May 13, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 22


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Premier, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome twelve students from St. Thomas of Villanova Junior High School in the District of Topsail. They are accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Dennis Madden and Ms Darlene Moulton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will move, with leave in a few minutes, that the Honourable Lloyd L. W. Wicks be appointed as the Province's first Child and Youth Advocate effective September 16, 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as I think members in the House would know, Judge Wicks and his family are in the Speaker's gallery with us today.

I wish to inform the House of Assembly that this proposed appointment has been made, as I indicated, by agreement of all parties. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is independent of the provincial government and reports directly to this House of Assembly. The legislation establishing the Child and Youth Advocate received Royal Assent in the House of Assembly on December 13, 2001, and is being proclaimed effective as of today's date. The advocate will focus on public programs and services that have an impact on children and youth under the age of nineteen. The advocate will also receive inquiries and complaints from individual children and youth, up until the age of twenty-one, for youth who are in care or custody until the age of nineteen.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the Child and Youth Advocate today is another step in fulfilling the commitments that I made to the people of the Province to improve accessibility to government while protecting the rights and privacy of individuals. Last year, the government also appointed a Citizens' Representative and a Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that over the past year, government has introduced more initiatives to provide openness and accountability than any other government during any time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Judge Wicks was first appointed as a provincial court judge in 1963. He became the Province's first youth court judge in 1984 and remained in this position until his retirement from the Bench in 1993. He has a long and distinguished career in promoting and ensuring that the "best interest of the child" is paramount in any decision made on behalf of the child. He promoted this philosophy both in his professional role as a judge and also in the broader based community as a volunteer. Since his retirement from the Bench, Judge Wicks has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the protection, fulfillment and enrichment of children through his involvement in a wide range of community interest groups.

We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having Judge Wicks serve this Legislature and the people of the Province in his new role as Child and Youth Advocate, and we are pleased to welcome him today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I won't deal with the issue of openness and accountability and accessibility. It is not a time to score any cheap political points. It is too important an occasion.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, certainly the Opposition, are pleased to see the issue of child advocacy finally receive the attention that it so rightly deserves, and certainly welcome the appointment of Lloyd Wicks as Child Advocate.

In fact, this position is something that we have been pushing for since 1996 and we congratulate the government on acting upon such an important cause. As well, it is just one more tick we can put on our policies in the Blue Book as done, in the bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are now the seventh province to appoint a Child Advocate. It is unfortunate that we had to wait so long for this appointment, but at least we are finally following the national trend in giving the matter the attention it so rightly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that our new Child Advocate will increase awareness of children's issues in government. In particular, we hope the advocate will address the special and unique social, physical, mental and special health requirements of all children and youth in our Province. Given that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, our new advocate is certainly facing a challenge. As a family-oriented party, we are firmly committed to progressing the needs of children in whatever way possible. I offer the new Child Advocate whatever support we can provide.

Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, if I may have leave for a moment, I have known this gentleman and his family for a long time. I have the greatest respect for him as a judge, and as a person and as an advocate. It goes back about thirty years when, as a young lawyer, I went to his courtroom in Clarenville. It was my first criminal case. I was representing a young bridegroom who unfortunately had been arrested on the night he was leaving his own reception. He and his bride were heading home from the reception and he was stopped. The happy conclusion to that is, a very Solomon-like decision was rendered by Judge Wicks at the end.

The more important story is that accompanying me on that trip to Clarenville was my wife Maureen, who was nine months pregnant. We went out for the day, for the run and she was there to give me some moral support because I was a rookie at the time. Anyway, as we went through the case in the afternoon and I was up presenting final argument and was going on and trying to make a case for my client, Judge Wicks called me to the Bench and said: my son, you might want to wrap up pretty soon because your wife seems to be in some pain. So, I said: What do you mean, Judge? Well he said, she's bending over and she seems to be clutching her stomach a little bit. Anyway, I went to the back of the courtroom and said: Maureen, what's wrong? She said: I'm in labour, that's what's wrong. I said: okay. Anyway, we did wrap up the case and as I said, it was a good decision. We raced back to St. John's and Jillian, our eldest, was born five hours later. So not only is he an advocate now, he was an advocate then for unborn children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, his son Brad is my partner. How could I say anything bad about him anyway?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I will not deal with some of the political issues raised by the Premier but the issue of the Child Advocate was a unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee of this House some five years ago, and we had been looking forward to the implementation of that recommendation for some time. We are very pleased to see the cumulation of that today with the appointment of Lloyd Wicks.

My own relationship, like all lawyers, or most lawyers I suppose, we have appeared before Lloyd Wicks. I cannot tell my relationship as intimate as that of the Leader of the Opposition but for many years, of course, Judge Wicks on the Bench, heard criminal cases and small claims as well as the Youth Judge cases in the Youth Court. Since his retirement he has also been involved as a strong public advocate for the interests of children for proper application of the Young Offenders Act and proper amendments to the Young Offenders Act. This opportunity gives him a chance to expand that advocacy into the other important areas involving youth. Certainly the social side, the policies of government as they affect young people. We know in this Province, from our tragic history with the Mount Cashel and other sexual abuse cases, the need for a strong advocacy within the system and to make sure the system works properly.

I would offer, as well, any support and assistance to Judge Wicks in his new role and new function. I congratulate him on his appointment here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, this is a serious issue we are dealing with. The Member from Cape St. Francis had me distracted, Mr. Speaker, for a minute.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice and ask leave at this point to move the following resolution:

WHEREAS under Section 4(2) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act the Lieutenant-Governor in Council sought applications from the general public before selecting a person to be the Child and Youth Advocate; and

WHEREAS under Section 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has authorized to appoint a person to be the Child and Youth Advocate of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS under Section 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act the person appointed to the position of Child and Youth Advocate must be confirmed in office by a resolution of the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House of Assembly confirm the appointment of Lloyd L.W. Wicks to the position of Child and Youth Advocate of Newfoundland and Labrador effective September 16, 2002.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

On motion, resolution carried.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday past forty-seven nursing students from all parts of this Province, and one from as far away as Mississauga, Ontario, received their Bachelor of Nursing Degree at Sir Wilfred Grenfell's 2002 Annual Convocation.

Later that same day, these graduates along with their families and friends attended a second ceremony where they were recognized and presented with individual awards by the faculty and the staff of the Western Regional School of Nursing.

In speaking with many of the graduates, Mr. Speaker - twenty-six, by the way, have accepted employment with the Western Region - it was very clear to this particular member that we are graduating well trained energetic professionals who are ready to take on the challenges of tomorrow.

As a measure of the high standards of training that our nursing graduates are receiving, the Western Regional School of Nursing and the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College last year received a seven year accreditation from the Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing. An achievement, Mr. Speaker, that is the envy of many nursing schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating these forty-seven new nursing graduates and wish them well in all their future endeavors wherever those endeavors might lead them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and ask hon. members to join with me in wishing a resident of the District of Kilbride a happy eighty-seventh birthday, Mr. Jack McDonald, who was born in 1915. A keen and astute political observer over the last eighty-seven years, anybody who has taken the time to visit Jack can be entertained with stories of Peter Cashin, of the great Confederate debates, of his strong opinions held on Confederation, certainly, and former Premier Joseph Smallwood.

Jack was the first inductee into the Atlantic farmers' dairy hall of fame for his tremendous and outstanding contribution to the Province's dairy industry.

I ask all hon. members, and indeed you, Mr. Speaker, to join with me, and certainly his family members, in wishing him a happy eighty-seventh birthday, which was yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group of college students from Quebec who are completing work terms in Newfoundland.

Research is being conducted by the students in conjunction with the St. John's Francophone Association and Cegep De Saint-Felicien College Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec.

As many members may know, the Carbonear-Harbour Grace area has a strong French historical connection. Carbonear Island served as an English fortress and held out against French invaders in 1697 and 1705.

One of the students, Reynald Belley, is concentrating his research on points of interest that would intrigue French visitors in the Conception Bay North area. He expects that there will be a large increase in the number of French speaking visitors to the region as a result of their research project. Businesses and residents have been told to expect an increase in French bus tours in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating these college students for promoting our heritage, and urge them to continue to promote our wonderful Province. Their work will go a long way in helping local people who have been working towards developing our historic sites.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity today to inform all Members of the House of Assembly, and indeed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, of a great achievement by the 2895 Enright Memorial Royal Army Cadet Corps of St. Catherine's Academy on the Salmonier Line.

Last week, the shooting team from this Army Cadet Corps won the National Air Rifle Competition in Comox, British Columbia. They brought home the Gold as the top unit in the entire country. They also made up the Newfoundland team and won Gold in the provincial category. Individually, three members of the team placed First, Second and Third. Gold went to Private Brenda Greene, fourteen years of age; Silver when to Sergeant Wayne Nolan, seventeen years old; and Third Place was presented to Master Corporal Laurie Hearn, sixteen years old.

Other members of the team are: Sergeant Darren Dobbin, sixteen years old, and Cadet Justin Hearn, just twelve years old. The team is coached by Lt. Tony Reardon.

Numerous hours of practice and commitment by the leaders and cadets have resulted in this magnificent achievement. The St. Catherine's school community is justifiably proud of this accomplishment, as I am sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are.

The team arrived back at St. John's Airport yesterday around 4:30 p.m. and were met at the Salmonier Line Trans-Canada Highway intersection by a large motorcade of family and friends.

Most of these cadets have been training for years to reach this goal. They won Bronze in 2000, Silver in 2001, and this year reached the top by winning the Gold.

When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that there are 60,000 Army, Sea and Air Cadets across Canada, and the larger provinces have a lot more training resources than we have here in Newfoundland, the magnitude of a half-dozen young people from Salmonier beating them really shows what we are made of in this great Province we call home.

I would like to ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating the 2895 Enright Memorial Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps of St. Catherine's Academy on a job well done.

You have made us all proud!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to congratulate the participants and the organizers of the Town of Paradise Municipal Awards which took place on Thursday, April 25, 2002.

The evening was a great evening and the awards were presented to many individuals in different capacities. My colleague, the Member for Topsail, shared in that responsibility that evening as well.

The event was held to honour outstanding contributions by the residents of Paradise over the past year. There were several categories in which awards were presented.

The winners were: Youth of the Year, Kingsley Gifford; Volunteer of the Year, Ray Butler; Citizen of the Year, Ab Singleton; Coach of the Year, Bruce Welcher; Male Athlete of the Year, Trevor O'Brien; while Female Athlete of the Year went to Hilary Hutton; and Volunteer Group of the Year went to the Paradise Elementary School Volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in congratulating the town of Paradise for the effort they put forth in keeping their community in good health and spirit, and also to congratulate all the nominees and all those who received awards that evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate and really pay tribute to two schools in my district for receiving a National award and an Atlantic Canada award.

The Nabisco Company of Canada sponsors a national reading program each year called the Mr. Christie Smart Cookie Program for children from Kindergarten to Grade 6. This contest basically challenges students to read.

First, I want to congratulate the eighty-six students of Valmont Academy in King's Point, for winning the Atlantic Canada Grand Prize for reading an average of 125 books per student. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the H.L. Strong Academy on Little Bay Islands for winning the National Grand Prize. These students read an average of 824 books.

Mr. Speaker, these two awards of an Atlantic Canada award and a National Grand Prize award is a tremendous achievement for both these schools. There is no doubt with computers, and technologies today, that anything that encourages children to read is certainly welcomed.

The Atlantic Grand Prize award is $5,000 worth of random house books which will be presented to Valmont Academy in King's Point. The National Grand Prize is for $10,000 worth of books to H.L. Strong Academy on Little Bay Islands, plus a visit from an award winning author who will be coming soon. I add, Mr. Speaker, last year this small school on Little Bay Islands won the Atlantic; this year they won the national. The Minister of Education accompanied me to Little Bay Islands last year when they celebrated this.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, this year they added another part to the contest for an individual award for the person who read the most books in Canada and it went to Chantal Weir of H.L. Strong Academy in Little Bay Islands. That was an added part this year where she will actually receive a $2,000 computer. This is quite an achievement.

This contest is, by the way, fair to all students across Canada because it is won on the average number of books. Apparently there was a comment again in The Globe and Mail, some snide remark, on a small school in Newfoundland winning this award.

Well, I am here today to say that I am very proud of these eight students who won this national award. I am very proud of them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform hon. members about an exciting event I attended on Saturday, in which Their Majesties, King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway visited the L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site to unveil a replica bust of Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad.

I was extremely delighted to represent the provincial government in welcoming the King and Queen of Norway during their visit to Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially to the extraordinary UNESCO World Heritage Site in L'Anse aux Meadows.

As we joined with Their Majesties in dedicating a monument to Dr. Helge Ingstad, and his wife and partner, Dr. Anne Stine Ingstad , we were reminded of the important contribution they made to the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As hon. colleagues are aware, Helge Ingstad, a Norwegian historian and explorer, accompanied by his wife, archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad, uncovered the remains of the 11th century buildings in L'Anse aux Meadows in 1960.

They have made considerable contributions to world history, verifying that the Vikings were the first to arrive in North America, 500 years prior to Columbus.

These dedicated anthropologists and explorers have truly earned the admiration and thanks of the Province and people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are very few among us who commit to a vision, and an ideal to the extent of Dr. Ingstad. With his wife, Dr. Ingstad left Norway and made this Province his home while he toiled for more than seven years to uncover the evidence needed to prove the Norse sagas, that the Vikings discovered North America at L'Anse aux Meadows 500 years before Giovanni Caboto.

The discovery at L'Anse aux Meadows is hailed as one of the most significant pieces of archaeological and historical research to have ever taken place in this Province.

This work has retrieved for us, as Newfoundlander and Labradorians, an unknown part of our history, a history that allowed us to so proudly recognize the arrival of the Vikings at L'Anse aux Meadows more than 1,000 years ago.

During the Vikings! 1000 Years Celebrations in 2000, we embraced this heritage as a people. We were awakened to a past that is proud and strong and we came to know better the history of those who lived before us and those who visited them. To the Ingstads, we are grateful for this.

The ceremony on Saturday symbolized the never ending ties that exist between Newfoundland and Labrador and Norway, by virtue of this site and the work of the Ingstads in its discovery and development.

It also symbolized the gratitude of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to the Ingstads and the connection we feel with another northern region and culture that is taking place on the world stage.

I would invite all hon. members of this House to take the time to visit the L'Anse aux Meadows site, as I have, and experience its beauty, history and culture first hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a belated welcome to Their Majesties, King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway on visiting L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site on Saturday past.

Mr. Speaker, having grown up five miles from L'Anse aux Meadows, and having spent many a day and night in L'Anse aux Meadows in my younger years and certainly as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I do know the contribution that the Vikings and Dr. Helge and Dr. Anne Stine Ingstad have made to L'Anse aux Meadows on the tip of the Northern Peninsula; it being the premier tourist destination on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, having about 30,000 visitors per year.

I will mention a couple of things, and I will agree with the minister in saying that there are few who commit to a vision and an ideal to the extent of Dr. Ingstad. Mr. Speaker, I will say that there are certainly few on that side of the House - because I, Mr. Speaker, felt insulted, and I am sure the people of the Straits & White Bay North felt insulted on Saturday past when I, as their duly elected representative for the Straits & White Bay North, was not afforded opportunity and invitation by this government or by the federal representative to attend the ceremony at L'Anse aux Meadows. I could not believe it, Mr. Speaker, and it was not an oversight on anybody's part. We all know what protocol is. We know that there are people who should be invited to these events. It was a Royal visit, and to see that this government could stoop to such a political level is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

I say congratulations. I commend Their Majesties on visiting L'Anse aux Meadows and unveiling a bust to Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to say again, that I, and the people of the Straits & White Bay North are insulted by this government's attitude and the levels that they have stooped to - the smallness that they would stoop to when there is a Royal visit, in leaving me out as the duly elected representative for the people there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am shocked to just learn that the member for the district in which this event took place was not invited to participate and represent the people from the district who played an important role, of course, in supporting the development of this site and, in fact, assisted in its discovery.

I also, however, would like to say that we were pleased to have King Harald and Queen Sonja of Norway visit our Province and recognize the great contribution that Dr. Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad gave to this Province and also to their own culture by recognizing and proving that the Vikings saga as an oral tradition of the Norwegian countries was, in fact, true, and proving that this was, in fact, the first and only proven site of a Viking establishment in North America.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a very important discovery, and important to the history of the Vikings in North America. It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, I was reading the other day about another recognition of Viking culture in North America at the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa where an exhibit has been mounted on the Vikings. A couple of years late, we had our own in 2001, but it is kind of interesting and it would be amusing if it wasn't so typical, that this national exhibit in the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa concentrates and focuses on the possibility that the Vikings visited other places in North America. It seems to be, as an afterthought, mentioned that there was a proven site in Newfoundland and Labrador where the Vikings actually were a thousand years ago. As I said, it would be amusing if it wasn't typical, Mr. Speaker, coming from our national institutions.

I wanted to mention that because it is a sore point with a lot of people, that we do not get the kind of recognition in this country for the things that go on in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we do appreciate the visit of the Norwegian King and Queen and we do appreciate the work and the legacy of Drs. Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, just in reference to the point made by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, that he wasn't invited to the event, I can only say that the Province had nothing to do with the invited guests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: This was a matter, Mr. Speaker, taken care of by the federal government with the head of state from another country and they took care of the invited guests. I will say this: I apologize, on behalf of the federal government, to the hon. member. I can only say, if we were organizing it, the hon. member would have been invited.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to advise hon. members that May 12-18, 2002, is National Mining Week throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this week provides an opportunity to recognize the important contribution that mining and the mineral industry makes to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. This year, approximately 2,500 people will be directly employed in the Province's mining industry, with the total value of mineral shipments estimated to be worth approximately $790 million.

Our mining operations throughout the Province continue to produce at impressive levels. Over a dozen mineral commodities including gold, iron ore and gypsum are produced in our mines. Industrial minerals, such as dimension stone, slate and limestone are also creating new opportunities in our industry. Labrador West continues to produce approximately 55 per cent of Canada's iron ore products.

Mr. Speaker, the Province has had a long mining history dating back to the late 1500s. This continues through to this day as prospectors and junior exploration companies continue to seek out minerals which could lead to the development of a gold, zinc or copper mine.

New exploration opportunities in areas such as the Botwood Basin, in Central Newfoundland, are causing renewed excitement for possible future gold discoveries. Over 11,000 new claims have been staked in this area in 2002. The Province's geology continues to attract exploration companies and we estimate that $13 million to $16 million will be spent on exploration in the Province this year. Only through continuous exploration will new mines be developed in our Province.

The Department of Mines and Energy continues to actively encourage and support the mineral industry with informative resource data, mine engineering assistance and incentive programs. We continue to work with industry to strengthen the opportunities in our mineral sector. Through our resource management activities we continue to ensure that our mineral resources are developed and managed in a sustainable manner.

Mr. Speaker, during this week, I would encourage everyone to investigate our mineral potential and the importance of this sector to our Province. I am certain that you will not be disappointed with what the mineral industry has, in fact, to offer.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On this side of the House, we certainly recognize the important contribution with respect to the mining industry in this Province and we salute the 2,500 people who are directly involved in this particular industry. Obviously, we have to recognize the great work and accomplishments of those individuals in Labrador West and other parts of the Province who are engaged in this very important industry. However, I say to the minister, there is a certain irony in what the minister has to say, and it is with respect directly to the last sentence of his statement where the minister says, "During this week, I encourage everyone to investigate our mineral potential and the importance of this sector to our economy."

Mr. Speaker, there is to be an agreement, perhaps in the very near future, with respect to a particular mining activity in this Province, and I can assure the minister that this agreement and this whole issue will be fully investigated. It will be fully questioned. The minister will be fully probed, and his government will be fully probed, with a view to having any agreement and the details of that agreement brought back to this Legislature to ensure that it is fully assessed, the details and the particulars are fully scrutinized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - prior to any agreement being binding and final to the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise today and acknowledge Mining Week and the important contribution that mining makes to our provincial economy. Of the 2,500 people who are employed in the mining industry and the $790 million that the minister mentions, I am proud to say that most of that, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority, is certainly in the area that I am proud to represent, that of Labrador West. The mining industry generally provides decent paying jobs to all of those who work there and good benefits to them and their families.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the other important thing about the mining industry, in this Province, is the secondary industry that it generates -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: It is also important to recognize the secondary industry that provides support to the mining industry in general, Mr. Speaker, and all of the people who are employed in these jobs.

We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the mining industry continuing to be a significant player on the provincial scene when we look at the other developments that are possible like silica, graphite, gold, and certainly Voisey's Bay. We certainly impress upon this government, as I said earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that any development from Voisey's Bay contains the provision that guarantees employment to people who live in the area of Labrador where Voisey's Bay is located.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, there continues to be signs that a deal is about to happen on Voisey's Bay. Recently Lawrence O'Brien, Member of Parliament, a good friend of the provincial government, obviously -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: I can see by the way they are reacting, a little testy here this afternoon.

Lawrence O'Brien expects a deal to be reached by the end of this month. One would think that the federal MP for Labrador would know with great certainty the status of negotiations on Voisey's Bay. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy repeatedly deny that a deal is about to be signed and that our ore and our jobs will be shipped to Manitoba and Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier if he would confirm the statement of Lawrence O'Brien, that he expects a deal on Voisey's Bay to be signed by the end of this month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing I can confirm to my knowledge with respect to the federal MP for Labrador is that he is supportive of a deal with Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel for developing the nickel project at Voisey's Bay. He is trying to be helpful, as I understand it, with respect to discussions and negotiations that are going on between Inco and the Government of Canada. That is all I can report, that I know of, with respect to Mr. O'Brien.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier refuses to provide answers on questions as to when the deal is going to take place; continues to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that SNC Lavalin will be the general contractor for the entire project. We understand that a construction company has been selected to build the necessary road infrastructure and as well, Aliant was preparing its bid on the communications contract for Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier, is he aware of this construction activity or any other, and would he not agree that it is proved positive that MP Lawrence O'Brien is correct when he says that a deal will likely be reached by the end of this month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, I have answered every question, as I understand it, that has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition, as I always do.

All I can say with respect to whether or not there are some discussions between Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel, and engineering firms and contractors, they are not discussions that we are involved in. I hope it is a hopeful sign. I am the one person in Newfoundland and Labrador who has been trying now for three-and-a-half, if not four years, to find a way to make this deal come to fruition so that we can gain the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and have it happen and meet the mandate that we have been given to make sure that a finished nickel product leaves Newfoundland and Labrador; and that over the life of the project, that all of it is done here in Newfoundland and Labrador in the life of the agreement that we will reach. We are working very hard at that. We do not have any deal to announce or present to the people of the Province or to the House of Assembly, but if there are others out there who are showing signs that are hopeful, than I am glad to hear it and I hope there is more of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier answers all questions; I will give him an opportunity to answer one this time. I will see what he has to say on this particular question.

At the Resource Estimates Committee - the committee that was shut down by government, that would not allow us to bring witnesses before - the Minister of Mines and Energy said, on May 1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Mines and Energy said on May 1, and I quote, "We are not paying any interest really as to where the concentrate is going to come back from in thirty to thirty-five years..." As well, at the same session he said, "I am satisfied to risk the future generations having to watch feed come in to run the plant after Voisey's is mined out after thirty years."

Give me an answer to this question, Premier. I ask the Premier: Does he agree with the statements of his minister? Is he not paying any interest either, and is he satisfied to risk our future generation? Because, Premier, we certainly are not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to set the record straight in terms of the Resource Estimates Committee. It was not shut down by the government members, Mr. Speaker. The reality of the fact is that it was abused completely by the members of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The record has shown since, in terms of either they do not understand what the committee was for or they abused the committee; one of the two.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a common trait of the Leader of the Opposition to try to select a few phrases out of context from any one member on this side to try to make, and make a case that he would like to make. The fact of the matter is this: We have indicated the basic principles of a deal that we would be willing to sign with Inco so that we can go ahead and start the Voisey's Bay project. We have indicated we are willing to have some export for some period of time provided that it is returned to the Province. It is the concept of a loan that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand completely. We cannot give the details because we do not have the details.

They understand completely that we will have the equivalent of all of the ore in Labrador turned into nickel in the Province over the life of the project, and we will accomplish that. There are not going to be risks for us. When we get the agreement, you will see, Mr. Speaker, that we will have enforceable types of language that will show that the loan will be returned; and we will gladly present it, if we are fortunate enough to get the actual deal. We do not have the details at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it appears that not only are the Opposition and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the dark about the terms of a Voisey's Bay deal, but so are most of the members of the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier if he has shared the terms of the Voisey's Bay deal with his own caucus, or is it true that the only people who know the terms of a proposed deal are himself, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Mines and Energy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition did not attribute his last question to Mr. Corcoran, the reporter from CBC Radio, and we said exactly that on Friday morning, in his report from the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this - and this proves how wrong the Opposition really are - there has not been an update with the Cabinet and the caucus here because we have not had detailed discussions with Inco now for several months. What we have laid out, Mr. Speaker, for the people of the Province and for our Cabinet and caucus are the principles, Mr. Speaker, the principles that we would like to finalize into legally binding agreements. I do not know if the Opposition does not understand that. They seem to have a lot of information that they put out and then find out it is wrong. For example, the Mines and Energy critic told the public of Newfoundland and Labrador that he had it on good information that I was on the way to Toronto from Houston to sign the deal on Friday past. I heard it in Houston. I checked to see if I was supposed to go to Toronto, because I assumed that he knew what he was talking about. Again, Mr. Speaker, he did not know what he was talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There was no meeting. We do not have a deal. We would love to have a deal and we would love to present it to the people of the Province but it is not in our hands and in our grasp at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I, and members of the Opposition, have been listening to public comments by hon. members opposite who are indicating publicly that they are willing to express their own opinions on this deal, if given the opportunity to do so. The statement was made last week on the Open Line.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is, and I would ask him: Why is it that his caucus and most of his Cabinet ministers do not know the deal? Is it because he does not trust them, or is it because he knows that if he discloses it then some of them, in their heart and their conscience, will vote against this deal at the end of the day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Cabinet and caucus, our full caucus, does know, is that we have been exploring actively, through the Minister of Mines and Energy, the principles of a deal that would see some export for a period of time as a loan, a return of that over the life of the project, and processing to a finished nickel product in the Province. The details, Mr. Speaker, we do not have. The details are not finished, so it is not a matter of disclosing. We will disclose it to every single soul in the Province when we have the information.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should restate his position because, as I understand it, his position is now the position of the former Premier Tobin: that, under no circumstances, would there ever be any export at any point in time. That is his position; and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's says it is not mine but it might be okay for some to leave, if some people want it to.

Maybe they would like to talk about which principle they agree with, because we are dealing with principles. We are trying to get the detail, and unfortunately for the people of the Province, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the detail and we would like to have it as soon as we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, communities and cities and towns and municipalities around our Province are very concerned about ore leaving the Province, and the refusal to debate the Voisey's Bay deal before it is final and binding on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My final supplementary is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would ask the minister, as a member of Cabinet: Is he aware of the terms of a deal, the framework of a deal? And, is he in favour of ore leaving the Province with no debate in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair doesn't like to interrupt Question Period, but the hon. member knows that questions must be directed to members who are responsible for a particular department. Obviously, the question would be out of order on that basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just for further clarification, the Leader of the Opposition simply asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs a question regarding municipalities that he is responsible for. I am just looking for clarification vis-à-vis a pending agreement with the government, what his position would be in terms of (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is not the understanding that I had of the question that the hon. member was asking.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my preamble to my question indicated that the people in municipalities around this Province, towns and communities, are very, very concerned about the principles of Voisey's Bay ore leaving the Province and the refusal to debate. So my question, I would suggest to the Speaker, respectfully so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question and then the Chair will determine if it is order or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as a Member of Cabinet: Is he aware of the terms of the deal, and is he in favour -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question is clearly out of order. The hon. member ought to be directing it to the Minister of Mines and Energy or to the government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could I finish the question, Mr. Speaker, and could you then decide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to another question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, the much criticized Hay Report continues to create a high degree of uncertainty in our Province's health system. Can the minister confirm for us today that there are discussions ongoing with respect to recommendation number 51, which deals with the consolidation of all the emergency departments in the City of St. John's, that is: The Janeway, the Health Sciences and St. Clare's? Will he confirm those discussions are taking place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, what the minister can in fact confirm is what he has confirmed repeatedly in this House, that the Hay Report is presently under view by the St. John's Health Care Corporation, as they should do. It is an independent study that was done of the operation here in this area. They are now reviewing that to see if, in fact, there are parts of the Hay Report, the consultants report, that can be used to help us realize some efficiencies within the system.

I am sure that is one of the recommendations. So I am sure they are looking at that, as they are looking at all of the recommendations that are contained in the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can tell this House why, in fact, such discussions would even be taking place when in 1995, when the then Chair of the Health Care Corporation made the announcement - I just want to read what she said at that time. She says: The identity of the Children's Rehab Centre and the Janeway Health Centre will be preserved through the development of new space at the Health Sciences. She went on to say, and this is important: This new space will be dedicated exclusively to children's services and designed specifically for children. Why should such a discussion be even going on against that kind of backdrop in 1995?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the hon. member's question, I do not see anything in what he indicated in his preamble that would support an argument, in any fact, that we are straying from what was set forward some time ago.

Mr. Speaker, what I would remind the hon. member, and all hon. members opposite, the purpose of the Hay Report was to bring in an independent group of consultants to look at the operation of the Health Care Corporation and to try to determine if, in fact, there are efficiencies which can be realized; which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, hon members opposite, for years in this House, have been rising and saying there are all sorts of efficiencies. They have suggested, repeatedly, that the operation is not being well run; that there are savings that could be realized. If they were in our position they would realize those savings. So, I say to the hon. member, how would he suggest that savings be realized? How would he suggest that efficiencies be realized if, in fact, we are not prepared to hold our operations up to the light of day to look at it and see if, in fact, there are efficiencies which we can realize?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we appointed the Child and Youth Advocate today, because in 1995 this Province concurred with the relocation of the Janeway because it was going to remain exclusively for children. The then Minister of Health said at that time: The Janeway represents to the people of this Province a dedicated pediatric service. It does not, for the first instance, represent a building. It is not about bricks and mortar but is about services to children.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I ask the minister: Can he confirm today, and can he suggest to us what he plans to do in light of the commitments that were made in 1995, that pediatric services at the Janeway would stand alone, would always be a dedicated pediatric service? Will he now acknowledge that he should not be considering consolidating all of the adult services and the pediatric services in St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a number of references. First of all, he referenced the Child Advocate, the position that was announced here today. I am not sure of the connection there but personally, I was quite pleased to see the announcement made today because I, and my hon. member opposite, were part of the committee that brought that forward as a recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: The facility that we presently have, the new Janeway - which, by the way, I was here in the House as well when that was being debated. I certainly recall the debate and the tenure of debate here in the House, there was certainly lots of opposition coming forward from the opposite saying that we should not be proceeding with that, it was not a priority at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue that the hon. member raises; I would suggest to the hon. member that this minister has not stated or has not stated publicly this is where we should be going. What he continually references is an independent study, a report that has been produced looking at the operations of the health care corporation. The Health Care Corporation for St. John's is doing their due diligence. They are examining everything that is contained in that report. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have more faith in the people who work for the Health Care Corporation than the hon. Member for Trinity North seems to have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, this government committed itself to a 25 per cent reduction in tuition fees for Memorial University students and initiated the first 10 per cent last year. This years' budget offers another $3.5 million towards that purpose. I want to know from the minister, is this government still committed to the delivery on that promise of a 25 per cent reduction of university tuition for Memorial University students?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly were very pleased last year to be able to decrease tuition by 10 per cent after having it frozen for several years. This year we also announced the equivalent amount of a 10 per cent tuition reduction, but as you know, when the first tuition reduction was done students at the university wondered if this was the best way for the money to be spent. So this year when the announcement was made, we committed that we would sit with the university and with MUNSU to ensure that this was the way that they wanted to do this.

A meeting, actually, is being held this week to make that final determination. We are up to 20 per cent now whether it is done exactly like last year or not. We will know by the end of this week, but this government, as you know, are very firmly committed towards doing everything that we can to ensure that our students have a good post-secondary education that is affordable and accessible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the minister misrepresents the facts when she suggests that students opposed a 10 per cent reduction in tuition fees. In fact, I want to know, is the minister prepared to insist upon a further reduction of 10 per cent if there is a disagreement between the university itself and students who might want a further reduction of 10 per cent in student fees? Is the minister prepared to ensure that this commitment of 25 per cent reduction fees will go through, or is she not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that I did not say that students opposed it last year. I said students suggested that they would like to consider, when we implemented a further reduction, that it would be discussed with them. We have agreed to that, and we are doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

The Bank of Montreal last week basically said that Newfoundland and Labrador is misreporting its deficit. In fact, I quote the bank. The minister, first of all, has tabled in this House a Budget with a $93 million deficit. The Bank of Montreal stated: The underlying deficit for this year is approximately $267 million. Furthermore, the bank says: On a consolidated accrual basis the deficit could very well be much larger.

I want to ask the minister: Why is she falsely reporting our Province's true deficit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent opportunity to raise before the people of the Province that everyday in this House - we are up to fifty-eight requests from the Opposition - everyday they stand on their feet and ask for -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will answer the question, I say to the Member from Kilbride. Relax, I will answer the question.

Fifty-eight requests in this House everyday for paving, for roads in their district, more paving for roads in their district. I would say to the member opposite, what he has not said is that the Bank of Montreal also said we would be leading the country at 6.5 per cent; but he is not interested in that. All he is interested in, of course, is the deficit. I would say to the member opposite, this year in this House of Assembly, like every other year, we will table our Public Accounts Committee which speaks to our accrued deficit. The Budget speaks to the deficit that we have on Current Account, and it will be no different this year. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line: there is no clandestine operation; there is nothing hidden here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the bank said, and I quote: "Despite supercharged growth in three of the past four years.... Newfoundland's fiscal situation has become more precarious." It went on to say: "The province has incurred increasingly larger deficits in each of the past three years and this pattern is expected to continue for fiscal 2002-03." The bank said clearly: Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern. With the highest debt level by far of all provinces -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: - the province is in a difficult situation.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any strategy for managing the finances of our Province other than borrowing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, all of our strategies have been clearly outlined in the Budget for the last five years. I say to the member opposite, I know he is devastated by last week's upgrade by Moody's. He is devastated, Mr. Speaker, I can tell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: While the rest of the Province celebrates, he is devastated. I can also say, Mr. Speaker, that every single -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, they are equally dancing in the streets on these questions, I would say to the Member for Bonavista South. I would say, on a very serious note, that we have been using this strategy for the last four or five years. Moody's knows about it. Standard and Poor's know about it. They have recently upgraded us, and we will maintain our strong fiscal administration that we have that has put us in a position in light of what is happening in our own Province with our own GDP, also in light of what is happening with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, we have been upgraded. That means that we can go into the markets and we are being recognized for the strength of our economy and the strength of our fiscal administration -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - as disappointing as that sounds to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: In view of the incident with the Bell Island ferry on Friday past, which I say that the minister should view as a wake-up call in view of the fact that the X-ray equipment was broken down and not available for use, will the minister commit now to updating the terribly rundown diagnostic equipment not only on Bell Island but in the rest of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the situation that the hon. member refers to, there is no question. As a matter of fact, I did inquire as to what had happened there. The information that I have is that, in fact, the X-ray equipment had some problems. There was a part that was on order.

In terms of the broader question that the hon. member raises, again she is suggesting that this department and this government is not recognizing the needs that are out there. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, government has been trying, on a repeated basis, year over year, to meet the many needs that are out there. I would suggest to the hon. member, again in terms of what we are hearing, on one hand her colleague is up saying that you are spending too much, and you, hon. member, are standing up and saying we are not spending enough. I think you should get together and somewhere strike a balance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: What is his plan, in fact, if he does have a plan, for the updating and upgrading of diagnostic equipment in this Province? Some of this equipment is as old as twenty-five and thirty years. What is the minister's plan for the upgrading and updating of this equipment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member raises is valid, and this is part of the ongoing process that we are engaged in, as a department and as a government, to try to meet the demands that are out there.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Ferryland, that a plan that we have is certainly as good as I have heard you propose in the time that you have been in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member opposite that, in terms of the needs that are there, these are under constant review; these and the many others that are out there and the many that we hear being raised on a daily basis. This government is committed to moving forward to meet the demands that out there, to make sure that our health care system is sustained and will be ready and available to deal with the needs as they arise in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I was wont to rise in Question Period when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was putting his questions to the Premier, but I refrained from doing so in the interest of respecting what Question Period is all about; that is, giving ample time for the Opposition to ask questions and get good answers, such as they got today and get every day. But I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether or not there could be some clarity brought to the issue of members, such as the Leader of the Opposition did today, in quoting from records of the House, or from speeches or presentations made by ministers, and quoting to such an extent out of context that it, in fact, gives almost diametrically the opposite meaning of what, in fact, was said, if, in fact, the hon. member accurately quoted what was said.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this of the Chair: If there is a basis on which a member could quote without quoting everything, if, in fact, they could be directed to at least not stop in the middle of a sentence, at the end of a comma. For greater clarity, I would bring this to your attention so that you could be better informed on your ruling.

Quoting from the Estimates Committee for Mines and Energy, which was held a few days ago, the hon. the member today quoted me as saying this: We are not paying any attention really as to where the concentrate is going to come from in thirty or thirty-five years' time...

He stopped there. Mr. Speaker, the record indicates that there was a comma there and it goes on to say this, which is what, in fact, I did say in context: "...in the sense that there are so many sources of feed around the world that Inco, as an organization, have control of, that they can bring it in from any number of sources. They moved it now into Clydach, Wales, from Chile, I believe, and from Australia."

Mr. Speaker, clearly what I said in committee was that we were not paying attention as to where the feed might come from because, in the context of the sources that the company has, and in the context that there is, by virtue of the Geological Society of America's estimates in 1998, today, 121 years' supply of nickel in the world, it would not rate very high in our negotiations as to where, in forty years' time, five years of concentrate would come from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I raise this as a point of privilege with you because, while I will not interrupt in Question Period, out of respect for Question Period, I do think it is important that the people of this Province understand that on times the people in the Opposition take statements -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his comments.

MR. MATTHEWS: - make propositions that are totally out of context to the extent that they falsely, or inaccurately, either deliberately or otherwise -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy needs to learn that when raising a point of order he stick to the point and get to it. This is not an opportunity for a speech or a soliloquy by the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: But, in view of the fact that he has given one, let me say - to use his words - let me say for clarity.... It is clear, Mr. Speaker, members opposite are not, in any way, interested in listening. If they were, in the interest of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

To use the minister's own words, in the interest of clarity, the quotes today provided by the Leader of the Opposition come directly from Hansard. They are exactly what the minister said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, are members interested in listening? It is clear they are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is clear from what the Leader of the Opposition pointed out today, and he quoted directly from Hansard, the Minister of Mines and Energy neglected to say directly: no commas, no periods, one full sentence.

"I am satisfied to risk the future generation having to watch feed come in to run the plant after Voisey's is mined out after thirty years." End of sentence.

The fact of the matter is, there is no point of order raised by the Minister of Mines and Energy; and, if he is going to stand on points of order, he should stick to the point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear just one quick concluding remark from the hon. minister before I (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to add to your level of information, the hon. member makes a point again, absolutely with great clarity, as to why I made my original point. When he talks about what I said with respect to feed coming in, this is what I said, "To watch feed come in for the first time to run a commercial operation, that has never been our circumstance before. We have always seen feed go out, concentrate go out and be processed elsewhere. I am satisfied to risk the future generations having to watch feed come in to run the plant..." in Voisey's Bay for thirty or forty or fifty years (inaudible) the Voisey's Bay ore is all used.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the comments that the hon. member has made under advisement and report at a later date.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 2001 Annual Report of Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission. The report presents the financial statements and operational activities for the provision for the year ending December, 2001. Accompanying the annual report is the Commission's five year 2002-2006 Strategic Plan, which includes measurable goals that stakeholders can use to chart the Commission's process and outcomes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have approved without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment; Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: - and Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Officers of the House for their co-operation and, as well, all the members on the committee, especially the Vice-Chair, the Member for Cape St. Francis, for his congeniality and co-operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, on tomorrow, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition concerning Voisey's Bay. It is signed by residents of St. John's and Mount Pearl. It is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly and it reads as follows:

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's shareholders on April 17, 2002, "we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come";

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that this Liberal government is moving towards a sellout with Inco on Voisey's Bay. They want to participate in the discussions. They want to participate in the decision-making, and they want to know the details before any final agreement is reached.

Mr. Speaker, when we hear people like Mr. Hand talking, we know that their priorities are what is best for Inco, and when we hear them say that they intend to use Newfoundland ore to keep the operations going in Manitoba and in Sudbury, we have concerns. Mr. Speaker, we are saying here that we want to make sure that this deal is thoroughly debated, this deal is thoroughly discussed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want to be participants at any sellout by this government on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had that too much in the past. They want to know, they want to be reassured, and they want to be confident that before any deal is signed, that they, themselves, have some part in knowing about the deal and have some way in which they can give some level of consent and do that with adequate knowledge. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Inco giant and the spokespeople there, Scott Hand, the Chief Executive Officer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - Mr. Speaker, we know he is doing what is best for Inco. We want this government to do what is best for Newfoundland and Labrador, and do it before the ink is put on the bottom line.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well, and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened: the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's shareholders on April 17, 2002, "we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come";

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is another petition from people in this Province asking, pleading with the government of the day to bring forward a deal, if there is one, before the House of Assembly so their representatives can stand here in this Hall and represent them and put forward their views on what that particular deal is.

You might ask yourselves: Why does it need to be discussed here in the people's House? Mr. Speaker, we do not need to look back a long time. All we have to do is look back on the Terms of Union with Canada and see what happens after you negotiate and sign a deal before you sit down and discuss what terms are in that particular agreement.

We are going through difficult times in this Province. It is hard times in the rural areas of the Province, but the people who I talk to, the people who call me, are saying: Yes, we are in bad times but we are not willing to give away what we have.

The people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, do not trust this government. The people in this Province do not trust this Premier. The people in this Province do not trust the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We saw another member, we saw another Premier, sit in that Chair and go out and win an election by saying that there wouldn't be one spoonful, not one ounce, of nickel concentrate leave this Province unless it was fully processed.

Then we saw a new Premier take the seat and say: I am still the Premier. I don't have to go to the people because we still represent the same mandate that people gave us in the last election.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a major shift. There is a major shift in that mandate. There is a major shift in the attitude of that government as to what happens with Voisey's Bay nickel. Now the fear is that we are going to be seeing ore leaving this Province, with some promise that maybe it will return in thirty or thirty-five years' time; some promise that maybe after we mine the richest part, the ovoid of that particular mine, that somewhere down the road we will expect Inco to live up to a promise that they will bring ore back to have it refined here in this Province.

Well, the people do not want to live on a promise any more, Mr. Speaker. The people in this Province want to know up front what that particular deal is going to be. The people in this Province are going to demand that there be full disclosure, and the people they went out and elected back just a few short years ago will be able to stand here in their seat and represent their views and opinions here in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: They deserve nothing less, and I can assure you that everybody on this side of the House will be here speaking as their representatives and making sure that we hold government accountable to make sure that the people in this Province get full and fair benefits from that particular mine facility in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened: the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's shareholders on April 17,2002 , "we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come";

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are worried; and, in view of the stand or the opinion that Peter Jones, the CEO of Inco, that the government is being more flexible than ever in the Voisey's Bay negotiations, and in view of the fact that he has said publicly: obviously we want to ship concentrate for as long as possible, to extend the lives of mining operations in Manitoba and Ontario and keep them productive and competitive for a long time to come. The people of this Province are worried. It's their ore. This nickel doesn't belong to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador; it doesn't belong to the Minister of Mines and Energy; it doesn't belong to the Minister of Finance. This ore belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in 1999, were asked by the Premier to trust them. Who do you want to negotiate for you? And, by going to the polls and electing on that mandate, the people put their trust in that government to do a deal on their behalf. Part of that deal was that not one spoonful of ore leave this Province. Now we are seeing an about-face, a complete about-face that this government is buying into for the residents of Manitoba and Ontario. Is that who the people elected this government to negotiate for, for the residents of Manitoba and the residents of Ontario to keep their operations running and competitive for a long time to come?

At no time during the election -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today and present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, all residents on this petition are residents of the Goulds and Petty Harbour, with one exception, I might add, just one exception. I recognize constituents of mine in this particular petition, and some that cross over in the boundary in the Goulds as represented by myself and the Member for Kilbride here. I think it is very fundamental. This petition here is addressed to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a petition, I say to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and it not a petition on behalf of the Catholic Women's League, that the minister signed himself before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I still cannot come to grips with how the Minister of Human Resources and Employment could be a member of a Catholic Women's League.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get back to this very serious issue at hand, it is a very serious issue. Why wouldn't the Premier of this Province, why wouldn't government, want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a say, a fundamental say, into any major agreement?

When we are looking at this agreement, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at billions of dollars over the life of this agreement. We are looking at a mine and a mill with a smelter and refinery; we are looking at a multi-billion project. We do not want to say, when the deal is done, it is too late. We cannot correct the inequities of the Upper Churchill. We cannot correct them, as much as we have tried to do it, through the courts. It was ironclad, and we are seeing Hydro-Quebec show a profit this year of about $1.2 billion. That was their net profit of $1.2 billion, and we take a measly few million dollars out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; only for the dividends that we are taking now, and that is money, really, that Hydro has to borrow.

Historically to that - I might add, the government that signed it away was the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not want any major deal to go through without the scrutiny of this Legislature or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have an opportunity here in this House to voice concerns on behalf of our constituents. All forty-eight districts represented by members in this House, and one soon to be, we hope. It is not represented, there was no by-election called, but forty-seven at the moment. We feel we are members who can represent their concerns, listen to them, convey to them aspects of this particular deal and have it debated here in a public forum.

What is wrong with informing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about a deal? Is there something sinister? There seems to be something sinister when you do not want people to see it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, if the deal is good, the people in this House and the people of this Province will endorse it and move forward. If it is not, they won't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to speak and to present a petition dealing with the issue of the pending Voisey's Bay agreement.

The petition is certainly in order, according to the rules of the House, and it is from the people primarily in the Kilbride-Goulds area.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition, which means the meaning of the petition, is clear. It says:

WHEREFORE your petitioners - the people have taken the time to sign this, to read it - urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for a full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in this House just last year, a former member, who was the Deputy Premier at the time, was questioned on this in a Question Period. He was asked directly: Will this government bring any proposed agreement to the floor of the Legislature for thorough analysis and debate before it is final and binding on the people of the Province? His answered to it was, emphatically: Yes, we will. That is in the recorded version of Hansard which is the exact nature of what takes place and what every member says in this Legislature.

The very next day, and I mean the very next day, the Premier of the Province was back in his seat. He was asked the exact same question: Will any deal on Voisey's Bay be brought before this Legislature to be analyzed, to be scrutinized, to be fully debated in a full and open and transparent manner before it is final and binding on the people of the Province? And his answer was: No, it will not. A dramatic difference from the day before, from the Deputy Premier to the Premier of the Province.

I asked a question that people ask of me all the time in the district that I happen to represent, and that I am privileged to represent. On this specific issue, they say to me - it happens at the Irving on Saturday morning having a cup of coffee, with people just milling around. It happens in the Esso Station, or in the market in Bidgood's and this is the question people ask me: When it comes to this, why it is that the government is so unwilling to bring it to the floor of the House? What is it that this government is so afraid of? Do they have something to hide, because they do not want to bring it in? It is an legitimate question. I wish I could propose an answer to them, but I do say this: If any deal is worth its salt, that it meets the litmus test as proposed by government, as proposed by the commitments that this government made and all of these members made during the last election -

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member's time is up.

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

Then they have the majority, and if it meets that litmus test, Mr. Speaker, then why won't they bring it here? If they have the majority, they have the majority to carry the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

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

I will conclude by saying that I will be honoured to present further petitions because there are many, many more coming in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here today is an attempt by the Opposition to do through the backdoor what they can't do through the front door.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Honourable members might like to do the honour of listening to the point of order. I generally listen to a point of order when it is raised without any duress of laugher.

First of all, all hon. members know that with a petition there is supposed to be no debate. Now, anybody looking at this today will see that there is debate. There is supposed to be no debate with a petition. I refer to our Standing Order 97: "There shall be no debate on a petition, unless the House has it under consideration." That is unless it is a motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is all the more important - I said the other day, that we have made the rules. They are not imposed from without. We have made the rules. We just finished making those rules in 1999, amendment to the rules. We just finished making them. It is incumbent upon us that we follow them since we have made them. It is a reason, Mr. Speaker, why there is no debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No, we made the rules, I say to the hon. member. It does not matter, supposing it is 5,000, that the place for a petition - we still have to follow the rules. The hon. members know - it does not matter, there is a place for petitions and we have rules to follow. The rules are that there be no debate. The rules further are, Mr. Speaker, that members keep themselves to the material allegations of the petition and that they speak to the signatures. But, no debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Hon. members will protest that they are doing everything right. I ask the people listening, do they sense any difference here than if a motion is before the House? They are debating and not presenting a petition and speaking to the material allegations and to the signatures, Mr. Speaker. They are engaged in full-fledged debate and they know that they are not supposed to engage in full-fledge debate in presenting a petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is even so much more important, lastly - it is so much more important because only one person gets a chance to speak to the petition. Government members cannot respond, therefore the onus is on hon. members to make sure that they are following the rules because members on this side of the House cannot respond. Therefore, there is a greater responsibility on members opposite to make sure that they are observing the rules of the House in presenting a petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all Mr. Speaker, I have never in this House - this is only the fourth or fifth petition that was presented today. Let me remind all hon. members of what the fundamental right of a petition is. In Beauchesne §1014.(1) "The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution and has been exercised without interruption since 1867."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have two other points to make, Mr. Speaker, in response to the Government House Leader. Furthermore, it says: petitioning the Crown for redress of a grievance originated in the time of the 13th century, I say to the hon. Government House Leader.

Now let's talk about our own Standing Orders, which are more pertinent. The Government House Leader just stood in his place and said that - in a way, attempted to lecture members on this side of the House as private members presenting petitions from ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador - we have a greater responsibility because government members do not have the opportunity to respond. Mr. Speaker, let me remind him that he was part of the committee that drafted the new rules on petitions and agreed unanimously with what we have here right now. What we have here right now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What we have here right now, every one of these petitions that have been read thus far met the rules as outlined in the Standing Orders and they meet, most importantly, Standing Order 92, which says this: "Every Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes..." - which every member did - "the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains."

Now, "material allegations it contains" is outlined in the prayer. Where in this petition, it says: That the petitioners are urging the government to debate this deal through petition fully and openly. If the member opposite wants to stop that, good luck!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, to the point of order?

MR. COLLINS: No, a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter of the point of order under advisement and give a ruling in due course.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis drug therapies, Betascron, Avonex, Copaxonc and Rebif, under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs are quite expensive; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with the high cost of MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for MS drugs so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these high cost drugs, as is the case in other Canadian provinces, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Province who have MS, who are on income support, receive these drugs under the current program in place in the Province. That is something that nobody in this Province has anything against. Mr. Speaker, it is the way it should be. The same applies for the Seniors' Program; that is the way it should be.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, the unfairness in this whole program is the fact that people who are in this Province and are working, who do not have a drug plan, cannot afford these drugs because of their high costs. Also, Mr. Speaker, people who are working and do have drug plans - some drug plans do not cover these drugs and others cover them but only to a certain maximum. It is not a long period of time, Mr. Speaker, before these drugs add up; before a person's drug prescription plan is maxed out and they can no longer use it for anything else including MS drugs or any other needs that they or their family might encounter.

Mr. Speaker, all we are asking, and the people who signed this petition are asking, is that the Province introduce a system similar to that in other provinces where people can receive help. People who are working for a living do not have to spend their RRSPs, Mr. Speaker, do not have to spend any money they may have saved for their children's education fund, do not have to go without a lot of the things that they should be able to have as a result of working hard to provide a living for their family but they should receive help from the government of the Province whose job is to take care of the citizens in a way that does not see hardworking people having to devastate themselves and their families financially in order to receive drugs for a medical condition that they did not bring on themselves, they did not induce, and that they have no control over.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that government step in, live up their responsibility and provide the type of coverage that other provinces in this country provide.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up.

MR. COLLINS: I just say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an ongoing petition. My time is up now but I am sure that in the days to come I will have opportunity to address this issue again, and I will.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of this part of the Province who feel that it is important, Mr. Speaker, that this issue of an open debate in this House of Assembly on the issue of Voisey's Bay be held and that this government - in agreement with the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - will find the need to have an open and public debate in this hon. House. As other members have, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read the wording of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO, Scott Hand, told the company's shareholders on April 17, 2002, "we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson [Manitoba], and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come."

The prayer continues, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior - and this is important, Mr. Speaker - to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, in just hearing the comments made by my colleagues on this side of the House that many Newfoundlanders - in fact, I would venture to state, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel that it is of utmost importance to have this important issue fully disclosed and debated prior to - and that is key - any agreement that would ultimately be final and binding on the people of the Province.

Members of the government opposite have stated - in fact, the Premier has stated that upon conclusion of an agreement he would be prepared to fully debate and discuss fully, for the benefit of the people of the Province, the details and the particulars of any such agreement. But, Mr. Speaker, there is an element of absurdity, I say, to that principle. Obviously, before any agreement is fully agreed upon, the details and the particulars being fully agreed upon, it is at that point, prior to, that it is incumbent on the members of this House, all forty-eight members who represent every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian living in this Province, on their behalf, it is incumbent that all members fully debate and discuss and scrutinize those details. I say, Mr. Speaker, the reason why this is presented -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason why we feel this is important is that it represents, Mr. Speaker, what the majority of the people of our Province, those people whom we represent, are saying to us as individual members. It is for that reason we feel it is imperative that we present to all members and to all the people of the Province these petitions in this way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition also, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the House that on many, many occasions in this House in the last nine years I have been very proud to present petitions on roads, certainly I have done that many times in this House, and on different issues throughout the Province like the privatization of Hydro. I remember that very well, standing day-after-day in this House. To present a petition in this House on behalf of the people of the Province gives them the opportunity, through the elected members, the people's House, to speak out for them on the floor of the House of Assembly in a democracy. That is what presenting petitions is all about. If somebody takes the time to read a petition and sign it, they have every right, through their elected members, to make sure that that position is known in this hon. House of Assembly; especially when the petition reads as clear as this one does.

I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and a thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing strange about this petition. There is nothing that is going to confuse anybody. It is straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. members opposite that not just this petition but in any discussions that you have with - not everybody in this Province, but certainly the majority that I have spoken with clearly say that if the government of the day are about to do a deal on another resource of this Province - Mr. Speaker, there in lies the point, another deal on a resource of this Province because the track record of this Province on doing good deals on our resources is, to say the least, not very good. Let's put it that way and be polite today, Mr. Speaker; not very good. When we look at something like Churchill Falls, when we look at our fishery, and we can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, because throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the track record on good deals on resources is a dismal attempt to get the right deal for people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since the day that this was announced, since the day that we found out the discovery of Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker, people in this Province, right away, began to believe that hopefully we would have something this time that we can do a right deal on.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I will make first today on this petition is if the deal - and that is the biggest if probably in a long time in this House of Assembly - is such a good deal than why not debate it here in the people's House so that each and every member on both sides of the House get a chance to make their own points? As was said many times in this House, it is not where you sit in this House but it is where you stand. Everybody will get their chance and will have their say by standing in their seat - which represents 10,000 to 12,000 people throughout this Province, most seats. They will get a chance to stand in their place and speak on behalf of the people that they represent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to stand and represent the people that I represent in my district of Baie Verte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, too, stand in my place today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people in my district. There have been petitions in different areas within the district and this is from people from Torbay, the Bauline Line area, the Indian Meal Line and what have you, and the petition is on Voisey's Bay. I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened: the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's shareholders on April 17, 2002, "we hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario, as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come";

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for a full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jones, the President of Inco, has recently stated that this Administration is more flexible is negotiating a deal with Voisey's Bay and the development of Voisey's Bay. He had said: Obviously we want to ship concentrate for as long as possible.

That is what he said, and that is what they are planning on doing, shipping concentrate out of this Province to Sudbury, Ontario, and Thompson, Manitoba, for as long as possible. Not acceptable.

We, as the Official Opposition, will stand in our place here in this House of Assembly representing the people of the Province in trying to get a deal that is brought before this House of Assembly before it is signed and binding on the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I really do not understand why this Administration is so opposed to that. Obviously, they are the government, they have the majority in this House of Assembly, so why won't they bring it forward, the Premier of the Province? We are hearing that there are only three people on that side of the House who know the details of this deal so far. Only three. We are hearing now that there are Cabinet ministers who are not comfortable with this. We are sure that there have to be backbenchers over there who cannot support this.

When the Leader of the Opposition was asking questions on this today in the House of Assembly, you could see the faces on the other side. They are not comfortable with this. They know in their own heart and soul that constituents in their district are questioning them. They have to be. We are getting it everywhere we go. People are asking us: Why won't the Premier bring it forward? Why?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will have time later on, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 32, I move that the House proceed to reading the Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I obviously understand that you recognized the Government House Leader and that he has moved to go to Orders of the Day, but there are other members who have other petitions they would like to present. I wonder if the Government House Leader, from the kindness of his heart, would allow the remainder of our members to present their petitions that have been given to them by members of the general public.

MR. LUSH: There will be lots of time tomorrow. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 32, that we do now move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the purpose of clarification for the Chair, is it the intent to wait the full ten minutes while the bells are ringing?

Perhaps the two House Leaders could advise the Chair when they are ready. Are the House Leaders ready?

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Environment; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods;

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador and & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Ms Hodder; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Butler.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-two ayes and eighteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, the Concurrence Motion, Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that we do move into the Concurrence Motion on the Resource Committee.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am going to ramble a little bit as we go on today because I intend to be up more than once as the afternoon carries on.

It was a pleasure for me to serve as Chair of the Resource Estimates Committee. Indeed, as I had an opportunity to do earlier I want to do once again, and that is to thank the members who participated: The Member for the Straits & White Bay North; the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for St. John's South; and, as well, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

We had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: I have just been informed that I should not intend to be standing all afternoon. I may only be allowed my ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good news.

MR. WALSH: Good news, I know.

During our discussions, we had an opportunity to review six departments. Those being: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. During the time that we had, Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity for the ministers to put forward the positions of their departments for the coming twelve months. It was an opportunity to discuss the funds being granted by the hon. House, and, indeed, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to each of the departments sent to our committee. We had an opportunity to review in detail the individual expenditures. Many of those expenditures included salaries, employee benefits, professional services, property furnishings being rented, the purchase of computers, the need for travel during the given fiscal year, and the need to meet the exacting details of each and every expenditure of the department.

Now, in reviewing some six departments, all of them resource based, if there was anything that I personally would find some fault with - and I weigh my words in saying that - is that, when you look at the cost to operate all the services required in this Province, when you look at the fact that better than forty-five cents out of every dollar goes to meet our health needs and our education needs, and when you roll them in together with our other public service needs, in actual fact close to 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the funds allocated in any given financial year are to meet the individual needs of the people of the Province. Barely 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the Budget is actually set aside for the resource departments that are actually the backbone of generating industry.

For example, in Fisheries and Aquaculture, one would look at what they are attempting to do in aquaculture as an example; an emerging, growing aspect of this Province. The amount of money, because of the demands on the social side of the ledger, the demands being so great to ensure that our hospitals and our schools remain in good standing - the fact that my colleague from Topsail, the Minister for Human Resources and Employment - the needs to meet those areas are so great that we have to carve out a small amount of money for areas such as aquaculture. Yet the opportunity is there in the coming years to see employment grow tenfold. We look at the success stories of the mussel farms down around, I think it is Belleoram and those areas. We look at the aquacultural industry taking place down in Bay d'Espoir and the opportunities for growth. We look at the research and development taking place in the growing and the pursuit of the cod fishery. We also look at the areas in terms of industrial development, and industry development. When we look, again, at the small amounts of money that have been set aside in order for the minister and the officials to reach out, to be able to attract more businesses to this Province, when we look at the success that is taking place, in particular, in the IT industry, where some five years ago, in terms of our call centres alone, there may have been one or two very small units - today I would suspect there are probably 3,000 to 5,000 people employed in call centres in Newfoundland; new industries that did not exist five years ago.

Carbonear, as an example: Some 300 individuals currently working in Carbonear in a brand new industry. The IT sector in Carbonear alone is beginning to rival what would have happened in the fishery five, six, seven, eight years ago, with 300 employees.

I say, in terms of the amount of money allocated to the resource sector, I wish there were more. I wish we had more money to put into Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you asking for more money?

MR. WALSH: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis is wondering if I am asking for money. My regret is, no, I am not asking for more money. I am trying to look at the small amounts of money we are able to allocate to developing jobs and industry in Newfoundland.

I was mentioning Tourism, Culture and Recreation, fast becoming a billion dollar industry, fast becoming, in terms of our Province, recognized around the world for our scenery, for our people and for the aspects that we can offer. Yet, again, the amounts of money that we are able to allocate to develop that industry are small and insignificant compared to the funds that we have to spend to maintain the social structure in this Province.

The new Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs has accepted responsibility for all development in Labrador. Any department now wishing to carry on business in Labrador has to go through this department. That is a significant change and a significant new direction for this government, indeed for any government, the fact that one department would act as a channel for all other departments. However, what we have been able to see, because of this dynamic move, is an opportunity for government to channel its resources through one department. By doing so, we are able to maximize the monies being spent in Labrador. We are able to maximize the benefits in terms of meeting the needs of the people of Labrador yet, indeed, meeting what we have to do in terms of our fiscal responsibilities.

Mines and Energy, an industry that has been growing in its own right. We heard in Estimates about the areas in Central Newfoundland that have been staked out as new mining possibilities. I believe there are thousands of hectares of land - the exact number escapes me at this moment - that have been carved out for potential new gold mines, for potential new mines, be it copper or other kinds. Yet again, another department whose Budget is kept very tight, very tight in terms of the monies we have been able to allocate to it.

The response that we received during our Estimates with respect to the forthrightness of the ministers, the willingness of the officials to be able to answer clearly and distinctly all questions asked of them - indeed, if a question was technical enough that the information was not available, a commitment was made in every case to ensure that that information would flow to the member who asked the question.

So, what did we accomplish during the Estimates debates? Well, we were able to deal with each individual department to ensure that each individual department acquired and was granted, in committee, the funds that it would need to see it through the next fiscal year. There was an opportunity also to debate in detail the actual numbers and the issues that reflected last year's Budget, and, in many aspects, a number of issues from the previous year's Budget were actually lower this year, lower in actual expenditures than had been anticipated. All departments came in virtually on budget. I think that is something that we also can be proud of in terms of the management of the funds that have been made available by the people of the Province to the departments in question.

I believe, when I look at the discussions that had to take place on the resource side, that we were ever mindful of the needs of the other sides of the equation, the needs in terms of the Social Services Committee, and the needs in terms of the Government Services Committee.

As I said in my beginning preamble, the fact that barely 10 per cent and a little, maybe maximum 15 per cent, of all the funds that this government will spend in the next twelve months, that that small amount is set aside for industry development, for departmental expenditures, and for growth of industry, it is tough. We wish there were more and we said this to the ministers. We wish we could give you more money. Again, the needs in health, the needs in education are strong and the government is committed to ensure that those needs are met: the expansion that we have seen in health care over the last twelve months, meeting the needs of ever greater needs in Central Newfoundland; the commitment to health care here in the metro centre, metropolitan St. John's and indeed in Western Newfoundland and in Labrador.

Madam Speaker, what we have been able to see is a government putting forward a vision that is more than acceptable to the people of this Province, of where it is that we will be twelve months from now, a vision accepted by the people of this Province in terms of understanding that we have to meet the social needs, while at the same time trying to balance it with a growth needs and industry needs.

I had an opportunity to see in the past week to ten days some of the new commercials that are being presented on behalf of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Some of them are beginning to play, and we are starting to see more of them in major magazines and indeed publications throughout North America. The response, I understand, to those has been tremendous. The response in terms of individuals looking to inquire about the possibilities of coming to our Province in the next twelve months is up dramatically. Once again, limited dollars are being maximized to the point that the request for information about visiting Newfoundland and Labrador in the coming twelve months is up dramatically. It is up significantly. We are beginning to see the growth potential that we have been working on for the last ten to fifteen years, reaching a point where visitors this year are coming back spreading the word from last year and years before of what a great place this is to be.

Madam Speaker, the growth is there, the potential is there. The committee had an opportunity to review the departments that were sent to us. We had an opportunity to deal with them on an individual basis and to question the minister, question the officials, ask for details, literally crawl inside the numbers so that the numbers made sense to us and that every last dollar, every last penny the department needed was scrutinized and accepted.

My colleagues in the Opposition might say: Well, they would be accepted simply because in most cases the majority rules in committee. I guess they are correct in the sense that majority can rule; but there was not a committee that met, there was not a meeting that was held, that, after the numbers were dealt with and voted on, that every member of the committee congratulated the minister involved, congratulated the officials involved, thanked them for their forthrightness and their willingness to present information applied.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is common courtesy.

MR. WALSH: My colleagues on the other side are yelling at me and saying it is common courtesy. I think it goes deeper than that. I think it goes deeper than common courtesy, that it showed mutual respect for both sides. Questions asked, questions answered. To show that mutual respect in our particular committee, we began every session by allowing the critic for that department to have virtually unlimited time. In one committee, the critic went nearly two hours, one on one with the minister. Question asked, answer given. Two hours. That is the equivalent of four days in the Legislature of Question Periods. It is equivalent to four Question Period days.

I know in Mines and Energy, which was probably the one department that created the greatest amount of controversy in terms of what we should do or not do in committee, whether or not we should call witnesses from the outside to come, as if they would, for some reason, by being there, have an impact on what the department's numbers would be for that year, whether or not their being here would affect whether or not people got salaries next year, whether or not we were able to actually set monies aside to look after employee benefits. Beyond that, we went for six-and-a-half hours. That, Madam Speaker, was equal to thirteen days of Question Periods. That is thirteen legislative days' equivalency, thirteen days of debate, thirteen days of Question Periods. That is what we went through. The answers received were good answers and the questions were as well. That is what we were able to do while we sat in committee.

When you look at the fact that we gave up that much time, I should point out also that the government members on the committees - when someone might say: Well, it was the equivalent of thirteen days - the government members decided that they would allow our colleagues who sit in the Opposition to have the maximum time that they required. That they would have, for themselves, the opportunity to ask all the questions that they needed to ask, questions that they said dealt with the operation of a department, or the six departments in question, over the period of time of the next twelve months.

I am satisfied, as Chair of the Resource Estimates Committee, that the questions were asked distinctly and answered distinctly. I am satisfied that the numbers that were given, the explanation to the expenditures that will take place over the next twelve months, met the satisfaction of the entire committee, met the satisfaction of each individual member, but, more importantly, Madam Speaker, met the requirements of the individual who asked the question. They were good meetings.

At a number of our meetings we had guests who came before the committee. As we all know, the rules of committee, you are more than welcome to come, you are more than welcome to participate, but you do not have a vote when the final time comes. Even in those cases, government members allowed free-wheeling discussion, open discussion, ample opportunity for discussion on all aspects of the budgets.

Madam Speaker, I was not offended, not hurt; I understand the game. I understand that the Opposition is expected to make points wherever they can, as we have seen here today, Madam Speaker. As we have seen here today with petition after petition on the one subject, certain members presenting petitions that they did not even collect themselves; unless, of course, they spent the weekend in the Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rules.

MR. WALSH: No rule. My understanding of the rules on petitions is that, when a person receives a petition, they are responsible to present that petition at the earliest moment. I did not know that the rules said, in petitions, why I have a petition with six sheets of paper from the Goulds. Does the Member for White Bay North have one? No, here, you give that one. The member for another district says: You do not have one. By all means, here, I have one from the Goulds with more names than I need to present. You take that.

It is not an abuse of the rules of the House of Assembly. It is not an abuse of the rules; however, one would wonder -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the member going on like this is insulting to the good people of the Goulds, first, who themselves have every right to ask any hon. Member in this House of Assembly to petition on their behalf. Certainly when the people of the Goulds, the people of St. John's, the people of Mount Pearl, sign petitions, they have a right to have them presented here under the Orders of this House without having to listen to insults hurled their way by the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

Madam Speaker, I do believe it takes away from the dignity of the House when any member gets up and belittles a petition; it is the voice of the people. For 900 years, Parliament has listened to the voice of the people. In this particular case, we say to the hon. member: Why stifle the petitions that we present here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? They have signed them. I can guarantee the hon. member, tomorrow we will have petitions from his district and we will all endeavour our best to present them, because the history of that side of the House is that they do not present their petitions.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I remind the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island that his time is up.

MR. WALSH: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. WALSH: Madam Speaker, to clue up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: I am not going to apologize to the people of the Goulds, because the people of the Goulds signed the petition in good faith. They signed the petition in good faith, thinking that their member would present it; not knowing that they would spread them around like a deck of cards on a poker night. If you do not have one, take this one. I will not go there any further, Madam Speaker.

What I will do is simply say thank you to all the members who participated in the committee. Thank you to all the members who came forward and asked the questions. I want to thank all of the ministers responsible for their departments, and their officials, for attending as well.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for the opportunity to clue up my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House this afternoon to speak for a few moments on the Concurrence Motion, to speak on the Estimates that our committee had the opportunity to review, the Resource Committee. We reviewed, of course, the Estimates of the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development. I believe that was it, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I corrected myself there.

As the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island has rightly pointed out, we had a fairly free-ranging debate in our committee for most of our time. We had our critics come in and question the minister on various issues related to departmental estimates, but also on policy of government from the various departments, and we carried on for quite some time. Unfortunately, we were cut short in a couple of our meetings, one in particular, and I will deal with that a little later.

While we are talking resources, Madam Speaker, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island certainly spoke about how important resources and the resource-based industries are to our Province. He spoke about how only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of this Province's budget is spent on the departments that are responsible for our resource-based industry. Unfortunately, the industries that those departments are responsible for are really the industries in the areas where we would expect to achieve some growth in our economy.

Certainly, I look at the Northern Peninsula in particular, on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, The Straits & White Bay North District, and earlier on today the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs spoke about how he attended a Royal Visit in L'Anse aux Meadows on Saturday past when the King and Queen of Norway, their Majesties the King and Queen of Norway, visited L'Anse aux Meadows and unveiled a commemorative bust commemorating the work, the vision and the tenacity of Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad, on discovering L'Anse aux Meadows.

In speaking about that, I am not going to get into anything about what did or did not happen on Saturday as it relates to invitations that did not arrive, but I will speak briefly about the 30,000 visitors who visit L'Anse aux Meadows every summer, or certainly in the last number of years. It has been increasing over the past twenty-five or thirty years, of course, as we would expect. In the last number of years we have seen it plateau at, I guess, about 30,000 visits.

L'Anse aux Meadows is, of course, one of the premiere tourist destinations in the Province, certainly on the Northern Peninsula. It is the anchor site where we see people who are interested in archeology, history, culture and certainly the scenic beauty of the area, drop in and spend some time touring our area.

In that area also we have the Grenfell legacy that is certainly becoming more and more of a drawing card, especially to people in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and people who visit from the United Kingdom. Those people come because, in some cases, they have an attachment to Dr. Grenfell and The International Grenfell Association, or they have had family members who have worked with Dr. Grenfell, or the Grenfell Mission in Northern Newfoundland and Coastal Labrador.

As well, on the Northern Peninsula, of course, we certainly have a fairly significant forestry industry with Canada Bay Lumber and Northchip Ltd. in Roddickton, both fairly large sawmills, and, of course, in Main Brook we have what I refer to - and I do not know if there is a different name - Coates Mill. Those three operations in the Roddickton, Main Brook area provide a significant amount of employment to the communities of Bide Arm, Roddickton, to a lesser degree, Croque, Conche, St. Julien's, but certainly in Main Brook, Roddickton and Bide Arm, they provide substantial employment. Of course we also have, in our area, the fishery, which in large part is anchored by the shrimp industry and a substantial plant, one of the largest in the Province, in St. Anthony.

I bring up those three sectors - in particular the tourism sector, the forestry sector and the fishery - because each of those industries, sectors of our economy or what have you - to a large extent their success depends on the infrastructure around them, whether that be roads infrastructure, municipal infrastructure in the form of water and sewer, communications infrastructure, but certainly roads infrastructure and water and sewer infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, while we are here debating primarily concurrence on the resource sector, we have to be always cognizant of the fact that, certainly for areas like the tip of the Northern Peninsula, you cannot expect the economy to grow if the services and the infrastructure that supports those industries continues to deteriorate.

We had a debate on petitions there a little while ago, and I have spoken to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on the deplorable condition of the roads on the tip of the Northern Peninsula. In particular, coming through the Straits area, from Sandy Cove, Flower's Cove area down across to Eddies Cove East. Of course, that road, as the minister would know, was paved roughly twenty-five years ago and it is in an absolutely deplorable condition now.

As I said earlier when I spoke about L'Anse aux Meadows and the Grenfell site, we have 30,000 visitors travel over that road every summer between mid-June roughly, to mid-September to visit those tourism destinations. We have probably about 40 million or 50 million to 60 million pounds of shrimp and crab that are hauled over that road every year. We have substantial amounts of wood that is hauled over the roads on the Northern Peninsula in the run of a year. Madam Speaker, we cannot expect people who are coming to visit L'Anse aux Meadows and the Grenfell site - we cannot expect it to move beyond the 30,000 visitations that we have right now if the road continues to deteriorate like it has over the past number of years.

I suggest that if you go down through the Straits - and I understand that the minister was there this year - in actual fact, if it was not for the dust and the mud and having to put a grader on it, that if the pavement from Eddies Cove East to Sandy Cove was removed and a grader put on it, we would have a better road. The people in that area would actually have a better road. So, Madam Speaker, that is one issue that certainly - I understand that the department's budget is very limited, but certainly the minister needs to look seriously at this issue when he reviews his budget and makes his decisions in short order, I expect.

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back briefly now to two of the actual events surrounding our committee deliberations and some of the meetings that we had here in this House while we had ministers in front of us and while we, as a committee, questioned them. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, who was the Chair of the Resource Committee, certainly pointed out that a lot of questions were asked and a lot of questions were answered or a lot of answers given, I should say, is what he said. There were a lot of questions asked and a lot of answers given. Now, Madam Speaker, that would be a great scenario. That would be great if the answers that were given were related to the questions that were asked. Unfortunately, the answers that were given were, in most cases, not very closely associated with the questions that we asked.

We did have a fairly long session with the Minister of Mines and Energy. It went on, to be exact, for six hours and twenty minutes. The Member for St. John's East, our mines and energy critic, certainly questioned the minister for an hour-and-a-half, I believe it was, an hour and forty-five minutes, on estimates and on different policy issues related to the Department of Mines and Energy. What was, I guess, most frustrating - and government gives all kinds of reasons why it could not happen. What was most frustrating in the Resource Committee, Madam Speaker, was that we, in our attempt to get answers on how the budget of the Mines and Energy Department is spent, in particular, on how the budget for the Major Projects Benefits Office is spent to see what kind of benefit we, as a Province and as a people, are getting or could conceivably get for the money that we are spending in sending representatives of this government - whether they be ministers or senior civil servants - to negotiate on our behalf with Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel. When we tried to get answers to those questions we unfortunately were denied that opportunity, the opportunity to bring people from Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel before our committee; to bring people in front of our committee in this House of Assembly so that they could answer pointed questions from our committee as to how negotiations might be moving along, how they might be progressing and what we could conceivably see in a final Voisey's Bay deal. Of course, we were not afforded that opportunity. The committee, government members and the Chair of the committee, decided - I will say in their wisdom but I do not see much wisdom in it - that we would not be allowed to go down that road.

Also, after six hours and twenty minutes, Madam Speaker - and again, I will say that government tries to spin this in a different light but certainly after six hours and twenty minutes of questioning, when we did have more questions to ask, when the Member for St. John's South was still in the middle of questioning on budget estimates and policies related to the Department of Mines and Energy, we were shut down. It was a decision of the committee to shut down our questioning, to shut the committee down and refer the approved estimates back to the House of Assembly.

Madam Speaker, that was certainly unbelievable. I have not been in this House for very long. I think that it was probably precedent setting that the committee could actually shut down the questioning. We seen it again here today, when we were in the process of trying to raise the issue on behalf of the people of this Province - to try to prompt government to bring forward any deal that they negotiate with Inco on Voisey's Bay, to bring it to this House of Assembly, to bring it in front of the people, to allow us to debate any deal before it is signed and before it is final and binding on the people of this Province. In presenting petitions on behalf of the people of this Province who have said that they want to see a deal brought before this House and debated before it is final and signed and binding on the people of this Province, again today we have seen how this government - who proclaims itself to be the most open and transparent government in the country - once again today, as they did in our Estimates Committee, in our Resource Committee, shut us down from our line of questioning and denied the people the opportunity to see what is in the Voisey's Bay deal.

Madam Speaker, why would people want to see what is in the Voisey's Bay deal? Need we look any further than our history? Need we look any further than the history of this Province when it comes to negotiating resource deals between this Province and other jurisdictions, companies, and what have you. There is a litany of deals gone bad. That is why the people of this Province want to see this deal debated. That is why the people on this side of the House want it brought before the House and that is why, in the Resource Committee when we were questioning the Department of Mines and Energy, through the minister, we insisted on bringing the representatives of Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel into this House in front of our Committee, so that we could question them.

Madam Speaker, I will move over, again now, into the fishery part of our Resource Committee. Certainly, we did have some time there to question the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on his department and his Estimates and his plans for this year. We went through a very painful year, I would suggest, in the fishery last year, where just about 20 per cent of the previous year's value of the fishery was lost, for two reasons, a decline in the marketplace for crab and a closure of the shrimp industry. That had far-reaching and, certainly, a very substantial negative effect on the Province, in particular on areas like the area I represent, the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned and I have spoken to a lot of people in the industry, both in the fishing boat and in the fish plants in the processing sector, whether they are in management, on the line in the fish plant or out in the boat. Many of those people are very concerned that we are heading down the same road this year. Last year, as many people will recall, Members of this House will recall, I raised a lot of concerns in this House about what is going on in our fishery. I suggested some avenues that I thought we could go down, that the industry could down, that the government could go down, in order to address some of the fundamental problems that we have in our fishery, in particular in the shrimp industry.

Madam Speaker, for whatever reason, the minister or the government did not see fit to do any, really, of the suggestions, to take me up, I suppose, on my suggestions, to follow any of the suggestions that I made, and to try and implement some of the fundamental changes that need to be made in the industry. Rather than do what was obvious and what needed to be done, some time this fall, I believe it was September or October, the minister announced a panel, task force, to investigate the peeled and cooked shrimp industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the course of the winter this Committee did a very good job, carried out their task, and should be commended on the task that they carried out. At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, they provided the minister with a report on the cooked and peeled shrimp industry in this Province.

There were quite a number of recommendations - I forget the actual number now. I read the report. I read the recommendations over numerous times. I believe that was about six weeks ago now, just before the shrimp industry was about to start. Here we are now, Madam Speaker, into the middle of June again and I am hearing the same concerns coming out of the fishery, in the shrimp fishery in particular, the same concerns that they voiced to me last year, concerns about how the industry may close down in June, how it may close down and not reopen. Fundamental problems that were there last year and the year before and the year before that, that need to be addressed, have not been addressed.

Madam Speaker, the minister has had this report now for six weeks, I estimate, and nothing has been done with it. There is no indication of where he is going to go with that report. Ironically, today, as I came into my office after being home for the weekend, I came across a few reports, Madam Speaker, that happened to be dropped off from the Legislative Library. A Consultative Document on the Fishery of the Future, March, 1993. The Fishery/Newfoundland Opportunity from back in the 70s. There is no date on it but from reading it you can tell it is in the 70s. An Evaluation of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. There has probably been something done with that one. Effective Fisheries Management (Joint Management & Government Cooperation in the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery) November, 1991. Resource Crisis In The Newfoundland Fishery ( A Preliminary Assessment) August, 1989. Those are just a few that happened to show up on my desk today, reports about the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, reports I would say, that until they hit my desk today, have been gathering dust since this one here, the early 70s, the mid 70s, and this one here since March, 1993.

The fundamental problems that are in this industry, the fundamental problems that led to the shrimp fishery closing down last year, are the same fundamental problems that will probably lead to the shrimp fishery closing down this year. It is already scheduled to close down in August and there is a great fear that it will close down again in mid to late June. That is not me saying that, I am not fearmongering, that is what I am hearing from processors, from fishermen, from the guy on the wharf, and from the truckers. Everywhere you go, if you talk to anybody in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador today, you will get that same fear thrown back at you.

Why, Madam Speaker, is that the case? It is the case because every time problems come up, as I said to the minister last year in Question Period and in Debate - there are fundamental problems in this industry, and a lot of the solutions are pretty obvious. They were obvious to me last year, and not just to me, there were a lot of people who helped me, I suppose, in formulating my opinions of what should have been done. Those same obvious observations that I came to, the obvious conclusions that I came to, are, in a lot of cases, the ones that the minister's own task force that he appointed last fall, Mr. Vardy and Company, who went around the Province, who talked to the people in the industry, in the fishing boat, in the fish plants, who went to Norway, Iceland, Denmark, England and who reviewed the industry in those countries and reviewed the markets in those countries - they came back with a report that had substantial recommendations. A lot of them are easily actioned in my opinion by the government, are easily actioned by the minister and, in a lot of cases, can be actioned without government money. So, Madam Speaker, I am at a loss as to why it is not being done. Unfortunately, it seems that it is easier to appoint task forces and look for reports that are often just a reiteration of something that is so obvious, that somebody has already said, many have already said.

Again, we find that the reports come back, and now we have six weeks - and I hope that it does not become like this consultative document on the fishery of the future; you know, nine years old. As far as I am concerned there has been very little done with it. Maybe there are all kinds of understandable reasons why this is so, but, Madam Speaker, last year I sat in this House for the first time and sat through my first Throne Speech. I listened to the Throne Speech and it referenced the fishery. It spoke of how the minister and the government were committed to do a review of the department's fish processing licence policy.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a couple of seconds to conclude?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank members for the opportunity to have a few seconds to clue up, or a few minutes, whatever it turns into.

Madam Speaker, I sat here last year and I listened to the commitments in the Throne Speech and I listened to the commitments that were made this year in the Throne Speech. Last year's commitments were for a review of the fish processing licence policy of this government and a commitment to establish, I suppose, some regional balance in the processing sector so that there was in some way a balance between the amount of fish that is coming ashore in an area, I would expect, with the amount of processing that is happening in an area; to try and restore some order to the industry, to try to put some sense to the industry, I think.

Madam Speaker, in my view, I have not seen anything from that. I have not seen any of that happen. The only thing that came close to it was the minister's task force, as I said, Chaired by Mr. Vardy, which did make some good recommendations. I don't agree with all of them but there were some good recommendations in there, and they need to be actioned. That is the closest I have seen to any kind of a review of the fish processing sector in this Province, from this government. Today, in this spring's Throne Speech, we hear of $100,000 committed to the battle against foreign overfishing. Again, in my view, I have not seen much action from government in this year's Throne Speech.

With those few remarks, Madam Speaker, I will conclude. I will say, in conclusion, that the departments that the Resource Committee were responsible for reviewing - I agree with the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, they are certainly the departments that are most important to the economy of this Province. They cover industries like the tourism sector, the fisheries, forestry, mines and energy. Those industries have always been, and will continue to be in my view, the engine for this Province. We are a resource based industry.

In closing, I will say that one of our greatest resources, Madam Speaker, have been our people. If the government does not have more vision of where they want this Province to go, whether it is from a forestry sector or a fishery sector, mines and energy or tourism, if there is not a planned approach to the fishery, for example, than those very valuable human resources that we have seen parade out of this Province over the past number of years - the 55,000 that we have seen leave in the last few years, people who line up with U-Hauls in tow to go across the Gulf - if we do not stop and put a plan in place of where we want to go in this fishery and address these fundamental problems, then we will see many more people go down that road. Our greatest resource - a much greater resource than our fishery, our forestry, our mines, and our tourism venues - will continue to be bled out of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I just want to give notice of a motion. I do not want to preempt anybody from speaking. I could do it at closing time but I thought I would do it now to give hon. members ample notice. I give notice that on tomorrow I move that the House not adjourn - kept going at 5:30 p.m., but a further one is that it not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words, if you will, Madam Speaker. I would like to comment on some of the things that the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North referenced. I jotted down a few notes. He started with the roads in The Straits; I think he said that some of those roads have not been recapped or repaved since the early 1960s.

MR. TAYLOR: I didn't say that.

MR. REID: I can sympathize with him, Madam Speaker, because he comes from a district that is very much like my own in that, with the exception of three years since Confederation, the people of Twillingate -

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, when I spoke about the roads in The Straits & White Bay North, I did say that the roads in The Straits area, in particular, were upgraded and paved about twenty-five years ago. If I remember correctly, that is what I said. I did not say anything about the 1960s anywhere in my twenty-two or twenty-three minute speech.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Sorry, Madam Speaker, but the point that I am making is the same one that he is making. He said around twenty-five years ago, I would assume what he was talking about is that the pavement went down under the previous Liberal government back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Like the district that I represented, the district that the member currently represents was traditionally a Liberal district, and just like my own, with the exception of three years, the people of my district had the sense to vote Liberal. Unfortunately, because they voted Liberal they were penalized by the Tory government from 1972 until 1989 when the current government took power.

When I went to New World Island, Madam Speaker, in1982, the only paved road in that district, which was Twillingate at the time, and it took in Twillingate and New World Island, some twenty-nine communities. The only road that was paved in that district was the main road across the island, known out in the area as Route 340. That pavement was put down in the last few years of the Liberal reign up until 1972. In fact, I think it went down in the fall of 1971 under the then Premier, I guess, the late Joseph R. Smallwood. We went from 1982 until 1989, and that road remained the only road that was paved in that district. Year after year the residents of that area, through their MHA, presented petitions - like the hon. members across the floor are doing today - talking about the need for the recapping and paving of roads.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, when the government of the day took power, we started on that campaign to fix some of the roads in that district. While they all have not been upgraded or paved - because we still have a dirt road on Change Islands. We are hoping to get some more pavement done this year. The road between the center of the island on Fogo Island and Tilting is in a deplorable condition. I agree that we need more money, but we also need help from the federal government to help up with that. We need a new agreement with the federal government that will allow us to upgrade these roads. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you, on New World Island there are nineteen communities. As I said earlier, in 1982 when I went out there and when I left in 1989, the only road that was paved was Route 340 across the island. Let me just tell you the number of roads that have been paved. Let me tell you about what we have done since 1989 in that district, and let me tell you as well, the politics that was played in my district by the then Tory government.

I had the opportunity to sit on the council in Summerford,, which is the largest town on New World Island, from 1985 until 1988. The reason I left in 1988 was because the council resigned en masse. The reason they did was because we never had one plug nickel from the Tory government from the time I sat there until the day we left. We were told, categorically, that there would be no money forthcoming from the Tory government until they voted Tory. The people in the area would not take the blackmail that the Tory government were offering. They persisted. They continued to vote Liberal, and yet they were penalized for it.

Since that time, I am pleased to be able to stand here today, along with my predecessor - who at the time was the hon. Walter Carter - since 1989 until the present. I want to tell you about some of the roads that have been paved in my district. I will list them. The Member for Windsor knows the ones I am talking about. Cottlesville, Virgin Arm, Chanceport, Bridgeport, Moreton's Harbour, Valley Pond, Tizzard's Harbour, Parkview. These are only half of the roads that have been paved since 1989, and we are going to continue to pave them. We also did Parkview, Fairbank, Hillgrade, Herring Neck, Merritt's Harbour, Too Good Arm, Pikes Arm, Cobbs Arm. These are just roads that were never touched under the Tory regime up until 1989; never touched. All on one island in my district. All on New World Island. Never touched. They were told: No, we can't even talk to you until you vote Tory. We hear them standing today and criticizing us. I will tell you, we will never, if we are here for the next 400 years, stoop to that level; that the then Tory government used to stoop to in that day.

Mr. Speaker, I will also tell you that we paved the road to Island Harbour; Deep Bay on Fogo Island. We paved it across the island. We paved Stag Harbour. We paved Tilting. They never saw pavement before in Stag Harbour until we went down there and paved it two years ago; never saw it in Deep Bay or Island Harbour. I had a woman from Island Harbour call me one day half crying. Do you know what she said? Just think about this now. Maybe some of the members opposite will not appreciate it, but anyone who has ever washed clothes and hung it on the clothesline - do you know what she said? The only time that we can put clothes on the line in Deep Bay and Island Harbour is when it rains. Think of the irony in that. The only time they can hang clothes on the line is when it rains, because if it wasn't raining they would be hanging it in dust.

With regard to the roads, as I said, we will never stoop to the level that the previous Tory government stooped to in trying to blackmail people for votes. They told us, right upfront, that if you did not vote Tory you were not getting pavement; not only that, you were not getting water and sewer. Guess what? They never got it. Since then, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you we have put water and sewer in most of the incorporated communities in my district and we have paved most of the roads. With the help of this government we will continue this year to pave more roads. As long as I am here I will continue to fight for our share, a share that we never received from 1972 until 1989. In seventeen years we never saw a cent for pavement, never saw a cent for water and sewer. I don't like to be lectured to by the members opposite when they are talking about what this government is doing because we, as I said, would never stoop that low. The members opposite know that they have received water and sewer funding from this government since 1989 and they have received paving. I can tell the Member for Bonavista South that many of the roads in his district have been paved since we came here in 1989.

With regard to the comments that the member opposite made about the fishery and about how he had all the answers last fall, Mr. Speaker, if he did, I certainly did not hear him. The only thing I can remember hearing him say was when he was on Open Line one morning with Bill Rowe, when he was talking about all the problems in the fishery, all the problems and everything that needed to be done. He did qualify it at the end by saying: I don't have the answers. Those are the answers that he is talking about. He said: I don't have the answers.

He was talking about problems in the shrimp fishery, problems that we experienced last summer, and we certainly did. We had a closure of the shrimp fishery from June until September, but it was not through anything that this government did or any other government. The problem we had last summer in the shrimp fishery was markets, markets for shrimp. That is the same problem that we are experiencing this year. Even though the markets have improved, we are still experiencing - and that is compounded with another thing. Even though the markets have improved this year, we are still struggling with the tariff going into the EU. Until we remove that tariff, until we are able to cultivate more markets in the U.S. - where only 20 per cent of the shrimp that we produce in this Province goes - and until we can get that shrimp tariff removed in the EU, we are going to struggle with markets. But, Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can to that order. We have talked to our federal counterparts in external affairs and trade and we encourage them everyday to get something done with that tariff into the EU.

As I said, the member opposite says that he told me last year what should be done. The only thing that I can remember the hon. member said publicly that I should do in the shrimp fishery last year was not give a licence to Twillingate; not to reactive the shrimp licence in Twillingate because he said at the time, we were distributing poverty. We were reactivating a licence in Twillingate, and we should not do it. He said it time and time and time again in this House. Unfortunately, his leader went out to Lewisporte a few times and said: Oh no, he does not speak for the party. We have nothing against giving a licence or reactivating a licence to Twillingate. When they are into a fundraiser in Lewisporte, obviously they are going to tell the people, when they are in the area, that they do not have a problem with a particular licence, but get them out of the area: Oh yes, you have to close her down. One of the suggestions that he said is that I was distributing poverty and that I should not give a licence to the people of Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What I did say last summer and fall about Twillingate, and I will say it again now, is that if the Member for Twillingate & Fogo District had done his job over the years, there would have been a plant in Twillingate, there would have been a shrimp plant in Twillingate, and maybe some of the plants that are in this Province would be in appropriate locations and this industry would have some structure and would have some order so that people involved in it could actually make money. If that was done, he would not have to have done what he did last fall: issue another shrimp licence in an industry that cannot support it. That I do stand by. There is no room for more shrimp licences in this industry. The industry cannot support it and that is why the industry shut down last summer.

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: if he had been doing his job or in the previous years when this industry was being established, from 1997 onwards, there would have been a shrimp plant in Twillingate just like there is one in St. Anthony. We have a shrimp licence in St. Anthony and 3,000 tons of shrimp when we were not in the Minister of Fisheries' seat.

So, Mr. Speaker, he was there. That was what I said at the time. I stand by that. The people of Twillingate deserve a shrimp plant. They should have had it right from the beginning, in 1997 -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to get to his point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: - and not have to do what he did last summer.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Again, the member opposite does not know what he is talking about. He absolutely does not. He said that the reason the shrimp fishery closed down last year is because we issued a licence to Twillingate. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The plant never operated processing shrimp last year and it may operate this year. It looks like they are going to open the shrimp plant.

I will tell you one thing. The member opposite should not stand and lecture me on what I should have done for the people of Twillingate. The people of Twillingate know, since 1996, who has fought tooth and nail for them, for their shrimp plant and for their roads and for their water and sewer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I do not need to be lectured to by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I guarantee you, last year he said to me that by issuing a licence to Twillingate - reissuing, I must say, Mr. Speaker, because the licence was issued in 1997, reissued - and then he says that we are distributing poverty by issuing too many licences.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen and listen carefully. I want you to listen and listen carefully. He is saying that we have issued too many licences. Now, he likes to distinguish between shrimp and crab. Right? Let me tell you something. Today, we have twelve licences for shrimp in this Province for roughly 60,000 tons of shrimp. Twelve licences for 60,000 tons. We have thirty-odd licences for 50-odd thousand tons of crab. Now, you cannot issue a licence to Twillingate because there were eleven in there and that would make it the twelfth; but, Mr. Speaker, we had thirty-odd licences for crab. Guess what? The hon. member opposite comes in to me, with the Town Council of St. Anthony, and says: Even though you have thirty-odd licences for crab, guess what? I support you giving another one to St. Anthony.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I just say this, on a point of order: I did not come in looking for a crab licence for St. Anthony until after he issued a shrimp licence in Twillingate that took 6 million pounds of shrimp directly out of St. Anthony and effectively will this year close down the plant. If he had not done that, there would not need to be another crab licence issued in St. Anthony. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows no more about the fishery than to break it down into saying: You can have eleven shrimp plants because you have 50,000 tons of shrimp, and you should be able to have more because you have forty-two crab licences and roughly the same amount of crab, then he does not know as much about the fishery that I even thought he knew. He doesn't even know that much, and I didn't think he knew very much about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: That is right, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. I still do not understand the point that he is making. The point that I do not understand is the fact that we have eleven or twelve shrimp licences and we have too many, but we have thirty-odd crab licences and that is not enough. I bet you I know what, though. I know exactly the plants. He is talking about no plan, no nothing, we do not know what we are talking about over here. I know what his plan would be. His plan would be, the number one thing that would have to happen, close the plant in Twillingate. That is the first thing. The second thing is, give a crab licence to St. Anthony, because that is what he is criticizing me about. Those are the first two things.

What I would like to ask him is: What is his stand on the shrimp plant in Black Duck Cove? Because, he is talking about too many licences. I would like the Member for St. Barbe to answer that question as well, because obviously the member opposite doesn't want a shrimp plant open in Black Duck Cove either, and I hope that is what he tells the people from that district when they come here tomorrow; because, you cannot have it both ways. They speak out of both sides of their faces and they do a flip day after day after day in this House and out in the public of this Province. They say one thing here, they say something else somewhere else. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we have too many licences one day and then be knocking on my door looking for one the next day. You just cannot have it that way. Let them make up their minds where they are. They do more flips than a cartwheel.

The last thing that he spoke of is the foreign overfishing campaign. He gets up every day and says we are not doing anything about a foreign overfishing campaign. We have put $100,000 in it and we are not doing anything. Well, I would like to know where the member opposite and his leader have been for the last three months. I would like to know where they have been, because obviously they have their ears closed to anything positive that we do, and they refuse to hear it.

Let me just tell you what we have done. The members opposite obviously get up every day and quote the news. I know they watch it very carefully. They watch the news very carefully because, if they didn't, they wouldn't have a question over there. They wouldn't have a question to ask in Question Period. We have done nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I was interviewed on two national news broadcasts on foreign overfishing. I have appeared on every televison screen and radio program in this Province for the past two months, talking about it, and they never heard any of that. I went to the Atlantic Ministers' Conference in P.E.I. a month or a month-and-a-half ago. I have raised it with the federal minister and, I must say, I also raised it with the Tory governments in Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick. I raised it and told them about the serious issue we have and, guess what? Not a sound around the table from their cousins in Atlantic Canada. Their Tory cousins never said a word. Not important, doesn't exist, foreign overfishing, in their minds. Nothing happened, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with the federal minister on it, basically, almost on a weekly basis. I had the opportunity to meet with members of the EU fisheries committee here in St. John's last week and brought it to their attention. Still, the member opposite never heard it.

On Friday past, I spoke with two reporters from the U.K. who were here interviewing us about what we are doing in the Province. I spent the whole interview, an hour, talking on one issue and one issue only: foreign overfishing and the impact it is having on the people and the economy of this Province. They never heard any of that, and I don't expect them to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Never heard him, right? Never heard him. On Friday past, as well, I met with the news editors of radio and television for Atlantic Canada, and some from across the country as well, and one from the United States. Guess what I spoke on? Foreign overfishing. Didn't see the news cast, didn't want to, didn't want to hear anything. Didn't want to hear anything. Myself and the Minister of Environment, next Friday, will be doing a presentation to the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. REID: No leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and that is-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Resource Committee, and, in particular, Mines and Energy, because there is a very important issue about to come before the people of the Province and that is the Voisey's Bay deal. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, want to see the Voisey's Bay deal debated in this House of Assembly. They want to see all the details of this deal put before them and debated by their representatives here in this House of Assembly so that we do not make another mistake on a resource in this Province as we have seen time and time again throughout the past.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are anxious to see the Voisey's Bay deal debated through the House of Assembly. The people of this Province do not trust government to sign a deal with the people blind to the details of that deal. They want to see the details of that deal put before the House of Assembly so that they understand the deal, so that they can speak out on the deal, so that they can debate the deal on Open Line, Nightline, and through other public forums, but this government are not prepared to allow the people of this Province to see the details of the Voisey's Bay deal. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are going to be denied their fundamental right to see the details of a Voisey's Bay deal between government and Inco. They are going to be denied the right to see those details before the deal is signed.

MR. SWEENEY: You don't know that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace says we don't know that; but, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace has not even seen the details of that deal. It has not even been discussed in their caucus, let alone before the people of the Province.

The members opposite are not even privy to the details of the negotiations between government and Inco. Most of the members of Cabinet are not even privy to the details of the negotiations between government and Inco.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The government are boldfaced enough to say to the people of this Province: Trust us. We will put the deal together, we will sign it, and when the ink is dry we will let you see the details. When it is no longer debatable, when the details of the deal are no longer up for discussion, when the ink is dry on the contract, government are prepared to roll out the details for the people of this Province.

We, as an Opposition party, have made a request to the Resource Committee to bring in representatives from Inco to be questioned by committee. Because government are not prepared to give details of the deal to the people of the Province, or to our caucus, to be debated in the House of Assembly, we asked that representatives be called before the committee so that we could ask representatives of Inco, officials from Inco, about the details of what is going to happen at Voisey's Bay, and what is going to happen at Argentia. We were denied access to bring representatives from Inco before the committee, before the Resource Committee, a committee of the House of Assembly, to ask questions on perhaps the most important issue now before the people of the Province. The people were denied access to that information. The Opposition were denied access to calling representatives of Inco, officials of Inco, before a committee of the House of Assembly, the Resource Committee, to ask them questions on this deal.

The committee was shut down prematurely. Now, members on the opposite side will say that the committee went on for six-and-a-half hours, never seen before. That is not true. That is not true. We have seen committees of this House go longer than that before on issues that are fundamentally important to the people of this Province, such as the privatization of Hydro, I will say. The Voisey's Bay deal, what is going to happen at Voisey's Bay, what is going to happen at Argentia, is just as important to the people of this Province as what was happening during the privatization debate for Newfoundland Hydro.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: six hours and twenty minutes of debate on everything that is happening within the Department of Mines and Energy is not a long time. Six hours and twenty minutes of debate on everything that is happening in the Department of Mines and Energy is not a long time at all. We were shut down. That committee was shut down before we had a chance to ask all of the questions that we wanted to ask; before we had a chance to ask all of the questions on the Estimates even, let alone on issues such as Voisey's Bay.

The only way we can get information out of government is to ask questions, such as in committee, because the Premier, the Minister of Mines and Energy, are not prepared to give the answers in Question Period. At least during the Resource Committee on Mines and Energy we were getting some answers. The government members saw that we were getting some of those answers, some of those important questions answered, and they shut it down. They shut it down after six hours and twenty minutes. We had a lot more questions to ask. Only half of the Estimates had been gone through. We didn't have all of the answers to our questions on Voisey's Bay.

The Resource Committee was cut short. We were shut down, voted on by government members

to shut that down before we had a chance to fully debate everything we wanted to debate.

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Let me make it very clear that no committee was shut down. For any hon. member to stand in this Legislature and leave the impression that a committee was shut down is wrong. The committee had a vote. The committee took the vote and the vote was, after thirteen days' equivalency of Question Period, the time had come to close it; but, to leave the impression, not only in this hon. House but indeed to the few people who may be watching today, no committee was shut down. No committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South was not attempting to leave any impression. He was stating an absolute fact. On page 141 of the Estimates, it outlines what the Estimates procedure and the subheads are of the committee. The committee dealing with Mines and Energy got to subhead 2.1.03., dealing with mineral development. Subheads 3.1.01., 3.1.02., 3.1.03., 3.1.04., 3.1.05., were all left not debated. So, for the member and Chairperson saying that it wasn't shut down, a vote was taken at 2.1.03., to put the question to it and committee members were denied their responsibility and their right to move forward. So it was shut down, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is sad that the hon. member who is making the point today, the Opposition House Leader, is making a point on the day that he decided to attend the committee meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Indeed, Hansard will show that we did deal with .05. There was a question, I believe, from the Vice-Chair on that particular segment and Hansard will show that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is obviously a difference of opinion between two hon. gentleman but no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, the audacity of the Chairperson of that committee to say that all of the Estimates were debated in that Resource Committee is not true. That is not true; $4.7 million worth of expenditures in Estimates were not even debated. Those lines had not had questions asked. I stated very specifically, I say, Mr. Speaker, during that Resource Committee meeting that we were not in favour of shutting that committee down, we had lots of questions yet to ask, that Estimates had not been asked questions on, that we did not get to ask most of the questions we wanted to ask on the Estimates, and the Chairperson allowed a motion to go to the floor by the backbench members of the Liberal Party to shut that committee down prematurely, without us having full and open debate on the Estimates of that committee.

I made the point, Mr. Speaker, how can we possibly vote on Estimates items without having debated those Estimates items? I made that point. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? It did not matter. They pushed forward and said: We are going to shut this committee down. We are voting on it right now.

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that, on those committees, government have four members, Opposition have three. One of those members for government is the Chairperson. One of those members of the government part of the committee is the Chairperson, so there are three Liberal members, three Conservative members on that committee. The vote was three to three. The Conservative members wanted to continue on with the Resource Committee and the government members wanted to shut it down. It took a tying vote. That vote was by the Chairperson of Committees for the Resource Committee and he voted to shut it down. We had a number of Estimates items that we did not get to ask questions about. We had a number of issues concerning Voisey's Bay that we did not get to ask questions about. We had a number of issues on other items that we did not get to ask questions about, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Five million dollars is a lot of money to say we do not need to ask questions on that, we do not need to bring those questions to the Resource Committee, we are going to shut her down. We do not need to ask questions on that.

We were not permitted to ask all the questions we had on issues such as Voisey's Bay either.

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to show me anywhere in Hansard where any member of the committee said: We are shutting down the committee.

If the hon. member can find that in Hansard - he is quoting it as if it came from Hansard. If the hon. member can find where I, as Chair, said that, I will resign my seat; and I challenge the member that, if he did not say it, he should resign his seat. Do not lead the people to believe something that is not true!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is interesting to watch Liberal backbenchers squirm and try to split hairs. It really is. Let me reference for the Chair of the committee where that actually happened. A motion was put forward. Three members of the Opposition voted to continue. Three members of the government side voted not to continue. Guess who cast the deciding vote to stop the committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So, we apologize for saying: shut down. Let me correct and say: He voted us down. What is the difference?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, unlike all of the members of the Resource Committee on that side of the House who sat in at various times during that six-and-a-half hour examination, I was probably the only member, except the Chair, who sat there for the full six-and-a-half hours.

The fact of the matter is, while some of these members make great speeches about what went on and what did not go on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - what actually happened, the fact of the matter is, for the most part of the committee hearings, they were not there. So they really do not know what they were talking about fully.

I challenge any member over there to identify themselves from the other side who sat for the six-and-a-half full hours that I sat in the House. I challenge one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the hon. the Chair, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, is absolutely right. Nobody sought to shut the committee down. Nobody sought to shut the committee up. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker - and I was there and I know - they were going from page to page. They were at page 141, 142, 145, 146, 142, 141. They were going all over the place. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: The questions for the most part were asked over and over and over. They became rhetorical, they became bored with themselves, they became so unsure of what they were doing that they rambled, tried to ask the same question over and over again. They were simply ragging the puck. Now, I could say more to that issue. I could say it with greater certainty and in a more direct fashion, but I will leave it at that.

The indication that I got was that they were fully prepared to carry on as long as it took for us to move a motion to bring an appropriate end to the level of questioning that was happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Chair down at the other end, I can only say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where or on what basis he accrued to himself the patience that he has, because in those two-and-a-half days of hearings he put up with more than any man who is chairing a committee should be asked to tolerate or to accept. The government members sat over here and they gave the members from the Opposition all the time they needed to ask a question. They gave them ample opportunity to question the minister and, in his judgement and in his wisdom and in his diligent patience -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the Speaker has heard all that he needs to hear on the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: That I was here for the majority of those Estimates meetings, except for when I had to run out to the washroom. But, let me say this: There were three members of the government side that scurried off to a caucus meeting while we were here asking questions, leaving only the Chair of the government side in here while we were asking questions. So, if you want to get down and dirty, lets put on the gloves; lets put on the gloves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: On the Estimates, there were a number of areas. We started asking questions on 2.1.03, Mineral Development, and I made note of each Estimate item we had asked questions on. More than half of the Estimate items we never even asked questions on. For the Chairman to say that we had jumped from 2.1.03 to 3.1.05 is very misleading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I noticed my colleague, the Minister of Environment, was standing as I stood and I would be happy to defer to him.

MR. K. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Make up your mind, Kev.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is Monday and it is a good day to be talking about the issues of the Province. Mr. Speaker, we have a very good Budget here and I want to support the Budget put forward by the Minister of Finance. I think it is a very good budget. It reminds me of budgets in the past, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Ferryland reminds me also of a budget. When they were in government they put forward a few budgets themselves, actually. When I look at what we have done in the last few years to clean up, to really get things moving financially in this Province, when you look at the changes that we have made, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is doing a superb job and has brought in a very good Budget.

Just the recent news about Moody's, looking at our credit rating, for the government here that is significant. No matter how much they want to downplay it - I mean, most of the time their argument is that our government is not handling the finances very well. When one of the biggest credit houses in North America comes out and says, they are not doing a bad job, maybe then they should agree that we are not doing a bad job. They do not want to agree with that and I can understand it, because they are in the Opposition and you have to make sure that you make the government look bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having a difficult time hearing what the Minister of Environment is saying, so I ask hon. members to do the courteous thing and let the hon. member be heard.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the invigorated debate here today. I always do.

When you look at this Budget, it is a very good, solid Budget, Mr. Speaker. We have seen some very good improvements in the last few years in the finances of this Province. When we look at what we are going to do in Labrador this year with the highway, it is very exciting to see what is going to occur there. We are going to get the environmental assessment underway very shortly for the Trans-Labrador Highway and get that moving. When you look at where we are heading as a Province, it is very exciting to see the Royal Commission that the Premier has announced just recently, which is going to look at our relationship with Ottawa. So, there are a number of really good reasons to see us go in the right direction.

When you look at the fact that over 211,000 people, the most in our history, are now employed in the Province - and yes, in some regions it is not as good as we like to see it but overall, when you look at the overall impact of the changes and the policies that we have brought as a government, when you look at the employment numbers, they are very solid, Mr. Speaker; very solid. That is progress, that is very good progress, when you deal with some of the issues that we have had to deal with in the last decade as a government.

If we want to look at the history and look back at where we were, I mean, we have come a long way from where we were, especially when it comes to bringing forward budgets, Mr. Speaker, in this House and giving confidence and stability to this economy in this Province. We have brought forward a very solid budget in the last few years; this year, in particular, very solid. As I was looking through it, looking through the very decent announcements that are in it when it comes to public expenditures, when you look at where we are in a number of regions of the Province - the new water expenditures that we have this year through Municipal Affairs are major this year again. Our multi-year program for municipalities, just recent announcements and more to come where they are going to see, in municipalities, more public infrastructure. The regional centres of our Province have been rebuilt, Mr. Speaker, in the last few years. You talk to the Federation of Municipalities and they haven't had as much cooperation as they have now in their history. Our Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is doing an extremely good job of moving forward with the development of our municipalities in this Province. It is very positive. So I can understand the Opposition, once in awhile, if they get a bit antsy and all of that. The bottom line is that there are a lot of positive developments occurring in this Province, a lot of good arrangements are being made, good policies are being brought forward, good social policy, good economic policy, and as we keep going, Mr. Speaker, we are going to attract more business and investment in this Province.

I am always reminded, when I hear the Opposition talk about budgets, of a Budget that occurred back in 1988. I don't know if anybody remembers that one, but I have a copy of it here, actually. It is a very interesting Budget, I must say. As a matter of fact, I am even going to present to the cameras the cover of the Budget. It had a lighted greenhouse, actually; it was a lit greenhouse. I was just looking at it. I will read the insert on the cover. It says: The photo shows Newfoundland Enviroponics Greenhouse constructed near Mount Pearl. This high technology facility produces fresh produce for local and mainland markets. The high-intensity lighting system used in the growing process produces a spectacular effect in the evening sky.

That was what they had for the headlines back in 1988. That was when they were the government. I always like to look at things with objectivity and with relevance and I say, looking at where were were then and where we are now is what I always like to look at. When I look at it now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister then?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Don't worry about our minister over here. He is a good minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The minister was just up talking about a project that went on some fifteen or twenty years ago. I was just wondering: The minister of the day, is he on this side of the House today or is he on that side of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: My point is, Mr. Speaker, good economic policy, strong economic policy, we try to bring forward over here. We have been bringing it forward. It is having an impact. When you look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the major regional centres have come a long way. There is a lot of work to do and we need to have improvements in a lot of federal policy that affects us in this Province.

As this Royal Commission goes forward and looks at the financial relationships, which the Minister of Finance and the Premier have highlighted, I think it is going to be very interesting to see the outcome of the Royal Commission. I think the Royal Commission is going to do a lot of good work in this Province. It is going to highlight the fact that we need to see a change in the relationship with Ottawa when it comes to the financing arrangements between our Province and the federal government. That issue is going to become more and more focused in the next few months, and it should become more focused; because, as we try to govern this Province, Mr. Speaker, govern this Province to provide the services, to provide the economic development that we need in this Province, we need to have an improved financial relationship with Ottawa that should be recognizing what this Province brings into Confederation.

I think it is very significant, Mr. Speaker, that this initiative is going forward. I think it is going to be very positive for the economy as we see a focused effort by an independent group of very eminent citizens in this Province. As they go forward and try to highlight the federal relationship here, and the way that we are being treated with some of these agreements that we have, I believe that it will be very positive. I think it will be a significant document that we will all, in this Province, be able to use to go forward to help change the mindset that is in Ottawa at this point. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important for the future of this Province. I think we are going in the right direction.

When you look at the recent developments in our oil industry, that were just announced, and recent investments that have been made in the economy, a lot of small business people are starting up. When you look at the number of new jobs in this Province that have occurred in the last three or four years, most of them in the small business sector, and you talk to those people, they are very comfortable about where this economy is going, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is going to be very positive in the future as we go forward with more changes, more economic policy changes. This government is about trying to make sure we do the right things, we do our homework, and do the right arrangements. I think it bodes well for where we are at this point. I think I see, as we go forward, very positive changes on the horizon. We look forward to seeing more developments occur, Mr. Speaker, more attraction of businesses to this Province that we have all been working on collectively. Policies that have allowed for companies to come here and look at development in this Province, I think, have been very positive.

I believe that we also have to focus on other regions that are struggling, that are trying to build their economies, and that is a focus for all of us. We have been attempting to do that, with the Economic Policy Committee of the Cabinet, and working very hard to do that, trying to attract business, for example, to the West Coast of the Province and Central Newfoundland and the South Coast. It is very important for us to focus on making that occur, Mr. Speaker, very, very important that we work hard on trying to attract business opportunities into our place.

We are a place that is getting noticed more for tourism across Canada and in North America, and it is something that we need to build on more, and also to look at the arrangements in Europe where we can also market our place, our Province, to Europe, and attract business from the European Common Market. It is very important that we broaden our thinking about developing business in this Province. It think it is very important as we go forward to attract new opportunities here for our young people in this place, who are these days, very much more aware of the economy. They are very much more aware because of the Internet, very much more aware of where we are in the world, the global village. I think it is very important that we work with our young people. I think the new Youth Advisory Council is a very positive initiative that was brought forward this year. It is very good to see that re-enacted. I think it is going to help a great deal with our young people, and I think it is very positive as we get their views about where this economy is going and how we can help make it happen.

So, as we go forward, I think this Budget is very positive. I think one thing for sure in the future is that budgets are going to be, in this Province in the next few years, very important for us. They are going to be important if we can get the federal government to listen to us, and that is going to be a key for all of us as we go forward trying to get them understand that we do bring a lot to Canada, that we do bring very much to Canada as to the finances that we bring, the developments that we brought, and the resources that have been put forward.

This is going to be dealt with one way or the other. We have to make sure it gets dealt with. We feel very strongly on this side that we have to have an organized case to do it, and that is what we are looking forward to seeing being developed through the Royal Commission. I would urge many people in the Province to look at presenting briefs, to get their briefs ready, to do their homework, because this is a significant opportunity for individuals and groups, for Chambers of Commerce, to say to this commission, to study the problem, not just to talk about it, not just to say: Well, it is another commission that is just going to go and do its thing, and wonder whether or not it is going to go anywhere. This thing can go somewhere. It can, if we put our resources into it and if we put our homework into it.

I just want to encourage the Chambers of Commerce and our people in the Province, in different regions, to ready themselves to make their presentations and to organize their thoughts. I believe it will be very much a watershed, very important for the future of our place, to have these thoughts organized so our Royal Commission can make the right decisions and right recommendations.

I think by having it as an exercise of people who are well-known in our society, who can look at this in an independent manner, I think their view on it at the end is going to be very important for all of us. I know, as people here in this House, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we have to find a way to get Ottawa to change the mindset and really, we have to place the facts in front of them. Hopefully, that will occur in the next period of time. We are bent on making that occur because it is very important for us to make it occur. If we want to see this economy develop more, if we want to make more opportunities for our people to come back, I think it is very important that we do so. I believe that this effort is going to be significant in making that occur. We look forward to seeing it be a major success for our people in this Province. I think it is very important, and we look to seeing that occur.

Mr. Speaker, I was just out to my district on the West Coast on the weekend and I was attending a number of functions. Two cadet functions were on, and these young people that we have in the cadet movement in the Province, they are superbly trained. They are very good young people. They are very dedicated to the effort, but it highlighted for me further about the fact that - I was at the sea cadet function in St. George's on the weekend, and I asked the senior officer how many sea cadets we had in the Province. He said there were 1,800 sea cadets in the Province. I said, where do they do all of their training? Their training is done in Nova Scotia. Most of their training is done in Nova Scotia. They all have to go over to Nova Scotia to do the training. I would like to see us seriously go at getting the Defense Department to put more defense dollars into our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to work on that, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the initiatives that we are going to work on because again, it is another way to keep our young people here. I think it is very important and we are looking forward to working on that initiative, amongst many more.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this excellent budget put forward by the Minister of Finance, who has done a very good job of putting forward a budget in times that are not always - they are very challenging, Mr. Speaker. I believe, given the circumstances, a superb job has been done and I am looking forward to seeing many more budgets put forward in the next period of time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise and make a reference, briefly, on debate on this Budget, on Concurrence. The minister who just spoke talked about our credit rating. Well, just last week, I might add, we seen the contrast between what the minister said in this House and what Moody's said. The minister came into this House and said - and this is what is in the record of the House. She said: In announcing the upgrade today, Moody's noted the Province's strong economic growth improved fiscal position and the result in improving key debt ratios, such as debt to GDP. Moody's also point to the level of fiscal support provided by the federal government.

Now, here is what Moody's said - after she read it, we had someone in our office downloading off the Net. Here is what Moody's said - there is a little difference; a little bit different to what Moody's said. Moody's said: "Our assessment that the provincial sector now operates in a more stable system of federal supports prompts the rating upgrade to A3 for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." That is what it said. She did not go on to tell us that Moody's said: "While Newfoundland's credit position remains among the least robust of Canadian provinces, it is important to recognize that there is a non-reduced risk posed to its bondholders", because we are operating in a stable fiscal regime.

The minister did not tell us that: "The province now faces more difficult budget circumstances and is relying to a great extent on non-recurring measures to enhance its short-term financial flexibility." She did not tell us that. Also, she did not tell us that Moody's said: This is unsustainable what the Province is doing. She did not tell us that Moody's said: Today's Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island rating upgrades reflect, in part, our assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the likelihood of transfer reductions comparable in scope for those imposed in the mid-1990s. According to a report recently published by the central government, that federal cash transfers for the provinces will average 6 per cent..." In other words, the minister told us and she also made reference to the federal government, the sole, mitigating reason for an increase is - because of the stable fiscal regime, we are not going to see the cuts we saw in the 1990s.

The same basic day, on May 8, the Bank of Montreal - here is what they said about the fiscal stability of this Province. I asked this in Question Period today. It said: "Despite supercharged growth in three of the past four years (the exception being 2001) Newfoundland's fiscal situation has become more precarious. The Province has incurred increasingly larger deficits in each of the past three years and this pattern is expected to continue for fiscal 2002-03."

Mr. Speaker, it went on to tell us, in the following paragraph, that what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling us is a deficit is not the real deficit. The Minister of Finance told us that our Province's deficit is $93 million. The Bank of Montreal said, and I will quote the Bank of Montreal: "...the underlying deficit for 2002-2003 is approximately $267 million." It went on to say: "On a consolidated accrual basis, the deficits could" - the words they used - "very well be much larger." Not only is the Bank of Montreal saying it is not the $93 million that government said, it is $267, not counting an accrual basis, and it could very well be much larger. We are saying it will be much larger. When we see the consolidated accrual basis this fall we will see that it is much, much larger.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last four fiscal years we added $1 billion to our net debt, not counting this past year that is going to be closer to $500 million than what the minister said; $500 million in debt. Can you imagine? Gone from $7.3 billion net debt to almost $9 billion net debt in five years. That is the fiscally irresponsible part that this government is on and that is why Moody's are giving warnings, that is why the Bank of Montreal is making those statements. Furthermore, I might add, the only benefit we can hope to get, the only thing we can hope to get by an improved grading is that we can go out and brag now that we can borrow money cheaper; we can more money cheaper. Is that something to be proud of on your resume, we can borrow more money cheaper? That is what we are doing. Add that to your resume, Premier, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a very telling statement. Not only is it deceiving, but it is misleading to come into this House and tell us the reason we increased the debt - and then Moody's gives a different statement. It says: "Clearly, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern and could act as a drag on economic growth." That is the Bank of Montreal, the senior Economist with the Bank of Montreal, Kenrick Jordan, is telling us that.

It goes on to say: "With very high debt levels... by far of all provinces..." They tell us, "...the province is in a difficult financial situation." That is what the Bank of Montreal is telling us. That is what Moody's is telling us, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal situation in this Province is not what they are advocating. If you stay away from the economists, just forget the economists, forget the Bank of Montreal and Moody's, investor services, and go to the ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador and ask them what the situation is here in the economy of our Province.

Day after day we hear of the migration of people leaving this Province to get jobs in other parts of the country. The people in Alberta are seeing hordes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians moving there. The people in Ontario are seeing them.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) see you.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not going to see me, I say to the Member for Humber East; but, after the next election, you might be looking for a job out in Alberta or in Ontario, I tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island said he will put his job on the line, because his time is getting short. His time is getting short. The biggest problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we hope the lights don't go out on this Province before they go out on this government. That is our biggest concern, I say to the member, that if the lights go out in this Province before the government, we all have a major problem.

To try and tell us we are on a fiscally responsible path, where things are so great, when you go up from $7.3 billion net debt to almost $9 billion in five years. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to tell you that is not good news. The only thing they can brag about, we can borrow more money. We can go out and borrow more money. I mean, that is the legacy this government is going to leave, that they have been the best government in the history of our Province at borrowing money. That is what they are going to tell us. I would be ashamed to say that. I would not even get up in a Ministerial Statement and say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would be ashamed. I would try to hide that as fine print in between the lines as I could possibly get and try and find something else to talk about. That is what we would do. Instead of coming in waving a sheet, a Ministerial Statement, and when the dust settles, when the dust settles -

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: In the context of the allegations that the hon. member is making with respect to our borrowings over the past several years, I would ask the hon. member if he would be good enough to bring us a list of the borrowings, the deficits, that we have run over the last ten years in this House so that we can compare it with a list that he would bring over the last ten years of the Tory administration, just so we could get an accurate picture of where the deficits were and were not over -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy gets so sensitive. He fails to realize our net debt was $4.8 billion in 1989 and now it is approaching $9 billion in net debt; over $4 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have sat in a government that put our debt in record proportions. You have increased our debt, I say to the minister, and you stand up now and want an account of what previous governments did. I have seen enough math that is not adding up. I have seen enough negative figures, and that Minister of Mines and Energy only lasted a year, I say, in that department. He had to get kicked out of it, he was so damaging to that department, and now he is trying to be an acting spokesperson for that department.

Mr. Speaker, you do not need to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly what state of affairs our Province is in, because we see it and people see it in their districts almost every single day. We have seen an increase in the urban area, in the City of St. John's primarily, and the very close outlining areas. We have seen nothing but deceased population. We have seen out-migration. We have seen less job opportunities. We have seen more people go hungry. We have seen lower incomes from the fishery. They are the legacies of the 1990s and the early 2000s of this government here. That is what we are seeing, and you do not have to try and convince people. There are more people working at more lower paying jobs and lower average income. In the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in the past year, we have seen the average plant worker make $50-some hundred in income from work and $50-some hundred from EI, an average of $11,000; half of it from income, from working, and half from EI. That is the average income of a fish plant worker in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Back a decade ago, they made far more than that, double that, from employment alone, not to say employment and employment insurance. We have had people work twelve months a year in the fishing industry in this Province.

This Minister of Fisheries does not want to accept responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right.

If he wants to take credit for the sunshine, he has to accept responsibility for the rain too, Mr. Speaker. That is what he has to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it being 5:29 in the afternoon and we are adjourning at 5:30 p.m., I will adjourn the debate now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment, I would like to make an announcement re the final Estimates Committee, that being the Social Services Committee, which will meet this evening at 7:00 to continue their consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.