May 16, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome, from the District of Burin-Placentia

West, forty-five Grade 8 and Grade 9 students from Pearce Junior High School in

Burin, with their teachers: Jackie Peach and Roland Barbour.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised by

the Government House Leader on April 21 with regard to comments made in the

House by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in which the words chaos

and corruption were used in reference to the government.

The exact words used by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on April

20 during the initial question in Question Period were, "Tell me, Minister,

is there no bias in this decision, or is this just another example of the chaos

and corruption that exists within your government?"

The Speaker has consulted the authorities and the Table officers. Marleau and

Montpetit, on page 526, states as follows, "Expressions which are

considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always

been considered so when applied in a generic sense' or to a party."

In this instance, the Speaker cautions members to be careful in the

expressions used, but believes the expression under review to be applied in a

generic sense and therefore rules there is no point of order.

The Speaker wishes to rule on a point of order raised by the Opposition House

Leader on Thursday, May 12, with regard to comments made by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. The expression under consideration is "cutting a

deal with Mr. Risley." In the submissions, reference was made by the

Government House Leader to comments made by the Leader of the Official

Opposition during the same exchange.

The Speaker has reviewed the text as contained in Hansard. The Leader of the

Official Opposition made no specific reference to the cutting of a deal during

his questions.

The minister's precise comments were, "...there is nobody here cutting

deals with Mr. Risley. The only person who might have a cut a deal with Mr.

Risley might be the person who is asking the questions."

The Speaker has consulted the authorities and notes the use of the words

"might have" in the minister's commentary. The definition of

"cut a deal" is to make an agreement or to form a contract.

The minister did not say a deal was cut with Mr. Risley and, in addition, the

cutting of a deal with a business or corporation by governments past or present

and the public discussion of such an agreement or contract does not, of itself,

constitute a point of order.

The Speaker therefore rules there is no point of order in the expressions

used on May 12 by either the minister or the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the

Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the

District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave;

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

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, Mr. Wilfred Cutler, the Town Manager of Ramea,

retired after twenty-six years in the position. Today, I wish to acknowledge the

tremendous contribution Wilf has made to the town while serving in many

capacities in past years.

Wilf began his active community involvement in 1976 when he became a founding

member of the union and subsequently served as local president of the FFAW at

the fish plant. He served this capacity until assuming the duties of Town

Manager.

Mr. Speaker, Wilf was an active member of the Ramea Fire Department for

twenty years and served in the position of Chief for six years with the

department. In addition, he served twenty years on the Recreation Committee and

twenty-one years with the local Corps of the Sea Cadets, where he served two

terms as a Commanding Officer.

He continued his support to the community as a member of the Ramea Economic

Development Committee for fifteen years, and also a member of the

Ramea-Burgeo-Grey River Ferry Committee for fifteen years, and held the position

of Chair and Secretary.

Wilf has been active in the church life of the community and served as a

member of the local church vestry. Wilf frequently volunteers his time using his

musical talents and performs for various community groups in Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, Wilf Cutler can be considered an icon as a community builder,

activist and volunteer. As the community of Ramea faced many challenges in past

years, Wilf accepted each challenge and worked with many shareholders to achieve

the best for Ramea.

As Wilf prepares to enjoy retirement, spend more time at his cabin in White

Bear Bay and enjoy time his children and grandchildren, I ask all members of

this House to join me in wishing my friends, Wilf and his wife Eunice, many

years of health and happiness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Justin Oake of

Stephenville High who was recently named Stephenville Youth of the Year. I must

point out, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in its thirteen year history that

the award went to a male; and, judging by Justin's involvement, it was well

deserved.

Justin volunteers on a weekly basis with Big Brothers-Big Sisters where he

tutors young students. He has also volunteered for the Canadian Diabetes

Association, the Cancer Society Relay for Life, and the World Broomball

Championships. He is a youth vestry member and a volunteer at his church.

At Stephenville High School, Justin has been a class representative on the

student council, active in Spirit Week, and a member of the concert band and

jazz ensemble. He is also a member of the math team and participated in the

Science Fair.

Justin is an honour student who achieved the second-highest average in Level

I in 2004. Last summer, he attended a Med Quest medical science program at

Memorial University where he was a member of the winning research group.

Justin is also a very active athlete; he plays hockey at several levels,

including the Stephenville High and the Western Newfoundland AA teams. His team

has won gold medals at regional and provincial competitions. He is also a member

of the school's track and field, junior basketball and junior volleyball

teams. In addition, he plays squash, golf and floor hockey. He has completed the

requirements for the Duke of Edinburgh's Silver Award and is seeking the gold

award. He was a participant in the Lion's Club District Speak-off, and he

participated in Encounters with Canada at the Terry Fox Centre.

I would ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating this fine

young man on his achievements to date and to wish him success in his future

endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday evening, May 13, I had the opportunity to accompany several

constituents of mine to Dildo, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. I was

honoured to attend and cut the ribbon and officially open the first Baccalieu

Quilter's Guild.

Mr. Speaker, seven years ago three ladies started a part-time hobby they

still enjoy today and it has grown beyond the Baccalieu Trail. Twenty-nine

ladies entered several pieces of their prized work, and what a display it was.

The event was open to the general public on Saturday and Sunday and all who

attended were treated to a tremendous display of talent.

Mr. Speaker, works of both hand and machine were on display and all in

attendance agreed that the work was not only top-notch, but a great example of

the culture and heritage that is still alive and well in Conception and Trinity

Bay areas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Baccalieu

Quilter's Guild and hope they will continue to display their magnificent

workmanship in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise and pay

tribute to an individual in my district, Ms Judi Kelloway. Ms Kelloway is a

former teacher and administrator who, along with her husband Keith, take on a

number of tasks and have a number of interests in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, as a former school administrator myself, I know both of these

individuals and recognize them for their contributions to their town and

Province.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Kelloway, originally from St. John's, has made her life and

career in the Town of Burin. Anyone aware of the sport scene in this Province

knows of the sport of soccer and its connection to the Burin Peninsula.

Likewise, Ms Kelloway has always had a keen interest in the sport of soccer and

has done much to sustain and promote the sport locally and provincially. In

recognition of this effort, she was recently awarded the Sports Newfoundland and

Labrador's Sports Executive of the Year. For her efforts, Ms Kelloway received

the Graham Snow Memorial Plaque during a banquet in St. John's.

I ask all members of this House of Assembly to join with me in sending our

congratulations to Judi Kelloway on receiving this most deserving award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues that nine

young people from Newfoundland and Labrador are representing our Province this

week at Interchange on Canadian Studies 2005 in Alberta.

Interchange on Canadian Studies is a national not-for-profit organization

which aims to increase understanding, knowledge and appreciation of Canada. The

event brings student delegates together from all parts of the country to discuss

issues which are important to Canada and its people. These conferences and

exchanges provide opportunities for young Canadians to meet and listen to

prominent speakers and to share ideas and experiences that are significant to

Canadians.

This year's gathering started on Saturday, May 14 in Medicine Hat, Alberta

and will conclude on May 21. Topics to be discussed during the week include

Canada's Environment and the Oil and Gas Industry.

The youth attending the event, Mr. Speaker, represent communities from across

the Province. They are: Amanda Singleton from Holy Spirit High School in CBS;

Stephen Rogers and Megan Rolls from Discovery Collegiate in Bonavista; Sarah

Aubert from Jakeman All Grade in Trout River; Paul MacKay from William Gillett

Academy in Charlottetown, Labrador; Leanne Styles from Stephenville High School

in Stephenville; Brittany Rowe from Menihek High School in Labrador City; Kayla

Oldford from Lester Pearson Memorial High in Wesleyville; and David LeDrew from

Indian River High School in Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the social and educational

development of our youth, who are our leaders of tomorrow. We are pleased to

support our youth in this endeavour through the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment's Grants to Youth Organizations Program. Funding has

also been provided by various school boards and the federal government.

I am sure my colleagues would like to join me in congratulating these young

people for their interest in national and provincial issues and wish them the

very best as they represent Newfoundland and Labrador this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say

that, we, on this side of the House, want to congratulate the nine individuals

who will be attending the conference in Medicine Hat, Alberta and to see that

they are going to be discussing issues not only very important to our Province,

but also for our country. We, too, want to say that we are committed and totally

support the social and educational development of our youth. How true it is to

say that they are truly our leaders of tomorrow. I guess our hope and dream, on

all sides of the House, is that those well-educated young people, when the time

comes, that they will be able to find jobs in our Province and will not have to

leave to go outside with the great skills and education that they will have

developed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, also, would like to congratulate the young people from across Newfoundland

and Labrador on their being selected to attend this very important event in

Alberta, the Canadian environment and oil and gas industry. It is obviously

something that we are very concerned about here in the Province. It would be

great to see these nine young people get some exposure to another part of the

country, particularly one like Alberta, which is so involved in the oil and gas

industry. I am sure the insights that they gain and the friends they make will

be valuable for them in the future, and I am certainly pleased to see government

support their efforts to have this very valuable experience.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to

inform my hon. colleagues that May 15-21 has been designated as National Police

Week. Throughout the Province, the RNC and the RCMP will organize and

participate in activities and displays in communities and schools that promote

the concept of police and community working together to enhance public safety

and public security.

Police Week does promote an opportunity for police organizations right across

the country to build stronger partnerships. Strong community ties help us fight

and prevent crime. During Police Week, both the RCMP and the RNC, in partnership

with communities have an opportunity to share experiences and challenges. These

activities provide an opportunity to work together by listening, understanding,

and contributing to the building of a strong complement of volunteers who help

keep communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have approximately 750 police officers who

work hard to protect their communities and the families who live in those

communities. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the superior

efforts, the outstanding qualities and achievements of police officers in this

Province. Police Week is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the hard

work, dedication and commitment, and to acknowledge the sacrifices that police

officers have made in keeping our community safe. Additionally, I can advise

that a memorial service recognizing Police and Peace Officers is scheduled for

this Thursday, at the Seventh Day Adventist Church here in St. John's.

I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to note that May 15

is recognized internationally as Peace Officer Memorial Day. Last year, I had

the privilege of participating in the official opening of the Peace and Police

Officers Memorial on the grounds of the Confederation Building. We are proud to

have a Memorial in this Province which pays tribute to those peace and police

officers who have died in the line of duty. It is also a monument to recognize

families and friends who have suffered the loss of loved ones and colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work done in this Province by the RCMP and

the RNC, and we support the efforts of our police officers. Police Week is a

great opportunity to acknowledge our police forces for their active community

involvement both on and off the job, and I encourage awareness and participation

in Police Week activities and continued support of police officers throughout

the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for an advance

copy of his statement today.

It is indeed an appropriate time of year, each year annually, to recognize

our police forces in this Province, and also, through the memorial services, to

pay tribute to those peace officers and police officers who have passed on.

Policy officers certainly do play a huge role in our communities. The whole

concept of policing in the last numbers of years has changed dramatically.

Instead of our citizens seeing police officers now as enforcers of the law, they

are seen more as citizens, generally, citizens who co-operate with town councils

and with charitable organizations, people who have an interaction with the

citizens. It is not a matter of Mr. Policeman anymore saying, you shalt not do,

it is a matter of a policeman playing a more active day-to-day role. I think

that has been a very positive development in our communities. We certainly are

blessed in this Province with having two very well-trained, very professional,

and certainly dedicated police forces, the RCMP and the RNC.

I guess the only downside - not a downside to the police officers because

they are all very professional. It is a disappointment, I guess, in seeing that

they are not paid equally. We have two police forces here that enforce the same

laws. For example, the Criminal Code of Canada or under the drug laws of this

Province, you can have an RNC officer and an RCMP officer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You can have two officers in this Province right now in downtown, St. John's,

for example, working on a major drug file, one is an RNC and one is an RCMP,

they are working on a joint force and yet they are not paid the same for

enforcing the same laws. I hope someday we will get to the point where both of

these very well-trained and very professional police forces are paid the same

for doing the very same work.

Hats off to the police, and continue to do the great job that you have been

doing.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a copy

of his statement.

I would like to echo the words that have been said both by the minister and

the Opposition House Leader because the police in our Province do play a very

important role in protecting us, as a society.

I guess the other important thing that I would like to note here, to the

minister, is that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which polices the greater

population in the Province today, including my district, are understaffed

considerably, and, with the new graduates coming into the force through the

training program at Memorial - which, by the way, was a great move to have our

own training facilities -

I know, Mr. Speaker, my time is up, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Maybe I should just sit down before I stand up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I want to say, and state to the minister, the great work

that the police forces do in our Province. I know in my own district, with the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, it is not just a matter of policing, Mr.

Speaker; it is the things that they are involved with in the community as well.

I think a very important point was made by the Member for Burgeo & La

Poile when he stated that at one time police officers were looked at as strictly

enforcers of the law, and with fear. Now they are more looked at with respect

and as fellow citizens in our communities, so I, too, would like to congratulate

and celebrate National Police Week, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated time and time again that his government

would follow the proper tendering procedures when handing out contracts. It did

not happen with the $150,000 VON study in his own district, and it did not

happen with the handing out of a $300,000 advertising contract to his close

political buddies for the Atlantic Accord. We now have an example in which the

College of the North Atlantic in Corner Brook awarded over $637,000 in computer

equipment contracts within a one-hour period.

I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Was he aware of this

expenditure of funds in such a short period of time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to that, Mr. Speaker, the College of the North

Atlantic look at their particular needs. They look at their needs and they

respond according to the requirements and again in accordance with the Public

Tender Act.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things of note: This $637,000 award

was done within two weeks of the end of the fiscal year. The total amount almost

matches the annual computer budget for the entire College of the North Atlantic

for the whole Province, let alone one campus in Corner Brook.

I ask the minister again: Where did the college campus in Corner Brook get

their hands on over $637,000 for new computer equipment in the dying days of the

last fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the amount of money, it

matches up with the need. As we come into the end of the fiscal year, there is

an opportunity for any institution to look at their budget and to put the money

where it is needed, and, of course, this was the case in this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister should check into this a bit further, instead of trying to

give some pat answer about meeting the needs. There is a full budget for a full

year magically appearing in the last couple of days of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, of the six tenders that were awarded, three of the tender

competitions were only open for period of - get this now! - five minutes. The

tender period lasted a total of five minutes. One of the tenders that was

awarded in the five-minute period was in excess of $10,000, Mr. Speaker, and

expenditures over $10,000 that need to be exempted from the Public Tender Act

are supposed to be approved by the minister.

I ask the minister again: Did he really know about this and did he authorize

this expenditure in a five-minute period at the end of the fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the

College of the North Atlantic and their ability to move forward with regard to

their needs, I will say to the hon. member opposite that the procedures that

were followed were in keeping with the procedures of the Public Tender Act, and

that everything was done according to the regulations as such.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think most people in the Province would find it a bit of a strange Public

Tender Act if you can award over $10,000 in less than five minutes. There is not

much of a chance to bid competitively.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister - and I will give him an opportunity to answer

again - does the minister feel it is acceptable for the College of the North

Atlantic, one campus, or anyone for that matter, to be able to spend over

$637,000, all of that, within a one-hour period while apparently not following

proper tender procedures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the amount of money and the time that

the hon. member is talking about - he talks about apparently, and I say it is

apparently because the process that went on - again, I trust the College of the

North Atlantic, which have to follow the procedures of the Public Tender Act.

They are guided by regulations that clearly state what they can and cannot do,

and I am certainly confident that the College of the North Atlantic responded to

a need, obviously very quickly, and did what they had to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the minister does not

really know yet what we are talking about. I would suggest, before he speaks to

the media further, he might actually get some information and find out what has

happened.

Mr. Speaker, the largest individual contract, one of them $10,000, was

awarded in five minutes. The largest individual contract for computer equipment

was $505,000, over half a million dollars, and no emergency, I would suggest, in

the middle of March if they had the money in their budget all year long since

April 1. In contrast, that tender did last at least one full hour for half a

million dollars. In contrast, the Public Tender Act sets out the guidelines as

to how contracts are supposed to be tendered, but they were clearly not followed

in this instance. Does the minister know what companies received these contracts

and why the contracts were awarded in such a rushed manner at the end of a

fiscal year? Does he know that answer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the hon. member opposite,

that the College of the North Atlantic certainly plan out their year. They look

at the needs and if computer equipment needs to be upgraded, whether it is in

September, October, November or March, they do it. This is what has been done

here.

I say to the hon. member, that again I have full confidence in the College of

the North Atlantic that they are carrying out the business of our public

post-secondary in a manner, which I say to the hon. member, is certainly

satisfying this minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Again, I would suggest, I am trying to be helpful to the minister. He might

want to check his own words. He said they plan out the year, but in the answer

before he said there was an emergency in March. So, which was it? Did they plan,

or was there an emergency with respect to computers?

Mr. Speaker, we have had several instances where the rules were not followed,

as the Premier indicated they would be, to serve the interest of the Premier

himself in his own district. I mentioned the VON, I mentioned the awarding of

the contract to his political buddies. This incident, over half a million

dollars in an hour, $637,000 all together, also happened at the College of the

North Atlantic Campus in Corner Brook, in the Premier's own district of Humber

West, again.

I ask the Premier: Did he know anything about these tender contracts before

they were awarded in haste, in five minutes or an hour, for well over half a

million dollars at the end of the fiscal year?

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 that question. No, I had no

knowledge of that. I do not make it my business to go and check into every

single contract that is awarded by every government agency or institution that

is in the Province. They conduct their business within their budget. That is

what they do.

I can tell him though, that generally from an IT perspective in the Province,

there are serious problems with information technology within government. We

have appointed a new CIO. He has done an extensive overview and an extensive

audit of everything that is in government. We have antiquated equipment. I am

told it is twenty to twenty-five years old. Commodores are still being used in

the government. So, we are facing some considerable expenditures within

government on the information technology side. That is a reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The exact information on the College of the North

Atlantic, I have absolutely no knowledge of it. I can certainly tell the Leader

of the Opposition that I will be inquiring and checking into it, but I am quite

certain that nothing improper was done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, during the last provincial election the Premier

told the people of the Bay St. George region that he would ensure a timely

resolution of our energy and fibre supply. This was put in the Western Star

in Corner Brook five days after the election with the Premier's own words: You've

got my commitment.

It has been eighteen months and we have seen no solution to the problems,

except a possible $1 million secret deal. What steps have been taken to ensure a

secure fibre supply for this mill, as promised by the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a $1 million

secret deal, it was hardly secret when it was myself, on behalf of the

government, who released publicly what potentially we were going to do. So, to

that point, there has been absolutely no take up on that arrangement. Zero.

There has been no money from provincial coffers go to Abitibi.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of wood supply. My suggestion to the

member opposite is to come a little more current in terms of what the issue,

with respect to the West Coast, is. In our discussions with Abitibi over the

last eighteen months, the issues have been surrounding power. They themselves

have indicated to government that the issue of wood supply is one that they

believe is manageable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we know the commitments that were made. We know

very little, if anything, has been done on this issue. We know the government

offered the $1 million deal as a sign of good faith to see the books of Abitibi.

According to the minister, this has never happened.

I ask the minister: What is the status of the negotiations with Abitibi

concerning an energy supply for the mill at Stephenville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not sure if the hon. member was here or not, Mr. Speaker, but I will

review for him again. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to Abitibi

that the spirit and intent of Bill 27, which demands a two-machine operation

continue to exist in Grand Falls-Windsor up until 2010, that we expect Abitibi

to fulfill the obligations under that legislation. If they do not, I think

publicly and certainly privately, Abitibi and the people of the Province are

aware of what government's response would be: that we would immediately revoke

the licence associated to that legislation.

With respect to the update of status on negotiations at Abitibi on potential

power supply, it was our view - and we released it last week - that we indicated

that we have asked Hydro to begin those discussions and negotiations. That is

the update. That is the status. To the best of my knowledge, those discussions

and negotiations are about to commence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we know the minister has stated publicly that

Bill 27, which takes away fibre and timber rights from Abitibi, will be enforced

if Abitibi does not operate a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor. We

know the Premier personally committed to a timely solution to the fibre shortage

in Stephenville.

I ask the minister: Would you update this House on what action this

government has taken to fulfill this commitment that was made by the Premier

almost two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member just does not get

it, because the tone and tenor of his questions today are directed at a

commitment the Premier made with respect to fibre supply.

The fact of the matter is this: In our discussions and negotiations with

Abitibi, the issue of fibre supply for Stephenville has not been an issue they

have raised because they believe it is manageable, Mr. Speaker. We have

indicated that. Again, the member obviously does not get it.

With respect to the issue of fibre supply, Abitibi believes - they have

indicated to government - that the issue is manageable. With respect to that,

Mr. Speaker, other than that, there is nothing more I can update you on because

we have had no discussions with Abitibi with respect to access to fibre supply

for Stephenville.

The fundamental issue for Abitibi, with government, over the past eighteen

months, has been the potential of developing two power contracts on the Exploits

River. That is what our discussions primarily have been about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the media reported that a man who had worked at the

U.S. Military Base in Argentia had been diagnosed with cancer and he believed

his sickness to be linked to the storage of nuclear weapons at that site.

I ask the Minister of Justice, who is also the Minister Responsible for

Intergovernmental Affairs, if he might tell the House what representation, if

any, his government has had with officials in either Ottawa or Washington to

determine what health care risk exists for others in the area who may have been

exposed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the hon. member's

question under advisement, seek the answer to the question, and report back to

him in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: I take it from your answer, Mr. Minister, you haven't had

any requests to date from anyone in this Province to check on this matter. I

would appreciate if we might have your commitment that you will, in fact,

undertake an investigation because one of the issues here is the American

reluctance, shall we say, to release records associated with this issue. We

would appreciate not only your commitment to check into it, but also a

commitment that you will request of the appropriate American or Ottawa officials

that the records associated with the use or non-use of basically anything that

verifies the factual circumstances of this issue, that they would be

forthcoming.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be happy to give my

commitment to the hon. member to check into that and seek the information that

he is requesting.

I also understand the American Counsel General may even be in the Province

today, and possibly we might be able to make inquiries to him to obtain the

records that the hon. member talked about, the American records.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Last week, the College of the North Atlantic announced the cancellation of a

Civil Engineering Technology program at the Ridge Road Campus, despite the fact

the minister's own document, Career Search 2004, indicated that there was an

84.7 per cent success rate for graduates.

I want to ask the minister: Why is the minister sitting idly by when the

public college is getting rid of successful programs at a time when the Province

is faced with serious shortages of skilled labour?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. member, certainly the program has not been cancelled.

It was looked at. There were two possibilities, one for here in St. John's and

one for Corner Brook. The decision of the College was, looking at it and

weighing up the different sites, that it was better to continue that program in

Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the College sited the unemployment rate of 27

per cent amongst graduates as the excuse. Yet, this weekend the College relied

on the same Career Search 2004 to claim an 86 per cent success rate for

graduates for a program in the Burin campus for electrical engineering

technology.

What I want to ask the minister: Is his document, Career Search 2004, of any

value to students in this Province if the College is shutting down programs that

have claimed success rates: 84 per cent, 85 per cent, and 86 per cent? What is

the value of this document? Can students rely on this if they are going to make

choices about careers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly apologize to the member for interrupting his

flow of questions, but the answer that I gave first, I indicated that the

program has not shut down, that the program - there were two sites, one in St.

John's and one in Corner Brook. When they weighed up everything, and one of

them was the employment placement - again, you are shaking your head. When we

looked at the employment prospects from the Corner Brook site it was much better

than the St. John's one. Therefore, the decision was made by the College to

put it in Corner Brook and keep it there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the College said. In fact, the

success rate, according to Career Search 2004, for the Corner Brook campus is

actually less. They did not say they were going to boost the program in Corner

Brook and they did not say they were going to add more staff to be able to run

the program.

Does this minister know what is going on in this program, and will he finally

release the White Paper on post-secondary education so we will know what the

real plans of this government are for the College of the North Atlantic?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say to the hon. member, the College of the North

Atlantic looked at these two programs that were offered in two different sites,

and given the comparative nature of the two programs, the decision was made to

go with the Corner Brook site because, again, better employment prospects and so

on.

Now, if you are looking at other questions that you put at me, Career Search

is a document that is recognized across this nation. It is one that is used

quite extensively in our schools by guidance counsellors, and the information

that is contained there is very, very comprehensive in allowing students to make

the right choices as they go forward in post-secondary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has thrown the crab fishery of this Province into turmoil in

a politically motivated attempt to save the political hide of the Minister of

Fisheries and to favour the business friends of the Premier. With crab having

left the Province and the season cut short, many plant workers will likely be

left without enough hours to qualify for EI.

I ask the Premier: Is he committed to looking after all plant workers whose

lives have been disrupted by the turmoil he and his minister have created in

this industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the hon. member for the same question he asked, I

think, last week or the week before.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The Premier has stated and the Minister of Fisheries has stated,

and I have stated in this House of Assembly that we would be there for the plant

workers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are looking at

putting a program in place to assist the plant workers. We know there was a

sense of urgency with this and recent developments - I am sure the hon. member

would know that. I mean the crab fishers in this Province could be back fishing

within the next few days and hopefully we will not have to go down that road.

But, if we need be, Mr. Speaker, I say that we will be there for the plant

workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, some of the crab has gone to

another province and the hours are not there for the people to qualify, so I

suggest that they should get in the program.

Mr. Speaker, the problems we are talking about here today are 5,000 or 6,000

people who totally depend on the crab fishery, and another 4,000 or 5,000 people

who partly depend on the crab to get their hours to qualify for EI. We are

already hearing reports that workers who partly depend on the crab processing

sector are being told that they will not qualify for any assistance.

I ask the Premier: Is your assistance program going to involve workers

impacted or will some workers be left out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not know who might be telling these people this information, other than

it must be the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this program is not finalized yet. We are in the process of

putting this plan together as we speak. We know the extent of this proposed

program may change because of the fact that the fishers may be back to work

within the next few days and shortly after that the plant workers will be back

to work. So, Mr. Speaker, I really hope that the hon. member is not trying to

fearmonger out there and make things worse than what they actually are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. minister I am not

fearmongering, and those questions and answers came from the Premier's office.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South is already on record as saying

that a minimum wage program will not be enough.

I ask the Premier: Does he agree with the Member for Bonavista South, and

will the program involve wages comparable to what those people earn in the

plants, or will it be a minimum wage program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it more than passing strange what the members on the

opposite side of the House will hang their hat on. I said last week, we have

said, that we will be there for the plant workers, and the plan and the program

has not been finalized. We understand the urgency of it, Mr. Speaker. It is

changing daily. As we speak, it is changing. As soon as the fishers get back to

work - and we hope, on this side of the House of Assembly, I don't know about

on that side, that the fishers will get back to work and that the plant workers

will get a fair number of weeks this year. We will be there for what is needed

in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture keeps telling the people

of this Province that he was ordered, by the court, to issue a license to St.

Anthony, because the decision by the former minister was patently unreasonable.

Minister, you are a lawyer, you are the Minister of Justice. Will you confirm

that the court decision never, ever stated that the Minister of Fisheries was

bound to issue a new crab license to St. Anthony? In fact, the three judges of

the Court of Appeal clearly stated that the issuance of a license was not

automatic. Minister, will you clear up this misunderstanding by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, and confirm to the people of this Province that the

minister at no time was ordered by the court to issue that license?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have in front of me here the

Hansard from that very day. What the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did,

in fact, say - and I can quote from page 14 of Hansard for the day in question

which is May 11 - he said, "I never did consider issuing a crab license in

St. Anthony until I was ordered by the court to reconsider the patently

unreasonably decision of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo."

MR. REID: Where is the part about the court (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, by chance I happen to have the decision

here, the disposition of the decision. On page 37 of the decision of the

Newfoundland Court of Appeal clearly states: The minister's decision -

referring to the patently unreasonable decision of the previous Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture - the minister's decision is set aside and the

matter is remitted to the minister for reconsideration, which is exactly what

the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very nice to see that the Minister of Justice, being the honourable

person that he is, could not bring himself to put the spin on it that the

Premier and the Minister of Fisheries have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We all know, Mr. Speaker, that it was a patently political

decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for his own district, not

because the court ordered him.

Minister, I ask you: The Premier said recently, in response to the discussion

of this same issue, that they had to issue the St. Anthony licence or face

possible damages. Minister, you have read the Court of Appeal decision. The

Premier - and you know it - is absolutely wrong. The only damages claim related

to an engine room extension, and this claim was rejected by the court.

Minister, to avoid having the Premier look like he is misleading the public,

would you confirm that his statements about damages for St. Anthony, and that

being his justification for the licence, are absolutely inaccurate and

incorrect?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question

but, unfortunately, I cannot agree with the premise to his question. The

disposition in the decision says the St. Anthony Seafoods claim for damages is

remitted to the trial judge for disposition in accordance with his decision.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, of course, as usual, was right again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Premier has stated publicly that the plant production -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know members are very enthused, and that kind of thing, but the Speaker has

recognized the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I ask all members if they

could curb their enthusiasm a little bit.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

The Premier has stated publicly that the plant production pilot project will

only last for this season. In fact, the Minister of Fisheries is out saying it

will only be on for three months. Will the Premier commit that this pilot

project will not extend beyond this year, even if Mr. Cashin asks for additional

time to see if the pilot project will work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to throw a bouquet to the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo for his comments in the paper during the week. In The

Independent , he called government's decision of bringing FFAW founder

Richard Cashin in as an independent voice the only thing that Williams did

right.

I want to thank you very much for acknowledging the decision to bring Mr.

Cashin in, which was acknowledged by Mr. McCurdy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It has been indicated by the minister that we are

looking at a plan for the plant workers. We hope to get the fishermen back to

work now, get them back on the water, get the crab industry moving again, which

is what our goal is.

As you know, we basically took the pilot project and we cut it in half. We

set up an independent committee that is being chaired by Mr. Cashin. Contrary to

what the Leader of the Opposition said - the Leader of the Opposition made the

accusation that Mr. Cashin was on the government payroll and totally disagreed.

What I would like to know is: Do they agree with each other? Because it does not

seem like they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the people of the Province who just

listened to the Premier comment about how I said he did one thing right, that is

the only thing I said you did right in that article, I guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier got up again and talked all around the question and

would not answer it, so I will ask him again: Will you commit that this pilot

project won't go beyond this year, even if Mr. Cashin asks for an extension in

order to see if the pilot project will work? Now answer it, yes or no!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that the independent

committee will be set up, that it will oversee and administer the project, and

at the end of the project the independent chairman, Mr. Cashin, will make a

recommendation. At the end of the process, when he makes his recommendation,

government will follow his recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

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

I rise to table the 2004 Annual Report by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26.5(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling

one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2006-2007

fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MS WHALEN: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition by a large number of residents of our

Province concerning gambling. They are wanting the right, by way of a free

public vote, to decide whether or not the VLTs, and now the new electronic KENO,

are something that we want in our Province or not. They are asking for the right

to have their concerns heard by way of a vote that would be held in conjunction

with the municipal elections in September of this year.

Many of the communities around the Province have written the Minister of

Municipal Affairs - I have copies of all the letters that have been written -

and the vast majority of people who responded to my request to write the

minister, the vast number of communities that responded, were in favour of

having a vote conducted on the issue of VLTs, whether they should be allowed to

operate in the Province or not. Even the ones who did not agree with the vote

being held in conjunction with the municipal election wrote the minister and

told him that they still thought that a vote should be held, that a plebiscite

should be held in the Province concerning the legitimacy of whether or not they

should be admitted to our Province.

I also want to take this opportunity to say that government is very much

aware of the problems that gambling has caused in our Province up to today.

Government has conducted a study to find out exactly the prevalence of gambling

problems. I would ask the Premier to become personally involved in this issue

and force Atlantic Lotto to delay the implementation of electronic KENO to this

Province until this study is conducted and the people of the Province know full

well the effects and how prevalent gambling problems are in our society.

I think it is hypocritical, given the moves that government made during the

last Budget - we can argue whether they went far enough or not, but there was an

acknowledgment that gambling is a problem. There was an acknowledgment by

government to cut back the number of VLTs in our Province today, to provide

money for addiction services and education. Mr. Speaker, this latest move by

Atlantic Lottery has undone any good that the Budget measures may have created

because now, in spite of all this, electronic KENO coming into the bars and the

corner stores of our Province is going to cause untold more problems without

even a study to determine the problem as it exists today.

I am asking the government, and the Premier, to personally see to it that

Atlantic Lottery delays the implementation of electronic KENO, hopefully

forever, Mr. Speaker, but at least until the study into the prevalence of

gambling problems in our Province has been completed and made public.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today with more than 500 names, from the Community of

Harbour Breton.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to prevent FPI from taking the portion of its fish quota, that

has been traditionally processed in Harbour Breton, out of the community.

And, as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, at the beginning, to draw very similarities

between what is happening in the community of St. Anthony and its parallel in

Harbour Breton. If one were to look at St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker - and I am not

saying anything against the community, I am sure that the mayor down there would

probably come to the same conclusion - you have the federal government

representing the quota of crab for the Province and for the Atlantic area. The

provincial government allocates or says where that particular quota is to be

processed. In this case, not only did they say where the quota would be

processed, but they also gave the community the amount that would be processed

there. The only difference between St. Anthony and Harbour Breton is that in St.

Anthony you have crab and in Harbour Breton you have groundfish. The federal

government, like it does for crab, sets a quota for groundfish for Atlantic

Canada and in this Province. The provincial government tells FPI when they apply

where their process of fish will happen, whether it is in Harbour Breton,

whether it is in Fortune or whether it is in Marystown.

In this situation, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, with every bone that is in my

body, that FPI is waiting and cannot believe they have not gotten a phone call

from the government telling them to go back into Harbour Breton and process

groundfish; because it is seamless, there is no difference. The only difference

that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the species of fish, groundfish

versus crab. If that particular quota was processed in the Town of Harbour

Breton, then there would be no need for provincial government short-term money.

There would be no need for the federal government extra money for the short term

for the people of Harbour Breton because the 350 people in that particular town

would be working today.

I was there on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, and the people are really concerned.

They are puzzled about: why the difference in the two communities, because they

are the same? The people are leaving. I talked to some of the people on Friday

when I was in Harbour Breton as to what is happening. They are leaving their

community and they are going away. They are convinced that this should not

happen. They are convinced that there is no difference in what they are asking

for in Harbour Breton than what is happening in St. Anthony. They look at it as

being a double standard.

I would, once again, ask the provincial government to take a second look at

what is happening in Harbour Breton, because I say to the House and to the

people of Harbour Breton, to the medium of the television, there is no

difference between what is happening in St. Anthony and what is happening in

Harbour Breton, other than the species of fish. Harbour Breton needs assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave, just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Harbour Breton needs the provincial government

in coming to their aid and assisting them in telling FPI: you either go back

into Harbour Breton and produce the groundfish or we will take that portion of

your quota that has been traditionally processed in the town for the last

thirty, forty, fifty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of in excess of 3,000 people on

the Burin Peninsula who are calling on the government to fund a CT scanner and a

dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula.

Part of the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is:

WHEREAS a CT scanner and

dialysis unit are now considered standard services at all regional hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the people who have signed this petition have done so because

they know how important this piece of medical diagnostic equipment is, no matter

where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, but certainly on the Burin

Peninsula where the weather sometimes can be so severe that the road is closed

for days at a time. They know how serious it is, that if you are in a serious

accident and you need to be diagnosed, in a lot of cases, especially if you have

a head injury, it is so important to have access to a CT scanner. What we are

finding on the Burin Peninsula, and there have been incidents of this where

people have, indeed, been in vehicle accidents and have had to wait at the

regional hospital in Burin, cannot get through by an ambulance and cannot be

airlifted, in some cases, because, of course, the airstrip in Winterland has

been fogged in. So, what we are finding on the Burin Peninsula, of course, is

that by not having access to this particular piece of equipment, a CT scanner,

poses a real threat to the people who are in serious accidents.

What the people on the Burin Peninsula are asking the government to do, is to

live up to our previous commitment by the Liberal government to put a CT scanner

at the regional hospital in Burin so that people can access that piece of

equipment, along with the other medical equipment that is so important, which

was put there by previous governments. As an example, a bone density machine, a

mammography unit and a radiography unit.

Then we have the need for a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula. The people

down there have been giving freely, volunteering to fundraise for both a CT

scanner and a dialysis unit. They have done that, and they continue to do it. In

fact, they have so much money raised for the dialysis unit that they have put it

aside and do not want it used for anything other than that unit because they

recognize, again, the danger in not having a unit. People, of course, they

cannot live on the Burin Peninsula if they need to have access to a proper

dialysis unit. They have to move, in a lot of cases, to St. John's; leave

their families behind or uproot their families and have them move from the Burin

Peninsula as well. This is not good for any family involved, Mr. Speaker.

We are calling on the government, again, to acknowledge that this is a

serious issue and that no matter where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador,

you should have access to quality health care. In the case of the Burin

Peninsula, the residents on the Burin Peninsula are calling on members opposite,

especially the Member for Burin-Placentia West, to speak up, make the case for a

CT scanner. I will continue to do it as the MHA for the District of Grand Bank

and my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, will continue to do it on behalf of

the people that he represents. But on behalf of the entire Burin Peninsula, when

you have a member who sits on the government side, the people are asking him to

stand up, be heard, ask the government to, in fact, deliver on a CT scanner for

the Burin Peninsula and the dialysis unit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing today on behalf of the residents of Grand Falls-Buchans

district. My petition is directed to the government in asking them to halt

current discussions with Abitibi Consolidated regarding a potential power

arrangement on the Exploits River; two developments that would, as far as we

know, give power to both the Stephenville mill and also the mill in Grand

Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Natural Resources broke his word. He broke his

word to the people of Grand Falls-Buchans. He broke his word to the people of

Central Newfoundland. He broke his word to the people of our Province. He said

on May 4 in this House, and it is recorded in Hansard, that he would not

negotiate any power arrangements with Abitibi at all until he first had their

commitment that they would maintain a two machine operation at the Grand Falls

mill. What did he do? That was May 4. What did he do on May 6? He gave that same

commitment to the union, he gave that same commitment to every municipality in

Central Newfoundland, and on May 6, which was only two days after that, he went

and directed Newfoundland Hydro to begin discussions with Abitibi-Consolidated

regarding two power projects on the Exploits River.

Now, this is supposed to be a government that wants to portray, I guess, a

look of accountability and transparency. Well, we have not seen that in the way

that the Minister of Natural Resources handled this file. He was agreeing that

he would not have a discussion, but when the Premier came back from Houston all

of that changed. All of that changed when the Premier came back from Houston. He

must have said to his Minister of Natural Resources: You are out too far on a

limb and we are going to have to make decisions in a month or two; you had

better come back from that position you are in out there.

What the Minister of Natural Resources did to the people of Central

Newfoundland, and in particular to the people who depend on their livelihood

from the Abitibi mill, he broke his word and began discussions with Abitibi on

the power project.

This probably makes no impact on this minister, but there is a matter of

credibility here. It is a huge credibility deficit that this Minister of Natural

Resources has; and, in doing so, he is putting the lives of at least 220

employees who work for Abitibi-Consolidated at risk by that very statement that

he made on Friday, May 6.

This petition calls on the Minister of Natural Resources, who represents the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to halt discussions immediately with

Abitibi on power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just about thirty seconds, if I could.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has requested leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to clue up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have nine pages of people who are affected, those who work at the Abitibi-Consolidated

mill, many who are well known to, I would say, the Member for

Windsor-Springdale. I am sure he will know everyone who is listed on these nine

sheets.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my petition for today but I will be back again

tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today again to present a petition from constituents of

Conception Bay North, friends and relatives, people who are accustomed to the

situation of Mildred and Clovia Baker of Carbonear. Mildred and Clovia are in

wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance

breathing, and they cannot perform most tasks that, I guess, all of us take for

granted. These people had twenty-four-hour home care, and they have had their

home care reduced by five hours a day. This twenty-four-hour home care is

essential to the well-being of Mildred and Clovia Baker, Mr. Speaker.

I have, today, hundreds of names of people who support these people in the

area. They have numerous medical problems, endorsed by their doctors. The

doctors cannot understand, the clergy in the area cannot understand, why these

two ladies would be subjected to reduced home care. For no apparent reason,

these people have lost five hours of home care a day.

I call upon the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, I call upon

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, to take up their case and find

these extra five hours. Surely heavens, with the things that have happened in

recent weeks - in particular, as mentioned today in the House, the $600,000-plus

for computers, because money was left over in the budget of the College of the

North Atlantic - surely heavens, Mr. Speaker, this government can find a way to

find an extra five hours a day for these two people so that, when they are left

those five hours a day unattended, they can turn up the thermostat in the living

room or have somebody turn it up for them.

The other night the temperature dropped, as it is apt to do here in

Newfoundland in the spring at this time of the year, and they could not respond.

They had to sit there in the cold until their home care worker was scheduled to

come in. They could not turn up that thermostat.

A package came with their medical supplies. They could not answer the door.

Thankfully, the pastor of their church happened to be driving along and

recognized what the problem was, when he saw the courier knocking on the door

and could not get an answer. He saw the problem there. He went in and took

delivery of their medical supplies.

I have letters from the pastor, I have letters from neighbours and friends in

the neighbourhood, supporting the plight of the Bakers. Mildred and Clovia Baker

have been good, hard-working people. Mildred has raised a nice family. Her

husband just passed away recently. Her daughter Clovia has become so dependent

upon the environment of that household, it is unfair that these two ladies

should be left there alone five hours a day without care, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Would the government please look at this issue

again and try to find some solution to their problems?

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district with

regard to health care in that particular region.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Labrador health board and the Grenfell board

amalgamated to form the new Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority within the past

year. In the amalgamation of this particular board we have also seen an

accumulated debt of $14 million, a debt that people would like to see the

government pay down; because they feel that, if the debt is not addressed, the

end result for them, in this particular area, would be the cut of health care

services.

Mr. Speaker, this new health authority is operating in the most rural, most

remote and most isolated regions of our Province, in rural coastal communities

all throughout Labrador. It is a board that is already stretched to the max

financially in terms of what they can and cannot do.

Recently, the government did commission a HayGroup report by an independent

consulting group to look at the recommendations around health care in that

region, and some of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were actually

frightening. One of them, in particular, recommended that the residents in the

Labrador Straits, the 3,000 residents in that area who currently depend upon

health care services provided to the Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority through

the Forteau clinic, that those people would be referred to Quebec, to the

hospital in Blanc-Sablon, in another Province, for medical services. Now, this

is quite alarming, I would say to you, for people who live in that particular

area. I have asked, on a number of occasions, that government dismiss that

recommendation and that they would make a firm commitment to people now that the

physicians would be maintained at the Forteau hospital, that patients would not

be referred to a health care facility in another province outside of their area,

in this case in Blanc-Sablon in the Province of Quebec, for health care

services.

Mr. Speaker, already we use a lot of the services of that particular health

corporation, and already there are massive amounts of billing being done through

MCP back to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for specialized services

and treatment. I do not think that the people in this region should be forced to

have to obtain health care services in a hospital outside of their own Province.

I think that government should stand and remain committed to having physicians

operate out of the Forteau hospital and, in addition to that, remain committed

in offering the services, the complement of services, that are presently being

offered through the hospital in St. Anthony where we have been able to enjoy a

good standard and a good level of health care in the Northern Peninsula and in

all regions of Southern Labrador. The only way that we can continue to have that

quality of care and be able to maintain those kinds of services is - and only is

- when the government makes a firm commitment that the debt of the boards will

be addressed and that the recommendations of the HayGroup will not be

administered on behalf of the government but in fact will be thrown out, so I

ask the government to commit to that, 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.

Motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. ( Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. ( Bill 33)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences

Act," carried. ( Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK : Bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial

Offences Act. (Bill 33).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 3, in the name of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General to

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime

Services Act. ( Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. ( Bill 34).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims of Crime Services Act," carried. (

Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act. ( Bill

34).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 16.

Are we ready for the question?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that

the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

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

that this House not adjourn today, Monday, May 16, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 11, second reading a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit

Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The

Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, we now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit

Land Claims Agreement Act." (Bill 28)

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, I am very pleased to rise in my place, as Minister responsible

for Aboriginal Affairs, this afternoon to move second reading of Bill 28 which

is

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, which we

ratified in this Legislature, I believe, in December of last year.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is fairly routine and I think it is

pretty well outlined in the explanatory note. The purpose of the bill is to

ratify the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement as is required under the terms

of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we were very pleased as a government to introduce the

main body of this legislation into the House last December and we are very

grateful, as are the members of the LIA, that the House approved the

legislation. Members will remember that, that took place in December of last

year.

That agreement, however, requires that there also be provincial ratification

to give effect to a Tax Treatment Agreement. The Tax Treatment Agreement, Mr.

Speaker, is a federal-provincial Labrador Inuit Association agreement. In other

words it is a tripartite agreement between the three signatories to the treaty,

which primarily provides for tax treatment of the Inuit government that will be

created once the land claims agreement comes into effect.

Mr. Speaker, these tax treatment agreements are standard elements of land

claim agreements. They are standard elements that go into every other land

claims treaty in the country. The Nunatsiavut government and the five community

governments that will be created under the Land Claims Agreement will enable the

Labrador Inuit to pursue their own destiny, to make their own critical decisions

about economic and social development in their homeland and to provide programs

and services that are important to them as Labrador Inuit.

The Tax Treatment Agreement, Mr. Speaker, deals with the tax treatment of

Inuit capital and the Inuit settlement trust. The term of the Tax Treatment

Agreement is for fifteen years. The Tax Treatment Agreement will come into

effect on the effective date of the Land Claims Agreement itself. So members

will recall that while this Legislature have ratified the treaty, the

federal-provincial governments and the LIA have signed the treaty, the treaty in

fact, though, cannot come into effect until it is passed by the Parliament of

Canada, and that yet remains to be done.

The Tax Treatment Agreement provides an exemption from certain federal and

provincial taxes for the Nunatsiavut government, the Inuit community governments

and their corporations. It also includes a reopening, if another Aboriginal body

reaches a more favourable tax treatment agreement with the Province, within

fifteen years. So, if there is a settlement between the Province and the

example, is deemed to have a claim. If there is a settlement that is more

favourable with some other Aboriginal group from a tax perspective, than the

legislation provides for an automatic reopening.

Mr. Speaker, there are no financial impacts of the Tax Treatment Agreement on

the Province, none whatsoever. Most of the exemptions provided to the Inuit

community government under the Tax Treatment Agreement are already available to

them as municipalities. Also, income tax exemptions provided to the Nunatsiavut

government under the Tax Treatment Agreement are generally available to public

bodies performing a function of government.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut government and the Inuit community governments

are exempt from federal and provincial income tax by virtue of being deemed to

be public bodies, similar to municipalities that are performing a function of

government. The Labrador Inuit, as members know, definitively endorsed this

agreement last May. More than 76 per cent of eligible voters supported the

agreement, with over an 85 per cent voter turnout. Authority to sign this

agreement was granted in March. It has been signed already by all three parties,

as I said, at the treaty signings in Nain last January.

Mr. Speaker, our government made a commitment not to accept or ignore the

unequal socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal communities. Working with the

Aboriginal leaders, we want to assist Aboriginal peoples in fulfilling their

desire to become more self-reliant. The settlement of land claims is an

important step toward the establishment of certainty and stability for the

economic and social development of Labrador Inuit, the region of Labrador, and

the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all hon. members in the House to support this amendment

to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement because it will enable us to take

yet another significant step forward for the Labrador Inuit, our Province and

our nation. I am very pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and have a few words with regard to Bill 28.

First of all, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, we passed in the

fall. I am not entirely sure why we are having amendments to this particular

piece of legislation right now, but just to say a few words I guess. First of

all, when the bill was passed in the fall, it was my understanding the bill was

indeed brought before this House having been sanctioned by three particular

parties, meaning the federal government, the Labrador Inuit government and the

provincial government, and was not subject to amendment before the Legislature.

I remember -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) unless all three agreed.

MS JONES: Unless all three had agreed, Mr. Speaker.

At that time I remember, quite clearly, raising a number of issues in the

Legislature with regard to the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement; not issues

that would in any way change the fate of the actual agreement, that would not in

any way diminish the intent of what the agreement was as it related to benefits,

land transfers or anything of the sort to the Labrador Inuit people. In fact, I

stated on that occasion, as I will state quite clearly now, that I am in full

support of a land claim agreement for the Inuit people of Northern Labrador and

have applauded the work that they have done, both their president, their board

of directors, the leadership in the organization. I have talked to them on many

occasions since the vote last fall. I have talked to them as they made their way

through the transgression of moving into a transitional government process, a

process in which they will see the full implementation of the Labrador Inuit

Land Claims Act and the Labrador Inuit government.

Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern today is at the time that the bill was

brought before the House of Assembly to be voted on, enacted into law, I raised

a number of issues. I made several amendments to the bill, several amendments

that were voted down in the House of Assembly and by the government opposite

because of the fact that it had to be a tripartite agreement between both the

federal-provincial governments and the Inuit government. Mr. Speaker, at the

time I was asked to take government's word for it, that it was certainly not

government's intention to diminish the Land Claims Agreement of the Labrador

Metis Nation, another Aboriginal group in Labrador, to take their word that this

land claim and this act for the Inuit government would, in no way - in no way -

impact, alter, or in any way stop the Labrador Metis Nation from achieving a

full land claim in Labrador, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked, at that time, to accept the word of the government

that would the case: This is our intention. This is what we want to do. We want

to protect the rights of Metis.

I guess I am a little bit surprised today to have amendments come forward in

the bill, in the LIA bill, that do not reflect what my concerns were, and the

concerns that were raised by the Metis people back several months ago. I can

honestly say that I did take the commitment of the minister and the government

very seriously. I took it so seriously, in fact, that I asked questions on it

several times, that I insisted on the amendments in the legislation in order to

have a record, a legal record of the House of Assembly, that would support and

uphold the rights of another Inuit group in Labrador, the Labrador Metis.

Mr. Speaker, I did take the words of the minister and the government in all

sincerity. I took them to be a full-fledged commitment of what the government's

intentions were, and, I have to say, in light of the fact that today there are

amendments coming forward under Bill 28 to amend the legislation, yet again it

is failing to a deal with a critical issue, a very critical concern by a

prominent Labrador Aboriginal group, the Labrador Metis Nation.

I will tell you what that concern was, Mr. Speaker, because I remember it

quite clearly. It was the terminology that was used in the previous act and in

the previous enacted legislation that referred to the land claim for the

Labrador Inuit Association as one of the last Inuit-based claims in the Province

and in Canada; one of the last Inuit-based claims in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that was to be taken as a statement within itself, what

it would mean is that there is no other Aboriginal group left in this country

that could form a land claim based on Inuit ancestry, and that would be

incorrect. It would be factually incorrect, because we do have a group, a group

peoples who reside in Labrador - whose foundation for a land claim, which is

presently submitted and before the federal government, is based on Inuit

ancestry, Mr. Speaker. So, to have a piece of legislation enacted in this House

that would say it is the last Inuit land claim in Canada could, in fact, Mr.

Speaker - I am not saying that it will, but could - in essence, have an impact

on legitimizing a future claim for Metis people, and that was my concern.

Mr. Speaker, I was assured by the government on a regular basis and

commentary that it was not the intention of the government, it was not the

intention of the minister, it was not the ruling or the intention of the

Department of Justice provincially, to stop a land claim agreement for the Metis

people, and in no way to railroad it, in no way to enact legislation that would

not allow a full land claim for the Metis people to be facilitated and passed

point if that were ever to happen.

I have to say today that I am disappointed that the amendments that have come

forward do not reflect the legitimate concerns, the legitimate views, as I had

understood, Mr. Speaker, were also very well received and taken by the minister

and his government, but I am sad to say that those are not reflected in the

amendments to the legislation and I would like to see them reflected in the

amendments to the legislation. I do realize that they do require tripartite

consent but I would suggest to the government that if tripartite consent can be

sought in the last three to four months to other pieces of the legislation, to

have it repealed and to have additions made, I would certainly ask that the same

be done in light of ensuring, Mr. Speaker, that the rights of the Labrador Metis

people are upheld and that the legitimacy of their rights are constituted and

not impacted or affected by any legislation that we are to pass here with regard

to the Labrador Inuit land claim. I wanted to point that out.

As I said again, Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with denying a land claim

for the Inuit people of Northern Labrador. It is a claim that is well deserved,

has been worked on for a long time, one that is being celebrated, one that is in

transition mode as we speak, as they form their transitional government to move

into the next phases, and I certainly applaud them and congratulate them on

that. I certainly understand that having tax agreements as part of that is a

very, very important component, I am sure, to the LIA, and it certainly needed

to be amended to include that. I just would have liked to see the appropriate

amendments to give greater clarity and legitimacy to the Labrador Metis claim as

well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 28. Certainly, for the Labrador Inuit

Association, Mr. Speaker, they hope this is the final piece that will come

through the House of Assembly, as thirty years of waiting will be finalized.

Mr. Speaker, I talked with the Labrador Inuit Association as lately as an

hour ago and they are certainly well aware of the amendments that are being put

forward. I was part of the government that negotiated the deal with the Labrador

Inuit Association, and the concern that was raised by my colleague, the Member

for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, certainly is a concern that the M tis

people have.

Mr. Speaker, there was a commitment made by myself, as the member for the

North Coast of Labrador, there was a commitment made by the Inuit, that if the

federal government recognized the M tis

with a status for land claims that the Labrador Inuit Association would enter

into a overlap agreement. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government also

gave their word that should the M tis

nation be awarded status to enter into a land claims agreement, then the

government of the day would begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in my riding, certainly we support Bill

28. As I said, we hope it is the last one we will see come forward. The only

thing left will be the passing of the land claims through the federal

government. Certainly, we hope that the federal government will do what the

provincial government did in bringing it before the House and putting it through

in the spirit of true negotiation. Mr. Speaker, for the other aboriginal groups,

for the concerns that are raised, again we have agreed, the Labrador Inuit

Association and the provincial government, that should the Labrador M tis

nation be recognized with the status to negotiate the land claims deal, then the

Labrador Inuit Association will enter into an overlap agreement. Mr. Speaker, I

have every reason to believe they are honest and true to their word.

Mr. Speaker, today I fully support Bill 28.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words about Bill 28, which revises the

implementation legislation as put to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. I

support the changes, Mr. Speaker. It is a very complex piece of legislation

involving many, many departments and many pieces of legislation and many acts.

It would seem to me, however, that taxation is something that one would have

expected to come up in the discussions in negotiations. I am a little bit

surprised that this has to be changed at this date. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker,

we can understand how something might need to be amended or adjusted in order to

fully implement the spirit of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

I certainly support that, Mr. Speaker, although I do wonder about two things.

Number one, there would seem to be a commitment that the federal government

would pass this legislation, with respect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement, at a very early date. There was some talk of it being done in January

or February, there was other talk of it being done in March or April. I do not

know where that stands. Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to what the

uncertainties in the Parliament of Canada as of recent days, but what has caused

the delay for it not being actually put in place to date? I want to ask that

question as part of my concerns about this matter going forward.

I was in Labrador, in Nain, for the formal signing of the final agreement. It

was a great pleasure to be there, to see the hope and expectations of the

Labrador Inuit as to their future under the new agreement and the form of

self-government that has been agreed to by this Province and the Government of

Canada.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I share some of the concerns addressed by

the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because I know when the issue of

the Labrador Metis was raised in this House, albeit in the last week or so

before the scheduled passage of the legislation, those concerns were raised and

we were told at the time that this is not something that could be easily

amended, that the parties had gone through a process and this was it. This was

the final agreement. Other than the assurances that were given by the minister

in this House that they had no intention of using the agreement to defeat a

Labrador Metis claim for recognition, for status and for whatever land claims

that might go with that, we had that assurance from the minister. There appears

that there were opportunities to change the legislation because, obviously, we

have one here. I wonder whether the minister can address that in his final

response to this legislation?

Although we support the legislation, it does beg the question as to what

efforts were made to seek something in the legislation that would assure and

bring some comfort to the Labrador Metis Nation that, in fact, their claims were

not being affected by the legislation and by the form of legislation that had

been agreed upon. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if you can change

legislation that has been passed, based on a treaty in relation to taxation, as

the minister is proposing to do, and we have no objection to that, than surely

those other kinds of changes could have pursued and possibly brought in,

together with this piece of legislation that we have here today.

Despite the fact that it was brought to my attention fairly late in the day,

I do, at least, share the fact that there is a legitimate reason to be concerned

by the Labrador Metis Nation, and that reason to be concerned could have been

addressed by a small amendment to the legislation itself. If the minister is

saying the parties would not agree to that, then maybe we do have a problem, Mr.

Speaker. Maybe there is some hope or expectation or thought that the Labrador

Metis claims will be defeated by this legislation or by the consequence of it. I

hope that the minister is able to give the same kind of assurances to the House

here today as he did last December when this legislation was being passed by all

parties in one day as part of what was thought to be a non-controversial

acknowledgment that finally, after thirty years, the LIA claim had been dealt

with on a fair and reasonable basis, and that we could all celebrate the

implementation of the Implementation Act and the agreement. Here we are now, six

months later, dealing with one problem that resulted from that. If we could deal

with that, I say, why are we not dealing with the legitimate concern raised by

the LMN last fall over the implementation of the legislation?

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs and Minister of Transportation and Works to deal with that in his

closing remarks. The legislation itself, we have no problem supporting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister

Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs speaks now he will close the debate at second

reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me thank my colleagues from the other side of the House for

their remarks and comments on this bill. There are a couple of matters that were

raised that I would certainly like to address.

Why the amendment? First of all, Mr. Speaker, we did not have the authority

to sign the Tax Treatment Agreement at the time that the bill was ready to come

before the House of Assembly. We did not think there was any need to delay the

passage of the main bill; that the Tax Treatment Agreement could be done by way

of an amendment if all parties agreed, as we are doing here today. The fact of

the matter, Mr. Speaker, was that all parties did, in fact, agree - the

Treatment Agreement by way of an amendment to the legislation.

In terms of the LMN, Mr. Speaker, the position that I articulated on behalf

of the government when we passed the treaty in December is the same position

today. The LIA informed us, the Labrador Inuit Association informed us -

actually, they informed us on the floor of the Legislature here as a result of a

discussion between the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Board of the LIA

last December - that they did not support the amendment proposed to the

agreement on behalf of the LMN. They told us that they did not support it. They

believe that part two-ten of the treaty, as is currently written, it is their

view that it protects the right of any other Aboriginal group in Labrador and

that to proceed with a claim - if, in fact, a claim is recognized - that they

would not and they are not supportive of amending the legislation in that, as

far as that goes, to affect the amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

government, the Department of Justice of the Province of Newfoundland and

interpretation of the legislation as proposed by the LIA. We don't think there

is anything in this treaty that would be detrimental to any other Aboriginal

group in Labrador.

you have a claim, or no, you don't have a claim. That is the first step in the

can begin the negotiation process. For this group, for the LIA, that process

took thirty years. I hope to God it will not take that for any other group, but

has to make the determination that there is a potential claim that is eligible

here, then we can get on with it. Once we get that behind us, there is nothing

left to impede the process.

The other question asked by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was: Where

before the Parliament of Canada? I can only tell the hon. member that in the CBC

Labrador morning show on May 11, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister stated

that the legislation would be before the House in: a few weeks. However, he did

make a comment on the minority status of his government, and that he cannot

control the legislative agenda as if he had a majority. Well, we understand

that, but he did use the words: in a few weeks. I do not know if that is wishful

thinking, unclear thinking, or any kind of thinking, but those were the hon. the

Prime Minister's words.

With that, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement

Act. ( Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this

bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. ( Bill 28)

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

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

Order 14, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland

And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (

Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And

Labrador Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And

Labrador Act." ( Bill 31)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is obviously a companion piece to what

my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible

for Aboriginal Affairs, just discussed in Bill 28. It is essentially one of the

many consequential, I guess, amendments to provincial legislation that will be

made, and are ongoing being made, as a result of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this essentially deals with the Atlantic Accord Acts, both

provincially and federally, and the main reason why this was not introduced in

December - because both the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts and the

preambles and titles with the federal-provincial legislation, it requires that

both levels of government must be in agreement that this be brought forward.

Prior to (inaudible) that was not the case, Mr. Speaker, or, prior to this

point in time, when we introduced the main body of the legislation respecting

this agreement, this approval had not been given. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, that

approval has now been given through both levels of government, and essentially

what it will deal with: it includes rights and benefits for Labrador Inuit with

respect to the exploration and development of oil and gas in the offshore

portion of the Labrador Inuit settlement area referred to as the zone extending

offshore twelve miles and, to a lesser extent - I want to emphasize that - in

the waters adjacent to the zone to the 200-mile limit.

The Labrador Inuit rights in the zone include the right to be consulted

before permits and authorizations with respect to exploration and the

development of oil and gas are moving forward; notifications, essentially, Mr.

Speaker, in bringing issues related to the agreement and the waters adjacent to

any potential development, or permitting or authorizations that government may

wish to enter into.

Again, this is a very consequential amendment resulting from the main

legislation that we passed in December of last year, bringing it forward now

with the compliance of the federal government and in the context of the spirit

and intent as outlined by my colleague so aptly with respect to bringing into

force and effect all aspects of this agreement.

With that, I will conclude my opening comments on second reading and

certainly will be willing to answer any questions that members opposite may

have.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly will not belabour the point. We appreciate the need for this

piece of legislation, the fact that it is a companion piece to what the Minister

of Transportation and Works just dealt with, and we would certainly be in favour

of this piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to also indicate our support for this legislation. It

clearly recognizes that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement has precedence

over this act, as it does over most pieces of legislation in the Province where

there is an overlap. We are concerned to ensure that the self-government

provisions of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement are fully effective and

give them a sufficient say in those types of activities coming under the

Atlantic Accord Implementation agreement.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to query whether or not

the new agreement made with Ottawa requires any changes to our legislation, and

are we going to see legislation in relation to the Atlantic Accord

Implementation Act as a result of negotiations with the Prime Minister?

There is a lot of concern in this Province, Mr. Speaker, as to what the fate

of the agreement made by the government is, under the current uncertainty in

Ottawa. We have various types of promises being made by individual Members of

Parliament as to what exactly might happen in the event of various scenarios

same as that of the Premier, in that we believe that the Budget should be

passed, that the agreement should somehow be sealed. In fact, our party in

Ottawa seconded a motion that, unfortunately, required unanimous consent, to see

the Atlantic Accord aspects of the Budget Implementation Act in Ottawa passed

immediately. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebe ois,

at that time, on that occasion, denied leave for unanimous consent.

In view of the uncertainty that surrounds what might happen afterwards, I do

not know if a Conservative minority government, with the support of the Bloc

Quebe ois,

could ever see this passed, but we do have some concerns about this. I want to

know whether or not, first of all: Is there an expectation that the arrangement

made with Ottawa would require changes to our legislation here, and is there any

plan to have that forthcoming, or is that also up in the air pending acceptance

by the Parliament of Canada of the new agreement that was made by the Province

with Ottawa?

I recognize, of course, that this is a government-to-government agreement

that was made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government with Ottawa. I would

certainly hope that it would be honoured and passed by any government in Ottawa,

but obviously our concerns are - along with many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians - that this be done now, while the opportunity is there to do that,

rather than throw our lot in with the uncertainties of a federal election.

Maybe the minister has some comments on it, if he can let us know whether or

not our own Atlantic Accord Implementation Act has to be further changed to

has anything to say about how soon we might see changes that might be required

in order to ensure that the new arrangements of the Atlantic Accord will, in

fact, get implemented.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Technical difficulties] with respect to this particular bill at second

reading, understanding the importance and significance of the two issues that

are linked in this piece of legislation as I understand it, one being, of

course, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

and, as well, its tie-in to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which was

done in the previous piece of legislation as well, and understanding that the

general principle that is in the Land Claims Agreement is that any and all

pieces of legislation in all other departments need to have a piece that says it

does not conflict with the arrangement that has been agreed to with respect to

the Inuit of Labrador.

The comments that I wanted to make are not with respect to that part of it,

Mr. Speaker, which I concur and agree with, and understand that the government

is doing the right thing in making sure that there is no conflict that ties in.

It is just that today, and again outside the Legislature in particular, there

seems to be a growing amount of concern being expressed by our Premier on behalf

of the government about a potential vote in the nation's capital on Thursday

of this week, and whether or not the federal Budget is going to succeed; and, of

course, that itself contains the Atlantic Accord provision that was negotiated

some time ago and signed with great anticipation and great celebration in

Newfoundland and Labrador on Valentine's Day. I was there myself, and I recall

the sense of accomplishment and the fact that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

were proud to see that occur after too long a period of time of negotiation and

difficulty because it should have been much more straightforward than that. A

promise was made by the Prime Minister of Canada during an election. It should

have been just a matter of getting together and keeping the promise, rather than

sort of being dragged into it. Now, the irony that I see in it though was that

our Premier, himself, has been somewhat inconsistent in terms of whether or not

we should be concerned this Thursday.

I will just make these couple of points, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour

it. A couple of weeks ago, in speaking to the Board of Trade, I think it was, or

the Rotary here in the capital city, the Premier was saying: It doesn't really

matter - there could be a little time slippage. It doesn't really matter if

already in writing, saying: We are going to live to that Accord even if the

government changes. The polls at the time, federally, were suggesting that the

Liberals were behind, the federal Conservatives were ahead, that there might be

a confidence vote lost in the House of Commons, and our Premier - this is only a

couple of weeks ago - was giving assurances to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that there is nothing to be concerned about, because even if the

government changes, I already got it covered off. I already have the letter from

Mr. Harper. I think he said he had a letter again from Mr. Layton, who is the

head of the NDP, saying that even if there is a federal election, right after

the election we will pass the Accord. Not only that, because the disagreement

wrongly included in the Budget in the first place.

Why didn't we have a stand-alone piece of legislation going forward in

Ottawa? That was the position being taken by Mr. Hearn as an MP, by Mr. Doyle as

an MP, by the federal Conservatives. All of a sudden that position isn't any

good anymore, according to the Premier. He does not agree with that anymore. Now

he is out there chastising Mr. Hearn, who used to be his friend up to a couple

of weeks ago, saying: That's no good! This having a separate piece of

legislation. We don't want to run any risk of losing the Accord. We want you

to break ranks with your party and with your leader, and vote for the Budget.

Now he is saying: Because it is for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is okay to

vote against your leader and your party because it is for the benefit of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whereas only two short weeks ago he was saying: It

does not really, we have it covered off anyway.

One other thing, interesting enough, Mr. Speaker. The Premier suggested to

the media, following that speech here in St. John's as well, that if Mr.

Harper became the Prime Minister he might look forward to actually going back

and getting a few improvements to the Atlantic Accord. Does anybody remember

that? They do remember that, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that they do remember

that.

Here was the prospect two weeks ago: Nothing to worry about if the Budget

fails; nothing to worry about if the government changes, I have it all under

control. Not only that, if Mr. Harper becomes the Prime Minister, I might even

be able to improve the Atlantic Accord that we signed with the Liberals back on

February 14, Valentine's Day, right here in the Capital City of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Now, what is it that has changed? I do not know what has changed from that

point of view to now, but it changed very dramatically because our Premier was

outside the doors of the Legislature again today speaking to the media - which

will probably be on the evening news again - saying that he is very upset and

very disappointed that Mr. Hearn, as a federal MP, and Mr. Doyle, as a federal

MP, might be going to vote with their leader, might be going to vote with Mr.

Harper and might not be going to vote for Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is

a problem.

The other irony of it, that is not lost on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

is that it was only a week ago that he had a member in his own caucus who broke

ranks with the party that he leads and that was not acceptable. That was not

okay for any reason. He was expelled. He was ousted. I guess Mr. Harper,

obviously, is not allowed to act like our Premier because if the two gentlemen

who represent Newfoundland and Labrador as federal Conservatives, vote against

their leader and vote for the Budget, which is now the new position today of our

Premier, then if Mr. Harper is going to take the same standard as our Premier

took, then those two gentlemen, I guess, will sit as Independents next week

because they will be kicked out of that party.

There are people that are, at least, asking these questions. I do not

belabour the point with respect to the piece of legislation because it is the

right thing to do, but I think it is worth a few minutes to wonder: What is it

that changed in the mind of our Premier? What is it that changed in the

circumstance? That two weeks ago it was okay for the federal government to be

defeated. There was no reason to panic. It might take a little while but right

after the election - by the way, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hearn, as a

federal MP, that is what he is still saying publicly, that it is not an issue

that anybody need get upset or concerned over because if we topple the federal

government and if we have an election, and if we form the government, we are

going to take the Atlantic Accord out of the Budget and pass it immediately. The

Premier finds something wrong with that all of a sudden, when only two weeks ago

he was saying that will be fine. I guess the big question is: What is it that

has changed?

For me, personally, I believe fully that we need not risk anything. This is

have put it in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they should have put it

in the Budget at all. I think it was important enough to be a stand-alone piece

of legislation.

Maybe our Premier did not do such a great job of finishing the negotiation in

any event, because when we asked the question about it in this Legislature, on

the first day that this Legislature opened, on March 14, we said: Well, we got

the deal done. It was signed there a month ago, but we do not have the money

yet. He said: Well, the Minister of Finance is not here because I told him to

stay behind, up in Ottawa, and bring home the cheque.

I guess he would have some hotel bill racked up now, because there is no

cheque anywhere close as we speak today, because he was trying to suggest: Oh,

you people do not know what you are doing. I have this all under control. I am

back here celebrating with the people of the Province and the Finance Minister

is still up in Ottawa because he is getting the cheque signed so he can bring

home the $2 billion tomorrow.

Well, here we are a couple of months later and now he is asking federal

Conservative MPs to break ranks with their own party when his standard is, if

you break ranks with your own party you get booted out. So, he wants Mr. Doyle

and Mr. Hearn to get booted out of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a

complete and total about-face from a couple of weeks ago.

In the meantime, I believe that the federal Liberals should have had - and

had it been in the negotiation, if the negotiation had been a stow and complete,

as we would be led to believe that it is, then there would have been a provision

that said, not only is this now done but it will be a stand-alone piece of

legislation, signed, sealed and delivered, and it will not be tied into other

political issues, and it will be not be wrapped up into a Budget to try to bring

political pressure to bear on other members to vote a certain way. It should

have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, and shame on my federal Liberal

cousins for playing politics with it by putting it into the Budget.

Now, I guess, it is a little too late for that. It is in the Budget. There is

a Budget vote in two or three days' time and I think, in the best interests of

Newfoundland and Labrador, every federal MP should vote for Newfoundland and

Labrador, just like Mr. Scott Simms did when he voted for Newfoundland and

Labrador against his own party.

By the way, a strange thing, he is still in the Liberal caucus. He did not

get kicked out. The same thing Mr. Bill Matthews did when he voted for

Newfoundland and Labrador against the wishes of his leader, the Prime Minister

of the country. Did he get kicked out of the Liberal Party? No, he did not,

because Liberals do not operate that way. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that many Conservatives do not operate that way either. I would suggest that if

Mr. Doyle and Mr. Hearn voted against their leader on Thursday, and voted for

Newfoundland and Labrador, that they would be allowed to stay in the federal

Conservative caucus, unlike Progressive Conservatives in Newfoundland and

Labrador who, if they utter a word against what the Premier wants, get their

seats nailed down on the other side of the floor, banished forever and a day.

We saw it last week in a vote, a free vote, a great free vote with respect to

the crab issue and the resource material sharing system, in which, strangely

enough, not a dissenting voice, every single one of them have come to the same

conclusion - except, of course, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, who

had some concerns for his constituents and now has his seat nailed down on the

opposite side of the House, as far away as you can get from the Conservative

caucus and the Conservative Party as is physically and humanly possible inside

this L