December 15, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 58

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. Member for

the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of

Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace,

and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to extend congratulations

and best wishes to a constituent of mine on her ninetieth birthday. Rebecca

Hodder of Creston South was born in the now resettled community of L'Anse- -l'Eau

on the Burin Peninsula on December 31, 1914.

In 1935, she married Levi Hodder and together they were parents to seven

children: Hazel, Donald, Marie, Harvey, Enos, Carol, and Donna. Aunt Becky, as

she is affectionately known to her family and friends, enjoys excellent health.

Her time is spent knitting and over the years she has earned a very fine

reputation for the quality of her quilts and afghans. In fact, her entire

recreation room is still a beehive of activity. Mrs. Hodder is very active in

her church and usually attends services every Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, over the Thanksgiving weekend in October, her family hosted a

Thanksgiving birthday celebration for their mom, grandmother and

great-grandmother. More than 200 friends dropped by to wish Aunt Becky many more

years of good health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, although Aunt Becky is well-known in her community and is a

cherished constituent of mine, she is even better known to you, for one of her

sons Harvey is very well known to this House. It is this wonderful woman that

you, Mr. Speaker, call mother. To Aunt Becky, family has special meaning. All of

children have been very successful in business, medicine and political life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

and best wishes to your mom on her ninetieth birthday and, sir, I hope that you

inherit her good genes of long life and health.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to thank the hon. member, but I also want to note that if we are

looking at all the signs that surround the hallways in Confederation Building

here today, that someone else also has a birthday today, a fiftieth birthday and

I say to the hon. member, happy fiftieth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize four individuals from my district who

were recently presented with the Governor General's Award for their rescue

efforts in a snowmobiling accident three years ago.

On the evening of March 17, 2001, Heather Shears and a companion were

snowmobiling in the Goose Arm area of the Bay of Islands. They were travelling

on the narrows when they went into the slob ice. By chance, a cabin owner,

Denise White, saw the lights of the snowmobile crossing the narrows and realized

the machine was sinking. She notified her husband, David, and others who

immediately began to try and rescue the couple. They found a dory buried in the

snow and covered in ice. They managed to clear the dory of ice and snow and

began to tow it by snowmobile to the water, but the snowmobile got bogged down.

The men had to get another machine to get the boat launched.

With the boat in the water and Mr. White using a flashlight to spot Ms

Shears, the other three men, Robert Cox, Thomas Buffett and Cornelius Murrin,

prodded and broke the slob ice using paddles and a mop handle. They lost one of

the paddles, but Mr. Cox continued to break the ice, and at one point he lost

his boot and continued breaking the ice with his bare foot.

When they reached Ms Shears, she had been in the icy water for forty-five

minutes. It took the three men to get her aboard the boat. Unfortunately, Ms

Shears' companion was not able to be saved. Ms Shears was taken to a nearby

cabin and provided medical care while arrangements were being made to have her

transported out of Goose Arm on snowmobile to the hospital.

Mr. Speaker, last week Ms Shears was again able to thank her rescuers as she

officially presented them with certificates of commendation from Governor

General Adrienne Clarkson.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing Thomas Augustus

Buffett, Robert Lesley Cox, Cornelius Thomas Murrin, and David Bruce White, and

to quote the inscription on the certificates, "for

an act of great merit in

providing assistance to others in a selfless manner in Goose Arm Narrows,

Newfoundland and Labrador".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to acknowledge an unusual accomplishment that occurred in my

district over the weekend of December 3 and December 4. On that weekend, two

volleyball teams from schools in my district won both the 2A and 3A male

volleyball championship. What is so unusual about their accomplishment is that

both provincial winners came from the same school gym at Riverwood Academy in

Gander Bay.

The team from Carmanville School Complex won the 3A provincials at Baie Verte.

As you are aware, Carmanville School Complex was burned on May 28 this year, and

students from that school now attend Riverwood in Gander Bay. This team has won

two gold and a silver in the provincial competitions in addition to their most

recent win. Congratulations to coach Ms Heather Beaton and the students from

Carmanville School Complex.

In addition, Riverwood Academy from Grander Bay played in the 2A provincial

championships in Roddickton and came home with a gold medal. This is the first

time that a volleyball team from Riverwood has won a provincial volleyball

championship. Congratulations to coaches Mike Francais, Gary Petten, Perry Bath

and their team from Riverwood.

Also this past weekend, December 10 and December 11, two schools from my

district competed for the Fair Play girls provincial tournament co-hosted by

Musgrave Harbour and Lumsden. In the final, the gold medal match was between

Musgrave Harbour and Lumsden School Complex. In a well-fought championship game,

the team from Lumsden, coached by Barry Hall, came out on top with Gerald

Wheeler and his team from Musgrave Harbour finishing second.

From these accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, you can see that Bonavista North's

volleyball players are in the forefront of volleyball in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a group of bright young students from my

district who have recently won an award for their skills in robotics.

Mr. Speaker, the robotics team from St. Francis School in Harbour Grace took

top honours in the Skills Canada Robotics Competition held in Mount Pearl on

December 4. This is a fabulous achievement for this school, its team and its

teachers.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the school won the award for the most spirited school and

most spirited coach. Coaches Randy Dobbin and Norman Littlejohn are to be

congratulated for all the extra time they have dedicated towards helping these

bright young students advance themselves scholastically.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the students must not be overlooked. Timothy

MacKenzie, Devin Osborne, Hilary Finn, Corey Merrigan, Paul Sheppard, David

Stephens, and Patrick and Caitlyn Butt worked many hours to achieve this

recognition, and we are sure that we will continue to hear more from all these

intelligent students as time passes.

Mr. Speaker, these students competed among over 100 junior high school

students from all over the Avalon and one team from the Northern Peninsula who

took

part in the second annual Intermediate Skills Challenge.

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

congratulating these students and their coaches on their recent achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Joey Russell, a sixteen-year-old resident of

Labrador West, who has and continues to excel in the figure skating world. Most

recently, Joey won a bronze medal in the 2005 BMO Financial Group Skate Canada

Eastern Challenge in the Junior Men's Division held December 2 to December 5

in Mississauga, Ontario. This medal qualifies Joey to compete in the 2005 Bank

of Montreal Canadian Championships to be held in London, Ontario, on January 17

to January 23.

Mr. Speaker, these are Joey's most recent accomplishments. Joey has been

skating for ten years, and during that time he has built quite a reputation both

locally, nationally and internationally. Joey's past successes include seven

regional titles, six provincial championships, a silver medal from Skate Canada

Eastern Challenge, a bronze medal at the 2003 Canada Winter Games, and a

two-time silver medalists in the Canadian Junior Nationals in 2003-2004.

He has also competed internationally with Team Canada at the North American

Challenge Skates in 2003-2004 in Lake Placid, New York, where he finished

fourth, and San Jose, California, where he won a bronze medal.

Joey is a member of the Polaris Figure Skating Club in Labrador West, and

when asked where he sees himself in five years from now, he says: On a world

team and training for the 2010 Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Joey on his

success to date and wish him the very best in the future as he continues his

training in Alberta.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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 rise today to update hon. members on our fiscal situation for 2004-2005.

Since taking office one year ago, government has been focusing on turning

around the serious fiscal situation we inherited. We were forced to make

difficult, yet necessary, decisions in this year's budget. The situation

simply could not continue and we knew that measures had to be taken for the good

of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the fiscal year, the deficit is projected to be

$707.5 million, down from the $839.6 million estimated at budget time. The

$132.1 million variance is primarily the result of an increase in oil prices,

revised federal estimates of equalization and new health care money. There are

on-time revenues, Mr. Speaker, of $102.5 million in that amount of $132.1

million variance.

Oil royalties are currently expected to be $78.5 million higher than forecast

at budget reflecting higher oil prices. Equalization and offset payments

increased by $89.6 million from the budget forecast.

Health and social transfers are expected to be $30.1 million higher than

estimated at budget time. The main reason for the increase in additional

revenues on health care comes from the Ten Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care.

For the 2004-2005 fiscal year, this commitment will result in an additional

$34.4 million for the Province offset in part by federal re-estimates of these

transfers.

These positive adjustments to revenues are offset in part by projected

negative adjustment to HST revenues of $64.2 million.

Mr. Speaker, on the expenditure side, we are basically on track with our

budget projections. Throughout the year, it is common to experience variances in

expenditures, overruns in one area are offset by savings in another. With

continued vigilance, we expect to maintain budget targets for expenditures.

In terms of cash requirements, the 2004-2005 budget projected a need of

$361.6 million. The total cash requirement is now projected to be $118 million,

an improvement of $243.6 million. This variance is primarily due to the reasons

I just discussed, and the deferral of the census loan repayment.

Mr. Speaker, government has made some progress in addressing the Province's

fiscal situation, but the work is far from over. Most of the positive variances

since budget time will likely not be available next fiscal year. We must, and we

will, remain steadfast in our commitment to sound fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to include with this statement a table showing

the

summary of the borrowing requirements for 2004-2005, also a table showing

the reconciliation of budgetary requirements to the consolidated accrual

deficit, and a table also showing the estimated provincial and federal revenues

for this fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I would like to thank the minister for sending over a copy of his statement,

but I would say to the crowd opposite: Don't pound your desk too hard, because

anything that you said in this statement gives you no credit, absolutely no

credit. I say, it is a disgrace to this House to come in with a statement today

of one-and-a-half pages, and there is absolutely no detail in it.

Last night, in this House, you passed a bill, accountability and

transparency, and you made no reference today to the interest paid on the debt,

the strengthening Canadian dollar, and what you are going to save on that. You

made no reference whatsoever.

I can tell you something, Mr. Minister of Finance, any monies that you had in

new revenues were external to this Province. They came from the Liberal Federal

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Every one that you mentioned.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I will tell you! I will tell you! I will tell you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). You are just like Mr. Efford and the rest of

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The member has about thirty seconds left to complete her statement.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is glaring is this example on the next page. These positive adjustments

to revenue are offset, in part, by projected negative adjustment to HST revenues

of $64 million. That is what is glaring here, a loss of retail sales of $64

million.

The people of this Province have no confidence in this government. You have

no plans for economic development. You created a Department of Business for a

million dollars and you have no economic development plan for this Province. You

have failed miserably!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It comes as no real surprise that the Province is better off now than it was

when they projected the figures back during Budget time, when they tagged on

everything they possibly could to make the Province's situation look at bad as

possible, to justify their disastrous budget.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, with the improvement in relations, I was expecting to

hear the minister say that he was going to undo some of the negative things that

his government did since they got into office, like replace the textbook funding

for school students, replace the Alzheimer drugs funding, deal with some of the

outstanding needs in our health care system, like Labrador transportation, like

primary health care, and the other things that are desperately needed in this

Province.

The big number, I suppose, of $243 million is the real improvement in our

fiscal position as result of these changes, Mr. Speaker, and obviously means

that the Province is far better off than this minister and his government would

have the public believe. They should be using some of that money to address the

problems that exist in this Province, the desperate problems that exist here

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about a

project currently being undertaken by the Federated Women's Institutes of

Canada or the FWIC. This organization has recently chosen to adopt communities

in northern and coastal Labrador for their upcoming national project, FWIC

into the North'.

Women's Institutes are an informal, educational organization for women who

want to work together to expand their skills, broaden their interests and

strengthen the quality of life for themselves, their families and for the people

of their communities, country and the world through self-fulfillment, service

and sociability.

At a recent national meeting of their executive, they committed to a project

aimed at improving the lives of families in coastal Labrador by donating funding

for supplies for children's activities. A letter is now being sent to the

mayors and chiefs of the various northern communities asking for their

suggestions for project ideas.

I would like to thank the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada for their

interest in providing support to our northern region. I wish them well on their

project and on all the good works being done by the various Women's Institute

branches in this Province and across the country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to offer thanks to the minister today for an advanced copy

of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the work and the efforts of the

Federated Women's Institute of Canada for choosing a community in our Province

and a community in Labrador in which to offer their charitable services and the

work that they provide.

I also want to use this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Women's

Institute groups of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because all of these

groups, like most of us, look at this time of year as the time of year where we

have a greater sense of community and a greater sense of giving and our -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to conclude.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where our contributions, Mr. Speaker, are strengthened by the spirit of

Christmas and, I guess, having this group recognized and the need in a community

in our Province and in Labrador, draws all of our attention and heightens our

own awareness as to what the real needs are in a lot of these communities that

are only being met by charities and not being met by governments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the examples I would like to give to the House is a call

I received myself only a week ago from foster parents in this Province who

informed me that there was no money available to buy gifts through the Foster

Parent Program for the children that they sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I was very

disappointed to hear that, and actually the first time I had heard it. A lot of

our foster families in this Province are middle-class families who have children

of their own, and this is always a difficult time of year for them.

I guess, through my response to this statement, I would ask all members of

the House if they know of a foster family or foster children in their own

district that they would like to support this Christmas. It would be important

because there are no funds available through the government programs to buy

gifts for foster kids this Christmas.

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. I say to the

minister, it is good news to see groups across this country interacting with

each other, and what place better, I say to the minister, than through groups on

the north coast of our Province, the North Coast of Labrador.

I think this demonstrates the problems that are inherent on our north coast

and the amount of work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West for a few more

seconds.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, this demonstrates the inherent problems on the North Coast of

Labrador, and I think it clearly demonstrates just how much work is left to be

done by this government on behalf of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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.

territories, is creating a national sex offender registration system to enable

police to have rapid access to current vital information about convicted sex

offenders. The national sex offender registry came into force today.

Mr. Speaker, the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a number of conversations going on across the floor of the House

that are preventing the Chair and others from hearing the hon. the minister. I

ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

The cornerstone of the registry is the new national sex offender database

that will be maintained by the RCMP. The information in the database will only

be accessible to accredited police agencies and will be used for the main

purpose of investigating unsolved crimes of a sexual nature. The database is

designed to be searchable by local police by specific criteria, such as

geographical area, postal code area, modus operandi, physical attributes of the

offender that will produce instant lists of previously convicted suspects

matching the facts of a specific offence.

Mr. Speaker, the database will serve more than 60,000 law enforcement

officials in every province and territory. The register will play a major role

in the protection of youth by enhancing investigations of sexual offences

involving children and adults. It will also assist with a quick identification

of repeat sex offenders.

The new national registration system will enhance public protection and

improve investigations of sex offences by identifying possible suspects known to

reside near the offence site. An officer will be able to instantly obtain a list

of sex offenders who are registered and living in the area if there are

reasonable grounds to suspect that a sex offence has occurred.

The act will allow for the inclusion of the names of offenders under sentence

for sex offences as of the date of proclamation, namely today. Convicted

offenders will have to report to a registration centre - here it will be the

RCMP site at White Hills - within fifteen days following a registration order

issued by the court. When an offender is released from incarnation, he is given

a custody (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Re-registration will be required annually and within

fifteen days of a change of residence. Offenders will be required to provide

their address to local police and to keep current information such as, home

phone numbers, name change, aliases, identifying marks and tattoos.

The act creates a new criminal code hybrid offence for failure to comply with

information punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment and a $10,000

fine.

Mr. Speaker, the new national registration system will enhance public

protection and improve investigation of sex offences while providing a

reasonable level of privacy to offenders. We welcome this positive initiative

which will assist all police agencies, and introduce improved access to offender

information across the country. The new registration system will enhance public

safety and security - especially for children across Canada.

Thank you.

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 appreciate the minister giving me an advanced copy of his ministerial

statement, even though I got it this morning on the Internet, actually. In fact,

we have had three ministerial statements today, Mr. Speaker, and this government

had nothing to do with either one of them. Two came from the federal government,

one came from a charitable donation, I say.

This sex offender registry is indeed a very important initiative. In fact, I

first heard about it in 1999 at a National Justice Ministers' conference. What

this does show is a great deal of national co-operation. The police agencies,

the various legislatures in the country, there was a lot of technological

challenges that had to be overcome, legislative challenges, and money was

involved. Finally, after all those years, we see that it has come to fruition.

It is a very significant event, particularly for the protection of children

because that is quite often where we need such a database, which is accessible

now throughout the country by all of our law enforcement agencies, and anything

that is helpful in that regard is certainly a worthy, worthy achievement. We

applaud the federal government for what they have done in this regard.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The establishment of a national sex offender registration system is a

positive move. One of the most disturbing things about sexual offenders, Mr.

Speaker, is their persistent tendency to re-offend. That is what justifies the

kind of invasion of privacy that is involved in the type of registry of this

nature, but the fact of the matter is that there is very little rehabilitation

possible based on the statistics that we see regarding sex offenders. So it is

important that there be a method of keeping track of these people in the

community. There have been some disturbing stories about notifications to

communities in some cases, which I find disturbing and perhaps not the best way

to do it. The national sex offender registry will, obviously, be of assistance

to local police in an area where a sex offender is required to be registered and

perhaps that is a better way to ensure the safety of the public and, at the same

time (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Before we move to Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize a former

MHA for Conception Bay South, Mr. John Butt, who is in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last night government stumbled and bumbled their way to the

passage of the Transparency and Accountability Act in this House, even to the

point of seeing two of their own members, and notably the Member for Topsail and

St. John's Centre, vote against certain aspects of the bill that we are

changing at the eleventh hour.

I have a number of questions, Mr. Speaker, with respect to openness,

accountability and transparency. In a recent Freedom of Information request, we

received information from the government, through that process, that a firm

entitled and called Ryan Research and Communications was paid $42,000 for work

done on behalf of the Executive Council to government.

I ask the Premier: What public process was used to select this firm which has

completed internal polling for the Progressive Conservative Party in the past

and, as well, what actual work was completed under this contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a reputable firm, of course, that

has done work throughout the Province, has done work for us in the past, as it

has done work for a lot of other people. It would have followed a normal process

that would be within the guidelines that government is allowed to follow. There

is certainly nothing untoward. I do not know what the premier is trying to imply

by this but he seems to be going down -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sorry. Forgive me, I forgot. The public took a

closer look and said: Goodbye, Roger.

In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition is going down the same road

again. He is going to start to throw out things that have a tag. If anybody

listened to him last night, and to his rants and his raves as he went on in the

Legislature. He made all kinds of accusations about myself, about people I have

been involved with in business, bringing in people's names who have nothing to

do with this Legislature, innuendo, slander, name calling, personal attacks. He

should have gotten a message at the end of the last election as to what people

thought of his tactics over the last three years and he is right back to them

again. So he is obviously on the same track. It is getting him absolutely

nowhere. The people are not responding to it. They do not want to see it. They

do not want to hear it. Why don't you get on with issues that are important?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I also remind all members on all sides of the House of the parliamentary

custom, refer to members by their parliamentary titles, positions or by their

electoral districts.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, we have the first answer in the spirit of openness, accountability and

transparency. A question was asked about a contract given, no information about

the process, and no answer at all about what work was done. I take it we will

get the answers later.

Mr. Speaker, in the same Freedom of Information request - because these are

serious questions about openness, transparency and accountability - it lists the

non-existent Department of Business, which has the Premier as the minister and

one staff person. That is all that exists in the Department of Business, and

that person was only hired a few weeks ago. It lists them as spending $100,000

for communications work with a firm entitled Market Insights Incorporated.

I ask the Premier again, as the minister responsible: What public process was

used to select this firm? Could the Premier also, please, update the House as to

what work was done for that $100,000 in a department that does not exist, and

will he table the final product in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure this hon. House that all relevant information will be tabled and

that all appropriate government guidelines and procedures have been followed.

There is nothing untoward done. I do not have the information at my disposal

here, but I will certainly provide it to hon. members opposite. There is no

hidden agenda here.

With regard to the Department of Business, we have been extremely busy. I

have been trying to do as much as I can myself, with the limited time that is

available.

As you know, I have been concentrating on trying to get these revenues which

the minister referred to today, these significant equalization revenues that

have come into play. We were at the Health Care Accord; we dug in there and we

went late at night and went through the day. I personally had my own

confrontation with the Prime Minister in order to get more money out of the

Health Care Accord. We were successful in taking that up by a significant

amount. The offer went up by some 50 per cent.

At that same particular meeting, we did a deal with regard to equalization

which has resulted in significant revenues for this Province. Now we are dealing

on the Atlantic Accord. If we can bring the Atlantic Accord -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I could just finish -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excuse, Mr. Speaker, I just cannot get a chance to

finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members, when they are answering questions, to keep their

sequences within about a minute, and I think a minute has expired. I will

transfer it back to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another specific question. I appreciate the undertaking that the information

will be tabled. I look forward to receiving it. The rest of it, people will

judge as to whether our Premier had anything to do with an equalization

agreement when he was not even at the meeting. He left that meeting, as the

record would show.

Mr. Speaker, another question in the spirit of openness and transparency. We,

as the Official Opposition, filed a Freedom of Information Request on October 4

- you usually get an answer in thirty days, and it is now December 15 -

requesting all severance payments by government to employees who were dismissed

or who involuntarily left government, including the former Deputy Minister of

Health, Ms Fry, and the former Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, our information to date from officials is that the request has

been completed by the department and forwarded to the Premier's office before

it is being released. I ask the Premier, in the spirit of openness and

accountability, when is he going to release the information and why is he not

permitting it to be released while the House of Assembly is in session?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that information can be put together. It is public information

that will be readily available. As soon as we get it, we will pass it over to

the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite.

What is paid in severance is what these people are properly entitled to,

according to law; so, whatever the severance is, it is, and it will be publicly

disclosed. There is no special severance given out to anybody at all. Whatever

we had to pay, we had to pay.

If I could just go back, because I did not have an opportunity to finish, we

did actually achieve extra money through the Health Care Summit, with the $34

million. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that I walked out of the

equalization meetings. Well, two things. First of all, our equalization deal was

already done and that is why I had a confrontation with the Prime Minister on

September 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That was already in the bank.

The reason I walked out of the equalization meeting was to stand up for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is why I walked out of that meeting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me tell you, as a result of that stand, if, in

fact, we have terms that are agreeable to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

we bring home the Atlantic Accord, we will end up with a surplus this year, not

a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier need not be angry at me. I am supporting him with every ounce of

energy that I have with respect to the Atlantic Accord. I hope that he does

succeed and I hope that the Prime Minister of the country lives to his

commitment, Mr. Speaker, but that has nothing to do with the questions I am

asking today about this government, their own actions, and their new-found

commitment to openness and accountability.

I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Before the House opened, government stated

that the study on the fixed link to Labrador, which was commissioned almost a

full year ago, would be available and ready for release on November 22, the day

this Legislature opened. It was publicly announced. The date was given. They

then delayed that date, stating that the group at the university needed to clean

up a few final details. It is three weeks later. I ask the Premier: When will

that be report be released?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Leader of the

Opposition's support for our position on the Atlantic Accord, I guess he just

sticks his head out the window and sees which way the wind is blowing; because

if it happens to be blowing this way, he is going this way, and if the wind is

blowing that way, he goes that way. He is all over the map on the Atlantic

Accord.

When it was convenient for him, when the Liberal convention was on and he

wanted to basically keep his position over there, he cuddled up to John Efford

and took a position with John Efford. As soon as the weekend was over, he went

the other way.

For somebody who supports me, I ask him: Why, in The Telegram , on

November 7, 2004, did he say: What is it that our Premier is in a rant about,

turning down $1.4 billion over eight years?

That person over there would have had us accept, our Province accept, $1.4

billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Those numbers are now at $2.8 billion and climbing

every single day. You would have taken less, Sir. That is not support, in my

mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I might remind the Premier that I asked a pretty straightforward

question: When will we receive the study on the fixed link to Labrador, which is

one of his pieces that he says is part of the real future for Newfoundland and

Labrador? So far, four questions and zero answers in the new era of openness and

accountability.

Mr. Speaker, another straightforward question. Maybe this time he would want

to answer the question that I am asking, instead of making a speech about a

non-related topic. Government has had possession for several months, Mr.

Speaker, of the Hay Group report, apparently suggesting cutbacks and severe

changes in health care for the Western and Northern regions of the Province.

They have had possession for over a month and it has been discussed with the

boards and the unions.

When, in the spirit of openness and accountability, might we in this

Legislature and the public ever see that report in the new era of openness,

transparency and accountability?

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes. Can't answer that one, can you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to my hon. colleague across the way, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans,

when she sings out we can't answer it, we can answer it. The problem most of

the time, Mr. Speaker, is they don't accept it.

The fact of the matter, with regard to the question the Leader of the

Opposition has asked with respect to the Hay report, it is my understanding, in

communications with my colleague, that their report is not necessarily complete.

It will be done in due course, and once government, the Cabinet, and the caucus

have an opportunity to see it, we will make up our determinations then. Up to

this point, all of that report is not yet complete.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would invite them to check and see which report, then, is being discussed

with the unions and workers in Stephenville and Corner Brook and other health

care workers.

Mr. Speaker, October 1 we submitted, as the official Opposition, a Freedom of

Information request relating to the pilot palliative care project for the VON,

the Victorian Order of Nurses, in Corner Brook. In a written response, the

government denied us access to any information under the act. Through the Public

Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker, we also requested that the Auditor General be

invited to conduct an investigation into the settling of that strike.

I ask again, the Premier: In the new era - this is the dawn of the day after

they passed the bill - of openness, transparency and accountability, will he let

his members of the Public Accounts Committee vote to investigate the funding of

the settling of the Victorian Order of Nurses strike in Corner Brook?

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 Leader of the Opposition should know, the Public Accounts Committee is a

committee of this House of independent members, capable, intelligent people, who

can make up their own minds. They will decide what they want to do under the

Public Accounts Committee of the House.

As a former chair of that committee, we made decisions collectively, and I

would hope that the current members would do that too. It is independent and

reports to this House of Assembly. It doesn't report to the Premier, it doesn't

report to me, it reports to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. That is where the

committee is struck and that is where it reports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A bit strange and odd, that in the spirit of openness, transparency and

accountability, the Premier personally settled the strike, but he cannot

personally answer a question about it.

Mr. Speaker, there have also been many questions raised related to the

process surrounding the awarding of a government telephone contract to Group

Telecom a few years ago. The Public Accounts Committee has asked for permission

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: The Public Accounts Committee has asked for permission to

review this contract, but has been refused by members on the government side at

the direction of the Premier.

I ask again of the Premier: Will he allow his members to vote to investigate

this particular transaction, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for asking that question, because

that is the rant that he got on last night and implied that there was wrongdoing

with what I had done in the private sector when I was conducing businesses,

employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, paying taxes in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and building a reputation which he has spent four years trying to

destroy. Well, I am sorry, you are out of luck, because you are just not getting

anywhere with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: With regard to the telephone contract, that contract

was awarded by that gentleman's government, and some of those people opposite

happened to be in Cabinet and part of that government when that was awarded,

when that contract was awarded. When that contract was awarded, we saved the

provincial government $2 million over the competing bid. That is what was saved

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also, in that particular contract, created between forty and fifty new

jobs. As well, a competitive telephone service was provided to Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians so small- and medium-sized businesses could get cheaper

telephone service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I may be allowed to finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is cognizant of the fact that there are many

interruptions occurring, so it is interfering with the normal flow of questions

back and forth.

I ask the Premier if he could finish his answer in about another ten or

fifteen seconds.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very legitimate enterprise, a

very legitimate contract that provided a competitive service, that employed

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that was awarded by the hon. gentlemen and

women opposite, all done above board, and this person is trying to smear my

reputation, my company's reputation, the people who work for me, and the

people who got benefits. Sir, that is even beneath you. I am really surprised

you have stooped to that level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be intimated from asking legitimate questions of anything at any

time, and if he wants to talk about the issue, send it to the Public Accounts

Committee instead of hiding it from the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could pose his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Today in the media, the Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Corporation

says that they asked government to open their own government operated liquor

stores on Sundays so they could make an extra $2 million to $3 million in

profit.

I ask the Minister of Finance, would he table in this Legislature either the

cost-benefit analysis that shows that will happen, or the business plan to show

that will happen, when we know there are increased costs to operating the stores

and no guarantee that there will be any extra purchasing done of liquor.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are 132 outlets affected by this legislation, and 108 of them are

private operations. They will decide themselves, those 108 private, if they want

to open. The twenty-four Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation stores,

there will be a decision made by the Liquor Corporation, by the president who

sits on that board, and the board. There will be a decision made in a business

mind. They may open some, they may open all, or they may open none. It will be a

business decision and I, as minister, will not be in any way participating or

interfering with that operation of business under that Liquor Corporation in

that manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the answer is that he was never presented with a business plan or a

cost-benefit analysis. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, today we also have media reports related to the development of

the Duck Pond Mine in Central Newfoundland. The proponents, Aur Resources, are

stating that the project will move forward in the new year. They are holding a

press conference, actually, in the next hour.

Mr. Speaker, last year the company stated publicly that this project would

not proceed without a requested investment of $10 million of government

assistance and financing. I ask the Premier, or the minister responsible: Is the

announcement today including the commitment of government financing that has not

been disclosed or discussed in this House, yes or no?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Aur Resources came to us a year ago looking for, actually, $8.9

million. In June, they were subject to a takeover bid and they pulled back their

request from government. When that takeover bid by another company did not

occur, they were back the end of July, early August, saying they wished again

for government to look at potentially assisting Aur Resources with the

development of Duck Pond Mine. There is a request before government. We have not

made a decision on that request.

I was advised this morning that the Vice-President, Mr. Edmund Stuart - I

listened to him, actually. I think he has already held some sort of press

conference because he was on the radio saying that the project was proceeding.

I have left a message with Mr. Stuart today, to seek clarification, because

it is uncertain to me that a company would make an announcement about proceeding

with a development and, at the same time, looking for a request from government

when they have said to government that they could not proceed otherwise. I am

looking for clarification from Aur Resources

Directly to the Leader of the Opposition's question, Mr. Speaker, there was

no government money involved in his announcement today. Government has not made

a decision. Once, and if, we do make a decision with respect to that

development, we will be informing the people of the Province, the Cabinet,

obviously, and the caucus, about what potentially could be an exciting

development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate a straightforward and direct answer to a straightforward and

direct question. I thank the minister for answering the question in the spirit

of openness, transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is this one: Government had approved funding

to upgrade a private road in Tors Cove, in the District of the Minister of

Finance, to ensure it received snow clearing and maintenance this winter, while

dozens of other class 4 roads in the Province lost their snow clearing and

maintenance in a budget decision.

We submitted an FOI request, Mr. Speaker, to get information related to the

issue, and the response from the government was: No information exists in this

department about that road. In other words, according to their own information,

the road did not exist.

My final question is this: In the spirit of openness, accountability,

transparency, the new dawn of that era, can the Premier tell us how, in his

government, does a private road that does not exist in the records of the

government get approved for $500,000 of financing in the Minister of Finance's

district while other class 4 roads are ignored in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what

we did not do. We did not do what the former Minister of Transportation did a

couple of years ago, and take the member, his colleague there from Port de

Grave, do a tour of Conception Bay North, adding on roads that were never in the

department's inventory, as he went around the bay. We did not do that.

Mr. Speaker, before we do up our roads - and they are going, don't you

worry, they are going - we ask MHA's for requests. That is how that got on the

list. When we found it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The member admitted that.

When we found it wasn't our road, Mr. Speaker, we did the right thing, we

took it off and spent the money on roads that we own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Bellevue. The hon. the

member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

The government announced in their Budget this year that they would not be

maintaining or clearing snow from cabin roads. As part of this policy, the

department incorrectly included Old Mill Road in Goobies as a seasonal road, a

road where sixteen families live and have invested hundreds of thousands of

dollars to build new homes. The minister told the residents to form an

association, he said, to collect fees, to clear and maintain the road they live

on. No other local service district in this Province is expected to do this. Why

the double standard, Mr. Minister, for Old Mill Road?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any double standard about class 4 roads, it is the

double standard created by the hon. member when he was Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. He told the residents of Old Mill Road that he

would reclassify their road to class 3. If he had done that, that road would

still be cleared to this day but there is not one scrap of evidence, Mr.

Speaker, other than the hon. member's word, that he ever lifted a pen to

reclassify that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it has been clearly established that the Old

Mill Road is within the local service District of Goobies and it has been plowed

since 1972. Why is this road not being maintained as the other two roads in

Goobies are? Furthermore, why is it not being maintained in the same way as

roads in the other 184 local service districts in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what has been clearly established is that the

piece of road known as Old Mill Road used to be the access road to the Burin

Peninsula and when that road was no longer required for that purpose, under the

classification procedure in the department, that was there when the hon. member

was there, that he promised those people he would change which he did not

change, that piece of road automatically became class 4. That is why it cannot

be done. We are sticking to the rules for everybody, not for some, not for our

own districts, not exclusively the districts on that side of the House.

Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be treated the same, Mr.

Speaker, whether that crowd likes it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time allocations, we move to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and regards the deplorable education system

amongst the Innu people of Natuashish. A report by a Memorial University

professor indicates the deplorable state of schooling in Natuashish,

particularly in relation to curriculum, services and achievement levels.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third report. The 1993 report to the Canadian Human

Rights Commission by Professor McCrae, and a 2002 followup, indicate that the

state of education in the Innu communities was little short of disastrous. What

is even more disturbing is that in 2003, $1.5 million was given to the Province

to resolve specifically some of the problems there.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that those problems have not been resolved and

that the needs of the Innu people of Natuashish are not being met by this

government under the terms of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this was an issue that was raised on CBC

yesterday, and as well, when I was in the scrum it was a question that was asked

of me. I am equally concerned. I have not seen a copy of that report. I am very,

very concerned about the situation. As the hon. member opposite knows, it is a

longstanding problem. It is a very complex problem. It is a problem that has to

be addressed with human resources and financial resources. The $1.5 million that

he specifically refers to, I will have to get more information on that because I

am not aware of the exact amount and the terms.

However, I do plan a meeting with the Minister of Education and other

ministers who are going to be involved in that particular issue. It is an issue

of huge importance for us. I got to see it firsthand when I made the trip with

the member for the district, the Member for Lake Melville, and the minister when

we went up. So it is a priority for us. With everything that has been on our

plate in the last twenty-four hours I certainly have not been able to get to it,

but I will certainly undertake, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that

we will be dealing with it very, very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems attended to by the Human

Rights Commission is the lack of Innu involvement in the schools themselves, in

choosing the curriculum and having responsibility for the education of their

children.

Will the Premier commit to putting an end to the patronizing approach of the

provincial government and involve the Innu directly in determining what is going

to happen in those schools, what curriculum is going to take place, and what

programs are going to be available for their children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. With regard to

dealing with this particular issue, I would like to remind the member that the

government is in partnership with the Innu, with regard to the federal

government, and that we do certainly sit around the main table and that main

table has commissioned this assessment. That main table has commissioned this

assessment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the members - I do not wish to name members but if I have to, I

shall.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education to complete his answer.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, with the reaction from the people on

the other side, I do not know, but this is a very serious issue and I certainly

would like to respond to the question from the member opposite.

Again, in saying that we, as a government, are in partnership with the Innu,

with the federal government and we are dealing specifically. We are trying to

move along to the development of a culturally, relevant curriculum and we have

been for a number of years. As a result of that - it is a process that is

ongoing right now and that process is where we are. That assessment is part of

the process and I am waiting for the results of those findings so we can move

forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 3 of the clock on a Wednesday, the Chair is obliged to either move

directly to Private Members' Day or to see if there has been a consensus

reached by hon. members to do other business.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We made a request dating back a couple of days ago, and I believe the Leader

of the Opposition gave leave last night and confirmed again today, that this

would normally be Private Members' Day for government members. We have asked

if it would be possible to use the time that is normally allotted for that,

between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, to be used for government business

- in other words, legislation. I have talked to the Leader of the NDP, the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and it certainly is my understanding that

consent has been provided for us to do exactly that.

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

MR. PARSONS: That is correct, Mr. Speaker - consent.

MR. SPEAKER: We shall continue, then, with the routine proceedings.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today and table the reports

for 2003-2004 for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the

Municipal Assessment Agency.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2003-2004

annual report for the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table for hon. members the five reports

from agencies reporting to my department, namely: Memorial University of

Newfoundland; Memorial University of Newfoundland Pension Plan; College of the

North Atlantic; Provincial Information and Library Resources Board; Literacy

Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: 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 a number of constituents in

my district with regard to government's decision not to clear snow on the road

from Red Bay to Lodge Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I presented petitions similar to this on this issue a number of

times in the House of Assembly, only because it is an important issue to the

people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, government, through the Minister of Transportation and Works,

have decided that, as of January 5, they would no longer plow the roads between

the communities of Red Bay and Lodge Bay; in fact, cutting one half of the

district off from the other half of the district.

Mr. Speaker, this is an area of Labrador that has no connections to the

Island during the winter months. The ferry on The Strait of Belle Isle service,

as I understand from the Department of Transportation this morning, will be

taken out of service on January 3 - one of the earliest times that it has come

out of service in probably the last six or seven years, because normally it runs

an extra week or an extra two weeks per year to provide services to the people

in that area.

In addition to that, they are not going to clear the roads, so therefore the

people in one part of the district cannot access the services of the other end

of the district, and that is unfair. That is combined with the fact that a

private company, Air Labrador, which is the only airline that provides air

services to communities on the Southeast Coast of Labrador, has also given

notice that they will withdraw their services simply because they feel it is not

profitable for them to continue to operate in that region.

So, we have an area right now where air services will be withdrawn, where

ferry services will not be available, and where government is insistent on not

clearing snow off the roads. Mr. Speaker, in my mind, that is totally

unacceptable. I have not heard of any other region in the Province that has a

main highway trunk that connects a number of communities, that government will

not plough snow off. This is the only

section of road that I know of in the

entire Province that is being affected and impacted this way.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unrealistic for government to think that they can

save money by causing suffering to communities and to people; because that is,

in fact, what will happen. That is, in fact, what will happen, Mr. Speaker,

because when you have no access to the outside world, when you have no mechanism

of travel available to you, then I think it is the time when government should

intervene, when they should provide the supports that communities and people

need to have essential services.

Mr. Speaker, transportation is an essential service, no matter where you live

in this Province. Once you have a road that has been built, $300 million

invested in highway construction throughout Labrador connecting these

communities, and now people are being told that access will be cut off because

the snow will not be cleared.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 600 residents mostly of

the Portugal Cove-St. Phillips area, but some are also from visitors to the

area, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners say:

WHEREAS the present Seascape Systems 2000 Ltd. facility - which is a facility

on the breakwater in Portugal Cove - destroys the scenic beauty and historic

value of the 500 year old settlement, transportation hub and fishing harbour of

Portugal Cove; and

WHEREAS the town council did not inform the community of the nature of the

facility, and did not consult the community about its impact prior to granting a

building permit; and

WHEREAS the role of provincial and federal officials remains unclear expect

for the fact that none of them consulted the community; and

WHEREAS the structure prohibits public access to the waterfront that local

residents, fishers and visitors previously used, and will interfere with local

inshore lobster fish harvesters' livelihood; and

WHEREAS this facility is built next to a very busy ferry terminal and fish

processing plant, and is subject to serious traffic congestion....

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking the Assembly to direct the government

to immediately order Seascape Systems 2000 Ltd. to remove the facility and

restore the breakwater site as soon as it completes the contract to test its

lifeboat launching system. Mr. Speaker, that was supposed to be completed by the

end of December of this year.

Mr. Speaker, when this facility was being proposed, the town council put an

ad in The Telegram , that was about an inch by an inch-and-a-half, with no

town crest on it, supposedly advising the townspeople. It said as follows,

"Council has received an application for a Seascape System Business; the

Seascape systems will operate from the breakwater at Portugal Cove. This

proposal falls as discretionary use within the town's Municipal Plan."

Mr. Speaker, this does not meet the minimum requirement of community

consultation that one would expect a municipality to do.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips who signed this

petition are not opposed to the kind of activity being carried out by Seascape

Systems, or testing a lifeboat launching system that could be very important to

the offshore, but we do have facilities in this Province that are more

appropriate to this. Mr. Speaker, we have a facility at Argentia. We have the

Bull Arm site. We have Marystown. We even have a sea base in Bay Bulls that

could conveniently locate a system of this nature for testing. I think it was

turned down by St. John's, Mr. Speaker, because they were going to put it out

on Fort Amherst. Now it is down in Portugal Cove, and I understand that they

have just been given an extension for a further year.

I do not know how this could happen in the district of the minister of works

and services, when the minister knew, the Department of Environment knew, that

there was significant opposition by the local community to this activity. They

want this government, Mr. Speaker, to order Seascape Systems Ltd. to remove the

facility and restore the breakwater site by no later than the rest of the year,

and to prohibit Seascape Systems from converting its use of the facility from a

temporary test site to some kind of permanent training site, because this seems

to be in the offing, Mr. Speaker, and the residents of Portugal Cove-St.

Phillips do not want this to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to deal with

Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on certain bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House

to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on said bills?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists,

begin debate now, or, I guess, start the debate again. The issue before us: I

think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has an amendment. Just to that

point, Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that we have passed all the clauses of

the bill, with the exception of that one, and we will go from there.

I do now take my seat and let the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney

General move forward with debate on that bill.

CHAIR: Clause 4, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise once again to deal with this act that is

going to raise the bar with openness, transparency and accountability in this

Province, in terms of lobbyists dealing with public-office holders, and it will

provide for appropriate conduct for lobbyists.

We are dealing specifically today with the amendment that was moved by the

Leader of the New Democratic Party, who is recommending an amendment to the

legislation to exclude trade unions from the coverage. The intent of the

amendment is to have trade unions exempt from having to comply with the

legislation. I think it might be helpful to look at the purposes of the

legislation. I want to look at the four of them but I will look at two of them,

in particular. The purposes of the act is that it is desirable that

public-office holders and the members of the public should be able to know who

is attempting to influence government as government goes about its

decision-making process.

The second purpose of the act is that when someone lobbies a public-office

holder, we recognize that all lobbying is a legitimate activity when it is

appropriately conducted. So, in order to accomplish these purposes, the

legislation sets up a public registry that calls for public disclosure of

certain information. Secondly, the act calls for the implementation of a Code of

Conduct, which will set out how lobbying should be conducted and the fact that

lobbying should be conducted in an appropriate manner.

Now, the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

is that trade unions should be exempt from this legislation. Of course, in order

to give consideration of that, it is important, first of all, to give

consideration to the fact of what people are caught by the actual legislation. I

will do this in the context of talking about labour unions or trade union

organizations, labour organizations because that is who the amendment deals

with.

There are two types of lobbyists set up under the act. One is the consultant

lobbyist. So we could have a situation where a trade union might hire a

consultant lobbyist in order to lobby the government on their behalf, and that

consultant lobbyist would, in fact, be paid for providing that service. In that

situation it is not the union that would have to register under the act, it

would be the consultant lobbyist.

The second situation is the in-house lobbyist. That is a situation where an

organization - an organization would include a trade union - would have an

employee, a person who is being paid to work for the union and part of that

person's duties, or possibly all that person's duties, would be to lobby

public-office holders. If that person is spending more than 20 per cent of his

or her time in lobbying government, then that person would have to arrange with

the head of the union to register that organization or that union under the

lobbyists legislation. They would have to provide the information in the public

registry. They would have to disclose, to the members of the public, who they

are lobbying and what they are lobbying about.

Now, a review of the act indicates that trade unions have not been exempted

from the provisions of this act, and that is what the hon. member, in moving his

amendment, is suggesting. I have looked at other legislation in other

jurisdictions that have enacted lobbyists legislation. We have looked at the

feds, the Province of Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C., and none of them have

exempted trade unions from their legislation. But, on a closer view of the act,

section 4.(1), it outlines people that the act does not apply to. Although trade

unions are not listed there, when you look closely at 4.(2) you can see that

activity, which is the normal activity of a trade union, that they would carry

out for their members - I can call that, maybe, core union activities - it is

already exempted. It is the activity that is exempt.

For example, 4.(2)(

e) exempts core union activities, such as negotiating

collective agreements and representing members and former members. I think that

would apply to grievances, for example. Under 4.(2)(

e) it also refers to

employees under the Public Service Commission Act because they would work for

government. We have to remember, in this legislation we are talking about people

who are lobbying or communicating with public-office holders, and that is why I

think the act deals with collective agreements through the public service as

opposed to collective agreements out in private industry.

Under

section 4.(2)(

e) core union activities are exempt. If a union,

furthermore, wants to make submissions about matters related to its organization

that falls under other labour relations statutes,

section 4.(2)(b)(

i) exempts

them from registration once again. Moreover, subclause (ii) has a broad

exemption that trade unions can use when making submissions to government on the

implementation or administration of any policy or program that might apply to a

trade union.

So, what other union activity is there? I do not believe there would be a

need to be exempt when a trade union might lobby government on broad public

policy issues that are not limited to union members. As I said earlier, there is

no other lobbying legislation in Canada that specifically exempts trade unions,

yet very few unions have seen the need to register in those jurisdictions. So

why? There may be other reasons but, first of all, possibly they communicate

with government mostly on labour relation matters and therefore they are

exempted under clause 4.(2), and possibly their staff spends less than 20 per

cent of their time on lobbying activities.

I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries, who formerly worked for a trade union,

and he said: Union workers are so busy looking after issues for their members

that they did not have enough time or a lot of time to spend a great deal of

time lobbying government on broader public policy issues. In general, Mr.

Speaker, I think we can say that a person who is a union member, who wishes to

lobby government on his or her own behalf, is exempt under the legislation. We

know that.

Secondly, we know that if a union member - who is not paid to lobby - wishes

to lobby on behalf of the union and they are not paid to do so, then they

certainly can lobby all they wish and they are exempt from their requirements of

this legislation. If a Newfoundland trade union wants to lobby government on

issues that relate to their major activities, the unions major activities, they

will be exempt from registration. If the trade union wants to lobby government

on matters that are outside the scope of its major activities, then there is a

20 per cent rule. So, if a union staff person, who is paid, spends less than 20

per cent of his or her time lobbying government then there is no need to

register.

Finally, if a union employee is to spend more than 20 per cent of their time

lobbying government on matters that do not relate to court union activities,

well then in that case I would say, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't they register?

What would be the problem? Fees would be minimal, perhaps even non-existent. The

time required to register will be measured in minutes, not hours.

Mr. Speaker, if any organization wants to lobby government on broad public

policy issues, I say: Why not be open and transparent about it? If a union wants

to lobby government on issues that are outside their labour relations mandate,

that is fine, but why should it not be part of a transparent public process?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition last night had a little fun with me

because of a comment I made about going on the Internet to seek additional

information. Now, he got it partially right but of course he had lots of it

wrong. The Leader of the Opposition said that I went on the Internet to look up

my own legislation. Of course, that is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. We all have the

legislation. The legislation is right here. It is on everybody's desk. No one

would have to go on the Internet to look up this legislation. What we did do, is

that officials in the department went on the Internet for the purposes of

accessing the public registries in the other jurisdictions that have public

registries in which lobbyists are required to register. We did that for the mere

purpose of seeing if any unions were, in fact, registered under those

registries, to see if they were or if they weren't.

That, of course, is one of the beauties of our legislation, we are going to

set up a public registry. Lobbyists who are lobbying public-office holders, in

other words the government, will have to disclose what they are doing. They will

have to tell the world what they are lobbying about, who they are lobbying, who

is giving them the money to do the lobbying, what techniques they are using to

do the lobbying, and who they intend to lobby. That information, I think, the

people of this Province are entitled to know. That will be available, Mr.

Chairman, to everybody, it will be a public registry, it will not cost anybody

any money to access that registry, and I think that is certainly a sign of open,

transparent and accountable government.

We looked at similar registries in other jurisdictions and we found some

interesting information, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we looked at Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's lobbying Statute has

a provision that is identical to

Section 4(2)(

e) of our bill. Here is what we

found out: That there are no public sector unions registered under the Nova

Scotia act. There are no private sector unions registered under the Nova Scotia

act. We are advised by officials in Nova Scotia's Registry of Lobbyists, that

during the public consultation process leading up to the passing of the Nova

Scotia legislation, some unions did make enquiries but were satisfied that their

core activities, as unions, were exempt under the act. They have not, therefore,

registered. Our act has the same provisions, so that the activities of unions,

as unions in carrying out their core activities, are exempt under this

legislation.

If you go to the Ontario government's Registry of Lobbyists and if you look

up organizations - remember, under our act organizations includes labour unions

- you will find in Ontario very few trade unions registered. In fact, there are

only two organizations listed that deal with only labour matters. Out of the

dozens, possibly hundreds, of unions that operate in the Province of Ontario, we

could find only two that registered their in-house lobbyists. This situation in

Ontario exists even though the Ontario lobbying Statute does not contain a

specific exemption for core union activities as our bill does, in

Section

4(2)(e).

We also checked, Mr. Chairman, with the federal Registry of Lobbyists. If you

go to the website for the federal registry and you search in-house lobbyists for

organizations, you will find a list of over 300 organizations which have

registered in-house lobbyists. There are few large trade unions registered. The

Canadian Labour Congress, Teamsters Canada, and the United Steelworkers of

America are registered. Again, the federal Statute does not have a specific

exemption for core union activities. Our bill is more union-friendly than most

lobbyist legislation in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with some of the comments that were raised

in a letter from a prominent Newfoundland and Labrador union that wrote to the

department in response to the consultation process. I believe that most of the

arguments in the letter were raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill. I

would like to deal with those points and provide him with what I hope will be a

reasonable answer.

The union represents thousands of working men and women throughout the

Province in several sectors of the economy. They state that they fundamentally

disagree with the possibility that their union will have to register under this

bill, and I would like to summarize the issues they raised in the letter.

The union felt that they are different from paid lobbyists because they are

certified under provincial labour legislation, that they have a duty to

represent their members and, in that regard, they may have to make

representations to government departments and agencies on behalf of their

members either individually or collectively. Our response to that, Mr. Chairman,

is that we agree wholeheartedly. That is why we have the broad sections in

section 4.(2)(

e) and

section 4.(2)(b).

The next point that was made by the union is that the lobbying bill must not

hinder the union's role in the democratic process. The letter makes a comment

that many non-profit organizations are short-staffed and have limited resources.

We heard that from many of the people who responded to the consultation process.

They fear that the process of registering and updating returns may be quite

cumbersome for small organizations and thus may prevent them from participating

in the democratic process. Our response is that we agree again. That is why the

fees will be very low for these organizations. Perhaps there will be no fees at

all. The Registrar will have authority under the act to reduce or even waive

fees entirely. Subsection 34.(3) of the legislation provides for that. As for

the time it will take to register, Mr. Chairman, that will be measured in

minutes, not hours, and I think that is a small price to pay for promoting

openness and transparency in the democratic process.

Another point, Mr. Chairman, is that unions are like many other volunteer

organizations and they represent a broadly-based group of citizens. In many

cases, unions deal with the issues of public good versus private interest, and

our response is: Of course they do. We welcome union's participation in the

discussion and debate of broad public issues. The unions have a proud history in

this Province, and government welcomes their participation -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General that his time has

lapsed.

MR. T. MARSHALL: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

It will not take me very long to finish.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We welcome the participation of all unions in the

discussion and debate of all broad public issues, but if you are part of the

public debate, Mr. Chairman, why not be open and transparent about it?

The next point is that most of the union activists and leadership are unpaid,

and our response to that is that unpaid lobbyists do not have to register under

the bill.

Another point is that unions advocate on behalf of their members, and that

includes letters to MHA's, meetings with public-office holders and other

government officials, and that is part of their job under the Labour Relations

Act. Our response is that, of course, that is absolutely right and that is why

we included

section 4.(2)(

b) and

section 4.(2)(

e) so that the core union

activities, the things that people expect unions to be involved with, the things

that they are required to do under the Labour Relations Act to protect their

members, would not be cut by the bill.

The next point, Mr. Chairman, that the bill will require updates, there is a

quote here that, that could mean that every time we write a letter to government

on behalf of a member or an issue that affects our membership, we have to notify

the register and possibly re-register. Our response is that, when a union is

acting as a union, for and on behalf of the union, it does not have to register

at all, much less register every time it writes a letter.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this addresses most - I know my time is limited.

I think I will stop there. I do want to respond to the hon. Member for Labrador

West, who had a question to me on

section 6.(6) of the act, and I will do so at

some other time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Before the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

the Chair would like to recognize a former minister and former member, a

long-time Member of this House of Assembly, who represented the District of

Burin-Placentia West, Mr. Glen Tobin, who is in the gallery today.

Welcome, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If this debate has done one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if I could have some silence, some

assistance from the Chair so I can hear myself. These family-friendly hours are

having a toll on my voice, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: If this debate has achieved nothing, Mr. Chairman, at least

it has achieved the opportunity for the Minister of Justice to participate more

fully in the life of our House of Assembly by getting on his feet many times to

defend his legislation; but I will have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not

believe he really understands the role of unions in this Province. If he does,

he has not really indicated that by his speech because he thinks it is up to

him, or the government, to define what the core role of unions is, and I believe

he is actually misinterpreting the sections of his own act, because the

section

that he referred to,

section 4.(2)(

b) and 4.2(

e) deal with, in the one case, in

the case of 4.(2)(e), representing individuals in relation to administration or

negotiation of a collective agreement. When somebody goes to work on behalf of a

union member for a workers' compensation claim, that has nothing to do with

the collective agreement, nothing to do with the collective agreement.

Under 4.(2)(b), when they are seeking to influence government on behalf of

the enforcement,

interpretation or application of

an act or regulation in

relation to their own organization, that has nothing to do with the activity of

representing, broadly speaking, members' interests in relation to government.

Let me read, if I may, from the comments of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation, Mr. Chairman. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation represents

twenty-eight different unions with a total membership of over 65,000 workers.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour is mandated to promote the

interests of its affiliates and generally to advance the economic and social

welfare of workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Within this mandate, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour works to promote the interests of

workers, both unionized and non-unionized, in a wide range of areas, including

labour standards, labour relations, health and safety, and workers'

compensation. We also have an interest in other issues such as economic and

social development, education, life-long learning, equality and human rights.

Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the labour movement in Newfoundland

and Labrador who would say that these are part of the core activities and values

and efforts of trade unionists in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have

specifically to do collective agreements in many cases, and they do not have to

do with being concerned about their own legislation - for example, how the

Labour Relations Act affects unions and organizations, although they may make

representations on that from time to time. What the minister is saying is, if

they want to do something outside what he calls their core area, i.e., if they

want to do something about education or social development or health and safety

or labour standards or human rights or the minimum wage, then they should go and

register as lobbyists.

Mr. Chairman, what they are saying is, they should not have to register as

lobbyists because they are doing what everybody understands they are doing. In

fact, one of the pieces of legislation before the House today, which deals with

the labour-sponsored venture capital funds is another one of these activities

that they have done to promote economic development in the Province by

encouraging government to pass this legislation, which I am assuming and I hope

we will do, because it is actually beneficial to the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the minister will want to suggest that is lobbying activity

which should attract and require registration. I think that is totally

unnecessary, because, once again, would you call a lobbyist, who is taking money

to promote a particular activity, someone like the Federation of Labour that is

going down to the Board of Trade tomorrow and outlining all the reasons why they

want to see the labour-sponsored venture capital fund being developed by the

Province? This is not lobbying government in the way that this legislation is

attempting to contemplate, in terms of looking after a client, for example, such

as a paid lobbyist might do to get some advantage from government for their

company or for the client they represent. This is a public policy organization

of workers who are working for the social and economic advancement of workers in

Newfoundland, their families, and society generally. They are not lobbyists,

they are advocates, and, as such, they should not be included in this

legislation.

I thought - the pause that refreshes - when we pulled this bill last night,

after hearing the representations from this side, the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo, the Member for Labrador West, the Leader of the Opposition and

myself, that the minister was having second thoughts and he was going to come in

here today and say: We have listened. We have listened and recognized that the

trade unions and labour organizations are not lobbyists, they are, in fact,

advocates. They are social policy advocates, they are social justice advocates,

they are advocates for the Rights of Women, they are human right advocates, they

are not lobbyists. If they are not lobbyists, Mr. Chairman, we should not

include them in the act.

The minister's attempt to suggest that the activities of unions are

exempted from the act is feeble at best.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have been for some time on one clause, and for some time on one amendment,

going on over several days. I appreciate and respect, I guess, what members must

do and what they perceive they must do.

This legislation in no way, shape or form, in no context, or in any context,

whether real or perceived, categorizes whether public sector or private sector

unions, whether that be the building trades council as a group, called the

building trades council, their umbrella organization, whether it be the

ironworkers' union, the labourers' international union, whether it be the

operating engineers, whether it be unions representing the loggers in the forest

industry, whether it be the retail workers' union, whether it be the united

food and commercial workers' union - this act provides all of the necessary

exemptions for them with respect to the unions core activities.

The minister has outlined clearly today, for example - yes, the members

opposite can shake their heads. We can agree to disagree, if that is the case, I

say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There is no intention on our part

to try to categorize trade unions in this Province as lobbyists. I mean, it

would be foolish and absurd for us to even contemplate it. Number one,

inherently that is the role - and the member is right, in terms to advocate.

Secondly, it is their obligation to the membership that they serve. We

understand that, we respect that, and that is why this bill provides for, as

every other lobbyist bill across the country, the opportunity, if you are a

union, to have all of your core activities exempted from this act the minister

has just outlined.

As he said, the Leader of the Opposition had a bit of fun with him last

night, talking about him out surfing the net. He did it for a very good reason.

He wanted to provide the most up-to-date information to the House and the

registry on, were there any, I guess, unions based upon the advocacy of the

members opposite, in particular the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, were

there any examples whereby a trade union had to register as a lobbyist under the

act? The minister has gone through the provisions, and has explained, I think

very well, how those provisions reflect other jurisdictions. I believe he even

cited the Province of Nova Scotia, if I am not mistaken, which is identical.

Under

section 4(2)(e), that provides all of the allowance for that to be

done, for exemptions to occur. You know, we are not out on a leap of faith here.

We are out on a particular

section that we have competence in because it has

been borne out to be true in another jurisdiction. That is the truth and reality

of it. While the members opposite have their view, I guess, we have our view,

but we believe, as members opposite believe, that unions should be exempt. We

believe that we provided the necessary provisions in the act for that to happen

because, I think, we all want that.

With that, Mr. Chair, just to add my voice and support of the legislation,

the Registration of Lobbyists Act, we believe this is an important piece of

legislation. It never existed in this Province before. It provides for anybody

who wants to lobby, that they must register so people can see whatever happens

with lobbyists. We are not down on the lobbyist profession. We believe it has a

role to play. People have an absolute right to start their own businesses or

call themselves lobbyists or consultants or whatever the case may be. All we are

saying, with this legislation is, that being case, government has an absolute

right to ensure that their activities are public. There is a provision in how

you make it public and that they must register, so that if person A is lobbying

on behalf of company A to minister A, then everyone knows what is up and what

the story is about it. Essentially, that is what this act is about. I support it

and my colleagues support. It is a commitment we made and we believe it is a

commitment we are following up on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, again, speak to this bill today, because I think there is

some confusion here.

I just heard the Government House Leader say that all core activities of the

unions - and last night I was speaking specifically of the FFAW and the fish

processors association, ASP, in the Province. The way I put it last night, with

regard to some of the actions of the FFAW when I was minister, when the Minister

of Justice sat down afterwards, he said: Well, that is simple. They can register

as lobbyists. Right now we have the Government House Leader saying, basically,

all core activities of unions are protected under this act, when the Minister of

Justice told me last night, basically, that the FFAW, Mr. Earl McCurdy, would

have to register as a lobbyist. He said that right here in the House last night,

I say to the Government House Leader. If you get the Hansard, just before he was

sitting down, he said: Then he should register as a lobbyist.

The problem I have with this - I will try to explain it simply - is this: A

lobbyist, for the most part, is an individual who gets paid by a company or an

organization to lobby government, to go and try and convince government to do

something on behalf of a company or an individual or an organization. That

individual - who the lobbyist is, the one who is doing the lobbying, the one who

is trying to convince government to do something - is getting paid for his

efforts. He is getting paid.

Now, that is my understanding of what a lobbyist is, and I see the Minister

of Justice shaking his head over there in agreement with me. I have no problem

with legislation governing lobbyists in this Province and I agree that there

should be legislation governing lobbyists but, go back to the example I gave

last night. Simply by the nature of the organizations that I spoke of last night

- the FFAW, which represents fish harvesters and plant workers in this Province,

and the ASP group, the Association of Seafood Processors. Just by the nature of

those two groups, I do not see the individuals who lead these two groups when

they come to speak with a minister - and under your legislation, I think, you

say if they spend more than 20 per cent of their time in a given period they

would be considered a lobbyist. I cannot see it, and the reason I cannot see

them being considered lobbyists is simply the nature of the fishing industry and

the nature of the fact that government regulates that business.

Government, for the most part, regulates that business, whether it be the

federal government or the provincial government. I gave the example of a few

years ago, when there was an impasse in the shrimp fishery for two three or

three weeks and me, being the Minister of Fisheries - when there is an impasse

and boats are tied up, plants are closed, then, obviously, it not only affects

the union and the processors, it affects most of the people in this Province.

Like I said last night, it is our most important industry and affects more

people in the Province than any other industry.

As I said, some two or three years ago when there was an impasse in the

shrimp fishery, I spent most of my waking hours with either Mr. Earle McCurdy,

who was the President of the FFAW, or Mr. Alastair O'Reilly, who was, at that

time, the spokesperson or the Chairman of the FANL group, the Fisheries

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador who represent the processors. Now,

under this piece of legislation both those gentlemen would have to be registered

as lobbyists. In other words, they would have to come in and register with a

government agency and in so doing, once they registered, what they are telling

their membership, what they are telling the world is that they are being paid to

come in and lobby the minister or try to convince the minister to do something

either one way or the other. I say to the minister, I do not think that should

be the case.

All I am asking is - like my colleague, the Leader of the NDP and the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - that we exempt trade unions from that because, I

say to the minister and the government, it is very important that the minister

meet with these individuals on a regular basis, even when things are going well

in the Province, because I do not think any Minister of Fisheries would espouse

the belief that he knows everything about the industry. It is an industry that

is constantly in flux. There is something always - as the current Minister of

Fisheries knows, even on a good day, as Minister of Fisheries, you have severe

problems in the fishery, and that some group or organization associated with the

fish harvesters and the plant workers or the processors in this Province want to

meet with the minister to either give him advice, to ask for advice, to try and

convince him to do one thing or the other. I do not think that we should have to

attach the word lobbyists to these individuals who speak on behalf of the

individuals who make up our fishing industry because it is far too important.

I say to the minister, all I am asking is that you exempt groups like that

from this piece of legislation and not have them required to be registered as

lobbyists. Personally, while the Government House Leader says there is nothing

wrong with lobbyists - and I see nothing wrong with lobbyists - the word

lobbyist out there has a negative connotation attached to it; something that

basically says that you are skulking around after dark, strong-arming a Minister

of the Crown or the Premier into doing something that he does not really want to

do. That is my impression when I hear the word lobbyist. That individual gets

paid for doing that. He actually, in some cases, gets a bonus if he is

successful in convincing a minister or a government to do that which he wished

him to do. All I am saying is that I do not think we should be attaching

negative connotations to people who are of such importance to the fishing

industry in this Province and to the well-being of the Province in general. What

we are asking for is that you change one little clause to exempt unions from

this piece of legislation.

The Government House Leader, who probably knows as much about the legislation

as anyone in this House today, probably more than all of us, says that the core

activities of the unions, such as the FFAW, are protected under this act. I say

to the minister, that is not what the Justice Minister told me last night just

before he sat down, when I went through the exact scenario that I just went

through, when I talked about how both the Leader of FANL, Mr. Alastair O'Reilly,

and Mr. Earle McCurdy were meeting with me for three weeks, almost on a

twenty-four hour basis, lobbying me to do this thing or that thing. You said:

There's no problem with that, just tell them to go out and get registered as

lobbyists.

The point I am making, Minister, is that I do not think they should have to

be registered as lobbyists and that you should make that simple exemption. Then

I would have no problem, I would sit down and sign off on this bill today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister

Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we first reviewed this piece of legislation - and I have to say in all

honesty, I share some of the concerns that were just articulated by my critic,

the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and some of the concerns that were

brought forward over the past couple of days by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi and the Member for Labrador West and others, about how this piece of

legislation might impact on trade unions in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, one of the very specific questions I believe I raised at the

time was - as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just said, I am the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture, even on a good day, which are few and far between

in the Department of Fisheries - even on a good day there are quite a few issues

in the fishing industry that requires consultation, debate and discussion

between the department, the minister, the FFAW, the Association of Seafood

Processors and so on, and I did not think it served anybody's best interest

for them to have to register as lobbyists, or I to have to declare that I had

met with them as you would under the lobbyists legislation. I felt that there

was potentially an issue here. So, I raised the question, read through the

legislation, did not completely understand it at the time, just saw it for the

first time, read through it, had a look at it, had the discussion, and certainly

it was clarified for me, comfortably enough I thought and I still believe so,

that trade unions, while representing their membership, are exempted from

registration under this lobbyists legislation.

Certainly, in

section 4.(2)(b)(ii), "the implementation or

administration fo any policy, program, directive or guideline by that

public-office holder with respect to that person, partnership or

organization...", if a trade union is representing people based on that to

a public-office holder, it is exempt.

Mr. Chairman, I think the legislation is quite clear on that. I think that,

given the experience that we see in other provincial jurisdictions across the

country where this has worked, and the same type of clauses are in effect -

there have been no unions registered in Nova Scotia, for example - this

legislation serves our purpose and serves the purposes of the union in allowing

them to represent their members.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong debate on this but I

want to make one final point.

While the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Justice and the

Government House Leader say that under this piece of legislation unions such as

the FFAW are protected and will not have to be registered as lobbyists, the

Leader of the NDP is also a lawyer, himself, and he said he has looked at this

piece of legislation and he cannot see where they are protected under the act. I

cannot see where they are protected under the act. I do not profess to be a

lawyer and, as the minister says, he does not want the leader of the FFAW or the

ASP group coming in and committing some illegal offence because they have not

been registered as a lobbyist.

The Minister of Justice, when he was sitting down last night - and I have no

reason to lie here - he did look across to me and said: Sure, if that is the

case, have them register as lobbyists.

That is the point that we are making. We should not have to have them

registered as lobbyists.

With that, that is my final word on the bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not intend to make another long speech. I have made my points about

this, and I suppose if people accept the legal

interpretation of the Minister of

Fisheries, and the legal

interpretation of the Minister of Justice, they

probably will not have to register at all, and I guess the trade unions should

be encouraged not to bother to register under the act. I hope that the

interpretation of the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Justice will be

a good defense to them if they decide to seek to give them grief for not

registering under the act.

The kind of comfort that the minister has provided by suggesting, from his

Internet search, that unions do not seem to register, they do not seem to need

to bother to register, if I can pass that along to the trade unions that I talk

with, that government does not seem to be too concerned about the registering

regardless of my

interpretation of the act, the

interpretation given in the

House by the minister and the Minister of Fisheries and the government

officials, in seeking to get the act passed, seem to indicate that they do not

really want to concern themselves with your activities, and we have laid on the

table all of the activities that unions get involved in.

If, I suppose, for greater comfort, they want to register for the sake of

doing that, the minister says he is going to reduce the fees or have no fees at

all. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, if it is as simple as that, maybe they

should all register and say, well, we are lobbyist, that is it, as long as they

do not have to file reports every week, Mr. Chairman, saying who they talked to

and who they wrote letters to, and who they spoke to at various meetings.

The real problem here, Mr. Chairman, they do not call themselves lobbyists.

Even lobbyists do not call themselves lobbyists. They call themselves something

else. They are government affairs consultants, or they are something like that;

they have some other names. They do public relations or whatever else they are

doing. They do not call themselves lobbyists; they just carry out their

activities.

If the trade unions are going to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman, without

registering, self-policing, carrying on and conducting their own

interpretation

of how much time they spend at various things, then I am afraid it is going to

be too loosey-goosey. If that is the kind of legislation that this government

wants to pass, when they really think they are trying to get at the real

mischief of paid lobbyist out there - we have had some abuse of this in the past

- I hope that all of this debate about the people who are not really lobbyists

is not disguising the fact that there is a real intention here that people who

are engaged in the business of lobbying are in fact covered by this, and file

reports so we know what is going on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is an

amendment to clause 4. The amendment reads: To amend paragraph 4(1) of Bill 43

by adding immediately after subparagraph 4(1)(

l) the following, "(l.1) an

officer, executive board member or employee of a trade union or labour

organization."

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 4?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of

Lobbyists carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 43 is carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The Committee has to back up a little bit here. The Committee called for Bill

43 to pass without amendment, and it has been brought to the Chair's attention

that there was an amendment introduced to this bill in clause 4(1), and it was

passed, so the Committee calls for a vote to pass clause 4 as amended.

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The Registration of

Lobbyists, carried with amendment?

All those in favour, Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Bill 43 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess, to ensure that we are technically and procedurally correct, that is

why we had to come back and do what we had to do, or why the Chair had to come

back and do what he had to do. In keeping with that, I do now move that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 43 passed with

an amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, pass with

amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read

a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

Carried.

CLERK: The first reading of an amendment to Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read

a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of an amendment to Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third

time presently, by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of Bill 43,

An Act To Provide For The

Registration Of Lobbyists.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 43,

An Act To

Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists. (Bill

43)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time. It is ordered this bill

do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Registration Of

Lobbyists," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 43)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 8, second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture

Capital Tax Credits. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58,

An Act Respecting

Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored

Venture Capital Tax Credits." (Bill 58)

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the

Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits Act.

This legislation fulfills the commitment of the Blue Book to improve

incentives for those who make long-term venture capital investments in medium

and small enterprises. This legislation will enable a venture capital

corporation to seek registration to operate as a labour-sponsored venture

capital corporation in the Province, if the corporation meets various program

requirements.

The corporation would raise equity capital from residents of the Province

with the support of a 15 per cent provincial tax credit matched by a federal tax

credit of the same amount. Investors must hold these shares for eight years. The

monies invested in the corporation will go into a pool fund which will then be

reinvested by the venture capital corporation into eligible local businesses

needing access to capital.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is

dedicated to improving the economy of our Province, and one of the best ways to

do that is to help businesses to become successful. Businesses provide jobs,

they create wealth and they pay taxes. Provinces with a strong business base

tend to be strong economically.

Approximately 95 per cent of the businesses in this Province are classified

as small businesses. That is, they employ less than fifty people. My department

provides a number of programs to help start and expand businesses, but there are

still challenges for any business wishing to establish and grow. One of those

challenges is risk capital.

Mr. Speaker, starting and running a business is risky. For business people,

there are few guarantees that they will continue to exist or to grow. Businesses

are impacted by unpredictable international forces. Business people often take

great risks to ensure their businesses are successful and are able to provide

jobs for the people of our Province.

Fortunately, we have a dynamic community in Newfoundland and Labrador that

continues to develop new and innovative ways of starting and growing businesses.

While our traditional resource-based industries of fish, lumber and minerals

continue, there are companies that work every day to expand those industries

into new directions. For example, we are a Province of seafarers, and new

companies in this Province are using leading edge technologies to find new ways

to catch fish and track the progress of marine vessels.

We have to build on the momentum of these companies and the great amount of

intelligence local companies and organizations have in this field, and through

co-operation with our partners position the Province as a worldwide leader in

the marine technology field. To help meet this goal, just last month I announced

the provincial government will invest a total of $1.5 million over five years to

help implement an aggressive marine technology development strategy for the

Province.

We have, in recent decades, grown entire new industries such as high-tech

manufacturing and software development. These are just a couple of the

industries we will consider in the development of an innovation strategy for the

Province.

Throughout the course of developing the strategy, we will interview and hold

focus groups with key stakeholders to feed into the process of development of

the strategy. The innova