honourably and what is to be done in good

faith and good intentions. Now, when someone stands up in this House and says: I

withdraw the fact that I said two-faced, he has no face - you cannot look at

that in isolation and separation. The whole thing has to be looked at, and I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is one point of order and all the

commentary I have made is to that point of order.

The Premier of this Province stood up here and made a mockery of this system

in which we are operating, with his comment here today. If that is the kind of

behaviour we are going to get from the Premier, we stand little chance from the

rest of us here if he, the leader of this Province, is going to get on with that

kind of decorum in your Chambers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take all of these matters under advisement and will come back

to the House on tomorrow and make a ruling.

In the meantime, I do believe that the Chair, at one point, was going to

recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi and we would do that now

before we proceed further.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a new point of order, but it is actually a point of clarification on

your ruling about how Question Period would operate; because, I believe you

stated the rule would be that the side which raises the point of order during

Question Period, the time that is taken up by the raising of the point of order

would be added to Question Period, so the point of order itself would not be an

issue, but that any response to that would come out of Question Period.

What I would assume from that, Mr. Speaker, is that the practice then should

be, if someone goes to the trouble of raising a point of order in Question

Period, that there would be no ruling on that point of order during Question

Period, and that no one would be expected to respond to it. Is my understanding

correct, that if a point of order is raised, fine, it is on the record, nobody

is expected to respond to it, and the time in raising that would be added to the

end so that Question Period, itself, would not be disrupted, but if someone

wants to make a point on the record at that time, they can do so? Is my

understanding correct on that? Because, if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, for

ourselves and for anybody looking at this, it would have to be clear,

presumably, that just because a point of order is made, it does not mean it is

accepted by the other side or by the person against whom it is made, but that

would be the case that Your Honour is going to carry out in the forthcoming days

and weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good point that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised. I,

also, would like an answer to something pertaining to that, because precedents

in this House have indicated that - and historically it has happened since I

came in this House - when people stood on a point of order during Question

Period, it came out of Question Period unless there was unanimous agreement,

leave, to continue and allow it to extend by that amount and, if there is no

unanimous leave to do that, all points of order raised in Question Period will

come out of Question Period. It is recommended that it be raised outside of

Question Period but there is no stipulation, as I know, Mr. Speaker, to indicate

that it should not come out there. My understanding is that it comes out of

Question Period unless there is unanimous agreement that it not come out of

Question Period. If the Speaker could rule on that, too?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is always trying to be fair to all hon. members.

Question Period is the time for the Opposition to pose questions and a time for

the government to provide answers. When we have points of order raised in

Question Period, it takes away from that allocated time, and that allocated time

in this House is thirty minutes.

We have a practice, and Speaker Snow and Speakers before me ruled that we

should avoid, as far as possible, to have points of order raised during Question

Period. That has been the practice of this House; however, to be fair to all

hon. members - and I should say as well that this particular practice is

mentioned in Beauchesne , it is mentioned in Marleau and Montpetit,

and all other references - however, in doing so, if a member feels that he

needs, or she needs, to raise a point of order in Question Period, then I think,

to be fair, in order to prevent Question Period time from being taken up with

points of order and thus taking away from the thirty minutes allocated, I

believe it is fair and reasonable that if a member raises a point of order, the

time that is taken up by the member who raises the order, that his side in the

House will have that time which will be added to Question Period. If, on the

other hand, the people who choose to respond to it at that particular time,

their time will come out of the thirty minutes. That, I do believe, is a

reasonable way to handle it, and that would be the way in which I would

encourage the members to operate.

I would agree that the other way to do it would be to get unanimous consent.

That is unlikely in a House during Question Period, so the Speaker would rule

that, in future, I would encourage all members to practice that particular rule

and then we can have fairness and balance in the manner in which Question Period

does operate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not address this issue earlier. I am glad the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised it, actually. I concur with the Acting Government

House Leader, that the practice has been that you do not raise points of order

during Question Period. If you are talking about what is fair to everybody, I

think it is unfair to suggest that if - and, by the way, it is my understanding

that the purpose of Question Period is to allow the Opposition to ask questions

of the government, and we only have a thirty minute time period in which to do

that. Therefore, I think, Mr. Speaker, whoever causes the encroachment upon that

thirty minute time should bear the burden of it.

If the government decides to raise a point of order during Question Period,

it is irrelevant whether anybody responses or not. If the government has chosen

to raise the point of order during Question Period, it is fair that whatever

time the government uses in doing that action should be tacked on to Question

Period. If the Opposition stands up on a point of order during Question Period,

we should lose the time from our Question Period. If the purpose of Question

Period is for the benefit of the Opposition to ask questions, if we stand up, we

should be expected to lose the time. Likewise, if the government stands up on a

point of order during Question Period, they should be expected, both in their

point of order and to any responses that get raised, that it gets tacked on.

That is the fair process, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. Then there is no

confusion about anybody out in TV land, about who made what point of order and

why was it not responded to, or anything like that. That, to me, would be the

ultimate fair process. If we stand, we lose the time. If they stand, it gets

tacked on automatically, and that would seem to be ultimately fair to everyone.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that things have been clarified as a result of my question. It

seems, Mr. Speaker, there are more circumstances than the simple one of raising

a question and there may be unanimous consent for various things. Unless Your

Honour is satisfied that he has given the final answer here on that, it may be

something that would be appropriate for House Leaders and myself to meet with

you and discuss, because there seems to be some merit in what is being said by

the Opposition House Leader; and, in fact, the practice of this House over time

has differed, depending on unanimous consent, at various points.

It may be, rather than have a ruling that would be subject to

interpretation

and perhaps some other kind of interventions, it might be more valuable - I do

not know what the Acting House Leader would say about that - but it may make

more sense for there to be discussions over time with the House Leaders and

yourself and myself as to what might be agreed upon in terms of a framework for

doing this in the future.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, I think the suggestion made by our colleague from Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi is a good one. I think perhaps the House Leaders and the Speaker

ought to take an opportunity to have a chat about this, so everybody is on the

same hymn sheet in terms of the

interpretation of what we are trying to do.

My understanding of what Your Honour is trying to achieve is fairness and

balance, and there is no attempt - I think the time issue, you are handling

okay. It is interventions, once an hon. member raises a point of order, I think,

that is the issue here. I believe the signal Your Honour was trying to send was:

Keep that until Question Period is over. Then you can get up and you can make

your interventions and make your submissions and you can take all the time you

want, but do not do it during Question Period. If you do, I am going to penalize

or enhance the penalty for the team that does that.

That is what I understood Your Honour to be saying, but I do think the

suggestion made by the hon. member is a good one, for people to cooly and calmly

think about this and have a further look at it.

One final point, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Opposition House Leader.

Yes, Question Periods are primarily for the benefit of the Opposition, but

Question Periods are open to private members on either side of the House. I have

seen it in this House when government members stood and asked questions. I do

not think it has happened since the hon. Opposition House Leader was here, but I

personally have seen it. I have seen it in the House of Commons, quite

frequently, that government backbenchers ask questions, and I know it happens in

other jurisdictions, but primarily it is for the benefit of the Opposition, no

question about that, but I would not want it to go on record to suggest that

government members are not allowed to ask questions. They are, in fact, allowed

to ask questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is always trying to be fair and reasonable, and certainly

suggestions made by hon. members - I think, for the most part, what the hon.

Opposition House Leader is saying, what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is

saying, and what the Acting Government House Leader is saying, is identical to

what I am saying: that we should try to be fair, and we should try to be

reasonable, and certainly if it is agreeable we can continue the discussion.

Maybe a future amendment to the Standing Orders or in some other way we can have

consistency in the way we handle points of order or other matters raised during

Question Period so that neither the questioners nor the Ministry is penalized in

the process.

Continuing with the routine proceedings.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

A new point of order. During Question Period, when the Opposition House

Leader was on his feet, he clearly referred to me in unparliamentary language.

The same paragraph in the

section he is referring to,

Section 486, refers to

intent and the words used. I would request that you, as Speaker, check Hansard,

check the language that was used, and ask the hon. member to either withdraw

and/or apologize.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do acknowledge and confirm what the hon. minister has said. I did, indeed,

refer to him as a fool in Question Period. I unequivocally withdraw that remark

and apologize. It was only said in the frustration of responding, I guess, to

his calls across the House.

I unequivocally withdraw and apologize to the hon. minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would rule that there is now no point of order. It has been

resolved.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: There must have been a pin in the seat, a thumbtack.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I

give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Mineral Act, Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the

raising of loans by the Province, Bill 19.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 2, Bill 20.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, Bill 23.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion? Answers to Questions for which

notice has been given?

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion or Answers to Questions?

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, actually it is a point of order.

On May 10 th , I laid a question on the table for the Premier to

answer, and the question read like this: How much money has government spent on

radio ads, newspaper ads -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In this particular place, Answers to Questions for which notice has been

given, it is up to the ministry whether or not they answer the questions. The

member has a right to have her question printed in Hansard and to have it

recorded, and there is a procedure there for that. That is normally what we mean

by, notice has been given, that they would be printed in Hansard. If that has

not happened, even then, I say to the member, it is entirely optional to the

ministry whether or not they rise and answer the question. There is no

parliamentary procedure that compels the ministry to answer at all.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I did submit the question on

May 10 th . This is May 18 th and I still don't have the

answer. It is only right for me to bring this forward in this House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order on this particular matter. The member should know

that, in this particular category, it is up to the government or the ministry as

to if they answer or don't answer at all.

Petitions?

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district

with regard to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my area, and indeed people all over Labrador, the

Northern Peninsula and Western Newfoundland, are not pleased with the decision

that government has taken to relocate the Labrador passenger ferry, the Sir

Robert Bond , to the port of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that people in Labrador this year will see

more of their money used to provide a lesser degree of service to their

communities. Who would ever think that could happen in this day and age? But

that is the result you get when you have politics dictating a decision instead

of cool, rational, collective thinking that is based on what is most

cost-effective and what is the most effective service for people in the

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what will happen this year is that $1.7 million more will

come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund to pay for a ferry to go to

Lewisporte. A ferry that people in my district, leaders all across Labrador, the

Northern Peninsula and Western Newfoundland say it is not necessary and is not

needed. More money will come out of that fund to pay for that vessel to go to

Lewisporte. Do you know what the people of Labrador will get? They will get less

service. Twenty-five less trips of the Sir Robert Bond departing Goose

Bay this year than last year or the year before. They are paying more for less

service.

The $1.7 million cost estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I have copies of them here,

this information was compiled by three consultants at Memorial University, at

the public policy division, who did a cost breakdown on what it would cost to

run the Sir Robert Bond into Lewisporte as opposed to just operating a

Labrador ferry service. Their estimation shows, accurately, that it will cost

$1.7 million and more; almost $6 million. Well, $5.1 million, I think it is,

over three years. Over $10 million in the next six years, knowing full well it

will take seven years to build a highway between Cartwright and Goose Bay if it

starts this year. We are looking at an additional cost of $12 million,

approximately, that will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund so that

the minister can have the privilege of saving six or eight jobs in his district,

the privilege of running a ferry into his district that, I submit to you,

leaders in Corner Brook, the West Coast, the Northern Peninsula, Southern

Labrador, Eastern Labrador, Western do not want to have, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - and they are asking this minister to reverse his decision to

do the right thing. Do not base it on politics but base it on what is

cost-effective and what is the best possible service to provide to the people of

the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Leave has been denied.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as well, have a petition today and it deals with ferry rates. I am going

to present it on behalf of the residents of Fogo Island. I will not read the

prayer but I have vetted it through the Clerk and he says everything is in

order.

It is about the recent increase that was announced by the Minister of Finance

and this government that ferry rates in the Province would increase by 25 per

cent over the next four years. If you do the compounding on that, it comes out

closer to a 27 per cent increase. I have been asked by my constituents to

present a petition calling upon the government to roll back this increase or not

implement the increase, even though 10 per cent of it has already been tacked

on. They would like to see that rolled back as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the residents of Fogo Island find most galling about the

increase is the fact that the Premier on his visits to Fogo Island, prior to and

during the election, promised that he would eliminate the cost of ferry travel

and bring the ferry rates in-line with the cost of road transportation; which

would mean probably a round trip from Fogo Island to the mainland in Farewell

would cost approximately thirty or forty cents. Instead, what we have seen is

the Minister of Finance stand and announce a 10 per cent increase this year. If

you look at the actual figures of the increase you will see they have risen far

more than 10 per cent, even though he said that here in the House of Assembly.

So if you get the feeling that we feel we are misled over here, then obviously

the residents of Fogo Island also feel they have been misled, not only by the

Minister of Finance, not only by the Premier, but all of the PC Party because

they stressed the fact that they were going to eliminate ferry rates in their

election platform, in their Blue Book. Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about

being misled, and the residents of Fogo Island were certainly misled when it

comes to assuming that if they elected a PC government that their ferry rates

were going to be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, this 10 per cent increase, that translates into 16 per cent -

some way the Minister of Finance using his calculator when he talks about a 10

per cent increase in ferry rates and it actually turns out to be 15 per cent, 16

per cent and 17 per cent increase - is having a detrimental effect on, not only

the passengers who ply the waters back and forth between Man O'War Cove and

Farewell, but it is also having an impact on all the goods and services provided

on Fogo Island.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Everything that goes onto the Island

comes on by transport truck, and the rates for transport trucks have increased

astronomically. Today an individual who owns eight transport trucks on Fogo

Island was just informed that another 10 per cent increase is going onto his

$165 a trip that he is currently paying. Now he is going to be up to $180 or

$190 for a trip. So everything that he is carrying aboard that truck obviously

is going to increase in price because the wholesalers and the retailers on the

island will obviously have to pay for that cost, the cost for the ferry.

Obviously, they will want to recoup their loss. So, it also will cause the goods

to go up on Fogo Island.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, it puts the plants owned by the Fogo Island

Cooperative in an uncompetitive situation on the island, when they have to pay

such astronomical ferry rates to be able to compete with other fish processors

on the Island who are not burdened with that increased ferry rate and who are

not, in fact, burdened by any ferry rate because it is only those who live on

islands in our Province who are being affected. I was very surprised last week

when my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will continue this tomorrow when I present the

same petition again, a very similar petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to submit a petition on behalf of the parents and students in my

district who are having some difficulty with the present set-up of the school

and the proposed changes that will be made in September. I will read some of it:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school

close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing schools boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS the decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has

been reversed; and

WHEREAS a new school in Carbonear is necessary;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to

close St. Joseph's school, reverse the decision to bus students to Harbour

Grace, and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue for the past while, and on Saturday past

there was another giant motorcade held in the community, that took over half an

hour for it to pass one particular point. It ended at a rally at St. Joseph's

where a chain was put around the front of the building, a human chain, parents

and teachers and students, and they voiced their concerns. St. Mary's school

in St. John's, the decision to close that was reversed because there is a new

board going to be in place.

Mr. Speaker, that new board has not met yet, and I understand from the

minister on the radio last night, I think it was, that he would be meeting with

the new board tonight. So, I ask that the minster raise this issue with the new

board when they meet tonight. It is an important issue for the residents of

Conception Bay North, because in the end it will ultimately affect all of the

schools in that particular district.

Mr. Speaker, the school at St. Joseph's, everyone agrees, need some work.

It is over thirty-five years old, but the silly

part is that the students are

being asked to go to Davis Elementary, which is roughly the same age, where

students have to climb over desks to get into their own desk. There are no

windows, no ventilation. There are so many things wrong with that school - and

to send more students in there to further increase the problems.

The school in Harbour Grace, as the parents tell me, and I have been there

myself, needs some repairs, and needs some adjustments before another group of

students can go and occupy that school.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line here nobody has been listening to the

parents and students who know the difference of what is right for their own

education. Mr. Speaker, the silly part of it all is that we have a board now

that is defunct. The new board, I think - and I would like to get some clarity

from the minister - assumes the official duties tonight, I think, when the

minister meets with them. That board is responsible for all of the education

problems on the Avalon Peninsula. Now, if that is going to be the case, Mr.

Speaker, the students in Carbonear in September will not even enter onto the

radar screen by then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Just to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask again, I ask the minister to bring

this to the attention of the new board for the sake of the students of St.

Joseph's and St. Francis and Davis Elementary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will be back tomorrow with the same, similar

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a petition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service

Pensioners Association, I rise to present a petition presented to me, signed by

members of the Association in St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Harbour Main.

This issue, Mr. Speaker, again, while many people in the Province would

believe that it has been resolved, I have checked again with members of the

Pensioners Association and they would like to have the petition again presented,

even though the collective bargaining issue has been decided in the Legislature.

There are other issues, Mr. Speaker, other than the benefit entitlement, that

are still not resolved to their satisfaction. They would like this petition

presented again.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue arises around the issue of betrayal and broken

commitments, when the pensioners, leading up to the election and prior to the

election, lobbied Opposition members then, members running for the Progressive

Conservative Party, who are the government now, and they were assured, Mr.

Speaker, that not only would the indexing of their pensions be secured - not

only would it be secured - but that the Member for St. John's Centre was on an

Open Line program three days, I think it was, before the election, indicating

that he had a conversation with his leader and that he could tell them for sure

and certain that not only would their pension indexing continue on, as it had

just begun to do, with the former government, but, in fact, that it would be

retroactive. It would be made retroactive to 1989, because the pension indexing

had only come in, in the last round of bargaining in 2001, only became effective

in October of 2003, and had only been in place for one year. The commitment from

the then Opposition and now government was that it would stay in place and it

would, in fact, be made retroactive to 1989. A good reason, I would suggest, for

many pensioners to consider voting for the party that would make that

commitment.

Right after the election, and after the January 5 address to the people of

the Province, the same pensioners found out, Mr. Speaker, that the government's

plan was not to go with retroactive to 1989 but to cut the pension indexing in

half, right away; not to leave it like it was and extend it back for a decade,

which was promised, but to cut it by 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, they started having meetings, and actually this petition was

really spawned after a meeting was held in Clarenville, in the District of

Trinity North, where the representatives of the Pensioners Association were so

upset, in fact, that - the Member for Bellevue was there, a Liberal member, but

the Conservative member, the member of the government for Trinity North, would

not attend. They were just having their meetings and they said: Well, if they

are not going to come to our meetings we had better get a petition going. They

decided to circulate a petition. It has been circulated all over the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are also asking us to speak out as a result of this

position -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will address it again because it will be

presented again, speaking about other issues about representation for pensioners

on the committee which is delayed as well in terms of its implementation.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, to present the petition on behalf of

members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Pensioners Association.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to present a petition on behalf of some of the people in my

district. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following

prayer.

We the undersigned citizens of the St. Mary's Bay area hereby draw your

attention to the lack of a safe means of transportation in the Riverhead - St.

Mary's area.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government to provide proper transportation to all

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador regardless of where they live;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government immediately put in place a

plan to address this current serious situation.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, travelling throughout my district there are major road problems,

and certainly St. Mary's Bay and down through Riverhead - St. Mary's Bay is

no different than other parts of my district. Last week I had the honour of

hosting the minister to travel through my district, from one end of the district

to the other, to visit the whole area and certainly to see first-hand for

himself the conditions of the road. We also had the opportunity to hold a public

meeting in the Town of Riverhead, which was attended by several people

throughout St. Mary's Bay representing councils, development associations, the

Irish Loop Economic Development Board and so on, Mr. Speaker. I certainly had

the opportunity to ask questions and, I guess, to provide some suggestions on

solutions on how we could address that situation in regard to the roads. Over

the past number of years, with very little maintenance being done on the roads,

I guess the roads have found themselves in a deplorable condition now. We hope

to be able to address some of that concern this summer, Mr. Speaker, if we are

successful in obtaining funding from the Department of Transportation and Works.

The petition put forward today by the members of St. Mary's Bay want the

minister to understand that they certainly look forward to having some dollars

spent in the area this year to address some of the road conditions, fully

understanding that all the necessary roadwork that is needed in the district

cannot be addressed this particular summer, Mr. Speaker, but we intend to make a

good start at that and hopefully over the next three or four years we will get

to address all the conc